Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive893

User:Francis Schonken is edit warring

Like the WP:MOS, WP:AT and its guidelines are under Arbcom sanctions

Today user:Francis Schonken reverted a long standing redirect on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). History of the redirect and restoration:

• 14:27, 30 October 2009‎ Kotniski (redirecting to merged guideline where all this is covered, per talk)
• 22:00, 9 November 2009‎ Francis Schonken (there was no consensus for this)
• 08:20, 10 November 2009‎ Kotniski (undo - consensus was certainly reached on this (see multiple naming convention talk archives))
• 23:53, 16 February 2012‎ Jc37 (restore for illustrative purposes)
• 02:40, 13 April 2012‎ Born2cycle (Restore as redirect per consensus reached years ago about avoiding duplicate guidelines - see edit summaries in history)
• 10:36, 1 July 2014‎ Francis Schonken (Undid revision 487105621 by Born2cycle (talk) apparently new discussions emerged where this may be useful, see WT:NC#What should decide titles? initiated by Born2cycle)
• 19:15, 1 July 2014‎ PBS (Rv to last version by B2C. Reverting a change that is two years old without a new talk page consensus is not appropriate. Gain a consensus at talk WP:AT before making such a change)
• 08:21, 21 July 2015‎ Francis Schonken (Undid revision 615193695 by PBS (talk) per discussion at WT:AT#Using a . to distinguish an article)

I initiated an Rfc on WP:AT over this issue at 09:03, 21 July 2015 and then at 09:05, 21 July 2015‎ reverted Francis Schonken's edit to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) 08:21, 21 July 2015‎. with the comment: "Undid revision 672396442 by Francis Schonken (talk) I have started an RfC on WP:AT see RfC: Possible restoration of guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)"

So far so normal, but since then:

• At 09:10, 21 July 2015‎ Francis Schonken reverted my revet to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) with the comment "Undid revision 672400336 by PBS (talk) restore for illustrative purposes during RfC; besides this needs updating after being in the closet for some years"
• At 09:11, 21 July 2015 without seeking consensus to do so Francis Schonken then edited the header of the RfC so that it is no longer stands on its own but made it a sub-secion of another section. Which of obscures the RfC section heading in the TOC.

Edit warring like this is a clear breach of the sanctions, and altering the heading of the RfC is at best an alteration without checking the consensus first and at worst an act of bad faith (it is particularly disruptive to start to make edits to other editors edits on talk pages when the talk page is about disputed content by the two editors).

Outcome: I want the last two edits by Francis Schonken (to the guideline and to the RfC) reverted. So that the RfC a clear a possible to attract as many editors as possible; and the RfC to run it course, so that it can see what the consensus is BEFORE changes to the guideline are made.

-- PBS (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no comment as yet on the sanctions as I'll need to read up on that, but just as an initial note, I never did understand why that page was turned into a redirect. Yes, the basic info was merged to what is now a rather lengthy page, but having WP:PRECISION as a clarification on the policy should be fine, I would think. If someone can be bold 2 years ago, someone should be able to be bold today. WP:CCC, after all. - jc37 11:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The merits of whether the guideline is restored can be discussed in the RfC. This is about user behaviour. It is not bold revert of an edit made two years ago, because for less than 2 months over the last five years the page in question has been a redirect. As can be seen from the history of the page only one other editor apart from Francis Schonken (SF) had trevert redirect four times. All but the last time (which I have bought here) reverted by other editors. The point is that FS was bold earlier today, so I initiated an RfC about the issue and then I reverted the Bold edit. Instead of following WP:BRD FS has been bold and then reverted a revert that is not following BRD and giving the Arbcom Arbcom sanctions this is not acceptable behaviour. -- PBS (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, we should really have better clearer policy on the "all or nothing" of turning a page completely into a redirect. Each of such pages should be discussed on their own merits.

That aside, I see that you've started a discussion on the talk page there. There's apparently no WP:BLP concern here, so we should be able to leave the page at "the wrong version" for now. I'd like to hear from all involved that they'll stop revert warring and discuss on the talk page. I think it is fair to say at this point, that if it continues, sanction by a neutral admin may be likely (I'm of course recusing myself from such action as I'll likely be joining in the discussion : ) - jc37 15:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"I never did understand why that page was turned into a redirect". Jc37, the point of such redirects is to avoid duplication, and, more importantly, eventual disparity and conflict between two (or more) statements about the same policy or guideline topic. Having one place that explains our policy/guidelines regarding precision in titles is better than having two places. Just like a person with two watches never knows exactly what time it is, editors of a wiki with two precision guidelines never know exactly what the precision guideline is. --В²C ☎ 16:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That's actually really not true. We can have twenty pages on a policy. That's immaterial. Policy isn't reflective of what words happen to be on a page. It's reflective of common practice and consensus. If multiple pages are in disparate states of upkeep - sofixit : ) - jc37 03:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The policy to let the current edit stand without regard to which revision is stable encourages contra-consensus edits because those preferring a version not favored by consensus have a 50/50 chance of getting their contra-consensus version locked. I second PBS' request to have this change reverted back to the stable version (the redirect) pending the outcome of this RFC. --В²C ☎ 01:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

See what I said immediately above. And further, this isn't a battleground. the point isn't to push some "side" to "win". There is no deadline. and consensus can change. If there's an issue about 2 pages with conflicting policies, then we discuss it, we don't revert war. See the rules on protection, for example. As long as we don't have a BLP issue (or outright vandalism) the version shouldn't matter - discuss, then the wiki gets an even better version through consensus. - jc37 03:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I read what you said immediately above. That's what I was responding to. I disagree. I disagree that the version shouldn't matter. It does matter. This is the point I tried to make which you ignored, so I'll state it more clearly: Haphazardly leaving the non-stable version about 50% of the time encourages edit-warring (because the contra-consensus-holder has a 50/50 chance of getting his version locked); consistently reverting back to the stable version discourages edit-warring. I suppose in some fantastic realm where everyone is objective and mature it wouldn't matter, but that's not reality for human behavior. --В²C ☎ 05:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Jc37 in the case of the MOS and WP:AT Arbcom disagrees with you, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Good faith and disruption. Francis Schonken's reverts are disruptive, for obvious reasons. -- PBS (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the arbcom case, it's worth a re-reading, as is WP:BOOMERANG. It takes more than one person to revert back-n-forth...

My focus, especially since I'd like to presume good faith on all sides especially since I'm looking at several long term editors here (who I presume can be "objective and mature"), is let's drop the stick, and get out of the BATTLEGROUND mentality, and resolve the issue by discussion. There's a discussion there, one I chose to join as well. I don't think that the fundamental issues here are as dire as can't be resolved. - jc37 09:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two separate issues. Here we are dealing with Francis Schonken's behavior and what, if anything, to do about it. There we're dealing with a manifestation of the underlying issue (the squabble about the redirect) and will hopefully get to the underlying issue (whatever Frances believes is important on the original page that he believes is obscured by it being a redirect and not being reflected on the main policy page). You keep saying participants should get out of the BATTLEGROUND mentality, but you support an admin behavior that encourages BATTLEGROUND mentality. That's the point you keep avoiding here. If administrators like you consistently reverted to the stable version in squabbles like this one, then that would discourage BATTLEGROUND mentality. Lock-down intervention that randomly leaves whatever version is there, means the non-stable version is retained about half the time. That kind of intervention, the kind you advocate and presumably practice, rewards the very BATTLEGROUND mentality and edit-warring you say you're trying to discourage. Do you not see that, or are you not serious about discouraging BATTLEGROUND mentality? Or am I missing something?

And please don't conflate presuming objectivity and maturity with assuming good faith. People acting in good faith can be very biased and immature, and are all the time. In the real world as well as on Wikipedia. Surely you realize that too? --В²C ☎ 16:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"If administrators like you consistently reverted to the stable version in squabbles like this one, then that would discourage BATTLEGROUND mentality. " - That's an example of the "mentality" that I mean. Who cares? Why is it important to you which version it is at? Is it to prevent someone from "getting their way"?

Setting that aside, I've restored deleted pages while a discussion was ongoing, to allow for ease of discussion. reverting from redirect for a page under discussion doesn't sound beyond the pale.

The problem isn't that it was restored from redirect. the problem is the (over time) edit warring that occurred. looking over WP:AT, I see some repeat names reverting/restoring.

And if it continued occurring, I have little doubt that other admins might just enact those sanctions. But it's stopped. And discussion appears to be going on. BRD seems to be in effect just fine at the moment. And blocking is to be preventative not punitive. If you're looking for someone to be punished for the edit warring that doesn't appear to be currently occurring, I would be surprised if you find it here. But don't think that others aren't watching this discussion. Hence why I keep saying: there is a discussion going on now. let's drop the stick and let's move on. - jc37 16:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

To see reversion to the stable version as a punishment is, to me, exhibiting battleground mentality. It's not a punishment. It's a consequence. Well, it would be a consequence, that would discourage battleground mentality and edit warring, if admins consistently restored the stable version whenever there is a squabble. Then everyone would know it's just not worth it, so you might as well go straight to the discussion, which is what we all want, right? But if we reward those who favor non-consensus positions by locking down the non-stable version sometimes, you're encouraging them to engage in battleground mentality and edit warring because it might pay off. Once their version is locked-down, they can stretch the discussion out almost indefinitely. There should be no need for sanctions. No punishment. Just a policy to revert to the stable version while discussion continues. Done. --В²C ☎ 19:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In my limited experience with him, this user is reasonable in discussions. However, the behaviour described above (trying to install his preferred language without discussion, and while edit-warring rather than discussing) is behaviour he's engaged in before; at WP:MOS he made a bold change while an RFC on the subject was ongoing, I undid it (as IMO there was not support for it and the RFC was ongoing), he re-instated (and I undid and he reinstated; trout me for carrying on like that) until I decided to let his change stand while I started a VPP subthread. After I started writing that thread (and unbeknownst to me until I posted, though our edits apparently went through at the same time), another editor undid his change and confirmed that "actually consensus at the talk page comes before these changes are restored". Consensus (albeit only of the tiny handful of editors who participated in the subthread, including me) was subsequently reached to make some changes. -sche (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• At WP:AT I made changes to examples of commonname people on principles that Francis Schonken had supported here and here and changes that s/he had personally suggested here. In each case these changes were reverted. It honestly seemed to me to be both incredibly petty and pointy.

I too have seen occasional positive inputs from Francis Schonken yet, while I very rarely see him/her at WP:AT, it seems to me that s/he wants to bureaucratically and obstructively own wp:at. I think that some form of intervention should be taken for this to stop. GregKaye 21:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor refusing to accept consensus

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.

---

Several months ago, I was involved in an editing dispute with Synthwave.94 on Happy (Pharrell Williams song) regarding how to list US charts. It is standard practice in song articles to list the main US chart, the Billboard Hot 100, before any secondary charts. Synthwave.94 holds a different viewpoint that all charts should be listed in alphabetical order, which means that charts such as Adult Top 40, Adult Contemporary, and Alternative Songs would be listed before the Hot 100. The two of us, and other editors, discussed this at the article talk page before reviving an older discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Chart order, where nearly all editors besides Synthwave agreed that the primary chart should come first, with secondary charts listed in alphabetical order after that.

Despite the overwhelming preference to list the primary chart before any secondary ones, Synthwave has continued to war over this. At the "Happy" article, he has reverted my changes to reflect this consensus on multiple occasions over the past few months. Initially he reverted me on the basis that the discussion was still ongoing. Recently, with the discussion untouched for over a month and editors' preference quite clear, I reinstated the change only to be reverted again. Additionally, Synthwave has been changing examples on Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Record charts to reflect his/her preferred ordering, against consensus.

I warned Synthwave on his/her talk page recently that I would bring the matter here if their tendentious, disruptive editing continued. They refused to acknowledge the problem and tried shifting the blame on me. Not too long after, I corrected the chart ordering on Rehab (Amy Winehouse song) to reflect consensus, and Synthwave reverted with a blatantly misleading edit summary that did not state all of his/her changes.

Synthwave is an editor with quite a history of edit warring, disruption, and IDHT behavior over the past two years. I'm not sure what sort of action needs to take place, but this is obviously a recurring problem with the arrangement of record charts only being a small part of it. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging editors who also discussed the matter with me and Synthwave, in case they'd like to comment or better articulate anything I might not have explained well enough: IndianBio, Tomica, Azealia911, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, SNUGGUMS, Iknow23, and Btljs (who partially agreed with Synthwave). Chase (talk | contributions) 01:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You ought to strike the comment about Synthwave.94 being disruptive, etc. The user has not been blocked for seven months. I find Synthwave.94 to be an invaluable fighter of vandalism. I would like to see that this disagreement is evaluated on its own merit (or demerits) rather than bringing in a truckload of old laundry. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

"Not blocked for seven months" is damning with very faint praise indeed. An editor's history (or alleged history) is generally relevant in assessing allegations of improper behavior, as opposed to content disputes. DES ^(talk) 03:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Chasewc91, you don't know nothing about me and most of what you're saying is misrepresentative of the editor I am, so please stop saying incorrect statements about me. As Binksternet pointed out, I'm mainly a vandal fighter. I don't even understand why you judge on 5-6 edits only. I've already told you the problem linked to chart order associated with charts components, but you never listened to me and you continue messing around with alphabetical order in charts. Calling me a disruptive editor exaggerated and clearly inappropriate in all ways, especially because you are the one who started the edit war. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

As the article's talk page shows, I engaged with you in discussion about this. I pinged several other editors who work on music articles and virtually everyone who commented agreed with me. You then continued to edit against this consensus, and that is the problem. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not striking anything. The block log shows multiple blocks for edit warring and that is the issue I am currently having with Synthwave. Edit warring against consensus. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• On the whole, Synthwave.94 does seem like a good level-headed editor, however, I don't think it's uncalled for that Chasewc91 is labeling them as disruptive. Failure to accept consensus and to continue making changes against the communities opinion is disruptive, and the fact that Synthwave.94 continues to edit in their preferences over two discussions (1,2) where clear consensus was national over genre chart, is frustrating. Even still, the user continues to claim they weren't listened to "but you never listened to me and you continue messing around". Move on, and accept that "The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." Azealia911 _talk 08:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm uninvolved in this particular content dispute, but have had contact with Synthwave.94 on another issue (here here) and he had difficulty hearing the community consensus on an issue. While WP:CITEVAR is not the same as the order of charts, there is an MOS section on the chart issue and it should be followed. @Binksternet:, part of the reason that he wasn't blocked in seven months is that for three of those months, he was in fact blocked with talk page access revoked. That block just expired on March 22, so he's just about to hit his fourth month of not being blocked. I'm not sure what should be done, he does do good work where he's not against a consensus of editors, perhaps a break from editing music articles? GregJackP Boomer! 15:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Synthwave.94 seemed quick to accuse Flyer22 of owning in the links you provided, interestingly enough, the last edit to Michael Jackson, the topic of the links you gave, was Synthwave.94 blankly reverting an edit which simply placed spaces between bullet points in lists throughout the article. Pot calling the kettle black anyone? Just interesting. Azealia911 _talk 19:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Chasewc91 Thanks for pinging me. I do agree with Synthwave.94 that a flat list should only ever be sorted using one rule (eg. alphabetical OR by category but not both) I suggested various acceptable alternatives here. I'm less interested in whether or not a user is disruptive than optimal presentation of information. Consensus is not the be all and end all; mistakes can be made by a majority. My own reaction to being at odds with the consensus opinion is to make my point and then stop watching the pages, because it is too frustrating. I can't condemn another for choosing to fight on, however. These lists are incorrect as they stand. Btljs (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you or Synthwave.94 find the listing to be incorrect, you must acknowledge that there is a problem when the community determines otherwise and s/he continues to edit war. This is not the venue for you to state whether or not you believe the consensus to be the best editorial choice. Chase (talk | contributions) 02:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I think context is everything actually. You and others above have sought context in the user's timeline of edits; I find it more appropriate to look at the actual edit which is occurring rather than trying to pigeon hole a user as a 'trouble maker'. In this case there is 'a problem when the community determines otherwise and s/he continues to edit war' for the community but not really for the audience/end user. The articles are not rendered less informative by these edits (whether or not we disagree about minor differences in clarity) so the problem is one of behind the scenes administration. I think it would be harsh in the extreme to sanction somebody for this. Why don't you just leave the edits as they stand and, if you are right about the community, then somebody else will change them sooner or later? Btljs (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Because "consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." It's one of the core aspects of this project, and "the continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided." I believe Synthwave.94 should be sanctioned as he has been blocked several times in the past for edit warring and/or disregarding consensus and here we are again. Someone is clearly not getting the memo. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough and admins are obviously not interested and neither am I. Take the sqabble someplace else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 23 July 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 RobertGeraldLorge

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.

---

RobertGeraldLorge, an SPA, has been edit warring his own article. Now he is starting to make legal threats. He and his various sock/meatpuppets ([1], [2], [3]) have already been warned about conflict of interest, edit warring, original research, copyright violations, advertising, and vandalism, and he has been reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard, all to no avail. 32.218.45.136 (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Where is the legal threat, because I don't see one in the section you linked. —Farix (t | c) 12:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's way down at the bottom of the section: "FYI: I have copied your numerous repeated unauthorized actions and IP address and date and time stamped them in the event I need to take legal action. ... I am, Sincerely, Attorney Robert Gerald RobertGeraldLorge" 32.218.45.136 (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty clear legal threat, of the "I'll sue if this doesn't go the way I think it should" variety. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The OP sums up the disruption pretty clearly - COI & POV editing, edit warring, copyvios; I'd add poor or inappropriate sourcing to the list of problems. The account is new, and assuming (probably against the weight of evidence) that this user is new to Wikipedia, I've tried to begin discussion of these issues on their Talk page. The editor appears to / claims to be the subject of the article, and while that creates an obvious COI, it also helps explain the editor's frustration, and - mm, persistence. I'd like to see if he engages, or persists in the problem editing. If the former, we can see where it goes; and if latter, then I think the account needs to be blocked. (I can't say whether the legal threat, indirect as it was, trumps all of the foregoing, and leave that to the admins.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As noted on the editor's talk page, the very same boilerplate content he is trying to insert now was first inserted in the article seven years ago. It was reverted and reinserted numerous times in the intervening seven years. I'm not confident that "seeing where it goes" will produce a change in this editor's behavior, and I do think that the legal threat trumps everything he has done to date. 32.218.45.136 (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for making an unambiguous legal threat. We don't warn for legal threats, we don't "see where it goes". We block until such threats are retracted and investigate if there is anything serious to the claims. The comment was clearly meant to have a chilling effect that would bias our neutral point of view. In addition to our neutral point of view our editors should not be subject to intimidation.

I recommend that some look me made into the users claim that "false biased and politically slanted and irrelevant information" is in their biography. Chillum 14:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this guy is who he says he is, and he is a lawyer. I would love to see an unbiased review of both the content and the edits on this article. How do we accomplish that? 32.218.45.136 (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A review is probably unnecessary given the way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Gerald Lorge is going. But a quick comparison of the changes he wanted to make with the article's state previous to that and after he was reverted indicate that there is nothing in the current state or the "pre-User:RobertGeraldLorge" state that could possibly be construed as what he terms "libelous false information and politically slanted". Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Going by the dif of what the user was restoring, there does not appear to be substantial problems. While the results of the election he lost could have been phrased better (I have updated it to indicate that the winner got 67%, rather than "almost 70%", and to include how much the subject got), deleting the statement that he lost was not appropriate. There is a disagreement with a statement that he is a "certified master beekeeper" (as opposed to having a masters degree in beekeeping), where it is possible that the information is inaccurate but it is sourced and would seem not to be an egregious or destructive error to make. The bulk of what the user has restored is material sourced inappropriately to the subject's own campaign website. The article is currently at AfD and seems headed for deletion anyway. (Speculating on his law training is neither appropriate nor necessary. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Nat, what's currently in the article about Lorge's beekeeping is correct. I checked the University of Florida Beekeeping extension program, from which he graduated. "Certified Master Beekeeper" is a "rank" in that program. Their website says that it is "comparable to the completion of a Master's degree from a university" [4]. However, the recipient is not awarded an MA degree from the University of Florida. Lorge's campaign material has morphed this into saying he has received a "Master [sic] Degree" [5]. So, as far as I can see, there is nothing in the current article that is "false", let alone "libelous" or "defamatory". Voceditenore (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

All of which is moot now. The article has just been deleted per a snowball AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point about the AfD, it seems unlikely to survive. I also appreciate the analysis of the user's edits compared to what they were claiming. Thanks for the due diligence. Chillum 16:15, 22 July 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 during an 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.

---

• KatyRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:KatyRat with less < 50 edits to Wikipedia started an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trishneet Arora (2nd nomination) in his/her third edit. During the course of the AfD KatyRat has engaged in disruptive editing three times. The first two times warnings were given, with the third I am asking for a moderator to look at the case. The edits include:

• Deleting another editor's !vote.
• Striking out other editor's !vote and comment
• Ping notification of 8 editors who !voted delete in the last AfD which is a WP:CANVAS.

Thank you for any help. -- GreenC 13:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This editor knows way too much for a new account. How to strike comments, starting an AFD, knowing to refer to the closer as "closing admin", pinging other editors. The smell of birds is very strong. Blackmane (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Any new account that is jumping straight into creating AfD for their first edit is obviously experienced here, this is clearly not a new person. Per our sock puppet policy "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project", specifically the Wikipedia project space which AfD is in. I would like other admins opinion on the appropriateness of this account. Unless KatyRat explains exactly how they are not in violation of our sock puppetry policy I am leaning towards a block. Chillum 16:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• @KatyRat: Chillum 16:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The accounts that are making an attempt to disrupt the discussion are as follows: SCMite (Created on 22 July 2015 at 15:41) , User055 (Created on 22 July 2015 at 10:34) with one edits on AFD. Moreover the recreation of the article was without any WP:DRV and by a SPA Blackstallion55. Green_Cardamom warned me only once on the AFD and not twice. Pinging other editors is not wrong I suppose, and most importantly the reason to ping the editors who voted Delete on earlier discussion (through which the article was deleted) could best analyze the difference and analyze. Moreover, the AFD was running abandoned since last 8 days so pinging was the best way to conclude the discussion. I would still request to remove the votes by those accounts mentioned above by cross-checking with their contributions. Thank you. KatyRat (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Moreover the account of Blackstallion55 became active today (last activity 28th February 2015, evidence here to revert my edit on the page of Trishneet Arora, hiatus! KatyRat (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Although the magnitude of keep of votes are more on the AFD discussion [3 of 5 Keep Votes by SPA], I believe the article still needs more coverage and most importantly in national sections per WP:RSN to confirm the reality of content on the article or at-most be rewritten with a complete neutral point of view. The article still sounds as a Advert to me (my opinion, your may be different). And I believe that the closing administrator could best deal with the AFD with a common sense than magnitude of votes. Thank You! KatyRat (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And also the page was salted due to repeated recreation which can be seen here KatyRat (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest immediate block for KatyRat as sock and/or block evading account. Knowledge of Wikipedia back office is far too developed for this performance - and then opening an SPI case on them all with CU request. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Rlendog (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I also concur as a non admin, and suggest that an admin close the AfD as no consensus due to procedural disruption. KatyRat's sock accusations do not appear to be without merit, and her reprehensible conduct have rendered the discussion FUBAR. John from Idegon (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thre is no rfeason to close the AfD, serious editors are makign reasoned comments apart from this disruption. If I had to close it as it stands, it would be as keep. DES ^(talk) 03:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The evidence that KatyRat is a sock is strengthened by their obvious knowledge of what SPA's, RSN and DRV are. 14.203.110.227 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• User 14.203.110.227 that commented above are having only two contributions (first contribution on this discussion) that too related with WP:SOCK policy and that too created today with an in-depth knowledge of policies such as SPA, RSN, DRV. Surprised, why there is a need for an editor to post as an IP (suspicious!) Looks like there is an attempt to WP:CANVAS by these IPs  Looks like a duck to me KatyRat (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me point out that the above IP is me. I had reopened a tab in my browser and while it looked like I was still logged in, I was in fact logged out. Applying WP:TROUT to myself. Blackmane (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note A new editor Weditor123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created yesterday as a SPA solely to vote on the article as keep. Looks like there needs a SPI to be filed. Shall I file it myself or anyone here to help? Thanks KatyRat (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I very much doubt that anyone is going to assist you filing a SPI until you give an adequate explanation for your own behaviour. It is self-evident that you are not new to Wikipedia. Why have you created a new account? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks to SpacemanSpiff who alerted me to this discussion on my Talk page and who got the master exactly right, KatyRat is  Confirmed as a puppet of Sanjoy64 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 23 July 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.

Obvious sock building an attack article on a blocked editor

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:Jkpilsudski is a new editor whose only actions so far have been to create a retaliatory article on a blocked editor. That it is retaliatory can clearly be seen by their userpage: "As i am creating an article on a banned wikipedian who has threatened to out others, i ask that my anonymity and privacy be respected." This both implies that the article is a punishment, and that they are hiding another on wiki identity. Can someone please block them? Brustopher (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest 'Indef Block I am not sure if this a a sock though that seems highly likely. But it is a gross violation of WP guidelines and policy by someone who knows what they are doing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• How is the article an attack or retaliatory? everything is well-sourced. If you want it deleted, use wp:afd. i am concerned that he would out me not matter how neutral the article is. --Jkpilsudski (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • if there is a real problem with the *contents* of the article, I will accept all the help I can. --Jkpilsudski (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  The "biography" was just a mass of disparate sources cobbled together for the seemingly single purpose of attacking a living person. That person is a local politician who, on their own accord, would not be notable to Wikipedia. The article clearly fails WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. I have deleted it as an unsourced attack page. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:48, 23 July 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.

Need a redirect removed.

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

---

I need this redirect removed to make room for an AfC article Draft:Bwog to be moved into the mainspace. To be honest, this is probably the wrong avenue, but after my due diligence and looking for a way to get this resolved I couldn't find another place to ask for help on this. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sulfurboy. Probably the quickest way to get done what you want done is a {{db-move}} template tag. However, I'm not sure if it qualifies as a "non-controversial move" when it involves bringing articles over from "Draft space". I'm sure someone will be along to clarify that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Sulfurboy: redirect deleted. You can move the article when ready. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:09, 23 July 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.

Refusal to engage in discussion about incivility

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 recently was subjected to uncivil comments by an editor. I have asked the editor concerned on their Talk page to explain their behaviour 3 times, however, they have simply deleted them without comment about their edits. What course of action should I follow now?DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: Any chance you can provide some diffs showing this? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

First, this is not a matter for admins. Next, there is no requirement that an editor must respond to any questions placed on their talk page. Your best bet is to move on and start editing article again. MarnetteD|Talk 00:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that per WP:REMOVED you should not restore the comment again as it is not an exception to the three-revert rule. MarnetteD|Talk 00:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD I did not restore the comment. I sent a completely new message 3 times - but thanks for the heads-up.DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:IJBall I think the following contain all the necessary diffs. Because these name the editor, I will inform them of this thread.

My original posting to the editor[6]

Reversion#1 [7]

Reversion#2 [8]

Reversion#3 [9]

DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe what was meant was diffs of the uncivil comments, not of their reversion of your postings to their talk page. Which, as has been mention, a user may remove and not respond to if they so choose. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 02:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The supposedly "uncivil" remark took place in the James Randi section just a bit above this. DrChrissy stopped by to make a remark, and I commented:

C'mon, Dr. Chrissy, anyone familiar with your history knows that's not why you're here. [10]

Since DrChrissy believes that remark to be "uncivil", I'd like him to explain here exactly why it's uncivil. What is it about "[A]nyone familiar with your history knows that's not why you're here." breaks WP:CIVIL, bearing in mind that civility and AGF are not the same thing. BMK (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You're doing this all wrong. You need to put my name in the section title, then you'll get Alansohn, Lugnuts, Richard Arthur North (1958- ), and, if you're lucky, The Rambling Man, to come by and tell everyone what an incredible jerk I am and how I should have been banned years ago. BMK (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on my experiences with you, I do, unfortunately, consider you as a jerk. I once told you one time to keep an uncivil comment on the down low, and I asked you if that comment was necessary. You said that user deserved it. And this was on ANI. Then there was that archive of a discussion here. You posted on my talk page about it. Then you realized that you made a mistake but didn't bother to say a little sorry. However, based on my experiences, you don't deserve a block. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 02:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

OMG, you called me a jerk!! I demand an instant block for incivility. IMMEDIATELY, I say.

BTW, I'm quite old enough to make my own decisions, thank you very much, good or bad, and then live with the consequences. I've been doing it for 60 years and I guess I'll keep doing it until the Alzheimer's finally kicks in for good. On the other hand, there are a fair number of editors on Wikipedia who I respect enormously, and whose advice I am happy to receive and give full consideration to. BMK (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Generally, we don't "do" anything about incivility besides offer a reminder about the civility policy. Any editor, myself included, can become irritated and thus "uncivil" at anything, really, and there's no reason or common practice to punish them for that. It's important, but as long as overall an editor is willing to reign themselves in enough to focus on the task at hand, there's no need for action. If an editor demonstrates a problematic behavioral pattern of incivility, then it's time for a wider discussion about it, which usually results in a consensus to reinforce the community's opinion that such behavior is unacceptable (i.e. give them a warning). It's only after one to several of such warnings will we start to consider anything more drastic. Overall though, "civility enforcement" isn't something that's even done unless the problem is chronic and severe. You haven't even reeally explained what the problem is so I'm not sure what you're wanting. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Swarm. The original reply by DMK to my posting (re-stated above in bold by DMK) was totally a comment on me as an editor and not on my posting which was making a valid point. DMK stated that my motivations for being at the article were other than to make my legitimate comment, and that my related editing history was in some way "negative"; it was clearly intended to provide misleading information about me. Drive-by personal attacks such as these are extremely disruptive to Discussions, harmful to individual editors and therefore harmful to the project as a whole. In my opinion, these are becoming more frequent and more damaging. Regarding the deletion of my comments by BMK from their Talk page - I tried to engage in Discussion with the user about his incivility. I believe this is a prerequisite to raising any objection on a dispute noticeboard. Clearly, BMK did not wish to explain his actions and feels he can make drive-by personal attacks such as these with impunity. @User:Swarm you asked what I wanted. I thought carefully about this thread before my original posting and I stand by my OP - I am simply seeking advice as what to do next. If the community tells me to "go away and forget it", then I will do that, but the community needs to realise that it is then condoning such drive-by personal attacks and incivility.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

What you have so far failed to do so with yet is providence evidence of the uncivil comments. Please do so. Explaining the situation without diffs of what happened (not the posts on BMK's talk page, THE ISSUE) is not what we've been asking for. Just realized it was posted on top. Please remember this DrChrissy instead of letting others do the job for you, Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 13:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:Callmemirela Initially, I did not provide diffs as I was being careful not to name the editor - I was hoping for a generic answer to my question. Once an editor/admin asked for the diffs, I provided these. What have I done wrong?DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

If the incivility is obvious and ongoing, then the community will always unite against it, but if we're dealing with subtler, "drive-by personal attacks" we normally won't make a big deal out of it at all and besides noting the incident for later there's really nothing that can be done but to move forward and forget it. A lot of times this absolutely does inadvertently condone bad behavior by uncivil editors, and a lot of people think we should be harsher when it comes to "civility enforcement", but this is the way the status quo has come to be. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 16:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:DrChrissy says that they did not provide diffs because they did not want to name the editor. In other words, they were asking an abstract question. This noticeboard is not really intended for abstract questions. Those are better asked at the Help Desk. However, even at the Help Desk, some of us are wary of responding to abstract or hypothetical questions, because sometimes such a question is a slightly biased description of what really happened, and is intended to get a policy statement in order to wikilawyer a response. The purpose of posting to this noticeboard is to request admin action, such as a block, and admin action cannot be taken against unnamed users. I suggest that this post be closed as an incomplete questionh. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologise - I had not realised this noticeboard was only for requesting action. I thought it was also for help and support.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No, there's nothing like that on Wikipedia for content builders. This is an entertainment page for admins and their entourages. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Epipelagic, your remark is unhelpful and insulting. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so it wasn't just me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Epipelagic: It's meant to be a noticeboard for incidents that require administrator attention. It's not meant for things like academic policy questions. There's plenty of other places to ask questions and get answers: Help Desk - Village Pump - WP:HELP (where you can search for all guides on incivility) - The Teahouse - Template:Helpme - IRC Help Channel, and, utilizing the search function will help you find an exhaustive guide on dealing with incivility, Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with other editors/Handling incivility and personal attacks. ANI can be a shitshow but it's absurd to act like there's no other resources available to editors. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 20:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

C'mon, this is the 13th AN/I report that DrChrissy has filed in their 4 years of editing here, so the idea that she wasn't aware of the purpose of this board rather stretches credulity, especially since most of those filings were to report "personal attacks" of one sort or another. (They've also filed 11 Teahouse questions, 3 RSN reports, 1 ORN report, and 1 AN report complaining about the closing of one of their AN/I reports, so the idea that she is unaware of the purposes of the various boards doesn't really hold water. Counts can be verified here.) BMK (talk) 02:02, 24 July 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.

Attack 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.

---

Does this come under the scope of an attack page? This users other contributions are far from helpful too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree (with the deleted comment here) and I deleted the page. It is still a text on a (presumably, real) living person with comprometizing info not supported by any sources. However, if there is consensus that the text can be on Wikipedia, any admin is obviously welcome to restore it even without notifying me.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:50, 23 July 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:Taffe316/User:Yankees10

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 really needs to be considered for a permanent ban. Has a history of being uncivil and edit warring and has been reported here numerous times. Just left this on my talk page (then removed it like it made a difference at that point).--Yankees10 08:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this user. User:Yankees10 repeatedly reverts quality edits to pages with giving explanations. The stat of being a member of the 300 save club was added by myself to all members off the club. This user took it upon himself to revert all edits without giving an explanation. This user also seems to stalk most edits I make due to some quarrel between the two of us about a year ago, which in my opinion is very childish. This user seems to think himself above others and able to own all pages he sees fit due to some Wiki awards he's received, and action needs to be taken or else his childish acts will surely continue.Taffe316 (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Except I did give you a reasoning. I just didn't put it in every single revert.--Yankees10 08:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This was extremely inappropriate but is hardly justification for a permanent ban; where is the rest of the "history of being uncivil"? Sam Walton (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

He has nothing, he just wants me gone due to some quarrel we had about a year ago, as mentioned before. He doesn't like that I'm a fellow Wiki: Project Baseball member, he doesn't like that I'm a strong contributer to numerous baseball articles, and as example of this he takes it upon himself to undermine numerous edits I make in an attempt to rattle me, and he gets away with this because he's a "highly respected" editor. The immediate action on his talk page I took was wrong and I apologize, but at least I know that. If you want to put a block on me than fine, but I'm not the only bad guy here. Taffe316 (talk) 08:52, 23 July 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.

An editor is offering a 'donation' in order to get a Draft: accepted

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 do not wish, yet, to make this formal and name the editor. I will do so if requested and given a rationale for doing so, so they have not been notified (yet) of this discussion. What I wish to know, please, is how and if we fire a real warning shot across their bows for this type of rather juvenile behaviour.

I recognise that it is often an expression of exasperation, along the lines of "How do I get my awful piece of COI junk accepted? Must I make a donation to Wikipedia in order to do so?" but I also see this as a highly offensive behaviour. It offends me as an editor because it implies that my editorial judgement at WP:AFC (where I review reasonably actively) can be bought, and it offends me as a Wikipedian because it implies that Wikipedia can be bought.

This means I do not feel disposed to treat this lightly.

We do not treat legal threats lightly, even throwaway ones, and I wonder if we ought to treat offers of corruption, even throwaway ones, the same way.

I felt raising it here rather than on a policy forum would be a great place to start, principally because, if the advice is that this 'is an incident' then I wish to report it. I'm happy to be advised to migrate this question to a different forum provided I am told which forum to migrate it to. Fiddle Faddle 10:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Filing a report withotu specifics is worthless. WHo, what article, provide a diff - otherwise this report is useless. BMK (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, ok, if that is what you feel should happen.

• Editor Nancy Sudheer
• Diff: here

I am about to notify the editor concerned in the next few moments. I had hoped for a general answer to a general question. Fiddle Faddle 11:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Notified. Fiddle Faddle 12:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's an innocent enough question, to which the answer is no. They haven't offered to pay anyone in particular to accept their article, which I would treat more seriously, they just asked if a donation to the foundation is required. Sam Walton (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I see it as a simple question. born out of frustration, but not an innocent one. They have implied that a consideration might pass to Wikipedia in exchange for th publication of their pet article. Taken further this moves Wikipedia as a whole into the realms of plying for hire. This editor is an example of a number of such seemingly innocent questions. Fiddle Faddle 12:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps innocent wasn't quite the right word. What I mean to say is, the solution to this situation is to say no, explain how things work here, and move on. What administrator action are you looking for? Sam Walton (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I am looking for advice and guidance, in part for the editor community (rather than just me) when faced with this silliness, perhaps formalised in guideline, and in part advice for this and other editors, perhaps formalised as some form of potentially gentle warning template. As you see from my opening, I was not keen on hauling this particular editor over the coals. While I recognise that admins are really only janitors, I also feel that some of the better policy/guideline proposals come after consideration by our loyal team of janitors. I may, of course, have started this entire discussion in the wrong forum. Fiddle Faddle 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Village Pump might be a better venue. Sam Walton (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll take it there happily. I suggest in that case, unless anyone else jumps in on the next short while, this discussion be closed with no stain attaching to the editor concerned. Fiddle Faddle 12:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Now open for discussion at the Village Pump where all contributions are welcome for and against the formulation of a policy/guideline/process. Fiddle Faddle 12:44, 23 July 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.

LGBT rights in ... the European Union vs. Europe

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.

---

Two tables on opinion polls were removed from the article about LGBT rights in the European Union because they included several countries that are not member states of the EU.

User:Sdino reinserted those tables. Their argument was that "a majority of countries in the table are in the EU". I reminded them of the fact that the article is called LGBT rights in the European Union, and not LGBT rights in European countries, the majority of which is in the EU. [11]

User:Sdino reinserted the tables again and called removing them "vandalism". User left a note on my talkpage, telling me not to remove content from LGBT rights in Europe even though I have never removed anything from that article. I removed user's tables from the article about LGBT rights in the European Union only.

I again reminded the user that their tables include several countries that are not member states of the EU [12] User again left a note for me, calling my editing "disruptive"; and threatening to have me blocked. User again added tables to the article, that still include non-EU member state.

There is an article about LGBT rights in Europe, covering all European countries - those inside the EU and those outside the EU - and that's where user's tables belong to. User doesn't seem to care though.

---

User:Sdino is long known for their disturbing edits. The article on LGBT rights in Croatia even needed to be protected just a few days ago because of them.176.4.125.73 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As I have said on WP:RPP#LGBT rights in the European Union, IP176 is arrogant, unwilling to co-operate with others. Furthermore, I think he thinks he owns the article, and reverts lots of referenced content, instead of reducing it to only the relevant content. Also, he uses different IP addresses, so to stop the disruptive edits, I asked for page protection. IP176 did not go onto the talk page to discuss the issue. Diffs of the unconstructive edits:

• 22:28 7 July 2015 This article isn't on "Europe" but on something "European Union". Norway, Russia, Switzerland and Ukraine are not part of the EU. by 46.114.48.140
• 13:45 15 July 2015 Undid revision 671551371 by Sdino (talk) This article is *not* called "LGBT rights in European countries, the majority of which is in the EU by 176.0.114.40
• 22:35 22 July 2015 Undid revision 672590242 by Sdino (talk) Norway, Switzerland, Russia and Ukraine are still non-EU. That hasn't changed the last few days. by 176.4.46.236
• 10:35 23 July 2015 Undid revision 672708672 by Sdino (talk) Switzerland is still non-EU. That hasn't changed overnight. by 176.4.125.73

– Sdino (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• How do non-EU laws figure into an article about the EU? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

They're not laws, they're opinion polls. I put in a template for ease of editing, and it had 3 or 4 non-EU countries, which caused IP176 to go overboard. – Sdino (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

If it were me, and for the sake of clarity, I would separate the EU nations from the non-EU nations. That way they could be compared with each other. Alternatively, re-post with only the EU nations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I did that, but I must have omitted some country by accident, because IP reverted it yet again. – Sdino (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there info in the EU-only article that's not in the all-Europe article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

On the talk page I could only repeat what i wrote in the edit summaries. Norway, Russia, Switzerland and Ukraine are not member states of the EU. So they have no place in an article on something "EU". To have Brazil, India, South Africa included would make as much sense.176.4.125.73 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As long as they are separated in the table, I don't see the problem. It's more informative to the readers to compare how EU and non-EU nations in Europe respectively view the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a separate article about LGBT rights in Europe, which includes all European countries - EU and non-EU.176.4.125.73 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So what's the point of having the EU-only article? The EU article is 5 years newer than the Europe article. Why is it needed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I get the impression the EU article was started to talk about EU wide law more than legislation territory by territory which should be pointed at the in Europe page. SPACKlick (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The nation by nation ("state by state") table was posted in the first edition of the article in 2011. The Europe article separates EU from non-EU. I don't see why the EU-only article is needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that the EU article is largely redundant to the Europe article and can be merged there, avoiding these disputes. Rlendog (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The simplest thing would be to look for any info in the EU that's not in the all-Europe, then copy it, remove the back-reference to the EU-only, then change the EU-only to a redirect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The very existence of an EU-only article is no bad thing. The EU itself forms part of the political landscape of Europe. It enacts legislation that is binding on its own institutions (and its member states). The EU's competence regarding LGBT-related policies is very limited, still the EU has some influence. An article "LGBT rights in the EU" should exist along the lines of "LGBT rights in country-this-and-that" articles. It is very true though that the article in its current form is not very informative on actual EU legislation. It focuses too much on member states' laws. But that's something that should be discussed on the relevant talk page(s). Those LGBT articles are edited by many users and those users are usually good at finding consensus.176.4.35.78 (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyway... It wasn't my intention to have a discussion on whether certain articles should cease to exist. It was about User:Sdino's behaviour.

Sdino, a (self-declared) homophobe, does many disturbing edits to LGBT-related articles. They get involved in edit wars regularly. They act fast threatening to report users for "disruptive edits", or actually do report users, just because those users don't agree with them. On the other hand Sdino feels harassed when someone else is considering to report them for their disturbing edits.

As said somewhere above ... Just a few days ago the article on LGBT rights in Croatia got even protected because of the user's behaviour. In that article, too, the user insisted on having a particular image (a pie chart) included. The user is very selective about the information on their opinion poll tables. They prefer to list or highlight only those polls that show little support for LGBT rights; the user prefers biased, highly-POV language etc.

Please take a look at this thread, which led to the protection of the article on Croatia.176.4.35.78 (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty serious charge. Where does the user declare himself a homophobe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I could't find a statement like that. Could somebody please point me to it? BMK (talk) 09:49, 25 July 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.

Haggen Food & Pharmacy article issues

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.

---

Whoa – this looks like a mess. Someone with an account created today – HaggenFood&Pharmacy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – and who may have a conflict of interest (duh!), has taken to creating a new article Haggen Food & Home Improvement, copy-and-pasting the contents of the original Haggen Food & Pharmacy article to the new article, and then converting Haggen Food & Pharmacy into a redirect. Needless to say, there are all kinds of problems with this. Then, to top it off, they edited my Userpage without permission: diff.

Could a kindly Admin please unwind this mess, by restoring Haggen Food & Pharmacy (so that the edit histories match the article), and possibly either speedily delete Haggen Food & Home Improvement or convert it to a redirect? Also, could the appropriate actions be taken with the COI user account? Thank you in advance... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:10, 23 July 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 SPA

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 RfC on Kosovo has generated a large number of newly minted SPAs weighing-in on it. A request for closure was recently posted. This seems to have inspired the creation of more SPAs, one of whom, Spicemoods has taken to editing my comments in Talk (e.g. [13], etc.) by selectively deleting words so as to make my comments appear nonsensical (or at least more so than usual), as well as inserting sexual exclamations like "touch me yes yes" into the middle of articles (e.g. [14], etc.) or creating the article "Ian Thompson Sucks Dicks" which appears to be an accusation (and/or congratulation, depending on your viewpoint) directed toward Ian Thomson. While Spicemoods could be blocked, the problem may persist pending a closure of the RfC which seems to be the genesis of issues. LavaBaron (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The user had graduated to making an attack page which I deleted per G10. I have blocked the user indef for disruptive editing as they have few helpful contributions and are acting like a vandal. Chillum 20:24, 23 July 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:RB NRK needs talk page 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.

---

User:RB NRK has persisted in using his talk page for personal promotional purposes following an indefinite block, while not communicating with anybody. It's time to block him from editing his talk page —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I already did, a few minutes ago. Didn't you get the memo? Yunshui ^雲_水 12:08, 24 July 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.

Alakzi

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.

---

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

Reporting Alakzi for taking disruptive and vandalistic action to remove parameters instead of fixing them, going against ongoing discussions and against lack of consensus at Template_talk:Infobox television season. Alex|The|Whovian 13:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, the user in question is removing custom colouring from table headers as they believe that the contrast is not AAA compliant as described in MOS:Access. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

And Alakzi is not wrong; many of the color combinations used in the TV series infoboxes are color-contrast non-compliant. Some of them are difficult for me to read, depending on the angle of my laptop screen, and I have near 20-20 corrected vision when I'm wearing my eyeglasses. This is effectively a content dispute over compliance with the color-contrast guidelines, and it is probably going to require some compromise by all parties in order to get it resolved, and eliminate the worst examples of non-compliant color combinations. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Expanding upon this, given the initial report was rather basic: The user in question raised the topic of AA/AAA compliance when it came to colour contrast in infoboxes and episode tables of television series. He requests that other editors take out the actions of editing the articles to make the colours more compliant, refusing to do so himself, and given that the discussion at the infobox talk page didn't go as fast as he'd liked, he decided to take action by removing the contrast-offending parameters completely. He refuses to compromise, only if he gets things his way. Alex|The|Whovian 13:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

While the editor may not be wrong in some areas, this doesn't give him the right to suddenly remove valid parameters in hundreds of articles without concluding the discussion or gaining consensus first, and demanding that other editors do the work which he deems required to be done. Alex|The|Whovian 13:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

... demanding that other editors do the work which he deems required to be done. This is patently false. I have done all the work that needed to be done. You made the demand that I replace violating, arbitrary colours with conformant, arbitrary colours, which I refused. Alakzi (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Alex, it does not give Alakzi the right to unilaterally remove the color parameters from the TV series infobox template, but WikiProject TV editors need to get off the dime and start proposing some viable solutions. There are numerous egregious examples of color-contrast non-compliant infoboxes. Let's take this back to the talk page, where it needs to be resolved. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend reading the talk page in question. Many viable solutions have been proposed, and this is what we got. Our apologies that we have busy lives and cannot be on Wikipedia 24/7 to implement everything. Alex|The|Whovian 14:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I have read most of it, Alex, and I am familiar with the principal cast of characters. There's no need to apologize for being a volunteer. I'll talk to you more on the discussion page. See you there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• To provide some background for this, since it's not going to be obvious to an outside observer as to what has been going on, here is some history. About a week ago Alakzi decided that he didn't like the colour combinations being used at some television season articles, so he set about removing not just the colour data, but the parameters as well, from infoboxes at several articles.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21] When that was going too slowly, he decided to instead remove the parameters completely from {{Infobox television season}}, without any prior discussion.[22] He was reverted by AlexTheWhovian, but restored the changes.[23] I then reverted and directed him to discuss, both in my edit summary,[24] and on his talk page,[25] but he reverted me as well.[26] The discussion on his talk page did not go well and he was eventually warned by MSGJ,[27] who then protected the template. Protection was later upgraded from "templateeditor" (Alakzi, the main combatant, has the templateeditor permission) to "full" by Mr. Stradivarius, who has been watching the discussion in progress at Template_talk:Infobox television season. We have been working toward modifying the template so as to best comply with WP:COLOR to prevent future problems, and to develop a strategy to eliminate current problems outside the infobox area of affected articles but the discussion is not progressing fast enough for Alakzi, who appears to have given up on discussion. (this is his last edit.) He has decided to instead take it upon himself to start editing all of the articles removing the parameters entirely and so far has done this at 276 articles. His removals have been arbitrary and quite disruptive.[28] Other editors are happy to collaborate on this and there is no excuse for Alakzi's actions. As a result his access to AWB has been revoked,[29][30] but I'm not sure that will stop him. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You continue to unapologetically misrepresent my position, presumably so as to mask the absurdity of your own position. "Alakzi decided that he didn't like the colour combinations being used at some television season articles"? Do you have no integrity? Alakzi (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but was I wrong? Do you actually like the colour combinations used? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
      • You do have no integrity. Alakzi (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
        • In fairness, Aussie, WP:TV does have 100s of text-background color-contrast problems in the infoboxes for TV series; it's not simply a matter of Alakzi "does not like the color combinations"; you know this. And rhetorically trying to make it sound as if there is not a guideline-based reason is misrepresenting the situation -- otherwise there would not be a need to address the current problems, and prevent future problems, as you mention above. Let's try to get this back on track, shall we? There are real problems here which needs to be addressed, and beating up Alakzi, while good sport, does nothing to resolve them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I don't deny that there are colour contrast problems. In fact I welcome discussion aimed at resolving the issues. My own personal opinion is currently that we probably shouldn't bother with colour in the infobox, so I sort of support Alakzi, but his attitude to resolution of the problem is unnacceptable. He chose to make significant changes without any discussion, has edit-warred, abused AWB and is now even challenging admins to block him.[31] It's not a case of getting this back on track. Everyone except Alakzi is still on track and has never been off. Alakzi has gone rogue and needs to be reigned in so that other editors can continue to work without disruption. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the rest of Alakzi's (?) edits be reverted or leave as it is? I understand their reasons, but this is disruptive since they haven't seek consensus. It doesn't matter if it takes 100 days to make it happen. That is how Wikipedia works: compromise. Not this disruptive editing. Callmemirela {Talk}

My belief in the sense of Wikipedia's "consensus" has vanished. I have seen too many times that consensus arrived at something tat makes no sense (example: according to consensus, Wagner wrote all his stage works in German with one exception, The Flying Dutchman. This argument is a matter of accessibility, right? We should pursue accessibility, whether consensus wants it or not. We don't vote if a building can have a ramp for the handicapped, or do we? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)♑ 15:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course we would have to discuss that and decide by consensus, accessibility can be pursued and achieved in many ways, and sometimes it may not be the best choice to pursue it if it means that information is lost. In this case however I dont think there are any good arguments for not choosing the most accesible solution.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Alakzi's colour-removals all deserve reverting!, Whether colours should or shouldn't be in articles should be discussed at an RFC and he's been here long enough to know that, This is quite honestly disruptive editing at it's best!, Seeing as I don't have a brilliant track record when it comes to edit warring I won't mass-revert but I suggest someone does!. –Davey2010^Talk 15:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I've covered it all. I'll double check later. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 15:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a real issue of very poor combinations of foreground and background colour in many articles that use Template:Infobox television season. At present, editors are free to choose any set of colours that take their fancy, with no regard to the problems caused to visitors with impaired vision, either in acuity or in colour-blindness. This issue is not negotiable. The Foundation makes it clear that no Wikimedia project may discriminate against users with disabilities, and that its policy "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies". With over 1,000 articles potentially affected, the solution suggested by AlexTheWhovian and AussieLegend is for Alakzi to go through each one individually and replace poor colour combinations with accessible ones. The solution implemented by Alakzi is to take the choice of colour out of the template. This whole fracas is a result of AlexTheWhovian and AussieLegend stonewalling the improvements, safe in the knowledge that the task of policing those 1,000+ articles is a huge task for a single editor. The solution is clear: the template should not have the ability to change colours unless it can be shown that there is a mechanism in place to ensure that the colours chosen meet high standards of accessibility. Alakzi's changes to the template should remain unless the non-compliant colour combinations are corrected first. If editors want to have their own custom hues for television seasons, they are going to have to show that they respect the problems of disability that bad choices will produce.

In the meantime, this malicious report needs to be seen for what it is. --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is a solution. --Izno (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that Alakzi was blocked by Ceradon for personal attacks for a duration of 24 hours. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 16:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

For those interested in actually dealing with inaccessible pages, I just discovered the Accessibility WikiProject. I, for one, am joining. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned about how much of the discussion about this issue has centered on various matters of who behaved worse about what and who was impolite to whom. Considering the nature of the problem, there are two possible solution classes:

• Inappropriate color combinations left in the template:

• Pro: Editors can work at their own pace to replace accessibility-violating colors with acceptable ones of their choosing.
• Con: Some of our readers can't read some of our content for indeterminate amounts of time.

• Inappropriate color combinations removed from the template:

• Pro: The affected subset of our readers can now read the content, even if editors replacing colors work slowly.
• Con: Readers will have to see infoboxes whose color schemes do not match the preferences of the TV editors.

In other words, the first solution is more convenient for the editors doing the cleanup, and the second is more convenient to the readers interested in our content. The editors' reactions are more salient to us; the affected readers are not represented on an internal noticeboard. A lot of the activity here has failed to appreciate the asymmetrical nature of the issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I found it hard to get a handle on the events that transpired here, so have compiled a timeline for reference:

1. 1:25 18 July 2015 (UTC) Alakzi raised an issue with Template:Infobox television season being invoked with non-accessible colors parameters, and made a bold edit to remove usage of colors in the template itself.
2. 2:22 AlexTheWhovian reverted, and started a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_television_season#Colour.
3. 19:32 AlexTheWhovian warned by admin MSGJ: "Your recent actions on Alakzi's user and talk page have not been constructive, and seem to amount to "baiting" ... Further disruption will result in a block." [32]
4. 19:35 MSGJ protects template citing "edit warring" after further reverts by Alakzi (3), AussieLegend, and AlexTheWhovian
5. 13:39 20 July Consensus reached at Template_talk:Infobox_television_season#Protected_edit_request_on_20_July_2015 to add a tracking category, Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination, to identify specific transclusions of the template that are calculated to have accessibility issues per WP:COLOR.[33]
6. 12:27, 24 July Alakzi starts a thread at User_talk:Alakzi#Pathetic with "It's now been a week and 1,038 articles remain inaccessible. Congratulations to all of the spineless and thoughtless barnstar hoarders who have made this possible. If this is not resolved by tomorrow noon, I'll run AWB to remove all violating colour combinations."[34]
7. 12:36 AlexTheWhovian responds on the page with "We're not your slaves. Do it yourself. Any removals of parameters will be swiftly reverted", which Alakzi reverts from their talk page.[35].
8. 12:45–13:13, 24 July 2015 Alakzi uses AWB to modify various article with edit summary "rm WP:ACCESS violating colour combination using AWB"
9. 13:00 AlexTheWhovian reports Alakzi for "disruptive and vandalistic action" at WP:AIV[36]. Eventually closed there at 13:36 per WP:NOTVANDALISM[37]
10. 13:03 In a bit of WP:FORUMSHOP, AlexTheWhovian reports Alakzi again for "disruptive and vandalistic action", now on this current ANI thread [38]
11. 13:12, 24 July 2015‎ On User talk:Alakzi, Alakzi asks AlexTheWhovian to "Do stop commenting here" [39], which is a user's perrogative per WP:NOBAN
12. AlexTheWhovian continues posting on Alakzi's page: [40][41][42]
13. 14:07, 24 July 2015 Admin Ceradon revokes Alakzi's AWB rights, explaining: "However, I fear that you will continue to make controversial changes while the matter is being discussed. To be clear, I have no prejudice against this being re-granted when this issue is resolved." [43]
14. 14:50, 24 July 2015 Alakzi responds to Ceradon: "These are not controversial changes to anybody with some sense"[44]
15. 14:51, 24 July 2015 Summarizing past events, AussieLegend writes in this ANI thread that Alakzi "didn't like the colour combinations being used"[45]
16. 14:59, 24 July 2015 Alakzi responds that AussieLegend "unapologetically misrepresent my position", and asks "Do you have no integrity?" [46]
17. AussieLegend responds "Do you actually like the colour combinations used?"[47]
18. Alaksi responds "You do have no integrity."[48]
19. 15:25 Alakzi challenges Ceradon: "Get off your high horse, or block me."[49]
20. 15:25 Alakzi challenges Ceradon: "It is up to people like you to make a stand, but you continue to fail the community and the encyclopedia."[50]
21. 15:56, 24 July 2015 Alakzi is blocked by Ceradon for personal attacks and disruptive editing

—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bagumba for your timeline. Really does help to wrap your head around this whole thing. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In truth, I believe AussieLegend summed up the solution to this dispute quite laconically: "The solution is to fix the colours in articles where inappropriate colours are used, not to delete the parameters entirely." I'm inclined to agree that simply removing the parameter from all these pages doesn't fix the problem, as MOS:ACCESS does not disallow the use of colors in infoboxes. However, I believe that we can all agree that we need to satisfy our readers -- all of them, of course, and those with visual impairments none the less -- and that, as it stands, the colors that exist in certain articles are a bit over the top, and difficult to read. Now, while I do agree that we have a problem, I do not believe Alakzi's solution -- simply removing the parameters -- fixes it, and it, to me, leans toward disruption. But this is not something Alakzi seems to realize. He doesn't get the point so much so that he jumped on AWB and made sweeping changes to a smorgasbord of articles, and doesn't seem to think his edits are controversial, which defies logic, because the very definition of controversial is that it gives cause to argument or debate (i.e. what we are doing right now). Alakzi has been warned that "a super-quick resolution of this dispute" is not workable (Further, I want to quote more of Mr. Stradivarius' sentiment in the same diff: "Yes, we need to make this site accessible. But we also can't afford to alienate our editors. By doing this through discussion and consensus we can have our cake and eat it as well - there's no reason that accessibility needs to come at the expense of editor retention." This is not something that Alakzi understands, or even seems to care about.) A few comments after, Alakzi was told: "There is no rush to fix what has not been seen as a major problem up to now. Meta discussions are not leading us to a solution." But what I find really disgusting is that he chose to use AWB as a weapon to force the changes he wanted on a large amount of pages. (see his contributions for evidence of that) And his use (abuse, in my opinion) of the template editor user right and edit warring to make controversial changes to a template, and got the template fully protected. That was Pigsonthewing's doing, not Alakzi's.

I could go on and on about Alakzi's behavior, intransigence and refusal to get the point, but, this is not to say that others do not share some blame. AlexTheWhovian engaged in an edit war to remove a quote about him on Alakzi's user page (now deleted), and when he was told to stop, he refused. This edit is quite disruptive, and an unnecessary escalation, if you were to ask me. And this was deeply troubling to me. But I would caution any user to pay keen attention to narrative that editors here are trying to force. That a white knight is sweeping to slay the wicked inaccessibility-mongers and valiantly save our readers, and the encyclopaedia from itself? No, to fairy-taleish for my blood. In truth, Alakzi could have ended the edit war by simply removing the quote. Simple as that. And I come away with the impressing that Alakzi's intransigence towards AussieLegend's and AlexTheWhovian's suggestions were just as provoking and annoying to them as AlexTheWhovian's actions towards Alazki were provoking and anoying to Alakzi. An below, RexxS add fuel to the fire: Alakzi's edits discussed above are an attempt to bring many instances of inaccessible colour combinations into compliance with WCAG 2.0 AAA standards, our accessibility policy, and the Foundation Non discrimination policy... Yes, but there is nothing wrong with having colors in infoboxes, so his solution to simply remove the parameter, rather than change -- you know -- the color that is causing the problem in the first place seems a bit extreme. prohibits discrimination against users on grounds of disability. Oh my! You're vilifying your opponents. They did not consciously discriminate against editors with disabilities. This is also extreme.

Now, to dispute resolution. First some findings of fact (point out to me if I am wrong anywhere): (1) The matter of contention is whether the colors used in infoboxes would hinder the readibility and accessibility of our content for visually-impaired editors. (2a) Alakzi chose to, as a resolution to this matter, remove the parameters controlling the colors in infoboxes from a large amount of pages. (2b) AlexTheWhovian, AussieLegend and several others did not like this resolution. (3a) Some editors, as a resolution to the conflict, wanted to seek consensus for the changes. (3b) Alakzi disagreed, saying that consensus would take too long and the changes fall within the realm of common sense. (3c) Other editors responded that the changes are not dire, and consensus can be reached before changes are made. Second: I just want to lay out a framework for what I believe might end this:

• In the appropriate guidelines (MOS:ACCESS or wherever) editors are told something to the effect of: "While colours in infoboxes are not discouraged, colours that are difficult to read for our readers and editors who have visual impairments are. Therefore, colours in infoboxes must be compliant with the World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). You can check that here. The colors chosen should also be relevant to the article in question. Further, not liking the color presented is not a reason to remove the parameter completely."

It may also be necessary that an automated program change the color to a unified scheme, not remove the parameter completely, and afterwards, individuals may come along and change the color scheme of individual articles again to make them relevant to that particular article. (for example, a nice, WCAG-compliant shade of red for an article like Clifford the Big Red Dog). Thoughts? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to make sure we are all on the same page: The template coding itself was resolved at timeline No. 5 (13:39 20 July), with the tracking category added to identify transclusions with flagged color combos. The issue now seems to be whether to 1) remove the current color in those individual flagged articles, with the option to add back accessible ones later as needed 2) have the flagged articles remain with inaccessible colors indefinitely until users address them one-by-one 3) other?—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: To me, and this may be quixotic, I believe that if we can agree on a unified color scheme and have that implemented on all articles in the tracking categories, the majority of this dispute is solved. Both sides bring reasonable points, and a solution that cuts right in the middle is workable, in my opinion. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

And his use (abuse, in my opinion) of the template editor user right and edit warring to make controversial changes to a template, and got the template fully protected - Just to clarify, when Alakzi edit-warred, the template was not protected so he didn't actually abuse the template editor user right. After he first protected the template, MSGJ posted a request on the talk page stating Alakzi and others involved in the current dispute are requested not to edit the template, but to raise a request and allow another template editor or admin to gauge consensus.[51] Alakzi then edited the sandbox and noted on the talk page, I've now implemented this in the sandbox; see the final testcase in Template:Infobox television season/testcases,[52] and left it at that. He did not request that the code be implemented. It was Pigsonthewing who then added Alakzi's code to the template.[53] I reported this to MSGJ,[54] who reverted Pigsonthewing. It was Pigsonthewing who abused the template editor user right when he edit-warred, reverting MSGJ.[55] MSGJ then asked Pigsonthewing to revert or lose his template editor user right.[56] The template was fully protected after this. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Stuck it from my comment, AussieLegend. Thank you for pointing that out. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To add a little background on WCAG 2.0: the guidelines provide for three levels of compliance, "A", "AA", and "AAA". They don't have any particular fixed meaning; "A" is the lowest level of accessibility and "AAA" is the highest. Color contrast is not an issue for the "A" compliance level, but a contrast ratio (between text and background) ≥ 4.5 is required for "AA" compliance, and a ratio ≥ 7 is required for "AAA" compliance. Looking through the documentation here, we see that the "AA" minimum is set to meet typical acuity of vision in an 80-year-old, while the "AAA" minimum accommodates 20/80 vision (i.e., the maximum vision impairment likely not to use screen readers). I surveyed the contents of the infobox tracking category, and, thanks in part to Alakzi inserting automatic contrast switching code on the 18th, 98% of it meets the "AA" criterion. So it is possible that some people with reasonably severe vision impairments not quite serious enough to use screen readers are unable to make out the headings in the infoboxes and are compelled to read the article text instead; since all the information in the infobox should be present in the article, that arguably (*very* arguably) constitutes a "conforming alternative version" which "provides all of the same information and functionality in the same human language" and meets the AAA guideline anyway. Now, the argument for retaining colors is obviously equally trivial; the aesthetic benefit to doing so is not great, and there's certainly no reason it can't be done with AAA-conformant color combinations. But in terms of the big moral picture of accessibility, this is somewhere around the "tithes of mint, dill and cumin" level. (IMO, the reason it's being fought so furiously is because the issue is really serving as a proxy for the extent to which editors can bypass normal community processes by asserting technical expertise. But let discerning observers draw their own conclusions.) Choess (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian

The reporting editor needs to take note of WP:BOOMERANG. His behaviour towards Alakzi has been appalling recently and he needs to back away. It is clear from his comments on Alakzi's talk page that he is deliberately harassing Alakzi and this report is just another facet of his campaign to remove an editor who disagrees with him. Here are a selection of the problems AlexTheWhovian has caused:

• In this edit, AlexTheWhovian refactors a conversation on Alakzi's talk page. No edit summary.
• Alakzi politely requests that AlexTheWhovian does not further revert on his talk page.
• AlexTheWhovian bluntly refuses.
• Alakzi asks AlexTheWhovian to stop.
• AlexTheWhovian makes a clear threat to give Alakzi "a terrible experience at Wikipedia".

On multiple occasions, has accused Alakzi of WP:vandalism, including several times today, in the above and on Alakzi's talk page. Vandalism is defined as a "deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia". Our policy is clear that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Alakzi's edits discussed above are an attempt to bring many instances of inaccessible colour combinations into compliance with WCAG 2.0 AAA standards, our accessibility policy, and the Foundation Non discrimination policy which prohibits discrimination against users on grounds of disability. Any suggestion that such edits are not good faith attempts at improving the encyclopedia need to be disavowed and AlexTheWhovian needs to withdraw those accusations or face sanctions.

I propose that to avoid further possibility of harassment, AlexTheWhovian is instructed not to interact with Alakzi in future. --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahh the old gang is all here, good to see. You're a bit late with this. It was handled by an admin days ago.[57] --AussieLegend (✉) 16:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely fun to see, AL. A threat? Redefine. Quotes from other editors about how bad one is at editing is their own fault, and none of mine. I have been one to revert his dangerous edits, and he has been the one to blatantly refuse discussion when requested to by other experienced users and admins. Alakzi's edits have been disruptive and unrequired, as he has deliberately gone against the face of lack of consensus and discussion, taking it in his own hands simply because we weren't replying fast enough. As per what I've just said, I will not withdraw my statements of these edits being the opposite of good faith, given the fact that multiple editors support this as well. Alex|The|Whovian 16:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

---

Interaction ban between Alakzi and AlexTheWhovian

These two users interacting with each other helps nothing. It's sad that this had to end up here. I believe RexxS's diff and the context of this situation speak for themselves. These two editors interacting does not benefit Wikipedia, and it would seem to be this conflict is only exacerbated by this. I want to propose a two way interaction ban under the standard terms of WP:IBAN. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 17:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support --ceradon (talk • contribs) 17:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: My personal opinion is that formal interaction bans, along with topic bans, typically set editors up for failure as well as create resentment. Neither scenario is conducive to a collegial editing environment. This doesn't seem to be an ongoing problem between the two of them (someone correct me if I'm wrong), but something that has come up in the last couple of days. That in mind, why not allow these two to make a personal resolve to avoid each other at all costs and see how that goes? Hopefully, by the time tempers cool and the 24 hour block has expired, each editor will be able to make more adult choices in behavior and civility. If this is still a problem after a reasonable amount of time following the expiiraton of Alakzi's block, then bring it back here for an interaction ban proposal. At this point, it seems a bit premature. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Ceradon, thank you for being willing to take on a complex dispute, but this is a little ham-handed. Indefinite interaction bans as a result of a single conflict are over the top. Two-way bans have a superficially appealing symmetry, but conflicts are rarely genuinely mutual in a way that such a blunt solution will address. I'm running out of time so I'll spare everyone the lecture on short-term civility blocks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:03, 25 July 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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please delete history of page about Alexander Tuzhilin

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,

I am the person who created and largely edited the page about Alexander Tuzhilin. I would like all versions of the article before March 23, 2015 to be removed as they contain his date of birth. Tuzhilin has communicated to me he is uncomfortable about having his date of birth being publicly available.

Thanks,

Jayanta Sen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayanta Sen (talk • contribs) 13:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The current version still has his date of birth in the infobox. Mr Potto (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed it from the infobox.

I haven't Revdel'ed because I'm not fully up to speed on the community's position on inclusion of birthdates if properly sourced.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's all spelt out nicely at WP:DOB - list the year only. I'll proceed with the revdel. WaggersTALK 14:10, 24 July 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 and sockpuppeteer on Holi (1984 film)

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.

---

Wikiboy231 just registered today, and started to edit disruptively on Holi (1984 film) by removing legitimate content with no explanation. I gave them several warnings on their talk page, but they persisted. Then, after I gave them the level four warning, an IP (presumably the same user), made the exact same disruptive edit, prompting me to report Wikiboy231 to WP:AIV. However, now a new account has been registered, Wikiboy2316, which is obviously a sockpuppet of the first user based on the almost-identical username and exact same types of edits. Please block both of these accounts indefinitely and block the IP as well. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 22:09, 24 July 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.

Broken edit filter

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 seems to be a broken “test filter” preventing legitimate contributions to Talk pages. The filter description is “ASCII art.” I ask that this be swiftly addressed. False positive reports here:

• Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#75.108.94.227 2
• Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#75.132.236.51
• Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#67.14.236.50

—67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Taking a look at this now. Nakon 04:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been corrected as of 04:36. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Nakon 04:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:44, 25 July 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: JIK1975

• JIK1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For several months now the user in question has been going around "fixing" redirects. His talk page shows that he's been told repeatedly to stop it with a number of users pointing him towards WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE, but he doesn't answer any of these posts. He edits a lot, but 95% of his edits are redirect fixes.

Here are some of the times he's been told to stop doing what he's doing:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=667574680&oldid=666445935
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=668033922&oldid=668024105
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=669048538&oldid=669033215
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=669430565&oldid=669048689
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=670136903&oldid=669895466

リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 18:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• What Administrator intervention are you requesting here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Deep down, I believe his intentions are good, but he also should know by now that what he's doing is not helpful, in fact quite the opposite. For a start, a short-term block from editing could really wake him up. If he resumes this activity upon his return, I could bring the issue back up in terms of a longer block. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 19:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Ribbon Salminen: I have to warn you – any kind of block for "WP:NOTBROKEN" edits is extremely remote, as it's unlikely to be considered "disruptive" enough editing. The most you might be able to get out of ANI is an actual Admin leaving this user a warning note that they should quit with the NOTBROKEN edits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I was one of the editors (referred to above) who posted about WP:NOTBROKEN, etc. on JIK1975'S user talk. I too believe they were not trying to intentionally create problems. Although the majority of the edits I saw were unnecessary, they didn't do any real harm. There were a few, however, which actually redirected the page to a different (but similarly titled) article, but I believe these were soon fixed. I think a big part of the problem was that attempts were made to discuss things on their user talk page, but these were seemingly ignored. There was also the problem of never leaving any kind of edit sum, which made it hard to udnerstand why the edit might have been needed. This kind of editing is problematic, but perhaps not serious enough to warrant a block. Regardless, the whole thing is now probably a mute point since they have posted "OK, I won't fix those redirects anymore." on their user page. It still might be a good idea for an administrator to inform them that they should be a little more careful in the future when making such edits as well as to leave an edit sum when editing, but I can't see any point in a block at this time. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: I left JIK1975 a personalized message on their Talk page about this, and they have now contacted me on my Talk page. I think part of the issue was that the previous message left on JIK1975's Talk page about WP:NOTBROKEN was too technical, and I don't think the message got across. I'm hoping now that JIK1975 is aware of the issue, that this matter may be resolved. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: I think everyone involved appreciates your help in trying to resolve this matter. Despite you taking the time to clarify things for JIK1975 at User talk:JIK1975#WP:NOTBROKEN, Part Deux, they have gone back to "fixing" redirects and piping links which were fine as is. They also continue to do so without leaving any edit sums explaining why. I'm not sure how many different times and in how many different ways WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN can or should be explained to them, but at some point WP:IDHT and WP:CIR come into play, don't they? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Whoa – the rapidity of edits today between 15:50 and about 17:00 suggests some kind of automated editing. I don't know what to make to that... Aside from this, I think, at this point, a good argument could be JIK1975's editing has crossed over into "disruptive", as they've been warned about this kind of editing (multiply), acknowledged my message about it on my talk page (to which I responded with more detail), and have now gone on and ignored that. Again, I dunno if an Admin will block on a series of WP:NOTBROKEN edits, but the side of "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" might be enough to get an Admin's attention here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

George Ranalli

• George Ranalli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Annevalentino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The article George Ranalli is currently being heavily edited by somebody who seems to be the wife of the subject (self-identified). She was adding content from his website until I was alerted to the issue and temporarily blanked it, whereupon she stopped to engage in IP. I tried to help build the article, but unfortunately added in some content she does not like, brief and neutrally presented information on her husband's leave that is sourced to a professional blog from what I believe is a reliable industry publication. (The school where her husband is dean lists an "acting dean" on its website.) She has repeatedly removed content about her husband's role ([58], [59], [60], [61]. She's been warned about removing content without explanation three times (twice by me; once by an IP) and asked to engage: [62], [63], [64]. But she has persisted. (I've checked OTRS just in case; there's no sign of correspondence there as of this writing.) Perhaps I should have given her the standard 3RR warning, but I had been hoping we could just talk reasonably. That doesn't seem to be working out. :/ I could use some assistance, especially as I am now involved with the text.

To be clear, my concern here is lack of engagement and continued editing without responding to concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've reinserted the material about the admin leave and acting dean, and warned her about marking every edit as a "minor" edit and about COI editing. GregJackP Boomer! 07:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I really appreciate the assistance, User:GregJackP. :) Unfortunately, that one just didn't go as well as I'd hoped. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sold on that being his wife. I wandered over to look at the article just as a matter of curiosity, and found some rather basic, but glaring, errors in the description of his academic career. The professorship title was wrong (a quick Google confirmed that), terminology describing his academic standing was off, he wasn't identified as the dean of the CUNY School of Architecture, and a couple more similar errors that, presumably, someone who knows him wouldn't make, particularly given most of his/her edits were about tarting up the list of Ranalli's accomplishments. This might be an ardent but less well informed fan rather than his wife. --Drmargi (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Alleged hounding by SPA User:Baroccas

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

Baroccas appears to be an SPA that is hounding Gjboyle. Baroccas claims that Gjboyle has a COI and is reverting their edits. Jytdog reached out to Gjboyle about managing COIs, where the topic of Baroccas came up (link).

An interaction checker report does seem to indicate that Baroccas is indeed following Gjboyle around. The timeline for their interaction on Carroll Izard shows the problem well.

Baroccas' angry message on Jytdog's talk page is what brought this to my attention. Given the hounding and SPA (possible sock really), requesting this user be indeffed.

Users notified: Jytdog, Baroccas, and Gjboyle.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a better diff for Baroccas' angry message, with the original heading.

I second this request. This is an extremely hostile sock who is treating a newbie very badly. We need to retain expert editors, not drive them away. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, kind of a messy situation. Gjboyle says he is, and appears to be, a RW psych expert. He first showed up when he created an article about himself at the end of June, and Joseph2302 picked up on the COI issues and attempted to address them with Gjboyle, which didn't go well (a bit too aggressive on Joseph's part, a bit too defensive on Gjboyle's part). I noticed (as have others) and talked with Gjboyle to try to help him understand WP better.

This fell off my radar for a while. What has transpired is that Gjboyle has unfortunately limited his editing mostly to the article about himself and articles some other people who are close to him professionally - so pretty much all COI editing (not paid COI, but the non-financial-interest kind of COI)

On July 18th Baroccas opened their account and started dealing harshly with Gjboyle about his COI and following him around which you can see through the interaction analyzer data above. If you look at their contribs you can see the harsh edit notes they are using.

I noticed this today, and posted this message to Baroccas, and Baroccas responded with the message linked above.

I do think that Baroccas' behavior is not appropriate. They are definitely a SPA focused on Gjboyle and his COI, and they appear to me to be a SOCK. They seem to be too well-informed to not be one; on the other hand I do not know who the sockmaster would be. In any case the possible SOCK is a sideshow to their SPA/HOUNDING behavior which is not appropriate. If Baroccas will not agree to stop, they should be indeffed per NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

After carefully reading through policies on this hounding issue I agree I reacted poorly to constant personal attacks I received by Gjboyle and Jytdog's message to me and my response was a reaction to this editors constant personal attacks on me calling me a "troll" and so forth even after I politely asked him to stop. This is just one example where he says "You do like to exaggerate and paint a picture that suits your weird and bizarre fantasy!" [65] to which I patiently responded with no counter attack [66] He seems to have some very extreme personal views and a definite COI and is inserting references from his own books into articles willy nilly. [67] Anyway sorry Jytdog for you copping my reaction to this editor's constant personal attacks toward me.Baroccas (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for apologizing. Like I wrote to you, I understand your desire to protect WP's integrity but the way you are going about it is not good and probably harms the overall effort to address COI in Wikipedia, which can be controversial. Will you please let it go? Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No problems Jytdog. I am a new editor, despite your accusation, which I felt was pretty rough. I tend to read things pretty carefully and took the time to carefully read and then re-read a number of Wikipedia policies in depth, before opening an account, like I have now read carefully the Wikipedia:Harassment policy which as I said, given I am now aware of, will stop focusing on GJBoyle individually and go through proper protocols on Wikipedia to address. I politely asked this editor GjBoyle to read the policies that others had suggested including the Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which I sustained constantly by GjBoyle, and provided a couple examples above (which I used my sandbox to learn how to do. But you have all ignored these sustained and significant attacks on me. Admittedly, I am still learning. I also have read other policies very carefully like Wikipedia:Assume good faith a fundamental principal on Wikipedia and I'm not sure if your post on my talk page labeling me a sockpuppet was fair or just either. Nor for that to be repeated in your comments above. I'm not a sockpuppet by the way. A return apology would be appreciated but that's up to you. Finally I've been a fan of Wikipedia for a long time and would just like to contribute. I am not a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account or SPA either as you tarnished me either. In fact, if you look at all of my edits, you will clearly see I have edited a number of other articles that GJBoyle has not edited, and I actually do have experience in these areas as well. Albeit not the 200 plus publications that GJBoyle keeps reminding everyone of in no uncertain terms. But does that matter? Does that make me any less of an editor? Is there a status or class structure on Wikipedia. I thought not at least. In fact, my understanding of Wikipedia policies is that we are all supposed to be equals! Anyways, I've certainly read and re-read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy in depth and will go through the proper channels in future. If you all still wish to burn me at the stake, or condemn me without trial, for trying to point out an extremely obvious COI, of Dr Boyle editing his mentor and very close friend's (it seems) articles, and indeed his own article on himself and him injecting his own published material into a number of articles without question, because he has written 200 articles and you wish to turn a blind eye to this, and ignore Wikipedia policies, wellp, so be it!Baroccas (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

So you won't let it go? There are proper ways to deal with COI and it's not attacking the editors with issues. An conflict doesn't bar people from editing, just requires a little more work on all parts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ricky81682. I just re-read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest article again, which I'm sure you're more familiar with than me, but I'm not sure what to think about all of this now? I thought the policy made it pretty clear in the first paragraph. But if it is okay to edit articles about your own closest friends, relatives and mentors, then that's the way it is, I guess. Can't talk for other much more experienced editors like WeijiBaikeBianji who wrote a great response to GjBoyle, about how they personally approach COI issues, but hey, that's up to them. As I said, the way I was approaching things was not helpful,(but was well intentioned at least, from the perspective of not having biased articles) and I accept that. So yep, I am willing to let it go.Baroccas (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the point is don't get into personal attacks. Propose adding template:COI if you think it's an issue, or at the very least, go report it to the WP:COIN noticeboard. We don't strip out everything from anyone with a bias, we just work it out. Otherwise just the pure adding of content on its own isn't necessarily going to raise hackles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clarifying between the 2 issues then Ricky8162, appreciate it. That sounds reasonable regarding how to approach the COI for Professor Boyle and his close friend and mentor Cattell and Professor Boyle editing his close friend's articles. As I said above, the poor way I handled his COI won't occur again. I apologise for that again to everyone.Baroccas (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I see I've been mentioned here for some reason, I have no comments to make about GjBoyle, as I've been keeping out of his way after a few arguments started between us. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Responding to the original ANI notice here, I will mention that I have seen some of the underlying discussion on article talk pages and on user talk pages that were previously on my watchlist, and came to see this ANI notice by reading a recent post to the user talk page of one of the notified editors. I agree with Jytdog's overall summary: first one newbie (Professor Boyle) and then another newbie (as it appears to me, the editor being mentioned in this ANI) have got into a spat about issues that recur over and over and over again here on Wikipedia. I think both have something useful to contribute to Wikipedia. I have gone out of my way to welcome Professor Boyle here (I recognized his name instantly when he arrived because I have read some of his articles for my professional off-wiki research, which also influences which topics I most actively edit on Wikipedia). Because I have greeted Professor Boyle, some of the interaction between him and new editor Baroccas has occurred on my user talk page, which will be linked from my signature on this comment. What I would like to see happen here is for both of those still very new editors to take seriously all of the Wikipedia editor conduct guidelines, including the guidelines against assuming bad faith on each other's part, and to look in their offices for reliable sources that they have read and understand well and then look for Wikipedia articles about topics that they have sources for and roll up their sleeves to improve those articles. It is best for all of us to stay far away from even a hint of conflict of interest. As I wrote on my user talk page yesterday, in the section there that Professor Boyle opened about this dispute, "To @Gjboyle:, allow me to remind you that the conflict of interest conduct guideline applies to absolutely everybody here, and in my opinion it is best to interpret that guideline strictly, that is to broadly exclude from your editing activities on Wikipedia any article regarding which you may have a conflict of interest. Let me be clear (as I have been on one of the relevant article talk pages): I will never, ever create an article about myself here on Wikipedia, nor will I personally edit any such article if someone else creates it. I never edit articles about any relative or close friend, former or current employer, former or current teacher, or co-author. I will never edit an article about any organization at which I have studied or worked or for which I have served as a director or as volunteer staff. I never edit articles about personal friends. I have a number of close discussion relationships with psychologists, some by email and many by participation in a "journal club" (graduate seminar course) but I never write on their behalf, never edit the biographical articles about those persons, and when editing articles about general topics they research am as likely to cite sources with which they disagree as sources with which they agree. I try to become familiar with the professional literature in a few domains (psychology mostly, and also linguistics and education reform, particularly in elementary and primary mathematics instruction) and I leave other topics on Wikipedia alone. There are 6,929,858 articles on Wikipedia, and that means you and I and everybody have plenty to edit here that doesn't involve any conflict of interest. Think about it. Most of the psychology articles on Wikipedia these days are badly in need of work. Show what you can do for the project by editing some of the key (high pageview) articles about general topics of psychology that every well educated undergraduate should know about. Don't overemphasize the publications of your friends when you cite sources, and it is best not to cite your own writings at all (I follow this rule) when editing any Wikipedia article." The one addition that I would make to that today is that besides not writing about any of my teachers or bosses or co-authors here on Wikipedia, I will also not write about any of my students (who may end up being the most famous of all the people I know). There is plenty for all of us to write about here without coming anywhere near to writing about people or organizations with which we have personal associations in real life. My wish is that the editor mentioned in this ANI and Professor Boyle both join hands with all the rest of us to clean up and improve Wikipedia, with mutual respect and collaboration. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Other than being notified, Gjboyle hasn't responded here so I'm not sure this discussion is necessary. My view is that if you're an expert, the expertise is helpful. Ideally, I'd suggest that if I wanted to add my personal articles or articles where there's a perception for bias, I'd just post on the article talk page with a Template:Request edit notice. That's just being conservative because else someone will slap a giant template:COI notice on the front of the page and that doesn't look good. As silly as it is, WP:RANDY is an actual problem here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on TV/radio stations

I know we usually operate under WP:DENY, but I'm concerned that I'm the only person seeing this editor's pattern, and I want to make sure that we do everything we can in this regard. The user I'm concerned about edits under a variety of IP addresses and adds sneaky errors to articles about satellite radio stations and Georgia TV stations. Favorite targets include List of Sirius XM Radio channels and High-definition television in the United States, but there are many others. Edits look like [68], [69], [70], and [71] for a few random examples (well, not so random--the last one makes me think that this person is a seasoned vandal, which is why I almost didn't post at all).

Because the subject matter was similar, and because CaptainHog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was known to use socks, I originally reported these as potential socks of that user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CaptainHog. Looking at the edit patterns, I'm no longer quite so sure (for a variety of reasons that don't necessarily need to be explicitly discussed). What I do know is that whoever this IP vandal is, it's becoming a problem. agtx 19:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do we have a list of HD channels in that HD article in the first place? The same reason we deleted the DirecTV and Dish channel guide articles, that should be applied to the HD in the US article too; we're in 2015 and only the cheapest and oddest broadcasters still are stuck on SD and this list at this point doesn't inform and only acts as a vandalism magnet, especially to frustrate this one vandal away from an unneeded target. Nate • (chatter) 23:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That could easily be true, and would be an issue for AfD. Honestly, it's not an area I know much about. Regardless of whether the article should be deleted, that doesn't really solve the problem. agtx 17:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A "relative" owning an article

• Spiro Koleka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Hi all, this is Burridheut. Zoupan is forcing greek separatist propaganda on a family member of mine, the proof is on the edit history. He on purpose has added in it information about another subject person with the same name, so we have an identity mismatch. I have informed him about this repeatedly and have challenged his sources as they are not based on official records and have lots of errors. Zoupan blindly insists that Spiro Koleka (the subject of the article) first was Spiro Gogo Koleka, than he claimed it is the son of Spiro Jorgo Koleka. In fact, I that am the creator of the article, can tell you who I created the article about, and that these people mentioned here are not part of the same family as the subject of the article. Spiro Koleka's father was Thoma Koleka. As a final evidence for this, I have uploaded a picture from the graveyard of the Vuno village where you can see the grave stone of Spiro Koleka (see here at http://i.imgur.com/pAJ5FLt.jpg), in which he is named as Spiro Thoma Koleka (Thoma thus is the father, not anyone else). So I have proved my claim with the man's own grave stone! Zoupan has found an erroneous/inaccurate source online that is not based on official records. From the same source he has taken the supposed claim that Spiro Koleka was born in a greek family. This is not true/fact, there are no records to support this, and the author of the text has mixed the fathers lineage of Spiro Koleka, meaning also his ethnic background is inaccurate as well. So how can this source be trusted??? You will excuse my ineptitude to resolve this matter here on wikipedia "following the book" but I am a beginner here and do not know all the rules, I am learning some of them the hard way though. The only article I have ever created and edited is this one!

I do know my family, village and region much better then an internet anonymous that is happy to change people's fathers so he can baptize them as greeks, serbs or whatever minority is convenient for him. Please help in resolving this issue impartially based on real world evidence (see picture at http://i.imgur.com/pAJ5FLt.jpg). There is also a facebook group called Vunoi (birth village of both Spiro Thoma Koleka and Spiro Jorgo Koleka) where you can address any questions to corroborate my claims or Zoupan's. I kindly request you to ban/restrict Zoupan from editing articles about Spiro Koleka in the future as he is doing the same as he has done in other articles in the past, where other people have complained of his propaganda and biased edits. Thanks for your time! --Burridheut — Preceding undated comment added 13:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The main problem is not the claim of "mismatched identity" (which is made only to confuse uninvolved editors) but that Spiro Koleka belonged to the Greek community: ... the supposed claim that Spiro Koleka was born in a greek family. This is not true/fact, there are no records to support this, and the author of the text has mixed the fathers lineage of Spiro Koleka, meaning also his ethnic background is inaccurate as well. If Spiro Jorgo Koleka was not the father, it still doesn't refute that Spiro Koleka belonged to the Greek community (which is directly referenced: James Pettifer; Hugh Poulton (1994). The Southern Balkans. Minority Rights Group. ISBN 978-1-897693-75-9. "some Greeks rose to high positions under the one party state, with an ethnic Greek, Spiro Koleka, from the minority southern village of Himarë; The Southeastern European Yearbook. ELIAMEP. 1994. But there has always been a Greek presence in Albania, despite this general trend. ... integrated into the communist system in Albania, with one member of the minority, Spiro Koleka, a native of Himara, being a close associate of Enver Hoxha ...). Both being from the same village in Himara, a predominantly Greek town (The South Slav Journal. Dositey Obradovich Circle. 2001. Politburo member Spiro Koleka, who came from the predominantly ethnic Greek town of Himara.), with the same names, they were without a doubt part of the same family (Robert Elsie (24 December 2012). A Biographical Dictionary of Albanian History. I.B.Tauris. p. 243. ISBN 978-1-78076-431-3. Spiro J. Koleka ... He is not to be confused with his son of the same name, Spiro Koleka [2] of the communist period). Please see the article talk page.--Zoupan 00:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, future disruptive editing is awaited by possible sock Endribinaj (talk · contribs) I'm gonna edit that page once more, if I see you persist in your futile efforts, I'll report you for the sole reason that you're spreading false information maliciously. So long.--Zoupan 00:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff of ip vandal.--Zoupan 01:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan (talk · contribs) why did you delete the part of the article that was talking about his engineering achievements (road design etc.)? They had references and you deleted them. Perhaps you did not like those, but stop vandalizing this article. If you lack entertainment go watch a movie instead. --Burridheut

The relative Burridheut (talk · contribs) is now posting Spiro Thoma Koleka's marriage certificate (http://i.imgur.com/xXHKx6o.jpg?1) to prove my claims of who his father is. I have access to this information since I am part of the family. This OFFICIAL DOCUMENT clarifies name, father name, mother name, nationality, citizenship etc. of Spiro Thoma Koleka and automatically makes the references used by Zoupan as unreliable due to inaccuracies. I want the text added by Zoupan removed from this article as it is just there to confuse and misinform the public. If any there are any additional questions I will be glad to answer. --Burridheut

Thank you, in 3rd person, for getting hand on the certificate and clarifying the matter regarding his father. Continue the discussion at the talk page, and please sign your comments. Again, this does not make all references unreliable, as you have pushed for all the way, in order to remove him belonging to the Greek community – the references regarding this do not state his father was Jorgo. Comment: As for this thread, I think it should be closed as there has been no edit-warring for a time.--Zoupan 22:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This thread should be open because you are doing an edit war changing this article on a daily basis and removing text and references and replacing with your own inaccuracies. You just removed his wife's name record from the article. What is wrong with you? Burridheut (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not doing an edit war. There is a link to the article, its history, and the talk page. I removed "Amalia Koleka" because it was unref'd and your certificate said "Lica" (you commented "added back" but that is not "adding back"). You are incoherent. I could write a book from all your nonsense; I'd say 5% of your comments are constructive, the rest is blabber. You have zero respect for Wikipedia etiquette. --Zoupan 16:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And here comes one more explicitly stating that he belonged to the Greek minority, from Albanologist Miranda Vickers: Miranda Vickers; James Pettifer (1997). Albania: From Anarchy to a Balkan Identity. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. pp. 189–. ISBN 978-1-85065-279-3. Greek minority ... Hoxha ... few favoured members of the minority ... Spiro Koleka. Case closed?--Zoupan 16:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding anymore "original sources" that are authored or co-authored by Mr. Pettifier. He is the same source publishing different books. How difficult is that to understand why his mistake is repeated in all of his books? Please, use some gray cells now (no, not in MS Excel). Burridheut (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment We really need some outside help here. See his removal of refs, and insisting based on "Himara still is a town and not a village, so the reference is inaccurate.".--Zoupan 05:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment #2 Members of the wikipedia community, please find some time to help here! This Zoupan user is on a personal mission to spread misinformation. It took me about a week to revert his false claims about the articles subject person's father. I had to get a picture of a grave stone, dig marriage certificates and what not to prove that his references were inaccurate. Yet, he is vandalizing the article I have created and on purpose removing all information that he does not like. He also puts 4 sources/books made by the same author as a reference. I removed once 3 out of those 4 because it is the same author that authored or co authored those books. Zoupan puts them back and claims they are 4 sources. Wow!!! I have never seen a more irrational behavior from an adult. Perhaps the fact that we are anonymous here on wikipedia gets out the worst in some of us. But there must be some minimum amount of respect we need to have for each-other as well as some amount of trust and good-will. All I want is for the article about my family member to be accurate and away from any Balkan-related propaganda that is plaguing the internet. What good it is to write that Himara is a predominantly Greek town in an article that is not about Himara at all. This is a pure provocation, because this is a well known controversial topic. Himara is Himara, the number of Greeks is known and recorded. If you want to talk about it or dispute it, go and do it in the Himara talk page. You can just put a hyperlink to the Himara page and whoever is interested in it can click there. There is absolutely no need to transform the article about a public figure into a ethnic war and hate zone. Keep the propaganda away from this article, please! Spiro Koleka was born in a Greek family this user claims! I insist that Spiro is not, his wife is. I proved this by photographing their marriage certificate and convince this Zoupan user, but to my disgust this turned into an even more amusing joke for him/her. Is this what wikipedia is about? Family members being bullied by internet trolls on false information about their deceased dear ones? Do I have to become a wikipedia expert so that my edits get to stay? Zoupan has reverted my edits so many times, he seems to be untouchable in that regard. Please help resolve this matter. Burridheut (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Elsie's bibliographical dictionary does state he was born in Vuno. Vuno is identified as a Orthodox Albanian speaking village within the wider Himara area (Nitsiakos, Vassilis (2010). On the border: Transborder mobility, ethnic groups and boundaries along the Albanian-Greek frontier. LIT Verlag. p. 99. "According to the latest census in the area, the Greek-speaking population is larger but not necessarily continuous and concentrated. The exclusively Greek-speaking villages, apart from Himarë, are Queparo Siperme, Dhërmi and Palasë. The rest are inhabited by Albanian-speaking Orthodox Christians (Kallivretakis 1995:25-58); Kallivretakis, Leonidas (1995). "Η ελληνική κοινότητα της Αλβανίας υπό το πρίσμα της ιστορικής γεωγραφίας και δημογραφίας [The Greek Community of Albania in terms of historical geography and demography." In Nikolakopoulos, Ilias, Kouloubis Theodoros A. & Thanos M. Veremis (eds). Ο Ελληνισμός της Αλβανίας [The Greeks of Albania]. University of Athens. p. 53.) Regarding Orthodox Albanian speaking people in general though as they have been “between identities” of either choosing the Albanian linguistic one over one that gives them religious commonalty with the Greeks (and thus a common ethnic identity according to some) over the past 150 years, Koleka’s identification as “Greek” by Petiffer may(and I stress this word may) suffice. This matter is also interesting considering that Koelka is the uncle of Edi Rama. Spiro’s sister is Edi’s mum. Dare I say it, I wonder would we say that Edi Rama is a “Greek” too? Things to think about.Resnjari (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Resnjari, I need to reply to this. Speaking Greek does not make you Greek, just as speaking English does not make us British or American. Tomorrow perhaps our grandchildren will speak Mandarin, so it does not really tell much about someones lineage. Also when you mention Christian Orthodoxy it is important to emphasize that these is Albanian Orthodoxy and Greek Orthodoxy.They are not one and this is a very important distinction, although it might seem minor at fist sight. As you probably know, Albanians are not very religious people, so religion is not a good criteria to divide them in groups. There are exceptions to this though, but it is common to find Albanians of different religions and regions that have mixed with one another. Remember that Ali Pasha's wife Vasiliqi was Christian whereas he was muslim himself. Similar examples you will find everywhere and they are a sign of a modern society (signs of open-mindedness, tolerance, mobility). Coming back to the subject person. Spiro Thoma Koleka was not Greek, neither part of a minority. it will be impossible for anyone to prove Spiros Greek lineage because it is just a myth. For your info, it is very difficult to find an ethnic Greek (note the word Greek, I am not saying Greek speaking) in the village of Vuno. There are many in Dhermi and in some neighborhoods of the other villages, but in Vuno there are more polar bears than ethnic Greeks! Until recently many Albanians have taken the Greek passport because it was very convenient to be a member of the EU if you are Albanian. You got to travel freely, work in the EU area, get state assistance in case of unemployment, healthcare covered etc. So, for a poor Albanian working all day for 300€ a month, it was not a bad thing to have an additional passport. Also many older people have gotten a Greek passport and get a free pension that is higher than the average salary in Albania (no wonder how the Greek state has a black hole of 300 Billion Euros, they have been giving away free money all over the place). Anyway, getting the passport does not make you ethnic Greek, it just makes you ALSO a Greek CITIZEN, besides Albanian. Dual citizenship in Albania is allowed, so who am I to say that it is bad. The law is clear, the state does not care, the economy is bad, so people survive with what they can.

Last but not least. Edi Rama's mother is Aneta, but she is not Spiro's sister. Spiro's sister died in 1941 during the Greco-Italian war, so yes, she died 74 years ago at the age of 45. She would have been 119 years old if she was alive today so she is far from being even the same generation as Aneta. The whole point with Zoupan's persistence of Spiro's "greekness" is to invent a Greek lineage of the current prime minister of Albania. This is his agenda, it is not hidden as he has written about it himself. But the truth is that there is no such lineage whatsoever. We could talk more about the prime minister, his mother etc., but I am afraid that this is beyond the topic at hand, i.e. Spiro Koleka. Burridheut (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Week-long disruptive editing by ‎Runningfox34

‎Runningfox34 has been engaging in disruptive behavior on the Lorge family articles (Robert Gerald Lorge, Gerald Lorge, William Lorge) for over a week. He has been warned about conflict of interest, edit warring, original research, copyright violations, and advertising and he has already been blocked once for disruptive editing. He has failed to respond to any messages about his behavior on his talk page. It is highly likely that he has been using sockpuppets to deflect his editing and to get around his block. Today he created a new article on Robert Gerald Lorge, after it was snowball deleted yesterday. This character and his various sockpuppets need a long timeout. 32.218.33.216 (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I redeleted Robert Gerald Lorge's article per G4, and another admin has salted it. While Gerald Lorge certainly seems like a notable person I suspect the article on William Lorge will go much the same way the article on Robert Gerald Lorge did in regards to notability(I misread the article). As for the users they seem to change accounts fairly quick so I think other than blocking quacking aquatic birds all we can do is watch the articles. Chillum 20:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't requesting deletion of either Gerald or William; both were long-time state legislators. I was asking for help with the persistent disruptive behavior of Runningfox34, an SPA dedicated to whitewashing and spamming Lorge family articles. 32.218.33.216 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the IPs are his sock puppets? Chillum 20:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Yesterday, during the time Runningfox34 was blocked, a new account was created, Smartvoter2006. Smartvoter2006 immediately began editing the Gerald Lorge article, trying to insert images that Runningfox34 had previously uploaded. Minutes after Runningfox34's block expired, Rf began fiddling around with the images, in the same way that Smartvoter2006 had been doing. See edits of GL article that occurred between 23:44, 22 July 2015‎ and 03:55, 23 July 2015
2. On 20 Jul 2015, RFD, Pokechu22, and I were all involved in reverting repeated insertions of unsourced and POV edits by Runningfox34 to the William Lorge article. Then 75.100.87.220 showed up, making exactly the same kinds of edits to the article. A few hours later, 69.130.252.37 did exactly the same thing. See edits of William Lorge article from 05:22, 20 July 2015 to 04:54, 21 July 2015.

Perhaps one or more of the IPs is a meatpuppet, and not a sockpuppet, but there definitely appears to be close collaboration or collusion.

If nothing can be done to stop the disruptive editing of these editors, full page protection would be effective, since they only edit Lorge family articles. 32.218.33.216 (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The OP has accused Runningfox34 of sockpuppetry but it doesn't appear that a formal SPI has actually been filed. Maybe that's the next step? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't file an SPI because I didn't want to go board shopping and because it's the disruptive editing that is the primary problem. Runningfox34 has engaged in a week of edit warring and other disruptive behavior. Is that not appropriate and sufficient for this noticeboard? How many hoops does one have to go through? 32.218.33.216 (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Viriditas edit-warring (once again)

Viriditas (talk · contribs) is reverting my edits without a justified reason at Talk:Chain Reaction (sculpture). I'm trying to assess WP:CALIFORNIA and WP:ANTIWAR upon their respective assessment pages Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Assessment#Importance scale and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war/Assessment#Importance scale, but I keep being reverted. According to him "An assessment has been requested from an editor other than yourself as multiple editors have challenged your judgment", which is certainly false as no other editor other than ATinySliver (talk · contribs) has contested my assessments. Considering this user has made 131 edits to the article, it is clear this user has a COI about the subject of the page, plus Viriditas him/herself has a long history of edit-warring, including a previous 3 months block. As the user keeps reluctant to justify him/herself, I'm bringing this here. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ATinySilver and myself noticed a pattern of strange assessments coming from users who were not connected to the relevant projects. Your assessment came on the heels of two prior ones, particularly a logged out account using the IP 189.225.21.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). As far as I can tell, you are not active on either of the projects you claim above. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Assessment's FAQ states: "How can I get my article rated?: As a member of the WikiProject California, you can do it yourself" and "Who can assess articles? Any member of WikiProject California is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines." Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war, like most projects, doesn't require members to assess their articles as it is based upon WP:1.0 guidelines. In neither WP, on the other hand, members are required to be "active" to make assessments, at most they require editors to follow the given guidelines. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If your assessment is disputed, then you are supposed to take it to the article talk or project talk page for wider input. What you're not supposed to do is keep reinserting your assessment, logged out or otherwise. ATinySilver and I noticed this monkey business and acted accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't twist things, I edited first as an IP, and later I logged in as an editor as ATS requested it. The thing is I can go to WT:CAL, the article(s) can be re-reassessed as I assessed them, or if I was wrong, with a higher assessment, and that's it. The reason you are here, is because of your persistent edit-warring, despite the fact you've been blocked several times for this reason, and those temporary blocks certainly aren't working. If you're not here to cooperate, you should be indef instead. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, this is the first time you've admitted it. Both the IP and yourself denied you were the same person. I realize English is your second language, so I'll chalk up the confusion between the two accounts to a communication problem. However, in the future, please stick to one account. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing is I have never denied it, because I have never being formally asked about it (even ATS understood it immediately). I explained it to ATS here. I don't log in because when I'm editing as an IP I'm on my cellphone and I see no reason to log in to do basic stuff like this or this, and assessing articles is, for me, basic stuff, because as I have explained, most WP assessments are based upon a common rationale (relevance for the WikiProject + relevance for the readers {based on page views}, for the importance assessment; quality's have another rationale most complex). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, when one looks closer into your claims, they completely fall apart. I've given you the benefit of the doubt by attributing this to the language barrier. However, some things simply don't make sense. Previously, when given the opportunity to explain, you reverted to the IP's version, writing in an edit summary, "Sure, established accounts are now sockpuppets of IPs."[72] A month previously, at 02:45, 25 June 2015, 189.225.21.90 wrote, "I'm not a "new user", I'm an experienced editor who prefers to not log in for simply tasks."[73] But, at the same exact moment, you were actually logged in and reverted to 189.225.21.90's version again.[74] So, those diffs show that you were not only logged out with your cellphone, you were also logged in simultaneously. In the past, we've had serious problems with sock puppets editing from one one machine while also editing from dynamic addresses on their cell phone. Now, how did you manage to comment on a talk page while logged out and revert to the IPs version while logged in, all at the same moment? All you had to say was, "hai guyz, it's me, logged out", but you never did until you admitted here. Something isn't right here. Like I said, use your registered account, but don't revert back to versions while you are logged out. More importantly, don't edit as a registered account and as an IP simultaneously as the diffs show up above. This is very simple. Please stop. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Because I answered as an IP, and later logged in with my account to make the reverts. I don't know what you're trying to prove with it (well, I do know, but I'm not going to put words upon your mouth), but, for sure I wasn't "logged in simultaneously"--which makes no sense. What happened, rather than creating conspiratory-like comments, is as simple as that I wrote the message, I sent that message, and I logged in as soon as it was sent. Later, I logged in and started to make reverts, which happened to be in that minute, and the subsequent minutes if you pay attention. I never revert an user who reverted my IP, if that happens, I log in and revert the edition explaining it, as in this case. If you see this as sockpuppetry, consider that socking is defined as the "improper purpose [which includes, but it is not limited to do] attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks or otherwise violate community standards and policies". This is not sockpuppetry; socking would be that I, as "Tbhotch" edited, later to be reverted, and later created an account/used my IP to continue what I was doing to game the system. In this case, I, as an IP, was reverted for the simple fact of being an IP. As such, I logged in to demostrate I was not an inexperienced user as said by ATS, and up-to-date no other IP/user has edited. And no, I'm not going to "stop" using IPs rather than my registered account as it is not forbidden, and in fact, I waste much more time login in and out for simple changes. Good attempt to distract attention, but we're not here because of me, but because of your disruptive pattern of editing. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As I've been mentioned here, I'll present this—which includes one personal attack and one assumption of bad faith (I've asked no one to to do anything)—and this—which deflected the issue. It is my assertion that a rating that appears arbitrary (not on behalf of the WikiProject) is subject to removal by anyone at any time, regardless of the reverting editor's involvement in said Wikiproject.

That said, I am not in a position to comment outside the instant issue. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:WIAPA. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering about what is or is not a personal attack isn't helpful. ATinySilver felt attacked by your comments. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

On the same grounds, this is a personal attack, as you are asserting I'm a "disruptive sockpuppet {of only you know who, btw}"]. I felt attacked by your comment as I find it defamatory and your lack of giving a valid response is much more offensive. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Except, as the diffs show up above, you were simultaneously editing logged out and logged in at 02:45, 25 June 2015.[75][76] Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you know a minute has 60 seconds in it? You only have minutes, not seconds, and by no means justify yourself. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So, Tbhotch, calling someone a "child" does not attack an individual's age/intellectual acuity/emotional level/etc.? (For what it's worth, I began what is likely my penultimate career as a print journalist five years before your existence.) This speaks to your ability to make assessments? When another editor points out your evident Wikilawyering over NPA, you respond (in so many words), "But you did it too"? This response—which, incidentally, could be considered childish—speaks to your ability to make sober, adult assessments?

In all honesty, this is a straw man anyway; the issue was and is, is it proper to remove an assessment that appears to be arbitrary? Absent an explanation, it is—and, again, I speak only for my own involvement prior to an "explanation" that was arrogant, dismissive and combative. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 22:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You are adding words I never said. If you consider that by one simple word I "attack[ed] your individual's age/intellectual acuity/emotional level/etc." it's literally your problem. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a Wikilawyer attemps—poorly—to escape "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." This is now incontrovertible proof that you are not qualified to assess anything. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 01:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm "not qualified to assess anything" based upon a comment. "Assessments" and "personal attacks" are not related, by any mean, and such rationale is poor. It is incredible how you and Viriditas call me a "Wikilawyer", when the essay Wikipedia:Wikilawyering itself starts with "Wikilawyering is a pejorative term". I have to understand that I can't call you "child", but you both can call me a "pejorative" term, plus Viriditas call me a "disruptive sockpuppet"? It it clear that you are by his side, but c'mon don't bite your tongue when trying to defend him. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

... aaaaaand, AGF is gone, too. I've never dealt with Viriditas in any manner (of which I'm aware) prior to this little episode—but that's another straw man. While Wikilawyering is indeed a pejorative, it describes an action, not a person—but that's another straw man. To call someone a "child" carries with it the explicit intent to belittle that person, not his or her actions. Whether this insults my sensibilities is not merely tangential, it’s immaterial; indeed, I’ve heard all but infinitely worse from the all but infinitely more relevant. (That's a fact, not an attack, by the way.) The sole issue is Wikipedia policy. Period. That you violated. Period. That you continue to exhibit a singular blindness to this simple, undeniable fact is the very thing that calls into question your qualification—if not in fact renders it nonexistent—to offer assessments. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 03:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You stopped AGF the moment you said I'm "not qualified to assess anything", and that's not a "straw man". I recommend you to write a book about this, I can give you a title: "Child": How I Transformed the Real and Current Meaning of the Word "Child" Into Multiple Theories About How Grossly, Insulting, Degrading, and Offensive It Really Is--Immaterially Speaking. If 50 Shades of Grey was a best-selling book, this will be as well. If you still here is because you want either, someone to stop me from assessing articles in general--for which you require to open a WP:TBAN giving much (much) more evidence than saying "this guy call me 'child', his judgement is compromised!"; or you are trying to prove how I should be blocked because I "commented on the contributor and not the content", ironically commenting on the contributor ([77][78]) and justifying yourself and Viriditas for commenting on the contributor and not the content. If you want neither of those, your only work here is to comment about Viriditas' own long-term pattern of edit-warring, (rather than justify his pattern). Other comments, like yours presented throughout, are off-topic. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

My presence was invoked by you. My response—which, incidentally, closed with "I am not in a position to comment outside the instant issue"—led to your presumption to lecture me on what is or is not a personal attack. The ironically titled "kid gloves" came off at that moment, not as a result of anything I’ve written.

That you called someone a "child" violates policy. That you refuse to own up to it violates all sense. You have gone to what I would have thought heretofore were impossibly voluminous lengths to say anything other than, "Yes, that was a personal attack. I should not have done that." That simple statement will go a long way toward establishing your credibility which, as it is now, does not exist. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

With regard to users disputing the assessments, are there any disputes other than over whether an editor needs to be part of the Project? In other words, have any editors expressed the view that the assessments are not accurate? If the only controversy is who may or may not make the assessment, then there really is no reason to revert the assessments. And if members of a Project disagree with the assessments, they can just change the assessments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that this is the second time Viriditas has reverted an assessment of this article on the grounds of a user not being part of the relevant WikiProject. Given that two editors have rated the article as low importance I think that the rating should stay - regardless of their participation in the WikiProject - and if you disagree then you can request opinions at the relevant projects. Sam Walton (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out. As I said on another talk page, I don't agree with drive-by assessments by people who don't know the topic and aren't involved in any of the projects. The sculpture is the first work of public art designated as a historic landmark in the City of Santa Monica and is likely one of the most notable anti-nuclear war/peace monuments in the United States. Can you point to a sculpture in Southern California or an anti-war sculpture in the United States that has received this much attention? These demonstrable facts fly in the face of these assessments. Furthermore, the use of the importance parameter is disputed, with some projects eliminating it altogether. We've seen, time and time again, editors use drive-by assessments as a means to disrupt or disparage the topic. While that may not be the case here, both ATinySilver and myself were alerted by the unusual pattern of uninvolved editors, in this particular case an IP belonging to a registered account that was used to edit war over an assessment. The fact remains, the burden of proof is on the editor making the assessment to discuss it, not the one disputing it. If an editor wants to argue for his or her assessment, they are welcome to discuss it any time. Clearly, that has not happened here. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not disputing the assessment, you make a good case for it being a greater than low importance. I'm disputing that you have any right to edit war the rating of other editors out. There's no reason that low importance can't remain there until consensus is reached. Sam Walton (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Per the Assessment FAQ, if you don't agree with a rating, one is "free to change it...in the case of major disputes, the WikiProject as a whole can discuss the issue and come to a consensus as to the best rating." Further, "these ratings are meant primarily for the internal use of the project" and "the WikiProject bears ultimate responsibility for resolving disputes". The user's claim that they are assessing for WP:CALIFORNIA and WP:ANTIWAR is not supported by the evidence. Their contribution history shows that they work mostly on music articles, not California-related or antiwar-related topics. They actually joined the project(s) yesterday after the complaint was lodged about their assessment. I think the fact that the user was changing this assessments while both logging out as an IP and reverting back while logging in as a registered account is reason enough to retain the previous assessment. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Points taken. I agree with Viriditas in all respects. Jusdafax 23:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Despite all that back-and-forth, no one has responded substantively to what I said. Why revert the assessments to "no assessment"? Assessments are Wikipedia inside-baseball: readers (other than editors) could not care less about them. It's not like having a "wrong" assessment hurts the page for our readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Because the rating specifically means "We at WikiProject Whatever give this article this rating on behalf of the WikiProject." If we're going to use the ratings at all—and that's been the subject of its own debate—then there should be demonstrable integrity attached thereto. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That claim of "integrity" would have some legitimacy if every assessment followed a discussion and consensus amongst the members of the project. But that rarely is what actually happens. Instead, one editor typically makes the assessment, subject as always to subsequent revision by someone else. Per WP:BOLD, there is no integrity in insisting that this one editor must establish some bona fides before making the assessment. It seems to me a waste of time and drama to insist on dispute resolution, instead of just correcting an assessment with which one disagrees. But if the disputing editors want drama instead, then that's their problem, and I have nothing more to say. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, you bring up exactly why their very existence foments argument. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, this is something where it really does not seem necessary to have anyone blocked, especially over such trivial stuff. If the editors involved would just agree to have a discussion on the article talk page, along with notifications at the talk pages of the affected WikiProjects, and if the editors will just agree to leave the edits as they are until the talk page discussion yields a consensus about the assessment, wouldn't that be enough? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Odd account creation pattern

In looking at edit filter 527 this morning, I discovered that over 200 accounts have been created starting with "User:Twanitk" (User:Twanitk1, User:Twanitk2, up to today's User:Twanitk277) since March of this year. None of them have any edits. Is this something we should be concerned about? NawlinWiki (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of any valid reason for anyone to have made this number of clearly linked accounts. It looks a lot like it might be the creation of a farm of sleeper accounts. Are there provisions for mass-blocking of large numbers of accounts? -- The Anome (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Our current policies and guidelines don't give us any guidance, because they look like ducks but haven't quacked yet. Checkuser won't help, because checkuser only relies on what duckpond the ducks swim in, and they aren't swimming yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

They are up to User:Twanitk279 now. See this listing. I don't think we need precedent or explicit policy, or for these accounts to be misused in an attack, for this to be recognized as a bad thing. -- The Anome (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone checked to see if these accounts are related to an educational project of some sort? BMK (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I see now that's unlikely, considering some of the accounts were created months ago. If it was an educational program, they should have been used by now. I say nuke them all from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. BMK (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree they could be blocked without there being anything explicitly forbidding this behaviour, but it's IMO worth approaching them to see if they have any good explaination. The links above to their usernames should probably have notified them, but that doesn't always work. So I've left a message to the original unnumbered accounts, 279 and the not yet created 280. Neither 279 or unnumbered have emails. There are perhaps two or three related reasons I can think of why someone may those this if they aren't up to something malicious, but I won't mention them here for WP:BEANS reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Your choice to create #280 and leave a comment there - very clever! Kudos to you. BMK (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Should this be on the user page as well as the user talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Heh – that was my thought was well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done BMK (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Affinion Group

• Affinion Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Surgenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Asking for help, rather than starting an edit war. Looks like a lot of promotional content being added here, without objective sources. We're not a repository for services offered by companies. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am just using a 10K to fill out information on a private company. All of the information I have comes from the 10K which is the most reliable source I can find on this company given their limited and outdated online presence. If I could have assistance on how to word articles in a better way, I would be most grateful. I tried to remove information that you found to be promotional - Surgenski

So the main question then is whether this company is even notable enough to warrant a page. I don't think ANI is an appropriate venue for this sort of thing. Djonesuk (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This was a the reinstatement of content I removed: [79]. It appears that much of this either copied or closely paraphrased an SEC 10k report. It raises a flag when a new account gets so deeply involved in an article on a private company, and a lot of the edits consist of the addition of promotional material. For the record, the article was very promotional before, as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B53D:47CE:83E6:3C5F (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The article says this company has annual revenue of $1.2 billion. That suggests notability, though it may still not be easy to find sources. (I found nothing for the name Affinion in the Wall Street Journal). The company's services may be offered under a multitude of names that might have to be separately checked. Though they seem to be privately held, they do publish detailed financial statements, and this should be acceptable as evidence of the size of the company. Reuters said they tried to IPO in 2007 but I can't tell what happened as a result. Their 10K says they are a holding company and all business is conducted by their subsidiaries. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Revenue has nothing to do with notability - which is defined as significant coverage in secondary sources. There seems to be some misunderstanding that if a company is large enough (by some definition) it qualifies for an article but that's just not true. There must be deep, independent coverage in reliable sources. Djonesuk (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Whyedithere and personal attacks

Whyedithere has made this edit to his user page under the heading Wikipedia Users that Suck. The content, particularly these other morons that edit wikipedia don't get that they can stick their advice up their ..., is clearly a personal attack so I reverted and left a warning on his talk page but he has reverted both. There's very little point in me, or any other non-admin, reverting and/or warning again because he simply doesn't take any notice of warnings. Whyedithere was recently blocked for three days for edit-warring and this was only his 5th edit after coming off the block. The attack is obviously retaliation for the involvement of Drmargi, AlexTheWhovian and me in that block and he has previously had some rather negative interactions with Swarm. The content will probably be removed in a few days anyway, as there is now stronger evidence that Whyedithere is a sock of Andrewwikiedit and I'm currently drafting another SPI case, but that's no excuse for ignoring this issue now. Editors have no right to create content specifically aimed at attacking other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. GiantSnowman 09:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

He's reverted the headings, along with a little pontification about freedom of speech. Like too many people, he doesn't understand that the American right to freedom of speech is not unlimited, and it's certainly not a license to insult without consequence. --Drmargi (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

SN: I know there's no guideline against warning someone about possibly being blocked, but is there a guideline about non-admins threatening to block someone? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Erpert I don't think they, Whyedithere, is threatening to block anybody. It looks to me as if he is saying that he has to go along with AussieLegend or AussieLegend will block him. Not to say that AussieLegend actually said that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I certainly didn't. Whyedithere is probably misreading one of the warning templates left on his talk page (or the talk pages of his previous accounts) that say (roughly) "if you continue to do this you can/may be blocked". --AussieLegend (✉) 15:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Nanak Shah Fakir

• 173.71.50.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Some one from this IP address trying hard to revert back all the information updated by me on the above page title, please block this user, as he trying to update the wrong information about the title. Nanak Shah Fakir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kulvinder Singh 17:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC) (talk)

Both of you are involved in an edit war. Consider this the formal warning for both of you. I will not block now, as you've both just been warned, but if you continue, either of you, a block may be forthcoming. Even if you are factually correct, it does not excuse poor behavior, and blocks are handed out for behavioral violations rather than factual issues. Believing yourself to be correct does not excuse you from following Wikipedia norms, so please use the talk page to work out your differences. --Jayron32 18:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Inbetweeners infobox

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

---

Hi, the infobox on the page The Inbetweeners has been vandalised, but it didn't happen in a recent edit. I don't really have the time or know how to find where the damage was done, or to undo it, so I thought I would post a notice here. I'm sorry if it's the wrong place, I'm not really a Wikipedia editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.120.209 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Reverted to last good version, thanks for reporting this. Sam Walton (talk) 21:26, 25 July 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.

Tom991

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.

---

Tom991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Worcester Fire Department:. User has repeatedly been disruptive. Despite attempts to assume good faith, the user constantly feels attacked and "fights back":

• [80]
• [81]
• [82]
• [[83]] (An additional case which involved a different user that Tom991 left a message for)

Most recently the user made an unexplained content removal which I reverted with a clear edit summary.([84]) The user immediate undid my reversion and accused me of harassment. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• From a quick glance at their talk page, they've been warned for the addition of unsourced content, not using edit summaries, and disruptive editing. They could definitely use some general guidance on normal editing procedures, policies, and perhaps civility.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Seems to be handled for the time being. See User talk:Zackmann08#Apology [85]. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:01, 26 July 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.

Kwamikagami: personal attacks, incivility, and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior at Talk:Tagalog

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.

---

Kwamikagami has been engaging in personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in a move request he started at Talk:Tagalog. The most egregious personal attack is this, but incivility and battleground behavior has been par for the course,[86][87] including in his RM proposal.[88] This is besides the fact that he started this move request immediately after the last one closed, and after move warring. I asked him to remove the personal attack, at least,[89] but he just doubled down on it.[90] Someone needs to step in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I was advised to start a new move request to reverse the original one, which was closed with little input and violates both consensus and WP guidelines, and is opposed by all linguists who have commenetd. Now that I have gone through the proper channels, Cúchullain objects that I'm being disruptive. He is being a hypocrite: not just a 'heads I win, tails you lose' mentality for following process, but he's demanding levels of evidence that were never required for the original move. Perhaps what I should have done was have ANI review the original move. — kwami (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You were advised to go through the proper channels rather than move warring, which is what you did before. Now you've started an RM in the most disruptive way possible: opening it immediately after the last one closed while attacking and antagonizing people who disagree with you. This needs to stop, now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I was advised to go through proper channels, so I did. Now you're attacking me for going through proper channels. Can't you see how that makes you a hypocrite? And who are these "people" that I'm attacking, beside calling you out? You're an admin -- if the proper way to address a badly closed move was to have it reviewed at ANI, then you should have said so, but I was told to open a new move request, and that is what I did. — kwami (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You're seriously making more personal attacks in an ANI report addressing your personal attacks? And you seriously don't see what is wrong with your combative behavior in the discussion?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Objecting to obnoxious behaviour is not a personal attack. I did inadvertently make one, when I called you a hypocrite, and that I retracted. You've had several impolite things to say about me -- does that make you guilty as well? It's your behaviour that's inappropriate, not you as a person. That's an important distinction to make, or no-one would be able to criticize anyone's behaviour without it being a "personal attack", and you would not be able to file this complaint without being sanctioned yourself.

Also, others on the discussion page have called you out on being a hypocrite while avoiding the word. I'm not the only one who has a problem with you behaving in bad faith.[91][92] — kwami (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not use personal attacks in response to this report, it does not help your case and makes you look disruptive. As far as Cuchullain's behavior, I will look over it and see what needs to be done. --w^{L<speak·check>} 19:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

From the first your behavior has been unacceptably uncivil and disruptive, and it continues even here at ANI. You need to step back, either voluntarily or otherwise.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

He redacted his attack. And I'll assume he won't bring another one up. If all else fails in regards to the page move, I recommend a possible request for comment, but I would respect the result of the previous one, as consensus usually doesn't change so soon, and a quick re-list may be seen as illustrating a point. --w^{L<speak·check>} 20:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm unclear which consensus you are referring to in the previous comment, WikiLeon--the long-standing consensus that respects WP:NCLANG and the opinions of actual linguists, or the recent one that neither respects WP:NCLANG nor includes any linguists because the bot used to initiate it failed to list it at WP:LANG. Every linguist on the current RM supports the move back to the previous, long-standing and compliant consensus. --Taivo (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Lord knows I don't always agree with Kwamikagami, and I would really love to know how one officially gets listed as a linguist here, but this complaint is quite tendentious, and brining the matter to ANI because Cuchullain thinks Tagalog is special and the Tagalog language convention should not be applied as it is with every other language article I watch is simply puerile. This complaint should be closed and the move Tagalog > Tagalog language should be made forthwith. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 26 July 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.

Uncollaborative behaviour by SportsEditor518 (and related IPs)

I have been engaged in a dispute with User:SportsEditor518 (his talk page) (and various IPs of the same editor, including Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4406:9F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F andSpecial:Contributions/2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F) on the article Interstate matches in Australian rules football. It has been mainly a content dispute, with the two of us having different views on the popularity of the concept in the state of Victoria. My version states that interstate football was not popular in Victoria; his version states that it is. I'm not here to dispute the content; I'm here to report disruptive/obstinate behaviour by SportsEditor518 which is precluding any conclusion.

The dispute played out through moderated dispute resolution here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_119#Interstate_matches_in_Australian_rules_football. This dispute resolution ground to a halt when SportsEditor518 simply stopped responding at the dispute page; but he is still monitoring the page in question, reverting any efforts to remove his unreferenced views, and making no efforts to engage in discussion proactively. There is an ongoing pattern of uncollaborative behaviour which, while it mostly seems well-intentioned, is proving disruptive; and therefore I am at a loss to understand where to go next other than to report SportsEditor518 (and his IPs) for edit warring, and also more generally on competence is required grounds. Specifically:

• He has continued to push his POV in the article that interstate football was very popular in Victoria, without providing any supporting references. The attempts at sourcing that he has provided have either a WP:SYNTH based on his interpretation of crowd numbers, or extremely generic references which don't really support the point (examples: [93] [94]) The dispute resolution volunteer moderator and I have both tried to explain the shortcomings of his references to him, and to educate him on the policies, but he has proven unable or unwilling to accept them. (You can see in this diff [95] that he still has a steadfast belief in the admissibility of his own synthesised conclusion).
• During the dispute resolution process, he went for two long unexplained absences which led to the volunteer moderator and I concluding he had lost interest in the dispute – only for him to re-emerge and begin reverting me or adding the disputed content again within a day of my making the edits to the article. (These diffs are the sudden re-emergences after long absences: [96] [97] – the timestamps make sense in the context of the dispute resolution page highlighted above) He has never given an explanation or apology for or even an acknowledgement of his absences. In the more recent case, he simply reverted the content and made no other attempt to continue discussion on the matter despite being fully aware that I disputed the content. This most recent response to my talk page [98] is particularly insulting, and suggests he may be trying to game the system by claiming the dispute is unresolved when it was his own recalcitrance that led to the lack of resolution.
• He seems to have, and be unaware of, his own biases on the subject. He's shown on a couple of occasions ([99] [100]) that he views supporting interstate football as an inherently positive act, and therefore that my suggesting Victoria did not support interstate football is somehow an attack on Victoria's character – rather than simply a description of the state's tastes and preferences. It's clouding his judgement to view the references objectively.
• Finally, he is unaware of his own shortcomings as a writer. On a couple of occasions I have made purely style- and grammar-based edits without removing his content ([101] [102]], only to have them reverted with an edit summary to the effect of "mine says it better" (which I think the diffs clearly demonstrate is not true). I did raise this issue with him, but it was not well received [103]. Once again, I think WP:CIR is relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirex (talk • contribs) 10:16, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)

comment I was the DRN volunteer for this dispute. The dispute started out with both parties appearing to be willing to discuss and find compromise. Unfortunately SportsEditor518 did fail to return to the discussion for a long period on two occasions. The first time, after a week's silence, we closed the discussion, believing their absence from both the discussion and from continuing to edit the article signalled that they had decided not to dispute the issue further, and Aspirex began editing on the disputed section again. SportsEditor518 immediately started editing the section, so we pulled the discussion from the archives and reopened it. SportsEditor518 returned briefly to the discussion, promising to respond the following day, and we waited this time nearly two weeks but they never did. We finally closed the discussion as failed. I have to agree with Aspirex that what started as a content dispute has become, unfortunately, a behavior issue. valereee (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Having watched this dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard as User:Valereee tried to mediate it, I have to agree with the OP and the moderator, at least if the IPs are SportsEditor518. If the IPs are SportsEditor518, then we have a pattern of attempting to provide synthesis amounting to original research, and of using dispute resolution to stall rather than to collaborate. SportsEditor518 replied and discussed briefly, then went into radio silence, then became active again, and then went into radio silence again. This is an intermittently tendentious editor who is disrupting the dispute resolution process. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban on SportsEditor518 from Football

A topic-ban on SportsEditor518 is recommended from articles on Australian rules football. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proponent. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that's overkill. As far as I know, he hasn't caused any problems other places, just one section of one article, one particular tiny point that he feels extremely passionate about, possibly to the point it's almost a COI for him. He's a new user, and he found an assertion that he violently disagrees with on an emotional level. He just needs to stop editing that one article until he learns more about Wikipedia. If he's topic banned from Australian rules football, you might as well just block him, I think it's all he edits at this point. valereee (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I am willing to strike my recommendation on two conditions. They need to agree, first, to take part in collaborative discussion of editing, rather than pushing changes through, and, second, to edit only from their account and not from IPs. The problem at this point is that SportsEditor518 hasn't recognized that their editing behavior is problematic and that they should follow Wikipedia practices and guidelines. (The two disappearances are also problematic, but a rule that forbids editors from going off-line and coming back is not reasonable.) At this point we are waiting for a response from User:SportsEditor518. If they agree to improve their editing behavior, I will strike my recommendation. If not, not, because another period of silence is not agreement to stop the intermittent disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal Again, he's new -- at least to using a user name -- and one of the issues we had was that he doesn't edit every day or even every week. He hasn't edited logged in since July 11, so he possibly hasn't seen the messages to his username. He needs to be pinged at both 2001:8003:4406:9f01:223:32ff:fe9e:4b9f and 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F; I've also put the notice on both those pages. What I would support would be putting a block on both IPs, which would force him to log in and see that he has messages. valereee (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Article ban on SportsEditor518 for Interstate matches in Australian rules football

Okay, the 4406 IP edited today. I think we can assume this user is ignoring us. I suggest a block on both IPs, an article ban for SportsEditor518 on Interstate matches in Australian rules football and that Aspirex resume editing that article. valereee (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone review the half dozen open protected page requests at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films

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.

---

Can someone review the half dozen open protected page edit requests at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films? the fanboys are having apoplectic fits that the daily box office numbers have not been updated. Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

And over the languages of a particular film. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

As much as I will hate the eventual outrage that will follow, I did it myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:48, 26 July 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.

Adrian2526 and article creation

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 this is miss universe 2015 page but since it was blocked i just decided to put this one" about sums up this editor's attitude. Edit warring to keep the 2015 in the 2016 article, creation of Miss World 2017 when the 2016 edition hasn't occurred yet, and not a lot of hearing of the issues raised. [104], [105] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And now there's an IP (who I blocked about five days ago) adding links to Adrian2526's to draft article. [106] Quack, quack. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Miss World 2017 has been tagged for speedy deletion. Miss Universe 2017 has been proposed for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Miss World 2017 has since been redirected to Miss World. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - Adrian2526 just restarted the Miss World 2017 article and recreated the Miss Universe 2016 article despite being asked to stop. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

S/he was just final-warned. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The topics and style of editing bear similarities to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I just deleted Miss World Universe 2016 and Miss World Universe Editions/Titleholders for being blatant hoaxes. The first article was a made up pageant containing contestants from both Miss World and Miss Universe. The second article was even worse in that it listed supposed titleholders for contestants who articles don't exist or appear to not even have won their home country pageants. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:03, 28 July 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.

Jazz Stewart

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.

---

So been extending good faith to this editor for a couple months now, most recently [about a week ago]. I've attempted to engage this editor previously [107], article talk page, their talkpage again and finally today. UNtil today there has been no response to me but their responses to other editors have been Hahaha. LOL, Nt again U FUFF!!! OMG, SPARE ME.. really, i ddnt knw, thnx 4 infrmg me BTW, LOL, you (DMLS), Is that true? OMG... . Today after reverting some things they decided to template me for WP:OWN issues and then after that a diva, it was partially my error because the source had been updated to show Boston University which has been a problem in the past but also restored problematic edits as well such as films that haven't completed filming yet despite instructions not to do so in the editing box. I was asked for a source [[108]] which I provided, they objected and I found another source [[109]] but was met with [bad faith accusations]. I'm thinking there are language WP:COMPETENCE issues, an inability to collaborate and the time has come for a longer term block or a topic ban from the subject. A short example of language competence issues can be this [110], I directly state it wasn't likely they were a sock [111] however part of the behaviors that we are seeing are reminiscent of a banned User:Smauritius which is what Krimuk was asking. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I still think Hell in the Bucket is rationalizing the facts here. He is the one who is not cooperating with. The issue here is about the supporting role in a male dominated film. Kapoor played the lead female. Hell in The Bucket who had listed it here, i simply reverted it because i found it dubious. When i had asked about source, he presented himself with these [[112]] and [[113]]. Both are explicit content in different websites. He did not provide the reliable source to prove his cause. When i had asked in the talk page he refused to cooperate and filed an ANI on baseless reasons. Again there are not any source of her to play supporting role. Despite, persistent rejection about my contribution by Hell, i had never engaged in any edit war. On the contrary i had represented another version again and again. Just view the source it is clearly stated that Sonam Kapoor disagreed Shraddha Kapoor's lead role in film Haider. This is the only thing that i just want to clear out with Hell but he does not want. JazzStewart ^{मला चर्चा?} 16:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that multiple editors who have expressed concern with your editing habits are all wrong. I count at least five User:Krimuk90, User:Prymshbmg, User:KoshVorlon, the blocking admin User:EdJohnston and myself are all wrong? That's a lot of long term editors for all of us to be wrong. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

When you guys had intervened did i argued or engaged in any particular edit war. No, i didn't. The only thing i had done is improving myself in a different version right. I am not lying Hell. Because somehow i felt that you guys were right. The most recent incident is about the ABCD 2 box office collection and now it is about the supporting role. You are actually the one who are taking thing too personal. JazzStewart ^{मला चर्चा?} 17:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this isn't about one incident but a collection of behaviors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please, unveil yourself with explicit and dept evidence as you are accusing. Which collection of behaviors are you talking about? JazzStewart ^{मला चर्चा?} 17:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's documented above and in detail on your talkpage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hell, i highly believe that, when you are complaining something, you should complain with a vicious experience that you had went through. Not by dragging another conversation of another user and trying to use this against me to support your cause. If you are indicating about the shorthand phrases such as (Nt again U FUFF!!! OMG, SPARE ME.. really, i ddnt knw, thnx 4 infrmg me BTW, LOL, you (DMLS), Is that true? OMG,) let me tell you that the following users who i had exercised with they did not have any issue, so what care you so much. And also if you find all these things malicious, why you have not intervene before. JazzStewart ^{मला चर्चा?} 17:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not an accurate statement, here is one example [[114]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Again explicit yourself. What atrocious behavior do you found in the act? JazzStewart ^{मला चर्चा?} 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to let the editors here and admin draw their own conclusions. I've stated why and honestly your responses here only support the premise. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think i should do the same thing. By the way, don't take anything too personal. Thank you. JazzStewart ^{मला चर्चा?} 17:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is where the issue arrives, there are positive things that JS brings to the table and some of these things can just be growing pains as an editor. I am hesitant on a long term block, the topic ban temporarily seems to be the best option but I'd also recommend that maybe a mentorship happen. I've looked and there is some possibility this is Smaritius, if it is even with the ban I've seen enough positive moves that they should ask for reinstatement under those terms and resume editing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

OK I have now had the chance to look into this now. Jazz, if I'm honest, the comments you are making on your talk page are coming across as trolling and it did come across as a bit uncoperative because you have only recently started responding to Hell's comments. You have previously been blocked for edit warring and there comes a time when we have to question competency to edit the encyclopaedia. At the moment, I agree with Hell, that you would benefit from some mentorship and that you should be topic banned until whoever decides to mentor you decides that you can edit competently.--5 albert square (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, i think, you guys are right. JazzStewart ^{मला चर्चा?} 15:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jazz, please see the list of adopters. Once you have selected your adopter, you will need to contact them via their talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 22:56, 28 July 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.

Removing TfD discussion template

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

---

Question: Should the TfD deletion discussion template stay on the template for the duration of the TfD like it does for AfDs? See Template:Doctor Who episode list history, where the template has been removed. Thanks.. JMHamo (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs) has self reverted now, but I would still like to know if the discussion template should stay for the duration of the TfD? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently something that you can easily post on a user's wall is now worthy of an ANI report. The more you know, the more you know. Alex|The|Whovian 16:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's nothing personal against you AlexTheWhovian. I don't know who is right in this instance... JMHamo (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not uncommon that the notice is removed after a week has passed with prominent templates. The TfD notice is an eyesore. Alakzi (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to use "<noinclude> ... </noinclude>" around the template so it stays there for notification but doesn't show in transclusions? Mr Potto (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It is. Alakzi (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Implemented. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:43, 26 July 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.

Need guidance from Check Users

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 found some IP vandals whose IPs were very very similar to my IP range. Now if that user opens account, we will have same IP addresses or range. Is there any way, so that I can avoid being wrongly blocked. I do hope Check User tools are advanced. For two days, I was not able to open my Wikipedia account as the entire range was blocked for two weeks by some administrator/check user. The block is going to be lifted tomorrow.

My plan is that I will not delete my browsing history and cookies which will let CU know I am not him/her. But sometimes I will have to clear my browser cache. Right now I am commenting from a Net café, as my ISP is not allowed to edit Wikipedia. I was reading about sockpuppetry pages. If he is my neighbor and use the IP range for vandalism, then there must be some way prove we are different Human beings.--5.150.254.79 (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

To paraphrase Smith & Dale's old joke, "Doctor, I get mistaken for a vandal when I edit logged out!" "Well don't edit logged out then!" What are you going to do if you get hit by another collateral rangeblock? Anyway, how do we know you're not just a vandal lying to us? We don't! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you create an account? If so, an IP block won't affect you. Now that your IP address isn't blocked, you should, among other things, be able to create an account. Since the IP range has been blocked, you may want to create an account from another ISP. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) Someone in that Cybercafe must have done something. I had to walk 10 minutes to reach another place. the question is not about changing ISP, If there is a vandal using the same Ip range, how to convince the Check Users that I am not him. VampireHunters (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you did succeed in creating an account, at least if you are the former 5.150.254.79. So the question is now whether the range is hard-blocked or soft-blocked, and usually an IP range is soft-blocked so that registered editors in good standing can use it. In that case, you no longer have a CheckUser issue. What the CheckUser did was to find that the 5.150.254 range was being used for block evasion, and they blocked it, but a soft block doesn't apply to registered users. Can a CheckUser verify that what I am saying is correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Blocked for blatant abuse and vandalism with sockpuppets. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:38, 28 July 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.

Editing restrictions

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 all. I'm currently under an edit restriction with Baseball Bugs and Medeis. I have requested advice from Arbcom on the best way to seek to relieve the restrictions, and I have finally been redirected back to the community to decide. My proposal is clear: I would like all editing restrictions between the three of us to be removed. I have undergone some scrutiny lately, rightly so, and both Baseball Bugs and Medeis have acted towards me with a level of courteous respect that I have found humbling. Baseball Bugs, not long ago, asked for the restrictions between he and I to be removed, and I reacted negatively. As per advice from Arbcom, this is a community matter, and as per the edit restriction, I can't communicate directly with Baseball Bugs or Medeis, so I have to take any request here. To my counter-restricted, I would offer an apology for any upset I have caused over the past few years. To the community who sanctioned the restriction, I can only offer a guarantee that from my perspective things will never get as heated or as counter-productive as they did prior to the restriction. Thanks for your time and energy in advance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I have not notified Baseball Bugs or Medeis of this discussion in advance, I hope they take it in the same good faith that they have afforded me in their generous comments over the past few weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support removing restrictions-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If all three parties request the lifting of restrictions, then they should be lifted. If there is one hold-out, then no. --Pete (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, if Medeis agrees as well, removing this WP:IBAN is a no brainer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If Medeis does not agree then only the interaction bans involving Medeis should remain in force. Count Iblis (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - I would be very happy to have this restriction lifted. I am convinced that it is no longer needed. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support assuming Medeis is not opposed to it. -- KTC (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support, I see no reason to oppose the lifting between Bugs and TRM. Pending a respons from Medeis, no reason to oppose the lifting of that one either. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support, and I would advice all 3 to defect from the Ref Desk to StackExchange, as you can see from my contributions there, it's a much more productive place than the Ref Desks here, you don't have all these negative interactions between users going on that provoke all these problems that we see on the Ref Desk here. Once editors don't get along somewhere they are likely to fight with each other elsewhere too. So, it's perhaps best to just close down the Ref Desks. Count Iblis (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

support due to passage of time if nothing else. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support for both if and only if both agree. As Bugs has agreed, the ban should be lifted IRT him. If Medeis does not agree, or does not comment here, then that ban should remain in effect. BMK (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support – and with Medeis now onboard, let's close this thread, and disband this WP:IBAN per WP:SNOW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:01, 27 July 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.

Admin rights abuse

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 Shirt58 is controversial about my opinion in the matters of title spelling The Mackintosh Man or The MacKintosh Man. He uses his admin rights to decline speedy deletion of The MacKintosh Man-redirect, uses most strangest justifications for his declines - some of them have nothing to do with the movie or the contents of the movie article(s) (e.g. raincoat trademarks). After that he re-edited again with sources weaker than the movie itself but still he is not taking part in the discussion of the content. Thus he is part of the controversy, but he is not going into discussion but is still using his admin rights to make edits and thus taking decisions in this matter. If he is part of a controversy with another user he has not the right to use his admin rights to overrule another user - especially after he is not taking part in the content's discussion. This disqualifies himself for the use of his admin rights and also as an admin he has not the right to reign over other users but he is behaving like this to make his edits the ones that are used for the article(s). This is an abuse of his admin rights. VINCENZO1492 04:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide diffs as evidence of an abuse of admin privileges. Blackmane (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since removing a speedy tag is not something only admins are allowed to do, there is no admin abuse here. In any case, I have declined a speedy deletion of the The MacKintosh Man redirect since the page move is not uncontested. Please start a move request at Talk:The Mackintosh Man, so that others can weigh in and the consensus judged by an uninvoled editor/admin. Abecedare (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've posted to the page giving a bit of what Shirt58 might have meant by his edits, plus I've given Vincenzo a warning about assuming good faith. His tone here and on the other pages really comes fairly close to being an ad hominem attack from my point of view. Plus I have to say that his tone doesn't really invite discussion, as it comes across more like he just wants to be right and that disagreeing is an abuse of the system. Vincenzo, please assume more good faith in the future since jumping automatically to accusations of abuse and ANI can be seen as disruptive. In my personal experience people who escalate things like this so quickly and post in the way you have are not the type that really last long on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I've had a think about this, and I can see how I could have handled it better.

The page move required an administrator. Is declining to take an administrative action an administrative action? I don't think that's really relevant: answering that question won't move anywhere further towards a solution. Let's say it is, if just to get that out of the way.

In considering the requested move, I had a look through the article and the sources and decided that "Mackintosh" was in fact the correct word (like the garment). You could look at the poster, I guess - where it is Mackintosh - but what the reliable secondary sources say is what Wikipedia goes by. IMDb and YouTube may call it "The MacKintosh Man". Roger Ebert however calls it "The Mackintosh Man". That reference is obviously be preferred.

Now I didn't explain this, nor did I go to the article's talk page for further discussion. Instead, being someone who tends to do things rather than talk about doing things, I added some references in reliable secondary sources for the spelling "Mackintosh". Does that me WP:INVOLVED? I think it was a reasonable course of action. Maybe someone else disagrees, and a third person has an different opinion again. Will that resolve whether the word should be "Mackintosh" or "MacKintosh"? No, it doesn't.

What will resolve it is discussion on the talk page about reliable secondary sources. And I should have explained that it the first place.

And also, why did I pick such a silly username? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why should what is obviously a reasonable redirect be deleted anyway, whether speedily or otherwise? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The G6 was requested to perform a move. Vincenzo1492, anyone can dispute a move (or decline a speedy -- except of course the author), in this case Shirt58 did and that's not an abuse of admin rights or editorial rights. When a move is disputed, the right thing to do is to open a move discussion and see where that takes you. —SpacemanSpiff 15:09, 27 July 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.

Tyler Gonzalez reverting maintenance tags.

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.

---

• Tyler Gonzalez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lana (wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm having a problem with Tyler Gonzalez when it comes to Lana (wrestling). Tyler has added "wrestler" as one of the occupations she has, but I don't see anything that shows her as a wrestler, officially, and he hasn't cited any reliable source that says she is. After reverting twice, I added a {{disputed-inline}} template over the passage that she's a wrestler and explained my issue on Talk:Lana (wrestling)#Is Lana a wrestler?. Without replying, he reverts that as well. I see his actions as disruptive, but I don't want to edit war over this. What needs to be done? --w^{L<speak·check>} 05:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I have tried my best. I only managed to revert twice, and I don't want to reach 3RR. I have managed an edit warring template for newcomers and in the process of adding the 3RR template. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 06:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please post this to WP:3RR/N and point out this ANI report. --w^{L<speak·check>} 06:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

More than happy. Will update with link once it's been posted. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 06:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I count 4 reverts by User:Tyler Gonzalez on the {{disputed-inline}} tag thing alone (if they revert my most recent Reviewing revision, they'll be at 5), so WP:ANEW is definitely "ripe" by now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. You're welcome (: Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 06:35, 27 July 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 talk:Kushcomputer

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.

---

They are still posting adverts on their user talk page after being blocked. Methinks they should be restricted from it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Methinks so as well. TP access revoked. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:04, 27 July 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.

Atlantacity - edit warring, incivility, sock puppetry, BLP violations

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.

---

Willem Buiter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Heleen Mees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Atlantacity has had a great weekend. Reported for edit warring on Willem Buiter, here (closed as stale). SPI report seems to indicate a sock pupper of the disruptive editor Bmwz3hm (currently indefinitely banned) (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm). And ignoring clear concensus at Talk:Willem Buiter#Heleen Mees that her additions violated WP:BLPCRIME, returned to revert war again to restore her contributions [115]. And adding a further BLP violation, with allegations in the talk page [116]. Responded to a polite message on her talk page with outright incivility [117].

Request revdel on the talk page to remove the accusations made there.

Mandruss and Fyddlestix have tried to explain politely about why Atlantacity needs to back off but they are receiving outright hostility in response. At SPI EdJohnston recommended an indefinite block for disruptive editing. Bringing it here for community discussion. WCM_email 16:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

So far, I've blocked for one week and most recent posts to Talk:Willem Buiter have been revdel'd, just off the edit warring alone. I reopened this to get some feedback on what EdJohnston and others withing SPI would have to say about having the block last longer. --w^{L<speak·check>} 17:20, 27 July 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.

LGBT rights in Croatia - update

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.

---

After a repeated warning, I am afraid that user SDINO has continued abusing his powers. He has, as I have anticipated in the past, continued mistranslating parts of the article to match his views on LGBT rights. For example, a "march for equality", as it was the official name, he has translated as a "march for same-sex marriage", because he believes equality should not exist. He has been warned on a talk page that he shouldn't mistranslating to fit his own views, but that has not resulted in anything, as he immediately put it back to what he thinks it's right. This is a second attack on this article from a declared anti-LGBT rights user, and I fear we will have more in the past. Thank you 11raccoon1 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: Sdino (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock puppet by Bbb23. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:49, 27 July 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.

Lukeno94 - out of hand?

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: Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) and WT:CARS now seems to consist of an entire page of otherwise unrelated editors all angry at Luke's substantial and hotly contested recent major edits to car-related articles. He's even got Eddaido and I agreeing with each other, which is unknown.

• Performance Corvette articles
• Gear ratios
• Delete production numbers from infoboxes?
• Removal of pre-war MG infoboxes?
• MG Car Company
• Should the engine-model year information be scrubbed from articles?

Also collecting warnings for warning other disagreeing users as "vandals" User_talk:Lukeno94#Reminder

One of these changes is a single-handed, and opposed, blank and redirect of a 20k article, the Corvette leaf spring. He claims the content has been "merged", yet 20k has vanished and it hasn't gone anywhere. Four days later after a whole bunch of ructions on other articles and adverse comment here(at WT:CARS, where this was originally posted), he "merged" the content to other Corvette individual model articles: e.g. Chevrolet Corvette (C1), adding a minimal 200 bytes or so to each one. He hasn't edited the Chevrolet Corvette overall article at all. This is no sort of merge.

The several Chevrolet Corvette articles were then the subject of a 5RR edit war with Shelbychevette (talk · contribs), a much less experienced editor by whose name we might assume some familiarity with the subject matter. Despite some pretty symmetrical edit-warring, over edits at Luke's instigation, only that editor was blocked.

I raise this now though because no editor, even me, should have to be described as a "pathological liar" by another. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Look, this report is confusing. You're pointing to pages of discussions at WPT:CARS and going back and forth about a half dozen issues and some stuff on a particular page and personal insults and onward. I can't figure out in the 150k talk page what particular issues are going on as I can't seem to figure to out what is consensus and what is discussion that's not consensus or what. It seems like you people need to come up with a plan that's more than "blank or not blank or whatever and have an argument at WPT:CARS" on its own. Here's what I'm going to do: staying on the singular issue of the leaf spring, there's a consensus at that page to have another discussion about a merger/redirect/whatever. I'll close it and start an RFC for merger at Talk:Corvette leaf spring (something away from WPT:CARS so that it can be kept in a place that's actually useful if people refer to it later. The argument seems to be whether Luke conducted a merger or a deletion in another name which I don't care about, if someone thinks the content is usable, they can take on the onus of the merger. I'm not listing it for AFD but I'll put that an option in the RFC so that someone can do that if they really think the article shouldn't be here at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the discussion is at Talk:Corvette_leaf_spring#RfC:_Should_this_page_remain_or_be_merged_away.3F. Ok, my view is that Lukeno94 brought up the matter at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Performance_Corvette_articles, got tepid but legitimate support to merge the contents, waited a week and then made a redirect under the good-faith belief that anything usable was merged/could be later merged. There was a dispute about that, a new subsection about that particular article's merger which more individuals piped in that they thought the article was itself notable or could be better merged (doesn't matter, the contents can be merged later even) but that more discussion was needed and so I think a proper RFC with a formal discussion was needed. If someone legitimately believes deletion is better warranted than a merger proposal (with an actual harder deadline than an RFC gives) then they can list it at AFD and shut down the RFC. At the rest, I'm not looking over the various tens of thousands of text to figure out what your issues are. As to the name-calling, it's inappropriate and uncivil but I personally am not blocking it for that at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If there's a theme to all these, it's that Luke is acting in an anti-knowledge direction. Taking the line, "If it's not a field in the infobox template, it doesn't belong" is either anti-knowledge or bureaucracy right out of control. This is the same thing across the gear ratios, the engine descriptions, the company names, the MG sub-models. He's getting a different push from different people for each of these, but the consistent factor is him trying to dumb articles down (read his comments on gear ratio), others wanting to keep detail. For the Corvette leaf spring article, this culminates in his view that the article was competently replaced by a one-liner stating "The Corvette had a leaf spring" and with zero explanation as to why.

It's also simply difficult to keep up with an editor (see the pre-war MG models) who makes rapid blanking changes, is challenged, but who then keeps making them. It's just quicker and easier to be that editor, so if they scatter-gun in half a dozen directions at once, the rest of the project is (and was) simply overwhelmed, without it turning into a simple tit-for-tat edit war. When that edit war did happen on the Corvette models, one editor was blocked for it, but it wasn't Luke. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Most of the above is clear bullshit, of course (as one would expect from a proven liar). The vast majority of my edits are the sort that many other editors already perform, and in fact, to claim that it is "anti-knowledge" is laughable in several cases - one of my proposals, which gained consensus, actually adds in some knowledge in many cases. Multiple editors also voice the exact same voicepoint as me, yet the likes of Andy will hound me, and me only, whilst completely disregarding the other people who have shared the same opinions as me. Note that even someone who works on cars regularly said that the gear ratios have little place here - surprise surprise, since it wasn't me, Andy doesn't care about even trying to refute them. I do not keep making changes that are challenged; I stop making said changes as soon as I see they've been challenged. Andy has persistently lied about that from the beginning - again, more evidence of him being so caught up in his own grudge-infested world that he cannot stop himself from lying over and over again. And, of course, Andy is somehow conniving to defend an obvious sockpuppet who began edit-warring with a totally bogus reason straight away - and who was blocked for going past 3RR, which I had not done at that point. You know, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to learn that the sockpuppet was Andy, simply because it fits with his general behaviour that has added to bullying in its purest form. I'm not sticking around at Wikipedia when this discussion is done; I'm sick of pathological liars and serial hounders being able to get off by wasting everyone else's time and by abusing others. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would not have called Andy Dingley a pathological liar if it wasn't so clear that he was one. In almost every single discussion he's responded to me in, his responses have varied from obvious misdirections and misrepresentations to obvious lies. For example, any time any reverts happen, he always includes the very first edit as somehow being a revert - that's an obvious misrepresentation. Somehow, a selective merge and redirect counts as blanking an article altogether with no merging or redirecting. I'm pretty much done with Wikipedia now, because liars like Andy Dingley are allowed to roam around freely, stalk other editors (don't claim you didn't - you edited one article that was well outside of the usual areas we edit mere hours after I did, and it wasn't one that you would've come across any other way. That article is Black Square (painting) for anyone interested) and generally make every single discussion into a toxic shitslinging contest - most of which he starts, by the way. Dingley has had a grudge against me for a year, and he tries everything he can to kick me off the project simply because he doesn't like me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Other examples of lies and misdirections include claiming I removed content from articles where it was never in them in the first place (simply because I happened to remove such a thing from similar articles), filing a "3RR" case when I'd made two reverts, neither of which were the same and one of which I put back the disputed information, and regularly claiming that I want to "own" the WikiProject (obvious bollocks) and that somehow everyone was fed up with me when I'd just gotten a reasonable consensus from a discussion I'd started. However incivil my responses may have been (and I'd never claim they haven't been), it is infinitely less "civil" to stalk and lie about editors consistently. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• As for the "Shelbychevette" case, well, given how obvious a sockpuppet that account is, it's not worth giving that the time of day (it certainly wasn't "5RR", by the way - another typical misrepresentation by Dingley.) But no doubt, Andy will get away with every single lie as he obviously always has done. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• "I would not have called Andy Dingley a pathological liar if it wasn't so clear that he was one." –Luke

Ricky81682, you make the very good point that the Corvette issue is unclear (and thanks for the RFC), but re this ANI, does this restatement from Luke make at least that much any clearer? How does one work at a project page under that sort of abuse? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oh boo hoo, someone said something accurate about me and I don't like it! I love how you're trying to present yourself as some kind of innocent victim who wouldn't hurt a fly. Well, newsflash; you're the one who started the incivility with the blatant lies and misrepresentations - which happen every single time you respond to any discussion I'm involved in. I wouldn't have anything to do with you whatsoever if you didn't keep stalking me around the place, as I can clearly show you have been. "How does on work at ta project page under that sort of abuse?" - such hypocrisy is staggering. Utterly, utterly staggering. You are precisely the sort of editor that is causing Wikipedia to fall from its pedestal, slowly but surely, because you've turned almost every discussion toxic with your lies, misrepresentations and, yes, your own abusive behaviour. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Early closure – Please note before this is closed precipitately, that one of the editors involved is blocked until 16:00. They should at least get a chance to reply. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand your protocols, but I do read your articles. I may be out of place here.

I noticed Lukeno94 cutting through auto articles with a chainsaw like a man on a mission. I think his position that only subjects from the infobox should be in the body is ridiculous, and is clearly “dumbing down” the articles. Gear ratios and suspension do interest me, I do want the text to expand on them.

It appears that Lukeo94 takes weak consensuses and acts like they are carved in stone. He decides what a consensus is (it always follows his opinion), then he uses it on a large number of articles. I don’t think he improves all of them.

He seems very rude at times, like in his rants here. I do not see how “pathological liar” can be accepted, it seems completely out of line.

Although his semi-retirement seems to be out of anger, I think it is a positive move. Move back, cool down, and try a different viewpoint.

I am NOT a “sockpuppet” of Shelbychevette, I don’t think an article on Corvette suspension is needed. I recognize Mr. Dingley’s name, but do not know his history. I do not know Lukeo94, but his recent activity seems problematic.

This is just an opinion from a reader, I am sorry if it is out of line.

• It may be water under the bridge now but I did find Lukeno94 to be abrasive towards me when I raised concerns about how he handled the article I was involved with. It was very much a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I think Shelbychevette was wrong in how he protested the changes he was seeing but his concerns were well grounded. I tried to work with Lukeno94 but found it very difficult to use the honey vs vinegar approach. I know he has retired but I would suggest that some sanction on his account is warranted just so that if he comes out of retirement the record is there. A very short term ban seems appropriate for the insults posted here and on the project page in question. Springee (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative not punitive. As he has retired a block would serve no purpose. I did take a look at the specifics he listed above regarding statements by Andy, from what I can see, more than a few of Andy's comments are factually inaccurate. One or two mistakes can be placed down to error. When you start hitting 5 or 6, its hard to not lean towards deliberate misrepresentation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

{{cn}} If I'm factually inaccurate, then please give the diff, as I'd happily correct any such statement.

It's also now a well-recognised technique that if you're about to hit the carpet at ANI, just post a quick "retired" banner and wait a couple of days until the thread is closed. Does anyone seriously believe that Luke, who has shown exceptional effort and involvement with the project (credit where it's due and I really don't have a grudge against him) is going to "retire" like this? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No but our policies do tend at times towards the sometimes naive idea of assuming good faith so a block would be punitive at this point. Hopefully (and it's possible) the editor cools down, comes back and actually works more calmly. The RFC discussion was not particularly civil either (I find it interesting that when discussing the page at WPT:CARS, Lukeno94 advocated a merger but when push came to shove, he changed to an outright deletion, which is fair to do but you can't expect not to be criticized if you do that). Again, it seems to have stopped here, which is the main point. Any block would not gain anything to anyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:20, 28 July 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 is threatening to shut down Wikipedia

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 Talk:Giginotodon, a user, User:Brian dorchak, claims to have the ability to shut down Wikipedia and threatens to use it if his page is deleted. Gparyani (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:RBI. Nothing more to be done here, the user is blocked. Nakon 03:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Back as User:Brian Dorchak Is Back; blocked as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If the next one is User:Brian Dorchak, This Time It's Personal! I move for a site ban... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban - If only on the basis of WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:05, 28 July 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.

Conflicts

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 feel that a few admins on Wikipedia are being mean to me. Because I am new here, they should be helping me out and guiding me rather than slamming me, reverting my edits, and calling a number of pages I made in my userspace "childish". I am a WikiChild, and I desperately need help, but I'm just met with bitterness for everything. HELP!!!!!!! YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll play: which Admins have been "mean" to you? Note: Providing Diffs (see, also: this) is probably the only way to make a case here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably related Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015 July 28 and not letting YoSoyUnHamster play games here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, for sure. I'm just waiting to see if YoSoyUnHamster can provide a diff showing actual "meanness"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Help! is related. @YoSoyUnHamster: I think you would benefit from Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Maybe pick a user who has a sense of humor. Don't be discouraged. Not everyone here is grumpy, though I think most of us are. It comes with constantly dealing with vandalism and trolling. It takes a toll on your temperament. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The meanness is probably a reference to this talk page thread and this revert as well as being called out for vandalism here. The vandalism call is harsh. Not many new editors would understand the significance of a nbsp. Pinging @RHaworth: and @MarnetteD:. Blackmane (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know; I'm hearing a faint whisper of wood flying through the air here .... Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• I admit that I could have been gentler since this editrix had declared herself to be young and female. Also the vandalism taunt was un-called for since I had identified her recent edits as good faith copy editing. I hope Blackmane noticed that I backed up the "vandalism" taunt with this message on her user page. It was intentionally cryptic in the hope of encouraging her to find out for herself what an nbsp is. But I assure you that if others had not leapt in first, I would have explained the meaning of the tag. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:32, 29 July 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.

DerekWinters to stop editing anatomy 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.

---

DerekWinters has been greeted [118], warned [119] and warned again [120] not to continue editing anatomy articles without consensus

This is because of a history of disruptive editing [121][122][123][124]. Derek replaces anatomical terms with the incorrect lay variants, or with terms with incorrect spelling or terms that are not accepted. This is despite me specifically explaining why we do not use some of these terms and why he must seek discussion first. This is very disruptive and results in 100% of his edits in the space being reverted.

A second editor, Smettems has also made two edits along this pattern recently with two moves.

I would ask that Derek is either strongly cautioned or prohibited from editing anatomy articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Indeed, it looks like DerekWinters has been editing many articles relating to human anatomy. It appears that this user is removing proper terms (recent edits include 1 2 3, and many more). I support a temporary block per disruptive editing. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC) I spoke way too soon; I took some time to look around, and I don't feel like this user has been sufficiently warned regarding this concern. This user has been warned many times for vandalism, but his edits do not constitute such. I also see messages on his talk page, but nothing regarding the issue brought forward here (I see one regarding article moves and citing sources, but nothing explaining this concern). I suggest that a message be left on his talk page explaining this concern before action is taken. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Smettems: I see the same thing. Disruptive? Yes. Vandalism? No. A sufficient message should be left on his talk page. If his disruptive edits continue despite the message, then action should be taken. But action shouldn't be taken before this is done. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I mention this because in the midst of making a number of such edits another unrelated user happens to make a spontaneous edit along the same pattern out of the blue. I think that is worth noting. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Re this issue, I have directly addressed it before:"please consider also leave a note at the talk page of WikiProject Anatomy. "Ankle bone" is unlikely to have consensus for moving, as multiple bones make up the ankle (See ankle). The same goes for the patella, as "knee cap" refers to the structure in surface anatomy whereas patella refers to the bone. " Yet the user has made the same changes today to a number of articles --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You should be careful when labeling an editor's edits as vandalism. While not necessarily helpful, DW's edits in the diffs do not rise to the level vandalism. Blackmane (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I can't see I've said that above. His edits are however disruptive. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• The user is developing quite a catalog of warnings on his talk page, however he has not been properly notified of this ANI. That needs to be done right away. If after that he comes here and responds and says he understands and will cease and desist his disruptive editing, I'd say let him be. If however, he has nothing to say after proper notification, or responds defensively, I'd say he's probably earned a short block. But please properly notify him of this ANI immediately, using either the template at the top, or posting a similar separate thread on his talk page. Burying the notice within an disruptive-edit-warning is insufficient in my mind. Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks soft lavender, I wasn't aware of that and I've notified them. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't know - I don't really see the problem. He appears to be simplifying the jargon into layman's terms, which is actually what's stated on his welcome to the Anatomy project:
Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon
This is also echoed in MOS:MED under Common Pitfalls
You use jargon when there are suitable plain English words (for example, consider using "kidney" rather than "renal").
Both appear to say the same thing, which is , explain jargon. That's what DerekWinters is doing, so no, no block for that, that's simply doing what MOS:MED requests. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Kosh Vorlon, the problem is that his edits are not correct. There is no commonly known bone in the human body called the "calf bone" and particularly not the "calfbone" ([125]) nor as I have explained on his page is a bone called the "knee cap" (that's surface anatomy) nor is there a bone called the "ankle bone" - there are actually several bones ([126][127]) or the "heelbone" ([128]). One can't just make up or take rarely used variants to simplify articles. We do not eg retitle or reword restaurant to foodhouse or escalator to moving stairs or grocer to fruitshop along the same logic. In addition he is renaming bones in the articles away from what the article is titled. I'm not seeking any remedial action other than consensus that Derek should be more cautious when editing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tom here. What the editor is doing is not only against Wikipedia policy, it is also completely incorrect factually. That said, as Oshwah states up above, no one has yet bothered to explain in detail to the editor(s) the problems with their edits prior to this ANI. So it is essential to get all these details in front of them so that they can be confronted with the precise and detailed issues. Otherwise, there has been nothing for them to go by except vague non-specific warning notices. Softlavender (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, we need an admin to revert Smettems's recent incorrect and unauthorized move of Upper extremity of femur. And Smettems should also be notified of this ANI discussion on their talk page, as a named editor in the ANI filing. Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced LT910001, Tom. The diffs you're showing , show DerekWinters changing jargon into plain English words as described by MOS:MED. Someone in the medical profession might understand " Talus bone " right away, but most people would not, so changing or even adding in that what's being referred to is the ankle bone is still per correct per MOS:MED, and yes I know the ankle is not just one bone, just like there's no "hand bone", it's a set of bones, it still tells a layman what's being talked about in way that's understandable, so it conforms to MOS:MED, and yes, I understand your concern, there's no such thing as an ankle bone, however, anytime jargon is converted into layman's speech, it's not going to be exact, for example, if I say "mediastinum" (medical jargon) a doctor would understand what's being referred to, to a layman I would still say "mediastinum", but I'd add in "middle of the chest ", even though that's not a 100 percent accurate. It still is accurate enough for a layman's understanding. So no, he's following MOS:MED, I see no reason to block for that. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Our guideline against technical language states (emphasis mine): "If no precision is lost, use common terms instead of technical terms. Substitute technical terms with common terms where they are completely equivalent. [...] It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable." 76.11.104.7 (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• CU note As User:DerekWinters and User:Smettems are  Technically indistinguishable I have blocked the DerekWinters account indefinitely and warned the master (User:Smettems) against further use of multiple accounts. This action is separate from the discussion above as to the appropriateness of the edits.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:51, 29 July 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.

World of Tanks

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 seems to be a raging edit war at World of Tanks. I don't know enough about gaming to be able to tell if it is a content dispute or vandalism. If only there was some sort of armored vehicle with weapons that someone could use to settle conflicts... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say WP:RPP would be the first step. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism. Semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Shoot – I just reported it at WP:RFPP. Oh well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:53, 29 July 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:Iam.hardikk

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.

---

Can someone please inform User:Iam.hardikk that [129] is a violation of WP:NLT? The point is that it's inappropriate, and if he's do that to me after being warned for vandalism, I suspect he'll scare off someone who hasn't been here a decade. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty uncalled-for. Block? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by Georgewilliamherbert --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We are just having a day today... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I just hope I don't have to return the favor today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 29 July 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.

Unacceptable personal attack by Ghughesarch

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, I just want to report an unacceptable personal attack "Spaghetti seems to be unable to read articles" that was made by @Ghughesarch: against me. It occurred when I was editing the Listed building article. Specifically, one of the sentences in the article made a factual claim that was unsourced, so I added a {{cn} tag to it (it even said "as of June 2011" which is more worrisome, as it could be out of date). Afterwards, there was an entire section in the Listed building article that was basically an instruction manual on how to find a listed building, in violation of WP:NOTHOWTO, where it makes clear that you should not be writing articles in the form of instruction manuals. The title of the section was even called "How to find a listed building", which only further proves my point it was a policy violation, the title itself said it was instructions on how to find a listed building. That attack was completely unprovoked and unacceptable, and I don't feel I did anything to deserve it.

Here are the diffs of my edits to the Listed building article: [130], [131], [132], [133]. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Spaghetti, please read What is a personal attack, and the section below it, Responding to personal attacks. ANI is not the place to resolve one minor rude edit summary. The best thing is to ignore the edit summary and address any content issues on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD for how this works. Do not edit war -- instead, discuss points civilly and in detail on the article talk page. Come to a consensus, understanding, and agreement before proceeding. Do not make unilateral decisions or take unilateral actions. If you are unable to come to an understanding with other editors on the article's talk page, you may use the methods of Dispute resolution. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• As this is a content dispute, not a longterm behavioral issue, I would like to request that someone close it. Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I already have, and telling another editor that they don't know how to read is indeed a personal attack. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

To repeat, please read Responding to personal attacks. ANI is not the place to resolve one minor rude edit summary. ANI is for reporting and discussing cumulative incidents that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. Since this doesn't, you should also be aware that this thread can WP:BOOMERANG on you. If I were you, I'd withdraw the complaint. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 29 July 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.

Conflict with editors in 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.

---

I would like administrative attention on Talk:Rod Steiger (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is outright accusing editors of sockpuppeting, canvassing, and other accusations without any basis. This is also apparent on his talk page where he again accused me of being a sockpuppet.

I personally was patrolling random pages last night and randomly landed on a biographical article that asserted no notability. I failed to find sources and nominated it for deletion. I then noticed the editor had created two other articles like this and nominated each for deletion upon finding no sources. I also noticed that he was vying for the removal of infoboxes in biographical articles. I thought this was strange, saw a discussion that was going in circles with 4 editors (Cassianto, Dr. Blofeld, Light Show, and SchroCat) who were also involved in a previous rfc about including or discluding infoboxes. I placed an RfC seeing as we needed a wider viewpoint. That is when Dr Blofeld and Cassianto began causing issues in the RfC (incivility, not assuming good faith, etc) Jcmcc (Talk) 11:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Considering you have also been guilty of making personal comments focussing on other editors and not the issue at hand, I find your stance somewhat questionable and hypocritical. This storm in a teacup should be speedily closed: it's more of a feeding ground for excessive dramah, rather than going to lead to anything constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll also add that if you mention peope at ANI you are supposed to leave a message for them: I have recieved none. Next time you want to waste people's time, make sure you do it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Your name was casually mentioned. The only involvement you had was as part of the previous RfC. My personal comments were attempts to steer the RfC back on topic (dismissing Cassianto's remark about discussing the style of a page as "a ludicrous waste of time"), and to remain civil. So far the only editors who disagree with having an infobox are you, Dr. Blofeld, Cassianto, and SagaciousPhil. All of you chat on eachothers pages frequently and to bombard an RfC like this is the definition of canvassing. Jcmcc (Talk) 11:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't lie and accuse me of cavassing: you really are an utterly uncivil editor who has now resorted to insulting other editors. Can I suggest this WP:BOOMERANGs back on this uncivil editor for such a personal attack. As to not informing me, that would have been fine if you hadn't also informed LightShow, whose name was also "casually mentioned": try and keep your story straight if you can, and make sure you do it properly next time. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I included LightShow in the list of ANI's posted as he had contention with the editors as well and was "involved" while your contributions to the RfC were purely an opposing vote. Jcmcc (Talk) 11:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So don't mention me in the opening post if you can't be bothered to do something properly. If you mention an editor, notify tem. If you can't be bothered t notify them: don't mention them. - SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me see. Three AFDs in very quick succession Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Castel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Noack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermann Oswald, then within ten minutes on a completely different topic you "by accident" stumble across the dispute over the infobox on Rod Steiger and aggressively initiate at RFC, despite an existing discussion and having no previous involvement in it and a user:Spaghetti recently having an infobox reverted. I have not been "vying to remove infoboxes from articles" at all. In fact Claudia Cardinale and Meryl Streep I accepted them. Obviously you've been stalking. Can you honestly not see why one might be a little suspicious of your intentions and conduct? I'd say it's very clear something dishonest is going on here. Quoting you: " I thought this was strange, saw a discussion that was going in circles with 4 editors (Cassianto, Dr. Blofeld, Light Show, and SchroCat) who were also involved in a previous rfc about including or discluding infoboxes. " -exactly, you have previous knowledge of our involvement in infobox disputes, which makes this all the more suspicious.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything on wikipedia is logged. I went through your contrib's list and found your previous involvements with infobox's. That was why I opened an RfC in the first place. I saw the discussion going nowhere with the same 4 editors. Going through your contribution list is not "stalking" its digging into an issue instead of taking it for face value. Jcmcc (Talk) 11:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. I've been involved in no more than two disputes over infoboxes in the last few months and I have a very long contribution list to plough through and really find them. You're dishonest and clearly are motivated by something. To go through articles and AFDing them and then suddenly changing your editing course and opening an RFC, no editor working in good faith with others would do that. Your actions have been entirely negative.Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think Jcmcc450 made it plausibly clear in his OP how he came upon the three articles he AfDed, and then the Steiger discussion is from today in Dr. Blofeld's edit history, so it's no surprise he went there if he were looking at his recent edits. I see no reason to accuse socking or any such thing except the normal sort of edit-history review when one's curiosity is aroused. Whether Jcmcc450 should have opened an RfC on an article he wasn't involved in is another matter. In terms of the AfDs, all three of the articles were (at the time of AfD) so sketchy and little-referenced it's not any great wonder they were AfDed. Hopefully the AfD process will lead to further improvement of the articles. On the whole, I'm not seeing anything reprehensible or actionable by either editor (the OP or the accused party), so I suggest closing this with a possible suggestion to the OP to perhaps do more WP:BEFORE work prior to AfDing (or to avoid Dr. Blofeld's articles at present) and to avoid butting in to articles Dr. Blofeld is involved in (he's an established editor); and a suggestion to Dr. Blofeld to remain calm when articles are AfDed, avoid socking accusations, and hopefully flesh out and fully cite with lots of significant independent RS coverage when posting new articles. Softlavender (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• No, this is not at all reasonable. This is blatant stalking, something that musn't be tolerated. When you take it out on someone else by going through his contributions to further a dispute, you're harassing him and need to be stopped. WP:PLAXICO blocked for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that I've had time to look further, I see Dr. Blofeld's Steiger edits that I was seeing are from the RfC Jcmcc450 started, so I was mistaken; his Steiger edits before that were from 5 days ago. I also find it curious that Jcmcc450 has only been active on Wikipedia for 5 months, but his userpage says he has been on Wikipedia 9 years. In any case, this thread has been resolved; should we close it? Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 29 July 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:45.49.33.171

• 45.49.33.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The aforementioned user was blocked for 2½ days for telling Discospinster to go 'fuck herself' for changing his edits on the Ghostbusters article. You'd think that would present ample reason to not do the very same thing less than a week later on another user's page].. Yet this special little snowflake has again created a toxic environment for editing. I posted on the anon's page, thinking that their comment on Darkknight2149's page was a single occurrence. It was not. This is clearly a pattern.
We have tried the carrot. We have tried the stick. Might we now try the hammer? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What Jack Sabastian just said is indeed correct. While I wasn't aware of the Ghostbusters incident until now, essentially what had happened with the more recent incident was that the anonymous user was angry that I reverted a random, unsourced claim he/she made to Mad Hatter (comics). Rather than responding rationally or productively, the user decided to verbally harass and threaten me. Darkknight2149 (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Last message to Darknight2149 is unacceptable – Admins, please nuke this IP from orbit, and consider revdel'ing as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"Gotten" by Acroterion – 3 months block. Haven't checked on the revdels yet... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Nuked and revdel'd. This appears to be a relatively static IP, so the duration is extended to match the offense. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Acroterion I think this should also be revdeled. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 02:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(Repinging Acroterion, as Supdiop's ping likely didn't go through – @Acroterion:) If that happens, it'll be the first time an entry of mine will have been revdeled... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, under what conditions are comments 'revdeled'? I would totally understand if it was a matter of hate/racist speech or outing someone's ID, but do ass-clownish commentary qualify? Not knowing what the special little snowflake said, I've can't actually judge. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In this case, there was a hypothetical threat of violence. Blackmane (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Blackmane. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Alexiulian25 and page creations

Hi, I wanted to inform about User:Alexiulian25 who has a history of creating many bad unsourced article (about 50 or so on the same day) so all of his creations was moved to drafts. Now that his drafts has been declined he has ignored the drafts (blank them) and copy and paste them into mainspace anyway which is highly disruptive (a block needed?). For example Draft:Dermata Cluj declined twice (see diff) but he now created Dermata Cluj anyway. Same for Draft:CSM Suceava also declined twice, but now created anyway CSM Suceava. Can some admin take a look at this editor please? Qed237 (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Same for other articles like declined Draft:Mureşul Târgu Mureş created at Mureşul Târgu Mureş. Qed237 (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexiulian25 (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)It is nothing wrong with my articles. it has references and good information. not so many because they are old teams with low data avaible. If you do not accept my drafts how do you want to develope the encyclopedia. I m here to develope the encyclopedia but some people do not like because is less information, but they do not understand that I chose that subject to create it and write at least something about it. It is better less then nothing. I just choose subject in "red" without a page and create them.Thank you.

• Alexiulian25, you cannot simply create a page that has been declined at Draft stage. Please have a look at what the declining editor said about the article and attempt to fix those problems. I am sure that for all 3 of the articles I have just deleted, the draft versions could be made into something that passes our notability guidelines if these are professional football clubs. Black Kite (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Just my opinion but I do not agree that "something" is always better than "nothing".--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding, and if you have time can you check this 2 drafts articles to see if they are worth for the main page? My reference is a book which is write at the reference list. I also have Copa del Rey Topscorers and Copa del Rey Topscorers by Season nominated for deletion, why? if the articles was approved before and verified.Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)If it is a subject you can not find references, or just 1 - 2 references, and I also have a book where I get the information and translate it, what can be wrong with this. I wrote about subjects you can not find easy on the internet. That makes wikipedia encyclopedy better. No ? And if I write "something", other one can help and improve it, so it make it better then no one add "nothing". For articles like this is ok less information I think. what is the problem if is not a proper long page ??

This is not the right place to discuss that. When your drafts were declined, it is very clear: If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk, ask the reviewer that declined your submission, or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors. Please take a look at one of your declined drafts and click on the relevant links there to access those resources. WaggersTALK 14:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite, Sphilbrick, and Waggers: He just recreated Mureşul Târgu Mureş again and does not show any understanding. Enough for a block? Qed237 (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm a softie, but I think that's the right approach when an editor is trying to improve the place and may simply not be following all of our many rules. I see that the recent article created is virtually the same as a draft, but I do not see that the draft was rejected. If the editor creates an article in main space that is virtually identical to a rejected draft, I would support a block. I would also suggest that given the editor's lack of understanding of our notability rules, that the editor to be asked to start new articles in draft space until such time as there is evidence that the editor understands the rules.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: The draft Draft:Mureşul Târgu Mureş was declined here and here but still he has created the article not only once, but twice. Qed237 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexiulian25 Please put your signature at the end of your comment not the beginning. When at the beginning it looks like you are addressing that person. I agree that there is value in creating a very limited article and looking for help from others. When Wikipedia started this was acceptable in main space, but that is no longer the case. Start such an article in draft space, then go to the appropriate wiki project and enlist the help of others to make it suitable for inclusion in main space. References do not have to be online. While online references are easier to access, reliable sources in the form of books and hard copy newspapers and magazines are quite acceptable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this user is that they would rather create 50 articles with 1-2 references (some of which are just pointless lists), rather than make 5 articles, each with 10 sources. There's no point the user submitting them for review if they're going to just ignore the reviews. None of their articles seem to be definitely notable either. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please delete Mureşul Târgu Mureş now as the Draft:Mureşul Târgu Mureş has been declined twice and article deleted in the past? Qed237 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to speedy delete it, and another admin has declined a speedy. Wile editors are strongly advised to heed the advise of AFC reviewers, there is no rule preventing anyone including the creator, from moving a draft to mainspace at any time. I don't know enough about Romanian football to know if "Division A" is a top-level league or not. If it is, this passes notability criteria, if not WP:AFD is at hand. DES ^(talk) 00:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Nor is creating stubs or moving pages from draft to mainspace, even after an AfC decline, a valid reason to block a good faith editor, adn i see no indications of bad faith or vandalism here. DES ^(talk) 00:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith is debatable (the editor is very much aware of this discussion so knows full well that their actions are questionable at least). But they're certainly not vandalism. As DES said above, it the subjects meet notability criteria there's no reason for there not to be an article there. Personally, I agree with the editor that "something is better than nothing" (provided the subject is notable) and not with User:Sphilbrick's assertion that it's no longer acceptable to create stubs in mainspace; if it wasn't for that italic text at the bottom of an article one day encouraging me to add to it, I probably would never have started editing Wikipedia. Stubs are hooks that pull new editors in, and that's a good thing.

In this particular case though, the editor seems to be submitting drafts for review then putting them into mainspace regardless of the outcome, which is just wasting other people's time; it's disruptive editing and does need to be stopped. WaggersTALK 07:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Waggers I think you misunderstood my point, so I'll clarify in case someone else made the same inference. I'm not opposed to stubs. A very short article, with an assertion of notability, and a citation to a reliable source is an acceptable start. That isn't what happened here. An editor created a number of "articles" which didn't even meet our minimal standards of notability. That isn't an example of something being better than nothing it's worse than nothing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

amazing stories wiki page has information leading to infringing content

Sirs,

I am the owner of trademarks for Amazing Stories, the name of the world's first science fiction magazine.

Earlier today I discovered publications on Amazon and Ebay that infringe my trademark(s). The listings on Amazon had a link to the wikipedia page for Amazing Stories.

Upon visiting the page, I discovered that portions of the entry and the links section at relatively recently been altered in a manner that made is seem to the reader that the entity referring to itself as the "Amazing Stories Library" was a legitimate publisher of reprints of material from the magazine.

Much of the material they are publishing is in the public domain. However, the brand name - Amazing Stories - is not.

I have edited the wikipedia page to delete the references to the infringing material - both the name "Amazing Stories Library" and the link to infringing reprint material.

Given the lengths to which these individuals have gone (website registered under domain by proxy, facebook page using the name, the wiki entry, their products on Amazon, B&N, Ebay, etc), strongly suspect that they will attempt to change the entry back to their original edits. (The individual who made the changes is registered with a url which is unresolvable, btw)

I would like to know what procedures wikipedia has in place for handling trademark infringement within its pages so that I may more properly monitor and report such violations in as efficient a manner as possible,

My trademark registration number is 4,237,952 for "AMAZING STORIES" (for electronic and print publication classes.)

Please note: I am not objecting to the use of the public domain fiction or artwork that is reproduced by "Amazing Stories Library" - only their infringing use of the name "Amazing Stories" and their use of the wikipedia page information and links to infringing materials.

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Steve Davidson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabidchihauhau (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steve. The content in question was added on 10th June and is certainly a spam link. The line was inappropriate and removing it was the right thing to do. As for your further additions, they were unsourced so I've reverted those too. Please add sources if you're going to expand the article. Sam Walton (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

Hello, I noticed that an ip address User:2602:306:CE98:1510:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E is constantly deleting content saying that it is incorrect or inappropriate. He has been at it for so long that it is getting hard for me not to wonder what is going on. I left a message at his talk page asking him why he thinks all of the deleted content is unnecessary, but he has not responded. 2602:306:3357:BA0:2950:755B:767B:5B3C (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverted - some of the edits were clearly vandalism. Peter James (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

An anon on a date-changing kick

178.174.253.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making minor date modifications on dozens of articles for the past several months. The changes aren't obvious vandalism, but the few I spot-checked were, so far as I can tell, capricious. But some kind of clean-up is probably needed. Choor monster (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think they've all been fixed now. The early edits were changes to sports statistics, which I didn't validate. Someone else familiar with sports would probably have to look into that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

AIV question

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.

---

Let me know if I'm wrong here. Ghostwheel ʘ 00:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick answer, I wasn't aware of any restriction on removing improper AIV reports as you outline, please point me to the Policy that says so. And all of this is why I brought it here. Ghostwheel ʘ 00:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I was actually going to revert you earlier, because you also removed at least one unrelated, valid report. That one has been restored now, though. Widr (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, that one didn't appear when I was removing the improper ones. Ghostwheel ʘ 00:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

What's "improper" about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

All I know, is if I were an admin and you brought all that 'reading' to me on what is meant to be a very quick means to block active vandals, I'd be put off. Bring the quick stuff to AIV, the longer term to SPI and the longest to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. If I were an admin, sure I'd look at it, but wow, is that an abuse of reporting? Dunno.....you tell me. Ghostwheel ʘ 00:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not "abuse", although the admin might advise you to take it here because it's too complex to deal with. And then he or the bot program would remove it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Um, which is what I did - brought it here. It's too complex for AIV. And I'd appreciate an explanation on how this isn't Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. Ghostwheel ʘ 01:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Long term abuse" has to do with perpetual sock-farmers. Reporting them is not abuse. Bringing it here was fine. There's just not necessarily any need for you to remove it from AIV. Let the managers of that page handle it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, it didn't belong at AIV, which is why bringing it 'here' was fine. Unless I totally misunderstand the instructions at WP:AIV. Please instruct me otherwise. And clearly, no one is even addressing the report, but merely attacking me. Nice. Ghostwheel ʘ 01:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 01:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you don't even get WP:PETARD. Hoist yourself and then.....kill me now....LOL. Ghostwheel ʘ 01:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Drama! No, just use better judgment the next time. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• god this page is dysfunction incarnate. i've got no time - shouldn't have even looked, can't imagine why i did - but if someone wants to actually be productive here:

tell the AIV reporter that ANI is better for complicated stuff. don't say "this is crazy", there's no call for that. best to clarify on his talk page. experienced editors can remove aiv reports, inexperienced ones shouldn't. 243 isn't experienced. for something like this, an experienced editor would have likely removed it from aiv and copied it over to here. references to "boomerang" here make no sense, and the person who said it shouldn't post to ani anymore, i doubt this is the first time they've said something smug and stupid. what you need is an admin who knows how to do a rangeblock. probably should hat all the sniping above, so request doesn't get lost in a wall of text, and below it say "need an admin who knows how to range block", and link to the AIV report. or copy it over to here. and ghostwheel, don't ask for feedback here and then get all snippy when you get criticized. i think that's everything. bye. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam, I'm sure you've never been snippy LOL. And yeah, the reports were crazy. WTF. Ghostwheel ʘ 01:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Please let me know if AIV is the right place for this, I'll be glad to ignore or add this kind of thing there: [134][135] [136] Ghostwheel ʘ 01:33, 31 July 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 by 173.172.46.72 at User:Jamathi

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.

---

Anon IP 173.172.46.72 made a legal threat to User:Jamathi as seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=640445935. The posts have been blanked by another user. Editor has been informed. Optakeover^(Talk) 20:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely a legal threat, but is there any merit to the complaint? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Whose complaint, the maker of the legal threat or me? For the maker, it was with regards to the registered user's edits to his userspace, so I have no comment. For me, I am following WP:LEGAL as I believe Wikipedia takes legal threats seriously. I am a third party and bumped across this during Huggle RCP. I have no vested interest in their matters. I was thinking of raising this to an admin directly for comment but I decided not to trouble a single one and to put it up here as this is the first time I am putting up a report for legal threat. Optakeover^(Talk) 20:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

BB was referring to the complaint by the IP. General Ization ^Talk 20:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The material concerning at 'Bahauddin Samara' posted at User:Jamathi and at User:Jamathi/sandbox is a violation of WP:BLP policy. Regardless of the legal threat, it shouldn't be there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it constitutes a legal threat. I have no further comment on either user's edits. Optakeover^(Talk) 20:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This was 8 months ago, and it's already been blanked. Why stir it up now? valereee (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that. Like I said this is my first report on LT and I am going by policy here. I'm only a third party. Optakeover^(Talk) 20:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No biggie, Optakeover -- you were just doing what you thought you were supposed to do. :) valereee (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The legal threat is over seven months old, and there have been no further edits by the IP in the intervening months. While it's a good faith report, I think this is stale enough that no further action is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the IP's complaint. The user he was complaining about, Jamathi, made only two edits, a year and a half ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Understood all. Thank you for your comments. My sincere apologies if my report was not necessary. Optakeover^(Talk) 20:44, 30 July 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.

Kyle Craven / Bad Luck Brain

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 is my first time posting here so please excuse me if I do something incorrect.) There is a large amount of vandalism by a large number of vandals on the Kyle Craven page since I (wikipedialuva) last edited it on 01:26, 19 April 2015‎, including repeat vandals that are vandalizing again after being temporary blocked blocked (such as 121.211.78.146). Can someone revert the vandalism and warn and/or block users as necessary? Thank you. -Wikipedialuva 20:17, 30 July 2015 UTC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedialuva (talk • contribs)

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.

Need a page unsalted

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.

---

Need Kehlani unsalted to make room for a draft that is ready for mainspace. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy: for future reference, these requests should be properly made at WP:RfPP, in the 'Current requests for reduction in protection level' section – I recently got Carlson Young "unsalted" so that I could move my own draft there over at RfPP just a few days back. Requests like this usually seem to be granted at RfPP within 6–12 hours. Just so you know! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:10, 30 July 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:Jayo68 has been disrupting the Drake (rapper) 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.

---

This user keeps posting trivial gossip with unreliable sources such as Baller Status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HipHopVisionary (talk • contribs) 14:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:HipHopVisionary refuses to talk, and has simply removed many others edits and sources on the Drake (rapper) page, referencing his own opinion. He has reverted many others edits, more than three times, and has refused to adhere to other admins warnings. Jayo68 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 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.

Comment blanking on article 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.

---

User:Jeandeve vandalised the "Anita Sarkeesian" article. I left a warning template on his talk page, which he blanked (as he is allowed to). He then posted a concern about the article's objectivity on the Anita Sarkeesian talk page to which I responded that if he was concerned about the objectivity of the article he should not vandalise it. He has subsequently blanked my comment (three times) – which is against the rules. Citobun (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

1) You didn't need to repeat yourself on two different pages. 2) That time when you duplicated your message on Anita's talk page wasn't addressing the topic I brought. 3) You can disagree with any edit I make, but that doesn't make it automatically vandalism. 4) You're addressing me with the wrong gender. Jeandeve (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I am the person who initially reverted Jeandeve's edit. I think describing an edit which simply adds the text "A lot of people think she's useless and annoying." to a BLP is fairly clear vandalism, and describing it as such is not improper. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly a poor and lazy edit I made, adding nothing to back my claims. But it's still a fact. Jeandeve (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And your edit summary here is a personal attack and together with your disruptive edit, above, leads to WP:NOTHERE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was neither poor nor lazy. It was blatant vandalism being an "addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia". We're obviously being trolled here. Revert, bock ignore and move on.

I agree with Lugnuts. Jeandeve, this edit is a clear BLP violation (I won't use the word vandalism, but it was problematic nonetheless). Mistakes can and will happen (nobody is perfect), and I typically will give the benefit of the doubt. However, pairing this edit with your comments here and here, your edit summaries here and here, and even some of your comments here show that you've been communicating in an uncivil manner instead of positively working towards a resolution (one of Wikipedia's core policies) and that your intentions may not be in alignment with the project. I highly recommend that you take a step back, re-evaluate your position and your behavior, review a few Wikipedia policies and understand their importance, and step back in with a clear mind.

Citobun, I agree that Jeandeve's edits were disruptive, but I feel like you added fuel to the fire with this response made to this talk page post by Jeandeve. Your opening statement, "For the sake of objectivity..." appears to be mocking Jeandeve's opening statement. Remember that two wrongs don't make a right, and that statements like these can be seen as unprofessional conduct as well. Frustration is completely understandable; I know how easy it is to get sucked into a heated dispute. Just remember to set a good example for others (no matter who they are), and know when it's time to stop and seek help from others. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Gave the Gamergate AE notice as well. It's a limited block on the belief that the nonsense is temporary or else the editor will face a topic ban from the article as that's not worth wasting any more time on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:52, 30 July 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.

bajranji

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.

---

Why is Bajranji protected? It says 400 but hourly updates say closer to 470. Why does no one want hourly box office results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.248 (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Make the edit request on the article's talk page, which you have already posted on [137]. Closing this thread as unnecessary; IP already knows how to post on talk pages, including NeilN's. Please however remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:15, 29 July 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.

RFC includes threat to strike out others' comments

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 Talk:Russian Winter, User:George Ho opened an RFC [139] that has not only been criticized by commenters as non-neutral and as set-up for an immediate 4th requested move after 3 different requested moves failed within the last 2 months, but which includes an explicit censorship threat ("Do not suggest these titles in this discussion. If you do, I will strike your vote on either of them out alongside your comments without warning or notice. Again, beware."). That threat to remove comments is against Wikipedia policy at WP:TALK and unduely influences, chills, and slants any resulting discussion, as well as requires constant checking of the page history to ensure that comments have not been removed. I am avoiding taking any action myself because I commented in one of the 3 previous requested moves, but I believe that the RFC should be closed as non-neutral. —Lowellian (reply) 18:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That type of comment is completely inappropriate in a request for comments and I would question the validity of any discussion that starts that way. Deli nk (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

George means well, but he sometimes has difficulty communicating and with social interactions (per his talk page). Cut him some slack. GregJackP Boomer! 02:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with GregJackP (from my own experience). Doug Weller (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the threat to remove others' comments. I have an opinion on whether to close the RFC or not, but rather than act as an admin on that, I've just given that opinion in the RFC, and I'll leave the close/continue decision to others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the RFC tag because no one saw it as neutral, although I would have defended my OP if not for convincing interpretations, which I cannot contest. Also, removing my warnings as 'threats'... This is too much. Of course, many others saw it this way, so I can't contest it either. I'm not a fan of 'neutral' RFCs; would that be whitewashing or trying to downplay some stuff? George Ho (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Having a non-neutral RFC introduces bias. The whole point of an RFC is invite outside comment to see what alternative views can be presented. Blackmane (talk) 02:25, 30 July 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.

Hijacked account

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

---

Could someone take a look at User:Darius arya? After two years of inactivity, they've returned to (a) blank their user page (diff) and replace it with "I'm not Darius arya", and (b) post a decidedly provocative question to WP:RD/H (diff). I suspect that this account may have been compromised. The user has been notified. Tevildo (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

He's now indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 29 July 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:جن خان

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.

---

جن خان (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an apparent anti-Shia vandalism SPA. Please see their contribs.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism, POV pushing, and not responding to several warnings. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 29 July 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.

Jack DeMattos again

I brought the case of Jack DeMattos (talk · contribs) to the attention of this board several weeks ago, and several users had various interactions that appeared to be heading in the right direction, but DeMattos' editing still fails to conform to Wikipedia standards, and when others step in to attempt to address the issues, he simply reverts their (my) efforts with belligerent comments to boot. DeMattos is clearly a well-versed editor in the areas he has chosen to edit, but he appears unwilling to accept the help of other editors in bringing his florid writing style into Wikipedia standards. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Previous ANI discussion can be found here. Sam Walton (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• WikiDan61's efforts to clean up Charles E. "Charlie" Bassett are commendable and may reflect some impatience with Jack's editorial largess, having thrown some parts of the baby out with the bath water. Unfortunately Jack Demattos, a new editor, is a long-time writer and has chosen to take edits to his work on WP very personally. He apparently regards the copy edit hat notes as "insulting" as seen here and here. I and others have repeatedly and patiently encouraged him to study WP guidelines, but he doesn't seem to have done that yet. I have spent considerable time attempting to educate him about the challenges and opportunities of WP editorial work, but he doesn't yet appear to taken heed. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 20:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• To clarify, btphelps and I have discussed my edits to the page, and have come to the agreement that no baby was thrown out with the bathwater. My edits to the page brought it into conformance with WP:MOS regarding the overuse of section heads (each paragraph does not need its own heading), and I removed some trivialities (the date of Bassett's parents marriage, and some events for which Bassett was on the edge, but not really centrally involved), but other than that the substance of the article was maintained while paring down the florid language. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Admin help needed blocking a sock farm

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard § Block_a_bunch_of_sleepers.2C_please.2C_and_is_there_a_CU_in_the_house.3F

{{checkuser needed}}

Copied from WP:AN: All the accounts welcomed here by User:Can you please provide me with a username. Thank you. are socks of the "Not a massive fan" IP vandal, all created on 21 June 2015 (I assume; I only checked the creation log date for a few, but of course they were) and ready to be autoconfirmed by ten back-and-forth edits the moment the vandal wants to edit a semiprotected page, such as this and this today. Does somebody have access to a script or tool that would simplify blocking all these sleepers, please? Also, presumably there may be more, from another date and welcomed by "somebody else". Might a CU look for them, please? Bishonen | talk 22:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC).

Well, I have to go to bed, and I don't know how to take this further. I just called for a CU on IRC, to no avail. But note also that there's no CU needed to identify that long list as socks of a single individual: — follow my links and you'll see what I mean. Follow this fellow to Acroterion's page for instance, and look at the history of User talk:The Caledonian Sleeper. I'm hoping any script-savvy person (where are you, Writ Keeper?) can do the blocking. There are so many socks that I at least, am not up for blocking them by hand. Maybe a few admins want to pitch in as a collaborative effort? Bishonen | talk 02:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

Blocked the first twenty-one ("Like fresh" through "Simba s simba"), but don't have time for the rest. Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Copied from WP:AN by: Doug Weller (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked more of them, but I have to leave for a while. -- GB fan 12:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Done a few. —SpacemanSpiff 14:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus isn't a sock. Doug Weller (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A lot of these are not socks - the few that had edits look like normal edits. I've blocked a couple more based on the usernames. CU help is definitely needed here, especially to review Nyttend's blocks. Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of these blocks look wrong - of the 188 accounts created in approximately 30 minutes 178 were welcomed (180 in total: two of the first three welcomes were of User:Belkibirseyyazarım and User:Simba s simba, accounts created a few minutes later although before the welcomes started. Peter James (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

 Checking... This will take a while. Mike V • Talk 01:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 Completed The vast majority of the accounts listed here appear to be  Unrelated. The user manually mass-messaged a number of accounts that were created around the same time. (See here) The accounts I've found to be  Confirmed are:

• Group 1:

The Caledonian Sleeper (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Uberly good driving (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The Jewke of Wellington (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

331 seats and a CU scalp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

God, Emperor of Smell (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Hard at work in the first class lounge at Euston (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Group 2:

Am I a sock puppet? (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Can you please provide me with a username. Thank you. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

@Nyttend, GB fan, and SpacemanSpiff: Could you assist in unblocking the unrelated accounts? Thanks, Mike V • Talk 02:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverted the mistakes I've made. —SpacemanSpiff 03:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If someone has the capability of doing so, can we get a report as to how many of the non-sockpuppet accounts have edited since their creation? Absent any explanation - such as the creation of accounts to prevent the spoofing of a current account, or alternate accounts to be used in non-secure situations - I don't quite understand why accounts would be created and then not used, or the need for more than one or at most two active accounts. Is it some kind of sport or competition to create as many accounts as possible? I'd really like to know what percentage of accounts created are used and which ones lie fallow, and then perhaps the account creation limit (which I believe is now five or six) might be adjusted in some way to take this data into, well, account. Can accounts which are not used be auto-blocked after a certain time, much as admin are auto-desysoped after not editing for a set period? I'm not sure what the advantage to the project is of carrying large numbers of open but unused accounts. BMK (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"Never used" (even once)? Or not used for a long time?... I could see the utility of locking down accounts in the former category. But locking down long-dormant accounts just seems wrong short a preexisting policy on the matter, or a community discussion on the matter in the absence of that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite getting what you're asking. At this point I'm using the specific circumstances of Bishonen's report to float a trial balloon about auto-blocking long-unused accounts, the period of time, obviously, to be determined by a policy discussion. Clearly an account which has never edited is one that hasn't edited for that period of time, so I don't see any significant differentiation between them. Perhaps the period of time for compleletly unused accounts should be significantly shorter than that for used but fallow accounts, which at least showed on interest in editing, but that's about it. As I said, I see no value in carrying lots of open accounts that have no interest in contributing. BMK (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

People may have created accounts and have no interest in contributing now but if accounts are auto-blocked when unused they should also be auto-unblocked when people decide to edit. These accounts were created a month ago; on another site I waited three months before my first edit. Also an account may be used on another wiki, the editor comes to this one and is unable to edit (unless creating a new account)? Peter James (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I misunderstood what was going on. From the original request at WP:AN, I thought that [whoever the identifier was] had conclusively identified them all as socks, and that he would have blocked them all if their sheer number weren't rather overwhelming. Feel free to unblock any or all of them if you deem it wise. I can't myself; it's midnight here, and I've been up since 4AM and driven several hundred miles...I should have gone to bed quite a while ago :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. User:Nawlinwiki, you unblocked one I blocked but left the block template. Looking at my block log, a number of the accounts I've blocked no longer show up, which seems wrong to me. Is there really no way to find out who I blocked even if they've been unblocked? I unblocked one and both the block and the unblock show up, so I assume it isn't because they've been unblocked that they don't show up. Doug Weller (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It's NawlinWiki, not Nawlinwiki, your link does not work. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, noticed that a while ago but couldn't decide if it was worth bothering him, but maybe User:NawlinWiki can explain my block log problem as well! Doug Weller (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This is appalling. In addition to welcoming new editors by blocking them wrongly for something they didn't do, that wrong is now a permanent mark on that editor's history. Which can be used against that editor at some future point. Somebody out there will say that won't happen, but I can point to at least one case[140] of a blocking administrator counting unblocks and a wrong sockpuppet block when determining how long to block an editor. That was disgraceful and so were all the wrong blocks done above....William 11:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I've reversed all the improper blocks now. User:Doug Weller, I don't know why your blocks wouldn't still be on your block log. And for the record, this sockmaster's pattern (Britishisms, "droll" usernames, bragging about trolling Wikipedia) is very reminiscent of the long-ago User:Hamish Ross. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work there, and apologies for contributing to it. Weird about my block log but perhaps I did fewer than I thought I did. I know I spent a lot of time seeing who had edited and how. Doug Weller (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan edit warring and accuses me taking advantage of my situation.

The user @Joshua Jonathan: is edit warring the article Valencian

This was the last stable and consensual introduction in the Valencian language article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&diff=667207894&oldid=667205082 And I only returned to this intro. This intro was the stable introduction until Joshua Johnson arrived the "edit war day" of 25 July and he instead of reverting my changes he made 10 followed changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&action=history and in one of them he changed the introduction without asking anyone and without discussing it in the talk page. He is the only one making editions with no support from other users because several users edited the article from the last stable edition (667205082) and then Joshua Johnson did change it without the support from any other user here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&oldid=672980621

Yes, I've made editions who cost me the block of 48h, but those ones were saying:

Valencian (/vəˈlɛnsiən/ or /vəˈlɛnʃən/; endonym: valencià, valenciano, llengua valenciana, or idioma valencià) is the language spoken in the Valencian Community in Spain and the name used to refer to the own language of the Valencian Community; although it can be also used to name the Catalan language in that area. In the Valencian Community, Valencian is the traditional language and is co-official with Spanish. A standardized form exists, based on the Southern Valencian dialect.

While the consensued and the actual edition I've made (according to the last stable edit before the editions of Joshua) is :

Valencian' (/vəˈlɛnsiən/ or /vəˈlɛnʃən/; endonym: valencià, valenciano, llengua valenciana, or idioma valencià) is the variety of Catalan as spoken in the Valencian Community, Spain. It is often considered a distinct language from Catalan by people from the Valencian Community; however, linguists consider it a dialect of Catalan, because it is mostly identical to Catalan's other dialects, which generates some political controversy. In the Valencian Community, Valencian is the traditional language and is co-official with Spanish. A standardized form exists, based on the Southern Valencian dialect.

Which is quite different from the one that costed me the 48h block and this edition was supported by a lot of users because it remained untouched until this edition of Joshua made 3 days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&oldid=672980621

Now he is accusing me to be edit warring and it's saying me "what I pint here" taking advantage of my situation while he is writing anything he wants in the article without the support of any user. --HardstyleGB (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

References

HardstyleGB was just warned by EdJohnston, after returning straight away after a 48 hour block to the Valencian article diff:

"HardstyleGB, If you continue to make edits at Valencian that have no support from others you may be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)"

See also my response at Talk:Valencian#Introduction of the article. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This is what I was saying. This user covers only in his basis that I got blocked 48h recently and he does not add nothing useful to the article and he mades all the edits he want because he covers in that.

I've made a discussion page and he also said the same thing "you got blocked 48h ago" and nothing more profitable. --HardstyleGB (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, he's also opened a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Joshua Jonathan edit warring and accuses me taking advantage of my situation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed that one. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC).

Repeated disruptive editing by the same user using multiple IPs

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.

---

Over at the Days of Our Lives cast members page, we have an editor who uses multiple (and I do mean: multiple) IPs and always makes the same edits over and over and over again every few days even though they are always reverted and multiple messages have been left on multiple (if not all) of their talk pages. Myself and others have repeatedly asked for that page to be permanently semi-protected with no luck, unfortunately. Is there not something that can be done? This person uses the following IPs (all beginning with 142):

• ending in 142
• ending in 184
• ending in 164
• ending in 139
• ending in 222
• ending in 129 (the talk page of this one has a list of even more IPs, though some may be doubles of what I've listed here)
• ending in 233
• ending in 73
• ending in 118
• ending in 183
• ending in 6
• another ending in 146
• ending in 213
• ending in 177
• ending in 247
• ending in 167
• ending in 78
• ending in 243

And the list just goes on and on and on dating all the way back to 2006! Any and all assistance with this would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you could make a report at WP:RFPP if that'll help but it's already pp-protected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I could try again, I guess, but... like I said, more than a few of us have done that in the past and we only ever get temporary protections which don't do much. When an IP has been coming around since '06, a month or two is nothing.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

And, in the time since I compiled all this, here's another one.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support semiprotection (for at least a month) – it's not just IPs disruptively editing: there have been a series of new not-autoconfirmed accounts pulling the same kind of shenanigans. (If an Admin doesn't protect by next morning, I'll plan on taking it to WP:RFPP myself...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the high-profiled changes being done at Days of Our Lives, I think changing the protection on Days of Our Lives cast members would qualify; the page is one of the only ones whose cast members' page is not protected more highly. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 13:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: Taken to WP:RFPP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 29 July 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:PyunikToghik

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

---

This user created several articles on Armenian footballers, who do not meet currently meet the relevant notability guidelines. I tried explaining this, and they seemed receptive at first, but then clearly took offense to something I said. They created several articles containing only the words "Gomik a" (and homosexuals in Russian according to google translate), then duplicated the article on Kamo Hovhannisyan about thirty time at present count, and then posted personal attack on their talk page. Could an admin please clean up this mess, and consider blocking the editor in question. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. This appears to have already happened. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:43, 31 July 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.

One more thing...

(edit conflict) I would also suggest revoking talk page access after this ridiculousness. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That conduct was before the block. There's a possibility that the block may wake the editor up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Attention needed

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.

---

PAPA C.C. ROACH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is only here to make personal attacks on various editors. Whether they are a sock of Colton Cosmic or not their edits need to be removed. MarnetteD|Talk 05:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeffed, talk page access removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NeilN MarnetteD|Talk 05:27, 31 July 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.

Political Bias of User: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.

---

Cailil, often an admin within the The Troubles dispute has once again taken one political position over another. He has recently threatened to ban and block me once again here yet has sought to ignore the users who have provoked and harassed me. I had presented evidence of users harrassing me over a number of months here, yet he has ignored their efforts. To note that User:Scolaire had taken to [ANI] a number of weeks ago in an attempt to have me blocked, conveniently leaving out a few items from the timeline. No action was taken. I wish for an uninvolved admin to review the actions taken by other users and the actions taken by myself and ask yourself why Cailil is only warning me with a block?Dubs boy (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Dubs boy, you are off to a wrong start. You forgot to notify the admin of this thread per regulations here. I have done so for you. Remember this next time. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 03:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I just did.Dubs boy (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I just seen your edit. Give a guy a chance.Dubs boy (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

* Does this need to go to the ARBCOM board? It won't be pretty though. Dubs boy, is it possible for you to believe that Cailil legitimately believes you weren't being harassed? Do you have a response for the contention that you decided to re-insert clearly trolling comments by other users (that isn't the other side did it first)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Just one small clarification: you will see from Dubs boy's link that I did not come to AN/I "in an attempt to have him blocked", I came to ask that he be asked to stop harassing me. Minor difference. Scolaire (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. Scolaire omitted a number of key events at ANI in an attempt to have me blocked. Foul play.Dubs boy (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This all started 10 months ago. Cailil gave me a warning for calling User:HighKing a sock. For the record, HighKing is a sock. So I received a warning for calling a spade, a spade. Fair enough.

I assumed that if someone were to act in the same manor towards me that a similar warning would be brought on them. I raised 3 edits from Murry1975(a user who frequently collaborates with HighKing on Troubles disputes) calling me a sock. So I raised these issues with Cailil here but no action was taken. Surely Murry1975 was in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS? Why was I warned but not Murry1975?

At this point I thought that my warning must have been a token gesture. Fast forward a number of months and forgetting this warning, I did make reference to HighKing’s socking past at Talk:Derry. He subsequently reported me to Cailil. Cailil contacted Ricky81682 seeking advice and claiming that I was in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS using these edits as evidence:

1. [141],[142]– I made the mistake of thinking that HighKing was topic banned from The Troubles but in actual fact it is British Isles. The 2 though are intrinsically link so understandable why I got them mixed up. That is not casting aspersions. HighKing is topic banned.
2. [143] – I made reference to HighKing socking past. He hasn’t edited in 3 months yet turns up out of the blue to aid his friend Scolaire in an attempt to have me blocked. I just thought it was odd.
3. [144] – a response to Scolaire claiming how many Unionist and Nationalist editors there were. Surely that is WP:ASPERSIONS in itself?

If these are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS then I would of thought Cailil would also need to speak to User:Bastun about these comments, a user who has been linked with HighKing in the past

This coupled with attempts by U:Scolaire, assisted by HighKing to have me blocked by skewing the evidence. Thankfully no action was taken against me but having presented evidence on Scolaire, no action was taken against him. I just need to know if everyone but me is immune in The Troubles area? If you are to ban me then you will also have to ban Bastun, Murry1975 and Scolaire. Though Murry1975 has not been seen since receiving a warning for removing comments at an SPI.

I just want to know why the rules of Wikipedia only apply to me despite instances of users taking the same action as myself?Dubs boy (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk about your actions rather than focusing on the actions of others for the moment. The battleground mentality of what the "other side" is receiving is not helping your cause. I'm split on whether you honestly care about the name at Derry or just keep arguing it to try to get the other side riled up enough so they get blocked and you can dance on their grave or something. Is arguing about the number of ANI notices really going to get someone to change the name of the article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The "other side" isn't receiving anything, not a single warning so thats a non issue. My point is that if Cailil is to warn me or ban me then he must also warn or ban those who have taken the same actions as myself. That is just not happening. Remember that I raised this notice at ANI because I felt like I was being unfarely treated. If I and those who have acted in the same manor are blocked then there will be no grave dancing because both sides will have been dealt with in the same way.

As for arguing over the number of ANI notices. Yes, it was worth arguing because it goes against WP:ASPERSIONS, when Scolaire sought to discredit my position by highlighting an unrelated ANI notice at the Talk:Derry page, however did not do the same with this notice because it was "personal". I call bullshit.Dubs boy (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The name convention of Londonderry is important to me on a personal level. The current convention goes against 1 of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. But neutrality has been ignored for too long and anyone daren't question the naming convention or face being beat with the auld WP:CONSENSUS or WP:COMMONNAME stick.Dubs boy (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out there's a discussion isn't an aspersion issue but nevertheless, I collapsed that particular line of argument. Otherwise, the "I'm the only neutral person in the universe" routine isn't assuming good faith. I'm hoping the ban will get you to drop it but if you can't, you'll end up blocked and we'll move on because most people in the last decade have not thought one ounce about the title of that article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ricky, as you can see Scolaire really is trying to get me banned or blocked. First of all at notice ANI, where no action was taken, I presume because Scolaire misinterpreted the events and also failed to notify Talk:Derry. And now he has "Endorsed", "Supported" and questions the point of Bastun.Dubs boy (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse Cailil's warning in its entirety. It was policy-based in every detail, and had multiple diffs to back up the assertions in it. There is no sign of any political motivation in it anywhere, and the implication that Cailil is biased in favour of Irish nationalism is frankly puzzling. I am quite happy to have my own behaviour scrutinised. Experience has taught me that admins are not biased in my favour, so if I have crossed the line I would expect to be told where and how, in no uncertain terms. Scolaire (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• I really haven't time for Dubs Boy's antics here. Dubs Boy was warned under my discretion as mandated by the discretionary sanctions arising from the WP:TROUBLES RfAr ruling. His assertion that I am "politically biased" is groundless (I've topic banned and blocked just as many Irish Nationalist accounts as I have British Nationalist ones, more Irish ones if exclude the British Nationalist socks). Opening this thread is a tendentious attempt to prevent me following through with the warning I issued (which is both transparent & pointless, because I will) and is repeating precisely the behaviour he was warned for. I'm yet to look at Dubs Boy's actions at Talk:Derry raised by Pincrete below. If they rise to an actionable level I will consider blocking Dubs Boy and any community decision below would be independent of that. However, I will point that as Derry and Talk:Derry are covered by WP:TROUBLES, a community decision is not actually necessary here, it is well within an uninvolved sysop's discretion to topic ban a user appropriately if their behaviour merits it--Cailil ^talk 15:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• disproportionate treatment Cailil, I just want to know what the difference is between these comments and why you have taken no action against other users, only myself?

1. [145] vs [146]. Surely both are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS and not just my own edit?
2. [147] vs [148],[149]. So I have been warned for calling Highking a sock, yet Murry1975 received no warning for the same behaviour despite me notifying Cailil
3. How is this considered a personal attack? Are we on wikipedia that pathetic?
4. Here is an edit that Cailil says I am casting WP:ASPERSIONS, an edit that was in response to been accused of being a "block-evading user". That doesn't even make sense. Surely both edits are in breach of WP:ASPERSIONS then and not just my own edit?
5. Here is an edit that Cailil says I am casting WP:ASPERSIONS, an edit that was in response to Scolaire doing a head count of Unionist vs Nationalist editors.That doesn't even make sense. Surely doing a head count of those of a certain political view is casting WP:ASPERSIONS.
6. "trolling" vs [150]. Which edit is worse and why is it only my edit is considered offensive?
7. Why did Scolaire feel the need to include this ANI notice at Talk:Derry but fail to notify users when his own behaviour was questionable? This was a clear attempt to discredit me. Scolaire harassed me at my talkpage multiple times then raised the issue at ANI because "You made me come to your page".

I am not here to get anyone banned or blocked I just want to receive the same treatment of users of an opposing view point. That is all. But at this point Cailil has facilitated users attacking me, which may have contributed to my own behaviour.Dubs boy (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

How to you expect me to respect your warnings when you give others a free reign? I was called a sock of Factocop multiple times and you took no action yet warn me for calling HighKing a sock even though it was proven that he was a sock? Ridiculouso. If users seek to attack and provoke me then eventually I am going to bite back.

Why did Scolaire receive no warning for harassment let alone telling a few porkies at ANI?Dubs boy (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

DB, I haven't got time for this. And your wholly false assertion (without diffs) that I facilitate or endorse actions by others is only making things worse for you. Please read WP:NOTTHEM, stop talking about others. You were warned last year for a pattern of behaviour that was 2 years old. You have ignored that warning. That's was your choice and is now your problem. That’s why you got warned again, and BTW I was giving you a chance with a warning I could have simply blocked you then. I wont be replying to this thread any further, except to note any action that I may take--Cailil ^talk 16:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless you are blind, I have provided diffs above. You have chosen to harass and annoy me yet ignored the actions of opposing users. That is clear bias. Its ok for users to call me a sock? I notified you and you ignored it. When I call a proven sock, a sock, you come straight to my page with a warning. It seems you only have time to warn me and not others. WP:NOTTHEM doesn't even apply. This ANI notice is regarding your bias and failure to take action.Dubs boy (talk) 16:07, 28 July 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.

Topic ban for Dubs Boy

• Better yet, WP:BOOMERANG this let's cut to the chase. Propose topic banning Dubs boy from the article Derry. The editor's main conduct for close to six weeks is arguing at Talk:Derry about changing the name of the article starting with this snark. Let's try to see if we can avoid a full TROUBLE ban in place of a single article. If the editor is incapable of that, well, we are where we are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Striking in support of SMcCandlish's name-of-Derry topic ban to Dubs boy. Again, may just be a blind side to the editor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I became involved with the name change through the RfC. Dubs Boy seems incapable of 'backing off' on this issue, and even today is behaving disruptively on talk by repeatedly removing posts, here, here, here, and here. Pincrete (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, There was a reason for removing that comment. It was deemed a personal attack given that it was unrelated to the topic. Notice that Scolaire did not raise the previous ANi notice at Talk:Derry, so why then did he feel the need to mention this one other than to discredit me? Its foul play, is what it is.Dubs boy (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing a valid notice is disruptive, repeating the act when politely asked not to, doubly so, but that is only today. The discusion on talk goes round and round in circles with spurious invalidations of every other editor's opinion, the equine quadruped is terminally inactive, its sufferings are over.Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, It was me who brought this notice to ANI, not Scolaire, and it was not as the result of Talk:Derry. This was a personal matter so for Scolaire to add this issue to Talk:Derry is clearly an attempt to discredit me. Scolaire tried to have me banned at ANI. His attempts failed and he made no reference of it at Talk:Derry. I've asked him [why] he did this but I already know the answer.Dubs boy (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As Scolaire says above, there was no request to have you topic banned, but this is not the place, I, found the removal disruptive when done once, unforgivable when repeated.Pincrete (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, Ok. I just don't understand. The edit was removed per WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. Scolaire has sought to discredit me by including an ANI notice unrelated to Talk:Derry, yet did not included his own issues at ANI at Talk:Derry. That is foul play.Dubs boy (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as DB hasn't been edit-warring a page move. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well the page is move-protected so DB can't page move war. My point was about the conduct at the Talk:Derry page move discussions (DB has done some small editing on the page itself) because the vast majority of the edits have either been at the talk page about moving the page or at with Cailil about Talk:Derry. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If you can not discuss a proposed edit at the talk page then there is no hope for wikipedia.Dubs boy (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue is whether you are capable to discuss it in a manner that isn't disruptive to the overall project. However, we are here because you decided to take that discussion and bring to bugging an administrator and now coming to ANI because the administrator doesn't agree with you. You're spreading and it's not helping your cause. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support a narrow name-of-Derry topic ban, against renaming, editing the in-articles name of, or participating in discussions about the name of Derry/Londonderry. No other action appears to be warranted, not even topic-banning him from contributing to the article, or any other Troubles-related topic. If this WP:ROPE hangs him then more serious restrictions are in order.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support name-of-Derry topic ban per SMcCandlish. I don't think he's a troll. It's just in this one specific area that he seems to have a blind spot. Scolaire (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Dubs boy has significantly modified his behaviour in the last day or so, and the RfC has now been closed. There is no reason to think that a topic-ban will be necessary in the near future. Scolaire (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Personally I find the use of the talk page annoying and in my opinion it's definitely a dead horse, but it's confined to the talk page and isn't actually disruptive. A warning about removing content should suffice. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bastun: realistically, a warning on the lines of "please do not edit disruptively as you did after your final warning" is not an option. Unless the section above finds that Cailil was wrong – which isn't going to happen – the alternative to a narrow topic ban is either a straight block or an ArbCom sanction. At least with the narrow topic ban he will be free to edit productively, including the Derry article. Scolaire (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • We've moved from a talk page disruption to bothering administrators who try to help on the talk page to reporting to ANI because the administrator aren't blocking the other side on the talk page. There's nothing less other than closing this with nothing done to Dubs boy and a warning not to be disruptive anymore but if Dubs boy can't drop the issue about the Cailil or the ANI or other things, it's just adding and adding to the same problems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ricky, can I ask why no action was taken against other users and only me? I was not asking for a block, I just want the same treatment as others. Look at the diffs and tell me why it is acceptable for users to call me a sock with no proof, yet I am warned for doing the same? I have matched up like for like edits yet I am warned and others are not. That is a grade A bullshit. I've not broken any rules and my "disruption" has been limited to responding to comments during a discussion at a talkpage. Jesus Mary and Joseph. Cailils warning is to be ignored until he explains his "hear no evil, see no evil, except Dubs boy" approach.Dubs boy (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Dubs boy (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons stated above. Italay90 (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bastun (although WP:BOOMERANG is a good lesson here). Dubs boy needs to drop the WP:STICK - but it's not a case of tendentious editing (yet). --Tóraí (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support this editor constantly makes snide comments, ad hominen attacks on all the oppose his POV, is disruptive in the extreme on the Talk page, has been at this for years, doesn't learn, and is on his 3rd or 4th final warning (I've lost count) for exactly what has been pointed out above. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose but reluctantly the editor is a right pain on this subject. I suggest just ignoring comments on the talk page ----Snowded ^TALK 18:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Otilia

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 Chinesemusicfan (talk · contribs) created the article Otilia Bruma, which was deleted two times (also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otilia Bruma). In order to elude this, he keeps pasting over the article Otilia, which should be kept as a disambiguation page for notable persons with that first name. He also keeps deleting the speedy delete notice from the page Otilia (disambiguation). I would've liked to contact him on his talk page, but this insult says everything. Also in violation of WP:3RR. --Mihai (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You hadn't notified Chinesemusicfan as you are supposed to - I've done it for you. As for the talk page comment, it amounts to a request to block, so I suggest we oblige - it will give Chinesemusicfan time to read up on the autonomy of different-language Wikipedias, and why the inclusion of an article in one language is no guarantee that it will be accepted in another. Our Wikipedia, our notability criteria.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A look into the (brief) history of the Otilia page is quite illuminating. Chinesemusicfan first created a brief disambiguation page on the name Otilia, [151] and only later changed it into an article on a particular individual - which looks to me very much like an attempt to game the system. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 31 July 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.

Sadly, after I'd had a discussion with this contributor, and got what I understood to be an agreement to do things our way and create a draft of the disputed biography, Chinesemusicfan was unblocked - only to carry on much as before. There have now been so many back-and-forth page moves and new pages created that I can't figure out what is where, and what is a redirect to what. We do however, despite Chinesemusicfan's explicit promise "not make edits about Otilia Bruma except in a draft article" now have an article at Otilia (musician) - without the draft being reviewed for notability. I will make no comment on whether the article subject meets our notability guidelines, but instead suggest that regardless of the fate of the article, it appears that Ricky81682's original rationale for blocking Chinesemusicfan was valid: "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". Or at least, clearly not here to contribute in a way compatible with even the minimum standards required of a contributor. Chinesemusicfan's unblock request was clearly insincere, and he had no intention of doing anything but carrying on as before. Accordingly, I have to suggest that the unblock, made initially at my request, was mistaken, and that in the interests of Wikipedia it should be restored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no clue what you mean by "game the system". I want to make an English Wikipedia article for Otilia, and contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. I don't understand how that's gaming the system. There are plenty of independent sources added now. Chinesemusicfan (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, you told me on the talk page that you refused to help with a draft. Now what else am I to do besides add sources so it meets notability? Are you going to block me again for making the draft myself, without anyone's help? I am here to contribute so please don't disrupt my editing by removing and deleting sources when you claim it needs to meet notability guidines which is what I'm trying to help with Chinesemusicfan (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Hey, I never got your draft submission approval or asked for it. Remember, you said I was on my own and you wouldn't help. I promised I'd only make edits to Otilia Bruma within her draft space and I did to add sources. Now I'm done with those edits and moved it to a better spot. Chinesemusicfan (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You gave an explicit promise, and were unblocked accordingly. You broke that promise 2 1/2 hours later. You don't get to blame other people for your own behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about behavior at all, it's a content issue and you know it. A draft was created May 4, 2015 and instantly deleted. Stop trying to tell on me like I did something wrong again when I was only blocked in the first place after initially adding a source, which was completely uncalled for. The unconstructive editing needs to stop and it needs to be noted that Otilia exists and is a significant and notable musician, and is covered by independent sources. Chinesemusicfan (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Dishonesty is always a behavioural issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not always. And I'm being honest when I say I don't know how to submit a draft anyway and would rather not bother with drafts especially if everyone refuses to help. Thanks for almost offering to help with the draft though. Chinesemusicfan (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't know how to submit a draft, but you know how to make page moves, how to create redirects, how to edit tables [152], how to add Wikiproject templates [153] and much else, apparently. Would you care to let us know what account you used when you came by all this knowledge? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you just quit trying to have me blocked for my contributions. I don't edit drafts unless I'm forced to, and in this situation I was definitely forced to. Chinesemusicfan (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody forced you to make a promise. Nobody forced you to break it. And you haven't answered my question. What accounts have you previously edited under? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Now I userfied the article to User:Chinesemusicfan/Otilia (musician) and removed the musician from Otilia. Chinesemusicfan is welcome to edit the draft in their userspace and then nominate it for the move to the article space. Any further edit of Otilia would result in the restoration of the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That made no sense to do. Now when people google her trying to find her Wikipedia article they'll probably end up on my user page. That makes no sense and I didn't ask for it to be userfied or request it to reside at my user space. No thanks Chinesemusicfan (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

    Fine, then we are back to the indefinite block per WP:NOTTHERE. I will wait a bit with the deletion of the draft, but generally it is up to speedy deletion as a recreation of the deleted article.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Deleted the draft per CSD.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• I request an uninvolved administrator to evaluate whether the talk page access needs to be revoked. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Are we concerned that Chinesemusicfan's upload commons:File:Brumaotilia.jpg was equally dishonest regarding copyright and license? The claimed source is the singer herself, no links or further information is provided. Choor monster (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The image can certainly be found elsewhere: see [154] for example. I suspect that isn't the original source, since it is smaller than the uploaded version. From the look of it, it is a publicity shot, and I very much doubt that Chinesemusicfan took it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion as copyvio. Obviously found on the internetz. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that's my point. I don't think CMF knows our procedures or cares. Choor monster (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate non-admin closure

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 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! I would appreciate if an administrator would take a look at this AfD debate [155], which was shut down as a non-admin closure. The problem, as I see it, is the lack of unanimous consensus (there was one very specific call for deletion from an editors) coupled with two "Keep" !votes that offered no explanation on why the article deserved to stay. From what I can see, I would appreciate continuing the discussion so there can be proper consensus. Thanks. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@And Adoil Descended: Have you tried discussing it with the closer first? Maybe you should ask for his input before you term it as an inappropriate non-admin closure. - NQ (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Closing an AfD where there is a mix of input from editors, as opposed to a total lack of calls for deletion beyond the nominator, is inappropriate. I am calling it like it is. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your avenue to disputing an AfD close, whether it is by an administrator or not, is to first discuss with the closer, and then if you don't agree, take it to deletion review. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If it is all the same, I specifically asked for the input of an administrator in this matter. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That is what happens at deletion review and Ivanvector is correct that you need to take your concerns there because it is highly likely that nothing is going to happen until you do. MarnetteD|Talk 18:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) None taken. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

For the second time - I specifically requested the input of an administrator. If you are not an administrator, I respect your good intentions but I would prefer if you allowed an administrator to answer my inquiry. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

All right—Your avenue to disputing an AfD close, whether it is by an administrator or not, is to first discuss with the closer, and then if you don't agree, take it to deletion review. Will that do? – iridescent 18:46, 31 July 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.

How funny that this conversation was also shutdown in a non-admin closure! Are the admins on holiday this week? And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:06, 31 July 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.

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.

---

Not sure if this was taken care of since I disturbed the original report, can someone check? Sorry. Ghostwheel ʘ 02:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• 202.62.16.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Latest in a series of Indonesian IPs adding unsourced speculation re future versions to mobile device/OS articles.

• 202.62.16.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Latest in a series of Indonesian IPs adding unsourced speculation re future versions to mobile device/OS articles.

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 Orme School

Hello. Not sure this is the right forum, but don't know where else I could bring it up. I keep watch over a lot of articles having to do with Arizona, and on one of them this edit took place. If you look at the revision, you'll see that the editor appears to be associated with the school. I checked out the source (the LA Times), and it's not a dead link, so the veracity of the deleted material was readily available. I reverted and left a message, and then, since the school now appears to have dropped the "of Arizona" from their name, I moved the article's name. Not even sure this needs attention, but thought I should bring it to the attention of the admins. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no justification for removal, although it could have been worded better (which has now been done as well). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I left a message for the IP user. I tried to explain a few basic items about Wikipedia, including the existence of talk pages, how to get consensus to remove disputed content, and how to manage of conflict of interest. It could be that the school objected to being called "infamous". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Want to thank all you folks for looking into it. Honestly, I agree with the wording changes wholeheartedly. Much better now. Thanks NinjaRobotPirate, FreeRangeFrog, and Finlay McWalter for your help. I believe that the school simply is embarrassed by that incident, and (based on the edit summary comment), are simply trying to live it down.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

One other thing, the IP editor requested to be pointed to a venue to express their concerns about the material being included. NinjaRobotPirate suggested to the IP that they bring the discussion to the article's talk page. Which is a normal course of action. However, in this instance, this is not a real active page. Is there perhaps a better venue where they might open the discussion? Or, if they do open the discussion on the talk page, is there a way we could notify folks that the discussion is going on? Perhaps on the Arizona Project? Although that's not a particularly active project either. Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Onel5969: The article's talk page would be fine, although I don't see how that could possibly be removed. It's too well sourced. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't think it warranted removal either, for the same reason. But based on Ninja's response on the IP's talk page I thought there might be some rationale I didn't know about for not including it. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mean to insinuate anything by that message. The IP editor said they had reasons to object and wanted a place to explain. I pointed them toward WP:ONUS to give them a head start toward making a policy-based argument. They seem pretty lost, and I figured they could use the help. I'm not saying that I think there are reasons for it to be removed, but I'm willing to read a reasonable talk page post. Well, we can see how things go from here, but it seems more-or-less resolved for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Underage editor

Not up on current best practice regarding self identified very young editors. Posting here for advice / attention.

User talk:Brodie Flynn

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no lower age limit for editors, but anyone under about 15 is probably going to fail to meet the WP:COMPETENCE level required. I wouldn't let my kids (the eldest of whom is around that age) edit Wikipedia, but they're more interested in Minecraft anyway so it's a moot point. If they leak any personal information, get it oversighted and if they do it twice, indef them. It's for their own good and if they come back under a different account 7 years later when they've passed puberty, nobody will notice. I've dropped them a note advising them to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors - pretty important stuff for them and their parents. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The user name is possibly the kid's real name, which I guess counts as personal information.--Atlan (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass rollback required

You better look out below! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made some 1,000 edits within minutes, apparently using an automated tool to remove links more or less at random. I've blocked the account, but this will all need to be rolled back. Is there some automation to make this feasible?  Sandstein  19:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Xeno: Ping to notify you of this thread because you've also taken notice of the matter.  Sandstein  19:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

All rolled back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Writ Keeper has a "rollback all" script. I've applied it to these edits, but I'm not sure I got them all the way back — my computer is all exhausted and hissing at me from all the rollbacking. :-( Please check. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC).

Y Looks good to me; thanks all. –xeno^talk 19:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Cripes… Firefox opened nearly 400 tabs in a few minutes when I did that. No wonder it hissed at me. Useful script, though! Bishonen | talk 19:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC).

y'know, I bet I could fix that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

For interest, please note parallel discussion at NeilN's Talk page about this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So no WP:AGF then... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTSUICIDE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Useless and unsourced edits by The Sheikh001

• The Sheikh001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

On July 6, 2015, user @Livelikemusic: reported @The Sheikh001: for making repeated edits of unsourced info. Nothing was done because, at that point in time, LLM had been the only one to warn the other user on their talk page. That wasn't true because, although not a "warning," per se, another user named @NottNott: had certainly questioned TheSheik001's editing on the same page (Days of Our Lives cast members). I added to that conversation that TheSheikh001 is also adding odd info and then self-reverting. Since that inital report, in the last 3 weeks, TheShiekh001 has continued this bizarre behaviour with these further examples:

• here, where he added a last name and date that is completely unsourced
• here, where he added another unsourced date just to turn around and delete it
• and here, where he added Clyde Weston leaving the show and then deleted it (something he's done twice before)

Is it not possible for something to be done? He or she does not listen to anything said to him or her whether by edit history or direct talk page messages. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

He's currently on his last warning. If he does anything like this again, please report it here, and if it happens within the next 2 hours at AIV. --w^{L<speak·check>} 13:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

So, how many "last warnings" does he get 'cause LLM issued his most recent 6 days ago and then he did it again yesterday.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Given this user's persistence and a previous report to this board, their "last chance" has run out. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We may need to apply WP:ROPE here. I think one more edit like this from User:The Sheikh001 and it can be reported to WP:AIV (and the report there should include a link to this ANI topic), where a block will be very, very likely at that point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on MOSNUM

Can we get an admin to poke their head in at WP:MOSNUM? (Disclosure: I made a single revert.) Involved users include @Fnagaton, EEng, Glider87, Dondervogel 2, and Arthur Rubin:. I'll make the talk page round shortly. --Izno (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I only made one revert also. I agree there is a problem. As I see it, the question revolves around the text "are rarely used, even in technical articles", referring to IEC prefixes. EEng and Dondervogel want it removed, and Fnagaton and Glider87 want it retained. I don't think it necessary in the guideline (as long as it is recognized as consensus at the time), but I don't yet see consensus for its removal. In addition, Dondervogel is accusing Glider87 of being a sock. Of whom, I have no idea.

The other 4 parties named all have 3 reverts within a 12 hour period, although I think they have all avoided violating 3RR. I was going to make an ANI AN3 report, but I haven't figured out how to paste the diffs on my smartphone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Re-proposing_removal. All editors who had participated in the thread were pinged for the final proposal of removing this text; after four days, three editors (counting me) agreed to the change and none made any argument in opposition it, so the change was made. Considering that (as established during the discussion) the text proposed for removal was originally added with no discussion at all, that certainly seems like adequate consensus to me. Two days later Glider (who literally hadn't edited in two years) showed up to disagree, and Fnagaton showed up again after a week's silence, and since then they've been crying "no consensus" instead of starting a new discussion, if they care to. EEng (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

How is this an AN/I matter, if everyone's avoided 3RR (and if they hadn't EWN would be the proper venue)? Looks like a policy dispute, which should be discussed on the policy talk page, and nobody should "make the rounds" WP:canvassing people? Or am I missing something? BMK (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:EW is enforceable against persons who have made less than 3 reverts in 24 hours if they are, well, edit warring. Which is plainly what's occurring (in tag teams, no less!). Especially, I imagine, in an area with WP:DS. I agree it's a policy dispute, but it seems to have destabilized the guideline-proper. Either some protection or some trouts (or stronger) are needed. --Izno (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

As for whether this should be here or at EWN, I picked this one simply because it came to mind first. I'm happy to move the post around, but that seems bureaucratic at this time. --Izno (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to watch exactly what you're saying. A group of editors who hold the same opinion is only a "tag team" if they are coordinating their efforts. If you have some evidence of this, you should present it here. If not, you should withdraw that quite serious accusation. My suggestion is that the page be fully protected until a consensus can be reached on the talk page. BMK (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Shrug. It's not worth arguing with you when I've achieved my goal here. So stricken. --Izno (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like edit warring to me. I'd say full protection for 24–48 hours couldn't hurt... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected for 24 hours - involved editors need to resolve the issue on the talk page.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to start topic banning editors who edit war on MOS pages. It is a perennial source of weapons-grade lameness. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The MOS is under under discretionary sanctions, but I don't know if anyone alerted the people in the edit war. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not, at least, alert any of the set (where I could have since I am the one that made the rounds) as I did not want to verify prior whether any had previously been alerted (and subsequently putting me in the position to request actual DS against the particular users previously alerted). --Izno (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Update: Totally unaware of this discussion, I got tired of the pointless fighting over how to editorialize, and just removed the editorializing. There is no need for MOS to make any claims about frequency of use, much less in specific fields, especially when whether the "even in technical fields" part is a moving target and of indeterminate accuracy over time. We have a "rule", and the consensus for it is documented in miles of talk page archives about this perennial "should be use 'gibibytes'" debate (in which I'm neutral). That's sufficient, without extraneous rationalizing. MOS is a guideline, not a book on changing language usage in technical writing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

About SPT

This incident was talked here a couple of weeks ago. It is about an edit-war at Standard Penetration Test. With BMK'help, Argyriou and I were supposed to discuss the matter at the talk page. I left my comments. He replied once and again deleted my writing, and he has not responded after that. I have tried my best to be civil. I mailed him to answer my replies; I promised him that I would edit my writings if he gives me valid reasons so I asked him to put back my writing. I have no intention to start another edit-war so I left my deleted writing as is.
I checked Wikipedia:Consensus. It says "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated."
I believe my comments in the talk page is fairly reasonable. His unwillingness to have a healthy discussion seems to be self-explanatory to me. I have been under suspicion that for some reason - and that is not based on neutral point of view nor fairness - Argyriou does not want my writings and PWRI source link to be exposed to the public, and I think it is safe to say that is the case. To me his action has been vandalism and taking my advantage. Since this incident has been talked here, I felt this is the proper place to ask for gurus' guidance. Thank you. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is no edit war at this time, and therefore no need for admin action, just an ordinary content dispute. You think you're right, Argyou thinks you're wrong. If you and Argyiou cannot reach a consensus, then, as I suggested earlier, you should avail yourself of one of the various WP:Dispute resolution mechanisms and go from there. BMK (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Against my advice, rather than seeking out dispute resolution, you have once again tried to force your material into the Standard penetration test article, when you know that another editor is firmly opposed to it. This kind of behavior is why I originally reported you here as an POV-pushing single purpose account. If your behavior continues, I wouldn;t be at all surprised if an admin decides to block you for WP:tendentious editing. BMK (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Original AN/I report is here BMK (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yoshi continues to add his SPA bullshit to the Standard Penetration Test article, degrading the usefulness of the article. I have attempted to point out to him why his stupid shit is stupid, and I've had it. Someone block him. Argyriou (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Links: Yoshi123Yoshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Note: While I can't tell if Yoshi123Yoshi's edits rise to the level of "disruptive editing", call his edits "vandalism", as you did here, Argyriou, is inappropriate, as they don't seem to have been made in "bad faith". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

IJBAll - Yoshi has been told what's wrong with his edits, yet persists in re-adding them. He's a WP:SPA (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive892#User:Yoshi123Yoshi), and has not shown any understanding of how Wikipedia works, nor provided satisfactory responses to anyone who has tried to show him the error of his ways. He's a disruptive editor, but unfortunately, there aren't enough people editing Wikipedia to respond to blatant hobby-horsing on technical articles. I'm tired of dealing with his crap, but being uncivil seems to be the only way to get anyone do protect the encyclopedia. Argyriou (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

When ANI intervened, they put back my PWRI summary. I believe they did that because I left my response in the talk page following the procedure. I started another discussion hoping to find a solution, All you said was "it is factually wrong," and never answered my response. How is it factually wrong? Why is it irrelevant? What you have been saying is that you asking me to believe your words blindly by faith. Of course I would not do that. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone just could easily say "it is factually wrong," and erase my writings, but but if one wants to convince the other, one needs to say why. I have been doing my best in the talk page, but Argyriou keeps ignoring it, and warned me of vandalism. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Flooding of consensus talks with lengthy posts about an editor rather than edits

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

---

Hi all! I'm having an issue with @Flyer22: over at the Talk:Todd Manning page. A consensus talk was attempted to be started but, instead, Flyer22 has filled it with overly lengthy complaining about me. I've asked her multiple times to stay on topic but, every response is another lengthy one about me personally, not my edits. I know moving the conversation is a violation of talk page guidelines but, so is adding overly lengthy posts because "it may be interpreted as an unwillingness to let discussion progress in an orderly manner." Is it possible to have an exception so I can move the relevant parts of the discussion somewhere else or, at the very least, get the mundane and lengthy posts about myself removed please? At this point, I can't see anyone wanting to join the mess that conversation has become. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I should mention the specific conversation is this one so nobody has to go searching through the entire page. Sorry about that.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to know why Cebr1979 and I should not interact can look at this section from my talk page. And this comment by another editor that he removed from his talk page sums things up as well. As for his report of me here at WP:ANI (after I made it clear to him that I would bring him to WP:ANI if he fiddled with the talk page in a way that required administrative attention), this and this are my responses. His characterization of how things have played out is inaccurate. He stated "Flyer22 has filled it with overly lengthy complaining about me." That is not entirely true, and his definition of lengthy does not match mine. He acts likes I have gone completely off-topic. That is false; everything I have stated in that discussion has been directly relevant or indirectly relevant. He says "I've asked her multiple times to stay on topic." That is false, depending on your definition of "multiple."

My thing is this: Cebr1979 is a highly disruptive editor. And I do mean highly disruptive. He recently picked a fight with me at the Cougar (slang) article and was blocked for it. He saw posts on my talk page about the Todd Manning article. Saw me editing the Todd Manning article in preparation for a WP:Featured article review, and decided to edit it in a way that he knew I was likely to disagree with. He waited until it was nearly time for the WP:Featured article review. If an article is edited by an editor you have trouble getting along with, is it wise to then go to that article and make likely contentious changes to it? No (often "no" anyway). On that talk page, I briefly mentioned Cebr1979's disruptive behavior toward me, and in general, to explain why I never want to discuss a thing with him, and I noted that he is the one who changed the format of a different article in a WP:Inuniverse way; that is the extent of my "complaining about" Cebr1979 in that discussion. Many at WP:Soaps know just how unpleasant and unreasonable he can be; so that he is trying to blame me for others not weighing in on the discussion gets an eyebrow raise from me. It's not just a WP:Too long; didn't read issue, if one at all. That stated, at that talk page, I have no problem refraining from commenting on his problematic editing as long as I see no more problematic editing from him at that article. That is the main soap opera article that I edit, and I was dreading him showing up at it, given his hostile nature and our tempestuous past (his past with me). Flyer22 (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the behavioral complaints here, only on the conflict over content: on that, I agree with Flyer22 and the other editor over at Talk:Todd Manning – while Trevor St. John was later "retconned" to be someone else (and many of us watching OLTL at the time suspected this would eventually be the result), he was originally cast as Todd Manning, and was treated at such in reliable sources (for years, IIRC). As such, St. John's portrayal should definitely be included at the article (as long as the later details and revelations regarding St. John's character(s) are properly explained in the article, which I'm not sure they are currently...). And, from what I saw at the Talk page, I can't say that Flyer22 was throwing overly lengthy "walls of text" up either. Beyond that, on the behavioral complaints here... well, that's above my pay grade. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The retcon is explained in the Casting and portrayals section, in what I consider a proper way. And, of course, it's noted in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that it was in the 'General' subsection, rather than the 'St. John' subsection. My bad. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, so your response to a complaint that you write excessively long diatribes attacking other editors is to write an excessively long diatribe attacking the person who reported you? The discussion has gotten long past useful. The point is you all disagree on whether the actor played the soap character or not based on an old discussion from almost four years ago. I'm going to close your section and start a simple RFC on the matter. I expect it to be similarly chaotic because nobody there seems to have heard of the idea of using a source to prove their point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: You get it. Exactly. Thank you! But, I've chosen to move on anyhow. Having conversations like this get archived always ends up proving useful in the future. Cebr1979 (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I've have enough for one day. I suggest you close that discussion, organize a simple RFC (including St. John/don't include St. John), I don't know what you people are arguing about and keep it under the line of what are the soap opera policies regarding reconned characters (include the actors but footnote? I don't care). It seems like everyone agrees on the factual issues: namely the actor played the character but that characterization was reconned away (?) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I wasn't going to respond to your post, but, clearly, I've changed my mind and will respond now: This is WP:ANI, where editors' behaviors, past and present, positive or negative, are addressed. This "attacking" happens all over WP:ANI. Cebr1979 asserted some things about me above; I challenged them. For example, one or two medium-sized paragraphs is not overly lengthy or excessively long, in my opinion, since my attention span handles such length well; and I certainly didn't spend an excessively long time talking about Cebr1979 at that talk page. I did, however, waste much time talking to him at that talk page. Above, I also noted my history with him and explained my feelings on that. It might be the case in the future that we need a WP:Interaction ban. And considering that I rarely edit soap opera articles these days (I'm more of a sexology, medical and anatomy editor), while Cebr1979 commonly edits soap opera articles, that WP:Interaction ban should be simpler than most WP:Interaction bans at this site. Here in this section, both of our behaviors' are under scrutiny, as is expected to be the case with WP:ANI, and I don't mind it. Do I like bickering? No, especially over matters that I consider trivial and/or common sense. And, as you likely saw, I WP:Hatted the bickering at the Todd Manning talk page hours ago. I am done discussing that casting matter with Cebr1979. I will wait and see if others have anything to state on the matter; but, like you stated, people have agreed with me thus far that Trevor St. John portrayed Todd Manning. Flyer22 (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we're done but I just want to say you'd do better with a short, concise summary including diffs rather than long responsive attacks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I commonly categorize an editor's behavior as problematic when it is, especially at WP:ANI where it is more than appropriate to do so. If that is considered an attack, then it is one I will not apologize for. Flyer22 (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And there are WP:Diffs in my "05:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)" post, including one directly pointing to the fact that he wipes incriminating posts (posts documenting his problematic behavior) from his talk page. But I will keep in mind your suggestion to be more concise and less attack-laden when documenting an editor's problematic behavior. Flyer22 (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• With the hatting, I think this is resolved. It seems to have simply been a thing that got out of hand or off-track and the hatting has resolved it. Suggest we close this thread while everything is on an even keel. Softlavender (talk) 13:12, 29 July 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.

Unlock Cher Lloyd 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 need to edit Cher Lloyd's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by JENTINA2015 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to request any edits on the article's talk page. Nakon 02:13, 31 July 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:Uvik and Kazakhstani to Kazakh category & page moves

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:Uvik has moved dozens of categories (and some pages) from Kazakhstani foo to Kazakh foo. From my brief discussion I believe they've been done in good faith. I think something like this should go through a WP:RM or WP:RFC process. Our article for Kazakhstan has the demonym to be Kazakhstani, and not Kazakh. Therefore I believe with something of this nature that the categories/pages are moved back until a consensus is reached. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Kazakh is certainly not appropriate, it is about ethnicity. Everything about citizens of Kazakhstan is Kazakhstani.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter. It's not my area of expertize, but moving categories/pages with a long-standing naming structure seemed wrong. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

They worked very hard today, help is needed in reverting all of this back.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:19, 31 July 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.

Noncommunicative IP / Yngwie Malmsteen album 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.

---

An IP keeps changing the lead sections of Yngwie Malmsteen album articles to reflect an incorrect chronological order. The correct order can be observed on this navbox. All articles in question where they have made disruptive edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The IP neither leaves edit summaries nor communicates via talk page. Either I go for RfPP on all the affected articles, or preferably they should be blocked. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Revoked. I think I understand their edits now. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:26, 1 August 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.

New article Gamerghazi needs GG Discretionary Sanctions

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.

---

GamerGhazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created yesterday and much edit warring going on, creator is squatting on article and reverting many times. Can an admin please post Discretionary Sanctions template?

Note: Article immediately sent to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamerGhazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and will probably be deleted but meanwhile warring continues. Most of article is based on bad premise and is primarily about Gamergate response to criticism, claims "Gamerghazi" is a named countermovement (no RS named it), but Gamerghazi is nothing but a subreddit created to mock Gamergate. Warning template and 1RR will help. I am not asking for any action against editors at this time and am stepping away from the article while discussion is here. AmericanEnki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has received several warnings from different editors on their talk page, and keeps insisting their reverts are against vandalism, showing WP:BATTLEGROUND. Suggest this new editor needs a mentor as they are debating all over the AfD page as well.

Note the difference between current view and what I attempted to add, this is literally different planets. Lots and lots and lots of reversion trying to maintain the Gamergate view of the world. Tried to list diffs and my tablet crashed, sorry. I had 6 of them. A glance at the article history makes edit warring and reversions clear.

Diff from my longer edit to current (very similar to original) [156] 98.210.208.21 (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• A snow close of the AfD would be easier. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 1 August 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.

Fix BAJRANJI now

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.

---

Bajranji did not have only 400 crore. What kind of idiots are you people Koimoi and box office India both say over 500 crore. If you don't know proper information don't tell lyes and terrorizing continue. Whole Indian media says over 500 and you people treat us like stupid Maybe we aren't smart enough to edit here, only US and UK masters get to decide what the truth is, rest of us still subject. Fix it now with the truth no more lies. Don't cheet others with fake updates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.56.79 (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Paging NeilN (or any admin) to block yet another disruptive sock with this same agenda. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 1 August 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.

Hostility and ownership from Eric Corbett, Cassianto, Parrot of Doom and J3Mrs

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.

---

Administrators might want to check what is happening at Talk:Guy Fawkes Night. There have been disagreements for years about the scope of the article. Eric Corbett, Cassianto, Parrot of Doom and J3Mrs believe it should include just the history of the event, not the annual event itself, and are demonstrating ownership of the article. Currently, they are being increasingly hostile on the talk page to anyone who disagrees with them. Some edits made over the previous days include the following: [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162]. This is not the kind of behaviour to be expected and is not being repeated by those on the "other side" of the discussion. Some further opinions and help could be useful. 2A05:1700:0:10:0:0:0:6 (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC) (long-term editor making anonymous post: worried about receiving grief for months to come because of this)

I do not think we can do much here. There is no incivility as far as I can see, and this content dispute should be resolved via usual dispute resolution avenues. I am not familiar with this article, apparently many things have been already tried, but naively I would think about WP:DRN.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• "long-term editor making anonymous post: worried about receiving grief for months to come because of this": the fact you've admitted socking in order to complain about a content dispute is shocking. Closing on that basis, and you deserve a BOOMERANG for your action. - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Socking refers to using multiple accounts for an improper purpose. I have made clear my use of this account and never attempted to be deceptive. I am not comfortable with opposing these editors when there might be repercussions for me from them in the future. I am genuinely worried about harrassment. 2A05:1700:0:10:0:0:0:6 (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

To be clear the use of alternate accounts to participate in internal discussion, particularly to lodge complaints against other users is in fact sock puppetry. Chillum 14:36, 1 August 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.

Off Wikipedia Legal Threat made by an indefinitely blocked user

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.

---

Curse of Fenric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Several weeks ago, User Curse of Fenic was indefinitely blocked for making personal attacks and as the blocking admin stated, Not being here to build an encyclopedia. There was a short discussion on a possible "ban" as seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive892#User:Curse of Fenric, but it was withdrawn. Shortly afterward Curse of Fenric vowed never to return.

Fast forward to this morning, when Curse of Fenric edited the talk page again, that included an external link to a an article written by the blocked user that uses the words libel, libelous, local law, criminal and accuses the blocking admin of violating the Defamation Act. All of these imply legal threats. I suggest that we revisit a formal ban on this user.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually a legal threat, even though he uses some legal wording. For another thing it's off-wiki, even though he linked to it. He's already indef blocked; there doesn't seem to have been enough longterm intransigent problems/abuse in multiple situations over a long time to formally site ban him. Could wipe the talkpage and revoke talk page access. The blog post he linked to was mainly just childish sulking and adolescent posturing; he claims he was accused of bullying or being a bully, and that isn't in the wording of the block at all (or even in the ANI). This mainly sounds like a blockee letting off normal steam in our direction; it happens all the time. Ranting, in other words. Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Softlavender. It's essentially a continuation of their more recent behaviour for which I blocked them. The legal threat, if you call it that, isn't remotely credible and most people familiar with the relevant piece of legislation know that Sections 2 and 3 (Truth and Honest opinion) would apply in this case. The blocking rationale is both truthful and is an honest opinion of their recent behaviour. The blog is petulant sulking from someone who didn't get their own way. Nick (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

We block users indefinitely for more making legal threats on Wikipedia. Why should making one off Wikipedia result in a formal ban? Not that this is anywhere near an actual legal threat of course. All you have succeeded in doing here is giving him a greater audience for his nonsense.--Atlan (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The threat isn't important. The important thing is to consider whether any legitimate wrong has been done and whether there was a breach of WP:CIVIL. GregKaye 13:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Good luck trying to uphold WP:CIVIL on Wordpress.--Atlan (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well the indef block seems justified, but I don't feel that Curse of Fenric's vow to never return is going to last. If COF ever tries to appeal the block, I'm hoping that this strongly worded diatribe is included into evidence.JOJ ^Hutton 14:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it is definitely a legal threat in spirit, no matter how hard he tries to wikilawyer around it with a disclaimer. The intention of that "blog" post is clear - to try and chill discussion and to scare people into giving him what he wants. And by linking it directly from his talk page, he brings this on-wiki. But his efforts to play amateur (UK?) lawyer are meaningless since he's already blocked indefinitely. Just file it away for future reference if he seeks a return, and consider revoking talk page access if he were to continue abusing it. Resolute 14:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

If a user is indef blocked and no admin is willing to unblock then the user is de-facto banned. If the user ever seeks to return then this can all be taken into account. I have removed this users talk page access though. Chillum 14:39, 1 August 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.

IP attack

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

---

An IP left an exceedingly nasty message on KrakatoaKatie's page here: [163]

I reverted immediately: [164] This is likely obviously a sock of another blocked user. GAB^Hello! 17:19, 1 August 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.

Fenric

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.

---

Curse of Fenric was blocked wrongly. All he did was put a self imposed block on himself and Nick blocked him because of it. That is not a good reason to block someone. It's NOT like Fenric vandalized an article or was cursing at someone. Nick was too swift to block him

And Chillum reblocking Fenric was lame. Fenric posted a rebuttal where he could get his side of the story out and he was blocked because of it. One link and blocked.Makes no sense and is too harsh.

Just reduce Fenric's ban

With all due respect, these 2 admins went on a power trip. Admins are no better than us. They should show patience and not be too heavy handed — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMarchasis (talk • contribs) 18:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

These 2 admins should be forced to reduce Fenric's ban or face loss of the mop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMarchasis (talk • contribs) 18:34, 1 August 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.

Time to block User:Jdude5

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.

---

• Jdude5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been dealing with User:Jdude5 for quite some time. This user keeps randomly inserting material, mostly regarding the Mexican origin of various things, such as the cowboy hat or rodeo, that is either redundant, unsourced, or just in the wrong place. This user initially appeared harmless and a newbie, but he now makes the same kinds of edits repeatedly, will not take his concerns to talk and, as one can see by all the warnings at User talk:Jdude5, he is getting disruptive. His edits often mess up formatting or alter sourced material. He seems uninterested in learning how to edit, just keeps putting in random information that usually is either already in the article or is phrased oddly with a bit of POV tone. Much as he seems to be very proud of the contributions Mexico has made to the world, I think it's time for a block. Diffs to follow. Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

A review of this user's contributions shows a pattern of editing and being reverted in slow motion, so far no 3RR violations, just the same IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. To wit:

• Wild West (disambiguation): [165] this is an example of the the general tone.
• American frontier: [166]
• Cowboy hat: [167], [168], [169], [170], [171] [172], [173] May have also been anon IP 66.87.142.69
• Rodeo: multiple disruptive edits, see history July 15-July 31
• Latin American culture: [174]
• Mexico: [175]
• Culture of Mexico: [176]
• Burrito: [177] multiple disruptive edits June 19-23
• Charreada: [178], [179]
• Color television: [180]
• Culture of Texas: [181]
• Culture of the United States: [182], [183]
• Cowboy boot: [184]
• Vaquero: [185]
• Jaripeo: [186]
• Hamburger: A non-Mexico edit: [187], [188]

He also has a host of other random edits that seem like a schoolkid who got an assignment to "edit wikipedia": [189], [190],

There's more, see the contribs list and all the talk page warnings. Montanabw^(talk) 04:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support block. Good grief, the user has had enough warnings, and final warnings, and final final warnings, to earn a block of some length. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yep – this ones had enough Level 4 warnings to necessitate a block. Also, never touched a Talk page (any Talk page!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

With a heavy heart, I've "indeffed" Jdude5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The reason why I didn't block for a specified time is because I think the block should be for an indefinite period. That indefinite period will end when Jdude5 starts interacting with other users, hopefully very soon. I guess that would start with talking to me, as I'm the shmo who blocked them. I'm in the process of adding a hand-written block notice explaining the indef. If any other admin sees good reason to unblock them before I do, that would fine by me. Warning: this ANI post contains repeated uses of the singular they. Prescriptive grammarians may need to don goggles.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 1 August 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.

Perceived legal threat from User:Lifegami

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 this permalink at the foot, in the final section, where I perceive that this editor has either issued a legal threat or has issued words preparatory to issuing a legal threat. Fiddle Faddle 05:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff? All I see is this[191] and I don't see a legal threat there. Chillum 05:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that it's not a legal threat against Wikipedia – it seems like a very mild legal threat against Tamsin Kendra (IIRC, subsequently blocked for...) who solicited the payment for getting the article approved. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The closest I see is "I'm not sure if the circumstances surrounding this matter are legal or not" which is not a threat of action against anyone. Chillum 05:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

That is it in a nutshell. My perception differs from yours. I am content that it differs. My role once I perceive it as a legal threat is to bring it here and then to let others judge. Fiddle Faddle 05:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, to clarify, my intention was not to threaten legal action. I only wanted to know how someone would be able to see a rejected submission. I'm still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia, so I may have missed some standard rules. I thought if an article was not approved, it wouldn't be made public on Wikipedia. If that is not true, I would like to know if there is a way to make it private (i.e. only viewable by the article creator and authorized editors)? Also, if this is not the appropriate place to ask the aforementioned question, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the appropriate section. Lifegami 1 August 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.36.94 (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually User:Lifegami was attempting to report an instance of the scam that has recently emerged where writers of declined drafts are approached off-wiki by scammers claiming to be a "senior editor" who then attempt to extort payment for getting the declined draft into mainspace. Unfortunately he/she used such indirect "legalese" language that the post was easy to misinterpret . (The WMF Legal office is aware of the scam and warnings about it are posted in the headers of various pages at AFC.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. I work on the basis that one must never ignore a perceived legal threat and the only correct course of action is to bring it here. Once it is here it will be judged by more than one person and the right outcome will be reached. I am perfectly happy to have been shown to have erred on the side of caution. A good result all round, that! Fiddle Faddle 13:27, 1 August 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.

Admin abuse

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 be banning admin ricky81682. He does nothing but attack Inddian movies. All movie articles are locked now and now he's blacklisting all box office India websites for bias. Don't be idiots and let lies be put here by haters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.58.150 (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have anything that resembles evidence that Ricky has done anything wrong?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

In addition, IP, you neglected to notify Ricky about this thread, as required (I did that for you, however). But I always get suspicious when a seemingly new user (much less, an IP) even knows about the ANI forum. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a discussion at the RS noticeboard which deals with this issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 2 August 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.

Help needed

It would be helpful if I could have at least one other editor discuss these issues that isn't just looking to get their favorite star a higher ranking. There's two disputes at RSN (Boxofficeindia.com's reliability and Koimoi.com's reliability which are basically ignored), two pages I've sent to AFD because their websites have zero reliable sources behind them (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Office India (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andhra Box Office) along with at least three different articles under full protection just to be able to keep it from users posting things like twitter hourly updates (plus the joy that comes on my talk page). Of course there's a round of ethnic bashing in this as well but that's almost par for the course. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Pudist and conspiracy theories [Needs Admin Attention]

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

Users edits in just the past two months include:

• Edit warring to add conspiracy theories to September 11 attacks
• Edit warring to add OR claims to Alex Jones
• Citing some forum posts to give WP:UNDUE support to a conspiracy theory about the RFK assassination.
• Posting a rant (possibly a WP:COPYVIO) arguing that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK, and then attempting to downplay mainstream history, even after final warning.

User has some other edits demonstrating potential usefulness elsewhere, but their edits relating to conspiracy theories run in the complete opposite direction of WP:NPOV. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would have taken this to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard which generally deals with the promotion of fringe conspiracy theories, but since it's here I will ping that board. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You do realize you cannot ping a board here? not unless you post a message there about x subject. Otherwise, pinging boards does not work. Pinging serves for pinging users only. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 02:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I do realize that. I was using the term in the more general sense, meaning to alert. Which I did in fact do. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an obvious WP:NOTHERE block. Blackmane (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure. This editor has been around for a while and some of their older work doesn't look especially controversial. But after a long break they are suddenly on a fringe conspiracy theories kick and definitely engaging in disruptive behavior. Perhaps a broad topic ban including any conspiracy related topics might be in order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban relating to conspiracy theories was what I was thinking as well. Perhaps something along the lines of "anything that List of conspiracy theories discusses and any pages in Category:Conspiracy_theories or its subcategories," just to prevent any possibility of the claim "I didn't know that was a conspiracy theory." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this editor yet. Sometimes it takes new people time to get the hang of working with others. Incidentally, the rant was copied from the blog of James H. Fetzer. - Location (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

He's been around since 2006. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

He/she averages around 10 to 12 edits a year. Perhaps "inexperienced" would have been a better way to describe him/her. - Location (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have blocked this user as they have blatantly violated WP:NPOV in spite of a final warning, but would recommend we impose a topic ban to prevent this disruption over the long term. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban broadly covering any conspiracy related subjects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Why I posted, why he's blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and warn that NPOV is essential. Any editor who considers James H. Fetzer's blog to be a reliable source cannot be trusted to edit such articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as proposed. We've been here enough times by now to know that this kind of editor's behaviour is unfixable. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Time to close this? There appears to be a consensus favoring a broadly construed topic ban covering all conspiracy related topics and articles. Could an available admin please close this? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Bumped from archives. We can extend this discussion as long as necessary but there's clearly an uncontroversial, unanimous consensus with no objections raised, it would be great if an uninvolved admin could do the formality of closing this for archiving purposes and notify the editor of the Category:Conspiracy theories topic ban. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 03:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This user has been sufficiently warned, but has only been blocked once regarding the concerns mentioned here. I feel that we're jumping towards a ban too soon. Yes, I absolutely agree that this user's edits are disruptive, but I don't see any edits to articles related to conspiracies before his first block on July 1st. I believe that we should wait and see if he has learned from this most recent block. If it is clear that he hasn't, then I support the topic ban. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Foreign relations of South Korea

• Scottish12345678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Foreign relations of South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone check the edits of User:Scottish12345678 to the above article. This user is continually changing countries listed as Asian (e.g. Turkemnistan) and placing them in the Europe section. Denisarona (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Scottish12345678 looks to me like an SPA with singular focus on "Foreign relations of [country]" articles – several Talk page warnings this month on various "Foreign relations of [country]" articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Looks to me as if Scottish12345678 is editing in good faith but perhaps as a relatively new user is a little unsure what they're doing. Talk page dialogue is probably the best way to resolve this, but Scottish12345678 needs to engage with the community.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Similar edits are also being made by User:Irish12345678. Denisarona (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Same type of editing going on by 180.189.88.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who went all over Wikipedia editing the foreign relations of other countries (some with useless copyvio) about South Korea from news articles on the Korean MOFA. I had to clean up several of their edits. This seems like it could possibly be COI editing. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Examples of useless copyvio: [192], [193], [194], [195], [196]. I'm not sure if this would qualify as copyvio but the content is copy-pasted word for word from the references he provides. The editing is virtually identical to the two other users. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I've raised my concerns about this user, and Irish12345678, on this page (see below), regarding their edits on Foreign relations of South Korea. Sorry, didn't realise that this discussion was already on-going. Basically they're inserting massive overlinking, grammatical nonsense, reverting any attempt to fix, and ignoring any attempts to communicate. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Editor Irish12345678 / Scottish12345678‎ and overlinking

• Irish12345678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editors Scottish12345678‎ and Irish12345678 are heavily editing the Foreign relations of South Korea article. While the substance of these edits are positive, there are a number of problems.

• Massive overlinking. This article now has links on every mention of every country, including through redirects. Other common terms are linked on every mention. The weight of these make editing the article increasingly difficult.
• Scottish12345678‎ and Irish12345678 are possibly not native speakers. Some sentences don't make any grammatical sense.
• No edit summaries on any edits.
• I suspect Scottish12345678‎ and Irish12345678 are the same editor. Same articles, exact same edits.
• I have attempted to fix issues with the article, only to have them reverted.
• Any attempt to communicate with the editor(s) about their edits are ignored.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this a duplicate of a section above, also complaining that those two editors are making bad edits to the same article? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Has a sock-puppet investigation been filed? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Didn't realise discussion had already been started. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of an SPI report being filed yet, no. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd blocked this user for 24 hours before I saw this ANI to stem the flow of copyright violating articles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I really do think an SPI case is warranted here, though I don't necessarily have the time to file it (at least, not over the next 24–36 hours...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just blocked the "Irish" account as an obvious alternate account of the "Scottish" one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

They've just created another sock and continuing with same edits. See English18. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've indeffed the Scottish and the English versions, protected the X-South Korea relations articles and semied Foreign relations of South Korea Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Rajkamal Rana breaking things

Rajkamal Rana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wp:competence problem. Breaking articles, not learning from mistakes.

• Edits breaking Anmol K.C.
  • Deletes cats, external links, person data, reflist template
  • And again
  • And again

• Edits breaking Birendra Sainik Awasiya Mahavidyalaya
  • Deletes categories, external links, reflist template
  • Repeats above
  • Again, repeats above
  • Yet again
  • After much coaching, adds cite inside about template

• Strange talk page messages]
  • Adds name, no tildes, leaves message in edit summary
  • Adds name, no tildes, no edit summary
  • adds message sort of at top of user's talk page

• Edits breaking Baahubali: The Beginning
  • Removes sourced text, breaks other things
  • Repeats above
  • Blanks most of article

This user's edits are not contributing to building an encyclopedia. He needs lots of training. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 07:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Seems to fail WP:CIR and (given this edit adding a school timetable) a basic understanding of what an encyclopedia actually is (or rather, isn't). Kleuske (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with jim1138; this editor needs some guidance and training. He has been sufficiently warned, and has continued editing in the same manner despite them. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Dblama

• Dblama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This user originally came to my attention over at Wikimedia Commons after numerous copyright violations and sockpuppeteering. (The user is also using the accounts Durlavkt7, JasonStack43, PurNep – falsely claimed to have pending change reviewer privileges, SadiU7 and Snubssulky here on English Wikipedia.) I noticed that he falsely claimed to be an administrator and a bureaucrat (in addition to overstating his experience here by eight years) on his user page. When the message from User:220 of Borg about this went unanswered for three months, I decided to remove the false claims myself. The response was to replace my user talk page with "FUCK YOU LX!" and another fuck you on his own. I'd appreciate if an actual administrator could educate User:Dblama on appropriate ways of addressing other volunteers. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 14:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Boy, between the fraudulent Admin/Bureaucrat claims, and the personal attack/violation of WP:TPO, I'm wondering if a block is in order here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• @LX: it looks like you forgot to notify Dblama about this discussion (see instructions at the top of this ANI page for details) – I have gone ahead and notified Dblama for you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Ah, I see now that you did, just not with a {{ANI-notice}} template. Sorry! - My bad! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@LX: Thank you for bringing this up here. I should have followed it up myself. Indeed, that rude response is uncalled for. In addition to comments above, Dblama seems to be a bit of a SPA as a large proportion of their edits are to create/edit pages relating to a particular Nepalese family. Their move log may need reviewing too when the move rationale, which I mentioned to them on their talk page here back in April, includes "To make it easier for Nepalese national to find the page". 220 of ^Borg 02:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This guy is clearly not interested in encyclopedia work. I suggest an indef here (if he hasn't been blocked by the time I make this post) for both the master and the socks, with the socks having talk page access revoked if a Checkuser comes up Likely or better. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've unarchived this, as it was archived without any action or resolution. Did I do something wrong when filing this that would cause it to be dismissed without as much as a comment from an administrator? Are socking, falsely claiming to be an administrator, and making personal attacks not considered problems on English Wikipedia these days? Should I not have brought it up, or is this the wrong place to do so? If so, please tell me, don't just ignore me. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 08:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So... First impression is that we should have acted then, probably an impersonation block. But they did not reinstate the impersonating claims. Nor did they repeat personal attacks.

Generally with older non current issues we let them lie. Admin intervention is intended to be preventive not punitive. Not sure what we would prevent now.

You were correct in reporting here originally.

I think continuing to watch for future misbehavior is all we should do now.

Other admins may have different opinions.

166.177.249.163 (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You may this report more complicated than necessary. You're throwing in other names based on what happened at Commons, red links, blue links, no idea if I'm reviewing five people or one or if there's sockpuppetry here or what's going on. Also the diff format isn't obious to me at a immediate glance but that's just me being lazy I'm sure. There's too many people who claim that person X did this and now to check if you're correct, I see a page of edits from them which seem decent but editing goes back to November 2013. Don't just point to edit histories and move logs and expect everyone else to jump through hoops to figure out the issue. The editor copied a userpage with a bunch of lies, they were removed, terrible but normal. I see massive civility issues from weeks ago and someone who never talks so that's two bad strikes. There's a move log. Ok, are the moves being reverted? Are they problematic? I see a lot of images being posted. Are they still problems like at commons? Is there something recent or do they just need a civility warning about their antics from weeks ago? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt to explain what I should have done differently here, but frankly, I'm even more puzzled now. I didn't just point to edit histories, I provided specific diffs that look just like any other Mediawiki diffs – no hoops to jump through. I'm not familiar enough with practices here to say what the outcome of replacing another user's user page with FUCK YOU should be, but I thought it was obvious that this type of behaviour was not acceptable on any Wikimedia project, and with the comments from other users, I'm surprised the result was to do nothing. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@LX: The simplest way to resolve the socking bit would be to file an SPI. I'll try to go through the move log soon to figure out what's going on. —SpacemanSpiff 15:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll look into that process, but again, my main wish here was simply for a basic level of civility to be maintained. I have no reason to expect a more civilised response if I need to interact with this user again, because the signal that's being sent from English Wikipedia's administrators is that this type of behaviour has zero consequence – not even the gentlest warning (unless you count my own pointer to this discussion, which was blanked out without response). —LX (talk, contribs) 15:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• LX I need to sleep but I'd suggest making a report at WP:SPI regarding the socks (just list the accounts from Commons for now) and from there, I suspect someone will block him. To simplify, a user who had a history of sockpuppetry at Commons is clearly using the same puppet accounts here. The user had a copyrighted images problem, has two uploads here but is now inserting a number of images here all from Commons from different accounts there (more socking? I don't know). User has a terrible name-calling habit when called out on it and never communicates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  Done: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dblama. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I've got the SPI watchlisted, I've left a final warning stating that any further problems will most likely be met with blocks.—SpacemanSpiff 16:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Socking paid editors removing G4 tag

Can someone please review Dawnn Karen? I think it is similar enough to this version deleted at AFD to qualify for G4 but the tag keeps on getting removed. SmartSE (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Deleted as a repost under category g4. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest someone with the time take a look at Arun Pudur also created by this user. AniMate 22:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know which promotional sockmaster they belong to (the IP ranges used are highly dynamic), but Moonlight78644 (talk · contribs), Nocompromise6 (talk · contribs) and Nocompromise61 (talk · contribs) (deleted edits only) are all  Confirmed socks.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Has an SPI been opened about this? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimeQueen32 is a related SPI case. But there's been some confusion there, so I'm being careful how I word this! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on BLPs

124.188.8.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
124.188.8.78 has a long history of disruptive editing. Most recently copyright violations.

[197] copied from [198]

[199] copied from [200]

[201] copied from [202]

Their most recent warning [203] was on 22 July 2015. That was for edits like [204], [205] removing sources without explaination.
Other copyright problems

[206] copyvio from [207]

[208] copyvio from [209]

[210] copyvio from [211]

[212] copyvio from [213] ([214] from an old version [215]

Older removal of sources

[216], [217], [218]

Other stuff

Bad headings, eg [219], It's not his early life, it's his current career, most recently this month. Similarily [220] his debut is not his early life, it's his current career.

Disruptive problematic editing that needs fixing by others. Counterproductive to the project. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

See section #An anon on a date-changing kick above, from 3 days ago if that is the IP referred to, but in fact the warning on 22 July referred to in Duffbeerforme's message seems to be to a different user, & most (if not all) of the other diffs seen to refer to 124.188.8.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), not to 178.174.253.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), so I think we need clarification. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops, fixed. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I have given a final warning for the copy vio and will watch. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Another final warning!!!! Yay!!!!! Lets keep those final warnings coming!!!!! duffbeerforme (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)!!!!!!

He hadn't so far been warned about copyright violations at all, so a warning is the appropriate course of action in my opinion. --Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Attention requested on Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais regarding the edits of User:Sakimonk

Sakimonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing properly sourced and cited information from Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), especially sources which directly relate to the subject's notability in the English-speaking world, and is substituting both original research and completely off-topic material. I reverted and explained my concerns on his talk page. I also explained my concerns as to why I believe his edits were against policy on the articles' talk page. This cycle happened a second time (Sakimonk reversion, my restoration) at which point I realized we getting into an edit war. As Sakimonk is not a frequent editor, I reminded him about edit warring and asked him to follow up on the talk page. At which point Sakimonk reverted yet again and then accused me of anti-semitism and racism. I will not rerevert and propogate the edit war; that is not constructive for the project. However, I firmly believe Sakimonk's edits are improper from NPOV, NOR, and content perspectives, that the article should be restored to the way it was prior to his edits, and that he should contribute to the project gainfully and in accord with our policies and guidelines, and not with what appears to be a POV-pushing, hagiographic, and ad hominem based approach. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted them and commented at the talk page. If they continue, I am going to block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and get sources later on. Sakimonk ^talk 20:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

While new reliable and verifiable sourced which enhance the article are always welcome, new sources will still not permit removing information for which there already exists reliable and verifiable sources that directly relate to the subject's notability. -- Avi (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Anaxagoras13

So I was just removing the {{blocked user}} tag from this user's page because their block expired. Then they started warring about it ridiculously, so I had to warn the user with {{uw-ew}}. The user then removed my message and pointed to WP:DENY in their edit summary (see this diff), then banned me from their talk page and decided that any of my edits to their talk page and user page would be vandalism (as shown on this diff, this diff, this diff and this diff). This, of course, violates WP:NOTVAND and can be considered harassment. And because I'm banned from their talk page, I can't notify them. --TL22 (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Notification is required, and you can not be banned from placing required notifications on a user's page. Scr★pIron^IV 15:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know. I notified them on their talk page, that should do the thing. --TL22 (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Gonna be honest, the blocked tag seems like a ridiculous thing for either of you to be edit-warring about. It doesn't seem to be putting them into any categories, and technically it's not even inaccurate (they have been blocked for 24 hours in the past), so it's not really doing much harm. In an ideal world, yes, it shouldn't be on their user page, but this isn't an ideal world; if they want to keep the template as some sort of red badge of courage or whatever, well, more power to them. The vandalism thing is also uncouth, but is it really that important? I certainly wouldn't call it harassment; such bans are customarily respected by the community, and though it's not vandalism to disregard them, the distinction is largely academic since you shouldn't be posting there anyway. I'm not seeing that any action needs to be taken here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

ToonLucas22 Why the heck are you editing someone else's user page? That just seems like baiting them. And then coming here to report them for edit warring on their own user page? valereee (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• TL22, you were the one who reported the user for edit warring, got them blocked and went on to add {{blocked user|time=24 hours} to their userpage. Surely you can understand why the user does not want you meddling again, especially since you did not even bother to remove the so called block notice(which you shouldn't have put there in the first place) even after the block expired. Please disengage. - NQ (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Apply a fish slap to TL22 for this foolishness. Placing a blocked template on a user's userpage after they got them blocked for edit warring is baiting (no pun intended). Subsequent edit warring with that same user over the template is just downright ridiculous. Apply a whole basket of said fish. Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding unsourced data - numerous warnings

Zhayden123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add unsourced data to articles, despite warnings from two separate editors (three including me). I saw a level 4 warning on Zhayden123's talk page and came here. On July 15, 2014, User:Jetstreamer reported this editor to ANI here, and then withdrew it here. There was extensive discussion on Jetstreamer's talk page, including a section where Zhayden123 said "if I was caught in any wrong-doing, I would like to sincerely apologize for my mistakes." Today, Ernest A. Love Field appeared on my watchlist, and there were two unsourced edits (the most aggravating kind, some numbers randomly changed), and the editor was Zhayden123. Thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

IP 88.231.36.10

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.

---

IP insists on using wrong grammar [221] [222] [223] [224] [225]. Despite putting several warnings on the talkpage of the IP, he/she did not communicate. --Jaellee (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And the IP continues [226] despite the ANI notice. --Jaellee (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 31 hours and gave the page long-term protection, since there seems to be quite a long-term problem on it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:26, 1 August 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.

Hounding by GregJackP

GregJackP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Emerald ash borer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Background

I've had relatively little interaction with GregJackP until about the last month. I recently made an edit at an article which GregJackP reverted. I generally edit agricultural topics and have been watching the article for awhile now. Prior to this, I only had two previous interactions with this editor here, and here while I stayed out of the content dispute at this same page because of the incivility I saw towards another editor in a past content dispute. This current discussion originally should have been a straightforward mundane content discussion (should a picture be included or not). Instead, the issues with GregJackP's behavior can be mainly seen at the relatively short talk page discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.#Picture_of_justice. I started off very civil (and throughout the conversation) asking why GregJackP thought the image should remain. Instead, I was met with refusal to engage in basic dialogue about the content (what purpose is the picture serving?), immediately calling my edit harassment in the edit summary, and some strange ownership behavior all summarized pretty well in this diff. Trying to ask for at least some dialogue just resulted in a dismissive, "Get consensus if you want it removed." [227]

Hounding and vandalism

So, we've got some really prickly and uncivil behavior from GregJackP, but what they said and did next is what brings me here because of purposeful disruption: "When it is someone that hasn't edited bug articles, but starts a dispute over the three photos of the same bug? I'm not going to do that, because I'm not an asshole, but I'm not going to look favorably on answering BS questions about a photo. . ."[228] Not much later, they followed me to a insect GA nominee I've been responding to suggested edits on and did exactly that.[229]. GregJackP has never edited the page and it is not in their normal topic area at all. This coupled with their previous statement demonstrates obvious WP:HOUNDING. GregJackP's edits summaries in the first hounding diff and a repeat [230] are very closely paraphrased from my own comments from attempted discussion[231] for further pointiness. This also amounts to vandalism of a page and WP:POINTY behavior by trying to disrupt a page to prove a point.

Always being met with incivility by this user when I always approach them civilly coupled with blatant hounding seems to show their behavior isn't going to be better on its own. GregJackP was blocked by GorillaWarfare for continued harassment and personal attacks back in January (unblock appeal by Quadell)[232]. A temp block might be suitable until it's clear this won't continue to be a problem. However, I'm fine with someone just getting the point across to them that the behavior is not acceptable as long as the immediate incivility stops on pages where our interests overlap (apparently patents relating to agriculture) and pointy hounding stops on pages where they do not. I don't think an interaction ban should be necessary quite yet.

It would also be nice if someone undid the hounding edit on the emerald ash borer page since my removals are reverted each time. All this because I wanted to talk about if a picture of a judge was really needed. . . Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I should also stress that GregJackP claimed I was trying to derail the GA process at the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article (I firmly rejected that attempt at bad faith [233]). Now after purposely following me to the emerald ash borer article, GregJackP has managed to partially cause the GA review to fail due to instability. [234]. Action is needed from the community when disruptive editing to this degree is occurring as I've never seen anything this blatant before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I protected emerald ash borer for 24 hours due to edit warring before realising that this issue had been brought here (and closed my good article review of the article). Any administrator has my permission to remove, extend or shorten this protection as appropriate. I have no opinion on the claims of hounding at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah this doesn't look good. Kingofaces43 was bold and removed a pic on the Bowman article. GregJackP reverted and then discussion happened (and continues to happen). GregJackP went to the EAB article was bold and removed three pics (and started discussion). Kingofaces43 reverted and GregJackP reverted again. It doesn't look good when you head to another article you've never edited and initate conflict there with someone you are in conflict with elsewhere. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for summarizing that nicely. I don't think I'd describe GregJackP's edit on the ash borer page exactly as bold though as that insinuates a good-faith edit. The context here shows a more disruptive intent as vandalism, not to mention one of the edit summaries saying he removed a picture because he claims the picture was of an elm tree and not an ash. That's original research at best, but context from the Bowman article doesn't really show this as a best case scenario. WP:SNEAKY describes this vandalism best in addition to WP:POINTY.Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like your unwarranted removal of an image at the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article precipitated this little kerfluffle.[235] Further, it looks like you and Jytdog are both harassing GregJackP (and by extension another user named PraeceptorIP) on the article talk page for no reason other than because "Monsanto" is part of the article name. Because you and Jytdog seem to disrupt every article where the word "Monsanto" appears, have you considered voluntarily withdrawing from any and all Monsanto-related topics? Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, Could you please provide some diffs showing us how they harrased GregJackP?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy Attack Dog (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 July 2015‎

This has already been discussed here. Jytdog agreed to drop the stick and move on. However, Kingofaces43 showed up just less than a month later to start up the hounding again. Anyone can look at the stats and see what's going on here. The problem is not GregJackP. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we're in Australia again... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

How exactly is boomerang relevant to Viridtas' comment? It's very apparent they are blowing hot air here if one reads the actual diffs I provided. Are you suggesting a boomerang for Viriditas instead? It's not entirely clear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was never involved in the ANI you just mentioned. I also wasn't involved in whatever dispute Jytdog and GregJackP were involved in, and only had a few notes of caution as things were pretty much wrapped up by the time I got back from vacation and was catching up [236]. I know you are not fond of Jytdog, but this is not a soapbox for that as we had next to no interaction in this instance. Anyone who reads the diffs and links to conversations I provided should be able to see pretty clearly that I was being civil in response to some pretty poor behavior, and the various claims Viriditas has made so far are readily dismissed by reading the various links I originally provided. They actually document all of my interactions with GregJackP, which shows just how quickly they resorted to this behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing roughly equal levels of unconstructive behavior from GregJackP, Jytdog, and Kingofaces43. It is evident that after the July 12/13 ANI Viriditas linked to above the stick was not totally dropped and that Kingofaces is now playing ball as well.

Kingofaces43, you are not "being pretty civil in response to some pretty poor behavior". That's what Viriditas and Erpert were suggesting. One can argue "But he's being worse!" back and forth a bunch, but the nature and extent on all three parties are similar.

I am simultaneously concerned about multiway multiparty novel synthesis and you and Jytdog apparently deciding to ignore an informal style standard for court cases despite being told repeatedly.

When you come to ANI with unclean hands they're going to get looked at. GregJackP, you clearly need to tone it down as well, but Jytdog and Kingofaces43, you have brought attention to yourselves here and it's not looking all that good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, you're right, I shouldn't have reacted the way I did. I had not gone back to GMO-type articles and if you look at my last 500 edits, they are almost all in the legal article arena (with a few outliers). I guess I just got frustrated with Jytdog coming back to WT:LAW to argue on citation style (and then OR/Synth) when all of the seasoned editors in that field are telling him that he is wrong. Then, to top it off, Kingofaces43 shows up at an article where he has never made a single edit, where the page has been nominated for GA (over a month ago), when the last substantive edit had been over a month ago, and when the photo in question had been in the article since late June ([237]). It looked to me that he was intentionally trying to screw up the GA nomination, especially after he ignored my comment that all of the SCOTUS FAs and 2/3rds of the GAs have pictures of the justice who wrote the majority opinion. So I let him bait me and I shouldn't have.

Look, all I want to do is to work on my legal articles. I create good content and I've tried to stay out of the hot areas like Climate Change and the like. I like PraeceptorIP, and am in awe of his knowledge and expertise, so I try to help him out on articles he's working on (formatting, he doesn't need help on the material itself). If they would just go back to their GMO area and leave me alone on legal articles, everything would be great.

I shouldn't have let him get to me, shouldn't have let the baiting work, but I can't change the past, just try to do better in the future. GregJackP Boomer! 06:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The bad-faith assumptions you're expounding here explain a lot of the improper behavior. Baiting is a serious accusation, but one you've entirely manufactured yourself. This is all based on one single edit that I thought a picture wasn't need in an article and you went off the deep end attacking me for suggesting it. There should have been no assumption of baiting in that whatsoever. Engaging in such conspiracies when one is trying to engage in WP:BRD in good faith with you is what was disruptive here. If that can stop, any interaction we have in the future should be civil. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, could you specifically link to what you're seeing as unconstructive on my part? I summarized my interactions with Greg in a recent comment below which should show that I had been been approaching them extremely civilly throughout. The diffs and overall talk sections should speak for themselves. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Time for a two-way interaction ban and/or some carefully targeted topic bans? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If someone really wanted to impose an interaction-ban, there can be evidence for a one-way interaction ban against GregJackP (though I wouldn't intend to interact directly with them anyways). If someone actually reads the diffs on 'my interactions with this user, there is no evidence for an interaction ban. I've been extremely civil responding to the various attacks, so it seems sort of silly to impose a two-way ban. Others are trying to interject some larger and separate dispute into this with another editor as a proxy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Since there's been some confusion and people bringing up an entirely different dispute between other editors, here's a timeline of my actual interactions with GregJackP:

1. I had the Bowman page on my watchlist and had been catching up on various content disputes occurring there. I noticed GregJackP had been edit warring that day, so I left them a friendly reminder about 3RR so they didn't cross it.[238] Some discussion occurred over how many reverts actually occurred, but the the goal was just to caution them in good faith, not some sort of punishment.
2. I later went to leave a note at a talk page of another editor on the page about expert editors. Another editor which GregJackP has been heavily involved with, Jytdog, had already posted a very similar note, so I left my comment in that section.[239] That was as close as I ever came to interacting with Jytdog there. GregJackP attacked me there too even though I made it very clear I wanted no part in whatever dispute they were having at the time. [240][241]
3. I had no interaction with the page or users there for about a month. An ANI apparently occurred where GregJackP and Jytdog came up, which is what other editors commenting here have been mentioning, and some are trying to create the idea I was involved in all that drama.
4. I'm looking over the Bowman article a few days ago and think a picture isn't needed. It seemed uncontroversial, so I deleted it per WP:BRD expecting someone to revert and discuss if they felt strongly about it.[242]
5. GregJackP went of the rails pretty quickly in the discussion (calling my edit harassment in one edit summary)as I tried to ask him what purpose the picture was serving. [243]. I kept trying to redirect him to be civil and simply answer my question so we could resolve it, but they just kept resorting to some conspiracy of being attacked.
6. It took another editor to actually address my question at the end of the section to actually reach the purpose of the discussion, while GregJackP resorted to sniping in it.

Those are all my interactions with GregJackP up to the hounding at the ash borer page. There's no reason for GregJackP to react as he did to my edit or initial question. The hounding aspect is described in my original post above of deleting pictures with a disruptive purpose at an article I was putting under GA review. Claims that I'm resorting to the same behavior as GregJackP are unsubstantiated in my interactions listed above. I encourage folks to actually look at my edits and interactions before jumping to claims that I've been embroiled in some larger dispute with GregJackP that resulted in this incident. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• All interactions between Kingofaces43 and GregJackP are listed at [ https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Kingofaces43&users=GregJackP ].
• All interactions between Kingofaces43 and Jytdog are listed at [ https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Kingofaces43&users=Jytdog ].
• All interactions between GregJackP and Jytdog are listed at [ https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=GregJackP&users=Jytdog ].
• All interactions between all three are listed at [ https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Kingofaces43&users=GregJackP&users=Jytdog ].

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

And this[244] appears to be the start of where things really went off the rails. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To expand a bit on the above, I think Jytdog has been trying to pick a fight with GregJackP for a long time, ^{On reflection, I haven't seen enough evidence to support this conclusion --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)} that GregJackP 's responses to Jytdog haven't been perfect but neither are they over the top, that Kingofaces jumped in a started behaving the same way Jytdog was acting, and in particular jumping into a legal artice (GregJackP's main area of interest) and picking a fight, and that suddenly GregJackP and Kingofaces found themselves in a nasty dispute in an area where Kingofaces considers himself to be an expert. That last bit is only a small part of the overall problem, and by no means the start of it, but in my opinion it is where things really went off the rails.

So far the consensus at ANI seems to be that all three of these editors have been part of the problem. It seems to me that GregJackP's contribution to the problem is smaller, but I may be biased because I have a favorable view towards him. The key here is that GregJackP admits that he reacted poorly and was wrong to do so, while Jytdog appears to be dedicated to continuing to battle. I am not sure about Kingofaces; I suspect that he is a good-faith editor who allowed himself to get sucked into a fight. I am hoping that he too will admit that he behaved poorly and that he and GregJackP can shakes hands. apologize, and try to avoid this sort of conflict in the future.

On a related note, I think someone with more knowledge on the topic than I have should look into possible problems in articles relating to Monsanto. I have no idea if anyone is misbehaving, but some of the comments are troubling. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, some of the troubling comments are coming from a set of editors casting aspersions about me without evidence backing the claims up. It's extremely difficult to take claims at face value others have been making about my intent at least because of that. Jytdog isn't even involved in this particular dispute at all, so why he keeps being brought up is beyond me unless others are just trying to perpetuate whatever dispute was happening there. This is amounting to a witch hunt because I made an edit GregJackP disagreed with and I also happen to overlap with Jytdog in agricultural topics we both independently follow. With all that in mind, and since I've known you to be pretty even handed in comments in the past, could you tell me what specific comments caused you to say I was "behaving the same way Jytdog" or anything else that was interpreted as problematic? I included diffs or links to series of comments for all my interactions in this case because they should show very clearly there was no misbehavior on my part all when read in context. I'm quite happy to respond to critiques of my comments in a pointed manner for clarification. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bigger picture

There's much more to this than Kingofaces43 is disclosing, and there's a reason other editors have linked his behavior with disputes involving Jytdog.

Here is what took place on the Bowman v. Monsanto Co.:

June 20 - June 22

• Jytdog edit wars to insert his POV info that was not supported by his source: [245] [246], [247].

June 21

• During the course of a major rewrite of the article, GregJackP added the uncontroversial picture of Justice Kagan to the article: [248]

June 22

• Kingofaces43 templates GregJackP on his talk page for edit warring on the Bowman article [249], even though GregJackP had only 2 reverts while Jytdog had 3 (see above). Kingofaces43 had never edited on either the article or the article's talk page. Note that the picture of Justice Kagan was already in the article, and Kingofaces43 did not raise any question or objection to it.

• Jytdog chastises PraeceptorIP about his edits on Bowman, and continues to push his POV to support his continuous reverting to include faulty info. [250]. Within 6 minutes, Kingofaces43 shows up on Praeceptor's talk page to support Jytdog, even though Kingofaces43 had never edited the article or engaged in discussion on the talk page: [251]

• Jytdog says he's dropping the issue on the talk page: [252]

• GregJackP nominates Bowman for GA [253].

June 23-July 23

• There are no substantive edits on Bowman and the article becomes stable, awaiting GA review [254].

July 23

• Kingofaces43 removes the picture of Justice Kagan from the article, having never before edited the article or its talk page, and after a month without any substantive edits to Bowman.[255]
• GregJackP explained the inclusion of the picture as soon as he reverted the removal in a civil manner: [256]. Another editor joined the discussion as well supporting Greg's position [257], yet Kingofaces43 tenaciously continued to argue and would not accept reasoned discussion [258], [259], [260], [261], [262]
• It is interesting to note that King's removal of the uncontroversial picture came right on the heels of another of Jytdog's unwarranted and failed content disputes with GregJackP and Praeceptor here [263] and here [264],

This is not the first time editors have had problems with Jytdog and Kingofaces43 being acting in tandem in what appears to be bullying and canvassing, all the while claiming to be acting civilly: [265], [266],[267], [268]

GregJackP, no doubt, engaged in some uncivil dialogue in the course of these disputes, and he has acknowledged his inappropriate response to Kingofaces43. But if you consider the bigger picture, it does look like Kingofaces' removal of the picture on Greg's GAN was not innocent - it does look like Kingofaces was making a deliberately controversial edit to retaliate for a past dispute (i.e. Kingofaces was baiting GregJackP).Minor4th 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• No one else did, so I left a notification at Jytdog's user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't yet had time to look through all the history of this, but I've previously edited with Jytdog and Kingofaces on some content disputes involving Monsanto, and my past experience has been that Jytdog, in particular, has been pretty scrupulous about WP:NPOV with respect to content in this subject area, and that anything having to do with Monsanto tends to be a magnet for "Monsanto-is-evil" POV-pushing. I hasten to add that I do not know whether there was such pushing in this case, nor do I know about the level of civility in the present dispute, but when I see "Jytdog edit wars to insert his POV", my immediate reaction is to want to hear the other side of the argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What User:Tryptofish, who is not an administrator but should be one, says, is absolutely correct. There are a few subjects on which rational discourse is not possible, because there is an already established point of view that will stop at nothing. There are a few editors who are so certain that Monsanto is evil that they know, beyond knowledge, that no editor can agree with an edit that removes "anti-Monsanto" content on policy grounds, and that any removal of "anti-Monsanto" edits must be based on ownership of Monsanto stock. Some editors really do assume bad faith by any editor who will make any edit that removes "anti-Monsanto" edits on grounds of conflict of interest. Can we really agree not to make idle accusations of COI, and just talk about Monsanto? If so, good. If not, you have about two months to do your name-calling before the Arbcom kicks in discretionary sanctions. Anyway, please try to be civil, even though I know that all of you, on both sides, will be uncivil and will engage in pointless complaints. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The edits in question were not really a Monsanto / anti-Monsanto issue, but dealt with the issue of patent law on the issue of "making" and whether the information appeared in a law review article to support it. The information wasn't in the article, and multiple legal editors pointed that out. I don't think that any POV on the good-Monsanto or evil-Monsanto was involved, on either side of the dispute. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have no desire to comment on this thread, as I have been trying to steer clear of GregJackP per Tryptofish's useful advice to both of us. I will say the following two things. 1) I don't know what motivated Kingofaces to remove the picture from the Bowman article: I have not participated in that discussion as I don't care if the picture of the judge is there or not. 2) Regardless of what motivated Kingofaces' removal, it is very clear that GregJackP's interference on the Emerald Ash Borer article was just ugly retaliatory behavior, and all the counterattacking distraction doesn't change that. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just an observation. Showing up at WT:LAW to raise issues on Bluebook and issues already settled at the talkpage of In re Alappat sure seems to be a sign that he's not "trying to steer clear" of me. I haven't gone to WP:COIN, GMO, or any of the areas that I know Jytdog edits in, and would have thought that if he was trying to steer clear, he would have done the same for my preferred subject areas. And I've already stated that I should not have responded to the obvious baiting of Kingofaces43. I'll not comment on the remarkable coincidence that Minor4h pointed out, that Kingofaces43 seems to act in tandem with Jytdog. GregJackP Boomer! 01:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bringing it to WP:LAW was exactly an effort to steer clear of you; you are not identical with articles related to law nor with issues I deal with regularly. I won't be responding further to you here, as I would prefer to keep steering clear of you. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bringing it to WP:LAW would be like me camping out on WP:COIN - a surefire way to come into contact. You know that. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have been editing articles about IP law for a long time. As far as I can GregJackP had almost no interest in IP law before his fixation on me. As near as I can tell, he is the one sticking to me; I am not following him around. I would just as soon never cross paths with the guy again. And I have not seen GregJackP show an iota of interest in COI so his showing up at COIN and other COI matters would be yet more following me around. I deeply regret ever getting involved in the Black Elk article, which I landed on via a posting at RSN. Can't turn back time but I can turn away - and have turned away - from a bad relationship. The question is, can GregJackP? Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th, you just made some very serious WP:ASPERSIONS about me, please do not misrepresent my comments. I very clearly stated here when I first commented on anything related to the Bowman article that I came there independently[269] and did was not interested in whatever was going on with Jytdog and GregJackP.[270] For anyone actually reading my comments, that should have completely skewered any conspiracy theory that I'm somehow involved in whatever happened with Jytdog. I wasn't there for the bulk of content disputes, and I haven't even read the recent ANIs or other disputes you mentioned involving the two editors. I came to the article as a completely uninvolved editor, and editors trying to continue whatever spat was going on with Jytdog by attacking me simply because I piggybacked on a comment when I said I was already planning to make it separately at first is highly inappropriate. Trying here to drag me into whatever larger dispute was going on involving Jytdog is even worse.

This still boils down to me checking back on the article after the disputes settled down and thinking a picture wasn't needed. GregJackP reverted it, I tried to ask what purpose it was serving for the article, and he blew up. There is no reasonable way to claim I was misbehaving there and there is no way to paint it as me retaliating for some set of disputes I wasn't even aware of until you posted them. That was far from a controversial edit or comments on my part if you look at the actual sequence of events.[271][272][273] Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

While all of this has been tremendous fun, can we get someone to close this? I would rather be working on creating, expanding, or improving articles. GregJackP Boomer! 01:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems a bit premature considering we don't have any resolution on your behavior, even with your comment above saying you shouldn't have done what you did while going on to cast aspersions saying I was baiting you. That bad-faith attitude is a huge problem and disruption. The hounding wasn't excusable even if you mistakenly thought I was part of some secret cabal and completely missed comments that should have dispelled that for you ages ago. Is that all going to stop if I interact with you in the future? I've been approaching you civilly from day one. I only expect civility in return and have always tried to respond civilly to you even when you weren't to me. I can understand to a degree if you let frustration from other separate editor interactions bleed over into the brief interactions we've had, but I'd really recommend trying harder to keep such things separate in the future. I did not come here for a block or ban even though you partially derailed a GA review as you mistakenly claimed I was trying to do. I was just here to get that behavior to stop. If you can agree to stop that problematic behavior in the future, then I see no reason why this shouldn't be closed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If you'll just agree to stop baiting people on articles that you have never edited, along with agreeing to stop acting in concert with Jytdog, I think we can resolve this. Or we can continue and go into more depth about your problematic behavior. Do you really want to do that? Several here have already indicated that they want to apply a WP:BOOMERANG to your report, your actions, etc. I, on the other hand, would rather get back to editing. Why don't we just do that? GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a precarious way to handle an olive branch, but sure. Considering though that I never baited you or worked in concert with Jytdog at the article, I have no problem assuring that I also have no intention of doing so in the future either. I don't bait people and I work independently even when editors frequent similar topics as myself. You do appear to think I did, but that's part of the assuming bad-faith issue I was asking you address. Ignoring the misstep above, can I expect what I asked of you? Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, I fully support Minor4th's interpretation of the diffs. That multiple people who have little to no contact with each other interpret the data in the same way and come to the same conclusions should tell you something. From where I stand, you continued disrupting the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article in the wake of Jytdog's departure. Given the connecting evidence offered by Minor4th linking you with Jytdog, this appears open and shut. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Our previous interactions have been rocky at best Viriditas, but this insistence is amounting to lying about an editors comments in clear violation of WP:NPA. Please refrain from that. I made it abundantly clear in the diffs and straight from the horse's mouth what my intentions were. The diff Minor4th included even show I stated I came there independently and wasn't interested in the drama between Jytdog and GregJackP if one actually reads my comment. If I had put my comment to PraceptorIP in it's own section as I originally intended before I saw a similar section already open or even posted my comment earlier in the day (should've cut my vacation short by another hour apparently), there would have been absolutely no question. That's as close as I ever got to interacting with Jytdog. As for the actual issue at hand this was far from a controversial or disruptive edit, especially when one is assuming good faith. I know I was when I made that edit at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Interactions between Kingofaces43 and Jytdog. Note that there are 42 edits on the same pages that are within 15 minutes of each other, and 79 within 2 hours of the other. If you look at the edits, on the very first page (Monsanto) you are supporting Jytdog's position on archiving [274] even though you had not participated in the discussion. That pretty much matches what Viriditas said earlier. Jytdog makes a proposal on HFCS and 6 minutes later you are there with a support [275]. At Organic Food, it took a whole 11 minutes for you to show support for Jytdog's proposal [276]. I could go on and on. So for you to claim that you don't interact with Jytdog is just false. Drop the stick, let's go back to editing. GregJackP Boomer! 04:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As stated previsouly, our topic areas overlap in agriculture. Considering that I often get short breaks in the day where I'll hop on Wikipedia, of course there are going to be a few times when I see a very recent update on my watchlist I respond to that happens to be his. I react quickly to other editors too when I have a bit of time. It's called having articles on your watchlist, so again, please refrain from casting aspersions. As I've mentioned, I don't care what your obsession is over Jytdog here, but leave me out of it and stop trying to pull me into that larger dispute. I've already pointed out to you that one post coincided at the same time as one of his, but there was no interaction going on at Bowman. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• A note for those claiming I somehow came to the Bowman article due to Jytdog (which is still completely tangential here). I clearly summarized in one of my first interactions with the topic on a user's talk page that I came there independently, "I was actually going to pop over here to say the same thing. I'm just catching up on my watchlist after some time away."[277] GregJackP was already alerted to this [278] well before this current dispute and that I wanted nothing to do with whatever spat GregJackP and Jytdog were having.[279] I've iterated this a few times here already, but since this is clearly from the horse's mouth both now and in my original interactions, can we at least cease with the distraction from whatever other disputes GregJackP has been in? Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that people don't believe you, based on the evidence in the diffs and your history of showing up to support Jytdog. Again, I encourage you to drop this and let's all get back to editing. GregJackP Boomer! 05:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As I've asked you, please drop the stick on continuing these false accusations. You're only continuing the cycle every time I've civilly asked you to stop. In this venue especially, I'm going to set the record straight if someone is misrepresenting me. The diffs clearly show my intent in the series of edits as I explained it, that I was there independently, and that there wasn't wrongdoing on my part if one actually reads my comments thoroughly. I even stated all that outright well before this ANI even started. If after all that someone chooses to assume bad faith, we might as well delete WP:AGF and let everyone assume bad faith for whatever dispute they want. As I've asked before, please just stop the attacks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, you claim that this has nothing to do with Jytdog, but you placed a warning about edit warring on GregJackP's talk page (but not Jytdog's) concerning a page on which GregJackP and Jytdog were interacting.[280][281] Two days later you removed a picture of supreme court justice Elena Kagan from that page -- a page you had never edited before.[282][283] This was followed by GregJackP removing some pictures from Emerald ash borer, the two of you edit warring, and the page being protected. [284][285][286][287][288][289]

Concerning the merits of the warning, my count on that page is

• [290] GregJackP: original edit.
• [291] Jytdog reverts: 1RR
• [292] GregJackP reverts: 1RR
• [293] Jytdog reverts: 2RR
• [294] Minor4th reverts" 1RR

So you gave a warning for edit warring to an editor who was at 1RR, didn't give it to the editor who was at 2RR, and a couple of days later engaged in a real edit war on another page. I don't consider that to be helpful.

Nor do I consider GregJackP's behavior to be helpful. He edit warred on Emerald ash borer too. Also, after you removed the picture from Bowman v. Monsanto Co. in a clear case of hounding, he removed several pictures from Emerald ash borer in a clear case of hounding you right back. The only question is who is going to admit that they lost their cool and behaved poorly and who will ignore the first rule of holes and claim innocence. GregJackP has alreasdy admitted that he behaved poorly and made a commitment to not do it again. Your responses sound like you believe that your behavior was correct and that you would do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'll have to say a lot of those comments about me are way off base. Let's start with the edit waring template. If you actually read what I wrote in that overall conversation [295], I did not place a template on Jytdog's page because they had previously stated they were done at the page. A warning would have served no purpose unless they started editing again, in which case I would have left a warning there myself just the same (I almost did until I saw his comment saying he was leaving). I count the original edit as a revert too (there is some variation in what people think on that), but I made it clear I posted it, "as a good faith reminder"[296] and not as some sort of punishment. I generally welcome such reminders [297] and make my intent clear for others when I post them. It also looks like only looked at edits on June 22 instead of edits in the 24 hours period going into June 21. Edit warring was occurring regardless of how one counts reverts and that was the take home message to be wary about since things were looking precarious from an uninvolved editor just starting to catch up on edits I'd missed. The breakdown of different ways people consider "reverts" is also in the edit warring talk page discussion where I made it clear I wasn't trying to pin GregJackP down for a certain number of reverts, but just as a previously uninvolved editor asking for caution about edit warring.
• I'm not sure where you get the idea that I removed the picture two days later. The edit warring template was a full month before I made the picture edit, not two days (June vs. July confusion maybe). Part of the reason I didn't even look at the article during the in-between time was because I didn't want to be involved in whatever tussle was going on at the time after seeing how GregJackP came after me, so I came back at a later date instead when things had settled looking at what I myself thought of the article for improvements. That some have manufactured this idea that I had other intents is problematic, but when I reiterated time and again what my actual intentions were, that point should have been a closed book as far as any scrutiny on why I was editing the article.
• Again, there's no case for claiming I was ever hounding GregJackP. It's clear now he does not react well to my presence there (and I hope that changes in the future), but that's quite opposite to me hounding someone. When I edited the article a full month after my brief interaction with him, I approached the article edit and conversation civilly. It's starting to be clear from this his responses here that bad faith was assumed (i.e., baiting) when I've explicitly stated I was approaching the whole thing with good faith.
• My edits on the emerald ash borer page were removal of vandalism and do not count as edit warring as they are not reverts per WP:NOT3RR for reverting obvious vandalism. There's no question hounding was occurring there in order to deliberately disrupt an article to prove a point. That very squarely fits the definition of WP:VANDAL. That can be discussed more if you want since that's why I originally came here in the first place. I stopped removing it when it was apparent the hounding was going to continue, and came here instead.
• As for GregJackP, they have continued to make baiting accusations even though they have been told I never intended any such thing, so that commitment was chopped up pretty quickly. I've still been civilly extending that olive branch to them in this conversation and simply asking for the bad-faith attitude to stop. That's never been rescinded either. I'm commenting on my behavior because people are making accusations about my intent that I have shown to be completely false straight from the horses mouth. It's a simple case of bad faith being and ignoring my comments stating what my actual intent was, and I'm just asking for that to stop. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Break for convenience

Sigh. I would much rather just get back to editing. I've admitted that I overreacted to what appeared to be baiting by you and you said that you are not interested in sanctions. So what is the purpose in this anymore? Unless you are lying about the desire for sanctions, why not just close this and go back to editing. Instead, we're still here. OK, as to your latest misinformation.

• Jytdog stated that he was leaving the page and leaving it alone - so why was there a need to place an EW template? And to misstate the number of reverts as four, instead of two? It seems as if this was acting in concert with Jytdog, especially since you did not (and have never) templated him.
• I'm sure Guy Macon just misread June & July, it happens, but it does not negate the fact that you removed a photo from an article that you had never edited or commented on while it was nominated for GA. This, as I'm sure Guy remembers, is oddly reminiscent of what Jytdog did in the discussion on Bad Elk v. United States, by filing for a GA reassessment as a way to force his view on the other editors. So we have a pattern of interfering with good articles, first by Jytdog, then by Kingofaces43.
• You did not approach the discussion civilly, but with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. When I reverted, I explained, civilly, that in the legal article field (and an article about a SCOTUS case is first and foremost a legal article), all of the FAs and 2/3rds of the GAs had pictures of the SCOTUS justice who wrote the opinion. Instead of accepting that, you brought up WP:WEIGHT, which doesn't even apply to the issue, and continued to argue. This shows very clearly that you appeared to be baiting and interfering with the GA nomination process.
• You keep bringing up that you have said that you did everything correctly, that people should take your word over the evidence provided by others in the form of diffs, etc. I'm sorry, but it's clear that a majority of the commenters here do not believe what you are saying. They see the same pattern that I see. If you don't want people to believe that you and Jytdog act in concert, then don't act in concert with him.
• At this point, it is equally troubling that you can't understand why all of these editors are coming to same the conclusion, that it looks like you were baiting or acting in concert with Jytdog, even if you were not. The actions have that appearance that you and Jytdog were acting in concert and even if it is an astronomical coincidence, you can't seem to acknowledge how reasonable editors can view the evidence in that light. At this point, you may want to consider reading WP:1AM, it has good advice in it.

Finally, you say that you want this to stop—that's in your control. I have said repeatedly that I want to get past my overreaction to what looked like baiting, forget about this, and go back to editing. In other words, for this to stop and this thread to be closed. All it will take for that to happen is for you to drop the WP:STICK, we know how you feel already. Just drop it and go back to editing insect articles, and let me work on legal articles. GregJackP Boomer! 21:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I indicated sanctions likely would not be needed because I was hoping you would stop these issues related to your assumption of bad faith. That appears to still be occurring in your post above, which is only spurring this on further. You're still at this point misrepresenting my comments considering your assertions should have been completely dispelled before this ANI even started by simply reading my comments. At the end of the day, consensus is not determined by votes, but the substance of what's behind them. Considering the diffs explicitly dispel the various assertions about me pretty handily, those aspersions are not going to stick. What I am concerned about is that you are ignoring comments that should have completely separated me from whatever spat you had with Jytdog or even an independent thought of bad-faith. It's the bad-faith I want to see stop if I run across you in crop patent related articles in the future as we both can be considered WP:EXPERTS there.

I'm not going to try to further the content dispute, but I will address the mischaracterizations (again) of my comments you bulleted. I said on your talk page that the number of reverts you had could be considered 4, but I considered 3 to be pretty solid, but not really 2. That wasn't the take home message though as you had already been made aware there. As I stated before, I have no idea what other disputes you've been in with Jytdog, and you've been made aware of that already. With that, you already should have known that my removal of the picture had nothing to do with whatever those disputes were considering I have my reasoning for it. When you refused to address the reason why I thought it should be removed and instead made a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I civilly kept asking you what purpose the image actually served with no response on that front. You only needed to give actual reasons for including it happened with another editor here. I may not have agreed with that example entirely, but it easily could have been discussed civilly.

So, we're at the point that even though you're saying you acted poorly, you're still continuing some of these bad-faith assumptions. Only when one assumes bad-faith can one get a different read on my comments initially, which is why I was very careful to make sure my comments were crafted to avoid such thoughts. I acknowledge you thought I was baiting you even with all the comments I made that should have told you otherwise. That was one of the problems I wanted addressed here though. Will bad-faith assumptions and focusing on the contributor so much rather than content not occur if I interact with you in the future? If that is a yes without any sniping, then there's no need to continue the conversation here any further as all my concerns would be alleviated at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. OK, I thought I have been clear, but apparently not. I do not believe you. I believe what the diffs and behavioral evidence show, which is also what a number of other editors think, and that is that you were baiting. I believe that the removal of the picture was intended to bait. I reacted poorly to your baiting. Now, unless you are lying about seeking sanctions, as it seems more and more that you dragging this out to get sanctions, it would be better to move on and go back to editing.

I will also note that the "content not the contributor" line is one we hear from Jytdog on a regular basis too. Yet you drug us here over a contributor issue. You don't get to bring someone to ANI, talk about all of their issues, and not have your own issues addressed in return.

Finally, I really don't care what you want addressed. I admitted that I overreacted to your baiting. Unless you are lying about sanctions, drop the stick and go back to editing. GregJackP Boomer! 02:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm dubious of the suggestion that Jytdog and Kingofaces43 are really coordinating what they do, as opposed to having overlapping content interests. I've looked a bit more at some links that Guy Macon provided earlier in this discussion, and I'd like to repeat two of them here: [298] and [299]. A feature of the analyser is that it shows, in blue, which editor was editing a given page first, and the two links seem to me to show rather clearly that the trend has been that GregJackP has arrived at most of these pages after either Jytdog or Kingofaces43, not the other way around. But more specifically at the Bowman v. Monsanto page and talk page, the sequence is Jytdog first, GregJackP second, and Kingofaces43 third. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I showed up to Bowman after Jytdog. If you look at this analysis of Bowman v. Monsanto, Jytdog removed an edit by PraeceptorIP, an acknowledged expert in the field of intellectual property law. Praeceptor asked me to look at the article here, because Jytdog was harassing him over COI editing (where there was none), and did not understand that explanatory notes can be included in reference footnotes (this has subsequently been cleared up with Jytdog). After looking at the article, the case opinion, and the secondary sources, it was clear that the article could be improved to a good article, and I made extensive edits to the article. In addition, five different editors agreed on the legal material included in the article, and Jytdog accepted the consensus on June 22, here.

If you look at the history in the analyzer between the three of us, you'll see that Praeceptor made the first edit to In re Alappat and Jytdog followed him there to harass him on non-existant COI. The same thing happened at In re Bilski.

The actual first contact I ever had with Jytdog however was on Plummer v. State (analyser) and Bad Elk v. United States (analyser). Both of these articles were firmly in the legal area and not in the area that Jytdog typically edits in.

I hope that explains the timeline a little better for you. It was after some of the harassment of Praeceptor by Jytdog that you advised him about Javert. It was after we both agreed to step away that he shows up at WP:LAW. Both of us have areas that we could have done better, but it is incorrect to state that I followed him around. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish. It's been mentioned before, but just to reiterate on my being the third editor, the article had already been on my watchlist before GregJackP started editing there, and I likely would have made a comment or two of my own volition in previous discussions if I hadn't been generally offline and not not really paying attention to articles on my watchlist as much. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I too am dubious that Jytdog and Kingofaces43 are really coordinating what they do. I don't think Jytdog would stand for it. In my opinion, Jytdog is a fighter -- sometimes too much of a fighter -- but not the kind of person who sneakily breaks the rules. Whether you agree with him or not, he is open about his actions and motives, and I think he want's what is best for the encyclopedia. On the other hand, I am dubious about the two of them just having overlapping content interests. I think the examples of Kingofaces43 supporting Jytdog are too big of a coincidence. If i had to guess, I would guess that Kingofaces43 is supporting Jytdog without Jytdog's prior knowledge or approval (although, like anyone, he naturally welcomes any support). I just don't see any evidence against Jytdog here. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I can understand that doubt, I would have it myself if not for way too many coincidences in their history:

• Jytdog adds a source (a press release from Elsevier, which is odd considering how Jytdog talks about WP:RS) to an article here. Seven minutes later, Kingofaces43 adds the exact same press release to the article, here. Both of them got the release at the same time and decided to add it to the same article? Without any sort of coordination?
• Going through Kingofaces43's contributions, there does not appear to be another instance in two years where he has removed a photo from an article, yet he decides to remove a photo from a GA nominated article? And as you know, one of Jytdog's first moves in the Bad Elk dispute was to call for a GA review on the article. Coincidence?
• Kingofaces43 has a history of issuing warnings only on one side of a dispute, always the side that is opposed to Jytdog's position. See [300] (no warning to other party, who had 3RR); [301] (no warning to other parties, who had just as many reverts); [302] (no warning to Jytdog, who had more reverts), and so on. It just happens that Kingofaces issues warnings to people who oppose Jytdog? Really?
• Kingofaces43 is telling people not to "cast aspersions" on Jytdog's talk page [303].

Guy, I could go on and on with examples, but I believe that I have good reason to believe that they are coordinating this. Even if they are not, I am still convinced that this was baiting, perhaps as you opine, just from Kingofaces43 desire to support Jytdog. In any event, this has gone on long enough. Someone needs to close it and we can go back to creating articles. GregJackP Boomer! 06:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP you are not steering clear of me but instead are steering harder into me. As I said I have no idea why Kingofaces removed the picture and i don't care. Arguments about images are generally preference-based and lead to emotional arguments and I just don't care. But removing the picture doesn't "support me". I have no war with you for Kingofaces to be my ally in. The BATTLEGROUND is all in your head - you are pursuing me - I don't want to be anywhere near you in WP. The fantasy of "allies" and "sides" goes along with the BATTLEGROUND mentality; I ~could~ make the same arguments you are making about you and Minor4h, and stronger ones. I have no desire to do that nor to interact with you at all

I will say here, that I think that Kingofaces used bad judgement in removing the picture, especially as he was aware of the charged context. It wasn't worth arguing about and I am sure that in retrospect he realizes that a shitstorm was likely to ensue and it wasn't worth whatever improvement he thought removing it might create in the poisoned atmosphere. That is the reality of WP. Both GregJackP and Kingofaces used poor judgement and everybody seems to agree on that; GregJackP's behavior was arguably worse for being clearly retaliatory - Kingofaces at least had some reason for what he did as he described at the Talk page (a weak, preference-based reason, as most arguments about images are), but it was still, in my view, bad judgement and not worth it. And an RfC probably would have gone GregJackP's way, as pictures of justices who write opinions are common in articles about decisions.

Guy Macon, your comment here is wrong. I have no desire to pick fights with GregJackP. The interaction at Black Elk/Plummer started at RSN and I had no experience with the editors involved before that. That did go badly but the articles were improved at the end of the day. I acknowledged my part in that going badly, and I have moved on. GregJackP has done neither. Much later, he then started pursuing me over issues around PraeceptorIP's editing. And now this which is essentially a continuation of his grudge against me by proxy. I do not pursue him nor pick fights with him. As I wrote above, I am unhappy to have ever encountered GregJackP and I do not seek him out. He is fixed on me. Not vice versa. I am not seeking action on this, at this time, as I am hoping that GregJackP will just heed Tryptofish's advice and steer clear of me, finally, as I have been him.

And the source GregJackP characterizes as a "press release" was indeed a press release - from a journal announcing retraction of a paper which was a huge event in the Seralini affair and the content it was used to support was closely based on it. Not PROMO. Nobody involved in those articles, which were highly contested, objected to its inclusion and his bringing that up as he did, is just more ugly cherry-picking battleground crap.

Really GregJackP your grudge against me is taking you way too far and you are digging yourself a nasty little hole. For pete's sake. Let go of the grudge already.

And the way to end this thread is to just stop posting here already. But based on your history, you need to have WP:THELASTWORD and will continue making arguments, and then beg for a close, yet again. Prove me wrong. The same advice to you Kingofaces - GregJackP has acknowledged he acted badly and nobody thinks your edit on the Bowman article was good judgement. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the following three facts: [1] I have carefully researched the interactions between Kingofaces43 and GregJackP but have only briefly glanced at the interactions between Jytdog and GregJackP, [2] I have a high opinion of Jytdog in general -- even where we have disagreed about content or his behavior I can see that he does good work and wants what is best for the encyclopedia, and [3] Jytdog's reasoned argument that I was wrong in my evaluation, I am going to retract and ammend what I said earlier about Jytdog as follows:

I retract my earlier comment about picking fights. I see no evidence from this thread that Jytdog misbehaved in any way, and I specifically reject the assertion that he colluded with another editor. I am going to strike certain comments of mine after I post this. While I do think that the evidence shows Kingofaces supporting Jytdog, I don't believe that Jytdog did anything other than treat said support the way any Wikipedia editor would treat someone who supports his position. If anyone thinks Jytdog misbehaved, they are free to open up an ANI case with specific diffs showing the alleged misbehavior, and I will be happy to analyses the evidence at that time. To Jytdog, I am sorry that I came to a hasty conclusion that, as I look back on it, was not based upon the evidence. I apologize for that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That was amazingly gracious and nuanced, Guy - rare qualities to find at ANI. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

+1. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I've gone carefully through all of the replies since my last comment, above. I agree with what Guy Macon said just above me here. And I've looked carefully at the evidence that GregJackP provided in response to what I said. As for the edit interactions at Bowman between Jytdog and PraeceptorIP, what I'm seeing is Jytdog taking an interest in Monsanto-related controversies, an area where he has long been interested (and helpful), and his objections to PraeceptorIP's edits seem to center on the latter's additions of footnotes to the page, in which the footnotes express subjective views about the page content. It's something where reasonable editors can disagree, but Jytdog's preference against the footnotes does not seem out of line to me. (GregJackP also seems to indicate that Jytdog did not push for some of this, when talk page discussion did not agree with him, something that is not consistent with fighting over a POV.) The edits at Bad Elk and at Plummer seem to me to be following related content through related pages, rather than following any editor. As for the Elsevier press release at the Seralini page (a page that I, too, have edited, and has been a page where Jytdog has contributed a lot), the first edit, by Jytdog, does not include a "page name" parameter in the citation, but the next edit, right after, by Kingofaces43, does include "a page name=". That shows me that Kingofaces43 did not copy it from Jytdog, but did copy it from somewhere else on Wikipedia. I think I'm seeing what may be some sloppiness on Kingofaces43's part, and I think I'm seeing GregJackP appear to attribute bad motives to edits that may not really have had such motives. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I’ll agree in an ambivalent fashion that I could be considered sloppy in the actual part of the dispute I’ve been involved in. On one end, I’m pretty adamant about assuming good-faith on my part. That good faith leads into assuming other editors are doing the same. That appears to be what caught me off guard about GregJackP’s actions. On the other end, I apparently set off some drama with GregJackP because of their previous disputes that I had not followed at all at other articles, ANI, etc. I came in unassuming, but it’s looking like I maybe should have followed the drama more instead. When it comes to the ideal of good-faith, we shouldn’t have to be worried that, but just simply focus on content. That apparently did not work in this situation, which I think is part of a larger systematic problem here that really concerns me. I guess reality dictates otherwise though.

As I’ve mentioned before though, I’m really just looking for the bad-faith attitude to stop as well as the hounding that occurred. That’s why I don’t think sanctions are needed if it’s made clear it will stop. The bad-faith is still occurring though looking at recent comments (still claiming baiting), so it looks like it’s not getting through. No one has proposed the need for sanctions at this point either, so I’m willing to let this incident be with the warning that sanctions will need to be considered if this continues to be a problem in future interactions. Does that sound like a decent resolution to everyone? Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds reasonable to me, pending what others here might have to say, and I thank you for offering a peaceful resolution. In case it wasn't clear enough from my previous remark, please let me make it clear that "sloppiness" is not in any way an ANI matter, just a matter for fixing with subsequent edits. I hope that, next, we can hear that that the bad-faith assumptions will stop. This entire dispute strikes me as one that does not require sanctions against anyone, but just a return to editing with less perception of adversary camps. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

SMH, I guess the proposals that we move on and go back to editing earlier didn't constitute a "peaceful resolution" even though I called for it no less than eight times in the discussion above. But when Kingofaces43 finally accepts that idea, it's a "peaceful resolution?" I'm done with the hypocrisy here. I'm going back to working on articles and if you want to continue to discuss it, do it without me. GregJackP Boomer! 00:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Request for close - this seems like a good place to close, with the two parties GregJackP and Kingofaces43 having, more or less, acknowledged their parts in the dispute and an indication that they intend not to repeat the behavior. Minor4th 15:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

As with my last comment here, I'm perfectly fine with this being closed whenever someone gets to it. I've been willing to give another chance for a future interaction to occur in good-faith, but acknowledgement here that jumping to bad-faith will stop isn't absolutely needed. I'll just see what the future holds instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP, did you call me a hypocrite? If so, it lends credence to Kingofaces43's concerns. The reason that I felt that we had a resolution now, moreso than before, is that Kingofaces is the editor who opened this complaint, so when the opening poster expresses the opinion that the original concerns have been addressed as much as they are going to be, that's a reason to conclude the process. In any case, I agree with Minor4th and Kingofaces that it's time to close this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• There's been a lot of nice words said up above, but at the end of the day it's the behavior that counts. Unfortunately, it looks like the hounding is continuing from Jytdog, as he has now followed the relevant parties to Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l.[304] As you can see from that diff, Jytdog's first edit was to slap a citation needed tag on the article without discussion on 29 July. GregJackP had edited the article the previous day.[305] So contrary to the words exchanged above, Jytdog is still stalking GregJackP. Kingofaces43 and Jytdog continue to claim that they are trying to avoid GregJackP, but the diffs show a different story. Behavior is what counts here, not words. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It's apparently OK for them to follow people, or propose closure at ANI, but not for others. BTW, Jytdog had never edited the article prior to placing a {{cn}} tag on the article, the same as Kingofaces43 had never edited Bowman prior to removing the photo either. PraeceptorIP even asked why Jytdog is following him from article to article, here. GregJackP Boomer! 00:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The collusion between KingofAces and Jytdog is nothing new. Binksternet questioned it here with regard to Syngenta. petrarchan47คุก 03:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. I provided diffs above for several other instances where their collusion was discussed. Minor4th 19:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan is fully aware that was nothing more than an aspersion from an editor given the context of my response in rest of the section that was omitted in that diff [306]. It takes some strong confirmation bias to call that "evidence" with the full context. People can go on witchunts for editors that comment on their watch list articles for the first time, but I'm sure not going to go around to all of them making dummy "I was here first." posts to prevent that claim. The editor in this case seemed to figure out what the actual situation was with my presence at the article as I recall and dropped it. People jumping to wild conspiracy theories is a huge problem when controversies arise, but I prefer to just ignore it as I did there unless the behavior issue causes wider problems than just wild accusations.

That being said, I've said a few times I consider the particular incident settled for the purposes of this ANI even though GregJackP is still not able to let go in recent comments after my last post. If someone wants to discuss my involvement in agricultural topics beyond the kind of cherry picking that's occurred here about articles I edit or watch, they are more than welcome to open a separate section to focus on that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This thread shows multiple editors, some of whom have little to no connection with each other, all coming to similar, reasonable conclusions about editorial patterns which show 1) close editing between two users, 2) on similar topics, leading to 3) stalking or hounding behavior on other editors who have contrary viewpoints. Please don't call editors who observe this demonstrable pattern "conspiracy theorists" or accuse them of witch hunts. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

1 and 2 are non-issues as its already clear we both edit agriculture topics. Of course we're going to come across some of the same articles and interact, especially when it comes to watch lists. 3 is where the conspiracy theory starts because there is no evidence directly supporting it on my part, and there is plenty of evidence directly refuting it describing my intent at the articles before any of this started. I know I've never followed anyone around and have said that on many occasions, so those trying to engage in bad-faith assumptions to say otherwise are not exactly on solid ground here. Time to drop this stick you've been carrying in our various interactions as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Admin attention needed

This was archived unresolved.valereee (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Uncollaborative behaviour by SportsEditor518 (and related IPs)

I have been engaged in a dispute with User:SportsEditor518 (his talk page) (and various IPs of the same editor, including Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4406:9F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F andSpecial:Contributions/2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F) on the article Interstate matches in Australian rules football. It has been mainly a content dispute, with the two of us having different views on the popularity of the concept in the state of Victoria. My version states that interstate football was not popular in Victoria; his version states that it is. I'm not here to dispute the content; I'm here to report disruptive/obstinate behaviour by SportsEditor518 which is precluding any conclusion.

The dispute played out through moderated dispute resolution here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_119#Interstate_matches_in_Australian_rules_football. This dispute resolution ground to a halt when SportsEditor518 simply stopped responding at the dispute page; but he is still monitoring the page in question, reverting any efforts to remove his unreferenced views, and making no efforts to engage in discussion proactively. There is an ongoing pattern of uncollaborative behaviour which, while it mostly seems well-intentioned, is proving disruptive; and therefore I am at a loss to understand where to go next other than to report SportsEditor518 (and his IPs) for edit warring, and also more generally on competence is required grounds. Specifically:

• He has continued to push his POV in the article that interstate football was very popular in Victoria, without providing any supporting references. The attempts at sourcing that he has provided have either a WP:SYNTH based on his interpretation of crowd numbers, or extremely generic references which don't really support the point (examples: [307] [308]) The dispute resolution volunteer moderator and I have both tried to explain the shortcomings of his references to him, and to educate him on the policies, but he has proven unable or unwilling to accept them. (You can see in this diff [309] that he still has a steadfast belief in the admissibility of his own synthesised conclusion).
• During the dispute resolution process, he went for two long unexplained absences which led to the volunteer moderator and I concluding he had lost interest in the dispute – only for him to re-emerge and begin reverting me or adding the disputed content again within a day of my making the edits to the article. (These diffs are the sudden re-emergences after long absences: [310] [311] – the timestamps make sense in the context of the dispute resolution page highlighted above) He has never given an explanation or apology for or even an acknowledgement of his absences. In the more recent case, he simply reverted the content and made no other attempt to continue discussion on the matter despite being fully aware that I disputed the content. This most recent response to my talk page [312] is particularly insulting, and suggests he may be trying to game the system by claiming the dispute is unresolved when it was his own recalcitrance that led to the lack of resolution.
• He seems to have, and be unaware of, his own biases on the subject. He's shown on a couple of occasions ([313] [314]) that he views supporting interstate football as an inherently positive act, and therefore that my suggesting Victoria did not support interstate football is somehow an attack on Victoria's character – rather than simply a description of the state's tastes and preferences. It's clouding his judgement to view the references objectively.
• Finally, he is unaware of his own shortcomings as a writer. On a couple of occasions I have made purely style- and grammar-based edits without removing his content ([315] [316]], only to have them reverted with an edit summary to the effect of "mine says it better" (which I think the diffs clearly demonstrate is not true). I did raise this issue with him, but it was not well received [317]. Once again, I think WP:CIR is relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirex (talk • contribs) 10:16, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)

comment I was the DRN volunteer for this dispute. The dispute started out with both parties appearing to be willing to discuss and find compromise. Unfortunately SportsEditor518 did fail to return to the discussion for a long period on two occasions. The first time, after a week's silence, we closed the discussion, believing their absence from both the discussion and from continuing to edit the article signalled that they had decided not to dispute the issue further, and Aspirex began editing on the disputed section again. SportsEditor518 immediately started editing the section, so we pulled the discussion from the archives and reopened it. SportsEditor518 returned briefly to the discussion, promising to respond the following day, and we waited this time nearly two weeks but they never did. We finally closed the discussion as failed. I have to agree with Aspirex that what started as a content dispute has become, unfortunately, a behavior issue. valereee (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Having watched this dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard as User:Valereee tried to mediate it, I have to agree with the OP and the moderator, at least if the IPs are SportsEditor518. If the IPs are SportsEditor518, then we have a pattern of attempting to provide synthesis amounting to original research, and of using dispute resolution to stall rather than to collaborate. SportsEditor518 replied and discussed briefly, then went into radio silence, then became active again, and then went into radio silence again. This is an intermittently tendentious editor who is disrupting the dispute resolution process. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban on SportsEditor518 from Football

A topic-ban on SportsEditor518 is recommended from articles on Australian rules football. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proponent. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that's overkill. As far as I know, he hasn't caused any problems other places, just one section of one article, one particular tiny point that he feels extremely passionate about, possibly to the point it's almost a COI for him. He's a new user, and he found an assertion that he violently disagrees with on an emotional level. He just needs to stop editing that one article until he learns more about Wikipedia. If he's topic banned from Australian rules football, you might as well just block him, I think it's all he edits at this point. valereee (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I am willing to strike my recommendation on two conditions. They need to agree, first, to take part in collaborative discussion of editing, rather than pushing changes through, and, second, to edit only from their account and not from IPs. The problem at this point is that SportsEditor518 hasn't recognized that their editing behavior is problematic and that they should follow Wikipedia practices and guidelines. (The two disappearances are also problematic, but a rule that forbids editors from going off-line and coming back is not reasonable.) At this point we are waiting for a response from User:SportsEditor518. If they agree to improve their editing behavior, I will strike my recommendation. If not, not, because another period of silence is not agreement to stop the intermittent disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal Again, he's new -- at least to using a user name -- and one of the issues we had was that he doesn't edit every day or even every week. He hasn't edited logged in since July 11, so he possibly hasn't seen the messages to his username. He needs to be pinged at both 2001:8003:4406:9f01:223:32ff:fe9e:4b9f and 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F; I've also put the notice on both those pages. What I would support would be putting a block on both IPs, which would force him to log in and see that he has messages. valereee (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Article ban on SportsEditor518 for Interstate matches in Australian rules football

Okay, the 4406 IP edited today. I think we can assume this user is ignoring us. I suggest a block on both IPs, an article ban for SportsEditor518 on Interstate matches in Australian rules football and that Aspirex resume editing that article. valereee (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This was archived, wasn't resolved. Needs admin attention, please

Can I get some admin attention? valereee (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon and Aspirex, I'd like to formally close this discussion so we can ask an admin to implement...do you support the block on the IPs 2001:8003:4406:9f01:223:32ff:fe9e:4b9f and 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F and the article ban on SportsEditor518 for Interstate matches in Australian rules football? I am headed out of town with extremely limited access tomorrow, likely won't be in here until Aug9, and I'd like to get closure on this before I go to prevent it being archived unresolved again. valereee (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• It appears that neither the named account nor the IPs have edited recently. The IPs are likely to be reassigned anyway. I don't see the urgency for getting this closed out. Yes, it is true that it is likely to be archived by the bot again. A new report can be made if the disruptive editing resumes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon The IP edited on the 26th. Apirex reverted today, so if the other user conforms to past behavior, they will revert soon. If we can get the IPs blocked before they do, we might finally get their attention. You're right, no deadlines, but this has been going on for months now and I'd kind of like to feel like there's SOME progress being made. This has been talked to death on a half dozen pages now, I've spent hours on it, and we are really no further forward. I am feeling a little frustrated. valereee (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can the article be semi-protected? If so, if the IPs are User:SportsEditor518 editing logged out, it will either stop the edit-warring or force him to log in. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done semi-protected one month. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! That represents definite progress for this issue! valereee (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised I was meant to comment further; but yes, I think that would be a sensible approach. Aspirex (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Both of these editors have been duking it out in multiple Balkan-related articles. The Balkans are under discretionary sanctions as per WP:ARBMAC. Both users are aware of this: [318] [319]. Both users have been previously blocked for edit-warring, and are well aware of the rules there. Rolandi+ is just coming off of a block and Alexikoua has been blocked multiple times.

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

• Full or partial reverts from Rolandi+: [320] [321] [322] [323]
• Full or partial reverts from Alexikoua: [324] [325] [326]

Other examples with some recent edit warring include:

• Illyrians
• Kara Mahmud Pasha
• Greater Albania

Both users have placed warnings on each others' talk pages but appear fairly oblivious that the warnings apply to themselves as well: Rolandi+ placing on Alexikoua: [327] [328] Alexikoua placing on Rolandi+: [329] [330]

Also note that Alexikoua went to several articles that Rolandi+ edited in a short period of time and reverted everything he did, which is possibly WP:HOUND. He clearly was singling out Rolandi+, at the very least: [331] [332] [333].

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

On each case I initiate a discussion on the correspondent talkpage and I'm very carefull when to remove specific parts in case they are either poorly cited or not cited at all. For example in Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, I'm still waiting for Rolandi's talkpage participation but there is still no response [[334]]. On the other hand Rolandi's talkpage is full of warnings from multiple users (I count at least 4). Also comments such a this one [[335]] from a recent ani filled again him by another user, reveal an edit-warring nature.

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

The OP paints a very simplistic picture, which shows sloppiness and a lack of understanding of the topic and issues involved. Rolandi+ is in conflict with multiple editors, due to his falsification of sources, dishonesty, and incivility. He has repeatedly falsified sources, edit-warred over unsourced material, made stuff up and refuses to get the point. At Illyrians, he has falsified a source that makes the opposite of the claim he is pushing in the article [336] [337]. He edit-warred over this, made accusations of sockpuppetry, and is extremely rude in the talkpage [338]. He was blocked for edit-warring at Illyrians, and he is now resuming right where he left off [339], using low quality sources. This, after he was blocked 36 hours for breaching 3RR at two different articles in the same day [340]. He is also falsifying sources at Vlachs [341], and edit-warring over there as well. Here he falsifies one source [342] (the author states that the Italian census numbers are exaggerated, but he omits that and enters the number using Wikipedia's own voice) and removes another high quality source (Meyer) for no good reason, without even mentioning it in the edit summary. When he can't find even low quality sources to falsify, he just makes stuff up [343]. When a fellow Albanian editor mildly criticized one of the highly nationalistic, low quality sources he tried to use, Rolandi removed that user's talkpage comments from the talkpage [344]. To top it all off, he is extremely rude and refuses to get the point: [345] [346] [347] (referring to Greek editors as "penguins") [348], [349] (taunting a Serbian user about being bombed by NATO), [350] [351], [352], [353], [354]. Here is is taunting another user to "please" revert [355]. It's really not hard to find diffs of this user's disruptive behavior. Just go to any talkpage he has participated and they as plentiful as fish in the sea. This user has exactly ZERO positive contributions to wikipedia, has major WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. His talkpage is nothing but a graveyard of warnings by multiple users of all kinds of backgrounds [356]. Even in Japan-related topics he is making trouble [357], for which he was warned. Alexikoua has repeatedly tried to engage him in article talkpages and on his own talkpage, to no avail. It is impossible to reason with this user. He is here to here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS [358] (Greek sources cannot be trusted because "it made genocide,killed and stole albanians") and nothing will get in the way of that. This is in stark contrast to Alexikoua, who has kept a clean record for the last two years now, has created dozens of articles and DYKs, and is always civil and amenable to reason in talkpage discussions. Athenean (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Rolandi: To name an example, it's kinda weird to insist on adding citations such as this: [[359]], which claims that the Wars of Alexander the Great were fought by Albanians [[360]]. Even an editor who is not involved in historical articles will find it POV and unreliable. It's also not a case of ethnic conflict, as I've worked together with several editors that share the same national background with you.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

To Robert McClenon. About time this happened. More attention needs to be paid because to many shenanigans having been going on and some Albanian editors have been intimidated and i include myself in this as being as such. Few Albanian editors have been engaging with Wikipedia recently because of such things and some editors of a non-Albanian heritage seem to be making changes in articles without even discussing it. I call to your attention the article Aoös whose name was changed by Greek editors (such as user User:Hwasus > [[361]] without consensus (and due to Albanian editors no longer continuing for a while) while in previous discussions about a name change was resolved that Vjosa stays as the page's name ([[362]]). Who would i go to regarding this very serious matter.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

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

To Rolandi, some Albanian sources from the communist period are tainted because they were ideologically driven and or forced by Enver to produce material that has many problems. For a list of academics who managed to go against the communist regime and produce good research like Eqrem Cabej see book "Pipa, Arshi (1989). The politics of language in socialist Albania. East European Monographs. As for non Albanian western sources state Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus was a Greek. This is possible as during the time Nicholas was born there were some Greeks (merchants and so on) in Durres, as it was a coastal port and international city (its also had Albanians). See Robert Elsie article page 3 ([363]. The stuff on numbers in the Cham Albanian article, the Topulli stuff is resolved. Send me on my talk page the stuff from researcher Nazarko (he is a good source -full inline citation though and source). I'll work something out regarding Idromeno on that basis.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I see Roland had already reflected on his wrong doing, which I fail to see on Alexikoua, and what is more outrages I see that people fail to understand the subtle difference of personal offences and arguments. Roland is being offended here and still is argumenting his positions. Resnjari is right, there are very few Albanian in Wiki, which is being 'taken over' from sources provided from our neighbors (as in the Vjosa case as he/she mentions). This to be honest shouldn't be normal and not fair. This is almost supression due to numbers. Wiki should be a place of consensus, harmony and inclusions, not the place where biggest actors surpress the smallest. QTeuta (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

Edit warring on Albanians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose topic ban of Rolandi+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strongly oppose:(see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sulmuesi, user has been indef blocked as a sockpuppetAlexikoua (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)) I admit to have not read in depth the technical arguments in the articles and the full details the case with Rolandi+ and Alexikou. Nevertheless, I can clearly see that in relations to challenging articles related to Albania, the other editors belong to countries that openly disagree with the most Albanian-promoted version of histories, e.g. Greek, Serbian, Russian (all supportive of pro-slavic, pro-orthodox christian and anti-albanian theses). I find it equally disturbing that the users with common views opposing the Albanian vision of history, unite to ban an Albanian editor. I have the impression that this has nothing to do with Rolandi+ (despite his flamboyant temperament), since similar heated attitudes are exhibited by most other editors. Then, how do we solve the disputes? Easy, create an anti-Albanian majority and kick the Albanian out. While it might have worked in the past, it is not fair. Admins should be careful to not punish editors from the tiny nation of Albania, only because the opposing pro-slavic pro-orthodox sides (Greeks, Serbian, Macedonian, Russian) are more numerous. In my opinion, this anti-Albanian discriminating behavior is not fair and should stop. OppositeGradient (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Jeppiz, you can be characterized as an Exception that proves the rule :) Please note that I mentioned well-known attitudes toward Albanians, instead conspiracies focus on non-evident facts. In fact, the question is whether the other editors oppose the Albanian guy i) because they had a full disagreement on the respective topic, or ii) because they blindly respect Wikipedia rules. Stated otherwise, those editors would be credible if they would find his behavior disruptive despite agreeing with him. Let me further iterate, Rolandi+ is not significantly more combatant than for instance Alexikou, right (plus minus the same style)? Then, why do the 'neutral' editors above not raise a flag on Alexikou as well? The only explanation is because they publicly share his opinions on the articles under concern. Jeppiz, it is very easy to blame a person without seeing the big picture. Perhaps you and I would also lose our cool if several editors gang against us because of our opinions (not behaviors). For instance, he mentions that his reliable sources are mistreated and ignored to the point of driving him mad. Analyzing those behaviors is highly important for the quality Wikipedia. For this reason I think we should not selectively punish Rolandi+. Instead we should all work together on trying to break the existing 'gang-style' lobbying in Albania-related articles. Meanwhile I advise Rolandi+ and all editors involved in heated discussions to cool down a bit and let go. OppositeGradient (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC) (blocked sock struck Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 01:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC))

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

My friend, please do not tell me you think Alexikou is a hero :) The way I see it is two combatant editors showing similar attitudes. The only difference is that most editors commenting here have a history of disagreeing with Rolandi+, which makes the credibility of his inquisition questionable. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC) (blocked sock struck Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 01:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC))

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

Please note everybody, "OppositeGradient" is a sock of User:Sulmues, one of the most disruptive editors to plague the Balkans topic areas [364]. He always thought in ethnic "terms" and that disruptive Albanian editors should not be banned no matter how disruptive just becaue "it's not fair". Athenean (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Athenean: I suspect that you're correct, and that a WP:SPI is in order. The similarities in MO (language, battleground, personal, harass, etc.) are distinctive. OppositeGradient is currently operating in the same manner on the current Kosovo RfC. S/he has admitted to being this IP, but has been active there as this, this, and this IP at the least. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Blocked socks

Support topic ban. Editor clearly disobeys rules and consensus and gathers support from regular crowd of POV pushers. Naphtha Termix (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC) (indeffed sock struck --Swarm we ♥ our hive 01:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)) Just to clarify, do you mean Rolandi+ alone, or both editors involved in the combative discussions are responsible for the heat? By the way, who are the regular crowd of POV pushers supporting Rolandi+? I am particularly interested, since Rolandi+ is being 'attacked' by most editors expressing opinions here. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC) You for one. Naphtha Termix (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Really, I am a "regular crowd POV pusher"??? :) Ok, Mr. POV-dreamer, if you would be thinking before you typeset, you would realize I was not part of any article discussions involving Rolandi+. How can I be POV if I was not participating at any discussion (for your records in contrast to most editors here opposing him). Thanks for the dose of morning smile :). That closes it from my side. OppositeGradient (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I have added the word comment to the above sentence. However I strongly oppose any ban on Rolandi for the reasons i have outlined and due to the editor involved in calling for such a thing.Resnjari (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I also oppose an outright ban, he is willing to learn the rules and can edit constructively. Maybe three months will be enough to make him stop and think, I am sure after that he will be very welcome on those articles. Naphtha Termix (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC) (indeffed sock struck --Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 01:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC))

Regarding Rolandi, subscribe to some of the journal databases that Wikipedia is offering access to. Francis and Taylor has much stuff that relates to humanities type material that involves Balkan topics. As for TU-nor's comment that "I will strongly lift my voice against all arguments above that are based on nationality. Being Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Siamese or whatever has no relevance to this discussion." I will most strongly lift my voice and disagree with that view due to the following. I have shown evidence to the contrary and can do so even more. All things come into play because some editors reason's for claiming POV or refusing peer reviewed sources and data in an article have been based not on Wikipedia policy but other 'reasons'. These same editors are the same ones most adamant in wanting to ban Rolandi. All things must be considered because they are selective when using Wikipedia policy and sometimes have tried to make up Wikipedia policy. If you want more evidence and exact words (+editors involved) and were its all located i am more than happy and willing to have that discussion here (i was not aware of this process before till a few days a go). Again i say, no ban of Rolandi for the reasons outlined.Resnjari (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully ) and I guarantee I have learned how to edit in a NPOV way.Also,you can see my recent constructive contributions in Balkans-related articles and in Balkans non related articles.So the best thing to do is to give me another chance.I know I have made many edit warring in the past but this will not happen in the future and I am sure for that.

I have read the Wikipedia's rules carefully and I will be more carefull in the future.

The right thing to do isn't to block me for some time,but to give me a "golden chance" and to patrol carefully all Balkan related articles.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I want you to not just patrol, but edit too, but to do it right. There are so few Albanian editors already and intimidation on other pages has occurred by editors seeking a ban for you. You getting banned will stifle a dwindling Albanian voice so limited at the moment. No ban. Wikipedia is a democratic forum, a ban of this nature will further curtail freedom of expression. A censure or something along those lines with a final warning that if it occurs again, it will be a ban for Rolandi. But no ban at this moment.Resnjari (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for a specific period of time (up to a year). I have only glanced at this discussion, but the edits I have seen from Rolandi from my watchlist (particularly at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus) betray both a POV-ish attitude and a general WP:IDHT mentality. Regarding Alexikoua, as others have said, counting reverts is not the fairest way to apportion blame when dealing with such cases. I am however in favour of giving at least one more chance to people, and prepared for now to accept the argument that this is due to inexperience, and that there is remorse and will for improvement. Thus I would strongly recommend that during this ban period, Rolandi engage in article-writing in other areas and topics, so that he can a) gather experience about how things are done here and b) demonstrate his competence in constructive article-writing away from contentious topics. This should be sufficient to determine if he is a WP:SPA or WP:HERE... I also advise Rolandi to seek out a WP:MENTOR if he is serious about contributing constructively. Constantine ✍ 13:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Resnjari.The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever.

I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever.

Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedi's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

But you already said that, haven't you? And as soon as you thought no one was looking, you went and racked up 3 reverts over at Albanians in the blink of an eye. Why should anyone believe you at this point? Athenean (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

To Athenean,firstly,I knew that someone was looking me at Albanians.I know how Wikipedia works.

Secondly,when talking about my recent constructive contributions,I am talking about my construcive contributions after the Albanian case.Also we found concensus at Albanians.Also note that after the Albanian case I read the Wikipedia's rules carefully and now I know what is edit warring and why we need to use the talk page to make constructive contributions.

Thirdly ,I can say to the administrators.:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever.

I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever.

Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedi's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Athenean, don't go accusing Rolandi. I just checked and he has not done any edits very recently on the Albanians page. I am the last editor to have made a contribution and a significant one [[365]]. Frankly Athenean you need to stop your behavior of accusations toward other editors. With me, you have questioned by cognitive faculties (very offensive), referred to Albanians as "irrelevant" in the Northern Epirus article (on the talk page) which is about a territory within the sovereign borders of Albania with a substantial Albanian population and you have referred to my proposed edits (all from peer reviewed western sources and importantly academics of Greek background) there in the talk page as "fit" for a "blog", not Wikipedia. You also said that you would not allow me to undertake any changes to articles, or by condescendingly referring to me as "its you" and "i thought it was you". These are but are few of your memorable comments after i have repeatedly stretched out a hand of good will to discuss and edit (like at the Talk:Greek Muslims or the Talk:Northern Epirus. Don't intimidate and or bully. Wikipedia is a democratic forum. Moreover I was not properly aware of this administrators board for incidents, but if you continue, and i say this to Alexikoua also who made up policy (a so called 10% threshold to try a prevent peer reviewed material going into the Souliots article, See: Talk:Souliotes) which is a no no in Wikipedia, i will lodge complaints against you both. Like i have said to you many times (by having to quote at length Wikipedia policy) Athenean stick to the content, not the person. Also, a FINAL warning to Rolandi will suffice with some short probationary period, but definitely no ban especially since those calling for it are less than innocent and their motives more than suspect (as i have outlined in the above posts). Resnjari (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I can perfectly understand most non-Balkan editors, who do not see how a majority of Greek/Slavic editors try to impose their version of history in most Albanian-related articles. I also dreamed of a world (and encyclopedia) where nationality is not important. Yet, all of us involved with any Albanian-related topic know this is not real. We cannot pretend that this situation is simply a random group of Greek/Slavic editors with randomly same opinion on Greek/Serbian-Albanian relations, all randomly start attacking a randomly Albanian editor who randomly happen to disagree to randomly all of them in randomly all disputed articles under consideration. Sure, the whole story is a random coincidence and has nothing to do with nationalistic views on history. If you think there is no difference between the ideal world and the Balkan reality, then I think this incident is destined to be misjudged. OppositeGradient (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Its why we need more outside oversight at times keep an eye on the editing process. There are those within Wikipedia who would object to material entering a article not its merit, but because it might go against a world view. For example the article Turco-Albanians was created by non-Albanian editors with southern Balkan heritage. It was created without any mention that the term has mostly pejorative connotations. Many editors who "contributed" and patrolled the article were against additions to that article or concerns of Albanian editors. Now because Albanian editors had either no access or were unaware of sources to make sure the article had no racism, those who patrolled (have a look at the page history bit of the article: Turco-Albanians: Revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turco-Albanians&action=history ) made things very difficult to get change there. Now i have made the changes there but it was not without its issues. Its because of this article that at first i was really annoyed, (its like having the article on the "n" word saying that its a friendly ethnographic term used by white people for African Americans) and overacted as Wikipedia says it does not promote racism. There also was a lot of POV on the Cham Albanians page (such as the unsubstantiated claim of Chams being involved in the deportation of Ioannina's Jews. It had a citation tag on there for more than two years). I found the source from where that had been copied and pasted. A Karl Savich article on the website Serbianna, a problematic website for one and two all the sources he had cited not one mentioned anything about it, and i checked them all !). Change was only done after a exhaustive process and accusations of POV. All my edits based on peer previewed material went through, but one for "original research" reasons. Currently i am in the process of editing the Northern Epirus article. As it stands now i have identified numerous issues of POV pushing and unsubstantiated claims made in there (as outlined in the talk page :[Talk:Northern Epirus]) and it reads more like a propaganda piece for the Greek Northern Epirote lobby than a encyclopedia article showing neutrality and balance. I have not even added my edits (based on peer reviewed material with inline citations and also mainly from Greek academics !) and into the article first, but on the talk page and invited editors to make comments on the content. So far, Athenean has come out with, no, no, no (to paraphrase his comments) and i have not even done the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle because i want everyone's constructive input, while Alexikoua had to be convinced that a article about a geographical place in Albania that has substantial numbers of Albanians which the literature on Northern Epirus states had to be included (see: Talk:Northern Epirus). It was not without its issues as at first, as i was again accused of POV pushing, then some edits i have made using peer reviewed material on other pages (about for example the remaining Albanian speaking presence in the Epirus article) and agreed to by those editors where in a way explained to me that they could be deleted if i persisted with these changes and only after exhaustively citing Wikipedia policy was a somewhat "normal" discussion started with Athenean's comments once in a while of no, no, no. But never a why, why, why, when asked. I urge non-Balkan oversight and outside intervention during the editing process of that article and to make sure that the discussion is had primarily on the content and that no intimidation occurs. I urge this of the administrators and others too of a non-Balkan background as there are also few Albanian editors and a fake consensus could also occur to block certain peer reviewed material relevant to the article going in.Resnjari (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

OppositeGradient, your passionate arguments in favour of a Slavo-Greek conspiracy would be much more believable (aside from the fact that one would have to completely ignore that Greek and Slavic nationalism don't make good bedfellows) if the case were actually precipitated by some anti-Albanian cabal ganging up on a poor blameless Albanian user, and not by the latter behaving in a typical tendentious manner that we all are sadly too familiar with. This thread was not started by Greeks nor Slavs, and complaining about cabals and secret agendas is always the last refuge of someone with no case and no arguments. The problem is Rolandi's behaviour and disruptive pattern of editing, which has caused this whole bruhaha. Of course other Balkan users will get involved, because Rolandi edits in Balkan-related articles, and pushing a particular POV he is bound to get in conflict not with German, Chinese, or American users, but with Greeks, Serbs, etc. i.e. with people who care about these articles. If his edits were more thought-out, if he provided decent sources, if he respected the WP:BRD rule, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Resnjari, I have seen you being engaged in page-long content disputes with Alexikoua and Athenean, but you are not reported at ANI. Why? Because you do not behave in a hot-headed manner, and argue on the basis of sources. I too would like to see more Albanian editors active at WP, but not if that means that we have to tolerate nationalistic hogwash POVs and edit-wars. Complaining about ethnic-based profiling and then arguing that a user should be cut more slack than usual because there are too few of his nationality around is a weird line of argument. I am willing to allow a period for Rolandi to shape up and matters to calm down, but with the provisional topic ban. Why? Because I've been here long enough to know that if he is WP:HERE to do serious work, then he will persist through this period and come out better from it. Without the ban, we'll in all likelihood be here again a month from now. Constantine ✍ 17:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You said:"Without the ban, we'll in all likelihood be here again a month from now."Why are you so sure ?

I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Constantine, the issue with Rolandi is no one here attempted to calm him down by properly showing the error of his ways that went beyond policy. I engaged with him in a manner, which lets be frank about it, has now stabilized the situation and he has but all ceased his previous activity. That is what dispute resolution is all about, while others kept fanning the flames. For example he deleted a comment of mine. So, i then placed another comment and explained what he was doing was out of whack regarding the material. I didn't go all paternalistic with him. He is an equal. No one is above or below and i stand by that. In general Rolandi will have to do much reading before editing some Balkan topics (like i said to him he should subscribe to the Francis and Taylor database, many good humanities journal articles there if he has no access to university stuff). He is in need of a last warning, that i agree, but no ban. I still think that a ban is not the way to go, due in part to some editors own behavior as i have pointed out. Athenean, has all but refused to engage with peer reviewed material that i put up as proposals, (not even in the article itself, but the talk page and has been disruptive when a consensus has been reached with an editor on the matter !) I have repeatedly urged him to engage in the discussion in good faith.) and has been very dismissive also (apart from his colourful commentary that has nothing to do with the article). Alexikoua also at one point made up policy (which is a Wikipedia no no) to try and prevent a peer reviewed source going into the Souliotes article which he as a editor with privileges should know better and so on (Will Alexikoua get a warning for doing that? I wonder). POVs occur when the material is in question. Why do i get repeated accusations and dismissiveness? Its not always Albanian editors engaged in POV pushing or edit wars. It also comes from the other side. I have given examples already to that effect, especially with regard to Athenean. To date all my sources have been of the highest quality (all peer reviewed) and so have my edits (yes at times the wording needs refinement, that's why in good faith i have asked for engagement and input in the talk page, not POV accusations which i still get), yet i still have to deal with these shenanigans. If Rolandi gets a (topic) ban than these others should too as they have intimidated people and violated Wikipedia policy. If Rolandi stuffs up again and we are all in here in a month as you say, then a ban is what he will get. But for now no. A definite, clear and final warning will do.Resnjari (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff of Rolandi+ removing warnings and discussions regarding his behaviour. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. I do not see If Rolandi gets a (topic) ban than these others should too as realistic.--Zoupan 00:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes he has been warned. As i am not aware previously as to who could give out such warnings (i thought it was only the administrators who could), Rolandi got caught out, while these other editors have been getting away with such behavior. All should get a warning and be reminded that they solely stick to examining the material and editing and not focus on the person. The others are in need of a warning by the administrators also. One cannot defend Alexikoua's making up policy regarding that "a 10% threshold" was need so a peer reviewed source could go into an article. Or in another article that if certain peer reviewed edits are sought for there, that other previously peer reviewed material (agreed to also by Alexikoua) would be subject to deletion. Zoupan how is that defensible, especially since Alexikoua has many privileges that other editors don't ? I have also outlined Athenean's behavior which is consistent and has bordered on and been sometimes outright offensive. No ban, only a final warning for Rolandi. If Rolandi gets a topic ban or whatever the others too + warnings. Administrators need to take these serious issues that i have outlined into account. Wikipedia is a place meant to be one free of intimidation or bullying and that goes for all. Stick to the policy and peer reviewed material ! Resnjari (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I am saying this again ( all editors can go to verify my recent constructive contribution).

I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The discussion has been going on for almost ten days, and it takes up half of the entire ANI-board. One way or another it should be closed.Jeppiz (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

He is still not ready.--Zoupan 16:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Really Zoupan?Why don't you go to the talk page and see?In addition,I have been busy today,but in the coming days I will give new arguments to you.In fact ,if someone calls Losha an Albanian tribe,it means they are Albanians.I don't delete your references Zoupan,but strangely you delete all my references.You don't give any explanation.However,don't worry,maybe the next ANI will be for your latest edits and your lack of neutrality,especially when talking about Albanian-related articles.

Why don't you go and see how you delete my edits and reference without saying sth?Why?

In fact,you don't have any moral right to talk against me for the only reason that I have accused you in the past for several things and many other editors know that fact.Also we have had many conflicts in the past and now you came here as you don't like my edits.Why don't you go and explain me when deleting my work in the future,as I am sure you will delete my work and references in the future!

Also,after I added the version that says he was Albanian,I deleted the part that said "Albanian historians consider him Albanian" because then it was irrelevant (after saying that he was Albanian).I explained this ,but you don't mention this fact.Why?In fact,it's not the first time that you delete references that say that a notable person born/living in Albania is Albanian,only saying that it is a demonym.Why?Because you don't know what the neutrality is.

Also this user deleted my referenced edits here [366] without any clear explanation.Why?Because it says that Malakas might have been an Albanian tribe.

Also he deleted my edits here [367] without any explanation.Why?Because it gave the birth name of St.Angelina,which is an Albanian name. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In all seriousness, even if we were to dismiss doubts as to Rolandi+'s good faith, the user lacks WP:COMPETENCE. This thread is going to be archived while s/he is making messes of articles. Any English language text that is grammatically correct is being recognised almost immediately as being WP:COPYVIO... and that's only including articles that are being watched. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact I am working with it.Also,how can you Irina Harpy talk about WP:COMPETENCE,when you modified the source at Vlachs and then sent me a warning?I said you that I would report you and then you came here and voted pro my block!In fact, I found it difficult to adjust with Wikipedia's rules,but now I am in the right way.Also,I would like to thank T*U who adviced me about some easily adjustable problems!

I am saying this again ( all editors can go to verify my recent constructive contribution).

I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to make this clear, Rolandi+: you're stating that you're ok with being banned if you ever edit war again on any article? Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz,I have been involved in edit warring in the past,but I have realised that edit warring isn't the best solution.In fact,it's not a solution.As I said,ban me if I edit war again.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps the closing admin (if there ever is one) can take this into account and note that any edit warring by Rolandi+ in the future will leave to a permanent and immediate ban. Jeppiz (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You stated "give me my last chance" earlier, but obviously do not understand the opportunity you are given here, having in the meantime continued unconstructive editing and still trying to blame others for your own mistakes.--Zoupan 08:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Really Zoupan?Everyone can see that I am in the right way finally.Also, you need to have an explanation before deleting other's referenced work in the future.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi, your Malakasi reference is ok. you need to read up on doing Wikipedia citations though. John Fines book (1994) does come after Hammond's and Ducellier's and they are not the only medaevil expert's regarding the Balkans. Fine does refer to the Malakasi as Albanians. Various Western scholars have different views on the Malakasi's ethnic heritage so all should be covered. As for the Angelina Arianti matter, though yes she is Albanian, her Albanian name is covered in the footnote. She is a eminent figure for the Serbs and not Albanians in general, so having the name in the lead is not needed. Zoupan, Roland's edits are improving and were done in good faith. The sources he used were good this time. All i can say to Rolandi though is to look at the citation manual on wikipedia. Though the relevant information is covered, they can be done a bit better (no pg instead p and pp for page/s etc). Resnjari (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hammond clearly explains in several pages that the "Albanian" migrations into Greece in the 14th century included Albanians and Vlachs (They were called "Albanians" by Cantacuzenus, because they had come in a geographical sense from the area which he called "Albania"). He is cherrypicking one word and, deliberately or not, refuses to understand context, despite several replies which explain this. Removal of "Vlachs" at Spata family (comment: pg.59 says albanians overran...... without mentioning vlachs), he thus insists that only the sentence in p. 59 should be taken literally, which actually is Hammond's transcription of Cantacuzenus (In 1358 the Albanians overran Epirus, Acarnania and Aetolia, and ...); comment at Malakasi "Yes,now you are claiming that I am doing cherry-picking.In fact no.It will be added as it is what the reference says.". The user has now spread one matter over three article talk pages, saying that "it will be" as he wants. This comment speaks for itself.--Zoupan 16:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, Zoupan don't call me "ignorant" anymore.Secondly,why don't you mention the fact that you continue deleting my edits without any clear explanation? In fact,I don't have said "it will be" as I want.We have talked at the talk page!As I said,the fact that Cantacuzenus called Vlachs "Albanians" doesn't mean that all Albanians in Epirus are or may be Vlachs as you claim.Hammond says that "In 1358 the Albanians overran Epirus, Acarnania and Aetolia, and established two principalities under their leaders, John Spatas (shpate in Albanian meaning a sword) and Peter Leosas (/fos in Albanian meaning a pockmark)".Why doesn't he says "Albanians and Vlachs"?When Hammond cites Cantacuzenis about Vlachs,he clearly says "Vlachs" and not "Albanians".You are saying that saying "Vlach" (Hammond's transcription of Cantacuzenus) Hammond means Vlachs,while saying "Albanian" he means Albanians and Vlachs together.Interesting!Rolandi+ (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I seriously have no interest in explaining basics to this user again and again. He simply doesn't grasp English to the needed extent for understanding scholarly material and context, and my very clear explanations.--Zoupan 17:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact that we don't have the same idea doesn't mean that I don't grasp English.In fact,if someone takes a look at Zoupan's history,realises that this is what he says to the majority of editors.Zoupan thinks that he is the only one who grasps English.Rolandi+ (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't be silly.--Zoupan 18:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

To all please refrain from name calling or questioning a person's cognitive faculties. As for the Vlach/Albanian matter regarding the Malakasi, Hammond is one medieval expert and he wrote his book in 1967. John Fine, another medieval expert who refers to the Malakasi as Albanians wrote his book in the 1980s/early 1990s. Both views should be in the article as the issue of the Malakasi origins are not agreed to even by eminent medieval experts in the Western world. Wikiepdia policy on neutrality states that all scholarly views should be covered, especially when credible academics themselves are at odds with each other.Resnjari (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a thread about an editor that has proven himself to be problematic, and it surely should include questioning about qualities. You have not read Talk:Malakasi, nor what these experts (and their respective expertise) actually say. You have presented no proof there of any "at odds".--Zoupan 01:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan,my problematic past doesn't mean that Wikipedia will be a non-neutral place.Also,if you have sth against my arguments,use the aricle's talk page,not ANI.Rolandi+ (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Past? What about this and this? The ANI thread's subject is your behaviour.--Zoupan 18:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If you have sth against my arguments,use the aricle's talk page,not ANI.Those edits are based on well-known facts and everyone can find thousands of references that support my edits.If someone doesn't agree with my edits I use the talk page now,while you continue deleting others' work without any explanation.Rolandi+ (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The first edit is ok. The Koprulu’s were of Albanian origin and that has been attested in peer reviewed literature. And the town of Veles did bear their family name for many centuries. The second will need more explanation and defiantly an inline citation (you need to provide this Rolandi, due to the nature of the topic), due to medieval matters having contested viewpoints even among Western medieval academics. It’s all very simple to resolve.Resnjari (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Kiev vs. Kyiv (again and again...)

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.

---

Recently the Kiev State Administration wrote an open letter for WMF requesting that the spelling of "Kiev" should be changed to "Kyiv". Based on this letter @EricLewan (with minimal contributions) executes the name change to Kiev Metro which I believe not yet justifiable. My point is, unless there is a consistent usage of "Kyiv" in the official documents of the US and UK governments, not even the state administration can change the usage in English Wikipedia in an attempt to influence the global application of the pro-Ukrainian spelling. I view this act as a misuse of Wikipedia and must be discouraged. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you, but why is this thread on this page? Isn't this a matter for normal talk page processes? Even if it is a repeat, how do we handle it here? What are you proposing?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

If a change is made to standard English Wikipedia spelling, just revert it. If the changer edit-wars, direct them to the WP:BRD policy, and explain things on their talk page. If they persist in edit-warring, report them at WP:ANEW. If someone (anyone) wants to change the way English Wikipedia spells the city, they need to institute a public Move proposal. Governments or their agents cannot influence English Wikipedia articles; everything is decided here by consensus via the appropriate process. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This will potentially affects all articles mentioning "Kiev" if the consensus favors "Kyiv" over "Kiev". What I want is to establish a revised consensus regarding the Kiev State Administration letter in question, to give editors a clear direction on how to deal with the naming dispute stemmed from this letter. I requested page protection as I foresaw an edit war but the involved admin deemed the situation disputable and rejected my request. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The admin was right to decline protection and this isn't the place to establish consensus about a name. If it becomes an issue, start a RFC on a page like Talk:Kiev. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There have already been multiple discussions about this at Talk:Kiev. The outcome is always the same: "Kiev" is the current English COMMONNAME, so no "Kyiv". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Again, this is not an ANI matter. This is a WP:RM matter. Please go there; there are processes for multiple article names as well as for single article names. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: We are still seeing what I consider to be low-level edit warring going on at Kiev Metro (most recently involving User:Бучач-Львів (see ANI thread above), so pinging Ymblanter... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am obviously not going to block this user, since I am involved, and communicating with him is very difficult since he does not speak English and assumes bad faith. May be a move protect could be a temporary solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for a block – I just wanted you to be aware. I'll keep an eye on Kiev Metro – if this persists over the next 24 hours, WP:RfPP will be my next stop... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think I am going to re-close this, since there is already an ANI above about this other editor, and EricLewan has at least been engaging on Talk. Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 2 August 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:The Spartan 003

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

---

Hello. For over a month, this user has been repeatedly breaching WP:OR (and, of course, Wikipedia:VNT) on various articles.

The first two cases are closed (or however you call it), I'm just telling you about them so that you realize how this guy behaves.

1. He was inserting the claim that voiced uvular stop (a consonant that is very rare among world's languages) exists in Algerian / Tunisian Arabic. After repeatedly asking for sources (in multiple edit summaries, in many articles - the full list is here), I finally asked him on his talk page to provide a source. He didn't. Soon after I removed all of the OR mention of voiced uvular stop in Arabic, be it phonemic or allophonic.

2. He then deleted] a chunk of the sourced content of Qoph. His argument? "Those are lies! Qaf and Fa don't have Maghrebi forms, they are standard (at least in Algeria)." I reverted it, saying "reverting the removal of sourced content". He then reverted me, saying "I was born and raised in Algeria and i've NEVER seen any Qaf with this version." I then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qoph&diff=673784928&oldid=673770616 reverted] his edit, and said "Mate, you're removing a section which contains four sources. You should launch a debate on the talk page before removing this."

3. Now it's Berber Arabic alphabet.

• He first ([368], [369]) replaced the text with original research.
• I reverted his edit.
• He then changed the text, so that it said something else than the sources.
• As that is pure vandalism, I naturally reverted his edit
• He reverted ([370], [371]) and removed one of the sources. The article still says something else than the used source! Therefore, it needs to be reverted to this version. Peter238 (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours, and I've thrown in a detailed explanation. He has no usertalkspace edits, and in fact, no edits outside of mainspace except for this, when the talk page got moved because he moved an article. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 2 August 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 BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY

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 published my first three posts on this topic to Wikipedia about a week ago. It was quickly removed and--despite maintaining a NPOV--it was also removed twice today for spurious reasons, apparently due to ideological biases. I provided lengthy explanations for my three posts, yet the editors removing my post have not provided any detailed reasoning for the posts' removal.

I am notifying StAnselm of this notification, the editor who most recently decided to undo my post today. Other editors undoing one or more of my three posts are MrX, AnomieBot and Roscelese. I will also notify them if this is appropriate (whatever is best: I wish to avoid continuing to have my posts collectively and repeatedly undone).

Please see the talk page [[372]]. (I sent the same explanation to the talk pages of Roscelese, for the Intro, and AnomieBot, for the Sodom and Gomorrah subtitle).

Please note: This is frustrating. For 30 years, I have been an ordained minister. My approach is scholarly. Indeed, I have written nine articles on this topic since 2003. Instead of ideology, my hope is that the pertinence and credibility of ideas will be respected on Wikipedia.

I believe both the traditional and modern viewpoints should be well represented--and am willing to resolve this in a manner respecting both.

Quoflector (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Diffs please? Your very long comments on the talk page never seems to have been removed [373]. Nor do I see any evidence of you posting to the talk page a week ago. If you are referring to the article, you shouldn't be making posts to the article proper. If you want to make changes to the article, you should be discussing it on the talk page, preferably with shorter posts.

Since this is a contentious articlesubject matter, you really should be discussing any contentious changes before making them. If you can't come to an agreement on what, if any, changes to make to the article then it's a WP:content dispute that should be resolved via some suitable means of WP:dispute resolution and shouldn't be here on ANI.

BTW, you should notify any editor you name here, as the big orange box says when you edit this page and the red text says in the header of this page before you edit.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. You also should give people time to respond, particularly when making such lengthy posts. At the time of my response above, it had been less than 3 hours since your first post to the talk page [374]. It's completely unrealistic to expect people to respond in such a short time, wikipedia is an international volunteer effort. Even 24 hours is way too short a time to expect a response, particularly on something like this which isn't urgent. So there's even less reason to bring this to ANI, or to try and force your changes in to the article. Yet you do have a response from before you posted here which you haven't replied to. (If you intended to leave a reply, something seems to have gone wrong since you only managed to sign the page.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. I noticed you did leave some earlier comments on your own talk page and other editor talk pages. Do understand if you want to discuss changes to an article, you should discuss it on the article talk page. Very occasionally some discussion may be held at a suitable noticeboard (which ANI, this board never is). However, discussing changes to an article on someone's talk page, including yours, often means it either won't be seen or may be ignored or at least won't be a fruitful discussion because it will lack wider participation. Nil Einne (talk) 23:10, 2 August 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.

Ongoing disruption by Buzzbuzzwili

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:Buzzbuzzwili has been changing the descriptions of the point of view of political parties all over the world. You can see this in his contribs. The editing pattern matches that of indeffed User:TheRealSingapore. [375], [376], [377], [378]. The changes are made without mentioning any source or reason. My report [379] at the vandalism noticeboard was declined [380], with the admin saying that the edits are "not vandalism." I'm not sure if I agree with that or not. What possible justification can there by for continually changing the points of view of parties all over the world, without providing any reason? Are we to believe that this user has some kind of worldwide expertise in this area? It sure looks like the two users are the same person. But Buzzbuzzwili predates TheRealSingapore. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for repeated inclusion of unsourced content. The burden is on the editor to provide reliable sources about their political positions. If you think the editors are related, file a report at WP:SPI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 3 August 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.

This looks like yet another puppet of serially disruptive puppeteer Greekboy12345er6, and I have submitted an SPI. RolandR (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I submitted an SPI here [381]. I suppose it is in the nature of SPIs that part of the job is to figure out which are really the same investigation and to combine them. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Addition of false claims of privileges on my talk page by User:Randomstuff207_w

The aforementioned user modified the text of the subst-ed welcome template on my talk page to add a claim that I was an administrator, even though that is clearly untrue. [382] I reverted the edit and warned the user with the warning template for modifying others' talk page comments, as that warning most closely matched the user's actions. The user then created a new section on my talk page and repeated the claim, denying that the original edit was made, along with a barnstar below it. [383] Note: the addition of the text "your a loser" that was recently removed does not appear to be made by the same user, and therefore may be ignored.MopSeeker FoxThree! 23:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any admin action is necessary, it seems they were just confused about the deletion of their page and your revert. Dustin V. S. left them a message explaining that you aren't an admin and they shouldn't alter other user's comments/pages. Sam Walton (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

IP User - Edit War

97.85.113.113 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I removed Delta as a Hub in Amsterdam because I believed that its hub was in Atlanta, Georgia USA. However, an IP user removes it and says that Delta has a hub in Amsterdam.

In my opinion hub = headquarters right?

So I revert it and say that I think that hub means headquarters but again the IP user continues to argue and reverts it. So I stop, because 1 more addition and I would soon be past the 3 Revert rule.

This IP user continues to harrass me and annoy me on my talk page, giving fake vandalism warnings and saying that he will report me. His behaviour is mighty unfriendly and he refuses to disscuss it at the talk page on Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Then he deleted the dissussion I started on the talk page. He also deleted his comments on my talk page for some reason, luckily. I have our disscussion here. He also decided to cut out some of my messages, which is why some don't make sense.

Delta AMS

Please note that Delta has 10 hubs in the U.S. and 3 hubs outside the U.S. According to their website. 97.85.113.113 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I know that Delta may have 13 different hubs. But on the Wikipedia, we don't really add an airline to the 'hubs' section if it is not the 1st Hub. For example, Ryanair has 2 Hubs in Dublin and Stansed, it is listed as a hub for Dublin, thanks. RMS52 (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that Ryanair and Vueling are not "hub and spoke" carriers and therefore are not listed. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Please do not remove or you will be blocked for vandalism. We list airlines that have a hub operation in the infobox. Headquarters have nothing to do with hubs. Please discuss your matters at at:airports and the Delta talk page already has a discussion on AMS as a hub. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please porvide proof that I am wrong. We will disscuss it at the airports behavior regarding that you won't give out fake vandalism warnings. RMS52 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You already have been blocked once for harassement and bullying. AMS is a Delta hub as per http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts. Harass me one more time and I will report you! 97.85.113.113 (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not harrassing you. The block was for sockpupperty too, and if you want to report me fine! But there is no reason why you should do it now. Lets take it to the talk page ok? RMS52 (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have changed after my block, and apoligized to the user involved.

This user shows no signs of stopping so I would like the least that can be done, thanks. RMS52 (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You can go ahead and report and block me indefinitely for all I care. I am wasting my time here on Wikipedia anyways. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you drop the stick, RMS52. Why don't you try to set up a discussion instead of bulldozering him to AN/I. A polite exchange of arguments instead of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And off course, the IP is also not without blame and should not remove a discussion attempt. The IP has to start discussing too. The Banner talk 10:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I did, on his talk page I asked if we could disscuss the matter, what did he say? No. I asked if he could stop his behaviour, same answer again... RMS52 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Updated IP adress 166.170.57.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This thread is really confusing because it appears that everyone isn't always signing their posts. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Bangalore

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 requested move at Talk:Bangalore#Requested move 27 July 2015 has become ludicrous as the result of obvious meat-puppetry. I recommend it be closed in an attempt to forestall further silliness. DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorted by FPaS, thanks! DrKiernan (talk) 15:42, 31 July 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.

"Vanished user" continuing to edit from the same account

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

---

A user with a long history of edit-warring and unsourced edits, was granted courtesy vanishing, and renamed VanishedUser sdu9aya9f56465 on 15 June 2015, but is continuing to edit in the same areas from the same account, even though the relevant guideline clearly states that courtesy vanishing is to be used only "... when a user in good standing decides not to return, and for whatever reason wishes to make their contributions harder to find or to remove their association with their edits ...", and that "vanishing is a last resort and should only be used when you wish to stop editing forever and also to hide as many of your past associations as possible". The same guideline also says "If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed", so could someone please take a look at this? Thomas.W ^talk 11:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the user and left a message setting out their options. WJBscribe (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This can be closed now. Thomas.W ^talk 19:47, 3 August 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.

Mislabelling edits as vandalism and unfounded accusations.

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.

---

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

Chrononem has, as of late, been engaging in mud-slinging of editors, such as Muboshgu and myself, despite warnings and the common sense not to do so, and to assume good faith. Additionally, Chrononem has also mislabelled good-faith edits by myself, Muboshgu, and Calidum as vandalism — despite said edits not being vandalism.

For example:

• (Mis)labelling Calidum's edits as vandalism (30 July)
• (Mis)labelling Muboshgu's edit as vandalism (31 July)
• Accusing Muboshgu of paid-editing (2 August)
• Accusing Muboshgu of meat–puppetry Despite the said discussion being closed as non-constructive by another editor, Chrononem ignored this and proceeded with adding this inflammotory message, and then I proceeded with removing said message, as it was unconstructive, not assuming good-faith and further - the discussion was closed. (3 August)
• (Mis)labelling my edits as vandalism (3 August)
  • And again, in response to filing this ANI report (3 August)

For an editor's edits to be mislabelled as vandalism and further more – to be accused of meat-puppetry, especially with no evidence – is deeply offensive to those whom have always tried to do the right thing. More to the point, these baseless accusations are completely uncivil and were not made in good-faith. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Beside of this, his edits at Margaret Sanger give me great concern as it looks to me that he is not improving the article but making it less neutral. The Banner talk 13:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

MelbourneStar is upset since his collusion with several similarly non-neutral characters (Evidenced above by his near simultaneous collusion with the Banner) led me to point him out as a potential meatpuppeteer. While this as a rather blatent example ofpointiness I welcome any review of my activities as long as MelboutneStar is simmilarly reviewed. Chrononem ☎ 13:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Collusion? that's new. Thank you for vallidating my above concerns about you and accusing others. Like I have provided diffs for your behaviour, I suggest you provide diffs for your baseless accusations. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not new, and like I've told you before, if you don't want people to point out your obvious infractions it's best not to make obvious infractions. I pointed out the suspicious level of collusion you've just exibited with the Banner above. A review of your edit history will provide many more. Chrononem ☎ 13:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Any admin that reviews this might be well served by reviewing The Banner's edit history on Margaret Sanger. His repeated violation of that page's 1RR went unreported up till now due to me and other neutral editors assuming good faith. Never say that I can't admit to being wrong. Chrononem ☎ 13:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You haven't been able to specifically point out any infractions on my part (because there isn't any) against policy, hence why I have initiated this discussion here in regards to your infractions which are well documented. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

My complaints against you are easy to see and a cursory glance at your edit history will reveal more. As a rule I don't resort to pointy reports to get my way. Since I'm not making any reports I'm not going to invest editing time hunting through your search history. You, on the other hand, can do what you want. You can only dig yourself deeper for when someone else reports you. Chrononem ☎ 14:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This message only goes further in demonstrating Chrononem's lack of good faith and civilty, by accusing me of something without anything to back it up — just like their false accusations against other editors, as shown above. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Chrononem has now violated WP:3RR (four edits total) to reinsert his/her continued opinion that I'm some shill for the Clinton campaign at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Which is funny, since if the primaries were today, I would probably be voting for someone else. I strive to maintain NPOV, V, RS, etc. on any page, Democrat or Republican. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked for one week. Swarm ♠ 16:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Rather interesting to be accused of "collusion" with an editor that I do not know at all. And the complaints about 1RR-violations on the article Margaret Sanger are also interesting, as he was had far more violations as I had. He used a lot of words and accusation but in fact no arguments for his changes. The Banner talk 21:31, 3 August 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.

How to respond to anonymous socks writing on your 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.

---

In my talk page, [384], an anonymous IP, who is possibly a sock, has been expressing his/her frustration about editing on WP. The IP was asking me to start socking after witnessing the behavior of some senior editors towards me.I have tried to discourage them from socking, and encouraged them to engage in more constructive behavior. Bishonen insisted on removing both the IP's comments from my talk page and also my comments in which i was encouraging the IP to engage in constructive, and not destructive behavior diff1. I reverted Bishonen's deletion with the following edit summary: you are welcome to delete the IP editor's edit, but my edit is completely legitimate. I am asking them to stop socking and behave in a constructive way. To which Bishonen reverted my revert with the following edit summary: Soham, it looks like you're being purposely difficult. I reproached you once for putting back the blocked IP's post. If you do it a third time, you'll be blocked for disruption. (Although this time she let my response to the IP remain on my talk page.) Bishonen also left a note on my talk page saying she would block me if i reverted her reverts on my talk page.

I seek a third opinion on how to deal with anonymous socks; on whether Bishonen is correct to not only delete the IP's edits from my talk page, but also my edits discouraging the IP from socking and encouraging them to engage in constructive behavior; and Bishonen's threat that she would block me if i reverted her deletions on my talk page. Soham321 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a very "selective" description of what has happened. The material added by the IP, deleted by Bishonen and restored by you was a detailed instruction, a manual, for how to avoid scrutiny and continue to edit contentious areas in violation of a topic ban. Not just an IP expressing frustration. And in case someone here doesn't know Soham321 is currently topic banned from all articles relating to India, broadly construed; a 6 month ban placed by Bishonen because of tendentious editing. Thomas.W ^talk 17:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The topic ban is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion as is the fact that in 2013 Bishonen was falsely accusing me of socking using an IP address (a claim she later retracted). Let us focus for now on the issue i have placed in this thread. With respect to the IP's comments that Thomas is referring to, the things the IP was mentioning (like posting from a cyber cafe) are known to everyone--there was nothing secretive about what he/she was telling me. Since the IP had posted the edit on my talk page, and then deleted it, i placed it back on my talk page because i wanted to respond to it and convince him that socking is not a good idea and he/she should instead be engaging in constructive behavior. (The IP probably thought that by placing my edit on my talk page and then deleting it his advice to me would be hush hush.) At any rate, does my action really justify threats to block me? Soham321 (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The actions and motives of any editor who files a report at WP:ANI are also scrutinized, which makes information about what kind of material that was posted on your talk page, that you are currently under discretionary sanctions, and that the topic ban was imposed by Bishonen, the admin whose actions you're complaining about, highly relevant. Thomas.W ^talk 17:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not making any complaints about Bishonen. I am simply asking for a third opinion. I myself want to know about the policy of how to deal with IP editors, who are probably socking themselves, who show up on your talk page and advise you to start socking. Should they be ignored completely, and their edits deleted; or should they be persuaded and advised to give up socking and engage in constructive behavior? And if an editor chooses the latter option, is an Admin justified to give threats to block the editor? Soham321 (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You have already been given advice - WP:DENY - which you must have seen because you reverted the edit that contained the link in its summary. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, WP:DENY is a user essay; it is not an official WP guideline. I should have the right to disagree with the views expressed in the user essay. Soham321 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The ban is not irrelevant. You were blocked recently for 'violating your ban' with this comment. The IP was obviously suggesting that you did the right thing in defending that user from 'bullying' and that while you shouldn't sock, it would be smarter to leave comments like that anonymously in order to avoid a block over something so minor. They themselves removed the comment initially and you should not have restored it to begin with. Bishonen was not in the wrong by removing it after you restored it and is arguably justified by WP:TPO as well. She suggests that this is a blocked user and that WP:DENY applies, and if she knows this for a fact, that even further vindicates her. However I will note that she did not mention this in the block or rev deletion logs. Regardless, agree that the removal was appropriate as was the block. However I think the severity of the comment has been greatly overstated by all; the comment was inappropriate but fairly harmless and that this cause was not even worth Bishonen getting involved in, but then again that's her perogative. Certainly nothing here merits any second-guessing apart from you restoring the comment to begin with. Swarm ♠ 17:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, I didn't say DENY was policy. One of your "problems" is a tendency to wikilawyer when you don't really know what you're talking about. Like WP:BRD, DENY is a widely-accepted, widely-invoked essay - it's not some oddball thing and you should probably treat it as a de facto guideline at least. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:DENY is indeed just advice - but very useful and sensible advice. You can, of course, choose to ignore it or to disagree with it, but there's then little point in coming here looking for different advice. As for your three questions: (i) you deal with disruptive socks by not enabling them and it is ridiculous to think that you can simply persuade them to become constructive; (ii) Bishonen would be correct to delete from any page the instructions on how to avoid scrutiny when socking, no matter how well-known you contend them to be; and (iii) you need to realise that when you make an edit, you take responsibility for that edit. So when you restored the socking instructions, you were posting those instructions and I wouldn't be surprised if you were blocked for doing so after being warned. Now you can cheerfully dispute this fifth opinion, just like you disputed the third and fourth ones above, but I ought to warn you that you run the risk of eventually exhausting the community's patience here. Your call. --RexxS (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out (as a non-administrator) that User:Soham321 is in general extremely sensitive about his written words on talk pages: he has repeatedly gone to what other editors consider unreasonable lengths to keep the "purity" of discussions: there was at least one ANI case and repeated conflicts, in some cases with experienced editors having to self-revert what could be considered very routine and minor edits on talk pages regarding spacing, indenting and the like due to strenuous and vocal opposition from Soham321 even when they specifically notified him they were fixing an obvious issue. (edit conflict) (four of them) Here is a sample discussion between Soham and Abecedare. Ogress _smash! 18:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

My objection to my edits on the Adi Shankara talk page moved from one section to another, and my edits in response to a particular edit being placed by another editor as being a response to some other edit (thus making it impossible to follow what was going on in the talk page) is completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed in this thread. Similarly, the question of indentation is also completely irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. I actually have now received the advise i wanted from Swarm so i would request someone to close this thread now. Soham321 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you got the response you wanted, but I disagree fundamentally that your touchiness about talk pages is irrelevant to this ANI proceeding about talk page user comment editing. Ogress _smash! 18:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. Let us agree to disagree. Soham321 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Swarm, you say "She suggests that this is a blocked user and that WP:DENY applies, and if she knows this for a fact, that even further vindicates her. However I will note that she did not mention this in the block or rev deletion logs." I should try to clear that up. There were two IP's that posted on Soham's page today: first 2600:1000:b100:3fc8:d5c0:49ff:53a1:80a4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), then 2600:1000:b018:9567:7db4:d585:ee04:1d42I (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The first, which I'll call IP1, I blocked and revdel'd as a troll; I didn't mention anything about socking or block evasion in the block or revdel logs, because I had no good reason to make those accusations. (I think it highly likely IP1 was a sock, but that's not something for the logs.) My comments about socking, previous block, and block evasion were made wrt the second IP, IP2, such as here. I have assumed per WP:DUCK that IP2 is the same individual as the then blocked IP1 , and therefore I call IP2 a block-evading sock. I actually never bothered to block IP2; I checked the range and it was too big, so, meh. I'm afraid I've made it sound more complicated than it really is. Short version: the logs refer to IP1, and it's IP2 that is a block-evading sock. Bishonen | talk 19:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC). Adding PS: Instead of blocking IP2, I offered Soham semiprotection of his page,[385] so he wouldn't have to deal with this disruptive anon further. But he hasn't replied, so I left it. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Ah, thanks for clearing that up, it makes perfect sense. I didn't even realize there were two different IPs. :P Anyway, Soham seems satisfied by my third opinion so I'll go ahead and close this. Swarm ♠ 20:53, 3 August 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.