Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive873

User Binksternet deleting discussion of his deletions from his talk page

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

---

Diff [1]

Diff [2]

User Binksternet keeps deleting discussion of his deletions from his talk page, with claims of "vandalism"/ "trolling", in spite of admitting "the truth of what you were inserting". This is not constructive, only obstructive to well-meaning IP-editors editing.

Binksternet deletes WP-content he actually agrees with, according to himself, only to embroil IP-edits in edit warring where he then games the system to exclude the primary edits and their content. That seems unconstructive to WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.22.29 (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

He is free to delete whatever he wants from his own user talk page. You can discuss his edits on the talk page of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:: Tnx - didn't know that. It still seems an unfactual way of handling attempted constructive criticism, even though acceptable. Sorry to've forgotten signing. 88.88.22.29 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

In the comment you posted on his page, you called him "Binky" and signed yourself "Kris", as if this was a name he would know. Do you have an account on Wikipedia, and, if so, why are you editing as an IP? BMK (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Last month, the IP 80.212.111.41 tried to post the same material to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and left a similar note on Binksternet's talk page. I presume this was you. The material you posted this time has been removed from the article by multiple editors, but not by Binksternet, so your current comment seems like an egregious and unwarranted slap at him. On top of what would appear to be block evasion, I wonder if an admin might consider blocking both of these IPs? BMK (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:88.88.36.157 is you as well, I presume. BMK (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And User:80.212.4.12. Your edits to John Fogerty and Hoodoo (John Fogerty album) were deleted by a number of editors as being OR, unencyclopedic, unsourced, etc. Didn't stop you from repeatedly restoring, though. That behavior got one article protected, and got one two of your IPs temp blocked. BMK (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That last IP also left disparaging notes to Binksternet on his talk page. There's a pattern here. BMK (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:‎85.164.61.86 joins the group. Editors with accounts are not allowed to use multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny of their edits, but editors without accounts who have dynamic IPs avoid scrutiny just by the nature of the beast. Perhaps we shouldn't allow dynamic IPs to edit, only static ones. BMK (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that would be fair. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, what's not fair is the situation right now. BMK (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, these q's appear too fast to keep up. Tried re names and got an 'edit-clash', and lost the reply. The name, actual, was an attempt at being personal and constructive, acknowledging edits in spite of power-outage changed IP. As I'm not sufficiently familiar with the arcania of WP-rules, and not really interested in time-consuming learning to master it and the intricacies of wp-bickering, I'm outta here. No block evasion, though - rather the contrary by acknowledging by real name. Tnx for the discussion, it's been interesting. Now to real-world issues :-). Good luck to you all, and tnx for replies. * And 'edit-conflict' happened again (!). I'm deluged, sorry. 88.88.22.29 (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No real need for an answer from you, those IPs are obviously all you. And calling a person you don't know by a diminutive version of their name is insulting, which I would guess (from the content of those "constructive" messages) was your intent. You were annoyed that your unsourced, OR, or poorly sourced BLP edits were being deleted, and you lashed out at one of the editors doing it -- but the very fact that multiple editors have removed your contributions from verious articles means that you're not getting it. BMK (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

'Edit conflict' happened again, with entry below. * Your claims and accusations are entirely subjective. E.g. abbreviating a long name according to convention, with first syllable + "y", is no insult. In addition, disparaging my clarification as "no need for an answer" is in itself a condescending attempt at insult - so you're overreacting and being unfactual. I repeat, my edits were/are all about including correct info on WP. E.g. why is the statement "Bootlegs exist" re Fogerty's "Hoodoo" unacceptable to you, when they most certainly do, as amply demonstrated on Youtube? - That's a fact just silly to delete. In spite of whatever pretext of sourcing-faults applied. Let it rest. Or btr yet, improve the ref.s yrself, accomplished WP-editor that you appear to be. (Unless, of course, you have some ulterior motive for deleting verifiable facts - like not liking that smbd tried to keep those facts on WP. But that wouldn't be the case w you, would it? - Sure hope not). - Still trying to get out of here, w/o too many misconstructions left standing.88.88.22.29 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to remember where I had heard an editor call Binksternet "Binky" before and it was in the course of the hubbub prior to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics with one editor receiving an indefinite block and several others receiving topic blocks. I don't if there is any connection but since Binksternet has stated he doesn't like that nickname, I thought it was curious to see it again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Question to you all: Is there anywhere some kind of crash-course in WP-editing which doesn't lead to swamping in details and exceptions to rules? Is there some way for sporadic IP-editors to make sure facts remain on WP without biased editors going hunting to keep those facts off WP? Or is this last a currently unsolved problem on WP, where 'fair warning' needs to be presented all prospective IP-editors (or maybe such 'fair warning' is a good idea: a short txt telling of how a simple edit may lead to endless entanglement in disputes and accusations from up to 7.3 billion editors?). Or maybe simply a warning that there may be deep layers of incomprehensible attacks coming if one tries to contribute? Or is this smth one must risk wading into unwittingly, like an invisible quagmire? Maybe a simple, friendly warning that "there be monsters" off the map should be publicized? 88.88.22.29 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you need a crash course? You seem to have the mind of a steel trap.- MrX 00:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

^^^^ Priceless. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha - good one. Funny - tnx for inserting some much needed humor into this. :-) But not really helpful re issue.88.88.22.29 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hard to tell why the IP isn't blocked yet, but if he's targeting just a short list of articles, maybe those articles could be semi'd, hopefully precluding the need for a range block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Targeting nothing, baseball-head - just contributing facts. Check it out. If you dare look at facts. - Gee, WP appears just chock full of people seeking fights not facts. 'Fair warning' should be served. :-)88.88.22.29 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. I always heed the advice of IP-hoppers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Found smth on it, how to edit WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide.

Tnx for nothing, Baseball-head et al. As for 'IP-hopper' - say that to the electricity provider, I'm sure they'll thank you for yr input (maybe they'll electrocute you as reward? ;-). 88.88.22.29 (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Guess you also think that calling someone "Baseball-head" is not insulting either.

Admin assistance requested, please This IP doesn't seem to be here to improve the encyclopedia. If the IP is dynamic, and he's not just IP-hopping to avoid scrutiny of his editing, is there nothing that can be done to put him on ice? BMK (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, 'Baseball-head' at least seems no worse than 'Baseball-bugs" (as the editor calls hirself). But if you feel insulted on hir behalf for some humor here, apoplectologies to you. Unless humor is Beyond Yr Ken? Why so aggressive about excluding others from WP? - You sure "seem to be here" to quarrel rather contribute to WP yourself. And you still haven't replied to why you insist the factual info "Bootlegs exist" re Fogerty's "Hoodoo" should be excluded, instead preferring to attack the contributer to be "put on ice" (killed?) - is that constructive? 88.88.22.29 (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the IP's ignorance of the source of my user ID, I can only say this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC

To answer your question 88.88.22.29, you might want to try Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. When someone asks for help we should direct them to a place where they can learn or ask questions like Wikipedia:Teahouse. Maybe we can point new or unsure editors in this direction? This conversation above seems unhelpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked the IP. Let me do some cleanup. seicer | talk | contribs 02:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Sergei Lukyanenko for one year. seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

In case user MrX's comment was a bit too subtle, it was a user called Steeletrap (talk · contribs) who was calling Binksternet "Binky" in a complaint from last May.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I did miss that. Incidentally, all the IPs listed above are from the same region of Norway, most of them from the same city. BMK (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious correlation between Steeletrap's article editing and that of the IPs listed above, and "Binky" is, unfortunately. probably a fairly obvious choice for someone attempting to bug Binksternet, so I'd say offhand that there's probably no connection there. BMK (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right. Someone was wondering where they had seen this "Binky" stuff before. I searched the archive for that word, and the Steeletrap item was the first example that came up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A good retort would be to call the IP "Bunky", as in the late Eddie Lawrence's schtick.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I advise looking a little closer. I found several unambiguous editing similarities.- MrX 05:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hint? Specific enough similarities to justify an SPI? BMK (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This cat from Norway came up on my radar because of one edit continuing a hoax at the Pamela Des Barres biography. It appeared that the Norway IP editor was unwittingly contributing to the hoax, which I saw as an honest mistake, but since the editor had proved somewhat problematic (using poor sources in a BLP), I looked at other contributions and found original research and misrepresentation of sources, which I quickly reverted.[5][6][7] Other respected editors were reverting this person, too, for the same reasons. The Norway guy began to edit war against everybody rather than discuss, and thus got blocked on 8 January as 88.88.36.157. Another block came on 12 January, stopping the same editor from using IP 80.212.4.12. While blocked as 80.212.4.12, the same person used IP 80.212.111.41 to continue edit warring at the Dominique Strauss-Kahn biography, which I reverted because of block evasion. This person apparently wishes us to ignore his record of block evasion, edit warring, misrepresentation of sources, and original research. Now we can add trolling my user talk page. Binksternet (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@BMK: Yes, I'm pretty sure that the evidence is strong enough for a duck block. Besides the "Binky" comment, I found six other traits shared by both editors. I'm not sure whether the level of disruption justifies the effort though. I don't want to give hints so the sock learns how to avoid detection. If I pursue it, I will email the evidence to Arbcom or an admin.- MrX 13:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll leave it in your hands. BMK (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This community is a joke! Mister X ublicly accuses me of being a liar and creating a fake account. But he refuses to provide any evidence for this charge. And he ignores the obvious counter-evidence: the fact that I edit from America and this gentleman edits from Norway.

I challenge Mister X to publicly state what his "evidence" against me is. I think the charge is pure speculation, based only on the "binky" connection, and that he lied about having additional evidence. Unlike many users here, I am a serious person with a serious reputation. I would never engage in "socking," which is not only dishonest and immature but attacks the basic integrity of WP. A major problem with WP--and its Revenge of the C Students style culture--is that no one abides by basic standards of evidence before making a change. Steeletrap (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Binksternet, I would be interested in your opinion on the charge against me. Having dealt with me and the other guy who called you "binky," do you believe that we are the same person? Steeletrap (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This community may be a joke, but it's not because of anything I wrote in this thread (which somehow came to your attention in spite of your retirement). What I said was "I found six other traits shared by both editors". I never accused you of being a liar, nor did I accuse you of creating a fake account. I stand by my original statement that if the disruption doesn't continue, I see no reason to expend effort to collect diffs and present evidence. My time is valuable. If someone else familiar with your editing history such as Srich32977 or Sitush decides to file and SPI report, I may add my evidence to it. My preferred outcome would be that, with the IP blocked, we won't see this type of trolling and harassment occur again.- MrX 21:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Listen up, Perry Mason: I have contacts on WP who emailed me about the allegations. How about you present your alleged "evidence" that I am socking as this Norwegian dude? If you make an allegation of socking--one of the most serious charges one can meet on WP--you should back it up. I get the feeling you know you have a flimsy basis for such charges, and that you wouldn't make the allegation if you weren't hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet. Steeletrap (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for name calling. Since you obviously refuse to let this go, I will oblige you by opening up an SPI case.- MrX 00:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the charges against Bink- There is no question that drive-by style of "research" and editing are highly problematic, as is his rude treatment of newcomers. Such conduct has led to a long record of blocks, a record that would be even more extensive and damning if not for the weird friendships Bink has made with "like minded" editors. Still, as a general rule, everyone is entitled to remove what she wants to remove from her talk page. So this action should be dismissed. Steeletrap (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Historical revisionism and use of an unreliable source

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

---

Alesgeriy (talk · contribs), a newly registered user, added a problematic section to Akdamar Island. He cites http://www.historyoftruth.com/, a clearly POV website which is devoted to the Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide. Interestingly, he calls the genocide "1915 incidents", which is a widely used phrase in denialist circles.

Furthermore, he uploaded an copyrighted image to the Commons which bears the POV caption "Muslims Protests Armenian Aggression Against Women".

He twice (1, 2) re-added the section. First time he called its removal by me "Vandalism" and the second time his edit summary was "it is a source for the subjekt about the Commemoration in Akdamar island". --Երևանցի ^talk 17:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

nonsense and a ridiculous claim from the user Yerevantsi (talk · contribs). the subjekt is clearyly about Commemorated in Akdamar Island. It does not matter if this user like it or not, this commemoration takes place in Akdamar Island, and this topic isn't about genocide etc. Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) should stop his Vandalism, because this entry is comply with the rules Եalesgeriy ^talk

First, and most important, this is not vandalism. Also, the image does not belong on wikipedia. It is already tagged with copyvio speedy deletion. As well, this source does not seem to be reliable. Basically, the whole thing does not belong here. If you believe it does, then please link to why you think it belongs. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The image was deleted. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

i have chose this source because is English written. This entry belong here because is strongly associated with Akdamar Island and its about Akdamar ısland's history. the source is reliable because this commemoration is held every year, denial about this fact would be a hypocritical policy which is don't belong to wikipedia terms. btw theire is many such informative entry in wikipedia. and yes, the removal act with his comment "nonsense" of user Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) is vandalism. ^talk

I'm not at all concerned with the source, or the information right now. (I have marked the source as unreliable.) I am most concerned that you insist on calling the edits by Yerevantsi vandalism. That is harassment on your part. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

so you trying to white wash of the act of this users as "editing" ? that is hypocritical on your part, at the same time your behavior harassment me with your baseless claimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alesgeriy: whoever's right, it's not vandalism. I won't comment on what it is, but it isn't vandalism. —George8211 / T 20:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I view this as a content dispute, and was commenting on behavior. I am not saying the content is incorrect or correct, I am merely providing note that your behavior is not proper. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

i indicate the fact which is pretty proper, but your behavior towards this issue is hypocritical and rude which i do not recommend to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of harassing you for me indicating that your behavior is verging on harassment. This will get us nowhere. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Recommend a block of Alesgeriy for competency reasons (including very strange use of links). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: Can something be already done about this? Is it not clear that this single-purpose user is not here to contribute to Wikipedia? --Երևանցի ^talk 15:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

can some one immediately pls stop the vandalismus and harassment of the above member ? thanks regards.. Alesgeriy (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: see this. I recommend a block per WP:NOTHERE and bordering on edit warring.

@Alesgeriy: these removals are cited in wikipedia policy, and are not 'baseless'. Please stop labeling the dispute as vandalism. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: you don't saying the True WP:HERE , and my entry according this policy is appropriate. this removal are not not cited in wikipedia policy and you vandalising my entry. you should stop immediately your vandalism and harassment . i will report you because of your hypocritical behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 February 2015‎

There is already a report going on, unless you have missed the discussion we are having now. I will say no more on the subject, because you are not listening to what we are saying. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: my sources are reliable, one of them was also a source of Grand National Assembly of Turkey how can you call this source unreliable? you acting hypocritical Alesgeriy (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've notified Alesgeriy (talk · contribs) of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA2. Those sanctions cover "pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan or related conflicts". This puts him on notice that he is expected to follow Wikipedia policy from now on. If he is uncertain about the reliable sourcing rules, he could ask for feedback at WP:RSN. If you persist in adding material to Wikipedia that doesn't follow our sourcing rules, sanctions are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Strike per above comment)This is in direct violation to a decision from the Arbitration committee. A part of the final decision states: 2) Armenian, Azeri or other local sources are subject to the same requirements of reliability as any other scholarly or journalistic sources. Use of material from propagandistic nationalist sites is unacceptable. These sources are concidered propagandic. Alesgeriy has been warned by an admin over this. Also, you have broken the 3RR.

As well, the sources you have all added, are written completely in Turkish, which means that not everyone on the English wikipedia can verify these sources.

Please consider thoughtful discussion before you call me "hypocrite" again. That is baseless, unlike the comments I have made utilizing wikipedia policy and the article history. When you make an accusation, it must be supported with evidence, or it will be treated as a personal attack. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: one of this sources is also a source of Grand National Assembly of Turkey how can you call this source unreliable? but user Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) vandalising my entry with this comment "Turkish government aggressively denies the genocide; whether or not you cite the Grand Assembly means nothing" wut? my entry is not about genocide at all, and how can call this guy the turkish piarlament "means nothing" seriously ? why you don't stop this troll and vandal? Alesgeriy (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Asking for someone to be blocked because they disagree with your point of view is a very bad practice. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

My point was that Turkish (especially government-affiliated sources) are no less POV than the source you initially provided.

@EdJohnston: Can you please take action? At least two third-party users have explicitly stated their support for blocking this single-purpose account. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: so your point? so that you have proven your hypocritical approach. do you think wikipedia based about your own views and intereses? yes, i was right, you vandalising my entry just because of your own political views and this kind behavior do not contradicted with wiki terms. wikipedia is not your own toy. you should immediately stop your approach about this issue because you are not objective — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 February 2015‎

I have no political views on this matter. I did not even know about this article and events until I looked into this report. Your considering that I have predetermined thoughts on this event is incorrect. I focus on wiki policy. Your comment is harassment to get me out of this discussion, which I find very offensive. I got involved, now there is nothing you can do to get me to stop being involved. You are attacking everyone you have issue with. This will alienate any support you might have gotten. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: pls stop your aggressive attitude towards me, you playing with words and move away from the subject. i'm not agree with you, you don't give an proper answer but furthermore insulting me with such vulgar ascriptions

first, my entry is "not" about genocide etc. "is about the Commemoration in Akdamar Island, and sources proves that.

2. the source of the second entry which is about a monument, and is the "original" proposal. and you you call that is POV.? you denying an original source ? how can you do that? you acting just with your personal viewpoint and against the wiki terms this which is unacceptable according to your logic %80 of the comments for Akdamar Island is nonsense , we can not continue in this way at all Alesgeriy (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Boy, do we have a problem here. One of these sources refer to Armenians as "animals" (Turkish: Hayvanlara). The other source claims that Armenians killed Turks between the years 1915-18. That's a ridiculous statement since all Armenians living in the region were obliterated by the Turkish government by early 1915. Interestingly enough, the claim is made by a senior member of an ultra-nationalist Turkish organization called ASIMDER, which stands for the "International Association to Fight Unfounded Armenian Allegations". This organization had at once targeted Armenian schools, churches, foundations and individuals as part of an anti-Armenian hate campaign (see here for more information). The other source is by the Turkish government, the leading propagator of Armenian Genocide denial in the world. I found no neutral source, meaning non-Turkish or non-Armenian prime sources, that says Armenians raped women or that 50 or so women killed themselves. It appears that that story is entirely fabricated. As for the user's conduct, it just keeps getting worse. He has reverted yet again, well surpassing the 3RR mark. And he continues calls other user's edits vandalism. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

what did you think about what Armenian rebels did during the revolt? before genocide or exile? distribute flowers ? btw this incident is happenend on 17 april 1915 and also your debate is off topic, because in my entry i have not mention such "animals" like words. seems you have also your own viewpoints? I repeat, my entry is about memorial and monument in Akdamar Island. with just a little surf on Internet do not be shy, you can also find many article about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs) 06:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There was no "rebellion". It was an act of self-defense by the Armenians. The Armenians, in fear of a massacre by their own government, defended themselves from death marches and genocide. Cevdet Bey, the governor of Van, started a campaign of mass murder against Armenians throughout Van. The reports of Clarence Ussher, Ernest Yarrow, Elizabeth Ussher, Grace Knapp, and others all point to the fact that Cevdet Bey wanted to annihilate all Armenians in Van. The "incident" you refer could not have happened on 17 April 1915 because Russian soldiers did not arrive in Van until late May. There's also no evidence that Russian and Armenian soldiers massacred the Turkish population. No primary source makes such a claim. The only people who make such baseless claims are ultra-nationalist Turks whose sole mission is to deny the genocide. And I never said you called Armenians "animals', but I did say that the sources you provide refer to Armenians as such. By the way, it's absolutely pointless to add any information about the monument since it was never built (see here). Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Etienne your claimes is not to taken seriously you talking nonsense and your behavior is hypocritical you are an political propagandist and you are not neutral. i my self don't deny genocide, but you deny what armenian rebels before 1915 did. there is still survived Turkish/Kurdish victims from this massacre. here is no need to debate about this issue. Alesgeriy (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• (Comment from uninvolved editor) At best, there's a deep WP:COMPETENCE issue here demonstrated in Alesgeriy's inability to acknowledge the reasons others are objecting to his edit. Alesgeriy, if you were prohibited from making these edits, how would you spend your time at Wikipedia? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• They're still edit warring. Epic Genius (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. Fully protected for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I honestly can't see why. This is one user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Roscelese is right. Also that one user, Alesgeriy, has now been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring, see WP:AN3 report here so the protection really isn't needed. Please consider unprotecting if you're around, Nyttend. If you're not, I guess I'll do it later. Incidentally, Alesgeriy seems surprisingly well acquainted with Wikipedia practice and jargon right from their first edit, if you glance at their edit summaries. Does anybody have a suggestion for a likely sockmaster? Bishonen | talk 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

• I'll do it momentarily. I didn't see that the other guy had been blocked. Aside from that, protection is reasonable; when we've got an ongoing edit war, either we protect or we block the people involved, and I figured it would be better to protect it than to block three people. Nyttend (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Error in your "Composer" article

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

---

I was unable to successfully edit the picture identification (Nicholas Clérambault):00:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)PLCraig3 (talk) He is composing at the harpsichord, not the piano.

This should go at the WP:HD not here at ANI. Eurodyne (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

The Composer page is not protected, so it's hard to know what PLCraig3 (talk · contribs)'s problem is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly inexperience. We were all there once.  :) I changed the caption. Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Could have been some odd blip or error, but appreciate you helping someone new on this, not blowing them off. Ravensfire (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens (that's me) and Ghmyrtle being accused of both being the same user - sockpuppets.

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

---

There was a bit of an editing brouhaha over at Casual (subculture), and an IP editor seems to have now registered under the name of Richie bedfellows.

During the exchange he has accused GhMyrtle and myself of being the same editor twice in different edits.[8][9]

I objected to this each time and gave him the chance to redact - his response is here[10], however, he invites me to not "be waiting around for the weekend to finish, my friend" - so I'm not. Both involved editors informed.[11][12] Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Richie bedfellows: I have plenty of legitimate reasons for suspicion. Please do share these reasons, as accusations of sockpuppetry are serious, and not showing any kind of support behind them is concidered harassment, and can get you blocked. Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Please take care. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

He's posted provocatively on my talk page again, exactly one minute after doing so on his own page - inviting @Orduin: to message him, whereupon he will reveal his suspicions. I've replied, asking him to post here instead. His reply seems to suggest that he thinks Orduin is watching his talkpage (which may be the case - but also may not). Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking deeper, it seems that Richie and the IP editor are not the same - Richie was just duplicating the errors made by said IP editor, so I've struck that particular comment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting to me, as the user has yet to supply us with his evidence, and seems to be putting this on hold. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks too - inviting me (twice) to stick my head up my arse. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that 'special' comment was added by an IP editor, but it could have been by the same person, but logged out. I removed the comment.

It does not seem to fit in with the later comment added by Richie bedfellows. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, given the latest posts on your talk page, the editor in question has pretty much confirmed that it is him editing while logged out. This also casts doubt on the previous IP edits to the Casuals page, which are not only similar in tone, but geolocate to the same region. That (somewhat ironically) suggests that Richie is in fact a long time sock puppet himself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Either he's stupid enough to do so. Or he did it accidentally. Whatever it is, you cannot know for sure without a CheckUser, so there's no point accusing. They might IPs in the same region but who's to say Richie's related. I'm just giving Richie the benefit of doubt. And tone's is something which only experts in linguistics can comprehend, definitely not us. The accusation was of course a grave offense. I believe his failure in providing evidence and not showing up here is of great concern. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair point - I was just drawing attention to the fact that the duck test - if applied - would be more likely to pass Richie and the IP addresses, than GHMyrtle and myself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Transcluding the discussion on my page here. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Click for things from my talk page. -- Orduin Discuss

Richie bedfellows Hi Orduin, I left you a message this morning on my talk page as requested, though I'm unsure as to whether you will receive it there. Just to say I will gladly adhere to your request at some point this afternoon. If you could just let me know how we go about this, would you like me to give the full picture for clarification or just the specific reasons leading to the allegation, would be much appreciated. thanks. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC) @Richie bedfellows: Generally, sockpuppet accusations are filed at Sockpuppet investigations, however, since there is an open ANI discussion open about this, I think it is better to post your evidence there. However, even if you post it to ANI, you should still handle it as if you are filing an SPI (Sockpuppet investigation). It is my suggestion then, that no matter where you put your evidence, you first read the sock puppetry policy, and Help:Diff on how to properly support your claims. Also, if you need help identifying evidence, this essay should help. If you post your evidence to ANI, and it is: sufficient, I will take the evidence and put it in the SPI. not sufficient, no actions but a harassment, or personal attack, warning (against you) are likely to be taken. If you post the evidence to SPI, please leave a notice at the ANI discussion, and follow other actions necessary from SPI, and your claims will be handled as any other SPI. If you need any other help, please feel free to ask! -- Orduin Discuss 18:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Hi Orduin, thank you for the response. I have just had a quick look through the SPI page as well as the DIFFS page as advised. I have no problems submitting the behavioural evidence but the conversations with Ghmyrtle were between edits and coming through 'Msg left in template', with intermittent msgs coming through the Chaheel Riens page at around the same time. The edits shown from the Chaheel Riens page are the only edits evident on the DIFFS page, while the conversations (but not the edits) are only evident on the Article's 'view history' page. Could you advise,please? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 January 2015 @Richie bedfellows: Can you give me the timestamp of the comments and their locations, and I will see what I can do with that. -- Orduin Discuss 00:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Okay Orduin, will do and thanks. I will be busy from this afternoon for the next couple of days so I'll gather together what i can in-between then construct the whole thing as i see it in the week if that's okay. Cheers. Richie bedfellows (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC) It's not really ok at all is it? If you're so het up about a sock puppetry charge, you should surely be able to make time for it? To paraphrase - "Don't wait for the weekend to end, my friend". I tell you what - seeing as this is such a stupid accusation, I'll do all the work for you, which shouldn't take long as there's nothing to pull out of the ether in the first place... Firstly, assess the similarity between editors: Here are the last 5,000 edits made by GHMyrtle[13] Here are the last 5,000 edits made by yours truly - Chaheel Riens[14] Is there any similarity in pages edited, and edit summaries made in either case? In fact, with the sole esception of the contested page - Casual (subculture) - are there in fact any shared pages? No, there aren't. "Ah ha!" you say, "That's evidence of sock-puppetry - obviously this criminal mastermind has an alias he uses for each area of interest - and never the twain shall meet!" Well, ok - tenuous - but possible. Let's look at other areas then. How about userpages and talkpages? Chaheel's userpage:[15] Chaheel's talkpage:[16] GHMyrtle's userpage:[17] GHMyrtle's talkpage:[18] (While we're looking at talkpages, let's not forget to point out that the accuser has no concept of grammar - insisting that "they wasn't poor" is correct and acceptable use of English. However, I'm sure that bears no reflection on their competency in any way, shape, or form.) Hm, also note that Chaheel has a habit of blanking his talkpage every new year,[19] rather than archiving, which is a bit unusual - nothing like GHMyrtle, who makes extensive use of archives.[20] Not much similarity there, is there? Oh - the same argument applies? Right! Now we're really got the rogue(s) on the ropes. Let's look at the actual article in question, and blow that ruffian out of the water! So, here's the history page of Casual (subculture) right here.[21] Now, let's look for the apaprent minute-by-minute changes? According to the accusation here there is "the strange 'coincidence' of two contributors seemingly making the exact same irrelevant, nonsensical argument about something that made perfect sense" - ah, suddenly the above comment that the editor in question knows little of grammar comes into play. Let's discount the rather more obvious possibility that two different editors recognised that a change to an article made no sense. What else? Ah - " just 'coincidentally' responding under this [GHMyrtle] username within moments of me responding in the the second username's [Chaheel Riens'] talk page" (My emphasis to aid understanding of context.) Well, there are five edits to my (Chaheel's) talkpage,[22][23][24][25][26] and all but the very first can be instantly discounted, as they took place after the timestamp of the accusatory edit - 16:43, 29 January 2015. So that must be this[27] edit then - with a timestamp of 14:43, 29 January 2015? Except the only edit GHMyrtle made around then is this[28] one with a timestamp of 15:01, 29 January 2015 - and that's hardly "within moments". In fact, in this edit range here[29] you and GHMyrtle between you made 5 edits within 20 minutes - by your argument that makes you a potential sock puppet of the two of us as well. Look, Richie, just accept the fact that you're wrong, and have made a grave error by accusing two editors 5 times of being sock puppets. You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong. I gave you the chance to redact your comments, and you not only refused, but chose to make the accusation again. I apologise to Orduin for hijacking his talkpage like this, but you've pissed me off with your baseless accusations, and not providing any kind of evidence to back them up. You asked me to do my worst. I'm not there yet, but if you carry on, this will only get worse for you - at the very least humiliation, at the worst, a block. Admit your error. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [Redacted by -- Orduin Discuss] Hi Orduin, you cant take the evidence from what Chaheel has kindly submitted above if you wish. I do genuinely appreciate his efforts, if I'm honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 09:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC) No personal attacks please - they can also get you blocked. And could you clarify your grammar and typing - when you say "you cant take the evidence", do you really mean "you can take the evidence"? The context is quite important. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Oh - and with regard to "do your worst"-type threats, seeing as you're the one who invited me to do so, it seems somewhat duplicitous of you to then knock any response regarding them. Still, you did ask, after all. And you've yet to respond over at the ANI noticeboard - it would probably help your case if you did so. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Well Orduin gave me the choice of either responding on the ANI noticeboard or this talk page. I would've gladly responded on the ANI noticeboard once the whole thing had been submitted by myself, but to be honest, once you decide to come a long and hijack Orduin's response with a lot of semi-relevant self posturing, I'm afraid i understandably, become pretty nonplussed when it comes to following any quasi official guidelines. Yes, I can confirm Orduin can take the evidence from your submission. I can also confirm I will gladly retract any allegation and will edit any post mentioning the allegation appropriately. I can even confirm I'll be doing it with a big smile on my face If and when Orduin deems it necessary after reviewing the evidence. Now, regarding YOUR reference to MY "do your worst" type threats. I think you will find 'do your worst' isn't a threat, it's a statement. The actual threat is documented as "If you carry on, this "will" only get worse for you"... Now i think you'll find this threat was actually was made by yourself. Hence the reason why apparently, I'm still waiting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 09:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC) I think you'll find that ""If you carry on, this "will" only get worse for you"" is also just a statement, pretty much the same as yours, based around your baseless and incorrect accusations. Things generally get worse for those who are not only in the wrong, but fly in the face of admitting it, all the while telling the other party to stick their head up their bum. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Well the statement reads "this "will" only get worse" and clearly I'm still waiting, aren't i? I'm sitting here waiting for you to 'make things worse' yet all you seem to have is the tangential last bastion of the big mouth when failing to make their point, more commonly known as the 'grammatical error'. Bearing in mind your laughable attempts at hijacking a seemingly legitimate investigation into a legitimate accusation in favour of some embarrassingly bizarre self-posturing, some equally risible threat to humiliate me and a perception that myself laughing at you doing it would then be deemed 'uncivil' ...Surely you can see the 'seriousness' of the allegation disappeared along with any credibility you seemingly like to think Wikipedia ever had. So again, what is it you could possible do to either humiliate or even make things worse??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.41.24 (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC) I can prove you wrong. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC) @Richie bedfellows: You must: Make clear how multiple accounts are being abused, explaining how the users are a) the same and b) disruptive. Avoid all other discussion that is not evidence of sockpuppetry or other multiple account abuse. You must use diffs, page histories, log entries or other information to support your position; patrolling admins, clerks and CheckUsers are not expected to establish your argument for you. Basically, until you open your argument, I cannot do anything to support your case, if I support your case. You must open your case using your thinking, not mine. Requesting that I open a SPI about incidents that I was not involved in is close to WP:CANVASSING. Also, @Chaheel Riens and 2.120.41.24: please take this discussion off of my page, and to the ANI report where it belongs. -- Orduin Discuss 21:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Well proving a legitimate accusation to be unfounded is hardly making things worse, is it? Especially bearing in mind the weird and wonderful, laughingly overwhelming urge you seem to have in performing to a perceived audience, obviously undermining any credibility towards the seriousness of any allegation or any subsequent investigation thereafter. Richie bedfellows (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Hi Orduin, As already stated, I have no qualms about presenting the evidence leading to my suspicions. In fact i could and would have done this three days ago and would have presented it on the ANI page had he not done me the favour of 'doing it for me' on this. I'll be back with you in a few days. Cheers for now. Richie bedfellows (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC) You seem to be backtracking rather. You've had your week, now you need more time. And if the evidence you were going to present was the same as mine, then that's hardly going to work in your favour. Still, I'm interested to see what you come up with, provided it's something other than posture and the casting of aspersions that is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC) @Chaheel Riens and Richie bedfellows: I've transcluded this discussion to ANI (for the whole world to see). Please make sure all new comments are within the onlyinclude tag. Thank you. (I will move any comment as needed.) -- Orduin Discuss 21:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Backtracking about what, exactly? You seem to be under some misapprehension here. As much as you would clearly love this to be something else, this has now become nothing more than a slightly inconvenient, mildly amusing sideshow to the real issue for me... Which is unreferenced, personal subjective opinion, purposely undermining long standing appropriately cited contributions. Given the behaviour from both user-pages and the pattern of events, I made the accusation(which i still stand by). I then told you to do your worst after you 'gave' me the weekend to think about it before issuing me with a 'warning'. Unfortunately, you then decided to undermine the whole 'procedure' when hijacking Orduin's talk page with the kind of bizarre, semi-relevant self posturing that only serves to turn the whole thing into an absurdity . Now, obviously seeing as I'm a big believer in 'if a big mouth has something to say, let them speak', I simply ran with it. I have no qualms about 'showing up here' and presenting my evidence. If, as I have stated already, the accusations turn out to be unsubstantiated, then i'll also have no qualms over retracting the accusation before appropriately editing the posts in question. I'll then (if allowed) get back to the real issue. Also, Just for clarification, i may well have responded to Gymrtle over this issue then logged out before noticing the edit, then reverted the page without logging back in. There was no malicious intention.,Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The article itself is a completely different issue that has no bearing to this particular topic. You may edit there to your hearts content, provided said edits meet Wikipedia's standards. The issue here is one of repeated accusations of sock puppetry, and then a refusal to prevent evidence when requested. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't refused to to pre(s)ent anything of the sort. As i have already explained, Orduin gave me the choice of submitting the evidence either here or on on his talk page. You chose to hijack that page and i simply went along for the ride.

Hi Orduin. here is the evidence as leading to my suspicions as requested. The following conversation took place between myself and Grmytle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghmyrtle#Casual_.28subculture.29_.E2.80.8E

In between this conversation there were also intermittent contributions from Chaheel over on his talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chaheel_Riens

This conversation above also ran along side intermittent changes from Chaheel here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casual_%28subculture%29&action=history

This is presented this way because I am no longer able to access the 'highlighted comparison' changes. My suspicions were then felt to be unsubstantiated when Ghmrtle informed me he was now happy with the wording here: I wasn't "arguing a point about someone else not bothering to cite some dubious info". I was removing words which you added that made no sense. You've now come up with a better wording. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Then proceeded to argue Chaheel's subsequent change here: Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all. And, you ought to be aware that accusing two editors of being the same person is accusing them of sockpuppetry - which is a serious allegation. You might like to withdraw it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)This seemed strange to me at the time simply because he had now started to argue previous points already covered with Chaeel's exact same points after telling me he was happy with the wording just moments before. I had no choice here but to highlight the whole conversation with Ghmyrtle simply because of the sheer amount of changes since the exchange and the highlighted changes from Chaheel are no longer obvious in their availability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, my comment here that "Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all...." was a response to RB's comment here that "They [RB's wording] made sense right from the start." It was not a comment on any of CR's edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes but neither arguments made sense. Both separate pages were posting at myself simultaneously with both pages paraphrasing each others sentiment, with both of you coming from the exact same miss-informed angle because neither of you could understand the full context of the whole piece. I explained to you about the two separate aspects, which had you understood, would have seen my edit did actually make sense, but you simply refused to acknowledge. You just simply said 'your wording now makes sense', then proceeded to argue CR'S contradictory point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talk • contribs) 08:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem was simply that (1) you failed to see that the wording you used was illogical, and (2) two different editors saw the same thing at the same time, and responded to you the same way. You really should have dropped this argument a long time ago, to save yourself embarrassment and stop wasting others' time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "both of you" suggests that the editor now accepts that he has been dealing with two editors, not one editor and a sockpuppet. So can we expect a clear apology to both of the editors who have been falsely accused? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's face it. If someone is going backwards and forwards on talk page 'A', with 'A' generally failing to grasp the context and specifically passing comment about 'pissing off other editors', anyone would begin to have suspicions If suddenly, right on cue talk 'B' intervenes to seemingly 'shore up' the sentiment on what appears to be a new non archived userpage using the exact same one specific, out of context argument as user 'A'. Still, 'good will' obviously would always be shown but those suspicions would always re-surface when 'A' then clams up about 'pissing other editors off' when the irony of a fourth contributor turning up on the talkpage asking 'A' for an explanation fails to be acknowledged, but then resurfaces when B starts expressing the same sentiment about other editors over on his page. Still suspicions would be unsubstantiated, but when i then go across to respond on B's talkpage, only to find 'A' addressing that response back on his own talkpage just moments later, those suspicions would obviously become more and more prominent for anyone. Add to that 'A' seemingly allowing the accusations to then take their course while 'B' spends the next five days purposely disrupting and undermining the very process he claims takes such accusations so seriously...Then as i say, anyone would legitimately have those very same suspicions. Anyway, and again as previously stated. I'll simply wait for Orduin's decision and take it from there, for now. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's already been pointed out that "moments later" wasn't in fact moments later, but a good 20 minutes or so. And it's entirely reasonable for two editors - who were watching and actively involved in the page - to find the term "Although the start of the trend beginning in Liverpool is well documented, it was already well under way elsewhere at around the same time" to be a logical fallacy (how can a trend start in location "A", when it's already underway in location "B"?) and take you to task over it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My experience is that such "suspicions" are wholly unreasonable. Many editors will raise similar objections over new additions. That doesn't make them sockpuppets. Editors are under no obligation to space their edits so many minutes or hours apart. Edit conflicts happen all the time. You should face up to the fact you were wrong and apologise unreservedly. I'm really not sure what you are waiting for. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know either. I told that supporting his accusations is his own problem. He has to get, and provide the evidence. Just because Chaheel Riens put 'evidence' on my talk page does not mean it is supportive of the accusations. Richie has to support his case by himself. I can only guide him, not think for him. And trust me, I've shown him to several pages that should help him file an SPI. If there is going to be an SPI, it should have already happened. Either open one soon, or apologise now. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The wording doesn't make sense because there are two separate aspects to the whole article. The first aspect being Liverpool fans were the first to wear designer continental labels, the second aspect being the precursor to that 'look'. It is separately referenced within the article that Liverpool fans were involved in both aspects. Both the designer clothing aspect and the precursor. If someone writes 'it is acknowledged that Liverpool fans started the CONTINENTAL DESIGNER ASPECT but it was already well underway elsewhere',..Then that's misleading. It gives the casual reader the false impression they were involved in one but not the other. Adding 'as well as in Liverpool' redresses that misrepresentation. "Although the start of the trend beginning in Liverpool is well documented, it was already well underway elsewhere at around the same time" is just a better worded variation that was agreed with by 'G', wrongly reverted by 'CR' then strangely argued against by 'G' just '20 minutes' after his initial agreement. The original suspicions were legitimate as far as I'm concerned, Not just for editors raising similar objection, because sometimes that's to be expected. The overall suspicions being present were simply down to the overall, general pattern of events, sentiment and timings outlined above. That said, it has now become obvious to me that these two contributors are two separate people and not one and the same, as i alleged. For this i have absolutely no qualms in retracting the allegation and issuing an apology as appropriate. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Hi Orduin, no-one was asking you to think for me, least of all myself. The reason it took so long was because CR found it appropriate to disrupt and undermine the whole process, and you seemingly found it appropriate to let him. For my part, i simply waited until he stopped thinking he was centre stage, performing to a live audience. Just to confirm they will be no SPI submission as an apology has already been issued. Cheers. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't issue accusations, refuse to back them up, then act surprised and affronted when the accused party decides to defend himself prior to your own efforts. Moreover, considering you were directly accusing me of being a sock puppet, I rather think that I was centre stage - wasn't that the point of your accusation? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What apology? Removing a few words from an old talk page post isn't an "apology". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you should apologise to each of the editors personally. You don't seem to realise the distressing effect that such accusations have for some editors. But I'd not be surprised if you were sanctioned for wasting so much of people's time. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and BLP-vio

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

---

Could an Admin please look at this IP: 107.77.87.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

With a history of only 6 edits, s/he has already vandalized an article twice (inserting Banana!!!?) and edit warred on another article to the point of exceeding WP:3RR (at 4 reverts in under 24 hours now). (The most recent 2 edits have re-inserted unsourced defamatory information about a living person into an article — an accusation that a professional journalist has "falsified references").

I haven't crossed the 3RR bright line yet, although I believe I am allowed to if only to remove the BLP-violating material. But there has to be a better solution to this situation. Advice, please. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 259200 seconds. seicer | talk | contribs 03:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

I don't know, I already spent 3 days working on this, for the benefit of humanity - 259200 seconds = 72 hours = 3 days. :3 --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 12:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dolheguymckenzie (talk · contribs)

This new user has been creating a string of non notable album articles which when Prodded he de-prods. A lot now sitting at AfD. Can we block him for a few days? I will suggest he understands what makes a notable album on his talk page Gbawden (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

PROD tags can be removed by anyone in this world for absolutely any reason in the world. If at AfD, we'll just await the decisions and then I guess we'll recommend him to Teahouse. Blocking is definitely not for editor retention. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 12:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a block is necessary unless they continue after the warnings from myself and Gbawden. And as QEDK says, they're allowed to remove PROD tags. Sam Walton (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Constant disruptive editing / Wikihounding by user:Hmei7

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

---

Hello,

Can someone do sth to make Hmei7 (talk · contribs) refraining from vandalizing WP pages?

To keep it brief:

• He vandalized even the RCU request about him [30] ;
• Removal of Copyedit template from an article written -by himself- in a challenged English ;
• Unjustified & WP:OR renaming ;
• WP:OR editing ;

Anyways, his contribs' history clearly shows that it is a case of Wikihounding. While awaiting for the RCU case to be accepted, please do sth to prevent this user's vandalism.

--Omar-toons (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop or continue (berberism, sionism and vandalism) ? Good. My contributions does not bother anyone, but you. You contribute anyhow, and you impose wherever you go. For starters, we're on the English Wikipedia and not French. While contributing in harmony with us, and do not bring your habits here lol. [31] is [32] in English. This is your contribution. I did that back! Stop hiding behind your fine words, we know you now. Out ! --Hmei7 (North Africa is Arab) 17:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmei7 you appear to be following Omar-toons around and spamming the same message on any pafge he has edited and this is past the point of being disruptive. You do not not to comment the same block of text at SPI's here and half a dozen other pages. Make your comments about this here and please stop ebing disruptive elsewhere. Amortias (T)(C) 17:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs for above [33][34]

Accusations of Zionism. [35].

The rest of contributions seem to speak towards hounding. The last 50 edits by this user are all reverts of Omar-toons with quite unhelpful edit summaries. Amortias (T)(C) 17:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

POV pushing on Betfair

Betfair has been targeted since October by a string of SPA's focused on adding every bit of material they can find that casts the subject in a negative light, the latest being Petefox1. A few were blocked in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betfairmole/Archive, but new ones keep popping up. They are particularly fond of the "Tennis courtsiding" section of the article, a large block of NOTNEWS with violations of UNDUE, NPOV, and sprinklings of BLP. I've tried to replace it with a short neutral description of the relevant facts, but am always reverted. I would suggest that Petefox1 be blocked and the page be semi-protected for at least 3 months. Toohool (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How long must a given IP address stay suspected of being a so-called "sockpuppet"?

When any given IP user gets accused of being a sockpuppet of a named user (which should only be done if the IP user was abusing the system at the time of their writing, but is unfortunately sometimes done even without abuse from that IP user), and then if, for some dumb reason, that IP user is given the suspected-sockpuppet label, how long must it stay there--even if that IP user was never blocked, and regardless of how long, if for any time, the named user the IP is accused of socking was blocked? Is it just like that for the remainder of the Wikipedia's existence, or... what, exactly? And whose decision is that supposed to be, anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Remainder of Wikipedia's existence would be more like it. It's the decision of SPI clerks entirely. And they can only be over-ruled by ArbCom. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 08:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, QEDK. But why, if most IP addresses are shared, and so a new person using that address then has to hold onto that label, as well as the named user never being let go of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Shared IP addresses are blocked for a short period of time (the maximum can be ~2 months) - keeping in mind that it's shared. However, if we find a LTA from such an IP for years, admins will indef block the IP. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 08:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe IPs are almost never indef blocked - static ones are blocked for long definite periods. By the way, I think the relevant term is dynamic (vs static) rather than shared - dynamic ones are re-allocated at intervals, sometimes very short ones, and I don't think sock tags would be left on those for very long. Squinge (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

By shared, he does mean "shared" i.e. when one IP is used by a number of people. For example, intranets which have only one exit point to the internet have one external IP address only and a WHOIS will only point to that intranet and not be able to pinpoint a specific computer in it, since all have the same IP address. Since, institutions and work places have a lot of computers, shared IP addresses save resources (i.e. hardware load and money) because only one or a few addresses need to be allocated. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he did mean "shared" (and yep, I know what it means, thanks), but I think the difference between dynamic and static is also relevant here, especially when people are suggesting IP address are indef blocked (they should almost never be), and it's really only static IPs (shared or not) that get long blocks. Squinge (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well guys, I don't mean "blocked" necessarily, but even just being suspected of sockpuppetry. How long must an IP user hold the "suspected of sockpuppetry" label as slapped on by an assuming admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Template:IPsock or another template like it can be removed by anyone at any time (assuming it is not checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry, which for an IP is unlikely). That is, they are not listed at WP:UP#CMT as needing to remain on the user talk page so removal is only subject to the edit warring and blocking (edits by blocked users) policies.

@QEDK: just to clarify something you said SPI clerks are just like any other user except they are trained and trusted by the checkusers to keep SPI functioning. Blocks (and other actions) by SPI clerks can be appealed and overturned by any administrator. Blocks made by checkusers (and marked as a checkuser block - see WP:CUBL) can only be overturned by another checkuser or the Arbitration Committee because they rely on private evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, @Callanecc:. Only a few SPI clerks have the CU right and coincidentally all CUs are admins AFAIK, right? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, QEDK, then why is it that when I have once had another IP address and I went to remove that stupid notice from IP editors I know, those admins think it's their duty to keep replacing that notice and also add me as one of the sock suspects? When does that stupid practice die, and after how long do those addresses get to go back to normal (they'll stop insisting that those are permanently marked)? Do we have to have admins that just keep adding those back as well as adding new ones indefinitely? Do they not have better things to do than maintain those indefinitely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Would I be considered too impatient if reasked now if anyone has an update to my latest paragraph here now? Autosigned by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

If you are on a suspected sockmaster's shared IP, your recourse would be to make an account and file an appeal to BASC citing that your IP is shared. And well, your account and IP will be either freed from the sockpuppet trademark or you'll gain IPBlockExempt status. But then, you seem to be on a static and clean IP till now. What's the problem? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My IP address hasn't changed for now. But I bet if I use it to go remove those accusations again, they will just replace them again and then add this address to their stupid list.

I'm just annoyed that if I go remove the accusation from my old IP addresses, those admins think they have to return it to those addresses and then add the one I was using to that, too. I just wonder how long they think they'd have to keep that up even if someone keeps removing those things. I wonder how long until they will just let those things stay removed and not add each new IP address of someone who removes them. That's why I asked here. It's really lame, ya know?

75.162.166.13 (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My respectful suggestion to someone who was blocked and then evaded their block by editing as an IP is to stop evading the block - request an unblock and move on. The reason for tagging is simply to keep track of a user's continued block evasion, which will be considered when an unblock is requested. Keeping the old IPs tagged helps accumulate these block evasions, as the category is maintained. However, WP's history function works well enough. Regardless, the focus for such a user should be to stop block evading. User:IDriveAStickShift is one example that springs to mind, who used IPs not only to blank tags from IPs used for WP:DE, but also vandalized - just two examples are [36], [37]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So, Joe, for the example you gave, even if that main user was never unblocked (let's say if he or she were to request unblock and the admins declined--well, I assume you are one because of how you knew of that example), but then a non-admin (where you just assume that every new address is a sock too just because they were trying to help those other IPs not stay marked, although you don't know that) kept clearing those tags from the new IPs that you assume are that same blocked person, how much longer would you replace the tags? Let's say you're an admin. You'd never get tired of returning them and then adding the new one for the rest of the time you were an admin here (probably the rest of your working life or longer)?

75.162.166.13 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we should delete the whole "suspected sockpuppets" categories. We don't allow speculation elsewhere but if people suspect that others are sockpuppets, they should file an SPI and have it confirmed (the WP:DUCK exception and how admins deal with them with another matter). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Ricky, I agree. Thanks. Too bad this went into archive before the other guys finished responding to it though.

75.162.166.13 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Orchestrated sock-attacks

Yesterday, following a discussion at ANI [38], user Dr. Feldinger was indefinitely blocked after a serious of personal attacks. Since then, the user has returned with a never-ending number of socks, both registered socks and IP-socks

• 79.183.4.32 [39]
• 109.67.170.12 [40]
• 79.176.169.95 [41]
• 79.182.166.92 [42]
• 85.76.74.120 [43]
• 85.240.221.26 [44]
• 91.153.218.39 [45]
• 80.223.7.98 [46]
• 92.251.12.101 [47]
• Meg2015 [48]
• Three Whole Words [49]

Could something more effective be done rather than just continue to block the socks one by one as they appear?Jeppiz (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The talk page has been semi-protected. I like trolling when it's funny, but I'm not keen on being called anti-Semitic in a serious context (my Jewish mother and grandma wouldn't approve) and I doubt the other users, Jewish and gentile, like it either when they're just trying to fix an article that is the target of constant fighting and politically-motivated nonsense. He seems to be on the war-path right now, but hopefully it'll taper off. Also, I think this might belong on WP:SPI if I'm not mistaken. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 20 Shevat 5775 17:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe that someone actually bothered with all that IP-changing and registering. What's even more awkward is that he's cloaked himself with some really nice proxy/VPN because his primary subnet's different so we can't issue a rangeblock. Still a geotrace won't hurt (given respectively):

• Israel Petah Tikva Bezeq International-ltd
• Israel Petah Tikva Bezeq International-ltd
• Israel Tel Aviv Bezeq International-ltd
• Israel Petah Tikva Bezeq International-ltd
• Finland Tampere Sl Cgn
• Portugal Lisbon Pt Comunicacoes S.a.
• Finland Helsinki Elisa Oyj
• Finland Helsinki Broadband Access Pool
• Malta Luqa Melita Plc

Seems like a VPN. Multiple login changes the server everytime. Or, maybe, maybe, a new Tor exit node. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 17:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately it just continues, the latest IP sock (85.23.156.94) was just blocked but there will soon be other ones.Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And yet another sock (79.180.180.146). The user seem determined to continue.Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You do realize he just bans Israeli IP's which all share the same patterns? Are all Israelis to be blamed because of one? That's a discrimination against the rules of Wikipedia. Let Israelis comment and express their thoughts on Talk:Israel. 79.180.180.146 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Israelis are perfectly free to express their thoughts, and all Israeli users who have commented are fed up with you. You are not allowed to, as you're blocked. You could have appealed the block instead of just creating sock after sock, but you chose to be disruptive. That's your issue, it has nothing to do with Israelis, and we have loads of great Israeli contributors.Jeppiz (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Gaming the outcome of a requested move

I have just closed the requested move at Talk:2014 Odessa clashes. RGloucester (talk · contribs) was against the move, and is apparently trying to game the outcome of the RM by removing all article content at the new title and turning it into a DAB page, presumably ending up with the other page being back at his preferred title.

I reverted his edit to restore the article, and asked him not to do so, but he immediately reverted back to his DAB page.

Some action is clearly needed here, so can some other admins please intervene. Locking the article might be a start. Cheers, Number 57 23:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The scope of the article has changed. The move is fine, as the editors involved must've wanted an article on the other Odessa incidents of 2014. Therefore, I'm happy to oblige, as I said in the move discussion. This is now a summary article, and the individual incidents will get their own articles. There is no other way to move forward. The RM participants decided they wanted an increased scope, and I'm granting them that wish. If they did not want to broaden the scope of the article, they should not've have voiced support for this proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Can I have administrator assistance please? I've just finished writing the new summary article on the 2014 Odessa clashes, in line with the RM result. I now need the old edit history transferred to 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes, so that article can be restored. I'll start working on the December clashes article shortly. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As I requested, the history logs were moved to May 2014 Odessa clashes from 2014 Odessa clashes. --George Ho (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho and Anthony Appleyard: Can I ask why you have moved the pages? The 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes article was moved to 2014 Odessa clashes as the result of an RM now located at Talk:2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 30 December 2014. The claim above that the summary article was written " in line with the RM result" is a blatant falsehood, and I'm not sure why anyone has fallen for it. This is a clear gaming of the system – an article which there was clear consensus to move has now ended up back at the title preferred by the sole opposer. Number 57 21:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The scope of the article changed with the move to "2014 Odessa clashes", to encompass all 2014 clashes in Odessa. I've done this expansion, wrote a new article on the subject to match the RM result. The 2 May clashes have their own article, and a summary section in the 2014 clashes article. RGloucester — ☎ 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Back then, I probably would have been aware of the December bombings in Odessa. However, I was uncertain about its notability because no mainstream media have reported such event. Also, voters were not aware of it, and RGloucester neglected to notify us about the bombings. I requested that the mess be cleaned up, but I see that consensus must be adhered. Unfortunately, the discussion has become useless and void since the mess. George Ho (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• See (A) User talk:Anthony Appleyard#!!!! and (B) this edit of the history-merge request page. In (B) I realize that I may have misunderstood what "the proposed article" and "that article" meant :: that is another reason for people writing instructions to repeat names and avoid elegant variation. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I told RGloucester that, if he can't create a separate "May 2014 Odessa clashes" soon, I'll re-propose a page move on the same article with only one name, and that's final. George Ho (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• What a mess! Where is the move discussion? I can't find it in the links above... Cavarrone 22:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz doesn't let Israelis add comments on Talk:Israel

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

---

The user Jeppiza doesn't let Israeli posters express and comment freely on the Talk page of Israel. He blames all Israelis to be the same person and bans them one by one, removing their comments and ideas. Please take care of him. That's simply bad. 79.180.180.146 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The above comment by one of DrFeldinger's many socks is related this issuer [50]. Since being blocked less than 48 hours ago, DrFeldinger has created at least 15 socks, the IP above being the latest. We really need a way to deal with this highly disruptive user.Jeppiz (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And apparently same accusation goes for NeilN who just reverted all my legit work and additions. What's their problem? Are all Israelis banned from Wikipedia for life? I don't know who is banned or not and I've seen a list of Finnish people so maybe he isn't Israeli and just made you ban Israelis on purpose? 79.180.180.146 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You are indefinitely blocked, no matter how many accounts you use. That has nothing to do with Israelis (or Finns, or Koreans, or Brazilians or whatever).Jeppiz (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Ownership issues, undue weight, and soapboxing

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

---

[This brought back from the archive. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)]

I request some additional eyes on edits by Dahnshaulis (talk · contribs).

I initially encountered the user at ITT Technical Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where they inserted a long list of sites that were called out by USA Today as having default rates higher than graduation rates[51]. I trimmed the list, and I moved the text of the criticism to the section "Investigations, Lawsuits, and Controversies"[52] where the study results remained visible, just omitting the excessive site listing that overwhelmed the rest of the article.

The material was then restored by the original editor, where they posted on my talk page arguing that the material should not be "whitewashed" and that if I have questions I should email the user. When I then looked at the edits by the user, I noticed that they are adding comparable content to multiple articles, frequently using an edit summary asking that they be contacted first before any changes are made to the content or its inclusion in the articles.[53][54][55][56] I am concerned that this pattern needs additional attention to address. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Barek, I welcome a peer review by people who are familiar with this field. At the same time, I would hope that I would know their names to assess their credibility and trustworthiness. If we could get Suzanne Mettler, for example, a Cornell professor who did six years of research in this area, that would be great.Dahnshaulis (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you want to only allow people whom you feel have appropriate credentials to edit the articles shows you have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. The content and who can edit the articles is not determined by user credentials, but by what is stated in third-party reliable sources and structured in a way that meets our content guidelines. One of those, re: due and undue weight, was mentioned when I purged the bulky list of sites, but there are many others as well which you may want to review, such as WP:OWN and WP:SOAPBOXING. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Barek, the problem is bigger than that. This is For-profit higher education in the United States before Dahnshaulis really got to work; this is the "after" version. Note the POV phrasing in the lead, note the many unreliable (or really way too POV-y) references. It seems to me that Dahnshaulis is on a mission here, and while that mission is--in my opinion--a laudable one, Wikipedia should not be engaged in what are, for our intents and purposes, crusades. Those ITT edits are of course unacceptable, and there's too much naming and shaming in edits like this and this. The problem is the presentation and the tone, and, as you noted, in addition the editor has a somewhat skewed idea of how we are supposed to work here ("Please talk to me before removing this information", "Please review carefully and talk to me before editing"). I think a topic ban here is in order, unless this editor successfully undergoes reprogramming in our gulag in San Francisco. Seriously, Dahnshaulis, I'm with you, but not inside Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think a topic ban would be useful. If the editor wishes to draw attention to problems with these institutions, he has to learn how to make his point without absurd lists, poor sources, and unclear accusations. BTW, I have just been accused of "whitewashing" [57] for removing this [58] uninformative and space-hogging list. However it's nice to know that I "may be an intelligent person". Paul B (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• The more I look at the editor's work the more I am convinced that they are indeed on a crusade of sorts--for instance, on their talk page to another editor, "I'm not here to make friends, but to make entries that will be helpful in the democratization of education. As I have said in other places, your attempt at so-called 'neutrality is actually an act of complicity"--this displays the kind of us vs. them mentality that is counterproductive in a collaborative environment, and WP:NOTHERE seems more relevant by the minute. I am also struck by the comments by Bahooka and ElKevbo (editors with cool heads, experience, and common sense) and Dahnshaulis's response to their comments. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, yeah, El "Whitewasher" Kevbo, that's who I meant: User_talk:ElKevbo#Colorado_Tech_Whitewashing. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Seeming like they have the best of intentions but are unwilling to listen or incapable of understanding, either way an attention getting block might be in order. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't believe in those, and it would have to be phrased somewhat differently. An option is indefinite per WP:NOTHERE with an attached offer of "change your ways and we'll unblock you". An hour ago I thought that was way too drastic a measure. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do would be to consult an expert in the field of discussion, such as Cornell Professor Suzanne Mettler, who spent more than six years doing research in this area. Dahnshaulis (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Before you put me in the Wikipedia "gulag" as you call it, why not also consult ITT Educational Services (ESI) and ask them about the entries? Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Dahnshaulis we cannot be expected to "consult" experts on the whim of an editor. If you wish to draw attention to the shortcomings of commercial universities, do so by quoting scholars and other relevant commentators with due weight. Your current editing comprises listings of often irrelevant material, such as obscure law-suits the content of which is often not even identified. You would be better served looking at good quality articles and learning how to identify key content and arguments. Nor can you expect us to defer to your own alleged superior experitise. Paul B (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Paul, for people doing research regarding higher education in the US, this information is not obscure. Nor is this information trivial for people interested in matriculating to ITT Tech. Please carefully check the USA Today article and see how many ITT campuses are "red flag" schools. ITT Tech dominates the list. If an organization dominates a list, does one just make a small footnote (e.g. years the Yankees won the World Series)?

That's why I am politely asking you to undo your edit.Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The best thing to do is to follow established Wikipedia policies as well as and content guidelines.

As to contacting ESI directly - that would only provide non-verifiable commentary, which falls under the category of original research - so their comments would not be directly usable within an article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean someone else has to write about the information first, for it to be credible and trustworthy for Wikipedia?

Barek, what happens when the media and other organizations systematically censor information? For example, no major news outlet has written about Richard Blum's relationship with for-profit colleges in five years, even as for-profit schools have gained greater public scrutiny. Conservative as well as liberal media outlets haven't touched the subject. Yet Richard Blum is a California Regent and Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband. Does that mean that this story is insignificant? link Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• You should read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and if you can't figure out how your comments here are completely at odds with what Wikipedia is, then you cannot edit here. I feel like I'm flogging a long-dead horse: no original research, and neutrality at all time. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Extra extra, all you Twitterers: you've read by now that Dahnshaulis told the world that "Wikipedia editors considering a ban on my activities for presenting too much information". Well, Dahnshaulis, they are not: they are considering a ban for your lousy and non-neutral editing, for your abuse of Wikipedia as a soapbox from which to declaim the rights and wrongs of the world. Wikipedia was not invented for that--that's what you have Twitter, MySpace, Wikia, and WordPress for. Let me just add that I am highly sympathetic to your cause, but you are going about it totally wrong--if you had had a bit less zeal and more smarts, you could have improved these articles and thereby bring out what some might refer to as the truth of, basically, taxpayer-funded "education" that does no one any service but the CEOs and stockholders. I would never say that; it's not a neutral statement.

  I am this close to blocking you per WP:NOTHERE, so you can ponder the problem with statements like "no major news outlet has written about Richard Blum's relationship with for-profit colleges in five years" (hint: if no reliable source has written about it, it can't be in an encyclopedia). Drmies (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dahnshaulis: You wrote, "Does that mean someone else has to write about the information first, for it to be credible and trustworthy for Wikipedia?" Yes, that's exactly what it means. You may have thought you were being ironic, but in fact you've quite accurately paraphrased the formal, written Wikipedia policy on this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Apparently this entire thread was archived--a bit too quickly for my taste, considering, for instance, this edit by Dahnshaulis on my talk page: "The people I named with close ties to for-profit colleges is well documented. Yet you decided to remove all the information. Is this how you work?" It exemplifies, pretty clearly, everything that's wrong here: it's a personal attack, it shows a lack of good faith, it exhibits the fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia this editor suffers from, and we can throw in WP:IDHT as well. Barek, Paul Barlow, Bahooka, and really everyone else: give me one good reason not to block this editor indefinitely, summarizing it as WP:NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding; I was off-line over the weekend.

From what I can see in Dahnshaulis' continued behavior, including the post you reference on your talk page, the user's primary motivator seems to be their attempt to address WP:GREATWRONGS. The WP:IDHT issues are a direct result, as site policies and guidelines that block that goal seems to be ignored.

At this point, I believe the only thing being accomplished by not blocking the user indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE is to provide them with more WP:ROPE. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:ROPE is a good philosophy when confusion and competency at editing on Wikipedia are an issue rather than vandalism. One of the editor's problems was the inability to cite his sources appropriately and his talk page reflects that ignorance. I provided links to referencing and citation help pages and, hopefully, he will take the opportunity to read up on what is expected from all editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Simply formatting a ref correctly is the least of the issues here. The much more serious concerns are documented above and revolve around article ownership issues, soapboxing, WP:IDHT, etc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I'm surprised they're not indef'd already. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor, possible sock?

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

---

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

I've been following this user's edits for a little while after I reverted an unsourced addition to an article I was watching back in November. I assumed that the user made a good-faith newbie mistake in not providing a source, and would either learn to add sources or stop editing, as most new users eventually do. However this user has developed a pattern of adding unsourced and frequently blatantly incorrect information to a random assortment of articles, sometimes inserting a reference which is not suitable (i.e. information does not appear in the reference [59] or reference doesn't exist [60]), always using the mobile editor and always incorrectly using one of the default edit summaries ("fixed grammar", "fixed typo", "adding links" are the favourites) which never actually describe the edit. The user's talk page is full of warnings about unsourced content and misleading edit summaries, and they were recently blocked (short-term, expired). I think this is a case of WP:CIR but I also thought that maybe this is a known sock that someone with more experience might be familiar with. They are active today; posting here for admin attention. Ivanvector (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Note: I'm not watching this page, ping me if needed.

I have no idea if they're a sock or not, but adding unsourced material with bogus edit summaries is disruptive on its own and they've continued after being blocked for it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week but leaning on forever and ever if it's a sock. Looking into it. seicer | talk | contribs 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

FWIW, I suspect by a google search that the so-called "2014 Saunders Nurse Handbook" is just a mistake for the "Saunders Nursing Drug Handbook 2014", not actually an invention of the editor... :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter

User:Paolowalter has made a personal attack upon me on a public talkpage,while i was making an edit,he reverted my edit based on a reliable source and also took the issue to the talkpage,launching multiple personal attacks and this isn't the first time he launch a personal attack against me,calling for my account to be locked for a year,and calling me a vandal https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&oldid=646550963#Daraa.3F i urge an admin to deal with his continued harassments against me.Alhanuty (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Skyline201

User:Skyline201 has been blocked twice for not heeding warnings about file uploads, and is still not getting it, maybe a longer block is needed. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

New block levied, effective until the end of the month. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Thank you, Would you have a minute to delete their files I have tagged, as they will not be able to address the issues ? If not no problem, they'll get deleted after the grace period. Thanx for your response. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think not. While going through the user's past uploads, I noticed some (example) that someone else had fixed up. If we wait until the time's up, it won't hurt, but deleting them now would make improvements of this sort impossible. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Figure8state

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

---

I need someone to make a block since I'm technically involved here. Long story short, I deleted the article The Resonance Project because it had several issues: notability, copyvio, and it was also a complete and total puff piece for the project. I posted an explanation on Figure8state's talk page explaining why I deleted the page, which prompted them to make some pretty WP:BADFAITH comments about Wikipedia, editors, and the guidelines in general. They then came to my talk page and made even more bad faith comments. I'd offered to help them with creating an article if they could provide coverage in reliable sources, but rather than offering sources Figure8state has just given more abuse, which includes creating a bit of a "slam board" on their userpage (User:Figure8state) and making vague threats on Gbawden's talk page to "begin a campaign to discredit and inform of the corruption of Wikipedia, the not-so-"free" encyclopedia". If they want to do that then that's fine- there are entire websites devoted to just that purpose, but I think that it's pretty safe to say that they're not here to positively contribute to Wikipedia and that they want to use Wikipedia to promote the Resonance Project and its lead figure Nassim Haramein. From how quickly this has escalated on my talk page and given their actions, I think that they just need to be permablocked. I'd do it myself but I am technically involved and it'd probably be better to have a third party do the block instead. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the complete thread from Tokyogirl79's talk page. I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to any attempt to permanently block me from Wikipedia, which in my opinion effectively amounts to denying my freedom of speech and freedom of expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figure8state (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• [rm poorly formatted text copied from User_talk:Tokyogirl79#Resonance_Project and still available there for your perusal. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)]
• First things first, Figure8state: "freedom of speech" does not apply here, on this privately-run website, and "freedom of expression" is just an illusion offered to you by a capitalist system whose sole interest is to sell and spoonfeed you preformatted and easily digested "expressions", in order to make you feel like a "truly unique individual". But that's just by the by. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Freedom of speech always applies...it's a basic human right...you saying that it doesn't apply here is disheartening...and particularly so after looking at your page and the types of articles you have contributed to, how can you have such wide varied intellectual curiosity and at the same time such ignorance of your own ability to affect this reality. I agree with your assessment of "freedom of expression", but knowing what you know you could be making a positive difference, and instead choose cynicism. What you fail to realize friend, is that you perceive to be moving through the world, but in reality the world moves around you. Wikipedia has an incredibly powerful influence on reality...all you editors here have immense power and responsiblity, remember that. Peace. Figure8state (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, sorry, but Wikipedia:Free speech is how it is. As for the rest of your comments, that's the nicest thing I've heard today. If only Mrs. Drmies realized she ought to revolve around me a bit more. But please, read the comment below, which has a direct bearing on your editorship here. All the best, Drmies (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What I'm looking for is information on how to delete my User Account? How does one go about accomplishing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figure8state (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• OK, Figure8state: I looked at the now-deleted article and it's totally promotional in tone and content. Now, I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Spam, and if you can't see how your article fell foul of those guidelines, then we're done here. And to clear one more thing up: "spam" here says nothing about your intent, or any possible business interest you might have, or any relation with the subject. You're not being accused of trying to make money off of Wikipedia. It's about tone and content of an article. (Also, I deleted your user page: those comments, and the copied conversation taken out of context, that's really not acceptable. Sorry.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• @Tokyogirl79: They're gone.--v/r - TP 17:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Conduct of JzG

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

---

Admin User:JzG called a user a "drama whore" after blocking him "preemptively", and attempted to blackmail him into accepting a topic ban involving "all articles related to gamergate (broadly construed), sexual identity and gender politics (broadly construed), editors and media involved in the aforementioned, including on Wikipedia noticeboards". I hope we can agree that this sort of cliquish and toxic behavior has not helped stem the hemorrhaging of Wikipedia's regular users a(there has been a 1/3rd drop in the past few years IIRC).

--ArmyLine (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The block was a week and a half ago.--MONGO 06:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question has a long history of behaviour not befitting his status as an administrator of the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 06:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Translation: I have a history of disagreeing with you over an article you are absolutely determined should not exist. Were you going to mention that at all? Guy (Help!) 07:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• The issue was reviewed at WP:AN 2 February 2015 and there is nothing that can be achieved by complaining again. ArmyLine is under an indefinite topic ban from gamergate (WP:ARBGG Remedies), and TyTyMang is yet another returned user who focuses on drama associated with gamergate (WP:ANI archive). Arbcom's "solution" did not account for the fact that there are many more gamergaters than good editors willing to fight with them (very civilly of course!) 365×24. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Reviewing Special:Contributions/ArmyLine suggests this user-page edit is the only non-gamergate action since June 2013, so I will explain that the reason Wikipedia is "hemorrhaging users" is that there are too many POV pushers attempting to use the encyclopedia for their own purposes. Dealing with them over and over and over makes all normal people leave. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that sort of "you made me mad so that's why I did this" rhetoric is similar to how JzG rationalized his behavior. Additionally, the fact that you checked me out for simply observing problematic behavior and were so fast to make accusations implies you aren't part of the solution, but that's for another time.--ArmyLine (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So, if someone is under a Gamergate topic ban and brings off-wiki coordinated Gamergate trolling to the drama boards, is that a violation of the ban? Guy (Help!) 07:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Evidently, yes. Blocked 3 days a week (for a repeated breach). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User:73.11.72.255

User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77. Upon being warned by BlackCab and myself on their talk page to discontinue their disruptive editing, User:73.11.72.255 deleted our warnings and put our names on a list of "Known Apostates" they created (since reverted by BlackCab with an additional warning by both myself and him). While I realize this is a quick request for a block, as they have only been editing for a few days, the reversions with no attempt at discussion and in particular the creation of the "Known Apostates" section I believe is warranted of an immediate block.

Diffs at User's talk page

1 2 3

Diffs at pages mentioned

Organizational Structure-4 5 6 7 8

Governing Body-9 10 11 12

Vyselink (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I did a copyedit after the editor's initial edits on the two articles indicated above. I retained some parts of the editor's initial changes where the changes did not misrepresent the cited sources. Since then, the IP editor restored their other changes and falsely claimed those changes were according to "consensus",[61] but the editor has not made any attempt to discuss any changes. The editor's subsequent personal attacks on BlackCab and Vyselink strongly suggests that the IP editor is unlikely to make any reasonable effort to work collaboratively on articles related to the religious denomination that is the subject of the articles above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A silly dispute about nothing. "User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77." It is called editing, and is in the nature of developing articles at Wikipedia. Is the HQ in New York HQ for JW, Governing Body or "the Society"? Could it be both, or even all three? I've followed this topic for several years, and Jeffro77's and BlackCab's oneminded critical view of all aspects of the religion is way undercommunicated. To state the views of former members well known for their highly critical view of the topic, like the IP has done, as "claims" rather than "state[ment]s", is may very fair. Dr. Penton have clearly stated the prosecution of JW during WWII was their own mistake, or at least a result of Rutherford's critic of the Nazi regime, a classic technique used by historical revisionists and right wing extremists about Jews. Further dr. Penton have, in the sourced book, expressed strong sympathy and long time correspondence for/with a mentioned Swedish historical revisionist. JW had disassociated with the revisionist because of his extreme views, while dr. Penton failed to communicate that the Swedish historical revisionist being one, and forgotten to mention the Swede's past as a former convict in Sweden (a modern, democratic country) for his extreme right wing Holocaust denial expressions. To use dr. Penton as a source for statements about JW, represents same quality of source selections as using nazists as a source for statements about the Jews: It is may worth mentioning his view, but as a view rather than a statement. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor has made no attempt to discuss their changes despite being asked. They are edit warring against a consensus view, which can be dealt with at the appropriate notice board, but it is unacceptable behaviour to label two editors with whom one disagrees as "known apostates". This is mindless hate behaviour and pretty extreme. BlackCab (TALK) 20:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Grrahnbahr's claim that I have a "one minded critical view" of the religion is demonstrated to be false by the many times I have also removed negative information about the religion. Additionally, far from being "undercommunicated", various editors—particularly Grrahnbahr himself—have frequently attempted to malign my motives (and those of BlackCab) when disputes arise about articles related to JWs. In fact, Grrahnbahr has previously reported me for supposed "edit warring"[62] in regard to four words in one sentence[63] that was the subject of discussion at Talk. (In that protracted ordeal, I actually restored the sentence to the same version that Grrahnbahr had restored five days prior,[64] which had been the stable version for many months; yet Grrahnbahr still attempted to impugn me by claiming that I had introduced an 'unsourced claim'. Clearly Grrahnbahr has an axe to grind. The article Talk discussion is at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_59#Biblical_Christianity; the discussion resulting from Grrahnbahr's frivolous accusation is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive236#User:Jeffro77 reported by User:Grrahnbahr (Result: Fully-protected).)

Regarding Grrahnbahr's assessment of the content of the IP editor's changes, this can be discussed at the article's Talk page, and per WP:BRD, the IP editor should have done exactly that after their edits were initially changed (though they were not completely reverted). But the IP editor has made no attempt to discuss anything, despite the editor's false claim of restoring "consensus". Grrahnbahr's description of the IP editor's persistent reversions without any discussion as simply "editing" is quite dishonest. The IP editor's initial edit was "editing", but the subsequent repeated reversions without discussion is "edit-warring". Grrahnbahr is well aware that disputed changes should be discussed at the article Talk page.

In an attempt to distract from various distortions introduced by the IP editor about what the cited sources actually say, Grrahnbahr has attempted to highlight some of the minor semantic changes instead, such as the IP editor's less accurate description of the headquarters. Additionally, Grrahnbahr's deviation into Penton's supposed views of the Holocaust has no relevance to any of the disputed changes. Most of the changes are to text that isn't even sourced to Penton, and none relate to the Holocaust.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Several editors have been trying to straighten out articles in certain religious areas from pervasive bias. There are 2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion, and these same editors persist in re-adding negative information about that religion to certain lightly-viewed articles. There is a strong feeling of ownership over these articles by these few critics, and a reading of the talk page will show their continued attempts to overcome well-intentioned and clearly-sourced corrections. Jeffro, BlackCab, and to a lesser extent Vyselink have been editing these religious articles continuously for many years, and their apparent negative personal experiences with the religious group affect their edits. Perhaps they should step back and let fresh eyes wash away any unintentional bias. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The claim about "2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion" is a lie. Only BlackCab has such a Userbox. As I have previously stated when falsely accused by pro-JW editors on Wikipedia, I have never personally accepted JW beliefs, though I have relatives in the religion.

It is not clear what "negative information" has been added to the articles being discussed, and this is the first time the IP editor has made any attempt to discuss any of their changes. The editor is still yet to engage in any discussion about the specific content at the article's Talk page.

For several years, I have edited Wikipedia articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The pro-JW editors call me 'anti-JW' and the anti-JW editors call me 'pro-JW'. Overall, it's a pretty good sign that my edits on the subject are neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor has also added a bogus warning about supposedly 'biased content' at Vyselink's User Talk page, but Vyselink has only restored the stable version of the article that was already supported by existing sources.

When the IP editor initially made their changes, I removed only the parts of their changes that did not properly represent the cited sources, as well some mundane issues such as wordiness. Other elements of the IP editor's changes were retained. However, the IP editor has shown no desire to work collaboratively, or to discuss any element of article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that BlackCab has such a userbox, while Vyselink states the same in the text of his user page. It appears that your close coordination with them in attempting to override clear consensus caused me to lump you in with them unfairly. I thank you for your attempts to be unbiased, however after extensive discussion we have decided to move forward with the proposed changes. If you have any concerns, you are welcome to explain them in the usual manner. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that's as close to an apology as I will get from you in regard to the lie about the Userbox and religious affiliation.

There has not been any discussion of the proposed changes. If you believe there are problems with bias in the articles, you should start a relevant section at the articles' Talk pages raising your specific concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop saying I lied. You were working with two editors who had a disclosed bias against a certain religious group; I somehow got it in my head that you had the same bias. It was a mistake that was quickly uncovered. The repeated undesirable edits are more of a problem. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been 'working with' the other editors any more than I've been 'working with' you. Except that you refuse to discuss your changes. You haven't indicated anything about what is supposedly 'undesirable'. As an example, you've claimed in your edit summary that referring to the Watch Tower Society's publications as "Watch Tower Society literature" and calling their headquarters their headquarters and saying the Governing Body don't call themselves "leaders" are all "inappropriate". You need to articulate why you believe those things to be "inappropriate", since they are plain statements of fact that are more accurate than the wording you keep asserting. You should do so at the articles' Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - the editor User:2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0, who has been making the same edits in tandem with the other IP editor named above, is now playing tedious games. After I advised the editor that the changes they are seeking to introduce to the stable version of the article should be explained at Talk after they've been disputed, the editor is childishly claiming that it's actually me who introduced changes to the article. With this kind of behaviour, it seems unlikely that the editor will ever be able to meaningfully contribute to Wikipedia. See User_talk:2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (only one Talk section).--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Grrahnbahr has the correct view above. Jeffro and 1 or 2 others have been editing these articles for many years, and seem to strongly resist any changes not made by them. However, we have been working to resolve all the disputes, but Jeffro has not yet shown any willingness to work collaboratively. Instead, he and one of his associates have repeatedly made threats of blocking and banning rather than discussing using normal Wikipedia processes - processes I have used for over 5 years. He may need a preventative block for 24 hours to regain perspective if he does not stop the disruptive editing. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no 'associates' on Wikipedia.

It remains contingent on you as the editor who is insisting on changes to the stable version of the article to indicate why you believe them to be improvements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the sort of "I didn't hear that" behavior that has become troubling and makes me feel Jeffro has developed ownership feelings toward the article. He insists on his preferred version as the "good version", and pretends not to understand that by "associates" I mean "the 1 or 2 other people who are making the same types of edits you are - edits against the consensus" 73.11.72.255 (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not insisted on 'my' version of the article at all, but simply the stable version of the article from before you began making changes and then refusing to discuss them. No 'consensus' whatsoever has been established for your edits. Based on the principles at WP:BRD, after your initial edits were challenged, it is contingent on you to discuss your changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment The IP editor has finally begun 'discussing' at article Talk, in a highly combative manner and apparently under duress after repeated warnings of their inappropriate conduct. The editor is continuing to misrepresent their changes to the article as the stable version. It seems unlikely that it will be possible to work with the editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Block of Jeffro77 possibly needed - Jeffro77 continues making personal attacks above despite repeated warnings. He is dismissive of any views other than his own, and is determined to force through his preferred versions over the versions supported by sources and the other IP editors. I remain very open to discussion once he stops making attacks and threats and is ready to move forward in a collaborative fashion. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Now he's just lying outright about alleged personal attacks. There have been no personal attacks. The editors continue to misrepresent their recent changes as the 'stable version', which is another lie. It is not possible to work with these two IP editors, who are clearly working in collusion. (Earlier in this thread, one of the editors said "extensive discussion we have decided", but no on-Wiki discussion exists, so they are collaborating off-site.) I'm going to leave the article for a while until admins have addressed the edit-warring and belligerent behaviour of the IP editors involved here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppet alert: It is still unclear whether identical edits from the two IP addresses are being made by one person or two. This edit, however, from an IPv6 address, was signed as the IP editor 73.11.72.255. That same IPv6 address was later used to continue the edit war at Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, using precisely the same edit as IP editor 73.11.72.255. (See [65][66] and the whole edit-warring sequence at that article). In any case 73.11.72.255 on his own is on the verge of breaching 3RR.

It is also highly amusing that the declaration on my user page that I am ex-JW proves "bias", while the IP editor whose edits bear all the hallmarks of a JW member is just trying to, you know, "straighten out" the article. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this thread began with a complaint that the IP editor had decided on his user page to brand me and another editor as "known apostates"[67]. That sort of cranky religious hate language, a term widely used by JWs to denigrate former members, is a fairly good indicator of the motives of this editor in trying to "straighten out" the article and, indeed, have a long-standing editor blocked. BlackCab (TALK) 12:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:73.11.72.255's "warning" on my talk page is interesting, as I have (as has been stated by other editors above) not INSERTED any new information, but reverted to the original information which, at the time of my revert, had not been discussed. I see that they have now, belatedly, started discussions in a very contentious manner on those pages, while attempting to shift the blame to myself and other editors for "changing" information, which is categorically false and verifiable by anyone who looks at the pages edit history. As for being in collusion with "1 or 2" other editors (I assume BlackCab and Jeffro77) this claim has been made in the past and it is false. I do not know BlackCab or Jeffro77, and my talk page clearly states that I was raised a JW, but have never believed, and that I rarely edit those articles except in the cases of obvious vandalism, such as the IP editors are currently engaged in. I have no bias against JW's, as (current IP editors aside) they have been nothing but great to me personally, and have changed my mother's life very much for the better, allowing her to stop smoking and drinking and generally be a much better and happier person because of it. I have made exactly 4 edits to the "Governing Body" page, all in response to vandalism, and until the recent vandalism, the one I had made before that was in 2012, which was also in response to vandalsim. As for the "Organizational Structure" page, the only edits I have ever made to that page have been to reverse the current IP editors vandalism. Both editors have mistakenly asserted that there is "consensus" for their changes, and I agree with BlackCab's sock puppet warning as being something that an admin should take a closer look into. Vyselink (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Time to close? - This complaint can probably be closed now. Jeffro has calmed down, and the other two editors on his side, BlackCab and Vyselink, are acting in a less militant fashion. The bit about sockpuppetry is a diversion. My IP address changes between IPv4 and IPv6, I don't know why as it is the same connection. There are some edits from an IP that are not me, so I think there are at least 2 IP editors, perhaps 3, editing under dynamic addresses. 2601:7:1980:5B5:21C2:E1D6:3861:74AB (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Er, no. The suggestion that the complaint "can probably be closed now" comes from the subject of the complaint himself who, after removing from his talk page warnings for 3RR and sock-puppetry [68] continues to edit-war under dual IP accounts. [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]. The user admits he is behind both IP addresses[76] but disingenuously suggests other editors are sharing his IP address, presumably to reinstate his own material. BlackCab (TALK) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, what? You and I have both been the subject of recent "complaints" and I want to encourage you to stop personal attacks and focus on the articles. I have said for some time that my IP address sometimes shows up as IPv4 and sometimes as IPv6, I don't know why. However, there are other IP addresses editing these articles that I have nothing to do with. There is nothing odd or suspicious about any of this... 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other IP edits in other ranges that have been editing the articles recently, and certainly not in support of your edits. Of recent edits to the articles you've been editing, which IP edits are you claiming are not your edits? There has actually been only one other IP edit on only one of the articles you've edited. That editor introduced a copyright violation, which you persist in restoring when I've tried to remove it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There have been edits from seven separate IPv6 addresses on the relevant articles. All of the addresses begin with "2601:7:1980:5B5", confirming that they are all on the same network. If they are not the same person, they are different persons on the same network colluding together.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro77, BlackCab, and Vyselink conspiring - I have tried at great length to deal with you in a kind manner. However, additional efforts may be necessary to overcome the apparent schemes that involve conspiring and colluding to produce lies. I will no longer be editing any of these articles. But you are put on warning that you will have to answer for your error. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, now I'm "evil" for pointing out that you lied about IP addresses being unrelated. You've edit warred for several days and only attempted to superficially engage in discussion after you were reported to admins. You have lied about the stable version of the article. You have lied about consensus for your changes. You have lied about providing new sources. I'm not sure what is intended by "harsher chastisement", but I certainly hope its not intended as a legal threat.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Lies by anti-religious activist Jeffro77 - I have never lied about anything. I told you from the beginning that my IP kept changing. Another IP posted some things about creationism in one of the articles that you reverted at the same time, so I didn't want to take credit for all IP contributions. You sure know how to play the Wikipedia game with your NLT accusations.2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ho hum... now I'm an "activist". Where do I find the time!

So your threat about "harsher chastisement" it was just a meaningless assertion about an irrelevant theological opinion? Rightio. You're most welcome to imagine whatever scenario you like where I'm tortured and killed by your preferred deity. Enjoy. (Who even says "chastisement" anymore?)

You claimed there "there are some edits from an IP that are not me" and that there were "at least 2 IP editors, perhaps 3". The only other IP editor has only made one edit (pasting an entire article form the source, which is a copyright violation) on one article, and that article isn't one of the two that generated this discussion. You suggested that "they" are "editing under dynamic addresses", which is a conclusion no one could draw from a single edit by one editor. Your new claim that you only referred to that one editor is therefore false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I see there's been some historical revisionism of the IP editor's 'kindness'.[77]--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Admins Please Take Notice: At this point I believe that the block on both the IP originally addressed in the complaint and also for the other IP he has been using (2601:7 etc just above) is called for immediately and permanently. While he may insist that he will no longer be editing it is irrelevant at this point. His latest edit at my talk page, as well as I believe at Jeffro77's, clearly shows he has absolutely no intention of attempting to reach consensus and having a reasonable debate about his changes. The veiled threat of being "put on warning that you will answer for your error" (mentioned above here) and the veiled threat at my talk page (see link, but it reads "you may face serious consequences for your actions") while obviously the ramblings of a disgruntled IP user who can't get his own way, seal the deal as far as a permanent block is concerned. The history of the IP users edits, his original personal attack on myself and BlackCab by naming us a "Known Apostates", and his complete refusal to even tell the truth about what he himself has said is getting absurd, and taking valuable time from myself, BlackCab, and Jeffro77 to continually attempt to mitigate the damage, as well as wasting space on this ANI noticeboard. Vyselink (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Vyselink may need preventative block - Like Jeffro and BlackCab, Vyselink is part of a group trying to invent reasons to block people who disagree with him. I suggest a topic ban for the three of them from this area. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

After making bizarre religious threats to editors who have reverted him,[78][79][80][81] IP editor has since gone on a rampage of blatant POV editing on a range of JW articles. EdJohnston has blocked IP access to some articles he has already tampered with, but he continues to find others, including Charles Taze Russell, Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Jehovah's Witnesses practices. Some prompt blocking action would be appreciated. BlackCab (TALK) 09:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Tell us more about "religious threats"... what does that mean to you exactly? I tried to disengage from the two of you but you have taken to following me around to revert my edits on sight. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of events - BlackCab has been editing articles related to certain religious denominations in a way that reflects bias in favor of the denomination. Perhaps he is a member? In any event, Jeffro77 has a similar ownership tendency along a different POV. All the new editors to these articles are being chased away by their automatic reverts going back 5+ years - look at the article histories. I told them they would need to discuss matters rather than just ignore earnest efforts to improve neutrality and sourcing. BlackCab and Jeffro now stalk me and revert my edits on other articles. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

IP 73.11 has clear POV issues with this area e.g. this amongst many others - I would suggest a topic ban initially, followed by blocks if that does not work. GiantSnowman 11:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP have no more POV issues than some of the other users contributing to the topic. The IP may need to adjust and adapt to be a productive editor, but the ban proposal seems to be based on the IP's views rather than behave. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor's behaviour is indeed certainly a significant problem. The editor has lied about consensus,[82] about sources[83] (none of the editor's changes provide additional sources), about who has introduced changes,[84] and about his identify as other IPs (says multiple IPs weren't him[85]; says all but one were him[86]). Subsequently, the editor has engaged in retributive editing, refusing to comment on content instead of contributors, and bizarre threats about 'judgement by god'.[87]

It is also telling that at the outset of this discussion you characterised the editor's repeated reversions to their preferred version of significant changes to multiple articles as merely "editing", but you have previously reported me for changing four words in one sentence (diffs supplied earlier in discussion). As such, there are indeed some POV problems to be addressed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

To lie about anything is not a reason for imposing bans, even less if it is not intentional ("lie" imply it is done on purpose). Presenting "religious threaths" is may not good conduct, but probably no reason for a ban, while legal threaths are. Making use of puppets could be a reason. User:GiantSnowman introduced users with clear POV issues, while I can't see the IP being in a more POV positions than other users editing topic-related articles. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks:

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

I've blocked 73.11.72.255 (talk · contribs) for engaging in a long-term pattern of edit warring about the Jehovah's Witnesses and being unwilling to wait for consensus. This editor appear to be switching between this IP and 2601:7:1980:5b5:0::/64 in conducting these wars. Consensus can change, and nothing prevents our articles about the Jehovah's Witnesses from being updated by reaching agreement on talk pages, using the normal steps of WP:Dispute resolution when needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, can you also give closer consideration to Grrahnbahr's behaviour in this matter, along with his history of attacking my edits? He has characterised this IP editor's edit-warring as simply "editing"; he's claimed that the IPs editor's dishonest assertions about consensus, sources, stable article versions and IPs were not "done on purpose"; he has previously reported me for much less (as indicated above and with full details in the earlier linked discussion—that was for restoring the same edit he did, and he admitted during that debacle that he had a separate agenda). It is evident that Grrahnbahr has an agenda to support pro-JW editors and argue against editors who provide a more neutral view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

1) I am not the subject for this AN/I 2) @Jeffro77: havent discussed his concern on my talk page ("Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page") 3) Jeffro77 is suggesting an investigation of me, without notyfying me, or even pinging me ("When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page"). The IP was blocked, and it was not given I would return to this discussion. I was not a subject of any discussion until Jeffro77's last post. 4) The reasons for a suggested investigation was me alleged having an agenda of supporting "pro-JW" editors. I find any allegations of me arguing against editors who provide a neutral view of any topic, the mentioned one included, as ridiculous. 5) I've produced tens of thousands edits in several wikimedia projects, and have started a four digit articles in several languages, and a number of featured articles and lists in the same projects, including one directly related to this topic. It is not an excuse for anything related to conduct, but, a couple of editors from English JW-related articles are the only editors complaining about my conduct. 6) It is not a violation against anything to support a new editor at wikipedia. The IP will probably never return for editing now, so good work! I'll leave this discussion, since this isn't my AN/I. Any investigations or actions against me will be taken seriously, and would thus require a proper notification on my userpage. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have simply responded to the comments that you have already made in this ANI. Your claim that you haven't been advised is therefore disingenuous, as is your claim that your actions had not been called into question until my immediately previous comment. In the scope of this ANI, I first raised the problems with your ongoing bias on 6 February after your response at this ANI on 5 February. It is incredibly dogmatic to insist that I 'advise' you about a discussion in which you're already involved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In case it's not obvious, I would also point out that Grrahnbahr complains that 'he is not the subject of this ANI', yet in his very first comment at this thread, he specifically sought to implicate my editing history on articles about JWs, though I was neither the subject of this ANI, nor the editor who raised it. I received no 'warning' from Grrahnbahr that he was disputing my conduct. Why does Grrahnbahr have a hypocritical double-standard here? And yet he characterised the IP editor's repeated edit warring and blatant dishonesty as "a dispute about nothing".--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Problems on the American Sniper page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Original poster has found a suitable venue to resolve the content dispute. Interlopers who appear to be block shopping should stop that activity. If there is a long term pattern of abuse, as they seem to allege, it would probably be best dealt with at arbitration. This board doesn't have the attention span for a close reading of many years worth of contributions by an active editor. Jehochman ^Talk 01:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

---

After putting it to a vote, the official Wikipedia consensus was for the Controversies page to be merged into the main page. I have gone to extremes to put in the work to greatly compress the the articles within it, and to compromise with the other users. However, in spite of this, and multiple warnings, the user MONGO keeps making crude partisan personal attacks on the talk page, and far more significantly, the user DHeyward is attempting to censor all of the additions wholesale, in fragrant violation of the official Wikipedia decision, and all the work that I put in to summarise the critical articles into one sentence each, with no compromise whatsoever. I would greatly appreciate an intervention. Thank you very much for any help. Here is the current Talk section. David A (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for the personal attacks? Having been the subject of MONGO's attacks in the past, I would like to see something done about this. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hum...somebody should remind David A if he's going to level false accusations he needs to learn common courtesy and leave a note on that editor's talkpage. Since I have this page watchlisted no need now, but thanks for nothing. There aren't any personal attacks unless calling it as it is is a personal attack. David A seems to be in severe violation of the undue weight clause of NPOV and is engaged in POV pushing on the aforementioned article. No amount of reasoning about what is and what isn't reliable sources and quality of sources seems to matter. Merge meant that the article mentioned needed to have critical reviews mentioned, but David A and one or two others believe that means the article is to be once again a coatrack of opinion pieces. The article critique was condensed to avoid the coatrack, a POV fork was created (not by David A) and then nominated for deletion and the vote was to merge back, but nothing was ever taken out of the main article in great details until now and I wasn't party to that!--MONGO 06:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have that much of a problem with MONGO, but rather with DHewyard's massive censoring of references, but here are a few quotes from MONGO at the American Sniper Talk page:

“Its kind of fascinating to me that rags like Salon actually pay people of limited journalist integrity and zero ability to do investigative journalism (these tall tales would never hold up in a court of law) to write articles for them....I guess there is a target audience of persons with a predisposed bias that only want to read about things that support their biases.“

“I think it would be fair that if radicals and anti-American bigots and non expert opinions about movie crafting are to have their useless opinions quoted, then there is no reason to not elaborate in a few words to a sentence why each of these non experts likely hold such opinions.”

“Looks like a laundry list of wimps armed with a typewriter. “American Sniper’s” biggest lie: Clint Eastwood has a delusional Fox News problem... is this person insane or something?...nevermind, they "write" for the overtly left wing biased Salon. I think for every pro or con opinion, we should help frame some examples of those person's other viewpoints, to add perspective to their ridiculous biases.”

“I think the Michelle Obama quote is as worthless as the ones that rag on the movie. Who is she anyway, a Presidents wife...big deal. She isn't a movie critic anymore than I am. Look...we really need to stop all this quotefarming. I wouldn't mind seeing very brief quotes from movie critics but otherwise all we have are writers using the movie as an excuse to go off on some pro war, pro soldier or the opposite of that vein to promote their political viewpoints which are not relevant to the movie.”

“He writes for Salon, a left wing rag...of course they are going to obfuscate his firing because he now works for them in their efforts to propagate more biased "reporting" to continue to get their fan base to read their nonsense. Its pretty funny to think that even the Obama administration would have found his tweets and other commentary worrisome enough to pressure that PAC to remove him.” "Bullshit..."

"It won't be much longer before the Democratic Party in the U.S. sees a total abandonment of Jewish support what with the radical left being so antisemitic... (Caution: That's a link to Fox News website and they have fixed it so their cookies can vaporize lefties computers!!! Just wanted to give you a heads up)"

“The "writers" that are busy writing vicious garbage about the movie and Kyle say zero about the beheadings and those being burned alive by ISIS. That is the definition of mental illness. For every lousy opinion piece I'm going to write qualifying comments in the article to help put perspective on why some of these people have such hate.”

“The article is not going to be the new coatrack for every hate filled opinion piece that are primarily from those using the movie as an excuse to unload a barrage of lies and misepresentaruons. “

“this article is not going to be drowned out by every wimps opinion about the movie, provided in long winded quotes that have about as much worth as a dog turd to us, an encyclopedia.” “Well...the thing is that no one really reading the article could care less what some opinions are by anyone. They want to know what the movie is about and the mechanics of it. The sane know that the opinions are just opinions and could care less.”

“I've narrowed it down to 13 critiques...a few more are pretty much just opportunistic rants that discuss the movie only in cursory detail. That's still 13 critiques...I really have no idea what the complaints are about that the article doesn't have a critique section. Even if we eliminated a half dozen more of the most ridiculous opinion pieces it would still be undue weight to have the remaining ones in.”

“The controversy is mainly a stirred up concoction by people that want to use the movie to promote their unvisionary personal opinions about the war, snipers, Kyle and Eastwood and take pop shots and make shitty accusations about rednecks, Americans or gun right supporters. Its some of the lowest low ball bullshit I have ever read and is fascinating to me that while these "writers" get carte blanche to saw some of the most vicious things I have ever read, if people like me call them on their bullshit I'm somehow engaged in personal attacks. I'm going to take down a few more of these "critiques".”

"No one is trying to do anything but keep ranting raving opinions masquerading as movie reviews out of the article."

Personally, I find this kind of language crude and offensive, but unlike DHeyward, he has actually been willing to compromise. David A (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been pretty active on that and the related Chris Kyle page but the truth is almost all of your last 250 edits spanning the last 2 plus weeks has been on this topic...as shown here...and you wonder why I might view you as a single purpose account with an agenda? Seriously...why wouldn't anyone view it that way? Your purpose at least for this period has been solely to put as much negative bias in that article as you can get away with...please correct me if I am wrong. To be fair here is my last 250 edits...[88]--MONGO 06:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been active on Wikipedia for 9 years running. I am not remotely a single-purpose account. However, I do have OCD, and get fixated on things. My attention has been splintered between different things outside of Wikipedia however. David A (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, cannot help you with that, but none of my alleged "personal attacks" were ever at you but about the SOURCES which I can say any thing I please about. You couldn't get all the attacks in the article so a POV fork (which you voted to keep) was created which was discussed at Afd and closed to be merged back but the majority of the most related negativity was still in the article...so when you can't add more and more and more you come here to complain about it? as a lesson plan, view Wikipedia:Criticism, which makes it clear that a controversies or criticism section, while not against guidelines, should be cautiously applied or avoided if possible. By creating and maintaining a section devoted solely to controversies or negative critique, we run the risk of it being used as a coatrack.--MONGO 07:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You've provided evidence that MONGO may be misusing the talk page. I say "may" because we don't have all the facts just yet. In the past, MONGO has had difficulty controlling himself on political topics due to his simplistic, black and white way of viewing the world. Reasonable people understand that reality isn't bifurcated between left or right. In any case, you've also shown that MONGO has made personal accusations against you in this thread that lack substance. I can't comment on the other issues without more evidence. If you choose to provide, add diffs instead of quotes. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Edit differences take a lot of time to sift through, but I will check if I can find them. David A (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, as I said, I have far less of a problem with MONGO's crude language than I have with DHeyward's tendency to censor, but here are a few edit differences: [89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104] David A (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas...you've no room to yack...lets look at your block log and history of warnings shall we?--MONGO 07:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Will that help distract us from looking at your behavior mentioned in this report? Does the talk page require your running commentary about politics? Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If the sources are nothing but partisan attacks about politics and not real movie reviews then they should be identified as what they are. If they were legitimate reviews (and some are) then no reason they cannot stay. But honestly, how many disruptive editing blocks have you had ? and you're throwing stones because you have a score to settle? Cute.--MONGO 07:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Having been the subject of your unprovoked attacks before, I can sympathize with the OP. I'm not the type of person who is out to settle scores, so I think you are confusing me with someone else, perhaps yourself. Thankfully, we are very different people. I just want your attacks to stop, that's all. As for your political commentary, I have to say that I don't have very much faith in your critical abilities when it comes to an unbiased opinion. You are probably a little too close to this topic, both on a personal and a professional level. Therefore, it would be sensible if you took a step back and removed yourself from the article. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, not going to step away from the article until the POV pushing stops. I've made it clear that I think all the critique both pro and con needs to be balanced...but the OP merely removed the negative quotes and left a laundry list of links. As far as partisanship, speak for yourself.--MONGO 07:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have diffs supporting your claim about POV pushing? I'm responding only to the evidence I've seen in this thread, namely, evidence that you've engaged in disruptive editing and levied false accusations. Do you still maintain that the OP is an SPA or will you be issuing an apology? Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The wordiness of your complaint without a single diff or actionable item sums up your contribution to American Sniper (film). The consensus was to "merge", not copy the POV fork into a new POV section. This is a content dispute and I trimmed the content of its QUOTEFARM 'controversy[ (both positive and negative). I removed grand introductions (appeal to Authority) of the people being quoted in the quotefarm and I removed fluff that wasn't related to the film. The decision to merge isn't "copy/paste." It means a thoughtful inclusion of valid criticism that meets our objectives of NPOV, UNDUE weight and reliable sources. There are literally thousands of film reviewers in notable and reliable local papers yet we don't want an article that simply repeats the same thing. We could literally write hundreds of pages of "John Smith, film critic for the Ottumwa, Iowa Daily Express and graduate of the USC School of Film called America Sniper a delightful film that gave us tender insight into the trials and tribulations of soldiers tasked with figfhting wars. He said "Eastwood was brilliant in capturing the subtle nuances of the distinction between battle and home life." I could write a hundred pages of that crap, just as you did for the "controversy" section but it's not how ewell written articles are constructed. I'm sorry the film isn't as controversial as you wish to make it nut that doesn't mean we sacrifice standards. --DHeyward (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have never remotely suggested to censor all of the positive responses. There have been a massive amount of articles criticising the film with eloquent well-worded valid arguments, that you attempted to censor wholesale. You just compared said critics with the Ku Klux Klan. I had enormously compressed just what seemed to be the most relevant 9 of all the references from the merged criticism article into one brief summary sentence each, while keeping the section balanced by affording the positive defense of the movie more room than the critics, and I had also accepted to cut away several articles that MONGO took issue with. And there was a Talk page agreement to keep to this compromise. Then out of nowhere, you decided to censor 95% of everything, in an effort to cover up that a controversy even exists, simply out of personal bias. Even the New York Times has written about the controversy in articles. It is definitely very notable. David A (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

David A, ANI can't handle content disputes, only behavior. If the behavior of MONGO and DHeyward has made the editing environment difficult, you'll need to provide diffs to personal attacks, disruptive edits, and other behavioral problems such as reverts. If DHeyward has indeed "censored" an article, that would be a violation of NPOV. Again, we need diffs. Don't focus on content, just behavior. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well here are his latest attempts: [105] [106][107][108] [109] [110][111][112] David A (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: given this thread, there appears to be much more than a content dispute at work here. I'm seeing personal attacks from MONGO in this thread alone. David A has also offered quotes from the talk page indicating that MONGO takes a battleground approach. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but OP says that his issue is with me and I've not made any personal attacks or any battleground behavior. I've made within police edits that adhere to MOS standards for both general encyclopedic articles and specific MOS standards for films. OP hs not provided a single diff of an edit I've made. I've not censored anything, rather I cut down long rambling quotes and puffery introductions to simple sentences. I merged it into the critical response section. I'm not sure what else I can do here. --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

For a similar movie that had widespread appeal but some controversy, see Avatar (2009 film) for its portrayal of the soldiers and their identification as being U.S. Marines or simply U.S. military in general. Note the lack of a controversy section the OP created in America Sniper (film) or the long drawn out individual quotes by critics. The controversy is summarized in a short paragraph that is according to its proper weight. There is no reason to believe the controversy here should be treated differently. Trim it and integrate to a level that is commensurate with a hugely successful film with large amounts of critical acclaim.. --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful that Mongo or the other editor discussed here negatively is making any thing other than guideline type of edits. This is a content dispute where a lot of personal animosity is driving it. The Afd discussion said to merge, but the material was already still here in this article. IjonTichyIjonTichy...you are the one that has been blocked and warned multiple times in the past and nothing seems to have changed. You couldn't get what you wanted here, so you created a POV fork that was almost immediately nominated for deletion and you're using your sandbox to stage more stuff. If there is disruptive editing going on here its from you....something you have been blocked for in the past.--MONGO That is a fact IjonTichyIjonTichy was or is topic banned in at least one area for completely ignoring consensus and edit warring over and over and over. Mongo also has been a guideline editing 'type' from my experience. I think toss this one in the garbage. Content dispute with no real personal attacks in that but lots of old fights from other things being hashed out. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing much more than a content dispute at work here; I'm seeing serious behavior problems. As it stands American Sniper falls under the standard discretionary sanctions imposed by the American politics ruling. If the talk page isn't already tagged as such, it should be, and all active editors in this thread should be given the sanction warning. Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh? That's pretty far off the deep end...you must have an agenda! Wow!--MONGO 08:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll ignore your latest personal attack. Far from being off the deep end, according to WP:ARBAPDS, the Wikipedia article on American Sniper, as well as any other articles directly connected to that topic, are currently under arbcom sanctions. Please consider yourself warned. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I typed is a personal attack. The article in question is a movie biography and is not a political article like the Tea Party Movement or similar.--MONGO 08:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Everything you typed falls afoul of our civility and personal attack policies. You may want to read them again to understand why referring to someone and their ideas as crazy is not the right approach. Further, the type of article has no bearing on our arbcom sanctions. Arbcom is very clear: This case relates to behavioural issues from many articles spanning multiple topics. All the involved articles and instances of misconduct relate to political or social issues in the United States...Placing all pages dealing with such a broad subject under sanctions is not desirable, but neither is having continuous disruption of content as the problems move from one area to another. Please read the case pages again. This report highlights a dispute involving American politics and social issues. As such, it falls under the broad remit of arbcom. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Its an article about a movie biography, the politics are manufactured. There is broadly construed and then there is overly broadly construed. I fail to see how this article has a thing to do with political or social issues related to politics. All this discussion is about is about whether we incorporate real movie reviews or articles pretending to be movie reviews.--MONGO 08:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it doesn't matter if it's about a film in the slightest; we have plenty of films under similar political and social sanctions. This film in particular falls directly under the American politics sanctions, and your own words about the film (quoted above) prove this to be true. When you say, " I fail to see how this article has a thing to do with political or social issues related to politics", one has to take a step back and wonder if you expect anyone to take you seriously. You yourself said that your singular motivation for participating in this dispute was to prevent political positions you disagree with from appearing the article. You said that. You referred to these American political positions as those of "radicals and anti-American bigots", people with "overtly left wing biased" views, "Michelle Obama", "a Presidents wife", " political viewpoints", a "left wing rag", the "Obama administration", a "PAC", " the Democratic Party in the U.S.", the "radical left", "personal opinions about the war", and "rednecks, Americans or gun right supporters". That's a sample of your own words from the talk page as quoted above, and they represent what arbcom calls "political or social issues in the United States". According to Variety, "the film brutally exposes the unprecedented civil-military divide that exists in America after 9/11." Those are political and social issues in the U.S. Got it? Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Now David A, who didn't bother to inform either myself or DHeyward about this notice, claiming he didn't yet have time, has decided to solicit another editor that has been in agreement with him on the edits to join the discussion here [113].--MONGO 08:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, I was switching from my notepad to my computer, and having some breakfast. I am a slow-moving individual, and you reacted quicker than I did. I apologise about this, but was going to inform both of you, and as I said on his talk page, I was just going to do so with DHeyward when I noticed that you had already done so. Aside from that, there is nothing wrong with informing the other involved parties as well. David A (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, well, I am sure you are being honest but so you know, according to Wikipedia:Canvassing, "...canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."--MONGO 08:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

David A's notice falls under the category of appropriate canvassing and was not disruptive. However, you have once again attempted to change the subject by wikilawyering over an unrelated issues. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So now you're accusing me of wikilawyering and its not unrelated...he was invited here! Viriditas, I'm watchlisting your talkpage so I can enjoy the next block you get yourself into. Your commentary here, which is not helping solve the dispute will be ignored.--MONGO 08:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, my concern is just that I don't want the section to be completely censored, as I think that some of the cited articles make very valid points. It would be nice if some admins could step in and make a ruling what to do with it. David A (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

An admin isn't going to have any more weight about content than either of us. My asking or pointing or things such as your editing history is not a personal attack, nor is my commentary about the lackluster opinion pieces that are not actually reviews of the movie. If I was POV pushing I could go out and find 200 positive reviews and then badger everyone ad nausea about the need to have them in the article...so all I am doing is trying to keep this mess NPOV.--MONGO 09:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

But I have attempted to keep it NPOV by allowing the positive defense of the movie to be allowed more room than the criticism. In addition, there is the reviews section, which does include lots of positive views about the movie. David A (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

David A, admins won't make a "ruling" about content, only behavior, as you've previously been informed. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This looks like old animosities revving up a content dispute, and this sure looks like canvassing with an actual introduction to the canvassers opinion instead of a call to edit in good faith. [114] Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We're discussing behavior not content, and it's already been explained that the canvassing was legitimate and appropriate. I see no "old animosities" anywhere in this thread. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note, several days prior to the creation of this report, MONGO was repeatedly warned about making personal attacks on Talk:American Sniper (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sniper (film) controversies.[115][116] It therefore seems appropriate to ask the community to put an end to this pattern of behavior as the user is unable to control himself. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The main issue here and at the related articles seems to me to be that the over-emphasis on "controversy" is turning the page into a coatrack of complaints about the Iraq war and US foreign policy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor in this dispute, I can only recommend that you look at the outcome of the AfD for American_Sniper_(film)_controversies, which found consensus to merge the content into American Sniper (film).[117] It sounds like you are saying that the editors involved in this dispute are preventing the community consensus formed in the recent AfD from being implemented. I would like to recommend a way forward. Any administrator may add an entry for "American_Sniper_(film)" to the enforcement log over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Enforcement_log and tag the article and warn the editors. Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not often a good idea to give administrators special powers to influence content. These things are best worked out among editors on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a biographical film about a non-political subject. The politics are manufactured creations. Your definition of "American Politics" would place virtually every article in WP under sanction. Sorry but that's just not the case. This is an apolitical movie with patriotic elements. Patriotism and military service is not political. --DHeyward (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the documented greatly increased hostility towards Arabs and Muslims, and ongoing death, rape, etcetera threats against critics, following the movie, how is it avoiding to make a political statement? David A (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was in my version. Since I'm against "increased hostility towards Arabs and Muslims," as well as against "death, rape and etcetera" threats against critics - you must be for it if those are conflicting political issues in the United States and you oppose my edits on political grounds? Let me help you: there were both left wing and right winge and middle wing American soldiers in Iraq. There were Jewish and Muslim soldiers in Iraq. "War hero" doesn't mean right wing except in a very, very narrow reading by extreme left and extreme right viewpoints. It's not a political debate currently being waged in the U.S. -DHeyward (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The point is that my impression is that media such as this film seems to greatly incite many viewers in a political/extremely partisan manner. Regardless of that the intentions of the movie seem more benign than that according to Eastwood and the lead actor, many people are reported to feel extremely increased hatred towards Muslims, Arabs, and critics because of it, and as the New York Times reported, part of the far right has seized upon using it as a banner, whereas the left or centrists are either outraged or worried. There is also lots of criticism about how the movie omitted relevant facts about the Iraq war. All of this ended up as political, regardless of intentions. David A (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your impression is incorrect. It incites partisan political extremists that see it and use it as a vehicle to forward their partisan, politically extreme position. They are a fringe group. Heck, even the marginally political film critic points out the film doesn't explore the politics of the Iraq War and that disappointed them. It's only the most extreme that find it to be political. The mainstream viewer is not affected politically in any way. Patriotic does not equal political. Here's an example: extreme political viewpoint writer decides to tie the movie to "Gun Culture" because she believed Eastwood threatened Moore at a "Bowling for Columbine" award. She uses this hook to get in her "this movie is about guns. Guns are bad." except one slight problem. It was at a "Fahrenheit 911" award and had nothing to do with guns. This was a source you originally provided. Salon did an in-line correction so it reads like a rambling, idiotic piece of derp until the reader reads the correction note and finds she was writing about a completely different topic. Before: [118] After:[119]. She didn't retract the story because in reality she just wanted a reason to write about gun control even when the correction destroyed her argument. Read it with and without the correction. --DHeyward (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, although I agree that this particular writer made a poor point, I respectfully disagree about the overall assessment. My impression of this and similar media is that they greatly increase the feelings tied to politically extreme partisan positions. I think that if this would just have been about fringes there would not be a reported greatly increased downright murderous hostility towards Muslims after it came out. David A (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: A "merge" result does not mean that there was consensus for insertion of the entire article into the other article, the editors at the main article may find consensus to add some parts and not the entirety, especially since there were strong opinions that it was a POV fork to some extent. Collect (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify. This is exactly what I was trying to do. After much back and forth Talk page discussion, and several compromises, I had shortened down 8 of the more relevant articles into one brief sentence each. As well as 6 articles more as references following a "Several other articles have also been critical of the movie" at the end. There were lots more articles at the separate controversies page. MONGO was collaborating with this approach, and we were cutting away several articles that he had specific valid complaints about. Then DHeyward decided to completely ignore the Talk page discussion, the 14 votes cast in favour of "merge", as well as hours spent by myself reading and trying to concisely summarise the articles into just one vital sentence each, to just delete virtually all of it, as I illustrated that he has done repeatedly on this page before. That said, I had asked for help to merge together all of the summaries into a more coherent text, as had been suggested by NBauman, to read better within the article, but did not receive any assistance in this endeavour. David A (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The page is fully protected for a week on your version so that gives anyone who cares a baseline to look at and decide if any or all of it stays.--MONGO 15:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite numerous warnings on the article talk page and on his user talk page to stop his disruptive editing and tendentious editing, mongo appears to have continued to WikiBully and personally attack users, including David A and myself. And he continued to act like he owns the article, and to edit war in an effort to remove content he just does not like. He also tends to attack sources whose criticism of the film he does not like (Zaid Jilani and even Max Blumenthal, a Jewish journalist and book author and an expert on the middle east) as anti-Semites ... mongo's behavior appears out of control. It was also explained to both mongo and DHeyward numerous times on the article talk page and on the related AfD that WP cares about how the sources interpret the political/ historical/ social aspects of the film, not how mongo or DH (mis)interpret the film. This point was made over and over again to mongo and DH not only by David A and myself, but also by several experienced editors on the AfD, and yet mongo and DH continue to refuse to hear. 'Sniper' has lots of similarities to Triumph of the Will, Birth of a Nation and Zero Dark Thirty, all films which are considered masterpieces of filmmaking but were also criticized heavily by many sources for their political/ historical/ social aspects. IjonTichy (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Warnings from who? You? You were unsuccessful in getting your coatrack established in the article so you created a POV fork which was immediately nominated for Afd and there it was decided to.merge the content since you had created a POV FORK. Just because people call you on your disruptive editing, an issue that has you topic banned and blocked previously, doesn't mean they are attacking you. I think your efforts to present an extreme POV and to do so in a very aggressive manner is disruptive so you are hereby warned to stop being disruptive or face a block and possibly a topic ban.--MONGO 16:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a major overreaction to a simple controversy section in an article about a fictional film based on an autobiography. Please keep your politics at home. If you aren't this tall, you can't ride Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:IjonTichyIjonTichy

Even after the POV FORK American Sniper (film) controversies was voted to be redirected and merged User:IjonTichyIjonTichy has persisted in adding more to the coatrack he created... [120] this appears to be little more than disruptive editing and POV pushing.--MONGO 16:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

mongo is continuing his personal attacks, which he has done from the first time I added sourced content to the film article, and from his very first comment on the AfD. When mongo and DH appeared to be willing to abide by the consensus on the AfD, I've added content to the controversies article but immediately reverted myself. When it became obvious mongo and DH had no intention to abide by the community consensus to merge the two articles, I did not revert myself after adding content to the controversies article. Finally, please note that on the AfD discussion, the most thoughtful, insightful, and well-considered arguments came from several independent editors (eg. user:Erik) who made no mention of any fork (especially not a screaming all-capitalized one like mongo has done) but instead focused on logical reasoning in terms of what's best for the project while satisfying WP policies, without even having to mention the policies explicitly - one of the hallmarks of great editors. (And by the way my sandbox has nothing to do with this complaint against mongo's and DH's disruptive behavior and their editing against community consensus and is only a distraction.) IjonTichy (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I said above is a personal attack. You are already topic banned from an entire set of articles and was blocked for violation and disruptive editing. My pointing out these issues is not a personal attack. --MONGO 17:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've watched this article and the film article since the AfD was created. I think loose accusations of POV-pushing were unnecessary and that there is a lack of cordial discussion about how to deal with all this commentary. At the AfD and on the film article's talk page, I've brought up WP:STRUCTURE as a guideline to follow because the commentary is pooled by POV. For example, the sub-article has "Allegations" section headings that are unnecessarily slanted, where a section heading like "Portrayal of Iraq" could fold the negative criticisms and the counter-criticisms into one section. I think a sub-article can exist, but it started off on the wrong foot, apparently because there was a dispute on the film article itself. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this count.) In terms of trying to work together to structure all this commentary per WP:NPOV, we could start a Draft:Commentary on American Sniper which could be imported to the main article after some collaboration, or if long enough and satisfactory per WP:NPOV, re-established as a sub-article. The current "Controversies" section is lacking in high-level assessment, e.g. a mainstream newspaper basically highlighting the key points of the debate, and has too many one-commentator-after-another sentences. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism makes it clear that a controversies or criticism section, while not against guidelines, should be cautiously applied or avoided if possible. By creating and maintaining a section devoted solely to controversies or negative critique, we run the risk of it being used as a coatrack...as I stated above.--MONGO 17:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I'm suggesting "Commentary" to encapsulate the back-and-forth that has gone on. It would not be limited to the negative criticism. Even if one disagrees with the negative criticism, it is worthy of reporting since Wikipedia describes disputes as detailed in secondary sources. For example, we could focus on commentary that has been reported in high-level assessments. I think The New York Times mentioned a Grantland piece as one sample commentary, so that would be a reasonable threshold to emulate and to avoid throwing everything but the kitchen sink into such a section or a sub-article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem with high level sourcing. The problem is Ijon seems determined to do nothing but coatrack. He has yet to demonstrate any desire to follow our best practices and has instead insisted repeatedly on using any and all sources no matter how circumspect they may be. Just now I reverted back the page at American Sniper (film) controversies that was voted to be merged as he is misusing it after the Afd closed to continue to post more stuff. The page is now properly a redirect and should be full protected by an admin in that version to comply with the Afd closure and to prevent Ijon from persisting in misusing it.--MONGO 17:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems like IjonTichy intended the page as a sandbox, but such a sandbox page should be off the mainspace. Either the draft page can be created from scratch, or the sub-article can be moved to that draft page to preserve page history (while we keep the redirect to the main article). I understand that it is difficult to imagine a proper sub-article about the debate being done, but I think it is doable. Articles like this can be referenced to capture the scope of the debate. If we start the draft page, we can collaborate to structure it appropriately. For example, a "Portrayal of Chris Kyle" section should start off with the reiteration that the film was based on Chris Kyle's autobiography, and then we can start including commentary from commentators, politicians, cast, and crew about whether accuracy matters or not. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

He already is using a sandbox for this and was trying to use the redirect page to post the same. I disagree that the alledged controversies needs a standalone article...that was already tried and was voted for a merge. The issue again is such forks are usually just coatracks and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of links. If Ijon wishes to fill a sandbox up with every critique he wants then that's a different story.--MONGO 17:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Now Ijon is again using the redirect to post the same issue and edit warring to do so...[121]...how many examples of disruptive editing are needed here?--MONGO 17:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that what Erik suggests is a good idea, but when I asked for help to organise the section in this manner, I did not receive any assistance, and I distrust my competence to do so myself. However, I did write brief summaries for all of the articles that I could repost at the talk if you wish? David A (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Mongo, I find that the agreement at the AfD was that the sub-article was a POV fork. This does not mean a stand-alone article is never possible. WP:POVFORK says, "The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article." It's possible that we would be fine with encapsulating the whole debate in the film article, but a more detailed sub-article can still be warranted provided that it is properly balanced. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

IjonTichy, let's move the sub-article to the draft space. The consensus was that we should not have a sub-article at this point, so we should not keep it up currently. Merging does not necessarily mean that all the sub-article's content should find a place in the main article. POV concerns should be addressed first, and we can do that outside the mainspace and then import material that has a proper balance. If we do this, maybe on that draft page we can start in a specific sub-topic and develop coverage of the debate and get others to assess it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I just reminded him of 3RR on the redirect which he continues to misuse as a parking place. An admin needs to protect the redirect. Erik....as.much as I would like to, existing and past behavior by Ijon does not indicate to me that he's going to do anything other than misuse a subarticle as a POV FORK. Good luck.--MONGO 18:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry if I missed anything, but why does IjonTichyIjonTichy think they can override Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sniper (film) controversies days after it closed as "merge"? Drmies (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the best thing to protect the redirect? Otherwise there is a likelihood it will be used as a parking place. My last edit there told him to take it to the article talk page.--MONGO 21:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I will fully abide by decisions of the community, whether reached here, or on any article talk page, or anywhere on WP. The problem is mango's behavior, not mine. Drmies, please see the OP. The discussion closed as 'merge'. It did not close as 'delete,' but mango and DH are interpreting it as 'delete.' The consensus did not close as 'emboldening mango and DHeyward to remove practically almost each and every and all sourced criticism of the political/ historical/ social aspects of the film from the American Sniper (film) article because mango and DH do no like it, and emboldening them to attack and WikiBully editors that may disagree with them, and emboldening them to make a mockery of the consensus decision to merge, not to delete.'

In the words of David A: "After putting it to a vote, the official Wikipedia consensus was for the Controversies page to be merged into the main page. I have gone to extremes to put in the work to greatly compress the the articles within it, and to compromise with the other users. However, in spite of this, and multiple warnings, the user MONGO keeps making crude partisan personal attacks on the talk page, and far more significantly, the user DHeyward is attempting to censor all of the additions wholesale, in flagrant violation of the official Wikipedia decision, and all the work that I put in to summarise the critical articles into one sentence each, with no compromise whatsoever. I would greatly appreciate an intervention. Thank you very much for any help. Here is the current Talk section." David A (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Eh, "merge" does not mean "leave the original article as it was, substantially or otherwise". It means that the original article goes away, regardless of where the content goes. And one more thing: I see a whole bunch of talk of "censorship": there is no censorship going on here. DHeyward does not have the power to censor anything, though they have the opportunity to make well-considered edits. Simply removing something is not censorship unless it is...well, look it up at Censorship; that's not a bad definition. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I fully support all the suggestions and ideas of David A, Erik, Viriditas, TParis and others. But mango and DH have their egos and their belief systems tied to what the sources describe as the ideology of the film and they can't bring themselves to accept that scholars found fatal flaws with that ideology. both mango and DH need to recuse themselves from further editing on these film articles. They contributed nothing except deleting sourced content, personal attacks, wikibullying and other disruptive behavior. And now they are trying to make it appear as if I'm the problem, not them. Please see the discussion on the user talk page of user:TParis. Thanks. IjonTichy (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious you're trolling when you deliberately misspell my username even though in all other posts you spell it correctly.--MONGO 22:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect, I might have used the wrong notice board, as I only wanted an intervention regarding not to censor all of the content, not to block anybody. David A (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no such noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think user IjonTichy is not here to build an encyclopedia and should be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia for tendentiousness. Its not a red herring to mention his topic ban here on another subject. His attitude was exactly the same, he could not see his errors objectively. He used a litany of personal putdowns like he is doing to Mongo to make his points and had no element of recognizing his editing failures. Wiki lawyering guidelines in an extremely negative way. I don't he will change. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, this appears to be a repeat of the last ANI involving earlier harassment by Earl King Jr. Please quit while you are still allowed to edit. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would Earl no longer be allowed to edit? He has never been blocked whereby you have and for BLP violations, disruptive editing, etc. How many disruptive editing blocks do you need to receive before you get the idea that others think you're disruptive?--MONGO 06:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've never made any BLP violation anywhere. You're referring to an erroneous edit summary from an admin that upon review was found to be without merit. Your attempt at once again distracting this discussion away from your documented harassment in this thread is noted. The number of civility violations in this thread from you and the number of personal attacks made against multiple editors is entirely unprecedented in the history of ANI. If you aren't blocked, then the civility policy has no meaning. Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What about the three month (!!) wow block you had after a series of other blocks? How can you justify thinking that Earl King who has never been blocked should no longer be allowed to edit? That's mystifying.--MONGO 06:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:IjonTichyIjonTichy is engaging in personal attacks now, referring to others as SPA, questioning their competency and accusing them of lying. [122]...so its pretty odd he would be claiming myself and others are engaging in personal attacks and disruptive editing and not be willing to examine his own behavioral issues.--MONGO 18:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I see a lot of heat and anger from MONGO and I think that User:TParis put it well. MONGO needs to learn the art of walking away from areas that upset him and letting calmer heads prevail. Because at the end of the day this sort of plain vanilla content dispute is what Wikipedia is best at solving. --John (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I see this sort of sentiment more and more often. It's nonsense and generally serves to exclude persistent objection and create the impression of consensus where one does not exist. If he can come here and invest such an incredible amount of time and energy to coherently defend his position then excluding him because he's upset doesn't serve MONGO or the article, only the people he's in a legitimate content dispute with. MONGO is an adult, it's his prerogative to invest himself in a contentious topic. GraniteSand (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In John's defense he may feel that his advice is sound. But he should know me well enough by now to understand that I don't care what he thinks about anything. I'm surely not upset as John describes it so the usual condescending tone from John is worth about zero to me.--MONGO 01:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors." That's a quote from our core civility policy. I think admins should take close look at the last 50 contributions made by MONGO. They will find that virtually every edit is either a violation of the civility policy or consists of a personal attack of some kind. And this all seems to stem from a dispute over a historical fiction film loosely based on an autobiography. As a result of this demonstrable pattern of disruption, I would like community to consider blocking Mongo until he is able to edit Wikipedia in harmony with his fellow editors. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You should learn the difference between "ignore" and "discard." Why you are hounding MONGO is beyond me. You seem compelled to reply to everything he writes. For the record, I didn't "ignore" you so don't get your panties hung up on that. I carefully and rationally read your positions and conclusions and dismissed it as nonsense. Every post you write appears to be a violation of WP:HOUNDING too as you follow every edit. At least John quoted someone when they followed MONGO around like a puppy. --DHeyward (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Its just AN/I. People come here when they can't get their way on an article and make accusations. Even if in the end, the fact is that I never said to take out all the negative critique...just to prune the bad apples from it...but they either didn't hear that or decided that they wanted the whole bamboozle. Those with an axe to grind show up to join the melee. Nothing gets solved. Admins obfuscate because they have little choice since some of the situations are boring since they aren't vested in the particular article. Best not to feed.--MONGO 01:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the civility block for MONGO, I would also like to request a civility warning for DHeyward for making the above comments. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support I support a block for Mongo. One of his arguments linking ordinary Iraqis with the modern anti-Shiite jihadist movements is a plain case of Arabophobic racism. If Mongo does not want to appear to be a anti-Arab racist then he shouldn't link Iraqi nationalistic Ba'athists with global jihadists out of nowhere. I smell something (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

When did that happen.--MONGO 03:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a suspiciously "knowing" comment from an editor with fewer than 10 edits (all of them about incest, of all things.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I forget what we call that type of editor...--MONGO 03:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Various things, depending on the level of civility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And his statement might be smelly, but he is obviously missing the smell of Kurds in a way that don't really care about his distinction. --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No Support Barn-star for Mongo for trying to manage a little and point out IjonTichy's behavior that is out of control tendentious, attacking and pov to his personal interests. Content dispute. Figure it out on the talk page. Ijon is not here to build and encyclopedia in my view. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang block for John and Viriditas that have only posted inflammatory rhetoric. At the very least a One-Way IBAN that prevents them from commenting about MONGO. And an idef for User:I smell socks as obvious sock and trolling account. --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Strong support for immediate civility block on MONGO and a civility warning for DHeyward for continued false accusations. Upon reviewing the facts and evidence in this thread, it becomes immediately clear that the OP, User:David A, as well as complainant User:IjonTichyIjonTichy, have been under an enormous amount of personal attacks and harassment from MONGO, DHeyward, and Earl King Jr., who think that the civility policy does not apply to them. Because of this continued disruption and to prevent future disruption, I would like to see an administrator place the "American Sniper" topic area under the American politics discretionary sanctions as soon as possible. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Since John is here and he was the most recent admin to block you maybe he can block you again to enforce our policy against hounding which you're violating in textbook fashion.--MONGO 05:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an enormous amount of evidence in this thread showing that you have violated and continue to violate the civility policy, to the point where you are disrupting the topic area. Commenting on this evidence and requesting sanctions is not "hounding" by any stretch of the imagination. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The only disruption going in here is by you. I'm not going to be blocked or banned.There are currently no log pages for "American politics". The central DS log page covers only TPM and Gun control.--MONGO 06:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid the evidence says otherwise. The last 50 contributions in your edit history, for example, consist of nothing but personal attacks and civility violations. And this is all over a fictional film based on an autobiography? Please learn to control yourself and keep your politics at home. The American politics arbitration case was designed specifically to enforce discretionary sanctions on exactly this topic, and to sanction editors like yourself. I am an entirely uninvolved editor, as I have neither participated in nor edited any article or AfD related to this discussion. As such, I can safely observe that sanctions are desperately needed to restore order to the topic area and to stop you from editing. It is not "hounding" to say this, nor is it harassment of any kind. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Odd...more than half your last 50 edits indicate you've been hounding for blocks and bans...I'd say that is harassment.--MONGO 06:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Annnnnddddd....that's all folks! Stay tuned tomorrow or the next few days for the latest get wild and crazy episode at one of Wikipedia's favorite places to be when you don't want to or can't write an encyclopedia!--MONGO 07:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• But the community agreed the page must go, and IjonTichy edit wars to restore it [123] [124] [125] [126], while attacking people and saying «I will fully abide by decisions of the community» and «I have not edit warred in years», I think this is dishonest. Spumuq (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Who used a sockpuppet to attack MONGO, can we checkuser? Spumuq (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The number of civility violations in this thread from you and the number of personal attacks made against multiple editors is entirely unprecedented in the history of ANI. If you aren't blocked, then the civility policy has no meaning. Viriditas. Huh! How can that be? That does not really make sense that I can see. I see nothing in that regard just an attempt to get at what is going on. Also, IjonTichy edit wars to restore it [127] [128] [129] [130], while attacking people and saying «I will fully abide by decisions of the community» and «I have not edit warred in years», I think this is dishonest. end quote from another editor. I have to agree. That is the reality of what IjonTichy is doing. It is a contradiction from what he is saying. It is not even connected to what he is saying he is doing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:TParis stated at his talk page that this behavior is not the same as the behavior Ijon demonstrated on the Zeitgeist pages which led to a topic ban there. I disagree. I warned Ijon about 3RR and was greeted with nothing but hostility.--MONGO 14:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support for a block of MONGO. Ironholds (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• OpposeViriditas' ill-founded demand to stop Mongo from editing. Edison (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A question

I just noticed this noticeboard. Given that all I really wanted was to get some outside intervention and NPOV judgement regarding how best to handle the Controversies section, should I take this discussion there instead? David A (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Anywhere but here. Jehochman ^Talk 12:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. My apologies for the inconvenience. David A (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring to conceal that a file has been modified from its original form.

Lecen edited a scaled-down version of File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg, which was hosted on Commons for some time. It has, after a recent discussion, been deleted from there. Lecen reuploaded it here as File:Dom Pedro I.JPG, with no indication that it was modified. I moved it to File:Dom Pedro I edit.JPG, and added a note.

However, they really, really want to present this as an unmodified file, see for example, [131].

Quite simply, we can't change the original scan, then attempt to pass it off as the original. That's misleading.

Now, I don't think this is a good edit, and am also concerned about the rationale for it given that Lecen threw out wild accusations of racism against whites in response to defenses of the original images' colours. But, if it's carefully marked as being an edit, with the changes noted, well, it's miseducating the public, but I don't know how much time it's worth spending on this, since Lecen's clearly not going to stop. I mean, they even uploaded a version on Commons with a fake source. See commons:File:Dom Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG (now speedy deleted) if you're an admin there, and compare to File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg - it claimed to be from a 1972 book, but had no evidence of half-toning, and had many of the little unique features of the Google image (same crop, exact same orientation, same spots, etc.), albeit with a rather odd colour shift.

I don't know what Lecen's up to. Frankly, I'm not sure Lecen knows. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden seems to be the edit warrior in this case. Having pushed his preference for a certain file used on a featured article to multiple fora without garnering support from other editors,[132][133][134][135] he now brings it here. Notwithstanding the inaccurate claim that any photograph's digital file is somehow more "original" than another, using this forum to raise new arguments seems to be WP:BATTLE behavior when it comes to this subject. • Astynax ^talk 18:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) It seems to me that you are forum shopping to win this dispute after you failed to win it at Talk:Pedro I of Brazil. There seems to be healthy disagreement over the true nature of the image, and you are not getting your way. You then tried opening an FAR for the entire article based on the dispute over one image, which was procedurally closed and you were advised to open an RFC and otherwise contain the dispute to where it belongs. So now you are here at yet another venue. Neither the "racist" remark or the edit warring on the image page are excusable, but you've already been advised about how to go about solving the conflict. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

When we take a file from somewhere else, the default is that its appearance is not modified; it's standard practice to have a comment noting the modifications if any have been made, so users can assume that a file with no such comment has not been modified. When you modify a file and reupload it without such a comment, you've forgotten to include an important piece of information, and it's unambiguously helpful for someone else to add a comment. If you remove that comment, you're suddenly telling reusers that no, it was not modified: you're presenting a hoax, and it would be absurd to sanction someone for fighting a hoaxer. Lecen, if you continue hoaxing on this image, you will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"...if you continue hoaxing on this image, you will be blocked". I'll be blocked after a single warning? Really? So Adam Cuerden is allowed to enter into an edit war with several editors and nothing happens to him? First he tried to impose his file by edit warring. No one agreed with him. Then he opened a discussion on the article's talk page. No one agreed with him. Then he opened a FAR just because he didn't like the file, and no one agreed with him. After that he tried to upload his version over my file. An administrator stopped him. Then Adam Cuerden tried to get the file erased on Commons. No one agreed with him and the file was kept. Then a friend of his erased the file (that had been in use by all other Wikipedia websites) without any discussion. Then he harasses me creating this topic here. He does all that and nothing happens to him. I try to at least maintain the original file and I get threated with a block after a single warning? All I know is that if I get blocked I'll go all the way to the ArbCom. --Lecen (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, hoaxing. Intentionally falsifying a description, including removing an indication that the file has been digitally manipulated, is grounds for rapid blocking. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

By that standard, Adam Cuerden's prejudicial "heavily modified" description, which is what Lecen reverted, should also qualify. Moreover, and as has been pointed out, there are several photographic copies of this image out there that do not reflect Adam Cuerden's preferred image in its oversaturation and lighting choices. • Astynax ^talk 18:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That is an incredibly inaccurate summary. You've basically cut out everyone who agreed with me from your summary, claiming I had no supporters, and also apparently created a connection between Yann and me from whole cloth. I don't think it's worth engaging with you. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My comments are completely accurate. You've shopped this to death and won't let it go. Not garnering support on Wikipedia for your preferred version of an in-use image, you took it over to Wikimedia to delete an in-use image and force your preferred image into the article. That is a frustrating abuse of process and blatant battleground behavior. • Astynax ^talk 18:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My popcorn stocks say the accessibility folks should get involved here. --NE2 02:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Am I seeing correctly, that the primary complaint boils down to the difference in skin tone between the two versions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a line here that's frequently difficult to draw. Any photograph of a painting is going to alter the painting in some way, depending on lighting, exposure, etc. There's no real "original" except the painting itself. When this came up recently for me, one version looked distinctly better to me than the Google version, and I initially preferred that version -- until I looked at the version of the painting on the site of the museum where it was located, and the Google version was much, much closer to the museum's version than to the one I had preferred. If the museum staff thought that the photograph on their site best represented the painting, I had to accept that, even though the other version seemed better.

Is there a version in this case that has the imprimatur of the museum in which it is located? BMK (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the painting hanging on a wall. Compare it to the "google project version". --Lecen (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ummm.... I think if you gave a bit of thought to it, you would see that a photograph of the painting hanging on the wall is not the reference we need -- it's just another image subject to all the same problems as other images. What we need is something propagated by the professionals at the museum as an authooritative guide to what the painting looks like. BMK (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Can I also point out that's not even the same painting? The Google Art Project copy is at the Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo, Brazil. That painting is a different copy at Queluz National Palace, Lisbon, Spain. Lecen is entirely aware that multiple copies of this painting exist, but would rather modify the painting themselves than source any of the other copies. Seriously, that was my suggestion on what to do if they didn't like aspwects of the version from Google Art Project the subjective months ago this debate has been simmering, and I've suggested it ever since, and Lecen now acts as if they're completely unaware that multiple copies by multiple artists exist of this painting, because it suits them to. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to see if we can solve this by uploading a file that everyone agrees is both color accurate and high resolution. There's a potential one at https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/asset-viewer/pedro-duke-of-bragan%C3%A7a/9AGSwGL-RuUKqw?projectId=art-project but I don't know how to download it from google. DrKiernan (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Downloading the hires images would be against Googles Terms of use. It would not be too hard to write a script to do so, but I doubt we could keep them. I could write a script but I would not upload them. 80.132.71.83 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If that were true, we'd also have to delete the Google Art Project file of Adam's. The terms of use say "You may not use content from our Services unless you obtain permission from its owner or are otherwise permitted by law." It's the position of the wikimedia foundation that we are permitted by United States law to use scans or photographs of out-of-copyright 2D artworks. This new file is now uploaded. I'm just waiting for someone to say "it's too pale". DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Threatening messages from Lecen

Lecen has been leaving me threatening, harassing messages for the last couple weeks. There is a dispute about his edits to a picture, which I, the collective wisdom of Commons, where it is now deleted and failing to get consensus for an undeletion, and various other people have turned against, by and large.

But that's a content dispute. Lecen... is increasingly insisting on taking this further and further. Here's a brief summary of some of his behaviour. It started off on a bad foot before I even joined.

• "He was white, you ignorant racist. Read the article before coming here with your disgusting stereotypes on latins. --Lecen (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)"

But he's now decided that if anyone does something that he doesn't like, that I'm supposedly sending friends to harass him. Said "friends" have so far been people who I have had minimal communication with, who, because I posted on talk forums about the image, decided to act. Here's him on commons, responding to an administrator acting on a post I made to tghe Vaillage Pump, promising his vengeance will fall upon me.

Just to note, Yann, who deleted the image, isn't someone I actually know, other than in the vague "I've seen them editing Commons before" way. But Lecen seems convinced that only people I'm personally friends with would agree with me. He harassed them too. [136] [137]

Oh, and, um... here's him running to his friends to complain about Yann and recruit them into the dispute. [138] .

And here's his latest harassment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAdam_Cuerden&diff=646721885&oldid=646713670

"Stop following my contributions around. I will report you later on, I can assure you. You went too far. I will first begin with the usual Admin board which I know will lead to nothing. Then I'll move upward all the way to ArbCom. I'm patient. I don't write articles anymore. I gave up doing that a long time ago. I will ask for you to be topic banned, in your case, from anything related to pictures. A few months from now I want you tell me if fighting so hard over the painting of a historical figure that you know nothing about was worth it. P.S.: The painting will eventually return to Commons. Not every administrator there is a friend of yours that can side with you. As I said, I'm in no hurry. --Lecen (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)"

Seriously? Because I think he made bad edits to an image that ruined its historical value - and got people to agree with me by using verbal argument, he's going to institute a campaign of harassment which he assures me willend in me being banned from working on images. At the same time as announcing he will not be doing anything constructive on Wikipedia, as he "gave up [writing articles] a long time ago".

Is there any reason why this user should be kept around? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Have any warnings been posted to Lecen's talk page? Has he even been notified of this ANI discussion? I am not seeing any and a look in the talk page history did not show any either. It's possible I missed them. As to the comments, they strike me as being intemperate and definitely worth dropping a cautionary note on the user's talk page. That's where I'd start. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

He was schlepped here just yesterday for basically the same problem. Calling someone "racist" because they prefer a somewhat-brighter version of a picture is a heavy charge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Was about to link him, but wanted to add another note, and keep edit conflicting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Block or Admonish - For disruptive editing, If this same user has already been dragged here for the same problem then something isn't working right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at the section above I have struck the block option as I can see there is more to this story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Honestly? The rest of the story is this: I don't think that a photograph painting that's been heavily modified should be presented as the original image, particularly when the comments defending the image have elements that are very dodgy - Lecen's "He was white, you ignorant racist." accusations happened before I had even gotten involved; having merely been informed that a good painting exists. What really got me was a line in the early arguments - this isn't by Lecen, but one of his close collaborators: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedro_I_of_Brazil&diff=prev&oldid=642645289 "There have been attempts in populist revisionism to adjust portrayals of fair-featured popular leaders to make them look more like the general populations of today."

So we have an image that's being modified, by someone who gets really, really upset if you say that the person looks "olive skinned" or "tanned" - and then begins shouting about how the person saying that is apparently racist against whites. And we have another person claiming that whites are being airbrushed out of Brazilian history.

And then we have the same person very aggressively accusing people of racism against whites becoming increasingly irrational and harassing. Proof? No. Lecen has edited a lot of images. I'd consider many of them highly problematic (he really likes posterizing images), but there's no possibility of racist overtones to them. On the other hand, he's willing to lie about sources to get a copy up that fits his preferred editing. He did so on Commons with commons:File:Dom Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG - if you're a Commons admin and can see the deleted file, Flicking between it and File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg will show that, other than Lecen having tweaked the colours, they are the same file. However, Lecen claimed the source of that new image is "Sousa, Otávio Tarquínio de (1972). A vida de D. Pedro I (in Portuguese) 3. Rio de Janeiro: José Olímpio." - a 1972 book with no evidence whatsoever of half-toning, and the exact same orientation and crop as the Google Art Project scan, as well as a lot of little details I wouldn't expect to remain the same between two photos forty years apart with different lighting and equipment. The above discussion is about him trying to keep an image from being marked as not being the original Google Art Project scan. It's all... really, really bizarre, and I've not seen a situation where a really problematic image was being rigorously defended on English Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted a combination Caution/ANI notice which they promptly reverted. But the message was delivered. Let's see if things calm down. If the problems persist we can take it to the next level. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but this section should be combined with the one above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-warring to conceal that a file has been modified from its original form because it is the same editor having the issue about just about the same thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's a continuation of the same argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved this as a sub-header - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple identical articles about different villages in India

Rajuyadav999 (talk · contribs) has, over the past two days, created almost 50 articles about villages in Bijapur. All of these articles appear to be built on two separate templates, such that the information in the articles is all identical (right down to the geo coordinates and population figures). All articles are unsourced or are vaguely sourced to the Bijapur page at nic.in, which says nothing about the villages in question. It is unclear whether these villages exist or not, but the creation of dozens of article with identical information is not helping. I have asked the user to stop and explain themself, to no avail. I believe a temporary block will allow time to interact with the user to ascertain what is going on with these articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

May be related to Rajkumaryadav123 (talk · contribs). Both accounts appear to have created or recreated Shri M.G.Kori and Dr.B.G.Byakod P U College. --220 of ^Borg 17:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say almost definite. The prior account is probably too old to investigate using CU tools at SPI, but perhaps a behavioral call can be made to block as a block-evading sock. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems pertinent to point out that Rajkumaryadav123 was also brought to this notice board, here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this is probably a competence problem. Just looking at the user's last two article creations, Bramhadevanmadu and Bolachikkalaki are recognized by Google Maps as being legitimate communities—just not at the coordinates specified in the infoboxes of those articles. I suppose that the the user is just copying infoboxes from elsewhere in WP without understanding what he's doing. That doesn't mean that the user shouldn't be blocked, though, if it is judged that his/hers contributions are more trouble than they're worth. Deor (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought: Seconding that it's probably just lack of competence. I'm not an admin, but I do think it would be good for the towns to have articles, but with the real information about them... maybe the user plans to fill the articles in? IDK. Anyway, signing off for now... Goldenshimmer (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Goldenshimmer: and @Deor: If it were just a case of copied infoboxes, I'd say fine: that can be fixed. The entire article texts are identical between mutliple communities, with the exception of the name of the town. Since none of the information on any of the towns if cited, it's impossible to know which (if any) of the towns the stated information actually pertains to. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Yeah I'm not suggesting that the copypasticles should be saved, just that the villages should probably have articles. At some time or other. Saying something different on each page, obviously. Goldenshimmer (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, more evidence they're possibly the same account: both edited this page.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenshimmer (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

24 hour block given, along with an explanation of what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Rajuyadav has not taken the opportunity address their actions at their talk page. I suspect that as soon as their block lifts, their questionable edits will resume. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Rajuyadav's block has expired, and they have not continued posting new articles. Nor have they chosen to explain their actions. What is to be done with the spate of bad articles that were created? Should I just take the matter to WP:SPI as a fairly obvious case, and then tag all articles for WP:CSD#G5 deletion once the SPI case is resolved? Or would it be better to bring all the articles to WP:AFD. The point has been made that all of these places verifiably exist through Google searches, so they all probably merit a page; just not the pages that we presently have. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:G3 "includes blatant and obvious misinformation", so given that the information in these articles are obviously wrong, they should be subject to speedy deletion. I see no reason to put these through AFD as anybody wanting to save these would need to create them from scratch. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Whpq: The only problem is that, unless the reviewing admin has seen this discussion, the information is not "blatant and obvious misinformation". I suppose I can post a link to this discussion on each of the talk pages to alert the reviewing admins. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I would imagine the talk page note would be the best way. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have tagged all village articles created by this user, with a note on their respective talk pages linking to this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the current version of the articles need to be rewritten from scratch or deleted, as misinformation is worse than no information. Pinging @Titodutta and RegentsPark:, who may be able to help and cut-through the beauracracy. Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking at some of these and believe they should all be deleted. It is possible one or two are legitimate, but it would take too much time to figure out which are legitimate and which are poor copies. I;m in the process of deleting some of them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I feel most (at least) some of these villages exist. But, yes those should be deleted. They have just copied and pasted same content everywhere (same literacy rate in every village). Notability of these villages might be difficult to establish, see WP:INDAFDKI. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Totally agree - this information is completely unreliable at this point. Kudos to WikiDan61 for spotting the issue.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Can you please delete this article per G4? EricJ1074 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

While most of the deleted content was here reposted, the new incarnation is significantly expanded from what was deleted at AFD; for example, the entirety of the "Lawsuit" section in the AFD'd version was Alahverdian sued the State of Rhode Island among others due to alleged abuse and negligence that occurred in state-owned and out-of-state facilities. The case is in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island before Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. G4 excludes pages that have been substantially modified. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't the entirety of the lawsuit section; that section also had a {{main}} template pointing to Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al, which contained the info in this lawsuit section, and which was also AFD'd the day after the main article. In addition, this current version is a copyright violation, because it is a pure copy paste of the old article, with no attribution. Finally, this article and many like it have been created over the years by serial sockpuppeteer. I've deleted it per G4, G5, and G12. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources about the subject are from The Boston Globe, The Providence Journal, Associated Press, Brown University student newspaper, The New Haven Register, NBC news, CBS news affiliates, Politifact, ProPublica, the Omaha world herald, WPRO, WPRI, WJAR and others. Appears to meet GNG since the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and it is "suitable for a stand-alone article" (see WP:Notability). And what do you mean by copyright violation? It's inherently in the public domain. I may be wrong. Thanks for your help. EricJ1074 (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrative aid, if you please

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

---

A user has been going around fuming, and has inserted unseemly links. Would an administrator care to deal with this by browsing his contribution history and doing a bit of cleaning? Much obliged. RGloucester — ☎ 04:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:War in Donbass needs oversighting done per the image link included. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just stopping in to note simultaneously filed EDITWAR and ARBCOM reports. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see my comment at 3RR. I've looked at the editor's contributions and don't see anything contentious that is current. If I missed something please let me know, otherwise this can be closed.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Moved AFC

 Done Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi I've moved a misplaced AFC page back to draft space, can someone remove the redirect at [139]. Amortias (T)(C) 10:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy as R2. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 11:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

legal threats from User:122.162.62.219

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

---

See [here [140]] Bentogoa (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's IAC again. IP anon-blocked for a couple of days. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Contribs Please block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the attempted outing, I've also suppressed some of their edits (including the legal threat mentioned above). Yunshui ^雲_水 13:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

The Rambling Man

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

---

Copied from Wikipedia talk:In the news: The Rambling Man has repeatedly acted inappropriately at WP:ITN/C. His comments have violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA several times, and are rude in general. I have several examples, all of these events having occurred in the last couple of months:

1. which went on until today, at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BReady.5D_RD:_Bob_Simon, where TRM !voted "Oppose for the dead American ticker. Article has serious BLP issues.", a disrespectful comment calling ITN a "dead American ticker". An argument with Muboshgu and me follows. He posts more comments using the phrase "dead American ticker"[141] Of course, this just another example of his rudeness, and not a WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA violation.
2. Anyone that contributes to ITN knows that TRM likes to oppose noms. Looking at what's currently listed at ITN/C, his record is 10 opposes and 7 supports, mine is 3/3. He often opposes based on article quality, yet he got on to me when I opposed his nom because it was a stub.[142]
3. The incident that concerns me the most is this one, where Richard von Weizsäcker was nominated for RD (and was later posted), but the article was in terrible shape. Zwerg Nase improved the article and posted to ITN/C, alerting us about his edits. Then, TRM insulted his work with sarcasm[143], an argument with 331dot follows. TRM makes rude comments[144], then 331 replies with a good way to end an argument[145], I saw this and went to 331's tp to praise him for his comment, the argument continues there between me, 331, Zwerg, and TRM. This is the most important diff. In that diff you will see in the "Well said" section that I posted a diff of 331's comment with "*applause* *standing ovation*", and then TRM comments, insulting our nationality with "Or not. *applause* etc. No sarcasm had been deployed tonight, although perhaps being British I assume y'all aint gettin' it. *seated slow hand clap* *wait for help*". Later on in the argument, TRM says "Seems like you don't get it either [referring to me] (and if you think "well played" has negative connotation, there is little hope)...". Later on, the subject of discussion morphs into questioning of why TRM removed a comment by Sca, I will admit that my comment "And while we're here, would you like to explain why you removed Sca's comment?" sounded inappropriate, I'm not the best at wording things.
4. An incident I recently found that I was not involved in is this: He insults Newyorkbrad because he posted an RD for "another dead American".[146]
5. Another rude comment[147]

I must add that AFAIK, TRM has never apogized for any of this. The examples I've listed only go back to November 2014. I could go on and on listing his rude comments. Anyone can add to this list in a comment below. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Anyone that contributes to ITN knows that TRM likes to oppose noms": so he has higher standards than you on inclusion? That's a good thing, not putting dross through on the nod. The final point isn't rude - slightly pointy, maybe, but hardly rude (and quite right too on the whole - there's way too much time talking about insignificant bull rather than actually improving content, so I can appreciate his annoyance on this. - SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that The Rambling Man be topic banned from editing Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates because of his incivility.

• Support as proposer. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for letting me know about this discussion. I think you'll find ANI is the usual location to get be blocked or banned from aspects of Wikipedia. It would no doubt serve you and the others who continually advocate substandard articles nicely to see me banished. Pity is, the fewer there are of us who care about quality, the worse the main page becomes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I will say that I searched "topic ban" before I posted this and that users have been topic banned through discussion on this page in the past. I had no intention of bringing this to the dark place filled with monsters. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well you need to do that. And once again, thanks for having the courtesy not to tell me about this discussion. No less than I expected. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I'll take it there. And I pinged you, I didn't think I had to do any more notifying, as this isn't ANI. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This whole thing looks like an attempt to get rid of frequent opposition by getting the opponent banned. AmaryllisGardener, if you searched properly for topic bans, you would have seen that they absolutely must be discussed in a very public forum and that you absolutely must notify the intended recipient of the ban. Unclean hands is how I'd sum up this request. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having high standards is not something to ban people for. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Personal attacks like #3 is why I came here, it was not because of his high standards. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed; the standards are not the issue, it is how they are expressed, along with rude comments that are unhelpful such as his recent "dead American ticker" statements(made while not offering non-Americans for nominations). A bunch of us did not get together and plan for these people to die. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think he should be topic banned but I think his civility could use improvement(he indirectly calls me an idiot here) and I don't appreciate being told I am in some sort of organized group opposed to him. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm with 331dot. Today especially has put TRM's incivility and anti-American bias on display. When he opposes items based on quality, he's rightly pointing out underreferenced articles or other orange tag problems. When he opposes them because it's an American-based nom, and says nonconstructive things like "Pushing niche fields like "college vball" as being significant enough for the English language Wikipedia has gone too far", that's just not okay. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, I agree. As a frequent ITNC lurker it seems to me that the constant snide and snippy comments he makes on a regular basis are not helpful in any way. It just ruins the environment of ITNC, in my opinion. Connormah (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Actualy, pointing out that a niche field (even in terms of the US) is not significant is a good thing. Pointing out when someone is pushing minor parochialism on a global website is something that is needed to ensure we don't fall into a very poor place! - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle. Involved parties seeking sanctions should lay it out and leave it to uninvolved parties to determine whether a topic ban is warranted. TRM is gruff and rough around the edges but unless that is coupled with a poor history of bad content, a topic ban won't actually accomplish what is really sought here, a request for TRM to wind back some of the sarcasm. Blackmane (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, we can stop !voting on the tban for now, I myself don't really want him to be tbanned, I just want him to realize his problems with incivility at ITN/C. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, this is heading into boomerang territory, no? If you don't really want him tbanned, why did you write I propose that The Rambling Man be topic banned from editing Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates because of his incivility? Was it, perhaps, to make a WP:POINT? GoldenRing (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: You misunderstood. I want him to be tbanned, but I'm not like "I won't accept anything less than a tban". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: Fair enough, I guess. So, as per my oppose below, how will a TBAN actually do anything to improve TRM's civility? At best I see this proposal as essentially saying, "Make him go be uncivil somewhere else." GoldenRing (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: ITN/C is the only place where I have dealt with him, and it's the only place where I see inappropriate comments from him (or at least the arguments start at ITN/C). So, I thought a tban on ITN/C was an appropriate proposal. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think The Rambling Man should be topic banned, but I do want to comment that my only interaction with him (that I can remember) involved him assuming bad faith, making pointy comments, and generally being rude (see [148] for that discussion). That discussion also gave me the impression that The Rambling Man has an anti-American bias, and some of his comments linked by AmaryllisGardener seem to support that. I'd just like to request of The Rambling Man that he try to end the incivility and anti-American comments, rather than any specific sanction like a topic ban. Calathan (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Especially egregious behavior is exhibited in this discussion. It is full of personal attack threads, most of them started by TRM's aggressive and disparaging attitude. While some contributions to ITN are actually helpful, such as pointing out legitimate article quality concerns, a large part of them are disparaging and offensive to other editors.

In fact, the above discussion was so offensive that an editor actually posted about it on the ITN talk page essentially asking what can be done. I referred the editor to work out the differences directly on TRM's talk page, which was unfortunately not done. I am confident that this complaint was read by TRM, being on a page he edits often. While it should have served as an informal behavioral wake-up call, judging from the continuing disparaging behavior AmaryllisGardener points out, evidently a more formal callout is required.

TRM: Please take this nomination, whether it gets anywhere or not, as another reminder to show civility and respect in ITN discussions. Mamyles (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support for ITN ban based on repeated pattern of incivility. It's time to enforce existing policies. How many times have we been here discussing TRM's incivility? 10 times? 20 times? 30 times? There's no need to keep discussing. It's time to do what needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I always take civility preaching with a pinch of salt when they come from someone who thinks "some editors have antisocial attitudes, others are drunk or on drugs, and still others have psychological problems". I'm more concerned about an editor who holds these opinions, to,be honest. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Statistically speaking, considering the large number of people editing here, that claim is almost certain to be true ;-) Squinge (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• SchroCat is busy grinding his axe, please don't bother him with the facts. The actual quote (not the partial, out of context quote above) says exactly the opposite of what SchroCat claims; namely, that we should not reply to incivility with incivility because we can only control our reactions, not the behavior of other people, people who may have personal problems that we can't address. There is nothing remotely uncivil about this comment. It is unclear if SchroCat has problems with reading comprehension or if he is purposefully distorting what other editors write, but if it's the latter, that's a great example of an unbridled personal attack and radical incivility in action. Once again, he who smelt it, dealt it. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• "he who smelt it, dealt it"? Just how old are you? That sort of line was forgotten when people left primary school! I am grinding no axe here (perhaps you can read my mind and tell me what axe I am grindng here?): you are the one banging on the preaching drum, and my quoting your own words back to you is hardly a personal attack. Saying things like "It is unclear if SchroCat has problems with reading comprehension" is such an attack: it's petty, nasty and about as much as I would expect from you. - SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Chillax, dude. You partially quoted my words (out of context) back at me, but you didn't comprehend them. No biggie, twiggy. Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Grow up. Your hypocrisy has been pointed out to you, and you've been shown for what you are. I am as "chilled", as I always am, despite your attack on me, and your attempts to smear me with inexactitudes. – SchroCat (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose On the basis of what has been presented here, far more editors than TRM could be facing a topic ban from ITN. Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose If the problem is TRM's incivility, how will a tban from ITN/C fix that? GoldenRing (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit conflict) Not the most diplomatic editor in the world, but a good one. If a personality clash and an editor's desire to maintain a standard lead to a topic ban, things are worse here than I thought. Miniapolis 00:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, one of the last bastions of enforcing quality on the main page. I wouldn't like to count how many times TRM has prevented unferenced rubbish appearing on the mainpage. Stephen 01:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

His standards or views are not the issue; the way he converses with others is. 331dot (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - No way no how. I might have my disagreements with TRM but he's a significant part of the reason ITN is still somewhat credible.--WaltCip (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support - some admin action (beyond a slap-on-wrist-try-to-be-nicer), as no amount of contribution justifies a chronically combative, disruptive style of interaction. As I see it, that's a net negative for the project, although I understand I'm in the minority on that. I say this as someone uninvolved with any of the parties or with ITN. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Telling someone to expand a stub is good advice. It's easy to cherry-pick the odd off-hand comment without any context to make someone look bad. Hehe, "dead American ticker". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I recommend closing this with a request that TRM be more polite and avoid anti-American rhetoric. Making a stand on article quality is fine. Jehochman ^Talk 06:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  I'll try to be more polite, even to those who don't deserve it, and I'll try to avoid noting the pro-American bias which is clear. I'll also continue to attempt to uphold the quality standards of ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Really? The fact that you don't have a clue what an asshole that statement reveals you to be is, frankly, just sad. Banning you from ITN is kid's stuff, it's become quire clear that you really have no business being an admin at all. I can only hope that sooner or later your pissy attitude and abuse of rank-and-file editors will finally result in your desysoping, since you're one of the worst admins I've ever come across. BMK (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your constructive advice, albeit in the form of a blatant personal attack. It really will come in helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Wow... coming to an ANI thread about some minorly pointy comments to call someone an asshole? WP:BOOMERANG anyone? - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Hypocrisy, hypocrisy everywhere... this is why AN/I is a horrible place. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I do not support banning The Rambling Ban from the ITN pages, but I too would appreciate if he would be more collegial in his comments there, as his unnecessary rudeness deters me and I suspect others from wanting to participate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  Indeed. In the meantime it would be nice to see that direct personal attacks don't go without direct action, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - IMHO I don't see any reason to tban him, Sure he can be uncivil and or blunt but to be fair aren't we all at times?, At best I'd say give him a warning and move on but meh that's my 2¢ on it. –Davey2010^Talk 16:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

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

---

Improvingthepen (talk · contribs) was blocked. So, they created another username Improvingthepen2 (talk · contribs) as they admitted to here. I'm sorry if this is not the best place to report block evasions. Dismas|^(talk) 16:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced tables and removal of referenced sections

• Dinesh1673 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Vijayawada East {Assembly constituency) page:. These pages and many others were updated by User:Dinesh1673 by removing referenced sections and adding WP:OR. Some of the edits [149], Guntur East (Assembly constituency), [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], placed unref by removing ref sections and many other Assembly constituencies pages were updatd by removing referenced sections. The user on Vijayawada Central (Assembly constituency) page provided results stats of Pedana which has nothing to do with the page.Vin09 (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vin09: you should use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to alert the user that they are being discussed here at ANI. In this case, I have done it for you. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

IP changing "the Beatles"

105.228.18.240 (talk · contribs) is making a large amount of edits to Beatles related articles, changing "the Beatles" to "The Beatles", and (inadvertently or otherwise) going against a long drawn-out request for mediation on the issue. eg: [156], [157], [158]. Can somebody help clean up on this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also changed United States to USA against guidelines. Good faith or not, these were deliberate actions and this IP did a lot of damage in a very short period of time (about 100 articles in 2 hours). Piriczki (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not now, chaps
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Any admin with a spine would have blocked this user by now. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC) I don't think it's about having a spine, it's about being vigilant. I don't know that this page is under admin scrutiny 24 x 7. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Yeah, a page called Administrator Noticeboard that states "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" is hardly likely to be monitored by admins. Jesus wept. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC) I'm not saying it's not monitored - I'm saying it may not be being monitored every second of every day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted a 4im and will roll back. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sam, while the edits were undeniably disruptive and against consensus, I would not go as far as to call them "vandalism" - you don't know whether they were fixing "wrong" stuff, or deliberately changing caps "for the lulz". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right and I have undone that warning, the user stopped editing prior to the message regarding this discussion. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've posted a notice to their talkpage explaining the mass reverts per WP:ROLLBACK. Please take care to look at each of their edits before rolling back, because some of them combine correct and useful changes. --Laser brain (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• This IP has recently made a similar change to London Calling. They've also made some good edits. Yaris678 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am thinking of closing this, As this editor appears to be acting in good faith now, I recommend that we close this thread but keep careful watch in case he starts up with the bad edits again despite the Fact that I may be screamed at for asking if you guys can watch him instead of backing off Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 19:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

User:ADHZ07111989: creating hoax articles, personal attacks

ADHZ07111989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was the subject of an ANI complaint filed by Ian.thomson less than two weeks ago, for repeatedly creating hoax articles and adding pseudohistory to others. He was blocked once before by Nyttend for the same reason. The user has now returned after staying quiet since the last ANI. He restored the pseudohistory I deleted from two articles he created [159] [160], and began personally attacking me on my talk page and in edit comments [161]. A longer block is clearly needed. -Zanhe (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need ADHZ07111989 here? Even if they're acting in good faith, the end result is detrimental to the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. I already warned him, when blocking him the first time around, that further hoaxing would result in an indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism of Pages Concerning Public Officials

112.155.103.70(talk) has conducted vandalism to the pages of the following public officials in order to make a political statement regarding animal cruelty, which was not sourced and not significant: Misha Defonseca, Gary Herbert, Jim Norman, Butch Otter, and Jim Sacia. This user has been warned before, but continued such actions. His user IP might have to be blocked. I have duly notified his talk page. Spartan7W § 21:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you be more specific and show some actual incidence of vandalism? I only looked at the Jim Norman page. A quick google search seem to provide sources for what the ip put in. That's not vandalism. Where is the vandalism? What I do see is you posted a warning on his page and then came here. What I also see is that the other warning the IP got came after the IP's final post. What I also see is that you failed to inform them that you brought this to ANI. This is a waste of time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sumedh Tayade and WP:INDICSCRIPT

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

---

Sumedh Tayade has been amply notified about WP:INDICSCRIPT [162], [163] after going against consensus on a myriad of articles. However judging from their latest edits, they have no intention of stopping. [164], [165], [166], [167]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply from Sumedh Tayade (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC

Hello Respectable Authorities, I am a citizen of Kalyan City and an active Marathi Language Activist in My Block, I have mentioned my Kalyan City name in Marathi which is mine and the city's official language, what is wrong in having pride for the official name and its indication in Wikipedia's article, Is having respect for my mother tongue language wrong or only because some people outside Kalyan disagree hence adamant and prejudice based changes are made?? Please Reply to this Sumedh Tayade (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• There is no prejudice here so please do not play that card. You are simply asked to edit with consensus. That is the way we do things. Please adhere to that consensus and do not take it as some kind of assault. JodyB _talk 14:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Sumedh Tayade, simple question: Will you adding more or reverting back in content that goes against WP:INDICSCRIPT? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• What's wrong here? We generally include local languages in intros; see the first sentences of Moscow, Mount Athos, Jubail, Kathmandu, Maha Bodhi Ta Htaung, Xi'an, and Kobe. It looks to me as if project consensus needs to be enforced against WP:INDICSCRIPT, as a local consensus cannot override project consensus. Nyttend (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Good point, Nyttend. I guess the question is whether this has been put to consensus for discussion or does it just happen. But you have an excellent point and I agree that local does not override project. JodyB _talk 16:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

* Agreed with Nyttend, look like the MOS lead and Indiscript definitely contradict each other. Definitely looks like WP:CONLIMITED to me KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 17:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Did both of you read the discussions? Also, India has 20+ languages in widespread use and many regions use more than one, sometimes acrimoniously. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlike Moscow, Mount Athos etc., there is often no clear single candidate script for Indian names. India has many languages, many scripts and overlapping regions with multiple official languages and scripts. The consensus was that it doesn't make sense to include two, three, four, or more scripts in the lead (obviously messes with readability) and that shouldn't be a problem since there is no bar against including multiple scripts in the infobox. Consensus could change, but that's what it is now and it seems like a sensible one. --regentspark (comment) 17:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

See Jerusalem, where we've got names in three scripts, plus one IPA transcription and two transliterations into Latin. This is probably one of the most contentious place articles in the encyclopedia; if it didn't make sense to include 2+ scripts in the lead, someone would have figured that out before now. I glanced at the WP:INDICSCRIPT RFC, but this looks like a project consensus that greatly at variance with normal practice. Nyttend (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

As long as there is no policy requirement that we include all local scripts in all articles, I don't see any reason why a local consensus should be ignored. One size rarely fits all. --regentspark (comment) 17:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Another reason why the Indic script RfC went the way that it did is because there has been a substantial amount of edit warring over scripts. That warring had taken various forms: vying for precedence in the lists (where more than one was present), frequent back-and-forth over how precisely to render one or more characters in a particular script, and even outright vandalism where scripts were modified into something that was offensive. The regulars involved with the project simply cannot keep on top of these issues and more, across all 20-odd official languages and a few other common-but-unofficial additional scripts. I don't think anyone arguing for CONEXCEPT here really understands the complexities that apply. There are enough problems with articles in this topic area without adding scripts to the mix, especially given the skewed ratio of knowledgeable/experienced contributors to those who are not (a problem that has actually become exacerbated by WMF policy relating to India etc in years since the RfC took place). - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Apology from Sumedh Tayade (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

All Respectable Wikipedians and Relevant Editors, I am extremely sorry and i have realized my mistake of edit warring without prior consensus, I have recently become a part of Wikipedia Family and i was not familiar with systematic procedure of citation, referencing and consensus, Though i was informed by some editors to read about Indic Scripts, i was not ready to read it because from my childhood i have stayed in Kalyan City and traveled almost each and every corner of my city and i have great love and respect for my mother tongue and Official language 'Marathi' of my state Maharashtra in India. I had done the constant indic script editing because i have viewed many wikipedia articles with the subject's names in their respective native languages so i also wondered didn't consensus was taken into consideration while mentioning such names? All relevant opinions and guidance in a friendly manner would be welcomed by me. I will take care that i shall follow the systematic consensus before important edits.

@Sumedh Tayade: there is no doubt that there remain a lot of articles that contain Indic scripts. That doesn't mean you should ignore the consensus, it merely means that they have not been dealt with yet. The reasons for the consensus have been outlined above, although it looks like one or two experienced people who are unfamiliar with the situation are questioning it now that the matter has been raised here. The important point in all this is that you now realise that WP:CONSENSUS is what matters most, and that is great news. It is also good that you realise the disruption that results from edit warring and that you have apologised for that.

We all get it wrong from time to time and, obviously, those who are fairly new are likely to get it wrong more often. I propose that this report be closed with no action taken against you for these reasons. Just bear in mind for the future that discussing things is generally preferable, and probably especially so when you lack experience and/or when you find yourself edit warring against several people. It can save a lot of heartache and hassle. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No issues with no action taken against Sumedh Tayade as they now get why consensus is important. Bit concerned at WP:INDICSCRIPT being questioned above, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not the first time that the RfC outcome has been questioned on the drama boards. It survived in the past and I see no reason why it should not do so on this occasion. There are entirely practical reasons for it, and I think even those questioning it above are at least aware that the India topic area is a nightmare to deal with at the best of times. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Landmark Worldwide heating up, again

Trouble at Landmark Worldwide was recently reported on WP:COIN, at [168]. This is apparently a long-standing dispute; it's been to ArbCom, and there are sanctions. Right now, there's edit warring, reversion to old versions of the article, a new SPA, forum shopping, and a long talk page argument. I don't think we can deal with this at WP:COIN, so I'm passing the buck to WP:AN/I, where there are bigger hammers available. --John Nagle (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting the topic area has discretionary sanctions as an option to deal with behavioural issues as of Jan. 23. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• At some point someone should block them all and let God sort them out. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Ban User:Hum1969?

After seeing six sockpuppet investigations with the new one opened for the seventh time, could User:Hum1969 be banned from here and/or all Wikimedia projects? 135.23.145.164 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

By being indef blocked, he's already de-facto banned. If you want to request he be globally locked, do so here, but if he is not causing trouble on other wikis it won't be accepted. KonveyorBelt 01:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

An admin needs to look into this, check this edit out: [169]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Can I please get an admin to intervene here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The Windows account has been blocked by an admin. I've asked them to up the length per WP:DUCK. Amortias (T)(C) 03:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it seems pretty straightforward, I expect more socks to come. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Its a shame they're not as easy to spot as some of the other socks I've dealt with who just filled my page with various epithets about my sexual preferences. Amortias (T)(C) 03:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Safehaven86 denied recollection of deleted relevant WP article space content prior to a WP:RSN request for comment and talk page discussion

The advocacy organization ProgressNow has it own WP article. Progress Illinois, an online advocacy media outlet, does not. In fact, the organizations are independent. The WP article on ProgressNow included, in the first paragraph of the body, a list of affiliates at the US state level, and Progress Illinois was (correctly) not included.

1. 21:50, 6 February 2015 User:Safehaven86 deleted the list of affiliates from ProgressNow
2. 19:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC) User:Safehaven86 initiated an RSN request for comment regarding two sources, one from ProgressNow and one from Progress Illinois, under the subheading "Progress Illinois" WP:RSN#Progress_Illinois.
3. 19:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC) User:Safehaven86 began an attempt to develop consensus that the two sources are not WP:RS at Talk:Illinois Policy Institute.
4. In the course of the discussion at Talk:Illinois Policy Institute, User:Safehaven86 under-reacted to multiple attempts to clarify the distinction between the organizations behind the two sources. 20:30, 10 February 2015, 17:10, 11 February 2015
5. 19:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC) After an additional attempt to clarify the distinction between the organizations, User:Safehaven86 claimed "I was under the impression Progress Illinois was an affiliate of Progress Now, but perhaps that's not the case."

Which claim is untenable in light of User:Safehaven86's delete from ProgressNow of a few days earlier.

Issue: User:Safehaven86 may have attempted to leverage a co-incident in naming in an attempt to unfairly aggregate two organizations in order to manipulate the outcome of a talk page discussion and an RSN request for comment. Hugh (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

21:38, 12 February 2015 notification

Response

This all *might* make sense if my edit to ProgressNow [170] hadn't occurred prior to any ProgressNow sources being added by you to the Illinois Policy Institute page. [171] Are you suggesting I saw into the future and knew you would add a ProgressNow link on February 10, so on February 6 I removed an unsourced list of affiliates of ProgressNow? By the way, it's not a policy violation to remove unsourced material, which is what I did on ProgressNow. It is, however, required for you to notify another editor if you open a thread regarding them on this report board, which you have not done. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment::I see boomerangs in the air. What exactly is the problem here? Is this editor really making a complaint that someone "sought consensus" about whether a ref was RS and also took that concern to RSN? That really doesn't qualify as an incident. I feel that this behavior, both here, and at the other multiple noticeboard FORUMS the editor has launched on this matter is inappropriate. Talk about not assuming good faith. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And I'm not clear what type of issue is being reported here. This is a disagreement between users, and the OP hasn't specified which type of policy violations he thinks have taken place. In any event, this is also WP:FORUMSHOPPING, as the OP previously opened up an unresolved thread about me here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not clear what type of issue is being reported here..." See Issue, above. Forum shopping is the same or essentially the same issue on multiple notice boards. But you know that. This is not a 3RR compliant. That is a separate editor behaviour issue. Hugh (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way: it's not strange that I thought Progress Illinois was an affiliate of ProgressNow. Check out the list of ProgressNow affiliates listed here: [172]. Many of the ProgressNow affiliates in the states start with "Progress," e.g. "Progress Iowa" "Progress Florida" and "Progress Texas." It's reasonable to think a group called "Progress Illinois" is an affiliate. But this whole thread is a red herring. ProgressNow and Progress Illinois, related or not, are not WP:RS in the context they are being used at Illinois Policy Institute. I've been trying to tell you this, as have Srich, Capitalismo, and Collect, but the message isn't getting through. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"...it's not strange..." An honest mistake is possible but an honest mistake would not have persisted through multiple times having it plainly pointed out to you. Hugh (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You have yet to share the result of your evolved understanding of the distinction between these two sources at the your RSN request for comment currently underway under the title "Progress Illinois." Why not admit your honest mistake in a comment there and give your fellow editors relevant information that might well influence the course of the discussion? Better to not and see how it goes? Hugh (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – I've been interacting (quite favorably) with both editors on certain articles. Frankly I can't figure out what's at issue here? Is there some sort of request for sanctions or what? Perhaps WP:DR is the better forum. – S. Rich (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"what's at issue here" Restating: user claims honest mistake, not a deliberate attempt to manipulate the course of a talk page discussion and RSN request, but the late admission on the talk page and the total lack of clarification at RSN seems to me to support a deliberate attempt to bundle two sources that happen to have "Progress" in the name and count on connotations to carrying the day. Perhaps best categorized as suspected AGF shortfall. Hugh (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC) At worst a duplicitous manipulation of discussion, at best a very convenient shortfall in good faith effort to recover from an honest mistake, help me figure this out. If it's an honest mistake then user let it go long after most of us would have said, oops, sorry, my mistake, let me start over; still hasn't happened at WP:RSN#Progress Illinois But the request for comment and talk page were going pretty well, so leave well enough alone. Hugh (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Increasing Disruptive RfC

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

---

Talk:International Space Station

This is not the first time this article has had a RfC on what type of English it should be written in, a thoroughly pointless argument, but once again an editor has decided to start another. The RfC creator becomes very combative with those who disagree, and occasionally with those who agree. I think given the RfC has happened before (see the note on the top of the tp) this RfC should be admin reviewed and closed. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Who paid for it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This issue does not require administrator attention. There was no edit warring, so it was unnecessary for you to bring this here. This is an attempt to refuse to allow for any form of consensus to develop by ending another discussion prematurely. By the way, EoRdE6 also notified a person already likely to agree with him, RGloucester, which is biased notifying in my opinion. Either notify all involved in the discussion or just the one you are accusing. Dustin (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Feel free to notify the rest, my phone has 2% battery and copy-pasting is a nightmare. More importantly, this isn't an edit warring noticboard so how on earth does that relate to anything? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• This issue does not require administrative attention, and I agree with Dustin, surprisingly. This is just a form of forum-shopping that is unneeded, and unwarranted. Close it up. RGloucester — ☎ 05:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Was certainly not my intention. I am here asking for an admin review of the topic per the talk page notice that states language debates are disruptive. Nothing more. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

They may well be disruptive, but that's a content dispute. This particular RfC has been going on for thirteen days. There has been no issue. No edit-warring. No nothing. Merely debate, as is supposed to happen. Running to AN/I is almost never the answer to any problem, let alone content disputes. This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. RGloucester — ☎ 06:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I based this thread off if the TP note which says Restarting a debate that has already been settled may be taken as "asking the other parent", disruptive and even tendentious, unless consensus has changed or is likely to change. That basically deems the entire RfC disruptive and rather pointless. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 06:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The last discussion of any significance was multiple years ago. Policies and arguments can change substantially over that period of time. Dustin (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User/Admin Hoary

While there is a discussion taking place on the DRN I would like to oppose a threat by Hoary warning me being able to edit Soka Gakkai related matters -[[173]]. I am active in Wikipedia on Nichiren Buddhism related matters and on Buddhist architecture (the latter with more emphasis to the German Wikipedia) for almost eight years now. I am quite aware that issues regarding Soka Gakkai are quite contentious and have therefore limited my edits considerably . Considering the somewhat lively debates on respective talk pages on issues regarding Soka Gakkai I find Hoary’s threat disturbing to say the least. Over the years there has been a constant effort to delete critical material on SGI/SG and Daisaku Ikeda, to which I am opposed. While Hoary might find it to be suitable to dispute my neutrality I do find his/her objectivity as an admin disputable – my positon on SG is clear and I do therefore limit my edits. I believe to have contributed in order to have some controversial issues to be clarified. Editing in Wikipedia is a constant learning curve, but to be threatened with a topic ban is to my mind a no go, especially if the outcome would be to have one less rather critical editor.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the edit in question it appears to be more of a warning than a threat. As what appears to be an involved editor Hoary should be unwilling to use the bit so they may be wiliing and able to propose a topic ban but as these bans are imposed by the community (or ARBCOM instruction) this is not something that can be carried out by an individual administrator. It reads as a misinterpretation of a warning as a threat in my opinion. Maybe @Hoary: would be willing to confirm to finish this up quickly. Amortias (T)(C) 17:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It is about being in a position to issue warnings or threats. Based upon what has been going on I regard this as a misuse of rights as an admin. I am long enough on Wikipedia to have aspired admin rights myself but I refuse to do so as I see myself being an editor hoping for admins to be objective. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Before we tar and feather Hoary, can we get at least a shred of evidence that Hoary is a. involved with the subject matter and b. involved in such a way as to make a topic ban (warned or threatened) toward this editor conducive to their own desire for the article/subject matter? Drmies (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not my intention to tar and feather anyone. What bothers me is that an admin is heavily involved in an issue, which at least in my books seems to be personal, and feels entitled to issue warnings or threats. The editor/admin has come up a number of times in the past few years on the same issue. I have no objection whatsoever to have matters be resolved in any board dealing with such issues, but I regard this as a threat against my ability to edit as an editor. The remark left on MY talk page is what disturbs me a great deal as an effort to get rid of me. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Catflap08 Your leap from what Hoary wrote to assertions of hounding/Harassment is significant and without any support. To paraphrase it, what Hoary wrote was "If you keep on your current path you could be restricted from editing the topic" which is something any user could caution you about. Your attempt to shovel dirt onto the Admin, however, could be construed as a personal attack because it does not back up the assertion with concrete facts. Please be cautious as a projectile could be returning to you. Hasteur (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Catflap08 : Please take back your complaint and apologize to User:Hoari before the WP:boomerang will hit you. His comment was a very friendly advice + warning and you should be glad that he did not take it to ANI. JimRenge (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Unless I missed something wikipedia doesn't have an apology requirement. JimRenge, could the apology that you are trying to coerce really be considered more than hollow?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks to all of you for this thread, which (perhaps not intentionally) has brightened my morning. ¶ Yes, when a doctor tells somebody, "You're drinking too much. You really ought to lay off the booze before you get liver problems that can be fatal", the doctor hardly expects that the patient will tell the world "He threatened to kill me!" ¶ Perhaps Catflap08 would care to clarify what he means by saying that I am "heavily involved in an issue, which at least in [Catflap08's] books seems to be personal". ¶ I'm not entirely sure what kind of confirmation Amortias is after, but I'll try. The sole article to which Catflap08 is (obscurely) referring is Daisaku Ikeda: I have made virtually no edit to any other article related to Sõka Gakkai or indeed Nichiren or Buddhism. (I'd be interested to see some diffs proving that my memory, never very good, is wrong.) I have not considered blocking any contributor to the Ikeda article or its talk page, no matter how apparently dedicated that editor may be either to boosting the achievements of the biographee or to amplifying the questions that have been raised about him. (If I have blocked anyone, I think you'll find that this was for clear, unambiguous vandalism, a term that does not cover pigheadedness, etc.) ¶ Well, I await tarring, feathering, desysopping, topic banning, whatever, in trepidation. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Considering the complete lack of any evidence regarding your invooooolvement, I wouldn't hold my breath for it, Hoary. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I can't be too careful, Drmies. After wasting too much of my day here, I shall now get my affairs in order; for I know that I may be taken outside and shot at dawn. -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Don't count on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

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

---

I AM NOT A SOCK PUPPET 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evidently a block-evading sock of blocked user Koko_Nigel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per the sock's userpage. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by admin. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 09:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Britain First

Can I get some eyes on this quickly please. A group of new editors has shown up making a host of problematic edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Page has been protected, will start throwing reports over to WP:AIV unless you want the pleasure. Amortias (T)(C) 23:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppetting rather than vandalism? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly but some of the BLP issues could probably be dealt with under vandalism.Amortias (T)(C) 23:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ReportBritainFirst --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's either meatpuppeteering or sockpuppeteering, I believe if the edits are perfectly similar, under the clause of "quacks like a duck" we can successfully block all of them as socks without a CU. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock for Greek techno genre vandal?

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

---

Malmsimp and I are wondering whether it's feasible to set a rangeblock against a particular long-term abuse case, a techno genre vandal from Greece who uses a handful of IP ranges. The IPs fall into these major groups:

• 79.166.xx (32 different IPs in the last year)
• 141.237.xx (43 different IPs)

There are also fewer cases involving:

• 5.54 (two instances)
• 5.55 (two instances)
• 46.176 (one instance)
• 46.177 (three instances)

If we could block the two ranges with the most appearances that would help out a lot at the targeted articles. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• How often does he strike? From the page you referenced it looks like he shows up every few days. Those range blocks would be pretty large. I'm not saying it's bad, just big. JodyB _talk 00:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Correct me if I am wrong but to block both those ranges would require blocking over 130,000 ip addresses. I would think it would need to be narrowed down some more. JodyB _talk 00:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Every few days is considered a serious problem. Is there a tool that would show us how much traffic we actually have on 79.166 and 141.237? If blocking 130k addresses only blocks a couple of good-faith editors then I think it is worthwhile to do so. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Both ranges are very busy (i.e. [174]); they're both from Hellas Online, which according to our article has over half a million subscribers. Are the IPs scattered over those ranges or can they be narrowed down further? Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, given that the changes are fairly specific (addition of a certain genre) an edit filter would almost certainly be the way to go here. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Done at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Long_term_abuse_case. Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat on Prometric by 63.95.218.254

An IP editor who's IP adress seems to belong to the company page they edited issued a legal threat in this edit summary. I reverted the content removal itself and blocked the IP that made the edit for threating legal action. Still, i figured it would be a good idea to report this. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the sourcing for that section irreproachable? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats should be e-mailed to the WMF by the respective company. Any user who makes such a legal threat in any namespace will be blocked. Wait for an admin to pick this up. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 12:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

English people

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

---

Page protection please for English people an editor using ip addresses and new accounts is trying to edit war in a change. -- PBS (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please request page protection here. Thanks! JodyB _talk 12:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Lugnuts

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

---

Needs to be reblocked back for a blatant personal attack [175]. Unfortunately I can not do it since a couple of weeks ago after a series of personal attacks against me I informed him (and had to do it several times since they would not stop) that they are not welcome to communicate with me and post at my talk page. I appreciate if someone informs them of this topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

How is that a personal attack? In reference to your issues with me - this user added several incorrect edits to an article and didn't like being told so. Clearly out to prove a WP:POINT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Until you understand how this is a personal attack, you should not be editing the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours. Clear personal attack of the lowest kind. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

For the administrator who is going to consider the unblock request: Pls check the page history since the user removes whatever he does not like.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I endorse FreeRangeFrog, Ymblanter and Stephan Schulz. I don't know what Lugnuts (talk · contribs) is trying to achieve - I've seen some constructive criticism by him at ANI but these personal attacks have way crossed the line. Diffs for his infamous comments:

• Against Sluzzelin - 1
• Against Bishonen - 2
• Against FreeRangeFrog - 3
• Against FreeRangeFrog again - 4

--QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit warring/Not asking for consensus

User: Atomic Meltdown keeps changing the performers table on some Academy Awards ceremonies tables. See here:[176] and [177]. He did not ask for consensus with other people involved in similar lists promoted to FL. --Birdienest81 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring. Both of you are past WP:3RR and can be blocked. Read the dispute resolution policy, which will tell you to discuss on the article talk page (if necessary, after you both come off block), and will then provide some dispute resolution procedures to use if discussion on talk pages fail. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Economy of Serbia

I/We have a problem with one IP-address editor who seems to copy-paste material from some source, material of his/her last accepted version of the article - Economy of Serbia. In his/her version, as it is here: [178], there are few things removed, which are in my opinion very important. Also, he/she provided some unreliable sources, overriding IMF, CIA and other representative bodies for such topic, with portal ones, like b92.net etc. These edits have been repeated almost for several times and I'm not interested in edit-warring with this contributor, as it is against wiki's rules to do so. So, here am I, waiting for some admin to revise my/his/her work and give a judgement and a possible solution. Thanks!--AirWolf ^talk 19:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusation on Claudia mcHenry

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

---

Is there anything I can do without revealing any overly personal information I can do to prove that I am not a so-called sock puppet? PS, if this isn’t the right place, then where is? I want this matter cleared up now.

209.202.5.212 (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We've said it now and we're saying it again. BASC is where the authority lies. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Talk: William Double

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

---

Vandalism and WP:BLP violation. Needs to be deletted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

G8 should apply. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that this should summarily be blipped and the history fragged. WP:BLP issue trumps procedure. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted and creator blocked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Please see diff from IP account. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

handled with alacrity by Materialscientist see Special:Contributions/173.73.141.248. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Mass creation of empty "Year in Country" articles

It has come to my attention that in early January OccultZone, Jackninja5, National Names 2000, and <Ser Amantio di Nicolao mass created hundreds of Year is Country articles. Most of which remain completely empty a month later. The Year in Jordan articles have now all been deleted under A3 (by other admins) or moved to draft space (by me before I realized the extent of the problem). Now I see there are literally over 1000 of these worthless "articles". For a random example, see 1996 in Estonia. I would like 1) to know how these users all simultaneously came to start creating these. And 2) consensus to mass delete these. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not create any of those articles. Edit them, yes - I AWB'ed some talk pages once they had been created. But I didn't create any. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Ser Amantio di Nicolao appears to have only created talk pages, for the article after they were created by one of the others. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/National Names 2000. No comment on other editors. Chillum 17:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Put them in a blank userpage, only the links. Nuke them using Twinkle's batchdelete function. Voila! --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 18:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, I am aware of the tool to do the deletion. I didn't, however, want to just deleted 1000+ articles (and an equal number of talk pages) without any discussion. There is also the oddity that two well-established users and one newish user all started creating these at the same time. I think some sort of explanation is in order. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The empty shells should all be deleted IMO. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Investigating further, I found that while some have content added by Jackninja5, it is generally a copyright violation. For example, 2006 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has a single item "The three main militia groups in the troubled Congolese eastern province of Ituri have agreed to lay down arms and begin integrating into the Congolese army" which is an extremely close paraphrase of the linked source's "The three main militia groups in the troubled eastern province of Ituri have agreed to lay down arms and begin integrating into the Congolese army." I'm afraid all of Jack's contributions on other subjects now need scritizinedscrutinization too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Other items, such as those at 2005 in Jordan have been copied from other Wikipedia articles without proper attribution. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• I have requested a copyright investigation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A dreamer's rumination of an indented mind. Off-topic conversation. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 05:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoever breaks the indentation again shall get a trout for free. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC) You do realize that you are not required to indent one step further at each comment, right. My level of indention reflects who I am replying to and was done on purpose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Well, my policy is that unless it's a reply to myself, I add one more : --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC) It might as well be wrong. And I might just do it all the same. My bad. I give up to thee if I'm in the wrong, le ThaddeusB. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Not wrong, just different, as there is no universal "correct" way to indent - which is part of the reason people don't normally change someone else's indent. I wasn't replying to Lugnuts, for example, and thus put the next comment at the start of the line since it was a new thought. (I think his comment wasn't indented to begin with either, but don't recall for sure.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Nope, it wasn't. I guess I would rather collapse this since it's off-topic. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 05:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know and I'm not accusing anyone but isn't there a possibility that these 3 users in anyway related, sockpuppet or otherwise? Other than that, I endorse MassDelete. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

British are deleting from Gibraltar Article that this territory is under the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories

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

---

It is a campaign of deleting from the Gibraltar article that this territory is under United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Then they report the users that try to edit the article. Imposible to insert this very important statement as the colonial power is trying to desinform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pep2co (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

[179] This is undue weight, it is not neutral, WP:NPOV Spumuq (talq) 16:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And Pep2co has seven reverts now, [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] , this must stop Spumuq (talq) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

• Pep2co was indeed edit warring against multiple editors, so the block was justified, however, Pep2co is also correct that there appears to be a coterie of entrenched editors who control the page to make sure that no fact which could conceivably be considered to show the British in a bad light makes its way into the article. My own attempt to find a compromise placement for what is, after sall, an undisputed fact (that Gilbratar is on the UN's list of non-self-governing territories) was stomped on by Wee Curry Monster without discussion or even, from the timestamps, a lick of forethought.

  That appears to be a content dispute, but when a group of editors works together to control the content of an article, that is a behavioral problem. However, it's one beyond the capacity of AN/I to correct, and would have to be handled by ArbCom.

  In the meantime, I would suggest that uninvolved and neutral editors take a good look at Gilbraltar to make sure that it is written from a WP:NPOV, that the content is fairly presented, and that all viewpoints are given appropriate coverage. BMK (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Pep2co is also correct that there appears to be a coterie of entrenched editors who control the page to make sure that no fact which could conceivably be considered to show the British in a bad light makes its way into the article." — What. A. Surprise. Carrite (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

On cue, the House POV is locked down with Full Protection. Carrite (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Self-Promotion

I have just discovered a new user, User:Yahad-In Unum who, starting in December, is going through the towns of Ukraine adding trivial detail about Nazi atrocities to dozens of articles. While that, in itself, is not a violation of Wikipedia policy, although the content is generally unencyclopedic, the user is citing his own original (non-Wikipedia) research and using his own website as the sole source. While I could go through and revert all these edits, at this level of violation, it would be better coming from an admin. --Taivo (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Be bold and revert all of them. Then, leave a lengthy warning on his talk page explaining why the hell are his edits nonconstructive. After that, close your eyes for a minute and pray to God, that he reads it. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. But what is the policy that says, "You can't quote yourself?" It's used so rarely that I don't remember what it's called. --Taivo (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Taivo: Verifability#Sources that are usually not reliable(section#Self-published sources) would be it. COI is when the person is related to/involved as a subject and is preemptively being asked not to edit because of probable bias (which is normal, according to human nature). --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see what problem there is here. This user's contributions appear to me not only encyclopedic and on-topic, but very much needed: the history of the extermination of Jewish communities in Ukraine by the Nazis is a crucial part of the history of the Holocaust, and one that is much less known than extermination camps such as Auschwitz and Treblinka. Jews often were the majority of inhabitants in these towns, and that the articles' history sections did not mention either their existence or their mass murder was not to the credit of Wikipedia. Furthermore, I doubt that Taivo's characterization of these edits as COI and/or non-reliable sourcing is accurate: the user's name could denote interest in the organization's work rather than membership in it. Yahad-In Unum, as its well-referenced article shows, is a respected NGO that works with various universities and has received praise for their work documenting Nazi atrocities. We could discuss it better on WP:RSN, but at first glance, information published on their website seems reliable. Susuman77 (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Susuman77: Well, the issue is that - this account is operated by YU and according to our conflict of interest policies that is strictly disallowed. Furthermore, they evaded their self-declaration of COI (and also, people failed to notice) and went to to add sources violating WP:SPS. I say is because firstly no uninvolved individual would ever undertake work just in this category, so it's either someone from the organization or someone who's involved with the incident. I don't think any random person would take up the NGO's name as their username and randomly edit only such niched articles citing YU as sources. Just my two cents. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@QEDK: Sorry, but I fail to see an explicit "self-declaration of COI" by User:Yahad-In Unum. Maybe we should ask them about it directly, and if they're not affiliated with YI-U they should change their user name. If on the other hand they indeed are affiliated with the NGO, we should ask them to mostly make edit suggestions on the talk pages of the articles, if I remember the COI guidelines correctly. I don't understand your assertion that "no uninvolved individual would ever undertake work just in this category", as many people are indeed interested in the history of the Holocaust in Ukraine, and YI-U has provided in the last years much new information on the subject. I guess that in order to prove that, I'll have to undertake some editing of my own... Last, I still contest that YI-U is a WP:SPS: the "interactive map" is a misleading title as I can't see any ways for users to directly add info to it, and it rather seems to be the fruit of historical research by their team which, once again, has been widely lauded by specialists in the field. Would you object to me opening a thread on WP:RSN on this matter? Susuman77 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPS is for stuff that's self-published by average people, e.g. personal websites or AuthorHouse books, and it applies regardless of who adds it. When your organisation's produced reliable documentation on its website, citing that documentation isn't an SPS problem; we don't object on self-publishing grounds to the use of stuff from the US Census Bureau, a federal government agency, even though it's published by the federal government. The only thing that matters here is whether Yahad-In Unum's publications are reliable: if they're not, this is a problem regardless of who's added it, and if they are, this is fine regardless of who's added it. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Susuman77: You said, "... but I fail to see an explicit "self-declaration of COI...". That is what the problem is. He never declared that he has a COI w.r.t. the articles. And he added yet-unreliable sources. I would prefer you go to the RSN noticeboard - that's a place more befitting to establish consensus for reliability for the sources as they currently violate WP:SPS. But then, the COI issue can't be forgone. @Nyttend: Well yes (except for BLPs which is an exception). But then, we haven't yet established reliability, just as you stated. Then, we have the COI of course. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I started a thread at WP:RSN#Use of Yahad-In Unum. Feel free to comment there regarding reliability of the source. Susuman77 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if I broke Wikipedia's policy - I am somewhat new to Wikipedia. My point was simply to add results of Yahad-In Unum's research that I thought would be useful. I don't think this information is trivial and there isn't much content about this on Wikipedia (for instance, there is no article about the Holocaust by bullet on Wikipedia). The information I used is the result of original, extensive and continuous field research. The process is validated by historians and recognized worldwide. I used links to Yahad's map, because this is the only website with this specific kind of information. This map is updated regularly, with information about villages where the atrocities went, new information and videos of witnesses. Please advise me on how to go forward and if I need to modify my edits.Yahad-In Unum (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Yahad-In Unum, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope this experience is not too unpleasant for you... I generally share your opinion regarding the usefulness of the information you've been adding. In my mind, there is just one issue related to Wikipedia's rules regarding conflict of interest: someone affiliated with an organization (company or NGO) should avoid directly adding info sourced to their employer to articles. So the tough question is: do you work/volunteer at Y-I U? If not, in order to clarify it, you should request a change of user name (I can help you do that). If you do, first it would also be a good idea to change your user name to a more individual one (like "John at Y-I U" or whatever) and figure out together how you can add info to the encyclopedia without infringing the policy. Please tell us so that we can move forward. Thanks! Susuman77 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please follow the indentation, guys. Fixed for now. And I would recommend a response from YU before any resolutions for this thread. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and responses Susuman77. Yes, I am involved with Yahad-In Unum and I will change my username right now. Please let me know how to go forward from here and how I need to modify my posts. I am a bit confused as to why it's against Wikipedia policy for "encyclopedic" information (facts and statistics) to be posted by someone involved with a non-governmental organization that is investigating and confirming these facts. Thanks for alerting me to the problem.Yahad-In Unum (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

User:79.97.222.210 - Persistent disruptive POV pushing and edit-warring

The IP 79.97.222.210 is at present trying to enforce controversial and highly POV's edits on various articles by editing warring and a by on large refusal to discuss. I've decided to break the evidence down to an article by article basis rather than a daily one as it fans out a bit:

The Troubles

• On 26th January I reverted [187] several edits made that day by this IP to the sensitive and can be highly charged The Troubles article. The edits involved rewording and rearranging sentences/paragraphs to push an underlying bias making the section worse off. I called these "Nonsense edits".
• They then restored their edit [188] claiming it improved the article. I again reverted it citing to them WP:BRD and saying that "Improvement is a matter of opinion".
• After that they stopped trying to push it.

Military Reaction Force

• On 26th January the IP made a [189] large alteration to the Military Reaction Force article, which like The Troubles article is a contentious article. The edit consisted of rearranging the lede to give prominence to a "Death Squad" claim and the addition of unsourced statements with highly selective and bias wording. They claimed that they where "removed systemic bias, if it would be called a death squad in the developing world, it should be called one in an English speaking country".
• On same day I reverted this edit [190], though I admit with a bit of sarcasm with the summary "Reverting systematic bias". I was thanked for this edit by User:Asarlaí who has done most of the work on this article.
• The IP restored their edit on 1st February [191] with exact same edit summary: "removed systemic bias, if it would be called a death squad in the developing world, it should be called one in an English speaking country". I reverted [192] telling them to take it to talk.
• Again, on the 5th February, they restore it [193], to which I revert again on the 6th February [194] stating "What do you not understand about WP:BRD and taking it to talk?".
• I then make a follow up edit [195] edit to the article to reflect the sources actually used.

Republicanism in the United Kingdom

• On 26th January IP made the following additions: [196] and [197] to this article.
• On same day I reverted [198] because the information was irrelevant to the article.
• IP restores [199] citing the fact that it is sourced, as if that alone is enough for it to be added. Yet they also include unsourced additions.
• I reverted [200] stating "Sourced doesn't make it better. Please abide by WP;BRD".
• IP restores edt [201] on 30th January stating "irish republicanism IS republicanism in the united kingdom and extremely relevant", despite fact most of what they add has nothing to do with republicanism of any kind. I again revert [202] stating "Please abide by WP:BRD. Discuss your controversial addition and get consensus first.".
• IP again restores [203] stating "No, because nobody is objecting to it. You have to give a reason why republicans from the united kingdom shouldn't be in this article". This time another editor, User:Red Jay, reverts them [204] stating "Irish Republicanism although present with in the UK is separate issue, and is already mentioned on this page. I have added a see also to Irish Republicanism".

Parachute Regiment

• On 30th January IP [205] makes a large addition giving in my view undue weight to one event, the prominence of which is open to debate.
• I revert on 2nd February [206] on the basis that this was already detailed in the article.
• On 5th February [207] IP restores stating "it should be in lead as it is their most famous action along with normandy and market garden", which is open to debate. I revert [208] telling them to abide by WP:BRD.
• The IP then finally opens a discussion about it on the talk page [209], however that itself is troublesome: the title and opening sentence of it tries to imply that I am removing something established in the article from it. This is willful deception.
• By opening this discussion the IP then decides to re-add [210] their edit stating "re added per talk" despite the fact they where thr only particpant in their discussion. I revert [211] and respond to the discussion. After two comments I no longer respond so that other editors can give their view without an endless too'ing and frow'ing between us.
• On 10th February they again [212] reinsert their edit citing "readded per talk" despite no other participation by anyone in it and no consensus. They are then reverted by another editor [213] User:Edward321 who states "rv - no consensus on talk page,its barely even been discussed yet".

Universal suffrage

• On 6th February at [214] and [215] at the Universal suffrage article, which includes removing accurate sourced info and adding inaccurate unsourced info whilst stating in their edit summary "removed unsourced bias". I revert this [216] stating "Controversial and biased".
• On 10th February the IP restores their edit [217]. This is despite me posting a rebuttal of their edit on their talk page on February 6th.
• On 11th February User:Vyselink reverts the IP [218] stating "rvt unexplained removal of sources, changing of information".

Young Turks

• As far back as 16th December they make this edit. It is reverted by User:Melikbilge on 22 January who states "Already resolved long ago, see Talk".
• On 9th February the IP restores their viewpoint [219] stating "there's nothing progressive about murdering people because of their religion".
• As the addition is unsourced and the fact the sentence in question is on about an idiom I revert [220].
• I alter the statement altogether to better reflect the source [221].
• IP restores edit [222] with a highly subjective response of no "sources" deny the Turkish genocides despite the fact the source and statement is on about an idiom.
• IP is then reverted [223] by User:Herostratus who states this period of Turkish history" is associated with a lot of things. Here we're talking about the phrase "Young Turks" and what it actually means in English, not what you think it ought to mean.
• On 11th february IP again restores their edit [224], stating it's so important to include because genocide is the opposite of liberal, which young turks are described as. They then open a discussion with the first statement once again implying that editors are removing an established edit.
• Herostratus once again reverts the IP [225] stating Reverted per WP:BRD, thread opened on talk page, take it to talk and make your case there. Herostratuopens a discussion with a full response.

Notifications to IP

• On 26th January I posted a message on the IP's talk page detailing the problems with their edit and to abide by WP:BRD.
• On 30th January I issued a caution on their talk page explaining again Wikipedia is a collaboration and to get consensus.
• On 2nd February I issue a disruptive editing warning. On 5th February I issue a further two warnings. [226]
• On 6th February I posted a lengthy response to their edits at Military Reaction Force, Springhill Massacre and Universal suffrage.

Note the IP responds to none of my cautions, warnings or responses.

Conclusion As far I can see this is everything covered, if not my apologies. I have given this IP numourous notifications of WP:BRD, to take it to talk, and warnings to desist trying to push their edits. I have even explained to them on their talk page why many of those edits are wrong. Several other editors have also reverted them with one or two given them WP:BRD notices. They have ignored them all and continue to insist on pushing their agenda, and agenda which belies in all but the Young Turks article an anti-British establishment bias. As such I believe a sanction of some form is required to try to encourage this editor to behave more appropriately.

Mabuska ^(talk) 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to comment only because I was notified by User:Mabuska that he had pinged me in the ANI for reverting the changes made at the "Universal Suffrage" page. I had not noticed this ANI before then, and other than that one revert have no knowledge of the situation. I happened to look up the article for my own research, noticed that it looked odd, saw the edit and undid it.

As for the revert at the "Universal Suffrage" page (diff above added by Mabuska), the IP editor removed sourced information, the source itself, and drastically changed that particular part of the page. While I can't comment on his overall bias/lack-there-of etc, that change was extreme and incorrect as far as information and removal of sources. Vyselink (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

These are content disputes in which no rules have been broken and nobody is behaving disruptively. Mabuska claims I am a POV pusher. I am involved in discussions on several of these talk pages, and whether my edits are correct or not is not a matter for ANI.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I believe "The Troubles" is covered by ARBCOM sanctions (not sure if they are general or discretionary). I think if this was a dispute about content on one article, it would be best resolved on the talk page or in DR but if there is a pattern of disruptive editing and failed attempts at resolution, then this belongs at AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In the past people a 1RR has been enforced on some editors of article relating to the Troubles. However, a content addition, a talk page post and 1-3 reverts all over a periods ranging from 5 days to 58 days hardly constitutes a breach of 1RR, never mind 3RR. Additionally in the Troubles case Arbcom passed "editing in someone else's area of interest in retaliation is inappropriate", and Mabuska has followed me to articles unrelated to the troubles to revert my edits, which he shouldn't do. However, I do not think this warrants sanctions either.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This AN/I was opened not because of the exact content but due to your persistent pushing of your edits regardless of protocol, which the above evidence shows quite clearly. You have been told many times to discuss and take it to talk. You have only done so twice, and both times implied the reverting editor is at fault. You also used the opening of a discussion as reason enough to re-add your edit twice!

What is your defense for your going on despite warnings and ignoring the responses I left you on your talk page which made it clear you should discuss? The ignoring of reasons why your edits where POV and incorrect. How many times have you been told of WP:BRD (by more than myself) in the past 2 weeks and ignored it completely?

In regards to following you, as a long-time established Wikipedia user, I have a responsibility to revert vandalism and try and keep tabs on troublesome and disruptive editors, which you have proven yourself to be. This means checking your contributions to this site, which in the past few weeks shows quit a bit of disruptive editing on your behalf. This is not "retaliation" and not a sanctioning offense. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Also your current edit to the Parachute Regiment is also fraught with issues, containing a convolution of the source to push a more scathing sentence about the Parachute Regiment that the source does not explicitly say. This can be classified as an example of your POV-pushing.

I would suggest you leave editing these articles alone at present and stick to their talk pages until this AN/I has concluded. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite the opening of this AN/I and statements that they are discussin edits, the IP is still going around trying to enforce their edits. This time a different editor is reverting them.

• Removed this information from Etruscan society citing "removed racist theory", which is stretching it. Edward321 reverted it [227] to which the IP does it again [228] citing "Unsourced information can be remove by any editor who questions it. If you dispute my changes, please say so in an edit summary and we can take it to talk". The fact they where reverted makes it obvious enough that the edit is disputed and that they should take it to talk. Edward321 then again reverts [229].
• At Idealism in international relations the IP removes detailed information [230] highly relevant to the article citing "removed needless focus on american politics in the intro". Edward321 once again reverts this vandalism rightly citing "rv to better version" before the IP restores it [231].
• The IP then clearly gets annoyed with their edit summary in that last edit: "Why are you following me around reverting every single edit I make without giving any reason in your edit summary?". Though having already giving the IP an answer above to that question when they posed it to me, it should be quite clear to them that their edits are detrimental to Wikipedia and add next to nothing to site to improve it.

This IP should be placed on some form of editing restriction, such as if they are reverted they must take it to talk and seek consensus. If they restore it (tweaked or otherwise) then they should get a temporary block that lengthens each time they violate. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Behaviour of user:Big Chief Thinker

This relative newcomer to Wikipedia has managed to make a few constructive edits (e.g., [232], [233]) but also several questionable ones ([234], [235], [236], [237]). However, when he/she was notified about the problems with his/her edits (mostly using standard templates), he/she reacted in a rather aggressive and disparaging manner: [238], [239], [240] (see also edit summaries!). Would anyone take time to explain this kiddo that this is not Romford High School and a degree of civility is expected from all contributors? Thank you and regards, kashmiri ^TALK 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I made an attempt, although reading through I'm afraid I may have left a wall of text. I think this editor has a lot of upside, if he can fundamentally understand our civility policy. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant! Let's see if it has the desired impact :) Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 13:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

attacks at Talk:Christian terrorism

Would someone kindly look there? I fear I do not liked being called [241] "You guys are as bad as Holocaust Deniers" in an edit summary,

You two continue to prove my assessment of the situation correct. You're deleting Reputably Sourced sections off of the India section, piece by piece. You're PRETENDING that the items hadn't been thoroughly vetted and sourced for months or years prior to your sudden deletions based on your "Consensus of 2". You are everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. I guess the Christian terrorists in India will applaud your actions at minimizing and covering up for their murderous activities, and give you a nice big "thumbs up". My blood pressure can no longer take this kind of deliberate POV abuse by you two. I'm taking a break from WP. I'm sure when I come back, you will have completely destroyed this page, and all references to anything Christians have ever done wrong in the history of the planet.

[242] [243] etc. including:

I have tried to WP:AGF with you on many occasions, but you will have none of it. You resort to deleting every edit I make, regardless of how many reputable sources I add, and you consistently attempt to eliminate any wording that does not agree with your pro-Christian weltanschauung. We've both been editing this page for years, and you've been quite consistent in your edits. I don't need "consensus" to overcome your personal opinions regarding the NSCN. I need reliable sources, and I've been adding them...and you've been deleting them. Again, that's not how WP works

So really, you're just proving my earlier point that you would just make up some excuse to deem the source "untrustworthy" because it's Indian. Just admit you really have no understanding of this subject and move on. We all understand that you want to delete everything off this page, and you are always doing your best to whittle away at it, but you really need a new hobby

No need for overkill the mere claim that editors are like "Holocaust deniers" is quite beyond the pale, and he has done same sort of defamation in the past.

[244], (This is exactly the kind of absurd "fake logic" used by Holocaust Deniers, and used for similar reasons: Apologetics...not facts. Apparently, he thinks if he repeats a lie often enough, it will become fact... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC) ) [245] Saying that they don't, in spite of news articles from the BBC [36] and elsewhere [37][38][39], is no different than Holocaust Denial, and done for the same reason: Apologetics for murderers. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC) ,

You are suggesting that acts of murder and atrocity were just made up by "Hindu radicals," and didn't happen, even though they are reported in the media. And that kind of behavior is exactly the same as saying that the Holocaust didn't happen, or any other acts of murder or atrocity...and you are doing for the same kind of reason. Neo-Nazis do it to make excuses for Nazis. You're doing it to make excuses for Christian Terrorists. So no, I'm not retracting anything. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In short, his attacks have gone way past anything normally accepted on Wikipedia, and he has been brought to noticeboards for his proclivity to compare editors to "Holocaust deniers". (I am not listing his many other uncivil remarks, as this is way beyond the pale). (user notified) Collect (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Bryon Morrigan is misrepresenting what other editors say and using personal attacks. The content dispute at Christian terrorism is whether the National Socialist Council of Nagaland, a Maoist insurgent group representing a majority Christian Sino-Tibetan minority in North-East India that uses terrorism should described as Christian terrorists, i.e., a group whose primary motivation is Christianity.

This user has an info-box on his user page that says, "This user believes that Monotheism, not Religion itself, is the source of the World's problems." ["Monotheism" refers to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.] This belief prevents him from editing in a neutral manner and leads to him making accusations against other editors whom he sees as part of the monotheist problem. He is unwilling to accept that there are other opinions about the causes of the world's problems, such as conflict over resources, ethnic division, ideology and many others.

Given the edtior's lack of collaborative editing I would suggest a topic ban on articles related to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

TFD (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

TowerData Rapleaf page merging.

A user seems to have merged or redirected pages in good faith. TowerData www.towerdata.com is a large company (thousands of employees) that purchased a smaller company called Rapleaf (less than hundreds of employees). It appears that the larger TowerData page content was blanked and replaced with Rapleaf. http://www.towerdata.com/company/news/towerdata-acquires-rapleaf-press-release

Maybe an admin can help to revert the old TowerData page? I have no idea how to do this... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TowerData&oldid=636672162

Then if user User_talk:OverlordQ wants to add some data about the Rapleaf product on the TowerData page and then redirect it might be logical.

If I am confused and TowerData never had a wikipedia entry until this Rapleaf entry was redirected, please forgive me. But in that case the redirect needs to be deleted as redirecting Rapleaf to this new page implies that TowerData is only Rapleaf. Rather, TowerData is a large company with many products.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a page move. Jtbobwaysf, you can move the page back if you want to, though I strongly suggest you discuss with User:OverlordQ first. Epic Genius (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Map in Westarctica's article

User Vyacheslav84 keeps on reverting my edit to the Westarctica article, more specifically keeps on bringing back the old map of the land claims of the Antarctic Micronational Union and its members, while I added the new one, which comes from the AMU's website. I'm not sure if he doesn't realize that the old map is outdated and no longer represents reality, or if he purposefully vandalizes the page, but in either case it's clearly an example of counter-productive edit warring. It's worthy of noting also that he nominated the new map for deletion for violating copyright, even though on the website it clearly states that it's licensed under Creative Commons. --Escargoten (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• The new map is based on non-authoritative source and replacing the old card is a new is war edits. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's the map of the AMU, and it comes from the website of the AMU. The one you keep on reverting to doesn't have a source at all. --Escargoten (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Escargoten, it doesn't look like this issue over the map has been discussed on the article talk page or on the user's talk page. That is where you should start addressing this dispute first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• • edit conflict I'm not seeing any discussion between you two other than some edit summaries. Maybe you should speak with the editor in question on his talk page. At the very least did you notify him of this discussion at ANI? JodyB _talk 15:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • And I am always ready to discuss this issue, but first let the participant ceases to wage war edits. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Indeed, so stop edit warring - you already violated the three reverts rule. --Escargoten (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • He started a discussion on my talk page and is now throwing insults at me, particularly calling me a "creature" in Russian. --Escargoten (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
      • it is a synonym "friend" Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
        • It isn't, the word "существо" in Russian is applicable to animals. --Escargoten (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest you take this to the article page and discuss it in English. That would allow for greater clarity of other editors on the English Wikipedia. JodyB _talk 15:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• "However, editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." - Wikipedia:Edit warring Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet you accused me of vandalism too. --Escargoten (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the page.) --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grand_Duchy_of_Westarctica#Maps_from_Self-published_sources --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Haven't seen it, so made my section too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grand_Duchy_of_Westarctica#Westarctica.27s_map Not a self-published source in any case though. --Escargoten (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocks All Around I have blocked both editors for 24 hours for violating the 3RR policy. The page is protected too but I will probably drop that now that they are blocked. Please check the page history and see how they both blew right past the 3RR. JodyB _talk 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• All this fuss over an entity which has no legal standing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2015: Second Call For Candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking more candidates for the currently ongoing Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The deadline for completed applications to be returned to the Committee is 2359 UTC on 17 February. As there is a questionnaire to complete, interested administrators are encouraged to contact arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org soon.

For the Arbitration Committee; Courcelles 16:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Comments by User:SveinFalk

I'm growing increasingly concerned about somewhat aggressive behaviour from SveinFalk (talk · contribs) towards other editors, in particular this comment on Fenix down's talk page, this comment and this exchange on their own talk page, and their comments directed at me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patipan Unop. Normally, I wouldn't mind so much. I'd much rather they vent their frustration at me than at someone who might be driven away from Wikipedia, or worse retaliate, but they've been warned several times about this sort of thing already. Most recently, they received this warning from GiantSnowman. More significantly, they were given a final warning following another ANI three months ago failed to come to a satisfactory close. (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#I really stepped into it: South-east Asian association football article problems). I'm hoping a brief block will make it clear to them that this sort behaviour is unacceptable and that final warnings need to be respected. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC):

I agree with everything above. More irritating than anything else. SveinFalk is clearly here to build an encyclopedia, it's just he has created a significant amount of content that a number of editors have highllighted as of questionalble notability. Rather than attempt to discuss or improve the articles, he has got a bit own-y, highlighted by his talk page comments above and examples such as this, this and this which were the rather tedious results of his "declaration of war", although this at least seems to have stopped.

There have been repeated attempts to engage with SveinFalk and repeated warnings as to his general conduct, but whilst he is here with good intentions he needs to be aware that WP is not a repository for any and all information, that he has no ownership of Thai football articles and that he needs to engage with other editors in a productive way when the notability of his work is questioned. Given the history noted above I would approve of a block, although I note he is involved in a number of AfDs relating to his articles and would not want his ability to continue with these to be impeded. Fenix down (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm obviously INVOLVED here, as I have !voted on a number of these AFDs, and yes I have advised this editor to calm down. Their content work is good (even if their grasp of notability requirements are not) but their attitude just stinks. He has threatened to edit war and block evade - on balance I would suggest we topic ban from creating new articles, let him work on improving existing ones. If that doesn't work he should be blocked. GiantSnowman 13:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I too was drawn into this circle by another editor who edited in an area that I watch (North American association football articles). I followed that editor to Thai and South Asian association football articles a few months ago and SveinFalk is an editor of those articles. The subject's understanding of the content is good. That's unquestionable. The editor is not, however, a WP:RS and does not support edits with RSes. That's a problem, but one that can be fixed. As an editor who has been blocked for edit warring myself, I certainly can't point fingers, but I have never promised "wars" and understand that block evasion is inappropriate. I agree with GiantSnowman that the editor's attitude stinks. The examples are concerning and merit a block. I would argue that its duration should be determined by SveinFalk's response. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@SveinFalk: your input here would be welcome, as would input from other, non-INVOLVED parties. GiantSnowman 19:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Refdesk troll resuming activity after returning from block

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

---

• 92.236.100.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Csssats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See also: previous thread.

IP has a history of asking racist and stupid questions, and then edit warring over it. They've been blocked before because they're a clear troll. After returning from their block, they're at it again.

I've given them a warning not to use the reference desk for anything but requests for sources. They ignored that, creating the account Csssats to restore the question.

Troll block, please. If they're "not" a troll, they're clearing incapable of not acting like one. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, it's not over yet. They've hopped to this IP. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP's locate to opposite sides of the Channel, so it might be a copycat. But if it continues, it might be a good idea to semi the ref desk page for a short time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Proxy is another possibility. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. All the more reason to semi the page(s). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: refdesk misc protected -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that was all that was needed to be protected as the other page has not been touched by either of these two for over a year. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think all actions have been done here. (archive bottom moved) -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Two editors making repeated changes

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

---

We have two editors @Wasp-1992: and @Acdcguy1991: making repeated changes which need to be discussed, here also. A lot of WP:OWN going on despite multiple reverts, warnings and pleas to start a discussion to gain consensus. These edits need to be reverted but, I'm not going to press a 3RR situation, hoping an Admin can help. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Çomment - these editors are refusing to engage in a meaningful way and are ignoring requests to edit by consensus. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I was ready to start a dialoge but my arguments were fully ignored by Flat Out. Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasp-1992 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment this edit confirms that the editor is unwilling to seek consensus. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

The Clash and legal action

So we have had a bit of a problem over at The Clash. I originally removed some text added to the lead that looked like it was copied from another website. After some investigation I think this was an error...however In the proceeding time we have had a few meatpuppetes make some comments and taking the topic to social media. Most recently a threat to take legal action has been made as seen here. There seems to be a lack of understanding of whats going on by the new editors. Just need an admin here to slow down things down. -- Moxy (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that rises to the level of a direct legal threat (they hope someone else will take legal action). I left them what is basically a final warning on their talk page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that what Andypunkfan said was probably not a legal threat, this posting by Kathydi1977 clearly was one: The statement "This matter is being referred to Keith's lawyer for further handling." was clearly intended to affect the discussion and suppress comment. The fact that it's "Keith [Levene's] lawyer" is largely irrelevant in light of the fact that Kathydi1977 has admitted in this posting that she's the co-author with Levene of the book that a quote from which was the root source of this brouhaha. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that is a clear legal threat. Indefed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

opps sorry about that ...i was meaning to link Kathydi1977 post not the one I linked....good to see it got solved anyways. -- Moxy (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

NBA All-Star Weekend

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

---

re: NBA All-Star Weekend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have a link to the NBA's own page covering the All-Star Weekend. But, the article had some spamming issues, legal threats[246], and block evasion by user(s) claiming to represent a website that believes it has the right to advertise itself on this article. (see talk pages at User talk:50.89.112.136 and User talk:Idriveorlando)

Today I blacklisted to url after an additional IP began adding the link. However, shortly afterwards I received an email pointing me to a page on the spammed website (link disabled due to blacklisting): allstarweekendnewyork.com/wikipedia-blocks-all-star-weekend-new-york-external-link-lawsuit-pending

I just wanted to mention it here in case anyone feels it should be forwarded to legal@wikimedia.org. It seems the definition of frivolous, but would appreciate other opinions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Forewarned is forearmed so might be worth warning them. Another alternative would be to ask them to read WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion before posting here again. Amortias (T)(C) 18:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Shoot them a message but I would be surprised if this "pending" suit ever made it into a letter from a lawyer. Sounds like a lot of junk to me. JodyB _talk 20:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• The IP's and registered editor have been blowing hot air for a couple weeks. Their threats are about as credible as this claim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• I'm tempted to post a notice on the comments on the spammed site. But, its just someone attacking Wikipedia because they got blocked —fairly. I hope this is all just hot air, and it most likely is. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Unusually high influx of newspaper articles

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

---

Not sure if there is a policy violation occurring here or not, but thought it should be brought to administrators attention just in case. I'm not really sure what to make of this, but several new editors have been creating pages about Australian newspapers. It's odd that so many are being created at the same time all by new users. Here's a selected list of Articles that I'm talking about:

1. Corryong Courier created by User:Lib6212
2. Rutherglen Sun and Chiltern Valley Advertiser created by User:Zactherat
3. Rushworth chronicle and Goulburn advertiser created by User:Bulldogs73
4. Dimboola Banner created by User:Librarytraining
5. Daylesford Advocate created by User:AliceBallantyne1914
6. Ovens and Murray Advertiser created by User:MLY2014
7. Wangaratta Chronicle created by User:Salve58
8. Nathalia Herald created by User:Houdain
9. Ararat Advertiser created by User:Alfrulz
10. Snowy River Mail created by User:K2lib
11. Euroa Gazette created by User:Russellbrooks
12. Mortlake Dispatch created by User:Bc.infoservices
13. Casterton News created by User:Imforlibraries
14. Dunmunkle Standard created by User:Kmudnim

All of these articles were created within an hour of each other today. I had noticed an influx of Australian newspapers articles a few days ago, but just today realized the severity of it. This may be some sort of sock/meat farm. I have no opinion as to whether all of these articles meet WP:GNG or not, but just was concerned by this activity. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

These appear to be articles being created as part of Wikipedia:GLAM/Australian libraries and WP/Events/2015 ALIA Workshops. -- Whpq (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, that seems to explain it, okay sorry to waste time, we can close this discussion now. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed it too, and left a message (HERE) on the talk page of one of the trainers. No reply yet... Deunanknute (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we need some kind of notification system to notify new page patrollers and recent change patrollers that a workshop is occurring and to expect and influx of "xx style" articles. Otherwise how are we supposed to know of this type of creation en masse, and differentiate it from sockpuppets? I would assume because it's a workshop that the trainer is requiring that all articles be notable. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think such publications are inherently notable and I regularly make citations to newspaper publishers for contemporary reviews and showings for my century old film articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably just need a temporary tag for the top of the page with a link to the project page that contains a list of articles being created/edited. Deunanknute (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"How are we supposed to know?" Nearly every one of those editors has the training linked on their user page. WP:MEAT is about debates and !votes. I'd say that meatpuppeting a series of articles is good editor recruitment and training, especially if they are clearly referenced to quickly check WP:V. Anyway, if you do want a temporary tag (careful: more on-the-spot work for the trainer and less time for teaching), I'd suggest putting it on the talk page, not the article itself. 99of9 (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is very sad. A group of librarians attends a training session. They create nicely-crafted and illustrated articles about newspapers. They are met by notes on their talk pages telling them that their work is being discussed at ANI, and in two cases by AfD notices (Cobram Courier by User:Rkgbro was left off the list - I don't know how many others there are). Not so much as a talk page welcome (I've done that now). Crossed wires, lack of AGF, generally a very unwelcoming experience for a group of potential editors. I think some apologies are needed, and I hope these new editors will stick around despite this mess. (Perhaps I'm being hypersensitive in this case, out of professional solidarity - and the belief that librarians and ex-librarians are among some of our best editors!) I don't know whether the trainers were being misguided in encouraging articles on non-notable newspapers - AfD might show - but I think it was inappropriate to bring these to ANI without checking a little further: every editor's user page says that they're attending a training session. PamD 14:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

So is this a case where people should not have been notified that they were being discussed? --NE2 03:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

please block randkitty

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

---

Please would you block Randkitty from editing the following pages: R. Bruce Bury, Stanley E. Trauth, Malcolm L. McCallum, Walter E. Meshaka, Christopher T. McAllister. This individual is applying his own personal opinions regarding content to the pages I have been developing. The opinions of this individual may apply to whatever discipline he/she got their PHD in, but it sure does not apply to my discipline in which I have earned my PHD. IN fact, his comments are largely completely incorrect EXCEPT when it is in regard to technical issues directly related to Wikipedia pages. The only alternative that is possible is that this individual is a confrontational adversary (and very well could be) who desires to suppress information about these people. This would be a direct conflict of interest as inappropriate as writing your own bio on here. These pages have been raked over by multiple other editors and the ONLY one who has randomly deleted material without warning is Randkitty. I believe it is an intentional attack and has nothing to do with Wikipedia appropriateness. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I can't find a user named Randkitty; are you sure you spelled that right, Herpetology2? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Randykitty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, you mean Randykitty. I haven't read into the whole dispute yet, but what I can say is this...Randykitty is an admin, so for him/her to be flat-out blocked for a content dispute due to a new user's request would be an extreme thing to happen, imo. Also, please read the instructions directly above this text area:

“ When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. ”

I did that, however. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Are you also 71.50.25.97 ,Herpetology2 (talk · contribs) ? seicer | talk | contribs 05:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope, sorry; I don't sock. BTW, Herpetology2, comments like this are a violation of WP:NPA, so I suggest you start being more courteous. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't referring to you. seicer | talk | contribs 05:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Herpetology2: I've looked at a couple of these articles, and what I see is Randykitty removing "academic genealogies" that are both redundant - the articles already state where the subject earned the doctorate and in what year - and unencyclopedic. Notability is not inherited, and it does someone no favors to suggest they would be less of a scholar had they studied under someone else, now does it? Also, while we appreciate your writing these articles, and I know how much work it takes, this is a collaborative project and it's important for you to realize that no one "owns" the articles they write to the extent of being able to decree that others may not edit them. If you feel edits are diminishing an article, rather than edit war, you need to discuss the matter - either on the article talk page or, without insults and threats, on the talk page of the editor if the same person is doing something you object to on multiple pages. But you may not be right, and in this instance, so far as the "academic genealogy" goes at least, I fear you are not. We don't have such sections on Wikipedia unless, as Randykitty has said, a reliable source has pointed to that as a significant feature of someone's career. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• • First off, does not wikipedia state taht we are not to delete material without discussion? I remember reading something to that effect. Second, I did not feel the comments were all that insulting, especially considering not being given the curtisy to make corrections myself with a warning in even a single edit made. YOu will notice that if you look through my correspondenses with other editors, it is less confrontational, because they ahve actually been more-or-less helpful. I did not threaten the guy/gal either. I informed him/her I was requesting he/she be blocked exactly as it says we must do. But, whatever you want to call it, it does not matter. As for notability and geneologies. Is this ONLY purpose of wikipedia to assess notability? Because this is not the purpose of the geneologies. The ideals, approaches, and philosophies of academics stem from their mentors and their mentor's mentor's on down the line. Therefore, when you provide the academic lineage, it is clear that certain things are more than likely true of that lineage. For example, some lineages value writing for the public, others value only writing for the highest journals, others value conservation over evolution and vise versa. These are not fluff. They tell a lot about a person. It is no coincidence that when you discuss a topic with another academic and that academic came out of E.O. Wilson's lab that it will reflect on his/her importance and say a lot about who these people are. IN fact, those who came out of Archie Carr's lab are largely conservation-minded and interested in informing the layman. THis is not restricted to his lab, but it certainly stems from that lab and bleeds all the way down through the descendents. This is not a foreign concept, in fact, when doctoral students are advised to choose their mentors, they are largely informed to understand where their prospective advisor came from, hence what is hsi/her academic line. This has been outlined and discussed widely in the academic sector, which simply mystifies me how this individual has not heard of it. It has been discussed in Advice to a Young Scientist, which was only written by a Nobelaureate. It was discussed in courses I took at three different universities. It was mentioned to me by not by a few, but by dozens of scientists in biology, chemistry, EVS, and mathematics. But, if Wikipedia feels that it would rather have their pages be LESS informative than more, so be it. However, this problem with RandKitty is not limited to geneologies. This person has deleted citations, then turned around and deleted text stating it was not cited at least once. IN another case, he/she deleted part of a sentence, changing the meaning, then coming back and stating the info was wrong. Later, he/she listed a section as unsupported by citations which literally had the citation right there at the end of the paragraph and outside the final period as is proper to indicate that citation is for the entire paragraph, not just the sentence. I guess I could have pasted it after every sentence, but it seemed pretty obvious to me at the time. THen, he/she deleted a News release claiming it was "some email on a forum post." An official news release from a national organization is in his mind nothing more than an email? This is what makes me believe this person is in a field with very different standards of communication and which uses media in much different ways, thus making his/her opinion (although valid in his/her field) destructive to the pages I have constructed. As I said, every single editor has been largely polite and mostly helpful. But this person has been neither, refering to material as silly? That is an insult. Referring to it as fluff? border-line insult. Heck, I have interviewed every one of these people, then have been tracking down citations to fill in their background to make sure it is supported. It is pretty difficult to tweak these things when someone is editing all your material every few hours. It seems like you might give it a week or something. Does this person have a day job or are they paid by Wikipedia to do this (seriously?). IN one case I was making corrections and tried to save, only to have the guy/gal delete the section I was correcting before I could save it....because I had saved the text first, then went back to add in the cites. With all the pages on Wikipedia, why is one person dedicating so much time to deleting everything that is uncited, when some of it was up for maybe an hour, a day, or a little longer. No one else was doing this in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• I would like to draw Herpetology2's attention to WP:BOLD regarding the fact that I made edits to "their" articles without first asking their permission. In addition, I have provided long and detailed edit summaries, as well as explanations on talk pages. Herpetology2 inists on adding peacock stuff that is either unsourced or not supported by the sources given, source stuff to [cherokeecountykansas.yuku.com/topic/382/quotJoseph-T-Collinsquot-Kansas-Herpetological-Society?page=14#.VNgWg_54pcQ news releases posted on some email list], or claim that Christopher T. McAllister is a "prominent coccidiologist of international stature" based on a simple list of names of coccidiologists that uses none of these qualifications. Herpetology2 also insists on inserting OR/SYNTH by comparing numbers of publications of an individual with the mean number of publications of other people in their fields (for example, here. There's a long-standing consensus at WP:ACADEMIC that just having large numbers of publications does not add to an academic's notability, what counts is whether these publications have had a significant impact. Herpetology2 is also edit warring on Herpetological Conservation and Biology, insisting on inserting citation data that (per consensus at the academic journals wikiproject, see also the journal article writing guide) should not be listed in articles on academic journals, including at least one measure ("Universal Impact Factor") that is known to be fraudulent (see this list by Jeffrey Beall). I have at each stage pointed Herpetology2 to the relevant policies and guidelines, to no avail. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems like theres's a little WP:IDHT going on here; in addition, Herpetology2, please direct your attention to WP:TLDR. Longer arguments aren't necessarily going to help you get your point across, especially after that point has been rejected. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 11:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Beal's list is just a list on the internet. What makes that more important than any other list? Further, UIF was removed from the page and I left it off. However, the labeling it as fake is HIS OPINION and not a fact. They do calcuate an impact factor, and you know what else? Thomson Reuters selects their journals based on such completely objective metrics as "Will the journal expand their market share in another country!" Basing a decision like this on a simple list on the internet is, I don't know, kind of like placing a link to a list of coccidiologists put together by three coccidiologists who listed only those coccidiologists who were meritable. Logic seems flawed, but hey, I do more international research than wikipedia pages so I'll just fall in line with your biased opinoin. Enjoy your life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Multiple new editors filling the Recent Changes with "vector.css" edits

I was checking the recent changes and found out there was too many "vector.css" activity going on, and involving the same content on each user which I suspect sock puppetry. However, I can't open a SPI case because I don't even know the sockmaster. They first create the page, then blank it. Sometimes they create a blank vector.css page, then add content to it, then blank it again. Massive sockpuppetry going on. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW I forgot to tell something, I can't notify all the socks because it is very expensive to do so. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you give an example at least? What are they adding to their vector.css files. Could it be a class? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Drmies for the example below. I see there are lots of others. I don't know what's going on - I'm technically nearly illiterate - but someone could, you know, ask them. I'd be careful of quick assumptions of nefariousness, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see (by installing the code myself), it just changes the displayed format of a Wikipedia page. Not sure why anyone would want to do that, but it seems harmless. I'm guessing some kind of class of some sort. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, so I'm not the only one who saw some weird things go by--like this one, User:Jc3652/vector.css. What's going on? Drmies (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well, first off, there is no executable code changes going on here and all of the changes only affect the users making the change. So, nothing to worry about overall. Regarding what it does, it is a stylistic change to make Wikipedia look like this screenshot for the user making the change. At least, that's all I gather from reading the code and the github link in the CSS comments.--v/r - TP 21:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• A Reddit story linked to the WiTeX thing, and people are trying it out. There is no conspiracy. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 21:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I would surmise the css is designed to make the page suitable for printing in a book. It appears to have just been released and people are trying it out. I don't think it is a problem. With any luck we might get some new users. Chillum 22:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah these are for sure not socks. I think the best t hing to do would be to wait for someone who's using the CSS script to make a regular mainspace edit and ask them why they chose to use the script. Although it doesnt seem like it's geared towards editing since it seems to remove the edit links. So never mind I guess. We could also see if we can get hold of Andrew Belt and ask if he knows hundreds of people are now using his script. —Soap— 00:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it would be hard for them to make a mainspace edit, as that CSS removes the "Edit" link. :-) Some Admin might want to take a swing through there and comment out the appropriate code for everyone. Not everyone will think to look at https://github.com/AndrewBelt/WiTeX/blob/master/README.md for the instructions on how to kill it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not impossible to edit. These editors can technically edit pages even though there are no links for doing so. They need to just enter the version of the URL that looks like this: /w/index.php?title=PAGENAME&action=edit instead of this: /wiki/PAGENAME. Epic Genius (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that I've left the author a note here. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 10:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Belt here. A few points have been brought up, so I'll try to address them all.

• WiTeX (the name of the stylesheet everyone is pasting into their Vector.css) is mainly designed for display rather than printing, although many may be using it for printing as well. Thus many are now browsing without the [edit] link. This could be a problem for the Wikipedia community since it separates editors from readers, but I see it as a side effect from the minimalistic design style. I'd be willing to add support for I can work with someone on the issue tracker at https://github.com/AndrewBelt/WiTeX as I think there can be a compromise between functionality and design in this sense.
• Is there a way to prevent "abuse" of many people editing their Vector.css file? Zhaofeng Li recommended using the @include declaration in users' stylesheets, although this doesn't solve the problem of many additions and deletions of the pages while people are trying it out.
• Since fonts are loaded from an external domain (first pawnmail.com, later changed to cdn.rawgit.com although most may be using the first), in what way are users breaking the privacy policy? What are the implications of using an @include declaration with an external domain?
• Any other things I should address?

Vortico (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vortico: The issue about the privacy policy is that when users view a Wikipedia page using the stylesheets, third-party servers serving the fonts/css/whatever may be able to track the users, regardless of our privacy policy. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 13:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I realize this is more of a technical pump issue, but could Wikipedia incorporate some sort of button for any user to create a similar view on their end without making edits on our end? Put all of the fonts, css, etc, on our servers, so maybe it'd work within the privacy policy? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a good idea, but maybe WMF can just prevent editors from adding 3rd-party fonts in the first place. Epic Genius (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Just get yourself a Wikitech account, go to Tool Labs and upload all your files there and then ask AndrewBelt to pull some updates from Legoktm (who's worked on the documentation, I see) and it will work fine. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 06:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Nidhi Razdan

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

---

Please take a look at that article. More than a hundred edits in the last few hours, three users, one of them an IP reverting each other calling each other impersonators etc.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Knock Knock !! They are revering each other furiously.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocks All Around for violating WP:3RR JodyB _talk 13:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Pagesclo

User Pagesclo (formerly blocked user:Craftdraw) is repeatedly moving pages to his/her preferred title, without seeking consensus, in particular Valley of Mexico to Mexico Valley. I set out the reasoning behind the title Valley of Mexico on the article talkpage Mexico Valley#Recent page move from Valley of Mexico to Mexico Valley, and attempted to initiate dialogue with the user (diff). The user re-moved the page, blanked my attempted communication, and left edit summaries that indicate an unwillingness to engage. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• This user has been notified by Simon Burchell of this discussion. He appears not to have edited for about the past 8 hours. When he comes back, he will have get the notice. He has made many such page moves recently according to his contributions log. JodyB _talk 14:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Colton_Cosmic

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

---

Extended content

An anon, (205.144.171.31 (talk · contribs), was on my talk page asking for lessening of ban restrictions related to Colton_Cosmic (talk · contribs). Also asking of @PresN:. I have previously referred CC to Arbcom for appeal requests. FYI ping to @KWW: who appears to have been involved with ban enforcement. I've also temporarily blocked the IP for socking. Any admin is welcome to reverse or change this block at their discretion without consultation. — xaosflux Talk 21:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Note that CC did basically the same thing back in October; e.g. posting as an IP on 3 random admin's pages asking to be unblocked (xaosflux and I were 2 of them). At the time, we told him to got to WP:UNBAN, rather than just shopping around for admins who didn't know what the deal was to unblock him. --PresN 21:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC) I am innocent. I am a good editor. I have never socked Wikipedia. When I went to PresN I wasn't seeking an ignorant administrator but rather one willing to inform himself or herself. I will come back and sign this post in a few minutes unless Kww's filter stops me. Colton Cosmic. As a terminological point, Colton Cosmic claims that he has never socked Wikipedia because he is using a non-standard definition of socking. He claims that it isn't socking unless it is done for deception. Wikipedia defines sockpuppetry also to include deliberate block evasion by editing from IP addresses, which is what Colton Cosmic does to protest his ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Right. Except even if it is self admitted and solely to post to ANI (and admin talk pages), you're still effectively socking right now per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry so you proved with the very post that the claim you never socked wikipedia is false. I'm not an admin, but such nonsense is a good sign to me it's not worth wasting time examining any other circumstances and I suspect I'm not the only one. Edit: Either you don't even know what sock puppetry is and have never bothered to read the policy, or you do know but don't care because you think you're beneath such things or your just talking crap or whatever. Anyway, a good sign there will be more cases where there is a problem, but you're going to claim there wasn't. (Of course, an editor who is told to stay away from wikipedia for a period, without any socking regardless of whether it's just to request an unblock or whatever but is continually unable to do so but instead thinks continually violating this condition is somehow going to convince people to unblock them even if the amount of time they've wasted doing this has long since exceeded how long they were told to stay away, is likely to have serious problems making them unsuitable to edit wikipedia.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Bad idea to unblock this guy, as he evaded his block at least once.[247] The original disruption was bad enough to give one pause... Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Yeah, that edit wasn't me, just one more false accusation to throw on the pile though I suppose, Binksternet. Directed at a guy who's not allowed to defend himself. Back to sign in a few minutes if the filter doesn't stop me. Colton Cosmic. Blatant socking right here, just like before. Block all socks, keep main blocked indef per ban. BMK (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP user removes sourced content

• 165.228.41.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I've had several issues with this IP user, as can be seen on the IP user's talk page. I have twice asked the IP user to stop removing sourced content, but this seems to be an ongoing problem: [248], [249], [250]. I'm tired of cleaning up after this uncommunicative user, and it's a drain my time to monitor his/her activity. It doesn't matter how many warnings this user gets, he/she goes right back to making the same disruptive edits. For example, these older diffs are all in the same article: [251], [252], [253]. This is a long-term issue with the user, who refuses to change or even discuss it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not seeing anything here honestly. Really seems like a waste of time on ANI. One looks like he replaced a dead link. Another looks like he changed the number figure to line up with the source. The others looked like he may have changed them to a more up to date source. The only one that seems questionable to me is his removal of the of information about the hypothetical sequel of Interstellar. The only actual question I have is why he removed it. Since wikipedia isn't a crystalball I don't actually see a problem with the removal. Reviewing everything provided here I wonder if the actual long term issue is WP:JDLI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: He didn't just replace a dead link. He changed the number. You can't just erase sourced content like that, even when a link goes dead. In the other, he didn't change the number to line up with the source, he removed sourced content. I'm not sure what else to say. The number that he removed was sourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

[254] Oh no. So you mean He changed the dead link with a new source and then replaced the number with one from the source? We must kick him off wikipedia immediately. There's nothing to see here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't just cherry pick data like that. Can I get an admin to look at this? It's clearly a case of content blanking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho cited one of your examples. I'm honestly not seeing what the issue is in any of the links you provide. He's replacing sources with other sources in each of those instances. That's normal. The only link you provided where he actually removed content was this one, which could be interpreted as justified under WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE bordering on WP:CRYSTALBALL.

The only real issue is that he hasn't been discussing things and ignoring discussion, but no one has actually left him a message asking him to discuss things on the relevant article talk pages -- just told him he's doing stuff wrong without actually encouraging what positive behaviors he is engaging in. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This is frustrating. The IP user removed a dead reference in violation of WP:DEADREF. The content was sourced, and it is undue to cherry pick sources. When reliable sources disagree, we must report all the sources, not just replace the sources. In the case of the film above, there are two numbers reported for the gross: The Numbers reports $10 million, and Box Office Mojo reports $13 million. The correct way to report this is with a range, not to remove on of the numbers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is an archive of the Variety source that says $50 million. Why should this information be removed from the article? Just because it was temporarily unavailable? We've got a guideline that says not to do that. I'm not sure why I have to keep saying this, but we can't cherry pick data – it is original research to assume that one reliable source is more up-to-date than another. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have those guidelines, but did the IP edit war when you replaced the dead link with the archive link? Did the IP refuse invitations to discuss the matter on the article's talk page? Or did he just ignore being told that he was wrong? Did you try being welcoming to the IP?

I'm not asking these questions to be a smart ass or out of some delusion that the world should be inherently nice or something like that, I'm asking those questions because those are the tactics necessary to separate newbies who just made some mistakes from uncooperative users who aren't going to improve the site. The IP was simply given a wall of text explaining that what he's doing is wrong. He was never encouraging to try something different, just told to stop doing what he thought was helping the site. He was never invited to discuss matters on a talk page. In short, you didn't treat him like a part of our community (which, by merit of trying to improve the site as far as he can understand it, he is a part of), giving him no reason to see you as a fellow community member (and so no reason to listen to you).

I could be wrong, and the IP might refuse to seek cooperation out of the mistaken notion that the slogan "anyone can edit" means "do whatever you want," but we haven't been given evidence that that's the case. All we've been presented with is an IP that is trying to help the site, who has been told that his actions (which are, if you assume the least amount of good faith possible, made in good faith) are wrong and to stop, and not invited to discuss anything until he gets dragged to the admin's board.

I'm usually the first to call for blocking or even community banning trolls, vandals, and users who are too stupid to be of any use to the site. But I can't see any evidence of that here. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What? The user has been edit warring with for some time! Didn't you notice that four of the diffs provided are removing the same exact sourced data from an article? I have pointed this out to the user on his talk page twice. I have complimented the user on his/her knowledge of the MOS. What do you want me to do? Award a barnstar for removing citations? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The links you provided didn't exactly do a good job of demonstrating edit warring on his part. Taking a quick glance over, this edit starts to qualify, but it's only one revert. The All is Lost links you provided are too far apart and are a bit too distinct.

I've left a message on their page encouraging discussion and explaining the need for it. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was asked to weigh in on this. I can see where the first edit with Invictus was removed since the previous source wasn't laid out in the formal fashion and there was a current source that could replace it, but I do have to say that I can see NRP's point with All is Lost in that we have two different sources that are saying two different things. Unless there are a lot of sources that back up one number over the other, I think that it's reasonable to have two different box office numbers. The blanking on Interstellar is a little confusing but I suppose I can see it from a WP:RECENT point of view, but I do think that it would have been better if the IP had posted a message on the talk page. From what I can see on their talk page, it looks like this is a fairly ongoing problem where they will make changes without ever actually responding to comments or posts on their talk page or on the article talk page. A look at their edit history shows where this seems to be a fairly ongoing habit with them. They've been editing since March of last year and I think I've only seen once instance where they actually made an edit summary comment. They've also had a few people come on to their talk page and ask them about edits they've made where they didn't make any comments on the edit summary or article talk page. One editor (User:SummerPhD, tagging them since I am mentioning them) even posted a block warning about this at one point, so it does look like it has been and likely will be an ongoing issue. Perhaps NRP could have been somewhat nicer in his talk page comment (I think he was fairly nice in his post but I can see others' argument), but I am concerned that the IP editor has never really communicated with anyone since they started editing. Maybe this isn't quite an ANI issue yet, but I do think that it would be prudent for one of us to post on the IP's talk page asking them to start communicating better with other editors. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Basically what I see here is an IP that has a history of making unexplained edits to pages, many of which have been reverted by other editors. NRP was not the first editor to warn this user about this, although he is the first one to post a lot of information about basic editing. He was blunt, but I don't think his post on their talk page is really that much cause for concern given that he was largely posting about things that the IP editor had already been warned about. Maybe it's a bit too soon to really take any big actions against the IP address but I don't think it would be extremely wise to just hand wave it away since they have had a history of this and NRP is not the first person to revert their edits and make a comment about said edits on their talk page. I think that in this case it'd be a good idea to warn the user about not using the edit summary field and make sure that they understand that communication on Wikipedia is key. By large people can make a lot of edits without using the edit summary but that if/when your edits are reverted frequently and people start to communicate with you on your talk page, that's when it's important for them to start responding to other editors in some form or fashion to explain their edits, even if it's just in an edit summary. That's what concerns me here and ultimately I think that NRP did do the right thing by posting on their talk page. Sure he could have put a little more carrot in there, but I don't think that this would have made a huge amount of difference since they've already shown a history of not responding to comments, so I don't think that NRP's comments are intimidating them into silence. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• So let's get this straight. You bring it to ANI. You don't get a response you like. So then you WP:CANVAS another editor.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• He wasn't asking me to agree with him, he just wanted me to take a look at the conversation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if he was asking you to agree with him since he thought you would agree with him if you had looked at the conversation. It's clear that the biased message he sent to you was intended to have an effect. Classic sign of campaigning. I also say that he choose you viewing you as a partisan individual knowing that you were involved ina previous but similar situation like this as his message on your talk page indicates.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I looked and while I can see things from both perspectives, I do see that the IP has a history of making edits and not leaving any comments in the edit summary or replying to usertalk posts by at least one editor (SummerPHD) that I can vouch is a pretty decent editor. This shows that the IP user (who may or may not be several people editing under one address) should at least be somewhat aware of this to some degree and if they're following the policies as written above, they do have some awareness of the most basic guidelines. NRP was the first person to actually leave a longer post on their talk page about all of this, but he isn't the first person to comment on their editing as a whole and we could argue over whether or not his post intimidated the IP user, but the IP's edit history has shown that he has not directly replied to anyone that has posted on their talk page so odds are that it could be an exceedingly kind post and odds are the IP still would not have replied. In other words, the tone of the post is slightly a moot point since the IP has already established in previous posts and edit patterns that they do not reply to comments on their talk page or in the articles they edit and as such would likely have not responded to even the most gentlest posts on their page. (I think I found maybe one comment on the edit summary since they began editing in March.) Really all that I think needs to be done here is for one of us to give them a gentle but stern reminder that communication is an incredibly important aspect of Wikipedia and that if their edits are contested, it's a very, very good idea for them to engage the other editor in conversation. I don't think that we need to block them, but it is important that we stress to them that communication can help keep things from getting to this level. I've seen this happen before where well-meaning IPs will come on and edit articles without leaving a comment in the edit summary and without replying to any attempt to engage them in communication in any sphere. In the cases where they didn't receive reminders about communicating with others, many IPs received blocks because their edits didn't make sense without some sort of communication and in many instances, were just considered to be vandalism or generally unhelpful- despite other edits that could be seen as helpful. In other words, the negatives outweighed any of the positives. On the other hand, receiving a gentle warning (or reminder, if you want to think about it that way) caused them to communicate better and got rid of a lot of the issues they'd have otherwise. It's not necessarily this simple, but I do think that we should address the fact that the IP has made several edits and been cautioned on using unreliable sources on more than one occasion- many of these warnings by pretty established editors. Maybe NRP could have phrased himself better on the talk page or given different suggestions, but I don't think that he's the reason the IP isn't communicating. This probably would have been more appropriate to bring up at dispute resolution perhaps, but there is an issue here of an editor that is blanking sections, removing sources, and otherwise making edits that come across as confusing to other editors, all without the IP responding to comments in the edit summary, article, or in the usertalk where people are asking him to explain what he's trying to do or trying to explain why editing in certain ways can be seen as unhelpful. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Should we ban the IP? No, of course not. It hasn't reached that point yet and the IP user does deserve at least a few more warnings before we essentially begin getting incredibly strict- especially since this might be a shared IP. I just think that this thread is sort of focusing on the wrong thing (NRP's tone) and we do need to look at the fact that the IP editor does already have a history of unexplained and possibly disruptive edits which should be addressed. True, the IP has already been warned back in November, but another, longer reminder/warning that goes more into depth with policy would be helpful. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• I don't really have anything to say that is specific to this editor, only a comment about how I think we should be handling them and all uncommunicative editors. Much of the discussion above is spent trying to figure out what they were doing and why: Was this a good edit? Was that is good faith? Why did they do this? Should they have done something else? It's discussion with a ghost. When you disagree with an edit or cannot figure out why it was made, revert the edit and give a standard warning (or free form comment on the editor's talk page). After several warnings of the same or similar type without response, a quick trip to AI/V will lead to a brief block. If they return with the same or similar problems, the blocks get longer. Eventually, the editor will begin to discuss issues on talk pages and use edit summaries or longer term blocks will drive them away. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• It is a very good point that the ip has been contacted in order to resolve this dispute and has failed to pursue any communication back. This behavior is very disruptive to a consensus based system like what we have at Wikipedia. It would be a very good call to block them from editing indefinitely until they make some sort of contact with an administrator to open a line of communication and acknowledge that in the future they will attempt to communicate with others as a part of their future editing practice.

Further NinjaRobotPirate should be made aware of the of the canvassing policy. It shouldn't be anymore acceptable to canvass your friends to a ANI discussion than it is to canvass them to an article discussion. I certainly hope they aren't employing these tactics elsewhere. Just as lack of communication is a detriment to the consensus making process, so to is canvassing. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe I'll go the route of templated warnings and AIV, then. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

IP making legal threats

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

---

An IP left a legal threat in their edit summary, here. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I have left a warning about legal threats. I've also explained the key issues (we don't know who they are, we don't have a published reliable source to verify against, and legal threats stifle discussion). I'm waiting to see their next edits. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There next move was to revert again, so I blocked them. -- GB fan 23:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Lapadite77

Lapadite77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm surprised that this complete character assassination from Lapadite77 has been allowed to continue for that length of time. Over the past seven months, this user has instigated three massive content disputes at Garbage articles, here, here and here. Each one of these became protracted to such an extant that the discussion could only be closed several months after being initiated. The discussion at Talk:Garbage (album)#Album genres was opened on 24 June 2014, but could only be closed on 2 December 2014, despite him being a lone voice against at least a dozen editors. He has never willingly accepted a consensus. And over the past 6 weeks, he has become increasingly disruptive. The way he interacts with fellow users leaves much to be desired: he is often downright unpleasant to talk to, immediately accusing others of edit warring and of having some sort of bias when they disagree with his position. And when he doesn't get his way at an article, he resorts to bogus ANI Reports. When these are resolved as "no violation", he then continues his complaints on the talk pages of the closing admin, with him claiming a multitude of false "WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:AGF, WP:ONLYREVERT" violations. He just can't let anything go. While I appreciate some of the work he has done, I would suggest a topic ban from Garbage articles for a period of time, until he learns to edit constructively and interact with fellow users in a decent manner. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Homeostasis has a personal vendetta against me from disputes on the band Garbage's articles, where he has edited tendentiously, edit warred, and exhibited WP:OWN; He was reported on ANI for edit warring by me in October 2014; as you can see in the report link provided, s well as here and here, Homeostasis has shown he has a bias against that band, in the article discussion/dispute in question there, and where he participated with Dan56 (who is currently being discussed on ANI, above), on the links he gave above. Homeostasis laughably calls the report on Dan56's a character assassination; in reality, as one can easily see from all the evidence provided there, Dan56 has a long history of disputes with various editors on various articles, and pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing, which is why he is again the subject of an ANI report. Of course the dozens of reports and disputes various editors have had on/with Dan56 are merely "character assassination".

This "report" is merely an extension of Homeostasis' vendetta against me, as he naturally supports Dan56's disruptive, tendentious behavior at this band's articles. It is no surprise he's disgruntled that his ally is being reported for behavior he himself has participated in at that band's articles. As you can see in the linked ANI report on Dan56, Dan56 mentions my edit warring report on Homeostasis, trying to use it against me for some reason. This is not an isolated incident; these two editors (and there's potentially a third, who I won't name because he's not at all a part of this dispute, but either of them might due to his similar involvement with them in the past content dispute at a Garbage article) are entirely likeminded and on the same page with respect to these editing practices, particularly at this band's articles. He, like Dan56, has been called out repeatedly on lying and misrepresenting, which he does again here; As I noted above on Dan56's repot, where he also, like Homeostasis has done, misrepresented that dispute (unsurprisingly), I was never a lone voice, as most editors there agreed and were eventually on the same page, the content dispute resolved when I recreated another poll/discussion that was actually honest, straightforward, with no red herrings or smoke screens, unlike Dan56's first (on which he was called out on too by other editors). Just an aimless, vendetta-driven non-report from Homeostasis, sticking up for disruptive and tendentious editing. --Lapadite (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

^ Case in point. Bad Faith and baseless accusations and completely misrepresenting the only relevant diff he did provide. This and this in no way demonstrates that I have any sort of "bias". I have never edit warred (or been sanctioned for edit warring) in Garbage articles. And notice how he never provides a diff to support all the WP guidelines he's constantly accusing other users of infringing. I don't know @Dan56: from Adam, yet Lapadite77 has it in his head that he's some sort of victim here; that there's some kind of massive conspiracy and every one is disagreeing with him because they're biased. This perfectly illustrates the entire problem: instead of logically discussing an issue, he immediately resorts to these above tactics. He can link to enough WP guidelines when he wants to, but then neglects to follow those guidelines himself, particularly WP:Civility. With all this in mind, as well as the so-far 3 needlessly messy and protracted discussions at Garbage articles, surely WP:Competence has to come in to play here. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

users: Smuckola, Asher196, RetroGameFan

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

---

Am in the process of being harassed and Wikistalked by these "three" editors, who seem very much to be the *same* editor. I've been editing under this IP for a long time, mainly because I don't have any need to actually create an account; it's a simple hobby of mine. I edit various interest articles, including things I have knowledge about regarding analog control mechanisms and antiques. Frankly, Asher196 has been a problem editor for years. And I mean years. He has a long history of vindictivly reverting pages, such as this one right here [255], where he attempts to remove reliable sources from a page because he's unwilling to accept them (another editor stepped in at that point and basically erased any rationale he might have hid behind with a very well done explanation of how they were valid sources [256] at which point he backed off. For a while. The problem has begun to re-emerge on the analog stick page a few days ago; a user named RetroGameFan had been trying to erase common-sense items from the article regarding the Vectrex (he was attempting to claim that the statement the Vectex controller was "self centering" was OR, despite the fact that all joysticks except one in history have all been self centering). In the interest of eliminating doubt, I took the original reference that I had initially added to the article (this one here [257])and replaced it with a better source, one that specifically described the Vectrex's Analog Stick as self centering. [258] Inexplicably, without discussion, and quite in the style of how a vandal operates, out of the blue Asher196 remerged from his long absence and erased the source that I had put on the page. Again, he erased the sourced information I had put on the page and bafflingly put back the old source that had no mention of the Vectrex's self centering analog stick! [259] He did it two more times, not bothering to give ANY explanation for his actions whatsoever, [260], [261], only stopping when an RFC was threatened against his conduct. He then began a sustained campaign of wikistalking, going through my user contribs and trying to revert or otherwise undo contributions I've made to the Wikipedia project. Note, for example, that he had never made a single edit to either the Nintendo 64 Controller article or to the Joseph DeArnette article until after he decided to label me a "problem editor" and begin to attempt wholesale reversion of the edits I had made. [262]

To add to this mess, there is an editor that strongly smells of sockpuppet that is engaged in a campaign of harassment, such as here, [263], here, [264], here, [265], here [266], here [267]

I've given up trying to keep my page clean of his personal attacks, because I'm trying to be as thorough as I can at this point.

I must also note that he's inappropriately attempting to involve administrators in this without at all following proper wikipedia channels, creating, at the very least, some severe conflicts of interest. [268]

So I ask, how many more years is Asher196 going to be stalking me? 67.139.40.166 (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:SPI thing. Doc talk 08:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever may be the case, I just want to edit in peace. :( I'm very, very tired at this point and... I just want it to end. 67.139.40.166 (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of harassment of sockpuppetry in these difs, just content disputes and breakdowns in communication. What I do see, is an IP who has been editwarring across multiple articles, and not discussing on article talk pages. Like here, where you reverted 3 times in a row, re-introducing excessive, unsourced content into an article, all the while making all sorts of accusations of "vandalism (its not vandalism to cut out unsourced info, or remove excess plot details from non-plot heavy games) and people being "stalkers". And not a single word of it on the talk page. If this is representative of your editing on a whole, then these editors (of which you did not notify of this discussion as far as I can tell) seem more like they're rightfully admonishing you, rather than "harassing" or any other negative spin you're tying to put on things. Sergecross73 msg me 11:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, here's another example too, 3 reverts of unsourced information despite being asked to provide a source, and all your edit summaries do are make more empty accusations. You're honestly lucky you haven't been blocked yet for editwarring. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Tagging Smuckola, Asher196, and RetroGameFan, to make sure they know they're being discussed on ANI... Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73, RetroGameFan, and Asher196: So we've established that the original poster has come here to successfully load, aim at foot, disengage safety, and pull the trigger (without notifying anyone involved, as instructed on this page). The WP:BOOMERANG has landed. We have the harassment of three editors (three admitted, with countless others unmentioned) and one completely uninvolved admin (Sergecross73 was idly accused in the conspiracy). We have the voluntary admission that he is the perpetrator of at least three years of personal attacks, edit wars, and ignoring of countless escalated warnings—his only response to which has been hateful invective and refusal to discuss. The editor instantly labels anyone who disagrees as "vandal", "stalker", or incredibly, "sock puppet"; then, he responds by falsely issuing CVU vandalism templates at them, reverting their comments as "stupid crap" or "vandalism", and claiming that he can "do as he damned well please". My one and only attempt to contact of the individual (offering CVU instructions, asking what is wrong, and offering to help) was instantly met not with a response but with the reverting of my attempt to help and being called a vandal and sockpuppet for having offered it. The user is saying that the entire concept of basic criticism is so repugnantly unfathomable to them, that they even think that anyone who criticizes them obviously must be the same person, in a giant elaborate administrative conspiracy. That's the meaning of his whole story up there. I was directly involved on one article in the final minutes, and I couldn't even decipher the situation until the rant unfolded here. This is all perfectly obvious from glancing at the user's edit messages in the edit history of the Talk page of the IP address that the user claims to WP:OWN. It's time to deliver his requested respite in the form of the only possible response: blocking. Thank you! WP:TEND WP:NPA WP:3RR WP:RS WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:OWNER (and whatever the false abuse of CVU templates is). — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there seems to be no evidence of sockpuppetry. Three people reverting unsourced content to a page is enforcing Wikipedia policy. Since this IP user hasn't attempted to have a discussion about the content before coming here, I think this can be speedily closed. Epic Genius (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius and Sergecross73: Ok, but how does it not close with a blocking of the admitted serial offender of all those policies, both fresh and old? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to block them now, as we can't do it punitively. If the IP editor keeps doing this after the thread closes, even if they do it just one more time, then they can be blocked. Epic Genius (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism of userpage

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

---

Seems User:69.204.0.58 thought it would be funny to respond to a caution I placed on his/her Talk page for disruptive editing by vandalizing my userpage. I would appreciate if an administrator could remind this editor of Wikipedia's code of conduct. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Level-three warning issued; no need for a block or anything else, yet. Nyttend (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully that will take care of it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've seen a lot worse. But if it persists, go to WP:RFPP and ask for semi-protection of your user page. That will fend off the IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Economy of Iran (only country economy GA) listed on WP project's page

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

---

Someone (with an agenda?) has been reverting the recent listing of the Economy of Iran on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.51.51 (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

My bad, apparently. Forget about it :) 67.87.51.51 (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Repeated addition of copyrighted material

• Andlarryofficial (talk · contribs) @ 2015-02-14T05:30:10
• The copyrighted material can be found at at http://www.everfoundmusic.com/, http://www.amazon.com/Everfound/e/B00CFRPBIM ("This biography was provided by the artist or their representative.") and until recently on their Facebook page. It appears after warning the eitor about the material being an exact copy of what was on the Facebook page, the material was removed from there, but Google still shows it as being there. We may also have a WP:COI.
• Warning: Copyright violation on Everfound (band)
• Andlarryofficial (talk · contribs) @ 2015-02-15T00:50:19

Perhaps another editor could explain the situation and the problems around included publicity material, clearly falling within US copyright laws, to the editor. A block wouldn't be in any way out of the question. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a minor comment, Walter Görlitz: The |topic= parameter in {{subst:ANI-notice}} links to a page being discussed; you were probably looking for the |thread= parameter. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've posted a clear and final warning on his talk page. Any further copyvio will result in an indef block. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Everfound (band). JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Shani Shingnapur Edit

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

---

Dear Indian and particularly orthodox editors, i would like to bring your attention to Shani Shinganapur article please don't add biased and discrepant information about Shani Dev, Shani Dev is known as the God of Justice in Hinduism but the content almost proves him to be a punisher deity which is not true in all contexts. Sumedh Tayade (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please work it out on the article talk page with the other users. Thanks! JodyB _talk 13:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Problems on 'The Final Destination'

For at least three years (!), someone using different IPs has been persistently re-adding a section that claims The Final Destination film predicted the Norwegian terror attacks of 2011.

Example diff here; see also the Talk page here.

Removal gets reverted within hours, but I'm not a regular Wiki contributor, so felt it worth flagging up here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.14.132 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a good number of regular editors have this article on their Watchlist so they can revert the edits when they occur. With the changes being done by different IPs sporadically over time, it's impossible to pro-actively prevent these occurrences. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, what Liz says. It's not worth protecting for since it's not that frequent, and the IPs keep changing. Thanks for reverting and for notifying, though: your continued vigilance is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• FYI this has continued to happen but now User:Diannaa has protected it for a week. Presumably there is no three revert rule issue in continuing to remove/revert this section? 94.1.14.132 (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter because there's no point in blocking dynamic/hopping IPs. Blocks are typically useless. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's disruption, not clear-cut vandalism, so please follow normal edit warring guidelines. I have protected for a week and will protect again for a longer period if the disruption resumes when the protection wears off. Sorry you will not be able to edit the article for a while. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought, this might be a situation where pending changes protection is a good option.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes bleeeeeeh. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted material added to Morteza Avini

From the Morteza Avini article, I have removed a couple of instances of what seemed to me as definite copy-pastes:

• [269] by User:Saeegh (as removed by me)
• [270] by User:Saeegh (as removed by me)
• [271] by User:Saeegh (as removed by me)
• [272] by User:Saeegh (as removed by me)

--Anders Feder (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

He had copy-pasted copyright material from news articles into his sandbox, which I have now deleted. Articles he has created use foreign-language sources but spot checks do not reveal any obvious copyvio issues. I have placed a warning on his talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

User SchroCat is vandalizing my talk page

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

---

Looking for some assistance. User SchroCat has twice vandalized my talk page.[273] [274] Jb 007clone (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am not sure those diffs rise to the level of vandalism. If he is saying you something you don't like just ask him to stay away. Have you done that? It might work. If it doesn't let someone know. JodyB _talk 23:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's doubtful, as I deleted his first comment and he replied with another straight away. I will delete this latest one and see what happens. Jb 007clone (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Politely tell him on his talk page not to post to yours. If he continues then you can come back here. Bear in mind, he is likely to ask you not to post on his talk page. TFD (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. There doesn't seem to be any further activity so I don't think any further actions are necessary. Jb 007clone (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No. SchroCat has not vandalized your talk page. He or she has made uncivil posts to your talk page that certainly are not vandalism, and do not appear to be blockable for incivility. The editor who is closer to a civility block is User:Jb_007clone for the personal attack right here of claiming vandalism. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. You can tell SchroCat to stay off your talk page, but basically the two of you should leave each other alone and stop the incivility. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thanks for your comment. I was unaware of the specific distinction between the terms vandalism and uncivil as it pertains to Wikipedia. The comments on my page were unwelcome and I first tried to delete them only to have the user comment again. I have not posted any comments on the user's page, nor do I plan to in the future. There will be no further contact on my end in regards to this user. Jb 007clone (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Trabant1963

Trabant1963 (talk · contribs) "fixes" articles into pro-Russian politics way without edit summaries and no discussions. Repeatedly warned. Recently blanked his talk page and merrily continues his disruptive editing. -M.Altenmann >t 05:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Diannaa has reverted one series of edits--but I'm not sure what we're doing here, what the big Incident is. Can we get examples, with explanations? And have you discussed this with the user? What I see are talk page edits like this one. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What more do you want? The user plainly refuses to discuss the issue and merely deletes referenced information about Russian military bases (again). -M.Altenmann >t 16:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The user is clearly NOTHERE and keeps hammering away at being disruptive on articles and on talk pages: starting new sections on talk pages like this + this; constantly returning to articles in order to be WP:POINTy (such as the List of Russian military bases abroad article), but ensuring that s/he stays under the radar for edit warring. Having to revert them, or having other editors being dragged into sinking their energy into bothering to explain why their 'improvements' and suggestions are not acceptable seems to be a game with the user. Supercilious responses in Russian - such as this one - are hardly indicative of a user with a 'collaborative project' mentality. It's going to be a waste of everyone's time taking this to the ANI again when all the evidence of slow edit warring and no intention to discuss the content is evidenced by their contribution history. I've just had to revert after Diannaa's last revert on List of countries with overseas military bases was reverted by the user here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Randykitty's commentary at AfD

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

---

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Viscardi (3rd nomination), User:Randykitty made this incivil remark, forgetting that 1) afd is not for scrutinizing user behavior but for discussing articles 2) not contributors but contributions are generally to be commented on (outside afds of course where only articles should be discussed) 3) good faith should be assumed and 4) casting WP:ASPERSIONS is never a good idea.

The user that Randykitty attacked reverted the edit[275] but Randykitty restored it.

I removed it again after stumbling upon it today[276] and discussed the matter on Randykitty's talk page, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty&oldid=647307430#Disruptive_editing

Randykitty restored his improper comment to the afd discussion and refuses to get the point. Action is needed. I suggest 1) removing the disruptive remark from the afd discussion and 2) blocking Randykitty until the afd discussion is closed to prevent further disruption. 2600:100E:B129:1508:0:4A:4935:B901 (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing here warrants a block, and it's probably more shady that this is your first edit... Sergecross73 msg me 03:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Disruption that can't be stopped other than with a block always warrants a block. Even failing that, the incivil comment should be removed and the admin trouted, not so much for making it to begin with as for defending it and reverting it back twice. 70.60.119.199 (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There was no disruption until you tag-team IPs started complaining about a stale comment that probably isn't even problematic. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Incivility/casting aspersions/misusing AfD to examine user conduct, etc. are all disruptive. As for stale, well, not any more. The issue was raised with Randykitty earlier today and his response is definitely not "stale". 70.60.119.199 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question: do you think it is disruptive to dredge up old incidents when this noticeboard is already so full that it takes way too long for the page to load? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see ANI shut down permanently as 99% of the posts here are a waste of time. Still, a user came here and in good faith reported what he or she considered to be an issue requiring admin attention. Who's to decide which of the 100 petty issues is too petty for ANI? You? It's here, let's deal with it. I'd say pointlessly pontificating on how unimportant the issue is is more disruptive than the original report. 70.60.119.199 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Dear IP, you need to learn to make diffs if you are going to file a report at ANI or anywhere else. Please edit your report, using diffs rather than version iterations. Also, since you never participated in the AfD, nor indeed have you made any edits to Wikipedia, why did you file this ANI report? Are you MicroPaLeo or Herpetology2 posting while logged out? If so, you need to log in and sign this report, or you will be censured and/or blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Are you Markgall12 using yet another alternate account? Then all you will have accomplished here is to get this IP account blocked as well. Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC) PS: This comment goes for the second IP in this discussion as well. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Picking on a new well-meaning user because they didn't format their post properly while derailing their ANI thread is unhelpful to say the least. How about a comment on Randykitty's behavior instead? No? I see. 70.60.119.199 (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to hand it to you. This may be the dumbest trolling job I've ever seen. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I was actually coming here to open a thread about 206.125.140.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s conduct, but I've been saved the trouble. It should be noted that Randykitty's disputed comment on the AfD happened over a month ago and it doesn't appear to have been an issue until 206.125.140.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a fuss about it. If anyone should be blocked to prevent disruption, it's these two IPs. It's more than obvious that someone is editing while logged out and also either trolling or incompetent. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on Randykitty's talk page happened not a month ago but earlier today. 70.60.119.199 (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and in what way was that discussion necessary? If the first IP hadn't felt a need to revert a harmless comment from last month, none of this foolishness would have happened. This community has enough problems without you three IPs going around and making more. Randykitty isn't harming anything, too bad I can't say the same for you. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Rude remarks like the one Randykitty posted at that afd very much do hurt the community as they discourage editors from participating. They're why afd's basically a ghost town these days. The insulted editor reverted the comment, Randykitty restored it, and the editor backed away to avoid getting blocked for daring to revert an admin attacking him. That's not a recipe for a healthy community, and your defense of the admin's misconduct's not helping either. 70.60.119.199 (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Look, everyone sees right through what you're trying to do here - editing anonymously in order to report someone you've got a problem with. Sadly, people attempt this all the time. You've presented an extremely weak case coupled with a ton of melodrama. Unless some new, better difs are presented, this discussion is going to by closed pretty soon. Sergecross73 msg me 04:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you planning to remove the uncivil comment or not though? 70.60.119.199 (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no uncivil comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No, nothing warrants removal. Sergecross73 msg me 04:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

• Propose blocks for all three of these IPs for sockpuppetry per WP:DUCK and for making claims against Randykitty one month after the fact about a discussion in which none of them participated. Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

He made the comment when he made it, but the most recent reinstatement of the comment after reversion happened not even a day ago. It's pretty much the same as if the comment was made today. The issue isn't stale at all. 70.60.119.199 (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

So you still don't understand why it is disruptive and fishy for an IP with no prior editing history to dredge up an issue from last month? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Easy support and some investigating should be done to determine if the accounts behind these IPs can be identified and indeffed. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as it will contradict the sock farm's assertion about threads here being a waste of time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The willingness of registered users to cry "sockpuppetry" each time an IP user says something they don't like always amazed me. 70.60.119.199 (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You are amazed by the fact that we would be suspicious to see 3 IPs with no apparent prior editing history making an isuse over a very mild comment from last month? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm always amazed that socks think they're the first time anyone has tried sockpuppetry and/or that veterans of Wikipedia have never seen socking before. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Amazed, yes, every time! But never surprised. Every time an IP user says something a registered user doesn't like, the word "sockpuppet" is being used as a billy club to silence said IP user. It is indeed amazing. The predictability of it that is. And just look the fervor with which Randykitty's uncivil remark is being defended! Good ol' ANI, you're just the way I remembered you! 70.60.119.199 (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I do feel like my intelligence is being insulted. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You're lucky it's just a puny IP user insulting it! If it were Randykitty insulting it, they'd get out of it unscathed. But with an IP user, you can just cry "sockpuppetry" until we're all blocked! And that's what you're doing. Good job! 70.60.119.199 (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support - WP:NOTHERE. Sergecross73 msg me 04:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2

• Propose Remove Randykitty's uncivil comment from the AfD and admonish him for making it, and then reverting it back twice. 70.60.119.199 (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support as proposer 70.60.119.199 (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - The boomerang approacheth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose because I don't think we want every aggrieved editor out there to create a thread over some weeks-old issue and demand a retraction. If we give in this time, we are setting a mindless precedent. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue isn't stale, the comment was reverted back earlier today. And the issue was discussed with Randykitty prior to posting this thread. It's not like the originator of this discussion went straight here. In fact, Randykitty gave the user a go-ahead to come here, see the discussion at his talk page. 70.60.119.199 (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What comment? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The IPs' complaint stems from this original comment [277]. Mind you, this comment was made on January 27. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and then reverted yesterday, and reverted back also yesterday. Thus it isn't stale. Nevermind that though, focus on screaming "sockpuppetry" as does your friend who didn't even bother to read the original post apparently. 70.60.119.199 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose and double the boomerang on 70.60.119.199 and his sockmaster account. Likewise for any other IP that !votes on either of these two proposals. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Come on, there are more pressing things to deal with on this website. Sergecross73 msg me 04:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Improper use of admin tools by Cailil

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

---

On 15 February 2015 User:Cailil blocked this IP address for this post on my talk page critical of him and other admins. The rationale given was "Scrutiny evading use of IP address. If anyone has a point to make and thery're not a banned user then they are free to log in."

I think this was in violation of good faith and was likely retaliatory. I would like Cailil to either provide evidence that the IP user was evading scrutiny or remove the block and issue an apology.--ArmyLine (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

WordSeventeen and WP:GNG/WP:RS

WordSeventeen (talk · contribs)

WordSeventeen has a pattern of adding references that are trivial mentions and/or from unreliable sources to articles that have been PROD'ed or AFD'd. For example here, the user added such references then stated that the article passed WP:GNG. Similarly the user will vote keep at AFD's such as this one based on sources with other issues such as lack of independence.

This editing shows a misinterpretation (assuming good faith) of WP:GNG and WP:RS. I have tried to engage here and here with no response. When I took it to WordSeventeen's user page here, I was accused of harassment. I can accept that someone may have a very loose interpretation of WP:RS, but this goes beyond interpretation into willful disregard: the user dePRODed the article Berry Town by adding this single source, which is a blurb on the site of the web designer that developed Berry Town's website (which is now defunct). This is so far from WP:RS that it begs the question what the user's agenda is, particular given that WordSeventeen appears to have been around for a while.

Since I haven't been able to elicit a response I can't say what the rationale for this behavior is, but I can surmise from the user's responses to questions from other editors that it comes down to "their view and assessment" of what an RS is. I don't think that argument flies anymore, WordSeventeen doesn't seem to be evolving in their understanding of guidelines. Since I have been accused of harassment I have brought this to ANI for community discussion. I request someone explain to this user what constitutes a reliable source and what is required for a subject to pass WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I see what you mean but that Berry Town link was over a week ago and you have made your position clear to him. If there hasn't been any issue since you posted on his page maybe we should allow him time to change. He need not state agreement with you but should, as you say, evolve, to a better place. JodyB _talk 13:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@JodyB: This is from yesterday, on the article Janicel Lubina. Check out those sources and the amount of coverage on this individual in them... Vrac (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Enkhzaya.b

User Enkhzaya.b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps removing well sourced information from Nambaryn Enkhbayar and Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (2010) even after having been blocked for doing so. Previous ANI notification here. For almost a year this has been exclusively a single-purpose account trying to whitewash one politician and his party. In this edit note she basically admitted to being an appointed propaganda drone. --Latebird (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Editor is blocked for a week. Perhaps the article can stablize and the editor can understand our policies. JodyB _talk 15:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:SeBySpeeDy

User:SeBySpeeDy does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia: [278] [279] [280] [281]. Thank your for your action in advance. Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• User shown the door and article temporarily semi-protected. I don't see the need for a rangeblock at this time, but any admin is free to implement one if appropriate. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Kinu, thank you for your prompt and adequate action. Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ayman Mohyeldin

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

---

• Ayman Mohyeldin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The issue of Aymans comments on the MSNBC show Morning Joe regarding Chris Kyle has resulted in death threats against Ayman. It has also initiated vile and abusive behavior on Aymans social media pages towards he and others. There is no huge relevance for this issue to be included in Aymans Wiki page other than to continue the harassment of Ayman. Please allow me to keep it off 00:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Hokiechicklet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokiechicklet (talk • contribs)

If it has resulted in death threats, should that be added to the article? The comments have been reported in two reasonably major news sources that are cited in the article, and it's widely reported on the internet, so we're hardly the only place where this appears.

This seems like Hokiechicklet has an issue with the content of the article, and that should be discussed at the article talk page; so far, the user has refused to do so. —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note. Hokiechicklet has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Zzaxx1

Zzaxx1 (talk · contribs) has been edit warring across multiple pages and templates against multiple editors. The main article being List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, which resulted in page protection but the user has continued to add the disputed content to other articles and linking articles to pages outside of articlespace, despite warnings not to do so. He has also ignored invitations to discuss the matter with the rest of the community. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

While I have a certain amount of sympathy for your position, it does appear that you've been edit warring to remove cited material as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I contend that I have not removed cited material, as the sources did not cite what was being expressed, but regardless I have not crossed WP:3rr unlike the above user. But if it helps, I'll excuse myself from editing anything about the disputed content anywhere on Wikipedia until consensus is reached.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

For example, here -- it appears that the text you removed correctly explains the content of that link. Holding off on article editing while discussion is ongoing is probably a good thing, though. You can edit war without violating 3RR, after all.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As you can here that particular bit of information was already present under the subject heading Sony Pictures. The edit was redundant and mislead readers by placing it under the wrong heading. Maybe a better edit summary would have been in this instance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

But that is not what your getting, it has been confirmed by both Marvel and Sony, that Spider-Man (though the character and the film rights will stay at Sony) will appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, will appear in a Marvel movie which would be distributed by Disney, before the character's standalone movie. Heres the source that was from the Wall Street Journal confirming what I just said. I honestly don't get why we are having this discussion its been confirmed by Marvel that Spider-Man will appear in the MCU, and its completely unnecessary for Triiple to disgorge edits that editors on Wikipedia put with confirming sources stating that Spider-Man is in the MCU, like Marvel.com, Wall Street Journal, Variety but he keeps on deleting them and saying there is a discussion which is totally unnecessary. --Zzaxx1 (talk), 12 February 2015 (UTC)

References

@Zzaxx1: If you would join the discussion then you would see the arguments being made by myself and other editors. I am not alone in my reasoning and your reverting of other editors besides me shows that. None of the sources you cited state that the proposed Spider-Man film is a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe only that they reached a deal for the Spider-Man character to appear in the MCU and that they are "exploring opportunities" for MCU characters to appear in future Spider-Man films. However this is not the place to discuss content but behavior. It seems you still have not gotten the idea that discussion is a crucial part of collaborative editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Diff
2. Diff
3. Diff

Zzaxx1 appears to be continuing his edit war.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Pattern of abusive behavior from Montanabw

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

---

User User:montanabw has a history of referring to Slovenian Wikipedia editors as "nationalists" in edit summaries and talk pages, often in the context on the article about the Lipizzan, regardless of the merit of their contributions (which, coincidentally, are about a horse breed and have nothing to do with "nationalism"). Here is the latest example: [282]. Of course, she is perfectly entitled to dislike the country and its people, but I believe her behavior constitutes harassment based on national origin, as well as a failure to presume good faith. --LJU2ORD (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could have talked to the user before raising the issue here. As far as any "history" is concerned, you're essentially a newbie, so how you are an expert on the user's "history"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Google "montanabw" and "Slovenian"/"Slovenia" and "nationalists" and you will see that this wasn't the first such incident.--LJU2ORD (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why is "nationalist" considered "abusive", or even insulting in any way?? (hey Bugs, how ya doin?) — Ched :  ?  20:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's abusive because it presumes a nefarious, ideologically driven agenda instead of a simple disagreement about the facts. --LJU2ORD (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• First off, do not attribute motive to other editors. Second, you are WP:CANVASS Canvasssing at WikiProject Slovenia and poisoning the well. I have no "dislike" of Slovenia or its people, but I DO uphold the WP:NPOV policy against POV-pushing. And there has been a problem in the now GA-class article Lipizzan article for YEARS with pro-Slovenian activists/nationalists constantly wanting to alter the article so that Slovenia is credited as the sole source of where the Lipizzan horse breed was developed. This is in part linked to a larger issue where Slovenia even sued in the EU courts to claim exclusive use of the breed name "Lipizzan" and take it away from Austria, the nation otherwise most closely affiliated with the breed due to the Spanish Riding School and the Piber Federal Stud. It is true that the breed takes its name from the stud farm that is now at Lipica inside of present-day Slovenia, but the horses were developed in the Austria-Hungarian Empire and foundation animals came from across Central Europe and about five different nations could "claim" them for various reasons of either national boundaries surrounding Lipica or the locations of other stud farms that contributed foundation bloodstock. (Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Czech Republic and Italy). The article has been carefully worked on over the past five years to address this issue. OK, so here's the deal about "here we go again": This is not the first rodeo about this issue: 2013. This goes back even farther: [283] 2009 example So yes, "here we go again." I will note that this user made one good contribution to the article in 2013: [284] content which is now in the article in the "history" section. Montanabw^(talk) 20:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  I note the irony that you would chide me for attributing motive to other editors, considering that you have no qualms about attributing motive ("nationalism") to me. I see you also got your facts all wrong. It was Austria, not Slovenia, that tried to claim its status as a sole inheritor of the Lipizzan by trying to convince the EU that it should become the only official keeper of the breed's registry books. The Slovenian government tried to prevent that from happening. Slovenia is a tiny, thoroughly insignificant country with no international influence, so it's laughable that you are trying to portray it as some sort of a villain out to steal Austria's heritage. But that's besides the point. The issue is that you presume "nationalism" on the part of Slovenian editors even though you make no such claims about editors of other nationalities, who have also added information about the Lipizzan to the article (and alphabetized lists, etc.).--LJU2ORD (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that it was intended this way, but in the Slovenian context, "nationalist" can have a pejorative meaning. See Slovenian National Party. If that's the case, perhaps this can be chalked up to a misunderstanding and disagreement over content. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I see absolutely no abusive behavior on the part of Montanabw. Your recent edits were intended to give more weight to one country's contributions. Whether that is correct or incorrect, it is a nationalistic edit. Calm down, discuss on the talk page, abide by the reliable sources. [Full disclosure: I already warned LJU2ORD about incivility today, and I learned of this ANI notice from Montana] Karanacs (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of disclosures, you somehow forgot to disclose the fact that you urged me to take my complaint to this page. --LJU2ORD (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I do not see a pattern of abuse from Montanabw there. I see a slightly uncivil edit summary when you tried to make a WP:BOLD edit on a good article. Discuss your contetn suggestion in article talk. Nothing else to say here. --John (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: LJU2ORD, any accusation of "harassment" (being used as a euphemism for bigotry, it would seem) and "abusive behavior" and not assuming good faith is pretty ridiculous in connection with a respected and well-liked editor such as Montanabw. If anything, Montanabw consistently demonstrates the exact opposite. Aside from the ridiculous premise, this report appears to be retaliatory because the reported editor isn't having any of LJU2ORD's POV pushing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)LJU2ORD, please use the article talk page to discuss the issue. Also see WP:3RR.
• Montanabw, please don't use edit summaries to comment on other contributors -- "do not attribute motive to other editors" is really good advice; AGF says LJU2ORD truly believes the white horses came from wherever they think they came from. I understand the same ol' same ol' is frustrating, but focusing on the sourcing and the like works better (saves you having to post on ANI, if nothing else).
• Karanacs, please see User:Bishonen/Calm_down. NE Ent 20:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • To the degree that my edit summary was snarkier than it needed to be, I apologize. I'm still sick of this stuff though. When we took this article to GA, Dana boomer and I bent over backwards to be fair and to present an NPOV on the issue. My fatigue on this matter is rather pronounced. Montanabw^(talk) 22:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Serb1914 violates ban

Serb1914 has recently violated his topic ban on the Balkans by using another IP adress to go around his topic ban on Bosnian-Herzegovinian Patriotic Party-Sefer Halilović, and then openly editing Party of Democratic Action despite the fact that both articles fall under his topic ban. Please act accordingly. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Behavior of Karelian P.

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

---

User Karelian P. issued a personal attack against me on Party of Democratic Action: Revision history, calling me a moron in one of his edits. He also deleted 3 vandalism warnings that I have posted on his talk page (although you are not supposed to do that). Please act accordingly. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

On your last comment (removing warnings), you are incorrect. Please read the page user talk page and note that it explicitly says "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users." User are absolutely allowed to remove warnings left by others, it is interpreted as they have read the warning. Nothing more, nothing less. No comment on anything else. Ravensfire (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Why no comment on anything else? Since when are personal attacks allowed? The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

So does that mean we can freely insult each other here? Aren't personal attacks a violation of the core rules? Why won't he be sanctioned like everyone else? The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat and harassment on Amy Pascal's talkpage

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

---

There is a legal threat: "Libel suit waiting to happen as he ha now demonstrated an uninterest in truth." as well as a hysterical personal attack (with my misspelt username in the title) full of spelling mistakes on Amy Pascal's talkpage. Not the first time I have been harassed for editing Pascal's page (even after I added her limited philanthropic work). In the past, the page had to be protected and I had a personal threat with a swearword posted on my talkpage, plus multiple personal attacks as you can see on the talkpage. I would like to see the legal threat and personal attack removed if I am to keep improving the page (which needs a lot of work now as the new editing does not match what the references say at all). Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In the future, it's best to notify Elinruby on her talk page with the code in that orange box: {{subst:ANI-notice}}, so that she knows she's the subject of ANI topic. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 27 Shevat 5775 16:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I might make minor mistakes, but I am not the one issuing legal threats and making personal attacks about other editors on talkpages. Why is it taking so long to remove the legal threat? I fear I may be accused of more mistakes if I do it myself.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats are usually left util the subject who has issued them has had time to retract them. If they dont retract them and the threat is obvious then they could be blocked per WP:NLT if they've been notified of this and havent edited since then it may be left for them to remove the next time they edit to give them chance to retract it. Amortias (T)(C) 16:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. What I don't understand is that User:CambridgeBayWeather thinks it is not a legal threat. Yet the direct quote is very clear "libel suit." I honestly don't feel comfortable editing that page as long as it's not been removed. The aim is not to block anyone, but to remove the threat and also the personal attack, so that we can focus on constructive editing. So I'm just waiting to feel welcome on that page/talkpage again. I hope this makes sense. It seems reasonable to me!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the difference to where the comment was posted. I indicated that I didn't see it a clear cut legal threat but that they should seek a second opinion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, so I am asking for second opinion(s) here. I should add that I wrote nothing libellous about that woman, so the legal threat is void. Those editors who can't spell and issue threats are just harassing me for the sake of it--or to intimidate me so that I stop editing Pascal's page in a fair and balanced way. Redacting the legal threat and my username from the headline/title on the talkpage would seem the first step, but I don't want to do it myself in case it is "against the rules." Please help.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed having looked at the link all they have claimed is that they feel its possible that there may be a lawsuit. Theres no claim or threat to actually sue. It might be a very loose chilling effect but it doesnt appear to be setting off any alarm bells. I'll strike the perceived threat and leave a note explaining why. Amortias (T)(C) 17:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There is definitely a chilling effect, and thanks for redacting the legal threat, but the tone is still very inappropriate. Calling me "dud" (I think they mean "dude"?), accusing me of all kind of inappropriate behaviour, etc. It sounds hysterical, doesn't it? I thought it was written by a drunk person when I first read it. I'm sorry, I still don't think it is appropriate. And my (misspelt) username is still in the title/headline, which is a way to shame me publicly--completely inappropriate. I would like to discuss the content of the article (there is a lot to say about the new edits), but NOT in a personal manner. Editing Wikipedia is not a personal matter; it's a neutral/objective editing process, which has nothing to do with "zigizag"...I can't deal with hysterical editors who attack me personally. Please help?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure theres much more we can do with the particular post. There are strict criteria for editing other users comments and I'm not convinced that anything else there is anything more than prehaps being uncivil. The best thing to do would be to provide evidence to refute their accusations on the talk page.Amortias (T)(C) 18:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Noting WP:BOOMERANG… Per WP:DIFFS: Non-vandalism rollback-use[285] notification[286] and follow-up. Similar wholesale undo [287] and follow-up [288]. I've spotted that the Amy Pascal article has been taken to WP:RfC twice [289] [290] recently, the second one by me (ie. WP:DDE first step over concerns of potential WP:NPOV pushing). "Harassment" could be polite reminders of WP policy, of which I'm aware of eg. [291] [292]. Whilst the account has been around a while, there's still the scope for learning, as indicated in responding a couple of months ago at [293] regarding what makes libre content. These diffs are obviously slanted towards my own memory and edits—other editors may have had different experiences elsewhere.

Zigzig20s: I can see that Amortias has now struck out some words over on Talk:Amy Pascal per [294]; I'm not sure I see that as a directed legal threat. If this was the problematic line, excellent. But, if it is still something elsewhere in contravention of WP:NLT please could you help us understand the precise words that constitute the legal threat, where it appears, and whom it is from and whom it is directed at. —Sladen (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed my misspelt username removed from the title--nobody tried to help at all about this and it was simply horrible. Also writing "you does have a balance and an ownership and an edit warring problem" not only makes me wonder what language they speak, but also, it is very vituperative and abusive. I would like to see an apology if we are to move forward. Moreover, Lisa Kudrow is not a "starlet," but a producer like Pascal. But this is not a one-off. Sladen has been watching my contributions (see my response in that section, "Very creepy of you...") and trying to get me blocked on someone else's talkpage, about a topic they have absolutely nothing to do with. The harassment is constant.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zigzig20s, removing your username from a section that is about you makes it very difficult to understand what the section is about, this is most likely why no-one intervened to remove the information. The perceived legal threat was removed as per your request. The information the other user has posted with regards to both yourself and Lisa Kudrow is there opinion on the matter, they are entitled to their opinion (even if everyone else disagrees with them) and the best thing that can be done if they havent broken any of the policies on Wikipeida is to just ignore them. Sladens warning is quite serious, trying to out an editor is quite a serious matter. It may not have been your intention but in a similar manner as to the perceived legal threat things are open to interpretation including a possible outing. The best thing that you can do for now is ignore the edits that have been made that originally brought you here as it will be difficult to prove they meet the criteria for admin intervention. Amortias (T)(C) 19:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I was joking around with Edward; that is ridiculous. My point is Sladen is watching my contributions and has been out to get me. I am traumatised by his comments on the talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

My goodness. I have no intention of suing Zigzig20s and apologize if I got his name wrong, omg. (I think I may have said zigZAG20s, so sorry if that was offensive...thought I was doing well to remember the 20s) I arrived at this article via an RfC and did some copy-editing and cleanup for tone before looking at the comments, which are rather contentious. Zigzig20s seems very concerned with demonstrating that comments made in one email last year were racist and quotes everyone and their second cousin to this effect, in a BLP that dismisses more than a half-dozen best-selling movies in a couple of sentences. I do find that there is an issues of balance here, as well as in the importance accorded to the email the context of the security breach. In fact I ran out of battery yesterday as I was taking this to BLP and will do so now. My point with the lawsuit remark was not that *I* am going to sue. I am not Amy Pascal and I have no interest in Amy Pascal. My only connection to any of this is that I was in a different building at Stanford University on the same day that President Obama proposed a cybersecurity initiative because of this breach, and this is one reason I say that the security issue was a *little* bigger than Amy Pascal's emails. But I think that if Amy Pascal chose to sue, she would win. The LA Times issued a correction saying she was not leaving before her contract ended. I made an edit that reflected that correction. Zigzig20s (must spell correctly lol) reverted it, along with every single other edit I made, mind you, but that was the critical one. If she cared enough to get someone to call the LA Times...she'll probably care about Wikipedia when she sees it. Zigzig20s has said that a statement is not libel if it is attributed. He is incorrect. It is libel if you know it is wrong and you publish it anyway, whether it is attributed or not. In this case, I am saying that if the LA Times issued a correction they probably had good reason to say they were wrong. That is ALL. I will repeat my comment on the talk page, that ZigZig20s needs to chill and learn to talk to other editors. Thank you to the editors that notified me of this discussion. 64.134.231.66 (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

sorry, thought I was signed in. Above comment is mine. Elinruby (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. Now, when they say, "But I think that if Amy Pascal chose to sue, she would win.", it sounds like a veiled legal threat. There has been a suspicion of close connections--it started with unregistered users (see the talkpage) and it may have moved on to registered users. I wish administrators would not dismiss my legitimate concerns of harassment. Now, everything is backed up by references; Pascal could sue newspapers, but that's not our problem; I agree that we should expand the section about her career, but that does not entail removing the section about her "racially insensitive" remarks, which is fully referenced with countless articles in the international press. The problem is the lack of third-party references about her career achievements and philanthropic work. But the veiled legal threat seems completely inappropriate.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

How is that a threat? You're anonymous. If she sued anyone it would be Wikipedia, and that is the concern here. Wikipedia is the publisher. And it's reponsible for what it publishes, which is why we have BLP guidelines. But I came back in here to say that other editors seem to be trying to address at least the balance issue as regards the involvement of North Korea, and someone has done some research on the "step down" issue that I do not have time to evaluate right this second, so I will hold off on the BLP noticeboard for the moment. As for her career acheivements, they include more than half a dozen blockbuster movies notable enough to have their own wikipedia pages, so that really doesn't pass the giggle test. Elinruby (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the legal threats are directed at Wikipedia (and they are frivolous anyway because Wikipedia is only summarising her global press coverage with in-line references everywhere, not making anything up), although the personal attacks directed towards me are inappropriate. But editors who make legal threats should be warned by administrators. You're bringing nothing new to this. As I said on 22 December 2014, "it probably wouldn't hurt to expand the 'career' section with more of her career achievements and possibly add a 'philanthropy' section." I then added a philanthropy section. But we can't find enough third-party references about her career to flesh out the career section. Anyway, this page is about the legal threats, not expanding her page.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism/personall-attack only account

Gouncbeatduke hates Jews. (talk · contribs) is dedicated to vandalizing Gouncbeatduke's page.“WarKosign” 08:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for a pretty clear username violation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• I also want to note that this user has made death threats against Gouncbeatduke. I've deleted the edits, but I've got a sinking feeling that this may end up requiring something beyond this if they keep this up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: you were right: Gouncbeatduke burned alive (talk · contribs)

• (sighs) I've blocked this account, semi'd Gouncbeatduke's page, and informed the usual people about the death threats. Odds are that this is just some person making idle threats, but I don't want to take that chance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks pretty reminiscent of 1abacada, if memory serves... Yunshui ^雲_水 08:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yunshui, you open to doing an SPI on this? It's all pretty DUCK and I've emailed the emergency people, but I dunno if maybe you could block the IP range or something. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already CU'd the accounts so far, but there's quite a few IPs involved; he's hopping from one to the next as the autoblocks kick in (which was pretty standard practice for 1abacada). No real need for an SPI for something this obvious. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• I figured as much- mostly I was hoping that the guy was all editing via one IP address that could be easily blocked. No such luck. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation and no communication

Ruben fdo (talk · contribs) keeps violating copyrights by copying material and sometimes edit warring with an IP. Wealth and religion is the page, it should be fully protected or this user should be blocked. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Since they aren't replying and they've continually reposted copyvio (seems to be a large bulk of their edits), I'll give them a temporary block just to make sure that they pay attention. If they continue to post copyvio then we can extend the block. I'll also temporarily semiprotect the article since it looks like there is an ongoing problem with edits on that page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on my talk page

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

---

• EChastain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Ivanvector (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I have politely asked this user, per WP:NOBAN, to stop posting comments on my talk page about their misunderstanding of the talk page guidelines, but the user insists on spamming my page ([295] [296] [297]) with quotes from the guideline. Requesting that this user be topic-banned from my talk page. I am not requesting an interaction ban; our discussions have been otherwise productive. Thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Make that asked twice. Ivanvector (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thrice, actually. Note that these diffs aren't in order. Ivanvector (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to add that this user also took a swipe at @Rationalobserver: [298] without providing any evidence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've asked them to supply the link that supposedly shows my off-wiki activities, but they refuse to answer. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• The dispute stems from this edit where Ivanvector hatted a discussion on his talk page and copied it to the talk page of the redirect under discussion. EChastain apparently viewed this as a violation of WP:TPG even though Ivanvector did not edit any of the comments.[299][300] Ivanvector was well within his rights to hat the discussion on his talk page and move it to a more appropriate venue. He even noted that the discussion started elsewhere before it was copied to its present location. —Farix (t | c) 21:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, it would've been best if Ivanvector only hatted the discussion at Ivanvector's own talkpage. Moving it to another place, seems to have caused the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay. Ivanvector moved my comments, without notifying me, to another talk page where I was deliberately avoiding getting involved. The disruption occurred because I was trying to post my objections to his page and kept getting edit conflicts, unaware I was disrupting. For that I apologise, and I'm most happy to oblige by never posting on your talk page again. EChastain (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• This all seems to be in order. In any case, the issue that prompted me to start this thread has long since resolved without admins getting involved, so I am going to close this. If other users want to raise their own issues with EChastain's conduct here, they should start a new thread. Ivanvector (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Heads-up: User:RevertBastard

It looks like RevertBastard (talk · contribs) is building themselves a Twinkle-derivative tool. While they haven't yet done anything anything against policy, their username does not inspire confidence about their longer-term intentions. -- The Anome (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Duly noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevertBastard (talk • contribs) 13:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• We better hope he doesn't create a tool that vandalizes articles in a flash or even worse, a Vandalbot. Snowager (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If they're experienced enough, then BEANS re your comment. —George8211 / T 18:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and harassment

This user @LJU2ORD: has been harassing and making personal attacks [301], [302], [303] on a number of editors, maybe they need a time out. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind a time out at all since I'm taking a (possibly permanent) Wikibreak anyway, but I should note that Mlpearc and his cronies have been harassing -- or at least consciously bothering me -- for the better part of a day. He was the one who showed up on my talk page and accused me of harassment (first link above) simply because I responded to Montanabw on her talk page -- as I was told to do by an admin. (And my response to Montanabw was identical to the one in the closed ANI discussion above -- not harassing at all.) --LJU2ORD (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• LJU2ORD, I think that what The Rambling Man was referring to was that if you had any future issues with Mlpearc beyond what had already been discussed, then you could bring it up on their talk page. The big issue with this edit is that the topic had already been discussed above and that you'd been warned about being incivil to Mlpearc. While I didn't take part in the prior ANI discussion, your posts did come across as condescending. Generally speaking, if you've already been warned for incivility then it's not a good idea to go onto another person's page and post words like "ridiculous" and terms like "POV-pushing nationalist". Stuff like that tends to come across like you're being WP:POINT-y and it's much, much better to calmly discuss the issue with sources that back up your claims or at the very least wait until you can post calmly. If you're still angry with the editor in question, odds are that it's probably better for you not to talk with that editor until that point in time comes and to ask another editor to act as a go-between. In any case, I got the impression that TRM was talking about future issues and not the one at hand. I'd honestly recommend that in this instance that you just walk away because right now I doubt that you and mlpearc will see eye to eye on this topic. If you feel that you need to take a wikibreak then that's fine, especially if it's because something got heated between you and another editor to where ANI became necessary. Sometimes it's just better to walk away and cool your head for a while. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wait a minute: I was the one who was called a "POV-pushing nationalist." Please reread the exchanges. In fact, it was the mean-spirited accusation of nationalistic POV-pushing, and the contempt directed at me (in part) because of my national origin, that prompted me to leave Wikipedia, at least for the time being. --LJU2ORD (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• I wasn't saying that you were calling them that, just that the way you wrote your statements on their talk page came across like you were trying to continue an argument and it didn't come across like you were trying to calmly discuss an article dispute. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• OK. Thanks for the clarification! The problem is that it's awfully hard to discuss an article dispute calmly when one is automatically dismissed as a "POV-pushing nationalist" right from the start.--LJU2ORD (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• If that's the case then the absolute best thing to do is go through an intermediary, especially if you've been accused of being uncivil and you're upset. We've all been in situations where we've gotten into arguments with people and in most of these cases the best advice I was ever given was to walk away and come back when I'd calmed down or to just go through another editor that's skilled in diplomacy. This is one situation where I'd personally recommend walking away from the edits in question and when you're calmer and everything has had a chance to settle, ask someone at WP:DRN or WP:3O (I'd recommend third opinion first) to take a look at things. If one or both sites agree that the content shouldn't be in the article, the only thing to do at that point is to just move on and work on other articles. I've had instances where I've had to do that and I know it's hard, but sometimes it's the only thing to do. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for your assistance, your suggestions, and your respectful attitude, Tokyogirl79. I really appreciate it. --LJU2ORD (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

High handed editing by Peter

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

---

With edit summary comments which are incomprehensible to me, irrelevant, and/or against common sense for editing English WP, and without using the talk page, the user is making more and more edits and reverts to the Danish pastry article like this and this. Given the amount of condescending, sarcastic and insulting comments the user has made on the talk page, in what looks to me like a long and drawn-out battle to mainly have h own way in every detail, it's very hard to see good faith shining through. There also seems to be some kind of nationalistic (Swedish) attitude involved in repeated and irrelevant put-downs of at least one (Danish) contributor there, plus an increasing tendency toward article ownership. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I note that the two diffs you provide (including the edit summaries) seem to make sense and don't seem rude; are these really the examples of problematic behavior you intended to highlight?

May I suggest informal one week topic bans for everyone who has posted to the article's talk page in the last week? I assume whatever temporary mass hysteria that is causing everyone on that page to be so cranky and snarky and assume people who disagree with them have ulterior motives will have passed by then. I note that at least one person considers another editor a "Wikipedia terrorist" because of this. A short vacation from the page for everyone might create some perspective.

I'm not joking. Such a solution would probably catch one "innocent" person in the net, but this is a small price to pay, really. And since this informal topic ban would not be logged anywhere, it wouldn't hurt anyone's reputation. If, after a week, the mass hysteria hasn't passed and an ANI thread about pastry wars is really needed, a new one can be created. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me, but how do the others find out about this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It takes the user all of 3 seconds to revert anything hes doesn't want in the article, this latest time with nothing on the talk page, as usual, and with an edit summary that does not coincide with Commons info.

Option A is: I could just make a note to that effect on the talk page, and hat all the discussions, and undo that in a week. Problem is that this is just me being a cowboy admin, and that seems to bother some people, and if others on the talk page disagreed I wouldn't be able to insist on this solution.

Option B is to wait to see if others here think this is a reasonable experiment, and if so I do the same thing as Option A, but with the authority vested in me by this ANI thread. Problem is that some people who frequent ANI would prefer lots of discussion and warnings and blocks and policy-citing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

With option B we have the problem that one can come here and just read, then fix everything the way one wants it for the week, then come back here and agree. I suspect that's already happening, suggest WP:BOLD and lets do Option A right now. Cowboys are often just what we need. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

With halting discussion I must presume you also mean halting edits to the article by those users (all of us). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think said Peter has been a paragon of civility considering some of the mud flung at them. I suppose I'm to be banned from the article as well, thanks to the outlandish suggestion of this rouge and rogue cowboy admin, which I'll protest in triplicate on the relevant Dispute resolution noticeboard. But I have to take issue with the opening sentence of the plaintiff here, nay, with the prepositional phrase which begins their complaint: humbug. Total humbug. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Spoken by an overly authoritative admin who has threatened me before too, criticized my English as if I weren't an appreciated (though aging) teacher and apparently thinks a "paragon of civility" accuses people of obessesion and so on and so forth. Ugh! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ugh yourself. Drmies is an English university professor, and one shouldn't start an ANI tread before trying other opptions. Hafspajen (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, I will not comment on your English: it speaks for itself. I don't care what you are or were in professional life, or which particular sentences in the article you are/were responsible for--but what Peter did in this edit was turn gibberish into comprehensible English prose. I'm not surprised they have a half a dozen or so FAs, which certainly puts me to shame. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Serge has been active in the article all of two days. I suspect that might be some sort of speed record for taking a dispute to AN/I, especially for an experienced user. And without a single diff proving any breech of policy. If he wishes to volunteer himself for a topic ban, I wish him the best of luck. If you ask me, I prefer to focus on improving the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

One thinks one is going to get help here from neutral administrators. ??? That's why one turns to this option, not to just start another sandbox of animosity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Administrators are indeed used with conflicts. If Floquenbeam told you: are these really the examples of problematic behavior you intended to highlight? he was right. This is a dispute for WP:Dispute resolution ... because - if the Danish pastry is exquisitely defined by Danish standards or it is also Scandinavian, where two editors think it is Danish, some Swedish think they also eat it - and even US and UK too. And an outside editor thinks that only the Danish should eat Danish. And the Danish say:Why are other nordic countries even interesting? Its a dough! The nordic countries are no more interesting than any other country in the world! -and so on -Also long and weird discussions that if pastry is called i Norway Wienerbrød, Sweden Wienerbröd, Finland viineri ... or not, or if Norway, Sweden and Finland in fact are Scandinavia or not... yeah - This is typical a dispute for WP:Dispute resolution. Than - ANI. And if anyone was rude than it was the Danish editors,here, and especially with frases like I see no other option than labeling your actions as "Wikipedia terrorism" at Bishonen's talk page. This was not too nice either-but threatening editors, I think. Hafspajen (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note this related 3RR complaint.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah! Just edit-conflicted with you on this one. So no need for me to do so. --Kim D. Petersen 18:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

I have started a closure review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. Closing to centralize discussion there. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Would an admin assess the consensus the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script (initiated 5 February 2015)? According to this post at WP:ANRFC, this is an "RfC for an emergency measure". Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean to assess if there is a clear consensus? Despite this being an emergency measure, the RfC itself says "this RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges" so it should probably be allowed to continue to run the 30 days if there is no clear consensus. BTW, I'm seeing !votes on 1st February so I think the 5 February date must be wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for reviewing the discussion and correcting the start day. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It should run for the 30 days. I see the original proposer, as an WP:INVOLVED editor, has taken it upon himself to close this prematurely and with his preferred outcome; this should be reverted. K7L (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with K7L's comment above, which I noticed while engaged in unpromising discussion about the RFC at Kudpung's talk page. For one thing I'm perturbed by the assertion of an "emergency" that's non-existent as far as I can tell. On the other hand, the RFC really was going in the direction that Kudpung said, and the RFC is de facto about whether to protect the page WP:WPAFC/P. Usually if a page needs urgent protection, an admin just protects it (maybe with a talkpage or WP:RFPP discussion) without a full-length RFC or throwing around scary words like "emergency".

Anyway: I'd support re-opening the RFC, but am ok with leaving the WPAFC/P page protected for the rest of the comment period, unless there's significant talkpage or RFPP support for unprotecting it. Added: I'm also bothered by the apparently secret off-wiki development taking place of a replacement for AFC.[304] AFC is certainly dysfunctional but we're going to replace it, Wikipedia principles generally call for open discussion instead of cabals presenting faits accomplis. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I weakly support reopening it. 30% of editors opposed the change, so it wasn't a landslide decision. For the time being we can leave it protected but that RfC is far from done. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As I noted on Kudpung's talkpage, I strongly believe this RfC should be reopened. 30% opposition is not clear consensus and the RfC was not up to the 30 day limit. Furthermore, if all that was necessary was for the AFC script "Participants" page to be protected, that could have been done under the pretence of WP:BOLD. I think we can agree that allowing inexperienced users to approve AfC submissions (which will become articles, and carry the associated weight) is not prudent. Therefore, preventing these editors from adding themselves to the list is a bold, but justifiable move that does improve the encyclopedia. But the RfC wasn't limited to that. It became a discussion to improve AfC overall. I'd say that an RfC is a good, transparent place to do this. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Personal attack and ownership at 2015 Copenhagen attacks

2015 Copenhagen shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Curly turkey et al are owning the article suppressing information and call those with whom they disagree trolls. Eyes needed. 166.170.36.59 (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any specific diffs you can point to? And since this is your very first edit, whose edits are being removed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed this, and have not otherwise interacted with this troll. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

More personal attacks. A brief review of Curly Turkey's edits on the page in question and concerns raised on his/her user page make his/her misconduct clear. Is this the behavior expected of a wikipedian trusted with some admin tools??166.170.36.59 (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If it is, then someone quick give me the admin tools! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are you editing while logged out? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Not anymore. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Don't we have a policy against editing while being logged out. Something about evading scrutiny?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Behavior of Mabelina

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

---

Hello, can someone remind to Mabelina (talk · contribs) that it is not acceptable to qualify people of "troll" on wikipedia? (infraction of WP:NPA)
See: How to get trolls like PurpleHz off my back? (diff)

This contributor has been blocked 15 days on wp-fr for his behavior (discussion about his block -- in french), in part because he was carrying personnal attacks on me (resumed here by a french admin -- in english). Now he does this here...

Our only interaction on this wiki was when I corrected three false facts in one of his article (diff).

Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: I must be one of the buffoons mentionned here (diff). PurpleHz (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Amortias advised you to report any harassment here with diffs showing the harassment. It appears that she has made a few uncivil comments about you on talk pages that do not amount to harassment, and which are not the level of personal attacks for which admins normally block editors. It appears primarily that you are complaining that she has been harassing you on the French Wikipedia. You will have to take that up with the administrators of the French Wikipedia, with better evidence than you have provided here. I would suggest a warning to the subject for incivility and a warning to the OP for not providing diffs after being told to provide diffs (of something that might not have happened). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I've never talked to Amortias. Mabelina had. You have misunderstood who is who.

I'm not requesting a block, I'm requesting that someone explain to him/her that it is not an acceptable behavior. But seeing below that he/she is not able to recognize that she called me a troll, a warning may not be enough. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted that PurpleHz resumes this mission so swiftly. The word t...l was introduced by someone else, not by me (but not being one to launch personal attacks on other Wiki contributors, please see for yourselves) please give it a break; or, is it your overriding desire to attempt to get me banned again? Please advise your motives - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"The word t...l was introduced by someone else"

So... someone hacked wikipedia to make it look like your calling me a troll? (diff), that is what you're saying?

Well, it seems that this contributor isn't able to recognize his/her errors... PurpleHz (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the warnings for incivility and not providing evidence and a stong suggestion that both editors go for a walk ,blow up some virtual zombies or some other leisurley activity and remember to comment on contributions not editors. If you want to see some proper incivility its worth looking at some of the edits these socks [305] have made to me in my first few weeks here. Amortias (T)(C) 23:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible solution

I'm all for creative solutions to problems, how about this: PurpleHz and Mabelina will agree to a 2 way interaction ban. If they disagree with an edit an individual has made on an article they can implement the below option. If they have an edit they wish to make to an article the other editor has worked on in the past 72 hours they will need to make it a requested edit at the talk page of the article in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs)

1. Support as proposer.

• Stop. This is ridiculous. We're not going to enact interaction bans because one *** editor calls another a "troll". First of all, calling someone a troll once (I assume it's once?) is an insult, a personal attack, a terrible heartbreaking thing and all that, and it's worth a warning. Which the editor can do themselves. It's not worth a block. Second, for crying out loud, we got better things to do than propose, enact, log, and enforce an interaction ban combined with a requested edit procedure. So while I appreciate the thought, no.

  Next item: Mabelina, it is not acceptable to call people "trolls", so stop it. Now, sorry, but this is ANI, and the least we can do is pretend we're dealing with important stuff. Can some uninvolved editor pretty-please close this? Drmies (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Refactoring, edit warring, and harassment by RGloucester

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

---

RGloucester refuses to stop refactoring my comments on Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_17_February_2015. They have refactored my comments multiple times: [306], [307], [308], [309], [310], and [311]. They were warned not to refactor here in the edit summary and on their talk page. They templated me twice (for "improper use of sources" and "NPOV") for comments on a talk page. Requesting block. This is not RGloucester's first time behaving like this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha! Block me all you want. See if I care. Instead, you ought block the fellow above me. He added a list of style guides he said proscribed "chairman". Many of them did not proscribe the word "chairman" at all, and so I removed them. As an example, he inserted this source as "favouring chairperson or chair over chairman", except the source only says the following:

chairman, chairwoman, chairperson: Lower case in text. Upper case in titles, eg Spencer Tracy, Chairman, GDS.

His misuse of sources for the purpose of advocacy is despicable, and has no place on the encylopaedia. There is no way I'd allow that list to stand and influence the discussion, as it was a pure lie on his part. If he continues to lie, I fear God will take a harsh line with him in the next life. Regardless, do what you want with me. I am merely a cog in the machine. Sometimes, cogs get worn out. RGloucester — ☎ 04:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I take strong offence at Mr Fir's implication that I am a meat-puppet, with his use of the plural pronoun "they" to refer to my singular person. I fear he should rescind these allegations immediately. RGloucester — ☎ 04:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Singular they. I don't know your gender identity, especially given your user boxes, though you assume mine EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing. You trample over my identity with your false constructions of language, you call me a meat-puppet! Remember, we're not supposed to make personal attacks. We're supposed to respect the integrity of living persons! The only gender neutral pronoun for people of indeterminate gender is "he". "He" and associated forms are the only gender neutral forms in the English language. RGloucester — ☎ 04:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

RG you are going into the gender border here, please focus on the dispute. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Just my two cents but I cant speak for the source here. Evergreen you should have run the source by the WP:RSN, RD do you think saying "Ha, ha, ha! Block me all you want" is going to help anything? Btw EG you identify as female correct? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 - I was listing style guides to debunk the claim "chairman" is the widespread neutral term, not anything for article references. I identify as genderqueer, but am fine with any pronouns. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• RGloucester, can you tone it down please? Come on. And this "they" thing is silly. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: This whole thing is beyond silly. How many lines do they need to cross before they are reigned in? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If you ever refer to me as "they" again, I will report you to AN/I immediately for personal attacks. How dare you insult me with your false and horrid constructions after I specifically told you that I would not endure such lances!? I shan't tone anything down. This liar above is an advocate for the destruction of the language. He doesn't care for sources. He doesn't care for reason or common usage. His only goal is to push an agenda contrary to the God-given nature of our language. Hang me on a cross, for if I am to be put there I shall be glad in my suffering. At least I will know that I am a martyr for the language that gives me shape and form in a world where there is no form or shape. The fellows of this Mr Fir, they are the ones that wish to form a world for their own purposes, devoid of beauty. Let them sit in their concrete and glass boxes. They will feel their souls disintegrate as they die in the human manner that is inherent to us all. I, on the other hand, shall cackle in joy at my fate. RGloucester — ☎ 04:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• RGloucester, I'm sorry, but this is craziness. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

wow, don't think I've seen anyone go off the deep end like that before Also, Evergreen Fir linked to Singular they above (I've bolded it now). That is considered English. Blackmane (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

RG is aware of this, but has expressed in the past that it isn't proper English. Not that it matters. ansh666 05:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Since I commented I wont close this but will say the issue was resolved by Drmies, so time to move on everyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Poland IP Attack on User:ATinySliver

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

---

• ATinySliver (talk · contribs)
  • 188.121.0.13 (talk · contribs)
  • 95.49.212.187 (talk · contribs)
  • 78.8.242.131 (talk · contribs)

There are a few IP's registered to dynamic services in Poland doing some random spam and disruptive edits on ATinySliver's user and talk page. What do you do in this situation? Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

temporary page protection might do the trick. I'll go request it now. Amortias (T)(C) 19:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Somebody's not happy with the MaxTV AfD and merger to Max Kolonko. It'll likely blow over. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

There was only one oppose to that AfD, Kszapsza (talk · contribs) do you have anything to say about this? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: SPI Opened, though I could be incorrect. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it all stems from this Facebook post, attacking ATinySliver with over 1,310 likes, and giving a link to his user page... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)\

EoRdE6 (talk · contribs) ATinySliver (talk · contribs) Of course I have something to say. I am innocent of the whole affair. I'm only autor of translation of Max Kolonko article from Polish Wikipedia. I will never have an idea too make sockpuppets. Having thought that the combination and integration of articles can be a good option, I have resigned completely with decision after AfD discussions. I only completed little things in biography Max Kolonko. Since then, I didn't visit the English Wikipedia at all. Now, when I was working on Polish Wikipedia and when I wanted to check something in English version of article, I see this scandal... I didn't know about any attacks on ATinySliver at all. The only reason of these attacks on ATinySliver page might be a post of Kolonko on his Facebook site, where he was writing about deletion of MaxTV article as a scandal. I have written today to Kolonko myself and explained him, that this isn't any affair. I stress once again, the case I have nothing in common. I edit only with your account, Kszapsza. I have never made anonymous editions on English Wikipedia. I did not expect that creation of such an article (MaxTV) might make so big confusion.
I'm really active in another Wikimedia projects, I respect everyone user and contributor of projects and I'd like to contribute them further, so please believe me and acquit me, I do not have anything to do with the attacks on the user ATinySiiver and I did not use any puppets. Sincerely, Kszapsza (user talk) 13:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by multiple IPs (possibly sockpuppets?)

• 107.77.89.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Chaldean Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This IP has made a legal threat at Talk:Chaldean Catholic Church. I'm having a technical issue accessing that page and can't deal with it directly.

There is a pattern of behaviour by a number of IP editors, replacing any mention of "Assyrian" in the article and using Chaledean Catholic Church sources for the change. I've already protected this article and Chaldean Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) twice over this matter.

The primary issue right now is the legal threat. The secondary issue is the pattern of edit warring. There is also a tertiary issue that these IPs may be sockpuppets of ChaldeanEthnicity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Can I get some more eyes on this situation, given the legal threat in play? I'll also consider whether to file a sockpuppet investigation. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

While the IP editor is incivil, it is a vague legal threat, directed not at Wikipedia but at an individual editor and it's not even clear whose lawyers this IP believe will carry out legal action. It's the equivalent of saying "There will be lawsuits against you..by someone". I don't think this falls under WP:NLT but the IP editor is editing disruptively and trying to provoke other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I'm not sure how you can classify this as vague. we will be coming after you in the lawsuit. Be prepared to go to court and be prepared to face high attorney costs and legal fees. WE will be going after each person individually for a minimum judgment of 250,000.00. Since you are so passionate about this cause, get your pocketbook ready. Seems pretty specific to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

All I can say is that what caught my attention was By the way, Chaldean lawyers are preparing a lawsuit to stop you bigoted, politically motivated Assyrians from trying to steal and eliminate the Chaldean name and heritage and we will be coming after you in the lawsuit. and I didn't think the "we" actually included this editor or "you...Assyrians" to specifically mean the editor in question. It seems vague to me but according to FreeRangeFrog, the legal threat does not have to be credible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a clear legal threat. NLT does not require that the threat be credible (which perhaps amusingly is the case here), only that it be made to create a chilling effect on other editors. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP crossed another line, for which I've blocked and revoked talk page access. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

About the wider dispute affecting that page, I recently proposed an administrative "zero-tolerance approach" to tendentious editing on the related Assyrian people page (see Talk:Assyrian people#Warning: New rules for this page) and have been enforcing it with a ruthless blocking spree. I'd strongly recommend using the same approach here. This entire topic area is completely overrun by ideological single-purpose accounts (from all sides of that sorry mess of ideological in-fighting), and the editing environment has been pathological for years. Block, block, block, left right and centre. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User Flyer22 and User EvergreenFir - Hounding, harassment

User Flyer22 has been repeatedly making accusations of me, and posted harassing and insulting comments despite my request for them to stop.

Harassing comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Feminism_article Request to stop, and failure to do so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flyer22#Dispute_resolution

Same goes for the user EvergreenFir, who has been following me around to pretty much everywhere I post and making snide comments and remarks. Requesting an Administrator review their actions to ensure they are in line with Wikipedia policies and rules. BrentNewland (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, additional comments by EvergreenFir are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Men.27s_Rights_Movement

I'm just sick of these guys following me around everywhere and trying to start an argument. BrentNewland (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What specifically do you consider to be "harassing and insulting comments"? Chillum 20:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You should include some diffs to show what you mean. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why Flyer22 started talking about me. They suddenly appeared on Binksternet's talk page, solely to comment about me. This user started making accusations about my account and another user's account (failing to follow the standard Wikipedia protocol for investigating sockpuppets). I proceeded to tell them they could have and administrator review my account (subtly hinting that they should actually go find one, instead of talking on a talk page). They did not take the hint, and decided to yet again post making accusations of me being a "sockpuppet". They also attempt to invoke some form of official authority by linking to a section of their user page about "WP:Sockpuppet_watch". To be honest, I would expect someone who claims to be part of a "sockpuppet watch" to actually know what the procedures are for dealing with a suspected sockpuppet (hint: proper procedure is NOT to follow them around hurling accusations at them). Finally, I decided to track the information on dealing with sockpuppets down myself, gave them a link to the proper procedures, and asked them to stop making accusations against me outside of the proper venue. Another post from flyer22 at the same time (probably was making their comment while I was making mine).

Here is one of the biggest problems I have with Flyer22: After (politely) giving them the information on reporting sockpuppets and asking them to stop posting these accusations against me in talk pages, they did exactly that. Incredibly immature, crosses the line. And they did it again. And then they got rude with another user.

Finally, I initiated the formal dispute process. I went to their talk page and formally asked them to stop. And they didn't. They got rude and aggressive. And then ruder.

And that's where things stand with Flyer22.

Now, with EvergreenFir: I first encountered them on the Feminism talk page and the Men's Rights movement talk page, no problems there. They followed me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Men.27s_Rights_Movement (which is also not a problem).

However, they got rude. Made an edit with the notes being "rp - STICK" and basically accused me of "beating a dead horse". Generally, insulting and condescension are not acceptable arguments for discussions following pre-approved guidelines. The use of the word "equal" in quotes is also quite condescending in context - though that one is harder to quantify. That, plus their other comments, makes it clear they want no discussion to take place on this subject - in which case, their other actions are cast in a different light.

I responded, letting them know that I thought their comment was aggressive, hostile, and condescending. I suggested they be more careful with the wording of their posts, as well as some other suggestions.

EvergreenFir's response was not to own up to their mistakes, but to say "I don't need to be your friend". Then they (again) use condescending language by accusing me of being a "new editor and all". I pointed out that their comment had not addressed nay issues, and asked them to refrain from comments that did not add to the conversation. Then there's an implication that I am using multiple accounts due to my knowledge of "hounding"/google/search phrases. I respond reminding them how to report a sockpuppet account, and that their comment was otherwise offtopic.

HERE'S THE KICKER: EvergreenFir followed me to Flyer22's page and left yet another rude and condescending comment.

If anyone is using sockpuppets, I would imagine it's Flyer22/Flyer2222 (Flyer2222 left a comment on EvergreenFir's page - account name is quite close to Flyer22). But I won't report them for that because it could be seen as harassment having multiple reports. BrentNewland (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like a straightforward case of meatpuppetry to me. There has been considerable off-site coordination regarding the men's rights page. In this Reddit discussion, for example, activists bemoan the state of the article and plan their collective resistance against Wikipedia's feminist oppressors or something. One redditor suggests Let's edit the feminism wiki article in the EXACT same way, then document how those edits and editors are treated. That's when BrentNewland arrives to demand equal (one might say, the "EXACT same") treatment for feminism and the men's rights movement [312][313][314], regardless of the RS for the subjects. Men's rights related pages are on article probation but more (admin) eyes would help deal with the recent influx of new editors or relatively new reactivated accounts. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm shocked to discover that there's been off-site canvassing from MRM. Shocked. Ravensfire (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's gotten worse after the GamerGate ArbCom decision. They talk about GamerGate a lot and what it means for their strategy in approaching the article about "their" movement. Maybe that adds to your shock;) The most recent coordination on Reddit is definitely at least partially responsible for the arrival of so many new and reactivated accounts. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I only have one Wikipedia account. As I told them, if they suspect me of something, they can follow the proper process. Harassing me, hounding me, following me around is not following the proper process. There is no excuse for their actions. I have been editing Wikipedia for years. Just because I don't always do it when logged in doesn't mean I'm some new guy. BrentNewland (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what is meant by meat puppetry, you are not being accused of having another account. I am however glad you have drawn attention to this issue. Chillum 22:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang? Shot myself in the foot? Please. I am no puppet - sock or meat. The fact that you have linked to WP:Boomerang while saying "drawn attention" leads me to believe that nobody here has any intention of actually investigating my complaint. Instead, you've gone on a Wikipedia:Witchhunt. BrentNewland (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Regardless of whether or not BrentNewland is operating another account - and his comments about editing as an IP are not exactly exculpatory - he's clearly editing as a single-purpose disruptive account that, given the long dormancy, has probably been recruited from offsite. ArbCom sanction 1.2 may be applicable? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose account? I have edited several articles. If the admins check my IP logs, they'll see I've made many useful contributions. Just because a few edits recently have been on one subject does not make me a "single-purpose account". And as far as "disruptive", if attempting to address flaws in an article, then following the rules and bringing these flaws to the Admin's attention on the NPOV noticeboard is "disruptive", then perhaps the rules should be changed so following them isn't considered "disruptive". Also, Wikipedia:Witchhunt. BrentNewland (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• So I was not nice. Okay. Nothing requires me to be nice. However, BrentNewland flatters themselves if they think I followed them to Flyer22's talk page. I'm sure Flyer22 and any admin if such data exist and are accessible to them can tell you that Flyer22's talk page has been on my watchlist for quite some time. I am alerted to edits there via my watchlist. Imagine my delight to see BrentNewland's edit. Anyway, too much WP:MEAT around here for my formerly-vegetarian tastes. Ciao. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's about time to invoke WP:NOTHERE and the various probations/discretionary sanctions he's been notified of and impose at least a topic ban. Anybody? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Need to be a little bit careful here; the notifications issued were at 22:22, 10 February 2015 (MRM article probation) and 23:03, 11 February 2015 (gender-related DS; less than four hours ago). I'm not seeing good signs from the editor, but I'm not really seeing anything that would justify invoking the probation sanctions or DS after the relevant notification. I note also that the article probation notification was not correctly logged. GoldenRing (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

BrentNewland Topic ban propoal

I endorse a temporary topic ban but not anything else for the user, BrentNewland (talk · contribs). My proposal would be:

• 4 months (proposal to change in progress) of topic ban in the subjects of MRM and Feminism for BrentNewland (talk · contribs). After the period is over, in consultation of an admin (who'll review his edits), he can again reach out to the community to gain approval in the editing sphere to go back to that niche and perform un-biased edits. He's also admonished for accusing editors of harassment when none has taken place.
• Flyer22 (talk · contribs) is not admonished since he has accused him of meatpuppetry, rightly and not sockpuppetry. He's however directed to be a bit more pleasant in tone and not suggest that someone might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet with no evidence at all.
• EvergreenFir (talk · contribs) is not admonished at all.

Proposal revised. (x2) --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC) All in support may say "Aye" or "Nay" if not, below this proposal. Any constructive change to this proposal is also appreciated. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Why only 4 months? They are clearly editing those articles just to be disruptive. Do we really want to invite them back for more later? There are plenty of other people working on those articles. I don't think BrentNewland will be missed. MoreTomorrow (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@MoreTomorrow: 4 months of topic ban is quite a lot for almost a SPA, isn't it? And, he'll need to regain community approval after the period is over, so I guess, it's fine. If one more reputed editor supports an increase to 6 months or such, I'll change my proposal. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 05:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A tedious bureaucratic comment. First, sockpuppet allegations should be presented at WP:SPI rather than here. Second, harassment allegations are serious and require evidence, which hasn't been provided so far. Third, a proposed topic ban with exemptions for typo fixes or bots would be hard to administer, and would widen WP:BANEX beyond even its current complexity. Fourth, being a SPA is not an offence. --Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: He's apparently not a sockpuppet but a meatpuppet and it's not possible to verify the credibility so we cannot have investigations either. I've revised the proposal to fix the issue put in the third point. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Being a SPA is not an offence. Ofc, it's not. I argued on the same thing a few days ago at ANI. But, once someone's a proved SPA, it becomes hard to judge the POV and decide whether it's unbiased or not. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm somewhere between meh and nay. As GoldenRing mentioned above, the warnings are fresh. Either the user will improve, they will cease to edit, or we just give them more rope. Waiting is a win-win-quasiwin. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  Improving doesn't seem to be in the cards. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps time to buy stock in the rope making industry. My stocks in glue manufacturers has paid off. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are all being absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe how far Wikipedia has fallen. I made, what, 2 edits, which were reverted, then I made no more. I'm harassed for it, I report the harassment following your rules, and you all decide to discuss banning me? Because of my political views? Even though I haven't broken a single rule? And your only evidence is you FEEL I MIGHT be a "meatpuppet"? And you let one of the people I brought claims against VOTE on this topic!?!?

You know what, fine. Whatever. Ban me. Delete my account. If this is how you treat people who are just trying to help, I don't WANT to be on Wikipedia. 17:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentNewland (talk • contribs)

Tell you what. Edit something else. Prove that you understand how to use Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just how to quote them. Then we'll all shut up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@BrentNewland: I think you haven't carefully observed two things. First, EvergreenFir is actually speaking for you. Second, this isn't a vote, this is a discussion to seek consensus on whether you presence in the community is appreciated or not. And the point is, we are not happy but we are willing to give you a second chance. For what it's worth, we are not endorsing a site-ban but just a topic-ban, your edits to the aforementioned subjects are actually quite nonconstructive and you should know it by now. I am honestly fed up with the community too. I've almost left the place. I mostly come on ANI just to defend newbies, just to defend them. Here you might think, I want to ban you. No, it's as simply as, at some point you've got to stop. You have been making quite biased edits which are not really quite satisfying to the community and if you want to survive, you're going to have to deal with it. The only reason that you have an allegation of a meatpuppet is because of your edits. I've realized that atleast, you are here in good faith. Most people are not. Let this be your first and last time, someone points a finger at you for your edits, but I believe reprimanding is necessary. All I want you to prove is that the community is damn wrong. You must prove, you're not a SPA, not a meatpuppet, not a biased article editor. Prove them wrong, in these 4 months, which you should accept, and I guarantee that you'll achieve happiness but respect from the community is not. Our community's a hidden dystopia, deal with it. If you ever have time, read The Bet and you'll realize things about life, that you should take in. Very respectfully. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I say Aye. Regardless of the meatpuppetry issue, BrentNewland has fundamentally misapprehended our core content policies, especially NPOV. He continues to argue that feminism and men's rights movement need to be treated equally although other editors have explained (e.g., [315][316]) to him that feminism and men's rights movement are treated differently in RS and that Wikipedia must reflect that. His subsequent disruptive edits, like the tag bombing [317][318] on the feminism page, are based on that fundamental and persistent misunderstanding of NPOV. Sure, we could give him more rope as EvergreenFir suggests, try to explain to him for the fifth and sixth time that he misunderstands how NPOV works, and waste more editors' time and patience in the process. Or we topic ban him for a few months so that he can work in less contentious topic areas and get experience following our NPOV policy and working with other editors. I think that the later option is preferable. However, all of us could be "more pleasant in tone" and I don't get why Flyer22 and EvergreenFir need an extra special reminder of that. They didn't cross the line into personal attacks or harassment. Their more or less oblique (I assume to avoid accusations of OUTING) suggestions that meatpuppetry is involved don't deserve that kind of censure. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

They didn't harass Brent or otherwise, which is why they're not written in the proposal. He's cited nearly every Wikipedia policy to what he's done and it sounds really template-ish. EvergreenFir has been fine but Flyer22 has put forward quite agitated comments. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• nay: I say this with all due deference to WP:FAITH, but this plain and simple looks like a Wikipedia:Witchhunt against BrentNewland (talk · contribs) for bringing up valid concerns that he has backed up with evidence. What's even scarier is that by commenting here, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm targeted similar to BrentNewland (talk · contribs). The reaction he's getting is exactly the kind of chilling effect BrentNewland (talk · contribs) was trying to bring attention to. It's the same attempt at a chilling effect that participator Sonicyouth86 is doing to me on my talk page. For admin considering actions here, I think WP:AOTE is instructive.

I have already been a target of aggressive attempts by Flyer22 to have me banned, so I'm speaking up to corroborate BrentNewland (talk · contribs) concerns. [If that makes me a meatpuppet, then I struggle to see how the coordinated actions of Flyer22 (talk · contribs), Sonicyouth86 (talk · contribs), and EvergreenFir (talk · contribs) as like minded editors do not also constitute "meatpuppetry". I want to emphasize that the WP:MEATPUPPET policy was enacted to prevent genuine abuse or dogpiling by like minds (much like we are seeing right here against BrentNewland (talk · contribs) by Flyer22 (talk · contribs), Sonicyouth86 (talk · contribs), and to a lesser extent, EvergreenFir (talk · contribs)), it's purpose is *not* to prevent WP:FAITH edits, or to stop WP:BOLD edits made with an awareness of WP:CAUTIOUS and WP:IMPERFECT.Spudst3r (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your argument against the points about BrentNewland being a long dormant single purpose account would be far more convincing Spudst3r if you were not a long dormant single purpose account yourself. For example: two of your 3 edits in 2014 were to Masculism and Men's rights movement. 78% of your edits since suddenly returning in 2015 are about gender conflicts. And prior to those 3 sporadic edits in 2014 you were not active since 2012. Something brought both of you to Men's rights topic after Feb 5th and to many of the same pages. After the call for meatpuppets to make calls for edits to this site that reflect exactly what was suggested on reddit. That is prima facia meatpuppetry. And that policy reads that doing the bidding of offsite entities, organizations, groups etc in order to manipulate wikipedia in ways contrary to its own policies and regulations is meatpuppetry.
The newly closed Gamergate Arbitration allows for any administrator to act against accounts "with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy". Abusing noticeboards, lobbying for misrepresentation of sources and breaches of WP:BATTLE constitute clear breaches of WP:DE and WP:POINT. This is part of a deliberate long-running campaign of ownership by off site entities designed to frustrate this site's rules, goals and standards in this topic area, in order to promote a point of view that may be popular on the internet but is not part of mainstream scholarly opinion.
Thus as it stands I agree with the topic ban for BrentNewland 4 months is ok (I'd have gone for 3 TBH) however meatpupptry by definition does not happen in a vacuum and I see at least 1 other account here deserving of the same prohibition--Cailil ^talk 11:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

A few points: 1. I picked up editing activity before this article in January, making big contributions to the securitization (international relations) article.

2. Since my edits to masculism and men's rights movement, going back to those articles to improve them has always been on my to do list. If you want to know why my editing has picked up it's because I found a freelance job that gives me much freedom to pursue my own pursuits, such as editing wikipedia on my spare time. Do I have a big focus on this subject? Yes, but as noted earlier single purpose account are not against the rules on wikipedia -- if you really want to call me that.

3. Instead of repeated ad hominem on my intentions to limit my ability to contribute, I challenge you to look at the content of my edits. You will see I make extensive use of the talk page, and have collaboratively worked with other editors to find a consensus where disagreements exist.

RE: meatpuppeting accusations: Looking into the reddit article posted by sonicyouth86 that began these meatpuppet claims, I noticed that one of the commenters there points out that Reddit posts about this wikipedia page a lot. It's unfortunate the men's rights subreddit is doing this, but I don't see how I can be blamed for their actions. Furthermore, I'm a little concerned how this page can ever receive valid contributors from a masculinist perspective if outside sources constantly judge them to be meatpuppets because of this subreddit constantly calling attention to this page?! Spudst3r (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if my expression above was terse or came across as personal - there is no ad hominem above it is an accurate reflection of your contrib history. However the fact that wikipedia is again dealing with off-site interference is a problem for wikipedia. Single Purpose accounts that don't edit neutraly ARE against the rules. Making edits to one topic area is ok but doing so in order to achieve something outside the aims of this site, "raising profiles", "counter acting" perceived academic bias etc etc are all things that we have had years to develop rules to deal with (see the ARbCom rulings on Israel-Palestine and other nationalist, as well as the many Psuedo- and Fringe science wars). The fact that it took Gamer gate and the massive juvenile disruption of this site for ArbCom to act in relation to the long running (almost a decade) problem of gender conflict on wikipedia is more of an indictment of the shortsightedness of previous committees than anything else. I agree this is extremely unfortunate that redditers are doing this. It adds to the MRAs bad rep. And to the defcon on Wikipedia. It achieves the 100% opposite of what they want. But that's not my problem or wikipedia's it's those individuals'. For Wikipedia one of the most serious red flags is the repeated clamour to edit Men's movement pages to be the same as Feminist pages. Doing this is likely to raise eyebrows. It's the same as asking to edit Obama articles the same as GW Bush articles. It's prima facia agenda driven partisan editing that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's goals and everything to do with PR campaigns of offsite entities (that's not an accusation just an FYI). But you have to understand that in the context of pages where significant meatpuppetry occurs, on a regular basis, when a group of people show up, out of the blue, clamouring for the same things (which are BTW against policy or which require impossible changes to said policy) we'll see meatpuppetry. Especially when we see them acting deliberately against policy repeatedly--Cailil ^talk 14:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

EChastain's comments re: Flyer22, EvergreenFir and sockpuppet accusations

It's very easy to get rattled by the aggressiveness of Flyer22 and EvergreenFir. They do seem to suddenly appear, as BrentNewland says above. As a newly returned editor, I thought I could edit as I had before. But when I edited Mansplaining, in terrible shape at the time, with very poor sources, original research and a huge quote, see:[319], I received a series of 11 posts from EvergreenFir (who hadn't edited the article before), starting with:[320] [321] She reverted me three minutes after my edit, clearly not having evaluated my edit, and threatened me. [322] [323] I finally reverted her with the edit summary "FFS give me a couple minutes to put shit together" is not a reason to revert - stop battleground and ownership behavior)". And she stopped editing it.

I had tried to explain myself both on my talk page and on the article talk page, where I was accused of causing the talk to disintegrate into some sort of a men's rights discussion (by an editor who had never edited the article or the talk page before), though I'm a female. EvergreenFir had not edited that article before I did, and hasn't edited it since then. Almost all of my edits and my suggestions on the talk page were in one way or another ultimately implemented, after EvergreenFir and her supporters left. But I won't edit that article again, or any other article that's been edited in the last few years. I finally banned her from my talk page, an act that was used as evidence against me in an SPI report.

As for Flyer22, she also posted on my talk page several times in a very boastful and offensive walls of text, related to Lightbreather's request for her help in proving I was a sock of someone or other. Examples:[324] [325] [326]

I felt bullied and ganged up on and haven't really been able to seriously edit articles since.

I respectfully suggest that Flyer22 and EvergreenFir to be encouraged to be more respectful and less abrasive and confrontive in their comments to other editors, even if they disagree with them. For my part, I'm trying to be so in dealing with editors on talk pages. (edited) EChastain (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments. EvergreenFir says above:

So I was not nice. Okay. Nothing requires me to be nice. However, BrentNewland flatters themselves if they think I followed them to Flyer22's talk page.

Not exactly constructive. I don't think this type of response is a helpful to en:wiki, and I empathise with any editor who gets it. I give kudos to Gerda Arendt and her support of kindness, while all the while getting her points across, even when she disagrees and the same for GoodDay. And it does feel like "dogpiling" as Spudst3r says below. It makes for a terribly tense atmosphere, and hinders editors like me who aren't used to it to try to response well on talk pages when you feel under fire. Thanks! EChastain (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Surprised to find my name here, connected to kindness. Sure you mean me, the alleged battleground person, admonished and restricted by the arbitration committee? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I see that Flyer22 is accusing Spudst3r of being a sockpuppet on the NPOV Noticeboard[327] where EvergreenFir is also participating in a "Men's Rights Movement" discussion. I take no position on whether they are or are not a sock. But these accusations are used all too frequently to discredit an editor, rather than replying with evidence of POV sources etc., as is the purposed of that noticeboard. Since Flyer22 thinks Spudst3r is a sock, I think she should file an SPI rather than fling those accusations around on another forum, rather than addressing the issues at hand. She made it clear regarding me that she excelled at sniffing out socks.[328] [329] So file a report, Flyer22. If these accusations are repeatedly brought up, it tends to start being accepted as true and damages an editor's reputation. It also means an editor tends to feel that they've got to defend themselves against such attacks, rather than solely dealing with, in this case, the sourcing questions at hand. The NPOV noticeboard is not the place to gain support for your "side" by attacking an editor whose view is different. It doesn't further the goal of building an encyclopaedia. EChastain (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in {User|EChaistain}. It looks like I'm next up on the chopping block... If there is one thing more than anything that I think needs to be done to improve Wikipedia, it's to really re-examine its approach SOCKPUPPET/MEATPUPPET and aggressive sanctioning. Spudst3r (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

EC its no secret that you don't like Evergreen though, your disputes go further back than this so why feel the need to chime in? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Knowledgekid, yes you always turn up.

True I don't like some of EvergreenFir behavior, starting with her attempts to get a certain editor banned at ANI, the mansplaining thing (described above), with rude posts to my talkpage (I believe you told her to back off). And more trying to get an editor banned at the GGTF ArbCom with her claims of superiority, like the lecture: people who "decide" it's a social phenomenon would be the scholars that write about it., which it turns out she is almost one: if we're tossing out credentials, I'm ABD in sociology. Probably 5 years more in grad school. Later she tells TParis: Clarifying that I said you are ignorant of a topic, namely TERFs. Otherwise, [[WP:DENY]]., with the edit summary: "You are misplacing academic definitions with social use"... I'm an academic, so....

Agree with Spudst3r, that one thing to truly improve wikipedia is to really re-examine its approach SOCKPUPPET/MEATPUPPET and aggressive sanctioning. This whole approach is punitive rather than facilitative. Lets decrease the motivation to one-up others, and to brag that one is an expert in "sniffing out sockpuppets" and other behavior that intimidates those of not the same view. EChastain (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Amanda Palmer repeated vandalism/censorship

User:62.253.5.4 has been repeatedly, and clumsily, attempting to expunge Palmer's alias of "Amanda Fucking Palmer". The user has been warned a number of times, but shows no signs of giving up. DaveSeidel (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I semi-protected it, due to the rather obvious disruption. We may be able to guess who the IP is, but maybe not. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. DaveSeidel (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP may actually have a point. There are references to that nickname, but none appear to be reliable, at least 2 are blogs, 1 (The Battered Suitcase) might not be notable, and the reference doesn't go anywhere, the page it points to doesn't exist. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP claims to be AFP, which is slightly doubtful. :-) Besides, TED is about as reliable as you get: https://www.ted.com/speakers/amanda_palmer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

TED wasn't used as one of the references in the infobox, twitter, tumbler (both not reliable) a google book with nothing in it that refers to Amanda plummer and some media feed were used. The google book appears to be reliable but doesn't mention Amanda Palmer at all, and the media feed, not sure because I can't see it at work, but no reliable sources means the name shouldn't be here, the IP was correct. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the IP (and you) weren't correct as I've explained on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent vandalism of many articles

User Krakkos, probably one of a masters' many sockpuppets, is consequently deleting sourced content and replacing it with own POV-content, accusing everybody who is not of his opinion with sockpuppetry and searching for allies. He has been warned many times for being involved in disruptive editing in the revision history and at the talk page. Especially these articles are affected: Tashtyk culture, Karasuk culture, Kangju, Wusun, Bashkirs, Qiang (historical_people), Shang dynasty, Zhou dynasty. How to respond to such vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3, if you can provide specific examples of this users editing that you have mentioned above. If you havent done it before see WP:SDG for guidance on how to do so. Amortias (T)(C) 22:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zhou_dynasty&diff=640306580&oldid=639271469 ; POV-pushing resulted in a edit warring.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shang_dynasty&diff=640295114&oldid=639186591 ; POV-pushing resulted in a edit warring.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wusun&diff=647011527&oldid=646999999 ; POV-pushing resulted in a edit warring.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qiang_(historical_people)&diff=640310830&oldid=639428161 ; POV-pushing resulted in a edit warring.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kangju&diff=647251410&oldid=647238173 ; POV-pushing.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tashtyk_culture&action=history ; POV-pushing.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karasuk_culture&action=history ; POV-pushing.

I have counted at least 15 sockpuppets of the same master. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)According to this site, the IP OP geolocates to Germany, where other socks of Tirgil34 also locate. Krakkos usually gives the edit summary that he's reverting another sock of Tirgil34, and the evidence leaves me only inclined to believe he's right. Only thing left to do here is block the IP. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've notified Krakkos about this discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't follow you. Do you mean everybody from Germany is a sockpuppet of this Tirgil34? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No, just people who behave just like Tirgil34. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What kind of behavior is this? Being interested in central asia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I was actually considering adressing this issue on ANI myself. Recently i've been making an attempt to revert disruptive edits by User:Tirgil34, who has been promoting turanist fringe theories on Wikipedia for years through the use of a vast number of socks. In accordance with CFD G5, article creations (including edits i presume) by banned users qualify for immediate deletion. Tirgil34 edits have especially done signicant damage of WP's coverage of Central Asian history, a good example is the nonsense article Turushka, which had been present on WP for months until deleted upon my request earlier today. Tirgil34 uses agressive tactis to attack serious editors who attempt to repair the damage he has done, for example, the respected User:Florian Blaschke was blocked through Tirgil34's scheeming a couple of months ago after reverting fringe additions by User:Ragdeenorc, later confirmed to be a Tirgil34 sock, to the article Kurgan. Tirgil34 appears to have access to an impressive number of IP's (as examplified in the editing history of Andronovo culture), making it practically impossible to prevent his disruptive edits through blocking. He has been pursuing his agenda with extraordinary tendentiousness for years, and appears to be still active despite his numerous bans, as examplified by the appearance of a ducky IP within minutes after i revert Tirgil34's additions to Wusun. Upon the ducky IP's fulfillment of the WP:3RR, the User:Yagmurlukorfez enters the article to enforce the IP's edits. Yagmurlukorfez has earlier been pushing Tirgil34's theories on a wide range of articles, including Issyk kurgan, Karasuk culture, Andronovo culture, Paleolithic Continuity Theory and many more, which seems to be his only purpose on WP. Given Tirgil34's tendentiousness and access to a large amount of IP's, i fear the only solution is careful monitoring of victimized articles by responsible editors. I will not be able to do this on my own. If any responsible admin would join in this effort i would assist with all means possible. Krakkos (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You are hiding four facts: 1. Tirgil34 is not related to Hirabutor's sockpuppets, 2. fringe theories were never detected, 3. you are pushing your own POV by deleting sourced contents, 4. you are using many IP's around the world to hide your sockpuppetry. That's the matter and this is what should be discussed. Another matter which should be discussed is how you attack other users with psychological warfare:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atama&diff=prev&oldid=609971489

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yagmurlukorfez&diff=609967624&oldid=609896550

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yagmurlukorfez&diff=610458850&oldid=609973978

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yagmurlukorfez&diff=prev&oldid=609536743 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm uncertain weather your accusations are even worthy of a reply, but i'l reply nevertheless.

- 1. User:Hirabutor is a confirmed WP:Sock of User:Tirgil34
- 2. WP:Fringe has been pushed by Tirgil34 and his socks on countless articles, a good example is the revision history of Issyk Kurgan
- 3. Deletion of articles made and edits made by banned users is WP:Policy in accordance with CFD G5.
- 4. The last "facts" concerning racist attacks refer to edits made way before i even started cleaning up User:Tirgil34's mess on WP. These edits are obvious trolling. On Wusun an IP which appears connected to you 2A02:908:E620:A260:F836:FBF:6432:6776 accused me of a "false-flag operation". Perhaps you were mistaking me for yourself?

Am I the only person who finds it oddly curious that they were able to pull four such differently linked diffs together at short notice. Amortias (T)(C) 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What is your point? All of them are related to one and the same time frame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3 (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

According to your contributions youve been editing for less than 24 hours and have managed to track down diffs from almost 9 months ago in under 15 minutes. Have you previously edited under a different IP or account that would have provided you with this insight prior to today? Amortias (T)(C) 23:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Does ipv6 tell you something?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:908:e620:a260:414f:9801:c8b7:e1b3 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunatley yes, but without knowing who your ISP is to find out what the address lifetime they have allocated to your IP address is its not much help in proving/disproving what addresses youve edited under previously (legitimately or otherwise) to disprove or prove the concerns mentioned above.Amortias (T)(C) 00:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "evidence" provided by the OP for "POV-pushing" consists of Krakkos replacing unsourced or poorly sourced information or adding new information, usually citing a Princeton-published work. In this case, he only improved refs. He also shuffled info to give due weight, or removed material that appears somewhat undue. The last bit I point to (the removal of information) is the only thing that I could begin to be worried about, but would still need good evidence to not assume that it was ultimately in good faith.

As for the IP's claims that Krakkos is socking under the last four links he provided: we should all be insulted the IP thinks we're that stupid; and at the very least, treat the poorly-evidenced accusation as a personal attack on Krakkos, if not trolling.

We should block the IP OP. They're clearly not here in good faith, and can only be assumed to be a sock of a blocked POV-pusher who Krakkos has tangled with before. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems you would like to block me before I can provide the sock accounts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:908:e620:a260:414f:9801:c8b7:e1b3 (talk • contribs)

If you really had anything beyond insinuations, you should've revealed them by now. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What a coincidence, all of them are related to Tirgil34:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zheek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mendsetting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Krakkos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ergative rlt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cantspans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Banderheits

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Alsace38&offset=&limit=500&target=Alsace38

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=46.143.214.22&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2015&month=-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ArordineriiiUkhtt

here the master even admits he is using socks for "different topic areas": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rajmaan&oldid=525645285

... and what coincidence we see the main operating ip's 188. + 187. + 46. consequently in context with the same tactics of ip socking including name changing and allying with the same admins/users, and all of them are connecting Tirgil34's and Hirabutor's edits with one and the same Kurdish sockpuppet master. What a coincidence... also read Hirabutor's earlier evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&diff=prev&oldid=607457239 . Possibly more sock accounts were created, only an investigation could reveal it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:A260:414F:9801:C8B7:E1B3 (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey buddy - if you're going to claim I'm a sock account, do me the favor of starting an investigation at SPI. I would love to know who I'm actually a sock of! Ergative rlt (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the concerns of repoter. The Reported user doing personel attacks (such as turanist, sockpuppet etc.) and pushing his/her POV and deleting countless reliable sources on several articals with the reason of "sockpuppet edits." But also same removals doing by sevaral IPs with the same reason. These are might be related. We have a serious problem with that. These actions harming neutrality of articals and need to be stopped.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Per Wikipedia:Banning policy, admins and editors are allowed to remove and revert all sock puppets edits. User:Krakkos explained in his edits summaries why he removed those contents. Socks' edits should not stand on articles. It's a rule to keep WP healthy and prevent further sock puppetry or ip-hopping. --188.159.246.76 (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Says another sock master legend á la Tirgil34. 2A02:908:E620:A260:C43:AA09:5C47:6DDE (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant tu quoque. Admins need to finally put an end to this vandal-fest. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Long-time Pan-Turkist sock puppetry

If you review some Central Asian or Eastern European article (usually topics about Indo-Europeans, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans (even Ossetians), Tocharians, Archaeology, Languages and cultures), you'll find tracks of Tirgil34 edits and his socks. All of them are German! editors who are interested in Turkifying articles. Just check Turanid race article. For example, this is and old unblocked sock: User:FACT NEEDED, see his userpage and contribution, again another German who loves to Turkify anything he finds in wikipedia:

• I am a German historian. I love history.

All of them have same behavior, editing-style, edit summaries, and etc. He plays a "Good Cop Bad Cop" tactic, and that User:Yagmurlukorfez restores his edits every time. These guys are not here to build encyclopedia. They tries to push fringe and unreliable content in every article that they don't like. The above IP who submitted this laughable report, is Tirgil34 himself. Again a German from Germany! It was confirmed by SPI, that all of these users are one person or they work as a team/group. If his edits are not problematic, why different users and admins reverted all of his edits? And now he attacks other editors to find a way to return to wikipedia. Another point is, why all of this so-called GERMANs (who love history) act similar?! Admins should ban him and any IPs related to this Pan-Turkist sock master. Protect those articles and other editors watch similar edits to prevent this non-stop revisionist. --175.179.5.45 (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree. Tirgil34 and Yagmurlukorfez (same person or not) are only interested in pushing their pet idea, a classic fringe view claiming that the Scythians (and related peoples) were Turkic and Turkic/Altaic languages are native to Europe. No long-time editor who is interested in Indo-European, Iranian or Turkic languages and peoples, or the history of Central Asia, can avoid having run into them and their socks at some point. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Some IP socks still attacking me with being sockpuppet and "pan-turkist/turanist" claims. Admins should do something to these harassments. It's obviously personel attack but always ignoring by admins and moderatos. Same for user Florian Blaschke. This is not the first time. On the other hand, I (or someone else) can edit whatever I/they want, you can't blaim the people with such thing for their interests on wikipedia.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Florian Blaschke looks actually ok, you can at least talk with him in a fine manner, even though he doesn't understand the seriousness of the situation with Krakkos, who appears now with the same Korean/Japanese/Viatnemese proxy-server as Hirabutor made evident. The problem is the sock master, being recently very active with his sock Krakkos, blames other users for being in disagreement with the sock masters' opinion. When debating with Krakkos in the revision history I've noticed the sock master employs three different tactics ; 1. distraction: divert attention from the argument at hand and avoid debating the issue directly 2. ad hominem logical fallacy: blaming the messenger and not debating the message 3. fallacy of relevance ("red herring"): the submitter will attempt the "two wrongs make a right" tactic. In employing these tactics the sock master unwittingly admits the correctness of the opponent's orginal argument. Every attempt to discuss with Krakkos, as this user never admits own mistakes, will enter a dead end finally. The mass-removal of sourced academic content still continues and nobody is doing anything against this. 2A02:908:E620:A260:AD6B:2337:7976:A2AF (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

And 193.154.234.138 is now making a loud quacking on a related article. Amortias (T)(C) 21:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated to the other IP's which are usually geolocated in the US, Iran, Japan and Korea. 22:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)~

Comment: I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against Yagmurlukorfez, based on the fact that their edits at Wusun are very similar to earlier edits by Radosfrester and Pioikdiyma, blocked sockpuppets of Tirgil34. Hirabutor, mentioned in the paragraph above, is also a blocked sockpuppet of Tirgil34. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tirgil34. --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm really getting sick of these nonsense actions. It's been a year since I joined wikipedia, I'm already investigated several times and nothing happened. Not sure is this some kind a tactic or stupidity of those troll IPs but ironicly, they still keep accusing me with being sockpuppet. I have no directly or indirectly relation with Tirgil34 or his sock accounts. I don't even know who is he. But here, even admins (such as MelanieN) keep opening investigation about me again and again. This negative attitude among some admins against me is harming their neutrality.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Followup: the initial sockpuppet investigation found no evidence of sockpuppetry. I have apologized to Yagmurlukorfez. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that both Tirgil34 and Yagmurlukorfez are pushing Turanist/Pan-Turkist historical revisionism that identifies everyone and everything in the ancient Eastern European/Central Asian steppes as "Proto-Turkic": Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans and their modern descendants, the Ossetes, Saka, Wusun, the Issyk kurgan inscription, the Andronovo horizon, the Afanasevo culture, the Botai culture, even the Copper Age Kurgan cultures! Neither can accept that while Turkic peoples did mix with Iranians in the Middle Ages, that does not mean that Iranian nomads of the ancient steppes (and their predecessors) were Turkic themselves. (The Proto-Turkic language was most likely spoken 2000–3000 years ago – the Turkic languages are not strongly differentiated – in the vicinity of the Altai mountains, in Mongolia or so; it makes no sense to talk of "Proto-Turkic" anything before the Iron Age, especially not in Europe.) The problem persists, so the negative attitude towards Yagmurlukorfez is entirely validated by his behaviour. He may not be a sockpuppet, but he sure is a brother-in-arms. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The abundance of "fringe theories" shows that the matter is far from settled, and drugging you through the "fringe theories" conflict resolution is rather a sign of the weakness of its advocates. The alleged consensus is very far from consensus, that why the abundance of objections and a plethora of the "fringe theories". Concerning the Wusuns, they might have been proto-turkic or indo-european. 2A02:908:E620:A260:C43:AA09:5C47:6DDE (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Bull. Shit. It only shows the fervency and persistence (bullheadedness) of Pan-Turkic nationalist idiots. Similarly, Islamic terrorism does not prove the truth of Islam, and constant attacks by creationists, climate denialists, Neo-Nazis and other crackpots on Wikipedia do not show that there is anything wrong with the mainstream scientific consensus. Plain old boring argumentum ad numerum, nothing to see here. In mainstream academia, the Iranian identity of the Scythians is completely settled. Given the low diversity of Turkic, Bronze Age "Proto-Turks" are pure fantasy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Indef-block/ban for him and Topic-ban for his teammate

1. Indef-block for this User:Tirgil34 guy (the IPV6 guy), he invaded Wikipedia for several years. Don't allow him to edit Wikipedia articles again (WP-ban). If he agree to stop his sock puppetry and multiple account abuse, then allow him to create a new account but a TOPIC-ban is necessary for him. According to his comments, it's obvious that IPV6 guy is Tirgil34 and he still has many accounts. He has a watchlist to monitor those articles (parked account(s)).
2. Topic-ban for his friend User:Yagmurlukorfez. Because he is a single-purpose account who just works with Tirgil34.
3. Tirgil34 attacked other editors who reverted his edits or removed his disruptive actions. A group of unrelated editors. Compare their contributions. Nothing is similar, the only similarity between those editors is; that once upon a time they reverted and removed Tirgil34's edits and now Tirgil34 is angry because of their contributions. Unlike Tirgil34, they're trusted editors in WP (see their contributions).
4. According to his SPI archive, The last invasion by this Pan-Turkist troll/vandal was in 2013-2014, and other users successfully managed to find and report him. He's angry because he tried to insert his unreliable, disruptive, delusional, pseudo-science content in wp articles for several years and every major attempt by him was unsuccessful.
5. Obvious sock puppetry since 2012, earlier Pan-Nationalistic attempts before 2012, Does this guy really want to help Wikipedia?! Horrible usage of multiple accounts in every return of this user.
6. Do he and his friends use an IM application? Because he and his friends restore his edits very fast! Is this behavior allowed in WP?
7. Tirgil34 mocked and insulted us by submitting this report. We SHOULD NOT feed trolls and vandals like him. --103.41.63.10 (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)