Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive897

Admin needs to be overturned

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

---

Admin User:Ricky81682 needs to be overturned immediately. He's totally out of control. This is Malik Shabazz round 2. He's issuing crazy topic bans and blocking new editors without stopping. Look at the editor who tried to help here. A block, deletion of their sandbox and nothing but attacks. Stop him immediately. A level 1 Desysop is needed right now before he goes overboard. - 166.170.47.240 (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• So first things first, assuming this is blocked user since this is your first post. So this is block evasion which just means a boomerang is coming. Secondly, Ricky explained himself quite well on his talk page as to the name block. Level 1 desysop is only for emergency cases. This doesn't qualify. Not even close. --Stabila711 (talk) 08:21, 28 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.

Disruptive editing at Knanaya

An anonymous editor, or group of related editors, have been disrupting the Knanaya article for over a week. Various IPs have hit the page recently, the ranges are often similar, though sometimes they claim to be different people who just agree about everything. The most recent one is 117.248.62.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); other recent IPs include 117.202.53.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 117.215.199.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 61.3.43.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Their edits are too full of problems to explain fully here; I laid out some of the bigger issues here. In general, it appears they don't like what some of the reliable sources have to say, and want to replace them with their own poorly cited, uncited, or falsely cited material. The article was semi-protected for a week, and they reverted to their version almost immediately after it expired. Dealing with this may require a range block, and/or further semi-protection.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You might want to request full protection then. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism by FreeatlastChitchat

Hello Mods/Admins,

FreeatlastChitchat, who is already under investigation for 2 cases here, and another 'meat puppet' case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan has been vandalizing the Ghulam Ahmed Pervez page. He deleted most of the content on the page, which was sourced from: ["Introduction - Biography of G.A.P, taken from "The Life in the Hereafter (Translation of Jahan e Farda by Ejaz Rasool)"" (PDF). Tolue-Islam-Trust.] This page is classed as starter page, most of the information on that wiki comes from a few sources. However, everything there is sourced, but the user FreeatlastChitchat claimed that he deleted everything because it was "unsourced", which is simply inaccurate. I have already informed said user that I will be reporting his actions here, and he responded by saying: "let the reporting begin", signaling a confrontational attitude. He has already tried reverting my revert, and I reverted it again, this is turning into an edit war.... I've also consulted Human3015 on his talk page, as I noticed he has warned this user before. I sought his advice regarding this matter as this is my first escalation report on a user regarding vandalism. Thank you Code16 (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) I have yet to look at the edits, but one thing concerns me is WP:CANVASS. You have discussed this and pinged an editor here that has never edited the article or posted to its talk page. AlbinoFerret 20:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the edit,[1] and his revert [2]. None of the claims he removed were referenced in the article. This appears to be a content dispute and your reverting of unsourced material to a biography of a living person raises concerns. You should have placed the citations in the material when you replaced it. AlbinoFerret 20:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing is present but turns us to an equally (or more) serious policy. On the talk-page, User:Code16 mentions the source...it's the <ref> in the first sentence. The content is WP:COPYVIO from it. I responded on the talk-page noting that, and with a warning of a block coming if he doesn't follow our copyvio policy. DMacks (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@ DMacks I've replied on the Talk page as well: I understand the concern of copyright and I will rework the copy and summarize the text without "copying verbatim". At present, recent edits have completely removed most of the page with stubs (even partial sentences) remaining, it will take me some time to fix. Once it is fixed, if the same user deletes sourced material again (keep in mind, his original claim that the material was unsourced was still not true) I will raise another flag here. Thank you. Code16 (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Code16 While it may be sourced, I recommend placing a reference to all the claims that have been deleted, even if the same source is used multiple times. A source at the top or the bottom of the article will lead editors to question if the rest is sourced and removing unsourced material is a good faith edit most of the time. AlbinoFerret 00:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Another IDLI

When I first saw that there were no citations etc I thought that this was unreferenced material and I removed it. This was my bad I should have checked the source at the very start but it never occured to me that this may be the source of the material mention after it. . The second time he inserted the text I read the source but found out that the entire section I removed was almost 100% complete copy vio. There are almost no other sources except one(i.e the copyvio one) so I removed it again. I could have done a rewrite but history can be used for rewrites so as this was grounds for immediate deletion I deleted it. I'm not sure what I can do here. Perhaps I should have apologized to this guy, as 'Almost everything' he creates is mentioning Tolou-e-Islam and Pervez, but I did leave a msg on TP of article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@ AlbinoFerret Will do, and I'll also insert additional sources. Code16 (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with User:Curly Turkey

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.

---

For the past few days, Curly Turkey has been bombarding conversations here on wikipedia with unrelated, unfounded and false personal attacks towards myself (including bringing up how many times I was blocked -which he's wrong on and I proved it to him on his talk page, though he deleted it- and senseless name-calling):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=677707527&oldid=677705521
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=677711348&oldid=677708614
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=677716306&oldid=677713982
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=677442028&oldid=677441513
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=677443918&oldid=677442232
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=677444545&oldid=677444457

I have done nothing to warrant being called a troll.

He has repeatedly called me out on what pages I choose to edit and even said I "have no interest" or "stake in" editing these (like as if he knows me or something or I need to clear my editing with him in advance):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=677423927&oldid=677423413

When I moved one of my comments (and explained why), I was goaded in an edit summary as apparently "running away from him" and, when I questioned him about it on his talk page, all I got were more false comments about the number of times I've been blocked (which I finally just had to laugh off and leave be... which is when the swear words started). I've tried to avoid him, even going so far as to say I was removing myself from the consensus talk he was also apart of but, that got me nowhere because, instead, he just started a different conversation about me on someone else's talk page.

Then, today, he edited the Baxter Stockman page which, as I pointed out to him on his talk page after he began edit warring, I find odd given his recent comments about "driveby editing" on pages an editor "otherwise has no stake in" and "has not previously made edits to." He even went so far as to say my edit is something worth being "barfed at."

This, to me, shows a potential plan on his part to begin wikihounding (especially since the Baxter Stockman page is one of the pages he listed here in his list of pages I've edited that he doesn't like). I've had it and I don't know what to do.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Cebr's been bombarding my talk page with comment after comment, even after I made it clear he was not welcome there. Cebr made contentious edits to Baxter Stockman while in the middle of an RfC about those very edits that has yet to close. After seeing that, I did some light copyediting to that article—nothing even remotely contentious, and I did not edit in the area under discussion at the RfC. Cebr has made it clear in the RfC that he will "just going to keep on doing what [he decide[s] to do"] regardless of consensus and is not willing to carry a conversation with me that does not involve ad hominems. Aside from the contentious edits, he's pushing as many buttons as he can. Cebr is a disruption and is distracting from people getting actual work done on the encyclopaedia. He has also failed to notify User:Argento_Surfer that he is talking about him at ANI. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I've never been told to stay away from Curly Turkey's talk page nor am I talking about any other editor but him.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

While I agree Cebr's "Lol" messages are entirely unhelpful to any conversation, I believe the situation could have been handled better by both sides. Curley Turkey is a long-time veteran who I haven't worked with as of yet, so the user has obviously done something right to keep contributing. I understand any frustration the user had and I believe a warning to both sides is suitable for now. Of course, I'll need to look into this more because I feel some parts of the story are being left out. Now please let's get along and move on if that is what admins want.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point made below. I'm not the only one who's made "Lol" comments.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything involving Curly Turkey in this report (as I've listed here) has been unhelpful. After so long, one can simply "Lol" it off. My recommendation for the future would be "looking into this more" before offering a (non-)resolution.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Careful, Cebr1979—someone might actually examine the evidence, and then where would you be? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Uhmm... that's exactly what I want to have happen (and exactly what I just advised TheGracefulSlick to do before making recommendations).Cebr1979 (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Cebr1979: after reviewing the evidence you presented, and looking through your contributions, block log, and talk page history, I'm staunchly in agreement with Curly Turkey that you are a troll making disruptive edits. I would advise you to cut it out before you get blocked for a fourth time. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've never been blocked a third time and there is nothing in my edit history to denote me as an internet troll (and, especially, not any sort of "staunch" anything). If you're gonna look at contributions, block log, and talk page history, you should look at his too (though, I am going to point out that we are only talking about the issues from the last few days).Cebr1979 (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: I've never had the pleasure of working with Curly Turkey, but I've extensively seen his work in my main field of editing. He has been editing for years and has more edits than you and me combined. Even if I went drudging through his dirt, it would not change my opinion of your behavior. And the WP:IDHT is either more trollery or a WP:CIR issue because a) your block log clearly records three entries and b) you removed all three notifications from your talk page. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My block log notes TWO blocks. One of them was edited mid-block. And, by admission, you're one-sided and should refrain from this report. Lastly, I'm allowed to remove block notifications from my talk page. I'm allowed to remove anything from my talk page. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says so. Deleting messages is actually considered an indicator of the messages having been read. Cebr1979 (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, but how about we turn this "report" around and focus more on your trollery and disruptive editing? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, how about your evidence of my being a troll? But I'm not going to accept you bringing up any old issues from the past that have already been dealt with.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Since Cebr asked me to look over the "evidence", my new resolution is to immediately boomerang this report as I've found the user is a total troll. Initially, I was sympathetic because I know how feuds can cause us to act carelessly, but I've also found I hold exceptions when dealing with trolls. Curly Turkey, I apologize for not taking a firm stance in your favor as I now see you are not at any fault.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• "...unfounded and false personal attacks towards myself (including bringing up how many times I was blocked" Somebody needs to review what a personal attack is defined as.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Somebody needs to read the whole sentence I wrote.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang for User:Cebr1979

I've seen trolling blocked instantly, and I'm surprised that this went on as long as it did. This just goes to show that this user is unwilling to change or take advice. Per WP:IDHT, WP:CIR, WP:TROLL and anything else this user's recent conduct falls under, I'm asking for them to be blocked for a period of no less than 48 hours for their recent behavior, or the next time their trollery crops up (probably soon). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. EDIT: support indefinite block. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh? I did take his advice and haven't come back here until just now when you pinged me. Plus, you still haven't shown any trolling on my part so what right do you have to ask for a block at all?Cebr1979 (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Cebr1979: you literally handed me all the evidence I need on a silver platter. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No, I really didn't. That Graceful guy said to drop it and I did. I'm hoping I won't be pinged again.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block or one-way IBAN for Cebr1979. Curly Turkey is an intelligent, learned and diligent editor who gives freely of his time to fix problems on Wikipedia that most are too complacent to deal with. I know from experience how hard it can be to shake trolls like this, and how annoying it can b when they claim you are the troll, and just keep coming back. Block Cebr1979, and if the blocking/closing admin has time to through my edit history to figure out who I'm talking about (hint: their username is not dissimilar to Cebr1979)maybe have a look at that too. I can't open a new ANI thread for a while after the fustercluck Beyond My Ken, AlbinoFerret and my IBAN partner caused several sections up. But, most importantly for the present discussion, a block or a one-way IBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering the off-topic personal remark he has made about me and the evidence of wiki-stalking against me in this very thread I think a one-way IBAN for Curly Turkey is not enough. Cebr1979 is a troll who does trollish things to any user he finds remotely problematic, and is a drain on the community's patience. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Where are you getting wiki-stalking from (and off-topic personal remarks are exactly what this whole thing is about but... no one seems to be paying any attention to that)?Cebr1979 (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not providing the diff. This quote was taken from a comment I made in an entirely unrelated discussion. You found it because as soon as I started posting in this thread about your behaviour, you clicked on my edit history and started looking around for "dirt" on me. This is wiki-stalking, and is almost guaranteed to make anyone to whom you do it want to see you blocked. The diff you continue to cite (hence the above RPA template) was me discussing another user who doesn't like me, showing up every time I post on ANI and requesting that I be site-banned; the user had not actually looked at any of the diffs under discussion in that thread, but was doing so solely out of personal resentment of me. I on the other hand have no prior personal resentment of you -- my only interaction with you has been in this thread, and your continued stalking/harassment/disruption/trolling in this very thread has made me very much want to see an end to this discussion. Good night. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop editing my comments! I never clicked your edit history, I couldn't care less! I read this page over and your comment was right here. I'll also point out, I didn't click anyone else's edit history either. I don't have any "dirt" on the guy with the Chinese letters for a name, Guy Macon, or the Graceful guy. I only read this page and saw your comment (which I've now said multiple times).Cebr1979 (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You read every single post on ANI? Or did you Ctrl+F for my name? Or did you click on my edit history? The first option is completely ridiculous -- you'd need to be the fastest, best reader in history to read that much, that closely, while at the same time posting in this thread. The latter two options both imply wiki-stalking, of a user with whom up to that point you had had no argument. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to get over yourself. I most certainly do not have any interest in following you around or whatever.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And STOP REINSERTING THE OFF-TOPIC PERSONAL REMARKS! Take a damn hint and give it a break. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop editing my comments. I've told you that numerous times now.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant, off-topic personal attacks is pretty common. Why do you think the RPA template exists? You on the other hand altered Sturmgewehr88's post in order to refactor this whole discussion in your favour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I also think Cebr1979's multiple, highly-disruptive attempts to shut down this discussion when it started turning against him are probably grounds for an immediate, temporary block to prevent further disruption while this discussion of his behaviour takes place -- is there an admin who does that kind of thing? I seem to recall Nyttend did on a thread I was involved in some years ago, but there were special circumstances there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also (forgot to comment on this earlier): trolling someone to the point of driving them to use foul language, and then requesting they get blocked for using foul language is the lowest of the low. All users who attempt to game the system in such a manner should be immediately removed from the project. I've had my fair share of trouble with this in the past/present (again, admins, feel free to tell me I'm wrong about this...). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend responded to you below. And just like he responded to you, I was responding to Curly Turkey... And I posted that in my initial report. At this point, you're going around in circles.Cebr1979 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh goddamnit, just give it a break already! I admit you might have had an edit conflict with my post to the effect that I would drop the talk of your deliberately disrupting this conversation, but the moment you saw the edit conflict you should have read my comment and decided not to post yours, rather than just pushing it through anyway. You realize how hypocritical it is to say "I was asked to drop it, and I did", while at the same time continuing to force a talking point about another user who actually dropped an issue he may have been wrong about, don't you? Your continuing to troll this issue is, if anything, an indicator that I was wrong ... in my initial assumption that you were just making a good-faith mistake by trying to unilaterally close this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't even get what you're trying to say?Cebr1979 (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Again apologies to Curley for not being more precise the first time round. Such users who have been around for so long should not have to deal with troublesome trolls. A 48 hour block would be a little too light to me since we all know a troll doesn't just go away. Unless Cebr is willing to genuinely apologize and show actual improvement, I don't see why anyone should have to waste any more time with this. A block of at least a month would be more appropriate if an indefinite is not on the table.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I just don't get you guys, you told me to drop it and I have.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: The fact that within eight hours or so of me getting involved here, he was already trolling/stalking me as well makes me think an indef, not subject to appeal for at least six months, is the best way to go. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have never stalked you. OMG, I can't believe how insane this has gotten!Cebr1979 (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You clicked on my edit history, rooted around for edits in unrelated topics that you could use as dirt against me, and slung it at me almost immediately: how is this not stalking? (Full disclosure: I added the above diff after Cebr1979 posted the above claim that he didn't know what I was talking about, so technically his initial post did not look as ridiculous as it does now. One of about a dozen edit conflicts I had with this user in the course of thirty minutes. I'm having LittleBenW flashbacks.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I never clicked your edit history, I couldn't care less! I read this page over and your comment was right here. I'll also point out, I didn't click anyone else's edit history either. I don't have any "dirt" on the guy with the Chinese letters for a name, Guy Macon, or the Graceful guy. I only read this page and saw your comment (which I've now said multiple times).Cebr1979 (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop repeating the exact same comments in multiple places. It makes it look like you are not carefully reading and responding to others' comments, which is highly disrespectful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The time to change your behavior was when you got all of those warnings and blocks,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] not when it looks like ANI may apply an indefinite block. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ya... I'm not going back two years. I was told to drop this and I did. The rest of you need to do the same.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless, of course, you want me to compile every warning Curly Turkey has ever gotten? That would be time consuming and, as far as I'm concerned, ridiculous. Like I said, you guys wanted this dropped... so drop it. I did.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: Woah, hold on there, buddy. You know how many ANI reports I have filed that I would have liked to "non-admin close" the moment I realized they weren't going my way? Non-admins are allowed close ANI discussions, but only when they are uninvolved. You lost your "uninvolved" status when you started this thread, and now it is turning against you you want to close it? What if the moment after you filed the initial complaint Curly Turkey had done that? Given that, at this point, a highly likely result of this thread is you being blocked, I don't think anyone would accept a non-admin closure anyway, since non-admins don't have the authority to issue blocks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with what was or wasn't "going my way." It had everything to do with me being told a long time ago (before you even got involved) that I should drop this... so I did. Ever since I dropped it, people keep coming back to it (including the one who told me to drop it). I thought the blue box was the way close it as dropped. If it's not, so be it. Thanks for letting me know. P.S. There has still been no evidence of me being a troll presented and, considering you state above that, "two users who were quite open about their !votes being based on their pre-existent opinions of me rather than any actual evidence relevant to THIS situation", I'm sorta thinking you should follow your own advice and quit with the block talk.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't bring up entirely unrelated material that indicates you are following me, even though (as you say) I was not even involved with you until a few hours ago. This is yet another reason why I think you should be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Do not edit my comments and your comment that I read is posted right here on this page so I read it. That's not stalking.Cebr1979 (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think the RPA template exists? If someone else removes a personal attack you made against them, the proper thing to do is apologize, not repeat it, deny you did it in the first place, and then revert the initial removal. I have templated both instances again; I will drop it for now, but don't do it again. Good night. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's you hiding your hypocrisy. Quit editing my comments!Cebr1979 (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No hypocrisy. I said that users who have not read the relevant discussion should not be allowed show up out of the blue and spitefully request that such-and-such a user be blocked based on unrelated prior disputes. You and I have had no unrelated prior disputes. I looked at the evidence here, and said you should be IBANned or blocked. Insisting that someone's arguments should not be counted because in your opinion they have engaged in what you dubiously call "hypocrisy" is a personal attack, because it is the very definition of Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. You then trolled through my edit history to dig up dirt on me and inserted it into this discussion in order to intimidate me over and over and over again. It most certainly is a personal attack to insert off-topic personal commentary on a particular user when you could be addressing their arguments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

[triple edit conflict] Hijiri88, I'm only seeing one attempt by Cebr to close this discussion; it took place over several minutes and several edits because Cebr wasn't sure how to do it from a technical perspective. Unless he repeats, there's no reason to block or otherwise sanction him for this incident. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Nyttend.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and don't do it again, especially as it looks more and more likely that you'll be blocked following discussion here. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend: (Sorry for the edit conflict.) If you read (pronounce like the colour) the above discussion the way I way did, it would look very much like Guy Macon telling him that he's not allowed to close a discussion just because it stopped going his way, and he attempted to close it after said. But given Cebr1979's above response, I guess I have to assume that it was just ignorance of the policy on his part. (Given the evidence presented above that this user has IDHT issues, it seems equally likely that it's a ruse, but I won't hold it against him as long he drops it now.)

Cebr1979: Understood. I will drop the issue of your attempting to close the thread (please don't call it "the blue box", by the way) as long as you stop it now.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well... good night, all! I dropped this a long time ago, not sure why the rest of you won't (especially since I dropped it at some of your recommendations). Anywho, I'm off to bed and, even when I wake up, I'm not coming back to this (supposed to be) dropped topic.Cebr1979 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Cebr, hunting down unrelated edits by the users who think your behaviour here warranted sanctions, and quoting them as evidence that said users should be the ones facing sanctions, is an indication that you have not dropped this: you are just trying to save yourself for the time being so you can move on to your next target. Give it a break already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I don't even understand what you're talking about???Cebr1979 (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Just give it a break. Good night. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a mess... Wow. And still everyone involved has admitted they haven't even looked into what happened on THIS issue, they've only gone through *my* block log and other such things of the past. Only *mine* and only of the past. Like I said... Wow. Also, still no evidence of me being a troll which is what this whole block thing is over so... OMG. Wow.Cebr1979 (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not assume that I failed to look at the edit histories of the other editors involved in this. I am nothing if not thorough, and I have examined "what happened" very thoroughly indeed. As usual when I look at editor's histories, I found a few things I could fault some of them on, but your history stood out as being extremely disruptive and stands out for your annoying habit of deleting legitimate warnings with comments like "lol".[30][31][32][33][34] Again, you need to change your behavior in response to the multiple warning you have received, not laugh them off

Your behavior on Wikipedia is not acceptable. Your only realistic chance to avoid an indefinite block at this point is to convince us that you understand what you did wrong and convince ANI that you will not repeat the behavior in the future. Blaming everyone else as if we don't know how to recognize a disruptive editor when we see one is just an example of the law of holes at work. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "other editors," there is only one other editor involved. In any case, I've already done what you said by dropping it way back the first time I was told to. Cebr1979 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

All of those examples you just brought up are old and have been dealt with. I got my block and served my time. I'm not discussing that old stuff with you just because you weren't around at that time. That's all over with.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979 when I told you to drop the report, I meant to take the appropriate steps to do so. Which means apologize, say what you did wrong, and how you need to improve. You continue to do the complete opposite. I assumed since you have been involved in quite a few of your own blocks, you would know by now how to try to amend some of the damage. I guess I was wrong.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979 has reinserted the same off-topic personal commentary on me at least five times (search the code for this section for "RPA" or "8964". Also, in case no one has noticed, these posts are somewhat disturbing. Who is Diannaa, and what is their relation to this dispute? Going through the whole ANI page looking for a random admin's username (when we have a list for that kind of thing) and then asking them on their talk page for advice on getting a discussion closed once it has started turning against you seems super-weird, right? Or is it just me who thinks that? Additionally, his stating several hours after he had been told he was not allowed to close it himself that "oh, I wasn't allowed..." seems somewhat dubious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: "I don't know what you mean by 'other editors,' there is only one other editor involved", Before commenting on this case, I looked into the behavior of Curly Turkey, Hijiri88, Sturmgewehr88, TheGracefulSlick and Nyttend -- the other editors who have commented in this ANI thread. Of course some of those names I know well and it just took a moment to convince myself that, as expected, they are third parties not involved in your content dispute, but I had to check just to make sure. Everyone deserves a fair hearing on ANI, and everyone is subject to a boomerang if it turns out that they were involved and a part of the problem.

Clearly you do not understand what you did wrong and thus we have no reason to believe that you will not repeat the behavior in the future. Nor have I seen a shred of evidence that your previous warnings and blocks helped you to understand what you did wrong or avoid further misbehavior. Just as clearly, my words are not reaching you, so this will be my last comment on this matter.

Support indefinite block of Cebr1979, with the understanding that Cebr1979 will be able to get the block lifted if he can convince the uninvolved admin who reviews his appeal that he understands what he did wrong and convinces that admin that he is committed to avoiding such behavior in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Again: you don't have any merit for that. Everything you have brought up is old and already been dealt with (you went back two years). That's all long since over with. I'm sure if if I went back two years, I could find lots of stuff on other people (maybe even you) but, I'm not about to do that. And you shouldn't have either.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block of either party. That's a totally unreasonable reaction to a pair of editors being WP:JERKs to each other. And it is clearly mutual, not a one-way problem with Cebr1979. Curly Turkey has a habit of inflammatory straw man posts (I was considering raising an ANI thread about this behavior pattern myself, as its use at WT:MOS has been both uncivil and disruptive, despite numerous requests to stop distorting other's views and putting words in their mouths). Support a mutual interaction ban of some period, e.g. 3 months, and let the tigers show their stripes. Both of these editors exhibit anti-collaborative problems. One does not get a free pass and the other a permanent ban simply because one's been around longer; see WP:VESTED, and two years is both plenty of time to demonstrate that one is not a troll as well as too far back to go digging for dirt to make a case against someone here, and you all know better. An indef block as a WP:BOOMERANG result is absurd; the point of BOOMERANG is to discourage wiki-litigious parties from wasting all our time with vexatious, unclean-hands complaints, not to execute them on the spot.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, it may be two users being jerks to each other, but we need to ask (1) who started it, (2) who was trying throughout to stop it, (3) who shows no signs of improving, and (4) who has been hounding other, uninvolved members of the community just for commenting here. Someone (I'm pretty sure it was you) made a lot below of going back two years and counting the block warnings, but we need to consider the sheer mass of those warnings. It comes out to more than one a month by my count. That's more even than me and I edit articles on Japanese history, poetry and religion! ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't start it, I was trying to stop it, I've shown signs of improving, and you have not been hounded. You need to stop with that. Me reading one comment you made on this page is not hounding you. You haven't been victimised in any way shape or form.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Hijiri88: Hmm. 1) Doesn't seem relevant and usually is not a consideration here, especially if the party B has unclean hands and keeps escalating right along with party A. 2) Clearly, neither of them; Cebr's diffs show that CT was just as dismissive and hostile, and in fact behaved that way in response to Cebr asking him to stop calling him names (instead he just called him a troll again, but last I looked a request to cease name-calling is not trolling). 3) Clearly, both. Neither of these editors appear to take disagreement much less criticism well, and keep trying to get the last word, and to deny any wrongdoing. 4) That, I have not been looking into. Cebr is not hounding me, though CT is blatantly, shamelessly lying, four times back-to-back, about my posts here, so you can guess what my initial opinion is. And I'm not a fan of Cebr; I really hate that nuke-everything-off-my-talk-page stuff he does (it interferes with easy tracking user behavior and interaction issues enough, I'm wondering if user page policy should't be changed!), and I don't like his flippant attitude. But of the two editors in question, Cebr's has been the less disruptive in the WT:MOS thread in question. He's been staying on-topic more, and more involved in trying to find consensus, while CT has done very little by try to make everyone who disagrees with him look stupid by making up bullshit about what they said. I don't contribs-stalk either of them, so I can't speak as to their other edits. I've had both negative and positive interactions with both before, and I agree and disagree with both of them on various things. Both have been here several years, and both of them know better that to engage in a multi-page, mutual baiting war.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish was considering ANI (on Cebr's talk page) at a time when he totally misunderstood the discussion—for which he shortly after admitted and apologized for but now seems to retracting it so he can make the same accusations (note the lack of diffs to prove it). Not even Cebr accused me of such a thing, and nobody else backed SMcCandlish up on it. Please, someone wade through that discussion and demosntrate all the alleged "strawmen" I put up. Curly Turkey can't be allowed to get away with this. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I what I actually retracted and apologized (conditionally) for [35] was possibly misconstruing one of your own arguments, and I suggested you do likewise, but you never did. I even documented why the argument was so easily misconstruable.[36] It certainly is not the case that I "totally misunderstood the discussion". You've simply lied about this, as you did about many other statements by others on that page. If you'd really like a diff farm of all your blatant mis-castings of other's statements in that MOS discussion, used by you to try to denigrate them and to "WP:WIN" the argument with FUD, I'll be happy to provide such a list, and you will not look good in it. Be careful what you wish for. (Compiling the list won't take long; just search the thread or the recent page history there for me objecting and mentioning "straw man" and anyone can find a lot of them in seconds.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Since Curly Turkey is actually demanding proof of his straw-manning, I'm in the process of gathering the diffs, but have to go pick up someone at the airport who has arrived almost an hour early, so I'll get to it when I return. Have found 4 instances already and there are at least 3 others to diff.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Update: Posted in separate subthread below, with a suggesting that CT be warned.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose SMcCandlish makes a lot of sense. Nothing here rises to the level for indef bans or blocks. An IBAN for a limited time sounds about right. AlbinoFerret 04:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This from AlbinoFerret, the genius of perspective and proportion who believes I should be indefinitely SBANned for having the audacity to post a coupla times on Talk:Soka Gakkai and fix some refs on Kokuchukai and Nichiren. And the thorougjly-demonstrated, blatant, ceaseless CIR/IDHT/TROLL actions of Cebr1979 over two years don't merit any kind of block or ban? Cebr1979, this is what rational people call "hypocrisy". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I do have to point out that I made it clear I wanted Cebr to stay off my talk page and deleted four of his contentious trolling comments in a row: [37][38]"lol""I was just wondering..."—yet he continued commenting on my talk page. This is not the behaviour of someone who acts in good faith—this harassment is trolling, or commenting to invoke a negative response rather than to communicate or contribute to developing a consensus. As the other commenters who posted above have remarked (after examining the evidence, I have to emphasize), Cebr has not demonstrated a willinglness to alter his disruptive behaviour, nor has my behaviour been shown to be disruptive (despite diff-less accusations from SMcCandlish, an involved party who has launched similar contentious accusations against other contributors he disagrees with in the RfC). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Curly Turkey: I have pointed out that I asked you three times to stop bringing up unrelated blocks in a consensus talk and you didn't. Cebr1979 (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh? I brought it up once, long before you made your comments on my talk page. That you asked me three times says nothing more than that you couldn't drop the stick long after I already had. Your comments were harassment. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Um, no, I haven't "accused" anyone else of engaging in straw man disruption at all in that discussion, only you, because it's only you doing it, again and again and again. But since you're asking twice now for diffs everyone can see of you doing it, I'll start building that list. Seems like a rather self-destructive demand on your part (not unlike much of Cebr1979's behavior in this ANI thread, I might add; cf. my comment "it is clearly mutual, not a one-way problem", above), but not my problem, I guess.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't "accused" anyone else of engaging in straw man: where did I say you did? I'm of course referring to your accusations of bad faith on Darkfrog24's part—that's what "similar" means. Slow down and read what people wrote, SMcCandlish—then you won't make ridiculous statements like this, which you've already admitted was 180° the opposite of the truth. You've also yet to demonstrate a single strawman—because there are none. So let's see those diffs and how you spin 'em. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet another lie by you; I specifically stated it was not an accusation of bad faith, but observation of an judgement error.[39] All you're doing is digging your own hole, after others have been trying to dig one for Cebr1979. Would you like a bigger shovel?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It was still 100% unfounded, irrelevant to topic at hand and pretty darn rude. SmC, you have a problem understanding what people actually mean when they post things. You need to ask more questions and make more suggestions instead of jumping to conclusions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's just hope you're not going to frame my comments as accusing people of prohibiting animate pronouns in in-universe writing. You've already tried that, and have already admitted you were wrong about that. In other words: as you've already acknowledged that the entire conversation from first word to last was framed in the context of out-of-universe writing, recontextualizing my comments: Here you are accusing me of lying, (I fully expect this to be on your "evidence" list) and then admitting less than an hour later the argument actually was strictly about out-of-universe writing all along. You're not going to pull this again, are you? That would be the height of dishonesty. Any attempt to paint me as having accused anyone ever of trying to prohibit animate pronouns in in-universe prose will be a flat-out lie. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Another obvious member of the list is the falsity that anyone has accused anyone of trying to force "it" onto a sentence like "Superman is famous for its strength and its ability to fly." This is a logical conclusion from the prohibition on personal pronouns in out-of-universe writing meant to demonstrate where even the supporters of the prohibition would admit that inanimate pronouns would be unacceptable. Nobody claimed that the prohibitioners proposed that such a sentence should be enforced (good luck finding a diff to prove anyone asserted any such thing—nor is it originally my argument, as you are well aware). That you disagree with the premise of the argument does not make it a straw man—the argument itself is sound, and you recognize it by suggesting to recast to avoid both the animate pronouns (which you oppose) and the inanimate (obviously unacceptable). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And you've already suggested rebooting the RfC to be clearer about it, which I've agreed with as a good plan. We don't have any dispute on these points. Why would I raise any question at all about anything to do with pronouns and your position on them? ANI is for behavioral matters, not content matters. Speaking of which, you're also misrepresenting diffs again; that's three times in the same ANI thread. In the first one I was not "accusing [you] of lying"; I said clearly "Curly Turkey's 'The question is whether MoS should prohibit the use of personal pronouns...' is a misstatement of the debate, another in a long string of straw man arguments CT has been clouding this discussion with." Not the same thing. This is important since its you engaging in a straw man in order to attempt to evade evidence of engaging in an earlier straw man. All you're doing is proving my point with diffs I hadn't even thought to include. In the second diff, you putting words in someone else mouth again [40]; the two diffs are not connected in any way, and what I really said in that one was "For once I agree with CT." (and nothing further), in response to your observation that the discussion was not really about in-universe context after all, in turn in response to someone who thought it was. (We've come to final agreement that the thread has been confused on this point and should be rebooted, remember?). So, by all means, keep doing my work for me. At this point, we should probably open a separate subthread just about this problem of your seemingly habitual misstatements of what others have posted. I can't believe you're actually trying to use diffs to prove you're not doing it when all they do is prove you're doing it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Updated: 07:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"We" agreed to reboot the discussion because you had derailed it so badly with accusations such as "To him this debate is only about "banning" the use of "we" and the like in fiction"—despite my having stated explicitly and repeatedly that the discussion was strictly about the opposite and the discussion was framed as such from first word to last (the inciting edit was an out-of-universe one, as you have acknowledged). Because you had done so much damage to the discussion it had become nigh unreadable, and you've admitted how badly you've misrepresented the basis of the discussion. Notice I'm stopping just short of calling you a liar, despite your comments being demonstrably the opposite of the truth and the huge disruption they've caused. Perhaps you should step back and consider whether the diffs you are assembling are actually strawmen rather than merely statements you disagree with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It certainly is not the case that I "totally misunderstood the discussion". You've simply lied about this: wow, you went there. Fact: you misunderstood the discussion as badly as anyone possibly could. Fact: you have admitted now that the discussion was strictly about out-of-universe writing and have agreed to reboot it to make that more explicit—not, I must emphasize, to reframe the discussion. The discussion was always about out-of-universe writing, you did in fact "totally misunderstood" it, and are now resorting to lying about it. Honestly, in the context of that discussion you've been a far worse disruption that Cebr ever was. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop telling other people what they "admitted"; you've misused that word about a dozen times in this discussion to mischaracterize others' statements. I "admitted" no such thing, and it was not true. A large portion of the discussion in question has been mired since day one in confusion as to the scope and nature of what (if anything) MOS should address regarding personal pronouns for fictional characters, both in-universe and out-of-universe. I certainly had nothing to do with that commingling of topics, as I arrived at the discussion quite late (at least three counter proposals were already floated by the time I even commented the first time, and these confusions were all already manifest, as was the personal dispute you and Cebr1979 had imported to WP:MOS from WT:COMICS). What I did do (besides provide a fourth and later sixth variant proposal) was concede that you later in the discussion appeared to be more clearly distinguishing the in- and out-of-universe use cases (though failing to recognize that the discussion in question had moved on well past that question and into a discussion of MOS advising to rewrite to avoid confusing use of pronouns with regard to fictional characters, generally speaking). I also clearly documented, in a series of diffs posted in the very thread, why your position on the matter appeared to be confused and was confusing. I've already diffed that above, too. So you're just engaging in circular rehash now, as well as for the fourth time in the same ANI thread engaging in a straw man about what I posted. I think I'll just rest my case here and let everyone else at ANI deal with your WP:GAMING. I have way better things to do that entertain your circular proof by verbosity. Which is remarkably, remarkably similar to very the same "trolling" you accuse Cebr1979 of.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I "admitted" no such thing, and it was not true.: So go on the record, SMcCandlish—do you or do you not admit you were wrong? Because you were wrong. (I'm not expecting a straight answer.) Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A large portion of the discussion in question has been mired since day one in confusion as to the scope and nature of what: no, the commenters (including Cebr) before your arrival almost unanimously understood we were talking about out-of-universe writing. You mired it, particularly with statements claiming the exact opposite. The problem is you.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here to facepalm at you of all people brigning up proof by verbosity. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose indef block - I'm going to focus on the subject of this ANI thread, which is Cebr1979's history and the information that is relevant to such. It's obvious that his behavior has been disruptive, consistent, and that it has continued despite many attempts by others to get him to understand and stop. However, I think we're jumping the gun by proposing an indefinite block. SMcCandlish made some great points that I agree with, and I think that we should make a more practical decision rather than this one. Instead, (if it were up to me to suggest something) Cebr1979's should be put on a Final Warning basis for some time; if this behavior continues or happens again during this time, a 14-day (or longer) block can be imposed by an uninvolved admin. Subsequent incidents will result in longer blocks. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm suprised so many reasonable users are against a block for Cebr. Even if you are one who opposes an indef block, it should not just drop any sort of punishment. A block of at least two weeks should be in place to make a point trolling is not accepted and give Cebr an opportunity to learn from this. Otherwise, it encourages Cebr to push the limits further until yet another ANI will be presented here shortly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's still you going off Curly Turkey having done no wrong, though (and also using a crystal ball method of deciding how the future will play out). I've said I'm fine with Oshwah & SMcCandlish's proposals. Coming back for more is pretty undue.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, the "it should not just drop any sort of punishment" sure sounds like a punishment is proposed. . AlbinoFerret 06:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct, and if we were to block Cebr1979 for "trolling" just because he responds aggressively and flippantly at ANI, and retorts unhelpfully to criticism with comments like "LOL", Curly Turkey would be in the same basket for comments like this [41]. How is "*snigger*" any different at all from "LOL" other than spelling? It means precisely the same thing and is intended in precisely the same dismissive "I laugh in your face" way. I repeat: "a pair of editors being WP:JERKs to each other. And it is clearly mutual, not a one-way problem with Cebr1979". It's best to simply separate them for a while so they go do something else other than bait each other. This comment by CT is particularly uncalled for and misleading: "Can someone do something about Cebr's trolling? He's contributed nothing to the discussion" [42]. Cebr1979's participation in the thread has in fact been constructive; it's just that its arguing for an option that CT doesn't like. This one's even worse: [43]; Cebr1979 objected to being labelled a troll in this discussion, and asked CT to stop name-calling, but CT's sole response was "You need to stop trolling." Blatantly uncivil. I don't think either of them should be blocked, because this is a conversation from several days ago; nothing preventative would happen by a block, only punitive. But they both need to stop antagonizing each other and disrupting WT:MOS in the process, which I why I suggested a mutual, time-limited interaction ban. PS: I'm not particular defender of Cebr1979, and have posted critical messages on his talk page only to have them deleted dismissively. Last I looked, though, annoying people a little wasn't a blocking offense.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret is absolutely correct - blocks are not punitive, but instated to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. This policy is what I took into account when proposing that we instead implement a final warning basis for Cebr1979. If, after this discussion (and for x number of days), Cebr1979 continues this behavior again, he will be blocked from editing Wikipedia (starting with a block to be no shorter than two weeks, then grow in length for any subsequent conduct observed). ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If Cebr1979 had written "lol" in a response to Curly Turkey, I would have ignored it as I ignored Curly Turkey's use of "snigger". That's just low level incivility and both of them are engaging in it. What Cebr1979 actually did was to repeatedly respond to warnings on his talk page by many different people by deleting the warning, often with "lol" in the edit summary. A rude editor laughing off a comment by another rude editor is one thing. Laughing off repeated legitimate warnings -- warnings where Cebr1979 was clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy -- is another thing altogether. BTW, my supporting an indef block for Cebr1979 says nothing about whether I do or do not support sanctions against Curly Turkey. I have not expressed a view on that one way or the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I just say that, as far as the 'Lol' edit summaries when deleting things off my talk page goes, that's something I've learned from other editors in my time here so didn't think there was anything wrong with it (though, in hindsight, I will admit, I didn't exactly feel the greatest when it happened to me so... shouldn't have continued it when dealing with others). If anyone wants evidence of that, they can check mine and Arre9's interactions (I don't know how to tag her from my phone so, will leave a message on her talk page as I know she needs to be notified that I'm talking about her here... even though I'm sure she'll support the "Support" side of things). Anyways, I am now heading out of town for the weekend and won't be back until Monday (and I don't know what time). If a decision is reached by then, I'll just have to live with it. If not, I'll follow up when I'm back.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Boomerang for User:Cebr1979 in full.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I think I can clear up why people oppose an indefinite block: Cebr1979's user history goes back only to 2013. From this conversation alone, it's clear that Cebr1979 thought that Slick's "drop it" meant "stop making comments in this thread" (and initially did so) and that he or she was allowed to close the request that Curly Turkey be investigated. The idea that the person who posed a request can withdraw it isn't how things work here, but it isn't unreasonable either. A lot of us forget something: Wikipedia's rules and etiquette are freaking BYZANTINE. Wikipedia has a learning curve the size of Mt. Ranier, and YES it can take more than two years to figure out how it all goes. How many places on the Internet is "lol" considered inappropriate? In how many places on the Internet is checking someone else's public user history a big deal (if that's even what Cebr1979 did)? Not that many. The idea that a relatively new user wouldn't yet have the half-intuitive sense of "What is consensus?" isn't all that out there This doesn't mean that Cebr1979 should get a pass, however. Guy Macon was good enough to look up many cases in which Cebr1979 was warned in polite terms by many different editors unrelated to each other. I personally think that any block should be non-permanent. This might be a good candidate for mentoring, possibly as a condition of unblocking. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose indefinite block, in the short term. I agree with Darkfrog above that there seems to me to be sufficient reason to think that mentoring might be effective, and I would like to give that a chance first. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: While User:Cebr1979's most recent behavior hasn't been ideal, I do feel compelled to point out that his behavior has improved since the last time I interacted with him. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey's uncivil and disruptive use of repeated straw man tactics

Following on some of the above discussion, here are some (not all – I don't have all night for this) diffs from just one discussion, relating to Curly Turkey engaging in the fallacious straw man tactic of miscasting others' statements. This does not include the four (in three posts) mischaracterization and misstatement ploys CT has engaged in so far on this ANI thread above, nor have I done any digging in other discussions to see how far this behavior pattern goes, but at least 8 times in the same thread is way, way too many, especially after multiple editors have objected to his putting of words in their mouths. He also dared me to take this matter to ANI, thinking he had a counter claim. But he's already presented his "smoking gun" above; I misunderstood where he was coming from, and explained why, and retracted it with an apology. Not hard to do, but so far CT simply will not do it himself. These are in order of CT's original posts:

1. Straw man at 02:08, 21 August 2015: [44]; my objection to it (the third; my responses were not in chronological order of Curly Turkey's own posts, but as I encountered them): [45]

   Objecting to an example doesn't make it a straw man. You may or may not have invalidated the example—there is no more to it than that. (I have more to say about the rebuttal, which missed the point entirely, but that's not for ANI.) Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   Content discussions don't belong on ANI, so this should not be about who is or isn't wrong on the content. However, SMC's assertion that CT is guilty of repeated straw-man arguments hinges on ... well, whether or not CT is actually guilty of repeated straw-man arguments. I have looked at this, and, depending on who he was addressing by "you", it either (a) most certainly was not a straw-man -- Cebr1979 said exactly what CT accused him of saying, and Cebr1979 was wrong on the substance, and deserved to be called out on it, or (b) was probably not a straw-man -- Darkfrog24 said he agreed with Cebr1979, and in the indented example worded it so as to imply he agreed with the point in question; CT called Darkfrog24 out for this, and did not use a straw-man argument. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

   I'd describe it as more "Curly asking me what I meant when I said something," but yes, not straw man. For the record, I didn't actually agree with Cebri. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

2. Straw man at 04:23, 21 August 2015 :[46]; my objection to it: [47]. This was an especially shameless example, taking a fragment from a carefully qualified statement and trying to spin into a reductio ad adsurdum bearing no relation to what I actually wrote, and also put words in my mouth like accusations of "incompetence" that I never actually made; cf. Cebr1979's complaint about the same put-words-in-my-mouth tactic Curly Turkey tried to use against him as well, in diff #8, below (an objection that predates mine).

   I defy anyone but SMcCandlish or Cebr to demonstrate how this is a strawman. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but this also isn't a straw-man. You (SMC) said something that was patently inaccurate, and CT called you out for it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

3. Straw man at 06:49, 21 August 2015: [48]; my objection to it: [49]

   This is even worse than the last one. How does this fall anywhere near anything resembling a straw man? Did you paste the wrong diff? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   CT is wrong in saying that it looks less like a straw-man than the previous one. It looks slightly more like a straw-man (CT might have been accusing Trovatore of saying it sounded like slavery). But it is obviously tongue-in-cheek, and to post on-wiki that you think it is a straw-man is actually an AGF-violation, since the only way it could be read as a bad-faith straw-man rather than a joke would be to actively assume bad faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

   It was neither tongue-in-cheeck nor a strawman. It was an honest question why use of "she" would make the sentence sound like slavery where the use of the name (which the pronoun replaces) doesn't. A "straw man" involves "refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent"—no arguement was refuted, let alone one not advanced by the opponent. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

4. Straw man at: 09:46, 21 August 2015: [50]; my objection to it: [51]

   Again, you're framing this as if the proposal ever included in-universe writing, which we've established it never did. The "never" refers exclusively to out-of-universe writing, as you are well aware. This is not a strawman but you recotextualizing my words to make them appear so. In the established context my words are true—unless you are now saying you accept "who" in out-of-universe writing. If you go on record saying you do, I will retract the comment, but a strawman it is not—it is what I have been led to believe is your position. Otherwise this and every other error you've made becomes a strawman. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, SMC, but do I need to read through the entire discussion on MOS to establish whether CT was in fact accurate in his description of your arguments? Your objection didn't address it at all, and in fact is a fairly off-topic discussion of user conduct for an MOS talk page. Could you explain which part of the above post by CT you believe was a straw-man argument? Was it a straw-man to say that the proposal was to lift a restriction rather than place it, or was the straw-man his saying that you and Cebr1979 claim "who" is never used? Because all I see on examining the above is CT making what looks like a fairly accurate break-down of who says what in the debate, and you making an off-topic personal accusation against CT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

5. Straw man at 14:06, 21 August 2015: [52]; my objection to it and the disruptiveness of it: [53]

   A statement of fact, as far as I know. I have seen no editor either proposing or doing the opposite. Meanwhile, your "Except everyone else understands that it happens more than one way" lacks any sort of evidence. If there is evidence, then I was wrong (and I'll retract the statement), but being wrong is not the same as a strawman. Do you really have so poor a grasp of the concept of a strawman? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   This is not a straw-man. It is debatably an accusation, but whether it is false or true on that point determines whether it was inappropriate for CT to make it. I'm sorry, SMC, but I'm inclined to agree with CT here: either you do not know what a straw-man is (this is the AGF option), or you are making bad-faith accusations of straw-man arguments in order to set CT up for a fall he doesn't deserve. Your response to CT was an off-topic personal accusation that didn't address the issue (you should have presented him with an example of someone going around and systematically changing "that" to "who" if you wanted to say he was wrong). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

6. Straw man at 22:18, 21 August 2015: [54]; my objection to it: [55]

   We've already established my statement was the plain truth and you got things horribly, horribly wrong. This is as black-and-white as it gets. Where does the "strawman" come into this? The closest thing is where you put words into my mouth with your "To him this debate is only about "banning" the use of "we" and the like in fiction"—the debate started with this very out-of-universe edit and followed with out-of-universe examples. Your statement was a jaw-dropper. Do you stand by it? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   Sorry SMC. You would be right that CT was using a straw-man argument, if you were right on what the RFC question was. But CT knows what the RFC question was -- he wrote it, apparently -- and his description was accurate; yours was not. If you think CT's original RFC question was an inaccurate straw-man, then ... that is an issue I don't want to touch with a ten-foot pole. Sorry, I've had enough of that shit over the past year. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

7. Straw man at 22:22, 21 August 2015: [56]; my objection to it: [57]

   The "strawman" here is you ascribing motivations to the writer. I'm not the only one in the discussion who pointed that out to you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   @CT: Or was the straw-man your saying "The rest of your comment is a mess of ad hominems and bald assertions that your own evidence disproves."? I'm not going to go through it further to figure out whether you were right to say that, because my head hurts at this point (it's not your fault), but if you were wrong ... it still wouldn't be a straw-man. A false accusation at worst. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

8. Straw man at 02:26, 21 August 2015: [58]; Cebr1979's objection to it: [59]; my objection to it: [60]

   Yep, you brought it up, just as I predicted above. Scroll up to see my rebuttal. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   Okay, I'm not going to go back up and see the rebuttal. I don't frankly care at this point whether this was or was not a straw-man argument. Even if it was, it is one flawed argument. It doesn't justify all the other crap SMC apparently put CT through accusing him of straw-mans left, right and center, before the above potentially-legit straw-man. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

   There's no flaw to the argument—the rebuttal to it that SMcCandlish supports is to recast to avoid it, which is a tacit acknowlegement that the prescription is problematic (a large part of my basic point). This has been brought up by other editors in earlier discussions, which is why I revived it here. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Everyone misinterprets someone else's view occasionally (and I even did so with one of CT's, as already noted). But this is a consistent pattern of intentional, uncivil, disruptive mischaracterization as a debate tactic, to make other editors look stupid, dishonest, or trolling, and with the effect of derailing an RfC. It's extremely uncollegial, reminiscent of dirty political campaigning, not collaborative editing and consensus formation. It's also noteworthy that some of it was directed at, and objected to by, Cebr1979, whom CT continually lashes out again as "trolling". Who's trolling whom? CT not only has not retracted or apologized even once, to anyone, for any of these fabrications and distortions, he's escalated the behavior right here in this very ANI thread, as if daring the community to do anything about it. I don't think this should go unaddressed. I wasn't going to raise it as a behavioral issue to deal with right now, but CT has essentially forced this examination of his own behavior, by his escalation, further distortions' of others posts, and demands for the very diffs with which to hang him out to dry, so we might as well deal with it now. If it's as habitual as it looks, we'll just be back here to deal with it again when it arises in another discussion later.

At a minimum, Curly Turkey should be warned to stop engaging in willful falsification of others' statements, with a repeat of this pattern leading to sanctions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• We'll let the kind folks examine the evidence and decide who is disruptive and who has distorted others' comments. While we're waiting, you might want to read the straw man article.
  
• Food for thought: anyone who bothers to plow through that mess of an RfC might want to pay attention to different editors' tones with each other. Masem and I totally disagree with each other, yet manage to keep things congenial. Notice how quickly things devolve to ad hominems and accusations of bad faith once Cebr and SMcCandlish arrive on the scene. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I'll go through SMcCandlish's complaints more thoroughly later, but as someone who's worked with him for a long time, let me say that SmC regularly overreacts to benign and only moderately problematic posts, treating them as if they were malicious. It's usually not that big of a deal. I was a participant in this whole discussion and my principal reaction to the interactions between SmC and Curly was "There's SmC being SmC again."

Here's a relatively benign example of SMC's level of ability to communicate with others [61]: SMC: "This fails to do X." DF24: "'Fails' suggests I was attempting to do X." SMC: "It suggests no such thing." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1. This isn't a straw man. It's Curly asking me what I meant when I said something. I responded with a clarification and moved on. If SmC is referring instead to the time-travel comment, I don't see that as a straw man either, just an example. Not every example that doesn't fit perfectly is a straw argument.

2. This shows Curly Turkey providing sources to back up a contested claim. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. (@SMcCandlish: Your "and my objection to it," is the same link for points 1, 2 and 3. Error?)

3. Curly T giving a perfectly benign opinion. I see this as part of the communal effort to develop proper wording for a proposed addition to the MoS.

4. Okay, it's possible to consider this a straw man argument, but it's more likely to just be a mistake. Curly claims, "SmC is saying that [animate pronouns] are never used in this way" and that is not SmC's position, but at that point in the discussion, it wasn't unreasonable to make that kind of mistake over which editor believed what. This is what I mean when I say that SmC overreacts: He's saying "blatant misrepresentation" when it's probably just a mistake. To my memory Curly did not continue to say that SmC held this position after it became clear that SmC did not.

5. I'll say here what I said on the page itself: These are just two editors who value different things. Curly is saying, "But it hasn't actually happened that way; let's base our solution on observable evidence from the past and present" and SmC is saying "But it looks like it would; let's base our plans on logical extrapolation for the future." These are just two different ways of thinking.

6. This is just Curly saying that we should invite more people. I don't see the problem here. Oh, I see. Curly is framing the issue as, "whether the MoS should prohibit personal [animate] pronouns." Yes, that's not exactly the issue, but it is how the issue got started. Here's what happened: A) Another user was changing "a character who" to "a character that" under the belief that Wikipedia prohibits using "who" (the personal/animate pronoun in question) for fictional characters because they are things and not people. B) Curly T started a RfC at WT:MoS asking, "Is it okay to use animate/personal pronouns for fictional characters?" C) The answer came back "Yes, in fact that's standard" overwhelmingly and almost immediately. So at that point, no, there was no question that anyone was going to start prohibiting using "who" for fictional characters. Qualitatively, phrasing the issue like that while attempting to recruit new participants could be considered alarmist or even WP:POINT, but if you're just talking about it like that on the discussion section of an RfC that was started because someone thought they were already prohibited, then it's not that big of a deal. Did Curly Turkey use that language to recruit new participants or frame a new RfC?

7. Here, Curly Turkey says that he/she thinks SmC is reading too much into a specific source. No issue.

8. Curly Turkey is not saying "You did say this." He's saying "Would you say this?" He's trying to point out a flaw in someone else's reasoning. This is a perfectly constructive way to work out what everyone really thinks.

Summing up: Two of these cited examples, #4 and #6, could be less than desirable under certain circumstances, but they could have been resolved with, "Actually, I mean X, not Y" and "That's fine if you're just brainstorming, but don't actually phrase the official notice like that." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In the previous thread (Boomerang for User:Cebr1979), I kept my focus on Cebr1979's conduct; I'm going to be fair and do the same with Curly Turkey in this thread. The topic of concern here is Curly Turkey's conduct towards other editors, and the method in which he presenting his arguments in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I'll start with the obvious: Curly Turkey's interaction with Cebr1979's can also be viewed as uncivil and unnecessary ([62] [63] [64] [65], to name a few). Two wrongs do not make a right, and if you honestly feel that you're being trolled, the last thing that you want to do is feed them. However, I've looked through the diffs provided by SMcCandlish, and I do not see any blatant or purposeful attempt to Straw man arguments in an attempt to win an edge over the debate, or contribute disruptively. The discussion being held on the WP:MOS talk page involved setting fourth requirements to use certain pronouns when addressing fictional characters in Wikipedia - and it seems like he was legitimately discussing his views. If anything, I saw that he was trying to keep on topic [66]. Unless I'm missing something, or more context needs explaining, I'm not seeing anything disruptive as far as "straw man" is concerned. Could some of his tone and word usage in his arguments been better? Yes. But was he disruptive to where action is required? No. The incivility I observed was mostly in response to Cebr1979's behavior (again, two wrongs do not make a right). However, I don't feel that any action is needed regarding Curly Turkey. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Turkey being uncivil? Well I'll be. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem with that analysis is that very little of CT's straw-manning was directed at Cebr in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with your analysis is that nobody agrees that I posed any straw men, yet you continue to act as if it were an accepted fact. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a strong feeling here that CT has a slightly shorter than average temper and therefore must be at least partly at fault here. But I have actually had harsh disputes with him in the past, and never got the feeling that he was an overall drain on the project. Within eight hours of my first interacting with Cebr1979 I had someone going through my edits and misquoting me on an unrelated thread. I'm pretty sure I've dropped my fair share of F-bombs on this site in the past, and called other editors "troll" and the like. But the result was those editors getting blocked and me being given a slap on the wrist because ... I wasn't wrong when I called them trolls. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I just posted the evidence that CT demanded against himself, thrice, and would just let the community (or ANI regulars, anyway) deal with the matter; I decline to respond to the CYA scrambling by CT and his micro-entourage. I would clarify for Hijiri88 that I'm not suggesting that CT is "an overall drain on the project"; he's just presently, recalcitrantly, and perhaps habitually (need more evidence) engaging in a particular uncivil and disruptive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, a "forget why we're having this discussion, the important thing is to make sure everyone who disagrees with me looks like an idiot or liar by twisting their words or just blatantly making up nonsense about what they said" technique, and it has to stop. I also think there's insufficient evidence that Cebr is an overall drain on the project either, especially given the nature of his participation in the WT:MOS thread at issue (which has arguably been more constructive than CT's) and the nature of the "evidence" against Cebr mostly being only in relation to CT, even illustrative of the fact that CT has been just as hostile and dismissive to Cebr as vice-versa, or where it doesn't relate to CT it's about two years too old to be relevant. I repeat that I have my own concerns about Cebr, but ANI is not a fishing expedition, nor is it a "gang up, for extraneous reasons, on whomever irritated me the other day" party.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

<tongue-in-cheek>Firstly, I object to the term "his entourage". I think if you went through all the prior friendly interactions between me, Sturmgewehr88 and Curly Turkey, you will find that in all incidences I was the "ringleader" and they both agreed with me. If anything, CT is a member of my entourage, not the other way round!</tongue-in-cheek>

Secondly, "drain on the project" was not meant to imply anything about your view of CT (I actually wasn't replying to you specifically -- I haven't looked at your diffs yet, and if you look at where my post was originally placed yet it was pretty obvious). "Drain on the project" was referring to something of which I highly suspect Cebr1979 of being. My point was that, unless you show CT deliberately and proactively antagonizing Cebr, all this talk of CT using strawman arguments and dropping F-bombs is pretty irrelevant to the present discussion. Engaging in passive-aggressive CIR and/or IDHT and/or TROLL (even the "polite" kind) and then posting on ANI when the other user gets frustrated and tells you to "f*** off", is itself almost always block-worthy behaviour. And when other users have told the user "yeah, y'know, effing off probably would have been a good idea, and your best bet now would probably be to eff off as politely as possible and apologize profusely for the trouble you've caused", and the user's immediate response is to unilaterally close the discussion of his own behaviour, contribs-stalk and edit-war with random ANI commenters and otherwise be deliberately antagonistic ... well, I frankly think discussions of CT's short temper as expressed in previous and/or unrelated disputes are off-topic at best. If you don't think that CT is a drain on the project, why are you presenting negative arguments about CT to justify your opposition to sanctions against Cebr1979 who has shown incredibly disruptive behaviour in this thread?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

SMC, I've just spent over an hour going through your diffs and trying for the life of me to figure out what you thought was a straw-man argument in each case. As far as I can see, you agree with Cebr1979 on a content issue, and disagree with CT on the same issue, and so are trying to derail an ANI discussion of the behaviour of both users. Ignoring serious user conduct issues in order to win a content dispute is frankly quite ugly. Please do not discuss content issues on ANI, and if you have any legitimate evidence of mitigating circumstances for Cebr1979's atrocious conduct, you should present it. Otherwise, let the community deal with the matter based on what evidence is presented us. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, except a) I don't actually agree with Cebr on the content issue, and have moved away from his position to an evolving compromise draft, for seven days now; b) this is a thread about CT's behavior that has been hijacked into a thread about Cebr's behavior before I even arrived, and I'm actually returning it to the original topic; and c) the issues I raised with regard to CT are entirely behavioral, about putting words in other people's mouths and twisting their words to misrepresent and denigrate their views, and these are objections that would hold no matter what the topic is or the content of the discussion, no matter whose position I agreed with, to what extent. PS: I never said anything about anyone dropping F-bombs; you seem to be confusing me and my arguments with someone else['s].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)SMcCandlish responded with this, then went here (diff). ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Right. I objected to the boomerang discussion as a distraction away from CT's own behavior in the matter. Diffs relating to that behavior were demanded. I provided them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And they've been shown by three editors besides myself to be nothing of the sort. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Argued" and "shown" are not synonyms. Darkfrog24 and Hijiri88 add up to two, not three. Even your chief defender Darkfrog24 criticized at least two of the diffs by you and Hijiri88 one of them, while the latter indicates he simply doesn't have enough information to determine whether they were straw-man arguments or not: "do I need to read through the entire discussion on MOS to establish whether CT was in fact accurate in his description of your arguments...?" (as well as seemingly confusing my posts with those of someone else, since me mentions me going on about "F-bombs" when I never mentioned any such thing). So, no, you are not totally exonerated as if by some magic wand, especially since concerns were raised about your behavior that had nothing to do with this later side thread.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Even your chief defender Darkfrog24 criticized at least two of the diffs by you and Hijiri88 one of them: step out of your Reality distortion field—neither "criticized" my good faith, which is your central argument—that I've lied and acted in bad faith. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I frankly think this entire section should be collapsed as off-topic time-wasting. I won't do it myself since I've already tried that above and the resulting edit-war shitstorm put me in a bad mood, and I don't need that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what editwar you're referring to (I've been doing other things), but you don't seem to be in a position to hat a discussion you're clearly negatively involved in, to hide away arguments about the original topic because they don't suit your present interest in pursuing a boomerang side action that at this point is such a stale idea it would be 100% punitive and vindictive. The entire tripartite thread should be closed by someone uninvolved in the discussion, with warnings against both of these parties, and if a new dispute involving similar behavior patterns arises with either of them, there'll be a basis on which to act, in an actually timely manner.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

warnings against both of these parties: you keep talking as if the community has agreed that I am a disruptive party. They seem to agree I've acted in good faith and the "strawmen" and "lies" you've accused me of simply aren't there. As for who put words in whose mouths ... Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, several have agreed you were at least partially culpable in the actual dispute in question, that with Cebr1979. The straw man stuff is a side argument, nothing but a response to your own demands for diffs (at least three of which have raised doubts about your behavior even among your backers, despite the fact that they wish to dismiss the rest of them), and has little bearing on the original issue. The fact that you are strutting triumphantly about what you imagine wrongly to be a total exoneration is a bad sign, of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, WP:WINNING, and WP:BATTLEGROUND, though I expect you'll skate this time. Like I said, WP:Let the tiger show his stripes. Either you'll learn from this, or you'll be back here soon enough clearly evidencing the same pattern of self-righteous hostility. Let's hope it's the former. 02:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Three editors refuted your "strawman" links—Oshwah, Darkfrog24, and Hijiri88. Not one editor besides Cebr and yourself here has agreed I have been disruptive or acted in bad faith, or have said I have done anything worse than react in a less politic fashion than ideal.

The straw man stuff is a side argument: no, it was a false accusation that you've made central to your accusations against me of "willful falsification" and lying. You have been roundly refuted by everyone who has examined the evidence. This trainwreck is your baby, and I have no confidence you will approach the reboot next week in good faith. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have pinged the three editors above—I'm obviously acting in bad faith again. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I'm currently camping but, have gone into town where my data works and thought I'd check to see what you all had decided...

I'm surprised to see this conversation is still going on. Can I offer a resolution? At this point, I would just like this to go away one way or another! Can I offer to be blocked for a week (whether that means ya'll find an admin to officially do it or whether it means I just stay away for 7 days: whichever is fine with me)? After that, if you decide I need to be mentored or undergo an iban with Curly Turkey (or both)... so be it (though, I will have some questions regarding an iban should you decide that route). This conversation has just gone every which way from Sunday and then every other which way from there too! I don't want an indef block and, do agree I handled some things inappropriately (though I am not guilty of everything being laid out here *I have never wiki-stalked anyone*). Most likely, I won't be able to check back until Monday but... I do hope this will be seen as a good compromise and we can all just move on.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied with an informal promise to stay off my talk page. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Screw "informal," I *formally* promise to avoid your talk page like the plague! ;-) (if this shows up as an IP, this is Cebr1979).Cebr1979 (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that solves that. Unfortunately SMcCandlish won't let things die and will likely flood the proposed RfC reboot with more marathon posts bludgeoning me over my ulterior motives. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:00, 29 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.

Bullying behavior from Drmies on the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward 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.

---

First and foremost, I realize the talk page for a current event might be heated. And for my part I would like to apologize if any of my behavior on the talk page for Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward incited any issues. But I believe the user Drmies has engaged in bullying behavior on this talk page with little or no reason. Case in point, Drmies called me out on a comment I made to an IP user nearly 24 hours ago for little to no reason way later on in the thread nearly 24 hours later after the discussion had waned and died on its own. Additionally, when I called Drmies out on the issue I was threatened/bullied by him when | he stated, “I'll be glad to post a template on your talk page, if you need me to.”

What is the ultimate purpose of this type of moderation on the part of Drmies who is claiming I am “kind of inexperienced” when I have been active on Wikipedia since 2006 and they have been active since 2 years past that; 2008. I am not out to make enemies or get into bureaucratic nonsense; perhaps I do not quote Wiki-policy in ways that use stubs/acronyms like WP:DATELINK, but I do believe I act in good faith and make efforts to communicate in plain language that most anyone can understand in my edits and my comments.

And in the case of this article on the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward I jumped in early on in it’s creation the day of the tragedy to simply add proper references and ask basic/realistic questions while a flurry of editors added/grew the new article. At this point I am fairly disengaged from the content of that page as it seems to have matured and has a life of it’s own; so then why is Drmies focusing on me and InedibleHulk as some sort of supposed “Wiki-plebes” who need to be “corrected” by his supposed “better” experience. --SpyMagician (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I was pinged here, so I'll say I don't find Drmies' behaviour offensive. Just a difference of opinion. I'm not a co-plaintiff or anything. That's not to take away from SpyMagician's complaint, just that his feelings are his own. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I also find nothing wrong with Drmies' behavior, even if I would have handled it differently. Incidentally I also don't like IcredibleHulk's sig, but it does not violate the signature guideline. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: For someone who states, “…I don't find Drmies' behaviour offensive…” what exactly then do you mean by “Now and then, someoneone complains about the signature, but it's always been polite and I've always politely declined. You're the fifth.” None of this seems civil and the talk page drama is baseless. Again, if my reaction to the IP address editor was unseemly, I am sorry. But I do believe Drmies behavior—as outlined above—constitutes bullying but respect your POV. --01:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpyMagician (talk • contribs)

"Offensive" is one those million or so tricky English words. He's definitely on the other side on the argument, so he's my opponent and I'll defend my side, but there's difference between a display of power and a vulgar display of power. No headbanging needed for the former. Respect and walk stuff. Everyone knows that tune. Unlike Finnish and Italian Wikipedians, we have no article for "Fucking Hostile". Kumbaya! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this new page's subject matter, but I wasn't aware of the talk page drama. Drmies didn't say anything that specifically violated Wikipedia's rules. At most, called you out on coming across as an uncivil bully while dealing with I.P. addresses. So, an I.P. address has issues with figuring out formatting- so what? Additionally, have failed to directly talk with Drmies about your issues with his behavior before taking this to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Why are you asking question for us to answer for why he took up a certain attitude, rather than asking him directly yourself? I'd advise that you close this case of yours and at least attempt to have direct discourse beyond the article talk page. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@DARTHBOTTO: If I am somehow “kind of inexperienced” in how to handle cases like this, please kindly direct me to a neutral resource that can “experience” me. --SpyMagician (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@SpyMagician: I don't want you to feel offended by me, but you should talk with Drmies on his talk page here. I'm not defending him, so much as encouraging you not to take this issue to AN/I. You should try to solve this directly. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@SpyMagician: The discussion on the talk-page got a bit heated and side-tracked into talk about signatures and relative experience, but I don't see any bullying or anything that would require admin intervention. Best to just chalk it up to the understatement alert unpleasant subject, and move on instead of dwelling on it and building it up into something larger than it was. Abecedare (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Honestly I am disengaged from this right now. I consider this my last comment here on the subject unless there is a true requirement I act here any further. Will leave here as-is and allow others who are more “experienced” than me to bureaucratically decide where this goes. --SpyMagician (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not going to go the way you want it to. Drmies will not be sanctioned or even warned. This is because he is not a bully, and he is not bullying you. You've got to thicken your skin a little, especially when taking someone to this board. Doc talk 01:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Doc: FWIW, in my experience—in the real world and online—I find anyone who states one should “…thicken [their] skin a little” themselves should kick it down a notch on their side as well. It takes two to tango. --SpyMagician (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• @SpyMagician: I guess the question I have is, why is a somewhat snarky comment you made to the IP considered just "a comment I made to an IP user", but Drmies criticism of that "bullying"? It looks like you're asking to be treated better than you treat others. It's not bullying, it's (at worst) needless criticism. Pay attention to it, or ignore it, your choice, but why try to get it labelled "bullying"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: The IP user in question 71.45.150.48 popped out of nowhere to ramble and complain about how Wikipedia is somehow engaging in a conspiracy to suppress the unwarranted claim that the actions of the shooter in that page constitute an anti-white hate crime. They have literally contributed nothing to Wikipedia other than paranoid, conspiracy laden hot-air. In contrast I have been part of Wikipedia since around 2006 and have made numerous positive contributions. So yes, I do believe I should be treated better than them. And now it’s not like I simply have disdain for IP users; far from it at all. In fact I spend some time on my own welcoming IP contributors as part of my vandalism patrol. But if an IP user shows up an basically contributes a net zero at best, I think I have a right to state, “Who are you to make claims like this when you could have edited the content yourself?” If people disagree with me, please… Educate me… But this is not the case of a long term IP user suddenly showing up and asking for something; this is an IP user who showed up in a flurry of events to say what they said. Heck, while the page in question (Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward) has limited protection right now, I’m pretty confident it was wide open to IP user contributions when the talk thread in question started. So that was double the reason to simply state, “Why complain? Do something!” So yes, I am asking I—and others—get treated better than some other users such as IP users who pop out of nowhere and basically vomit and point fingers. I don’t think that is unreasonable. --SpyMagician (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

<ec>You weren't being "bullied," and as a participant in that section I agree that your approach to the IP who asked the original question in that section was less than optimal, as is taking mild reproof to ANI. Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editor Opinion: I took a look at the discussion in question and I don't see any bullying on the part of Drmies. Just my 2 cents. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure: SpyMagician has stated their intention to withdraw their grievance from AN/I and have actually posted on Drmies' wall, explaining their issue firsthand. Therefore, could be promptly close this case? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:34, 29 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.

Special:Contributions/50.159.208.113

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.

---

should be blocked for this: [67]. 80.132.93.75 (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 28 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:GregJackP name-calling and racism on European colonization of Americas 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.

---

I'm reporting GregJackP for hurling ad hominems, including racially charged ones, against me, on Talk:European colonization of the Americas (in the "RfC: Should the word "seize" or "acquire" be used to describe the process through which colonists came to control the Americas?" section). Statements include "you cannot trust the white government", "my people vs. your people", and "loser". Request evaluation and recommendation from an administrator. Thank you. JordanGero (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• After reading his comments, I do not see them as directed at you. They are part of a discussion on a controversial topic. Nothing more. In addition, your failure to notify Greg about this thread is in direct violation of ANI procedures. (notification made after I posted this message) I recommend you actually talk this over with Greg instead of this premature action you have taken. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I responded to his condescending remarks in kind, and he doesn't like it. I'll go clarify "loser" to read "loser case," which, since he indicated he was an attorney I thought he would understand. Besides, Indians can't trust the white government, and I can post a long list of case law to support that statement. GregJackP Boomer! 06:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You remarks came off as extremely insulting and racist, regardless of what my profession is. Saying "my people vs. your people" and "Indians can't trust the white government" are statements suited for the past century. You very well have an underlying point regarding persisting racial disparities and white privilege, but the way you phrased your statements is not ok, and neither is it ok for you to assume my racial identity and characterize me as "your people vs. my people." JordanGero (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I apologize for assuming that you were not Indian. It was not my intent to infer that you were part of a lesser race. GregJackP Boomer! 06:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I accept your apology, though your exact assumption was that I am Caucasian (white), and not simply that I was not an Amerindian. My race is inconsequential to the discussion, which is why I felt that you were crossing the line. JordanGero (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't understand why you would apologize and then do the exact same thing again- why do you persist in speaking of my race? [[68]] Even if you knew exactly what my racial identity was, what is the relevance of that? JordanGero (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@GregJackP: Which races would you consider "lesser"? Kleuske (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• This case could've been discussed elsewhere but for whatever reason, it's been brought here. The complainant has challenged GregJackP about it, GregJackP has apologised, the complainant has accepted the apology, now can we all move on? Cassianto^Talk 09:08, 29 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 abusing multiple accounts

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 have rolled back the posts made by them but I wanted to leave a record so they can be blocked whenever an admin sees this.

166.170.48.130
166.170.50.156

Any others that pop up in the meantime I will add.

Thanks! --Stabila711 (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

you must be new here. 166.176.58.155 (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This guy. JordanGero (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Stabila711, you might do well to take into account that IPs are frequently dynamic - the mere fact that they change isn't in of itself evidence of abuse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I am aware of that. However, this range has already been discussed multiple times already. --Stabila711 (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPI is the place to go if you suspect that someone is socking. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:05, 29 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.

Threat of violence

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 block the IP in this dif. I don't take the threat seriously, but he/she id disruptive anyway and that is as good as any to get them off the page for a while. John from Idegon (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Please supply the diff to which you are referring. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

D'oah! here. Sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Chillum 17:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It is spelled D'oh. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 29 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.

Stalking and stealth reverting by user TWaMoE

I have recently been notified that in the past few months, several of my edits relating to MoS issues, most especially unit presentation, have been reverted by TWaMoE. He has done this without pressing the revert button, meaning that his reverts have gone undetected until now. Looking through his contributions, this seems to be the sole purpose of the account. I have contacted him on his talk page to explain patiently that the MoS describes a standard which is supposed to be adhered to, which he has rebuffed on my own talk page, with an argument about edit summaries that I do not understand. He has resumed his behaviour today.

My suspicion, given the history of previous disruption related to units of measurement, is that this is an SPA dedicated to pushing non-metric-first unit presentation styles, in violation of the MoS. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:

Mr. 2488 is making a mountain out of hurt pride here. He has merrily been scything his way through dozens, if not hundreds, maybe thousands, of articles making unexplained changes to the unit precedence. He has then complained to me when I made fully explained modifications to his edits to bring them into agreement with the edit summary he provided. I explained all this on his personal talkpage about 30 minutes ago. Now he has come whinging here. The irony is too, that he clearly was not monitoring the pages that he edited, as he needed someone else to tell him about my changes. If he had an interest in the articles, he would surely monitor their content himself. I think he needs to be educated about the importance of clear and unambiguous summaries, and not blame others for his own mistakes.

Best,

TWaMoE (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

From looking at the talk page thread that TWaMoE pointed out, it appears that s/he might be correct in reverting. At any rate, this seems more like interlinked content disputes and not a matter for ANI. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My edits, to the best of my knowledge, were in compliance with the Manual of Style. I do not understand why reverting an article to a style which is disfavoured by the MoS would be considered correct. This seems to be a malicious SPA we're dealing with, as can be seen from the obnoxious message left on my talk page. I do not accept that an edit summary which was not written to the satisfaction of one person is sufficient reason to stealth-revert. The fact that it is targeting one specific editor (me) in an extremely passive-aggressive manner is, I suggest, a good reason not to regard it purely as unrelated content disputes. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Archon is right to be concerned about this editor. An examination of his edit history reveals a string of edits entitled "no reason given. On checking a number of them, most were concentrated on Archon's edits. Certainly I would agree that Archon's edit summaries could provide more information on occasion, but this does not explain or excuse the apparent stalking. Michael Glass (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

disruptive editing , removing of content bu dl2000

Dear Dl2000 is continuously harming wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._K._Thakker by disruptive editing and roll back. He is removing the information which is sourced from reliable sources.

Changing the heading " Early Life & career " with "Education and career" does not make any logic. Dl2000 remove the education history from the wikipedia on the name of copy right material.

The educational degree earned by some one can not be changed replaced and substituted , once achieved it become a fact. for example if you did LLB from a certain university with certain % it will become a fact. so removal of the education earned by Justice c.k.thakker from his wiki does not make a logic.

Dl2000 also converting the real information to fake information intentionally and also removed the reliable link through which the source of information can be varified. DL 2000 - " Thakker was appointed as Part-Time Lecturer in Law in Sir L.A. Shah Law College, Ahmedabad, in 1970 and continued as such until he was elevated to Judge of the High Court of Gujarat on 21 June 1990" Though the truth is that Justice C.K.Thakker -

Enrolled as Advocate on February 28, 1968. Started practice in the High Court of Gujarat. Rendered services as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor from December, 1975 to 1982. Appeared in a number of Civil, Criminal and Constitutional matters. The information can be verified by the official website of Govt. of india http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/cjshow.php?auth=amdldGlkPTMyJnBhZ2Vubz00. Dl2000 Removed the all information from the biography of justice c.k.thakker.

Dl2000 is intentionally removed the words " His loardship , Honourable juustice before the name of honourable judge c.k.thakker and stated using thakker. which does not make any logic. THe justice c.k.thakker is a public figure , a retired former judge and his name to taken & written with respect. Removing the word which pay respect to this respectable personality does not make any logic.

Their is continuous voilation of the wikiguidelines. There is no copyright material as claimed by Dl2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyadarshivishal23 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, first things first. Please read WP:RS, WP:HONORIFIC, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:3RR. Secondly, if you are going to title a section "early life" there needs to actually be information regarding the subject's early life. The section that you are talking about is regarding the man's education not his early life. Early life is childhood. Third, you have not actually discussed this with the other editor at all and instead have brought a grievance straight here (please also read WP:DR on that subject). So, this seems a little premature and frankly a little unnecessary. In addition, there was definitely a direct copy from an external website that you used in the article violating Wikipedia's copyright policy (even the grammar mistake was included making it really obvious that you copy and pasted the information). So please also read WP:BOOMERANG. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll lay it out in simple terms. The content at [[69]] is copyrighted, and if it gets reintroduced, the person who does so will be blocked. Further, this is an encyclopedia, not a tribute to personalities, no matter how respectable. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Same complaint at WP:BLPN. Doug Weller (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And this isn't the only copyvio, there's too, another 16K of copyvio. Priyadarshivishal23, stop this immediately, or you will be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 09:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned out the copyvios (inserted by the OP) from Law of India and Hindu Marriage Act while MLauba has taken care of C. K. Thakker. There are a few more articles left for anyone else volunteering to help, ironically all of them law related!—SpacemanSpiff 10:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Euthanasia in India contained copy/pasted content as well (cleaned up, now revdeled), and damaged the article layout to boot. GermanJoe (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is a copyvio too. Still there on the current article. --Stabila711 (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Court of India has it too unfortunately. Lifted from a blog. --Stabila711 (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Cleaned up the Civil Procedure one but I am not sure what to do with the Supreme Court in India one. There has been so many edits in the interim that a blanket revert is going to cause a lot of collateral. --Stabila711 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've revdelled Euthanasia in India and Civil Procedure Code, 1908. I've cleaned out Supreme Court of India, don't think RD is going to be easy there, will leave it to one of the more capable admins out here. Is that all, or do we have to look further? —SpacemanSpiff 11:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: There was a previous copyvio on Allahabad High Court that was cleaned up. I am going through the user's past contribs to try to see if there are any more. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been reverted a while, so I'll leave that as is. —SpacemanSpiff 11:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Just took out a section at Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that was copied. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is getting weirder, the OP has also been editing as IPs and inserting copyvios. We might have to move this over to a CCI. See this edit. Will need to look at the IP range to see what other IPs have been used, this one looks to have been in use for a couple of months and static. —SpacemanSpiff 11:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yikes, I didn't even look at that one. I was only looking at the edits done under the user's name. This may be a much larger problem if they were IP editing as well. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

IP range is 182.71.124.0/24. It's not that bad: I dumped a list of non-trivial edits for this range at User:MER-C/Sandbox (permanent link). MER-C 12:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious, that the user either has a COI with Eastern Book Company or is trying to popularize Indian law literature in general. We could certainly do with more non-Western sources, but spamming indiscriminate links, especially to webstores, is the wrong way to go about it. GermanJoe (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What User:Stabila711 and the other non-OPs said. Perhaps the reverts were a bit WP:BATHWATER but that seems far outweighed by copyvio. With that, plus the edit summaries and relevant talk page postings (actually a lack thereof), and without prejudice to addressing any BLP issues on C. K. Thakker, I rest my case. Dl2000 (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Blatant case of WP:OWN

This diff shows one of the most blatant cases of WP:OWN I've ever come across. To save you reading the diff, the Edit Summary says "cease from this. This is not a requirement and it looks awful. You're not a main contributor, so your opinions are not important." It is the culmination of a series of such actions. When User:John and I discussed it at Talk:Malcolm Wanklyn (Royal Navy officer) and User talk:Dapi89#Malcolm Wanklyn (Royal_Navy officer), we were both treated very rudely (and I admit I could have been less confrontational, but I think my suspicions that I, like John, would be treated with contempt were borne out). I bring it up because:

• I don't think this sort of behavior is acceptable.
• I shudder to think how a new user would be treated, and that's important to me.
• I think not discussing it here (if this is the right place) would be an abrogation of responsibility.

Shem (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin but I agree that is hardly civil and a totally inappropriate attitude. I'm looking over this user's other edits - this one is inappropriate as well, removing perfectly good sources and calling them "ridiculous." User appears to be an SPA who only edits WWII-related articles. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Page protected for a week before somebody does something they regret (3RR). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Why would you page protect it so nobody can edit it ? The problem is one user's attitude and belittling of others. I at least left a notice reminding him to be civil. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

While the edit summary on the first edit was inappropriate, WP:CITEVAR is relevant as there is no requirement to use citation templates in articles, and editors shouldn't edit war to introduce them.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Because while nobody had got to 3RR it looked as if an edit war was breaking out. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: That's not going to change anything as this is a WP:OWN situation. This editor has 200+ edits to this article and is not going to stop insisting on having the article be the way he wants it when the protection expires. It is not simply two editors having a disagreement, please look at this third editor discussing it here. This is problematic beyond this article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If they start up reverting again after protection expires then it is easy enough to block them. However, blocking should notbe the first reaction and they should be given an opportunity to discuss. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's indeed a totally inappropriate edit summary, but @Wikimandia: re: SPA, Dapi89 has 32,000 edits. Definitely not an SPA, irrespective of topic area focus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Shem1805 is trying to use WP:OWN to get his way. Ownership is not the issue, as is apparent to anyone with a shred of common sense. Stick to the issue. And what is this stuff about SPA? Because my edits are World War II-centric I am automatically incorrect? Not worth taking into account? Or somehow obstructive? What does that mean and why is it relevant? I edit a broad array of topics in this subject and others.

Shem1805's initial excuse for changing the bibliography came with a link to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Actually, he misquoted, or ignored the following: Online books. When a book is available online through a site such as Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, or Google Books, it may be useful to provide a link to the book so readers can view it. There is no requirement either to add or remove such links. A link to a Google Book should only be added if the book is available for preview.

Moreover: WP:CITEVAR is clear Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page.

So, it violates two fundamental guidelines.

Shem1805 shouldn't be allowed to distract us from the real issue, which is in the above. Moreover, all bar one of the commentators here should monitor his comments more carefully. If you want to criticise my for WP:CIVIL then perhaps you'd like to read the last post he made to my talk page, which is typical of someone who has no real solid case. Dapi89 (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• You should never fight perceived incivility with more incivility. The original issue that was raised was your edit summery that you included with your revert. The phrase "you're not a main contributor, so your opinions are not important" is a violation of WP:OWN. Their opinions do matter and belittling them because they are not a main contributor is not in line with policies. Anyone can contribute to an article, you are not the owner of an article simply because you are its main contributor. Instead of saying what you said you should have used the article's talk page or discussed it on the user's talk page. Their misuse of CITEVAR does not give you the right to say someone's opinions do not matter. It was not vandalism, it was not blatantly disruptive but your comments were insinuating that your owned the article and they aren't allowed to touch it. That is a problem. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment as an uninvolved editor. Dapi89 is correct. There is a citation style already present in the article, and Shem1805 was edit-warring to change the style without consensus, in violation of WP:CITEVAR. It is completely understandable that Dapi might be a bit frustrated when someone is f'ing up an article that he's put a lot of work into. Warn Shem and be done with it. GregJackP Boomer! 06:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• This case is about Dapi89 not Shem1805. Dapi's behaviour is totally unacceptable. Let it be known, but no admin intervention required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well it should be. Shem1805s edit warring is why we're here, another violation that the admins here seem to have glossed over. Stabila711's language is very interesting. I don't perceive incivility. It is there. And you chose to describe his "misuse" of guidelines casually while apparently condemning my attempts to comply with the manual of style and WP:CITEVAR as WP:OWN. Its terrible judgement and you're allowing this individual to use this phoney charge to lend some legitimacy to his position. He has no case, as you've already alluded to without actually saying it.

Concerning article ownership (and don't think this comment is an invitation to engage me in a discussion about this): I've never discouraged editing on articles that I put allot of work into or otherwise. I oppose incorrect sources, information or formatting. I'm entitled to do so. I'd refine my understanding of WP:OWN if I were you.

As I said, you're letting him distract you from the main reason of my reverts. He's wrong. Dapi89 (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Administrators do not hand out sanctions based on who is right or wrong in a content dispute. Enforcing MOS is not an exemption from the edit warring policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What is irrelevant? Explain. I didn't say they should. And I didn't start an edit war in contravention of standing policy. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't consider your actions as an example of WP:OWN. I consider your words as an example of WP:OWN. Big difference. Continuing to not own up to your mistake, your comment in your edit summary, is not really helping your case. You did discourage editing on the article by saying someone else's opinions do not matter since they were not the main contributor. Saying your won't be engaged in a discussion on the very reason you were brought to ANI is a problem. Formatting issues is something that should be discussed in a calm manner on a talk page. Reverting it and using the edit summary to say someone opinions don't matter is a problem. --Stabila711 (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A mistake it most certainly wasn't. As the often quoted guidelines say: the original contributions (no distinction from the original contributor) stay in the event there is no consensus or the new editor cannot rationalise his case. He can't and most of you have acknowledged that to varying degrees. The guidlines are also clear linked bibliographies are only useful of they are available for preview. They are not.
  • I hasten to add that I wasn't brought here. I could have chosen to ignore this. But it isn't in my nature to let logic flutter away without a fight (or discussion, if fight is too harsh).
  • And by the way, I was the only one that tried to discuss it on the talk page. Read it. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Wait a tic, back up. Let me be absolutely clear on this. I had assumed that you misspoke when you said that "You're not a main contributor, so your opinions are not important." Are you now telling us that this is actually your position? That other editors don't get to have input? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh dear, I wouldn't want you as my lawyer. Well let me spell out the obvious; his opinions on the bibliography are not important. Certainly in view of the guidelines I've mentioned umpteen times. They side with the main/original editor. Do you understand now? Does it sound like I said he couldn't contribute? Did I say I didn't want anyone to contribute? Unless he achieves consensus he can't edit war to get his way and his desires are irrelevant.Dapi89 (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your statement here is a great example that you don't get it (WP:CIVIL), or at best are poorly expressing it. Opinions and desires for ways to improve articles are important. They might be against consensus (or WP:BRD prior to discussion). They might be poorly thought-out due to unexpected side-effects or conflicts with guidelines. But the opinions themselves are fine, as are having editors express them. What's not-fine is saying otherwise, in the absence of the opinions themselves being abusive. Your concern is at best about how another editor is acting on those opinions. DMacks (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• • I get it. You don't. While we're on the subject of opinions: I'm entitled to them. You seem to be saying that I am not. Given other editors have offered opinions on my edits, I think I'm free to do the same. I've already made it clear his actions are what I'm concern about. Opinions are irrelevant when when a user cannot justify them, and then worst still, edit wars to keep them in. Dapi89 (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have little to say on the accusations about my editing except to let the facts speak for themselves. I went to the article to check on some edits by a user I've been mentoring, and found other stuff that was wrong (mainly MOS:CAPS, but some spelling and other stuff). Once I'd fixed it, I noticed that one of the ISBNs in the bibliography was showing a red link (which I understand means it has failed the checksum, and is therefore an invalid combination). So, I fixed it at this diff using RefTag. While I was there, I did not just use {{cite book}} for the incorrect ISBN, but the rest of the bibliography for consistency - and I think that's the right thing to do. User:Dapi89 reverted all of my edits, re-inserting the incorrect spelling and formatting, reverting User:John's edits in the process and removing the {{cite book}} templates at the bibliography (and at the same time, re-inserting the incorrect ISBN). Now I have never contended that the {{cite book}} template is better than the original, but I do think the correct ISBN is better, I do not agree that the edit summary "original biblio is better. New is messy and doesn't really add much. Hardly any of them can be viewed through google books" is either correct or appropriate. If "it doesn't add much", then it has added something, and if "hardly any of them can be viewed through google books" then at least some can. Presumably those are both improvements? And where is the "change of citation style"? The reader sees no difference apart from an extra link at each book. How is that "messy"? Two of the examples of WP:OWN behaviour are:
• An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
• An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.

Even if I didn't think my edit was an improvement, I think our "owner" has tried to assign priority to his version, and that is the issue I brought to ANI. Thank you to all those who have taken the time to comment. Shem (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • You have nothing to be greatful for. You have no support for the changes in the bibliography. Once the page expires it will be reverted in line with guidelines.
    • That is quiet clearly a lie Shem. My reversals were aimed at at your editions to the bibliography and information you deleted and were wrong to do so . Other edits to the main body were reinserted. If you'd bothered to engage in meaningful discussion you could have avoided all this.
    • "If it doesn't add much it must have added something".....really? I was being polite. It adds nothing Shem accept a list of false links. That is why it unworthy.
    • You need to learn edit warring against guidelines will avail you nothing. Dapi89 (talk)

• I can't take admin action here, but I would definitely recommend a block for the above threat/promise to resume edit-warring. --John (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• • I concur. And since a major part of the issue here is Dapi89's civility and the fact that they've been blocked several times in the past for that, I've given them a 3 week block (up from their last 2 week block.) Though since the previous block was 4 years ago, any other admin is free to reduce the length if they feel appropriate though I'd recommend against lifting the block given the huge list of warnings for personal attacks, threats and incivility on their talk page. Tempted to go further in all honesty. Canterbury Tail talk 18:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And here is another perfect example of what BS content creators have to put up with. You get someone who doesn't have a clue about the citation style in an article come in and f' things up by ignoring WP:CITEVAR, the guy that created the content and who has policy on his side gets understandably a bit upset, the guy without a clue complains, and some admin with more concern about civility than content or policy blocks the content creator instead of telling the guy screwing up the citations to stop. Brilliant. GregJackP Boomer! 19:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• God, I don't have the energy or enthusiasm to make this a sacred cause, but... this "incivility" is pretty tame by almost any standard. It's frankly not that much different than the "incivility" of the complainant (does no one else see the irony in the sentence "I admit I could have been less confrontational, but I think my suspicions that I, like John, would be treated with contempt were borne out"?) We tell people "don't respond to rudeness with rudeness", but then we block the responder, and not the initiator?

This just seems so trumped up and unnecessary and harmful. A three week block of someone who's made like 30,000 edits on WWII stuff (or, in Wikipediaspeak, a "WWII SPA" (no, seriously, look above!?!?!)) for responding to garden variety rudeness with garden variety rudeness? And "edit warring" that consists of reverting exactly the same number of times as the complainant at ANI?

Please unblock and everyone just try to... oh nevermind, no one's reading this anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What.the.fuck?! The trend of blocking long-time contributors for three weeks for "incivility" needs to be stopped NOW. Yeah, Dapi89 was aggravated and was acting like a jerk; @GregJackP:: actually, I consider this revert of Dapi89 the most obnoxious action of his: he summarily reverted massive copyediting of John's just because he was lazy to execute a partial revert of Shem's citation style changes. But nonetheless, this smacks of "punitive civility blocks executed by trigger-happy admins". Where is justification of this block under blocking policy? The edit-warring stopped two days ago since CambridgeBayWeather protected the article. Dapi89 should be given time to calm down, but as we all know, the worst way for someone to calm down is to issue a calm down block. Somebody unblock, please, or at least reduce to something sensible. No such user (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is mad. You have an admin thinking they're dispensing justice or something here. We're short on help, get them back on the job. Is the blocking admin prepared to take on the tasks that the content contributor was doing if the latter retires? Is the admin even capable of it? Then unblock and let's get on with the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think anybody that contributes enough content is above the rules the rest of us mortals must obey at all times? This mentality of "I've done so much for Wikipedia so I should be let off the hook every time I break the rules" is remarkable. If anything people that have done so much for Wikipedia but break the rules anyway should be punished more severely because they should damn well know better. After 6 blocks prior to this one relating to civility and edit warring, Dapi89 CERTAINLY should know better. —Frosty ☃ 09:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's fairly simple. Content creation is what WP is all about. Content creators are inherently more valuable than non-content creators. Besides that, Shem1805 was violating WP:CITEVAR and screwing up the article. What makes you think that someone else could step in? Who would that be, you? I don't see that you've created a single article. Nine redirects does not make you a content creator. Unblock him, trout the admin, and let's get back to creating content, or if you can't create content, staying out of the way of those who can. GregJackP Boomer! 10:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Content creators are inherently more valuable than non-content creators", that sir, is a load of horse sh#t, and is why the project is such a sh^t show, imho, --Malerooster (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nothing short of amazed at your arrogance. I've been reading this thread and several others on RfA and talk pages and you seem to almost resent every user that doesn't write articles. You fail to note how much goes into maintaining Wikipedia that isn't content creation based. Vandal reverting, redirects, categorizing and so forth. How about I ask if you'd be willing to take on these jobs to in place of the users that do it all for you so the content you write stays in good shape? I don't give a flying toss what you do for Wikipedia, if you violate the easy to follow "don't be a dick" rule you should be blocked, nobody is above that. —Frosty ☃ 13:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I appreciate the vandal fighters and all. Done some of that myself, but I've found my time is usually more productively spent actually creating content. And if you think you're amazed at my arrogance, you should talk to my partner. GregJackP Boomer! 15:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Canterbury Tail: Please post a link showing the incivility that is claimed requires a block. A three-week block? Some of the above seems to suggest that Dapi89 has a block history and so should get hammered, but the last block was in January 2013 which is ancient history. The diff showing the OWN problem reveals a mistake, but it was not a WP:CIVIL problem. Dapi89 made two mistakes: badly phrased comments that allow the OWN issue to distract from the content, and an unwillingness to do an edit to remove the citation style changes while keeping John's changes. People should not be blocked for saying "I get it. You don't." That is not ideal, but I think it's just the editor's poor phrasing—the point is that WP:CITEVAR supports Dapi89 and the comments were factually correct: Dapi89 understands CITEVAR and Shem1805 doesn't. The OWN issue just needs to be talked through—again, I think it's poor phrasing and Dapi89 is correct on the facts, namely that if someone builds an article using a certain (acceptable) reference style, that style should not be changed by passers-by who then seek to impose their will via ANI. On the facts above, I support an unblock. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• I am sympathetic to much of the above. The thing that took it over the line for me and made me think a block was required was, after all the discussions, and after being told by a couple of ediotrs they were out of line, and after being the subject of discussion at this board, Dapi89 stated that he would resume the edit-war after the protection expires. At that point, yes we do need a block to prevent disruption. --John (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @John:, if a block was warranted to prevent disruption, then Shem1805 should have been blocked for changing the citation style without consensus and then edit-warring to his preferred style. That's a direct violation of the WP:CITEVAR policy. GregJackP Boomer! 11:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That is an available interpretation of Dapi89's "Once the page expires it will be reverted in line with guidelines" above, but I read that differently. Dapi89 does not excel in collegial comments, and I see that text as a simple statement of fact—WP:CITEVAR is the guideline and someone will ensure that it applies. I wouldn't recommend Dapi89's words, but if we assume good faith and read them as written without wondering about internal motivations, I don't see a comment that needs more than engagement to explain that we have to get along with people, even when we are right. The paragraph opening this section suggests that Shem1805 has engaged on the article talk page, but that is not correct—Shem1805 has never edited that page. Instead, there is a section from a few days ago where Dapi89 explains why some of Shem1805's edits needed to be reverted—there is no reply. Instead of worrying about whether someone should be able to change the citation style without seeing a blunt edit summary, it would be better to investigate whether Dapi89's claims on the article talk page (that Shem1805 had introduced an inaccuracy, among other things) were valid. Johnuniq (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Bad block, support unblock. I also call for a link showing the so-called incivility. Shem1805 does not get to change the citation style of an article without first obtaining consensus, per WP:CITEVAR. Please explain why this policy was not enforced. Struck, Canterbury Tail unblocked Dapi89 a few minutes ago. Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 11:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You know what, I'm going on vacation shortly so don't have the time on this. I've unblocked him as there seems to be no other Admin support for the block on here. I will say this, it doesn't matter if you have 5 edits or 500,000, you're part of a community and have to act like it. You don't get to go around being condescending and incivil to others just because you do a lot of edits. Was Dapi89 edit warring, without a doubt, while trying to talk he was also reverting continuously. Were they uncivil, absolutely no doubt in my mind. Did they act under WP:OWN? I also feel so. The attitude that they feel they can undo anyones edits they like and it's up to someone else to reinsert any good edits that were lost is completely wrong, and it's also not that difficult to only undo a little bit. Is Shem1805 also in the wrong for edit warring? Yes, however Shem1805 was much more civil and acting in a communal manner than Dapi89. If you think they way Dapi89 is talking to and treating other editors and their edits is acceptible due solely to their number of contributions, and you would find the same okay in your workplace, then so be it. I believe that attitude is the reason so many have left Wikipedia, there has become a trial by media over everything and the rules are not applied to all, people who make acceptible edits part of the time are given free passes. This is why I took such a long break last time, and is very much the reason so many have quite the project. So if someone wants to reblock the go ahead, I'm off to enjoy my vacation. Canterbury Tail talk 11:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the unblock, given the support for it here. As for content creators - if you want to propose that Content Creators (whatever that means) are exempt from WP:CIVIL, then by all means - toss it out and see what happens. But I guarantee you that I'm not going to check someone's edit counts to see how high their article-space edit percentage is before blocking them for spouting "cocksdickslol" all over the place. I'm just gonna block them. Either we have one community or two. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Being a content creator is not a free pass to anything; however, I don't see the block was proportionate, and the root of the problem largely seems to have been the filing editor who didn't understand CITEVAR. Perhaps the two editors should stop interacting. But it wasn't a real OWN situation, hadn't become a real or serious edit war, and the filing editor was not doing anything at the blockable level either. Did not / does not require serious intervention. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous picture posed on Alfred de Grazia's page

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken This editor appears to have restored a picture that is being used by Arab sites, Holocaust denial sites and possibly other anti-Semitic and anti-Gypsy and pro-Nazi users. It is not of the person indicated or the person whose page it is. It is of an unknown individual. I am John Sebastian de Grazia, the son of Alfred de Grazia, and I have seen pictures of him at the age indicated by the picture. He does not look at all like the individual portrayed, without getting into his war record and the possibility that he was at the place indicated, and may have even held the camera. It is an error, period. Page the picture has been uploaded to; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_de_Grazia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagtig (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I quote BMK's comment at the talk page. An editor who claims to be the son of the article's subject want to remove the image of de Grazia at Dachau., as he insists it is not a picture of his father. However, the picture appears in de Grazia's self-published book, A Taste of War: Soldiering in Woprld War II. It can be seen here (you have to flip forward about 7/8ths of the way down the scroll bar to the photo before page 482), where the person in the image is identified as the subject of the article. It seems highly unlikely that de Grazia would include in his own book a picture of someone else and identify it as himself. For this reason I restored the photo. BMK (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Therefore, Jagtig, how do you answer this? Has your father used a picture of someone else and claimed that it's a picture of himself? Please supply solid sourcing (e.g. a scholar discussing his book and noting that he mislabelled the picture in question) as evidence for your answer. Nyttend (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that I am aware of this discussion. BMK (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As a Commons admin, I've got viewdeleted over there, so I can assure everyone that the deleted Commons:File:Alfred de Grazia awarded Order of Chevaliers France.jpg (uploaded by Jagtig) is quite plausibly the same person as File:French Medal of Honor Recipient helping celebrate WWII Victory Day in France.jpg (also uploaded by Jagtig), taken six years earlier, although he's obviously aged by several years. Un-age him by five more years, and File:Alfred, 27 August 2003.jpg is reasonable. This isn't even a case of plausible error. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll also note that the photograph in question was uploaded to Commons by an editor, User:Aldegraz, claiming to be the subject of the photograph, Alfred de Grazia, and the image was cleared by Commons OTRS, which means that the editor musthave presented evidence of his identity. See here. BMK (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Found this while Googling. Alfred de Grazia's life story. The author is stated as being Anne-Marie (Ami) de Grazia. - X201 (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It also contains the picture. BMK (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, it's just my opinion, so therefore not evidence, but the person on the right in the Pinterest picture posted by Jagtig [70] looks very much like the man in this picture [71]. I cannot see where Jagtig draws the conclusion that they are not the same. BMK (talk) 23:57, 28 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 overlinking and removing whitespace in bot-like behavior 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.

---

108.195.138.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing the above nearly once every two minutes. The edit summaries as well as the articles edited bear strong resemblance to this previous case. I engaged them in their talk page about an hour ago but they're still persisting at a rapid rate. Opencooper (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP has been at it for years. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some history. Just revert and block. Nymf (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nymf, thanks for the reply and your earlier help in reverting some of the edits. That list is quite unsettling to say the least... Hopefully an admin can step in to block them soon. Unfortunately I have to log off so if another editor doesn't do it by then I'll revert the rest of the edits tomorrow. Opencooper (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

IP blocked by Materialscientist. All changes reverted. Inomyabcs (talk) 11:44, 29 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.

Latest sock of a banned 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.

---

Here are some of his previous accounts: [72][73]. Here's his latest[74]. Ban ban ban. Eik Corell (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:03, 29 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.

Personal attacks from User:Le petit fromage associated with their edit-warring/disruption

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 deal with User:Le petit fromage please. There's a so far un-dealt with 3RR case here, and they have repeatedly made personal attacks, here, here, and reverting the removal of the previous attack here. A block is certainly needed for the edit warring and repeated personal attacks but I can't deal with it myself since the attacks are aimed at me. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Handled the 3RR report and blocked one week for edit warring and personal attacks.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:18, 29 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.

Experienced editor, who doesn't understand reliable source and edit wars

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.

---

KahnJohn27, who claims he is experienced

• has deleted sourced content from a historical article on Nagabhata I, [75], and edit-warred [76].
• replaced sourced content at List of early Hindu Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent with OR [77] and again edit-warred [78].

His response to OR warning is "I already know this. I'm not new." [79]. The talk page discussion at Talk:Nagabhata I#Contested deletion is getting nowhere because he claims his inability access a source makes it unreliable. His edit history shows lots of similar deletions claiming that content is unsourced. Somebody needs to tell him to shape up or keep quiet. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This particular issue is a simple content issue which could have been solved elsewhere, but I've made a note on the talk page of WP:PAYWALL. Sam Walton (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You're deliberately harassing me here. As far as I think that if I can't access it, then I can't confirm it. But thr WP:PAYWALL says other can access the source for you. So I request you to access it and send me the whole article so I can view it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Are you sure it is a content issue? How do you explain "I'm correct. I checked the source and nowhere any Muslim ruler is once mentioned in it." [80], "Frankly the "source" only shows 1 page and demands the full text of article to purchased so the whole article isn't viewable. Not a reliable source" [81], "please don't insult me" [82], "you are deliberately harassing me" (above)? All this, while he is reverting me! - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: I am always happy to share the papers I have, if you send me private email (via my user page). However, that cannot be a precondition for you to stop edit-warring! Basically, I need you to make a commitment here and now that you won't edit-war again. Then I will be happy for the case to be closed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I wasn't paying attention when I wrote that. What I meant to say is that there really isn't any admin action necessary here; KahnJohn27 wasn't aware of how we treat paywalled sources, but now is, something which could have been achieved through dispute resolution. Sam Walton (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Edit-warring is reverting continuously. I have only reverted 2 times and you too have done the same. If I'm edit warring then you too are doing the same regardless of whether your reasons are right or wrong. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Edit-warring is reverting edits unreasonably, and without enough thought. You have displayed extreme insularity today, which is counter-productive and disruptive. I could have reverted you again, and you would have quickly reached 3RR and perhaps crossed it. You are still trying to defend yourself rather than admit that you made a mistake. I don't believe that you understand as yet the need to accept reliable sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't revert them unreasonably. And if you haven't read the page of edit-warring, reverting edits regardless of whatever reason is still edit-warring. So in effect if you revert me again, you will reach your maximun number of 3 reverts in 24 hours. Going beyond that will be officially edit-warring. Plus I only believe what I see. If you really have the access to the article and you can send it to me as per your claims, then please send it to me. I've already given you my email. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks for sending me the article. I've read it and you were indded right about Nagabhata. You can restore the content now. Also if you have the source from the "List of early Hindu Muslim conflicts in Indian subcontinent" then please send that to me as well so I can confirm it's and the article's content. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That is fine. As I said, I am always happy to share articles that I have. But you really shouldn't go around deleting content from pages just because you don't have access to a source. If you don't have access, it is your problem, not the article's problem. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: I think the statement "I only believe what I see" hits the nail on the head. This user apparently doesn't have any regrets in deleting content that he can't see. A firm warning would be appreciated. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: My problem? Hey not everyone has money to spend on a subscription or buy an article for $30. And not every town has a library with subscription on that website of yours. Where are even you supposed to find such a library? Hence I advise you to use easily accessible sources to avoid confusion. Besides I only change an article's content if I can confirm it doesn't match the content. In your case I agree I acted a bit rashly and should have talked about it first. Anyway please don't keep reverting me at List of early Hindu Muslim conflicts in Indian subcontinent. You still haven't sent me the article as you said you will. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: So he deletes content again and replaces it with OR [83]. Does this warrant admin action? - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: First of all you still haven't provided me the source article about Hindu Muslim battles. Secondly I didn't replace it with OR. Read Battle of Rasil, the article is sourced by many sources unlike yours. So I'm right in adding Battle of Rasil to the list. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: This is unacceptable. You cannot revert sourced content just because you don't have access to a source (there are exceptions, but this isn't one of them). Feel free to request a source or quote from the other editors, or make a request at WP:REX but repeated reversion is disruptive. Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Ok I won't revert anymore. But I've already requested User:Kautilya3 to provide me with the source article but he hasn't yet. And he too has indulged in edit-revert and this will amount to edit-warring if he continues despite his reasons. But I won't revert anymore. Still Kautilya3, please provide the source article about early Hindu Muslim wars as I requested. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: I have already said that me sending the article to you is not a pre-condition for you to stop edit-warring. It is merely a friendly gesture. Frankly, my friendliness is now exhausted. I have given you an ARBIPA notification. I am reviewing all your recent edits for misguided deletions. If you edit war anywhere again, it will go to Arbitration enforement. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I didn't say it was pre-condition. Earlier you said that you will send me the article so we can solve this thing as soon as possible. So you're going back on your word. If you're speaking the truth, jyst send it. As I requested send me the source article, if no then you are exposing yourself as a liar. If you try to revert anymore of my edits and indulge in edit-warring, then I will complain about you to ANI as well. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @KahnJohn27:Kautilya has the burden of provide the citation, but he is under no obligation to email you the material under demand. Of course, out of good will and common courtesy such sharing is encouraged, but implied threats such as "Also you haven't sent me the article yet. Send it to me and then revert it." are not likely to encourage others to do you (and wikipedia) the favor.

And admins don't act (or at least shouldn't) blindly just counting reverts: so your supposition that "he too has indulged in edit-revert and this will amount to edit-warring if he continues despite his reasons" is wrong too. Again, I'd highly encourage Kautilya not to revert repeatedly too, but there is no equivalence between your reverts and his. Abecedare (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: "Also you haven't sent me the article yet. Send it to me and then revert it." is in no way a threat. It was simply a good will statement telling him not to keep mindlessly reverting and send me the article so we can clear things up.

And actually I'm right about Kautilya3 indulging in edit-warring. According to WP:EDITWAR, you're edit-warring if you keep reverting edits continously regardless of what reasons you might have. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:37, 30 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.

LouisaGrangott

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.

---

--Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Would an admin please sort out the situation I am having with LouisaGrangott (talk · contribs) and co? User keeps removing CSD tag from List of Top Used Websites despite being told the procedure many times. Thank you. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what issue you are having. I am just fed up of your continous threats of being blocked. Stop doing that. You are not the admin!!!! LouisaGrangott (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have deleted the article under A10 as it indeed duplicates an existing topic and does not seem a likely enough search term to leave a redirect in place. I'll leave closing the SPI to an admin with more experience in that than me, although I hear a lot of quacking. --Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 30 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.

Microwave auditory effect

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 what was previously a stable article, Microwave auditory effect, new editor Baphy93 inserted changes that were reverted by three different established editors. He/she was warned of 3RR, violated the 3RR, then self-reverted. Afterwards, new editors 71.74.145.138, TANA WINKLER, 67.80.126.54, and Darthhumpalot resumed inserting the changes. I suspect these are sock or meat puppets gaming the system. It's not clear to me the proper method of dealing with this. Q: Should I take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? Thanks! - Location (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to take it to SPI. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Make sure to list the IP 75.137.124.104 from South Carolina, since that IP edited the article at 7:34 on August 23, followed by the 7:35 registration of the Baphy93 account, followed by a 7:36 edit by Baphy93 to the article, that account's first action. It looks like the IP person decided to register as Baphy93 after making one edit. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baphy93. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right that I edited without an account first but it ends there. Good luck trying to prove something that isn't true User:Location. People disagree with you, you don't own the site. Baphy93 (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Baphy93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and socks is likely someone with a grudge against AndyTheGrump as evidenced by troublemaking on his talk page followed by self congratulations. As a single purpose account devoted to inserting fringe "mind control" conspiracy POV into articles, it's obvious they are not here to build an encyclopedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this person is NOTHERE, which is why they were previously blocked under another account, probably related to edit warring over Voice to skull (See a related AfD, a sandbox MfD, a related MfD of AfC, and another MfD of AfC), which means the account Synsepalum2013 is likely the master. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that Synsepalum2013 is topic banned on this kind of conspiracy theory. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump is just as bad with edit warring and refusing to enter talks. The notion that I'm using sock puppets is also as much conspiracy theory as these additions, the exception being you will have no proof whatsoever to support the accusastion because it simply isn't true. If I were going to troll I'd be a bit more inflammatory, what I've done has been in good faith. Speaking of sock puppets, I noticed three user names with variations of the word 'Louie' in them while editing over the past two days on the same two pages. Is it just a popular name among Wiki contributors having taken interest in this subject or is that more than coincidence?

It's very clear that none of you wish to compromise despite Wikipedia policies. Baphy93 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This is actually slightly humorous to read you all speculate on my identity/ies here. Baphy93 (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and pretty sure all of you are meat puppets as well. Who honestly cares about this subject besides those with a vested interest in it? Baphy93 (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to suggest that the last comment alone is sufficient evidence to block Baphy93 as WP:NOTHERE. Just plain stupid... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would I even bother to write and cite what I did if I was WP:NOTHERE to contribute to an encyclopedia? Fallacious accusations. Baphy93 (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You are clearly here to misuse Wikipedia for the sole purpose of spreading delusional conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This addition is a blatant violation of WP:BLP, making unreferenced negative assumptions about a living person, psychiatrist Alan Drucker. The sock accounts repeated this BLP violation. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Not to mention being WP:OR. And credulous nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards a block for WP:NOTHERE, if I'm not considered WP:INVOLVED. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm also leaning towards blocking all accounts as NOTHERE. Checkuser results came back as inconclusive. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Binksternet, no; User:AndyTheGrump, no, and you're accused of edit warring all over the internet; User:Arthur Rubin, you have no grounds to actually believe I am WP:NOTHERE; User:Someguy1221, no and no kidding nothing came up, the accusation was fallacious. Baphy93 (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, WP:NOTNOTHERE. Baphy93 (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It is frustrating that after the initial changes were removed multiple times and I attempted to take this to the talk page User:AndyTheGrump, et al. refused to engage, explain reasoning other than 'no' when material was clearly added with WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE and WP:GOODFAITH and instead of being involved democratically and assisting a new user, attempts to grasp at straws and take an authoritarian approach, like a mob of internet cops, with ban threats, calling of admins, etc. Baphy93 (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The talk page additions were even deleted at a point and not just on the talk page. Baphy93 (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Baphy93, why are you here? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Baphy93, I'm not seeing a "refusal to engage" on Andy's part. Looking at both talk page sections (Talk:Electronic_harassment#Dubious_citation and Talk:Microwave_auditory_effect#Alternative_views) I see Andy engaged you right away (as did myself and others). So the idea that you were denied discussion or engagement is totally without merit. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've acted at the SPI, blocking the two named meatpuppets for a week each, and Baphy93 for two weeks for meatpuppetry and disruptive editing (as determined here). I'm sure this isn't the end of it, but it is a conclusion I feel safe in reaching. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 29 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.

Ashley Madison data breach

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 Ashley Madison data breach page could use some admin attention. There has been a lot of adding/deleting material that may or may not be a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe full protection should be requested this time? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi is fine and should only be used if IPs are acting disruptively. All of the established editors are editing in good faith. -- Callinus (talk) 22:59, 29 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.

Requesting Admin Intervention at Ghulam Ahmed Pervez due to dispute

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 Admins/Moderators,

There is currently a dispute at Ghulam Ahmed Pervez between myself and Justice007. He claims my edits are "promotional" while I claim that his edits/reverts are against NPOV, since he insists on inserting sources only supporting one side of the argument, while deleting sources for the counter-argument. If you look at the category I created called "Differing Opinions" it collects all the points of dispute on the issue and hopes to present both sides of the argument, supported by sources for each side. For example, one side was supported by news articles, while the other was supported by a PTV interview with Parwez and the organization's own publications which provided the other side of the argument. But Justice007 deleted this section entirely, and defaulted the page so that it presented only one side of the argument, removing the entire counter-argument. Both sides of the argument (which are cited) should be presented. Therefore, I'm claiming that those edits by Justice007 were clearly against NPOV.

Secondly, he removed the category of "Major Ideas" of Parwez which summarized this scholar's ideas. I used citations from the scholar's book, which by the way has been cited by N.F.Paracha (a source Justince007 himself uses) as one of the most influential books in Pakistan's history. So why would brief summaries of some key ideas from this book be considered "promotional" instead of "informational"? After all, if you go the wiki page for Marx, you will find references from Marx's own works, or Max Weber's wiki, you will find references from Weber's own works etc. Eventually this section of "major ideas" will also contain sources from other scholars who have mentioned Parwez's ideas and their influence. But that won't happen if this section is deleted in its infancy.

For now, I have reverted Justice007's deletions and reverted the page back to the version of my last edit. I've also informed him of this escalation and asked him to refrain from deleting anything on that page before this matter can be looked into by administrators. I look forward to your insight and suggestions, please advise. Thank you. Code16 (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: The user FreeatlastChitchat also just tried to revert the page back to Justice007's version. I have reverted his revert, informed him of this escalation on his TP, and asked him to wait for a decision here by administrators. Code16 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Code16. What you added looks promotional to me. I deleted it, rather I reverted to a revision made by Justice007, so that my personal opinion is not taken into consideration as you had already opened a laughable ANI report against me. Now you have started this farcical ANI report against Justice007. WTH man? You do realise that you are a SPA who is showing classic IDLI, OWN, STICK issues. Please click here and read the entire essay. It will help you understand. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice: Don't bring content disputes to WP:ANI as a substitute for talk page discussion. If discussion fails, other options are listed at WP:DRN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN Thanks, I'll post the issue on WP:DRN. Code16 (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:NeilN can you please at least warn him? Code16 has reverted 3 unrelated editors in the past 12/13 hours. He just reverts anyone who does not agree with him. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret has already advised him about WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I've opened a thread on the Talk page. Just discuss the reasons why you want to delete sourced content. If we can't agree, I'll escalate the issue to WP:DRN. On the other hand, if you are unwilling to discuss on the talk page, and at the same time insist on reverting edits, what other choice do I have but to escalate here? Code16 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As NeilN pointed out I warned you about 3RR, your account goes back to 2010, but you have less than 500 edits. I wasnt sure if you were aware of the rule, and saw that there wasnt a warning yet after looking at the page. I just read this section and was looking at the article. Those who were involved should have warned you. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It also appears that FreeatlastChitchat is more interested in edit warring than discussion [84][85]. He has now reverted yet again with no discussion on the talk page as to why he has now reverted twice. There is a section open on it. AlbinoFerret 17:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:AlbinoFerret I gave my reasons for reverting both in my summary and here too. You can take a look at the material in quetion and its sources. I'm quite sure you, too, will agree with the rationale that as it is promotional it should not be added. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules are clearly explained at WP:BRD, WP:TALKDONTREVERT, and WP:EW. The article stays in its previous state while FreeatlastChitchat and Code16 discuss the content dispute on the article talk page. I would encourage Code16 to explain why he made the edit and FreeatlastChitchat to explain why he opposes the edit with no further edit warring. If they cannot reach an agreement on the article talk page, WP:DRR is the next place to go. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the PAG you didnt follow. Your reply in a discussion [86] shows you were reverting just because a revert had happened of a revert. Thats edit warring mentality. AlbinoFerret 17:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I dispute your assertion that "That's edit warring mentality". I contend that restoring a page to the pre-edit-war state is "enforcing Wikipedia policy mentality". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the guidelines you mention require discussion. No discussion on your part, just reverts. Your explanation of why you reverted shows as much. AlbinoFerret 18:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

:: Code16, first, you should collaborate with other editors rather edit warring, your expanding content breached the WP:NPOV and violated the WP:COI, and second Wikipedia is not a newspaper or any website to promote any subject, we do not use promotional terms even that have reliable sources, it is encyclopedia where should be the content information for the readers, not the subject's views, and you did that. I reverted your edits for the standards, and policies of the project. If you reach a consensus, I have no problems with that anymore. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Justice007 Actually, you're the one who's not collaborating. You and the other users deleted my SOURCED content without any explanation arbitrarily. And only now speaking on the talk page, and still not justifying your deletion of sourced content. You're claiming I'm biased, but I didn't delete your point of view, I moved it to the "differing opinions" section, providng both sides of the argument. You on the other hand just deleted everything and kept only your POV. Also, not sure how you're claiming I'm posting "promotional" material. Other scholars and thinkers have wiki pages which have summaries of their content based on their own sources. How is what I'm doing any different? I believe what you and the other editors are doing qualifies as vandalism now. Keep in mind, you deleted my sourced content initially without talking/discussing in the talk page. So don't pretend like I started an edit war here. Just because I'm outnumbered doesn't mean I'm the aggressor. Code16 (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Just add the information in the style of encyclopedia, subjects own books are not considered the reliable sources to support its article. It is not the problem to add information that covers NPOV. I tried to cooperate with you to improve and expand the article, and I did already that, but if you remain to change the work of other editors comparing yours that does not endorse the NPOV, and it is, I don't like it. Feel free to ask any assistance, we are here for that. Please discuss on the talk page of the article rather here. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page is on-going already. I'm questioning the removal of the PTV interview as specific example, which is a 3rd party source. Also, as per WP:SELFSOURCE we should agree on how to include the TeI publications and bring back the deleted sections. I'm willing to make concessions on the presentation as per NPOV, but the mass deletion of the sourced content is not the proper solution. Code16 (talk) 19:12, 29 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.

TeaLover1996 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.

---

I am concerned with the editing of TeaLover1996 (talk · contribs), and something has to be done. He's recently come off a two week block by Floquenbeam and his editing has not improved; clear case of WP:IDONTHEAR. Many experienced editors have expressed their concerns going as far back as May, and he's carried on regardless after receiving plenty of advice.

I would like to gather consensus from the community for a block to stop his damage to the encyclopaedia. JMHamo (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs of the problem since they came off of the block? AlbinoFerret 21:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Mainly, edit warring POV pushing about divisions in the lead on Jonny Evans, he was warned by Admin Mattythewhite... JMHamo (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

And, as always, attempted to hide the evidence immediately. Max Semenik (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@MaxSem: I read them, take it into account then remove them, plus I can remove what I want when I want as its my talk page. TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a strong resemblance to talking at a brick wall when communicating with this user. I figured that even if they could not comprehend the admittedly complex content policies that they could at least learn to stop when people tell them to. That was the gist of my advice[87], it seems to have not been followed. If this user going to frequently make mistakes and also not stop when people tell them to stop then it is disruptive. Frankly I don't think competence is an issue when all that is being asked of a person is to stop when people say stop, how much competence does that take? Chillum 21:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Only this page looks like a war zone. I have requested full protection on it. The days history is one large revert and TeaLover may not be the worst offender from my quick look. AlbinoFerret 21:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• @AlbinoFerret: Jonny Evans is just today's example. I am more concerned with their overall attitude. TeaLover1996 seems to spend more time acting as "Wiki-police" and not on their own editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is there's only so many times you can try and help a user, and I see no evidence of them listening to advice or improving their editing. After being blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring, they seem to have come back and done the same thing. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That may be, but imho it would be a good idea to have the diff's of each revert, and look at some of the others reverting on this page, one has 5 I think. JMHamo please provide the diffs that are an edit war. Also please provide diffs of any accusation per WP:ASPERSIONS. AlbinoFerret 22:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Jonny Evans is just today's example. TeaLover is pushing his point about divisions in the lead. He's been warned here and here before. I didn't come here about a content dispute, but the overall disruptive behaviour of TeaLover as noticed by many people already. JMHamo (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

JMHamo Since I have asked twice, Ill ask again and give more detail. I would like the diff's of the reverts, and the page state they are reverting to. Just as if you had brought them to the edit warring notice board. Also if you say they did something, I would like you to please provide the diff if when it happened. The diffs to warnings are nice. But per WP:ASPERSIONS, an Arbcom finding, you must prove the problem happened. Its not just good enough to link to page history and say its in there. AlbinoFerret 22:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There as 0 edit warring in the edits involved there were only 2 reverts which were made by Mattythewhite, edit warring involves two users and Mattythewhite was the only one who reverted, to add edit warring also includes more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period and there wasn't any. So to conclude there was no edit warring at all. TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have notified Mattythewhite about this thread as TeaLover did not, and I will repeat that this is NOT about a content dispute. JMHamo (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to request @Floquenbeam:'s opinion on this User too, as he like Chillum have as Admins tried to get through to this User. JMHamo (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have now struck the edit warring [88] from your claims after being repeatedly asked to prove them. I am still waiting for the rest of the proof. AlbinoFerret 22:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As has been said already, now many times does this User need to be told about their behaviour. Chillum tried here and TeaLover has even admitted that previously he didn't care [89] and this seems to be still the case now. JMHamo (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, you have one warning after the block, and all the rest before, and you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS without proof of TeaLover doing anything. If there is a problem provide the proof and let the community see it. AlbinoFerret 22:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TeaLover1996 says that Mattythewhite was the only one who reverted. These first, second and third look to me like at least partial reverts by TeaLover (but he did self-revert the 3rd of these after this ANI was raised). I see also that TeaLover says "there was no edit warring at all", despite the fact that WP:EW says "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."

But, of course, this isn't a WP:AN3 report, but a concern that TeaLover continues to be disruptive and has learned nothing from his previous block. His countless warnings are apparent in his user talk page history, but unfortunately he regularly deletes the warnings without heeding them. David Biddulph (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: is now looking for a clean start [90], this seems to be a violation of WP:CLEANSTART, which says Users who may not have a clean start: Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here); or is being or about to be formally discussed for their conduct; or is attempting to evade scrutiny, may not have a clean start." IMO, this thread means they cannot have a clean start, as well as the fact they're just trying to avoid scrutiny and an indefinite block, which I believe is inevitable. Everytime this user is warned about their edits, they ignore it, and this dodgy "clean start" is not acceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

and there is this warning too... which illustrates TeaLover's lack of attention and feckless attitude, although I see now that he's decided to do a WP:CLEANSTART [91] when the heat is on, which is not acceptable as per Joseph2302.. JMHamo (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Err, the edit in question is yet another mindless revert to a version that can easily be verified as wrong. Because his previous blocks were essentially due to the same issue, I've blocked indefinitely. Max Semenik (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this block was justified, escalating durations were having no effect. The last block was not reversed because they could not come up with a clear plan to stop this from happening again. If there is to be any unblock there needs to be some indication that change will occur. Chillum 23:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@MaxSem: Thank you very much. Good block IMO. I've nothing more to say about this so I'll archive. Cheers JMHamo (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

With respect Max, I think we should let someone not involved close this if it is indeed time to close this. I made a comment in support of the block, however it is entirely possible others may disagree. Chillum 23:46, 29 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.

edit waring

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 want to report and check if Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) is potentially guilty of vialoating the WP:3RR rule. He has reverted my edits on the article Panzer II three times, the first time, the second time and the third time. Technically, his first change may not fall under the WP:3RR rule. Thanks for looking into this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly relevant discussion here.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I want to point out that I introduced the {{tl:subject bar}} to introduce the relevant portals to the article, which were missing until my original addition. Since the subject bar aggregates both portal inclusion as well as reference to commons (among many other useful links), it is only natural to integrate into one common presentation paradigm. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Relevant discussions are here

WT:WikiProject Military_history#Replacement of established Commons links by obscure .7B.7BSubject bar.7D.7D template?

WT:Wikimedia Commons#Replacement of established Commons links by obscure .7B.7BSubject bar.7D.7D template?

Neither of these seem to be generating much interest in throwing away the recognised and valued Commons link box, in favour of making it subordinate to an unfamiliar portal link. I'd also question why MisterBee1966 thinks that ANI is now the first port of discussion in such an issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I made this topic formal for the following reason:

1. You violated the WP:3RR rule, a sign and risk that you may consider the article WP:OWN
2. Wording like “obscure" falls under WP:POV

This kind of behavior is best addressed more formally, cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You were BOTH edit warring, and per your edit summary here, you knew you were edit warring.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"Obscure" is an adjective. We use those in an encyclopedia. To quote the AfD nomination for this obscure template, "A mere 1,477 transclusions in 4.8 million articles, in over four years, show that this template has failed to gain traction with the community;". Use "mere" or "obscure", whichever you prefer, the point is that this template is uncommon in comparison to the well-established and familiar {{Commons category}}. Yet you have introduced it to the Panzer II article, and others, three times now, without discussion and against reversion. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:10, 31 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.

Continuing personal attacks by User:Le petit fromage on their talk page during 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.

---

Lpf was blocked for a week on 29 August for edit warring and personal attacks. They have continued with the attacks on their talk page while blocked (diff). Could an uninvolved admin deal with this please. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 12:20, 31 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.

Indiey8bb3bbu repeatedly removed CSD tag

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! Indiey8bb3bbu repeatedly removed CSD tag from Riyan Purewal, a page which himself created ([92]). 182.69.0.168 also seems to be a duck ([93]). Final warning has already be given to the main account. Could an admin assist and block the editor for a period? — TaqPol _{talk contrib} 13:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

New editor Hijn2020 and new IP 106.204.159.116 recreating the page. Taking the matter to WP:SPI. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted and salted the article. Warnings not to use multiple accts have been given to User:Indiehado99, User:106.204.159.116 , User:Hjin2020, User:Indiey8bb3bbu, and User:Indie009. Indie009 appears to be the oldest acct, as they created the initial version of the article back on May 18. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This has all been brought to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indiey8bb3bbu (although, as Dianaa points out, Indie009 is likely the actual original sock master). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:09, 31 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.

Template talk:Horse breeds of France#List of French horse breeds

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:Montanabw has repeatedly removed my talk page discussionis repeatedly archiving a talk page discussion [94], [95], [96] due to the fact that "the issue was dismissed at TfD". That TfD s/he is refering to was closed by an involved user because of a previous offense I committed. In good faith, I took the patience to post on the talk page of my concerns but his/her actions are preventing any sort of discussion from taking place. I have no other choice but to file this incident here.Curb Chain (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You did have the choice. You could of resolved it with her away from ANI. Going to an editor's talk page making threats, is not the best way to discuss things. Cassianto^Talk 23:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I concur with Cassianto. Why is this here, really? GregJackP Boomer! 05:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ideally, Montanabw would have let someone else archive it as she expressed strong opinions within the discussion, but it isn't that big of a deal in this type of discussion. It wasn't an RFC or polling type discussion, but more importantly, it looks pretty obvious that the consensus was universally against Curb Chain on that talk page, so sometimes bending the rules a bit and just closing a discussion makes sense and it prevents a discussion from being a drawn out drama-fest. See also: WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. As for removing a comment, she explained that on her talk page and Curb seemingly accepted the explanation, so I'm not sure why we are here. You could start an RfC on the matter, but I get the feeling that things wouldn't go your way, based on input on the page. You started a discussion, everyone disagreed with you, it went on for several threads, so I can't see how your ability to discuss was impaired here. While everyone has a right to discuss changing something (See WP:CCC), that doesn't guarantee you can force others to engage ad nauseum. I don't see anything here that merits any sanction against Montanabw. On the other hand, Curb's actions have been less than ideal, and in fact, mildly disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Just popping by to note that WP:BOOMERANG may be worth considering. @Dennis Brown:, you may not be aware that Curb Chain recently came off of a week-long block for socking, and the sockpuppet account was also used to go after this same template (along with several others). See User:Algircal: [97] who was originally thought to be a sock of a different user but CU linked to Curb Chain: See [98] and [99]. FWIW, Curb Chain has a very long history of disruptive behavior, frequently targeting me, and I am quite tired of the ongoing harassment. Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That is compelling, I knew of the socking, but went back traced more activity. It seems they started this discussion just a day or two after getting unblocked for socking during a formal discussion of the same basic material. I'm not sure if a topic ban is coming soon or what, but this is unacceptable, and clearly a pattern of behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a case of targeting User:Montanabw. I don't remember when I've interacted with him or her. This is a long standing issue with horse articles where she engages in WP:WIKIBULLYING and WP:OWN ([100], [101], [102]). I only need to look up twothree sections (Template talk:Horse breeds of France#Discusison of red links and such) and see that there has been a issue of WP:IDHT. The issue here about the crosses in the template so what is the point of archiving a discussion about that?Curb Chain (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I see three people reverting you on Template:Horse breeds of France, not one. One of the instances of OWN you are claiming, I see her saying "Per BRD, let's revert and discuss. I made some changes to the original, but I think the template creator needs to weigh in here too." Which sounds like a call to discuss and invite the original creator. That is kind of far from WP:OWN. Right now, my concern is your behavior, which probably became problematic before you started socking, but since then has been confrontational. You've been here years, tons of edits, few problems until recently. Maybe you need to consider editing in areas other than equine templates, at least for a few months, as it seems to be bringing out the worse in you, including socking. I really don't want to go down the sanction road any further than you already have been, but if you keep it up, you will be forcing the hand of some admin. As for the actions of other editors, admin aren't blind, but the real problem before us is you Curb. This is why I'm asking you to just voluntarily disengage from the area, for your own sake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oh nonsense that she doesn't remember interacting with me! We go way back. This user also previously edited as Una Smith (where she dragged me to ANI several times, also) and has other suspected sockpuppets. This is a classic case of an editor WP:NOTHERE. This is harassment, plain and simple. I probably shouldn't have even replied, as I guess it did just stir up the drama this user so dearly loves. So, can we close this now, or must we waste bandwidth for several more days? Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Propose Boomerang

Propose that Curb Chain be topic banned from articles on horses, broadly construed, and is further prohibited from interacting with Montanabw. The issues identified above indicate that this is a long-term problem, involving socking, nothere, and harassment of a fine content creator. GregJackP Boomer! 19:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. GregJackP Boomer! 19:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef - Here's a clear case of WP:TEND. The statement that Curb doesn't recall interacting with Montanabw is in fact a lie. That alone proves bad faith. Just block and move on. Jusdafax 20:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per both GJP and Judasfax. BMK (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support, ditto per both GJP and Judasfax. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban regarding horses and interaction ban with Montanabw. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic and interaction bans, for six months or so, as a preventative not punitive boomerang. It's clear that this is not only topically disruptive in an ongoing way but also involves vendetta-like behavior against a specific editor (one I've had my own disagreements with, so this is no "entourage" response on my part, and I even agree with Curb Chain on one point on that talk page, and also WP:Thanked the editor for something recently). Lying, hounding, and sockpuppetry, combined with a WP:IDHT tendentiousness in the face of talk page consensus against what Curb Chain has been proposing (the alleged redundancy of the nav template in question), then a vexatious and unclean-hands ANI filing, right on the heels of a related block, are really, really not the way to go about resolving any kind of issue here. The topic ban will not unduly affect Curb Chain's participation in Wikipedia, as the editor is rarely involved in anything relating to horses or animal breeds more generally. The interaction ban would also not appear to be an undue restriction, but short-circuit any further disruptive behavior toward Montanabw.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban regarding horses for a few months per comment by Dennis Brown above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Sorry, oppose a topic ban for horses. Horses aren't the problem here. This editor has a long history of disruptive behaviour and IDHT, and much of it appears to centre round lists - from which topic he/she was banned for six months in 2013 by Bishonen. Bishonen's comments on behaviour in her block proposal of 15 June 2013 read as completely up to date today – nothing has changed. Attempting to argue that a navbox is redundant to a list appears to be contentious editing relating to lists; the socking and edit-warring make it clear that this is not a collegial attempt to reach consensus to change NOTDUP. I propose as an alternative an extended topic-ban for categories, lists, and navigation templates, broadly construed, and a clear warning that further disruptive behaviour will lead to a block. Curb Chain clearly wants to improve the encyclopaedia, but really needs to find a different way of going about doing that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

Thanks for the ping and the link, Justlettersandnumbers. Yes, as I commented in 2013 before imposing a six-month topic ban for list-related pages, Curb Chain has demonstrated great stubbornness and IDHT behaviour for several years, ever since 2011, falling through the cracks again and again on ANI because people couldn't agree what sanction if any was appropriate. Links to these earlier ANIs can be found here. Whether or not the user is in good faith (I would say yes) and whether or not the problems are competence-related, there is a long-term pattern of wasting constructive editors' time and patience. These resources are too valuable to be frittered away in such a manner. I have blocked Curb Chain indefinitely for persistent disruptive editing. Bishonen | talk 10:39, 31 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.

Discretionary sanctions required

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

---

We need sanctions at Extreme longevity tracking AFD. Editors repeatedly attack everyone who supports the article by making ridiculous demands upon them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.59.18 (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions have just been authorized by the Arbitration Comitee: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Amendment request: Longevity (August 2015).--Müdigkeit (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please sanctions though trying to destroy cited critical work. It's purely disruptive. 166.176.59.18 (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that "Topic ban for 166.x.x.x editor" above hasn't been closed and put into effect. It's surely a snow close. BMK (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:44, 31 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.

Many years have passed....

We are not a forum. No actual claim made or complaint filed, so hatting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Many years have passed..... Count Iblis (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Purpose

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 reporting myself to ANI for this [103] [104] coercion. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what you are reporting or what administrative action you are seeking. Chillum 21:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Please don't make people guess about what you're talking about. If you did something wrong, fix it. if you didn't, then don't waste people's time "self reporting" to make some kind of point. And if you don't know whether or not you did something wrong, certainly don't self report so cryptically that no one can easily provide an opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I felt instructed to report here. Your time is yours. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Follow a point. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:23, 31 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.

Offensive edit summaries

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.

---

WCM has used edit summaries that include the expression FFS [105] [106]. I find this in edit summaries to be unacceptable. A check of his last 500 edits reveals that I have been singled out for this abuse. I asked the editor to stop [107] but this provoked another outburst. [108]. Could an administrator look into this, please. Michael Glass (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In the future you must notify any user you wish to bring to ANI on their talk page. I have done this for you. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and we do not punish editors for using the "F" word—and especially not when they don't even spell it out. Are the edits disruptive? If not, then ignore it and move on. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is this here? I don't see a personal attack. GregJackP Boomer! 07:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been known to use FFS in edit summaries when I'm grumpy (and will doubtless do so again in the future I'm afraid), but I do agree that it's not a good practice - it's obviously not civil. WCM, I'd suggest that you knock this off given that Michael has asked you to stop. Michael, if you're so offended by edit summaries like that that you think that an ANI report is warranted, I'd also suggest that you reconsider your occasional use of snarky summaries such as [109], [110] and [111] - they're also not terribly civil. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Think I'm being snarky? Try dealing with an editor who makes a habit of scrutinising your edits, reversing them and then stonewalling when he's outnumbered. I think you'd be snarky, too. Michael Glass (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

FFS is not really that offensive. It is not as though you were called a name, it is an expression of frustration. Chillum 13:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's no more offensive than SNAFU or FUBAR. And it could stand for "For Freedom's Sake". That's why initials get used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs and Chillum. Also, even though the use of edit summaries for purposes other than the name indicates should not be encouraged, it has become something so common to Wikipedia that it isn't something that should always require administrative intervention (in other words, it requires good personal judgement). Optimally, both users should stop pushing emotional buttons that can lead to actionable behavior. Regardless, I do hope that this AN/I report's purpose isn't used to artificially inflate a case where none exists.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"For freedom's sake?" Well, that's kinda funny, but most of the adult population of the English-speaking world knows what "FFS" actually means. And, yes, it is UNCIVIL, especially when used repeatedly, intentionally, and directed at another particular editor. My suggestion to WBM: knock it off, and quit trying to intentionally offend another editor. At some point it crosses the line from a spontaneous outburst of frustration to obvious incivility to a calculated provocation, none of which is consistent with WP:CIVIL and at some point becomes disruptive editing. None of it advances the goals of the project. So, please just stop. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• • There's a strong distinction to be made between "FFS" and "FU". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Chillum, it's just an expression of disappointment or annoyance. Discussion in WP sometimes heat up a little, but we cannot get an administrator involved for every editor who takes it personal.--Darius (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It also stands for "Fat Finger Syndrome", which describes my one handed typing. Point noted gentlemen.

However, as Nick notes above, Michael is fond of rather snarky comments himself and these do needlessly inflame discussions. I believe he should be reminded that is also unacceptable. WCM_email 12:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to offensive comments, compare this comment of mine where the person addressed finally backed down with this snarky comment from WCM. The editor who dished this out then has the effrontery to complain about my comment. His bully boy behaviour is followed up by this hypocritical justification of his own behaviour. WCM should remember that he was banned from Wikipedia for a time for his offensive hehaviour. He is in no position to set himself up to lecture others. Michael Glass (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

WCM has been blocked once for a 24 hour period eight years ago for edit warring, and never "banned from Wikipedia" [112]. He was topic banned from certain subjects for a longer period, but that's now been lifted. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This entire complaint appears to be somewhat of an overreaction, imo. WCM is a serious and expert editor, who works in a tough subject neighbourhood, and is a major plus to the project. I am obviously aware of the need for civility, but I am not seeing anything that particularly warrants a trip to the dramah board. FFS certainly does not warrant it. Irondome (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• People who see "FFS" and then want to cry "watch your language!" are unclear on the concept of watching one's language.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Can this be closed? I can't imagine an admin action being taken here. Chillum 20:20, 31 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.

Legal threat at Grant Hodnett

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. Thought I should bring your attention to a legal threat posted on the article of professional cricketer Grant Hodnett which I just removed. It was added by an IP with this edit on 1 August. Jevansen (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for the report, but since the edit was made a month ago and the IP is a dynamic one, it's probably not worth blocking at this point. I will however keep an eye on the article. Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 1 September 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:Gobugounder

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.

---

Gobugounder (talk · contribs) seems engage in non encyclopedic article creation even after speedy deletion (eg: Kongu Vettuvagounder) and tag article (eg: Dheeran Chinnamalai) for deletion without proper reason. I suspect he/she might use shock puppets (GOPINATH GOUNDER (talk · contribs), Goundermaganprem (talk · contribs)) --AntanO 04:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

When this sort of activity happens on caste articles, it's appropriate to issue a {{Uw-castewarning}} as these articles are subject to general sanctions. Also, you'd have to file an SPI to link the accounts for sockpuppetry. —SpacemanSpiff 06:51, 1 September 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.

Viral marketing nonsense at Napkin

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 fix this nonsense at Napkin? There is an ongoing subtle viral marketing campaign by two Australian radio talkshow presenters, and reverting silly vandal edits over and over again is quite a bore. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the vandalism has now been reverted, the page has been semi-protected, the registered users involved have been blocked, and the image used in the vandalism has been deleted. If anything has been missed, just leave a note here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems like everything has been covered. If no one objects, this thread can be closed now. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:39, 1 September 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 follow WP:MOSTV and MOS:LEAD

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:Mr. Yondris Ferguson appears to be in violation of both WP:MOSTV and MOS:LEAD, as evidenced by his edits made to Jones & Jury (TV series). He also claims to be hogging the article, claiming that he owns it simply because he created it. I have posted notifications on his talk page, but instead he refuses to collaborate constructively and chooses to edit war instead, as evidenced by his multiple unconstructive revisions done to the page. Your help is greatly appreciated.  MegastarLV  (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not once did I ever say I owned the article. I acknowledge that I don't. However, I feel as though it is rightfully my content. Please check your facts before you make accusations about someone. Mr. Yondris Ferguson (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Mr. Yondris Ferguson: The second you press the save button on any article, the information you add to Wikipedia is no longer your content. That is what the disclaimer right above the save button is for (By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution.). Your feelings do not matter. By adding to Wikipedia you have released your content to the world and have authorized anyone and everyone to edit it at will. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just so people are aware, the reverts were all about whether the show is or was a show.[113][114][115][116][117][118]. Given how benign the issue is (and how clearly the MOS decides how it should be written), WP:OWN is a clear problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:45, 1 September 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.

OhNoitsJamieAre you going to block MegastarLV as well, he went over 3RR (6rr actually) and his reverts were not covered by any exception at all ? KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Socking

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.

---

• Mr Susan Heronpiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Judge Gertrude Prostatebar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Based on Mr Susan Heronpiss's user page and a comment on my talk page, I suspect serial socking. The editor mentions an edit filter and having to up his game. I would have gone to WP:SPI, but I don't know who the master is. (I can file a SPI case if someone points out the master.) I advise that a CU check for sleepers. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• In the meantime, I've indeffed both as NOT HERE.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• The best course of action is probably to file an SPI under the oldest of these accounts and let a CU check to find the master. That message is enough for a check, I'd think. A clerk can always move the investigation where it belongs afterwards. ~ Rob^Talk 00:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Checkuser needed I was going to let them find this post but as the prima facie case has been made for CU, I will notify them. If a determination may be made, it is easier to do this now before filing.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    •  In progress.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• The following accounts are  Confirmed:
  • Mr Susan Heronpiss (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Mr Gladys Vulvabin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Mrs Archibald Cow (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Judge Gertrude Prostatebar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Mr Emily Cockpickle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Corporal April Jazzwank (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Any accounts that were not already blocked, I blocked. I'll leave the tagging to Berean Hunter.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• I knew this rang an unsavory bell. These accounts are  Confirmed to Lifeline Ophelia (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hehe, I had the tags all laid out before the tie-in to the correct master...others have beat me in correcting this. Thank you Bbb23 and others that helped.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I've updated the open case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lifeline Ophelia.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:28, 30 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.

Disruption at WOP AFDs

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

---

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), User:Jytdog is playing Joseph McCarthy by categorizing WOP and non-WOP members to create some sort of enemies list. This kind of attacks are not appropriate. 166.170.50.131 (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither is it appropriate to file an ANI report as a sock IP. Cassianto^Talk 10:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this case? It's a moot point since the AFD was closed but still it's not a nice way to AGF. 166.170.50.196 (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The AfD should be reopened and the close undone. NAC closures are for non-contested cases and while we regularly allow experienced non-admins to NAC close such cases, it is completely inappropriate for an IP editor to close a contentious AfD marred by significant sockpuppetry and possible canvassing issues. --Randykitty (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• AfD close undone. IP blocked (again - see below) for disruption. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Someone is going a bit overboard with the SPA tags in that AfD. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

NPA means nothing 166.170.51.211 (talk) 23:58, 25 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.

Topic ban for 166.x.x.x 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.

---

Last week I blocked 166.176.57.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the latest in a parade of IPs for this range - the previous incarnation, which received the warnings that led to the block, was 166.170.51.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - for persistent disruption on WOP-related articles. They twice evaded their block to comment (exactly as before) on the AfD mentioned above using two more IPs in that range. There have been persistent problematic contributions from this range, which is unfortunately far too large and busy to rangeblock. I propose a topic ban on all WOP-related pages for all contributions from this range that are clearly operated by the same person.

• Support as nominator. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I really need to sleep but just wanting to chime in regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Longevity requesting the return of discretionary sanctions. The way the last ANI discussion went, we'll need it. - Ricky81682 (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support While I do support it (as this is getting a little ridiculous), I wonder how enforceable it is without range blocking the whole thing. From what I understand about TBANs, they don't physically prevent the user from editing the page like blocks do. A clear disruptive user is just going to ignore the ban anyways and the admins will just have to continue to play whack-a-mole. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• With a TBAN we can simply revert and block on sight, though; and if necessary semi-protect articles. Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ah that makes sense. I didn't think of it like that. Thanks for the explanation Black Kite. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The above mentions of WOP are presumably a reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People. Since some comments in the AfD imply that members of that project might not be neutral on this question, I recommend posting on that WikiProject's talk page to alert them of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support, but note that I strongly suspect the IP is simply trolling for whatever reason. It could be someone involved in this area who was previously banned or a troll using this dispute as a means to spread chaos. Regardless, a topic ban allowing their edits to be reverted on sight will be helpful. I believe a small range-block was put in place yesterday but this will be helpful for the future. Ravensfire (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Absolutely. BMK (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - this editor has been disruptive at AfDs, WP:WOP project pages, and articles. Blocking hasn't helped so a tban is next. Full disclosure: I've been working in this same area lately. Ca2james (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose You'll likely hit a lot of innocent users. 166.170.51.211 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support...however, as Stabila711 hinted at, it would be pretty difficult to topic-ban these IPs without a full rangeblock. SN: I notice that the only "oppose" !vote is from another IP that just happens to be from the same range (btw, IP, comments like this aren't the wisest idea). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

attacking everyone who is q member of the WOp project isn't helpful. It's about working with people who are the experts not marginalizing them in favor of nonsense. 166.170.50.141 (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry; we're attacking you? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as per Ca2james. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Not because I think it's a bad idea, but because it's not going to be a deterrent to a joe-jobbing troll, especially when a rangeblock hasn't been effective. Is the range of pages too wide to make semi-protection a problem? 207.38.156.219 (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the stance is that a rangeblock hasn't been effective so much as that a rangeblock hasn't been attempted. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There was one attempted on 166.170.48.0/23 - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive896#Rangeblocking the IPs mentioned just above. Ravensfire (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support While I have not been as active in the area as Ca2james or Ollie I can still see that the user has had a disruptive and noncontributive behaviour. 930310 (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support This user is not contributing to the WOP project in a positive manner; on top of that, he has made up false death dates in the past. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support I think the discretionary sanctions currently being discussed by the arbitration committee are a positive step. Not sure how effective a topic ban would be here, though I'm obviously supporting one. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing some long term semi-protection or pending changes on most of these longevity articles. The area is a disaster. AniMate 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I was going to oppose at first, since both IPs come back under a mobile provider (see here and here), but I agree that it is beneficial since it will allow reverting and blocking with less "red tape". I don't see many innocent people being caught in this net, and I feel that this is going to be a net positive. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - This needs to be done, also, I suppose that it goes without saying that the range of the topic ban includes starting ANI threads about incidents relating to WOP and WOP related articles. Also, can this be closed now, as I believe there is more than enough support for a T-ban? -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban on anything related to WOP, broadly defined. This IP user has been blocked already and his proven disruptive. This topic ban provides an easier method to combat their disruption and inevitable socking. ~ Rob^Talk 02:17, 31 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.

Edit warring/harrasment/reference failure/vandalism

This IP has been edit warring on Aberdeen Airport, removing content that has a source provided, vandalism on the talk page, harrassing me about it as you can see on my talk page, he stated...

Look, whatever, you want to continue writing garbage? Go-ahead. Your "sources" are nothing of the sort. What you've done is removed stuff that has long been on the page and then demanded that I get a source. People like you are really bad for this site and as someone else noted above, you seem to want to prove your somehow right no matter what, even when your wrong. Fill your boots, moron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.103.100 (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What I did was add information with a reference last month, the same IP kept reverting it and claiming that the information was 'false' even though it had a reference provided. Another user reverted it once but after that it has continued, until now. The IP claimed he was from Aberdeen and kept changing only the edits I made without references.

He claims that I always want to be right, don't know who the 'other user' is though. But I do like to be right, it's a good feeling and when I am quite sure that I am right but somone else claims I am not I always find sources for the claims I make, this IP did not. But it does not mean that I just want to be right, I just tend to keep trying until I convince someone that I am right.

I would like what can be done for this issue, thanks. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 15:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is more of a content dispute than anything, which means it needs to be settled on the talk page of the article. As far as behavior, 151.230.103.100 seems to be losing this battle, based on the style and types of edits that he is doing. I wouldn't call them vandalism, and in fact I imagine he is making them in good faith, but when two different people revert you, it is up to you to go to the talk page and hash it out, via WP:BRD. If you don't start using the talk page, you are asking to get blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I used his talk page and he used mine, tried to sort it out there but failed. Also, I wasn't saying all of his edits were vandalism, 1 was. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 17:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations

Can someone else please have a word with Broadmoor about his or her persistent copyright violations (e.g., this material copied from here, this new article copied from here, this material copied from here, this material copied from here)? I've had run ins with this editor before so I don't think that he or she will respond well if I try to address this with him or her. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting. I will add this user to my list of people to monitor. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeated Afd template removal

User:CHASE6784 has removed the AFD template from an article for a rapper client of his he created 45 tha FEVA five times in two days despite being warned several times on his talk page with templates, a personal note, and through edit summaries. Please see the evidence at page history here. Please see their talk here. Can an admin assist? AusLondonder (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Again AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems like they have several final warning about this. I would think a block duration of "08:00, 29 August 2015 + 7 days" would make sense(based on the duration of the AfD). An early unblock could be given if they agree to not continue. Chillum 18:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like @Someguy1221: has already blocked this user. Chillum 22:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Problematic Editor Two

Requesting some kind of warning/block on contributor Againstdisinformation (talk), by an admin: they have repeatedly committed NPOV violations which may count as disruptive editing, engaged in edit wars despite previous blocks and also are generally combative and view any attempt to warn them about their actions as a personal attack and respond with attacks of their own. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have notified the editor in question. GAB^Hello! 00:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, I will provide a full answer shortly. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I sure as hell can't wait for that. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's all remember to be civil in this discussion. That applies to everyone. - SantiLak (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Echoing what SantiLak said, I would suggest that everyone be patient. Reaganomics88, you are relatively new here. Be patient. Impatience or incivility could WP:BOOMERANG on you. GregJackP Boomer! 02:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I must say that I find Reaganomics88' behaviour very strange. At 12:24, August 24 he left a warning on my talk page reading "If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at , you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not a place for activism or sardonic commentary." I had never before interacted with that editor and I was a bit puzzled. Looking at the article 'George W. Bush' that he had mentioned, I found out that the edit he incriminated was a typo which had since been corrected. I told him so and added that I found it negative, even aggressive, to search for old defective edits that had already been corrected and issue threats to their authors. He replied that he did not believe that my typo was a mistake and that I had to follow the basic rules of Wikipedia. He also complained that I had erased his warning. I told him (on his talk page) that I found his warning offensive for a first contact with another editor and that I could hardly believe he was a new user, as his talk page seemed to indicate. He finally told me that he had no time to argue with me and ended his last message with 'adieu'. I replied that I agreed with him on that point and ended with 'farewell'. I then proceeded to delete the section he had opened on my home page and thought that that was the end of it. Today I see that he has mentioned me on the administrator's noticeboard for "NPOV violations", "being combative" an "viewing any attempt to warn him as a personal attack". Frankly I can't believe this is a new user. It seems to me more likely that this is someone who has already interacted with me under another username and, for some reason, is bearing a grudge against me. I have strongly objected to the title "RT mouthpiece of the Kremlin" in the article 'RT' and that may have irritated some. Having chosen to edit on controversial issues I may have unknowingly elicited enmities. But, contrary to what my accuser says, though I defend strongly my opinions on what I think should be the standards of an encyclopedia, I have always been polite and ready to listen to others. If it turned out to be the case that someone is using a second account in order to tarnish my reputation while remaining in the dark I would find it unacceptable and, above all, very sad. I just read his message on the noticeboard and, alas, it confirms my worst fears. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've been following this situation for a while, but while I may not agree with ADI's and/or R88's points of view. I do not think any parties have violated Wikipedia policy and I do not believe that there is anything actionable here. I suggest all sides consider dispute resolution and would like to remind everyone that this topic area is under Eastern Europe DS. Additionally, ADI I would recommend reading WP:1AM as it gives good advice for editors in your situation. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Winner 42, I salute your levelheadedness and neutrality. However, something troubles me. I completely agree that I have found myself in a 1AM situation on the topic of Eastern Europe. It is a sensitive issue where feelings run deep. I chose to start with it because, in my mind, it best illustrates what I consider to be the falling standards of neutrality in the way Wikipedia treats current affairs issues. For example, in my opinion, "RT mouthpiece of the Kremlin" may be fine in a newspaper, but certainly not in an encyclopaedia. But, if I am not mistaken, this subject is not what brought us here. We are here because Reaganomics88 mentioned me on the administrator's noticeboard after having warned me about an edit I had made on the article George W. Bush. It turns out that this typo had already been fixed, so that I didn't understand how he had become aware of it and what he was getting at. I asked him for clarification, but none was forthcoming. Now, I hope he is not acting on behalf of a group of people who prefer to stay in the backstage, that would be very dishonest. Otherwise I would sincerely like to know how misplaced quotation marks, a corrected typo anyway, could induce him to directly mention me on the administrators notice board, without following due process. Againstdisinformation (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A) Something worries me too. So let me explain how my first interaction with this editor came about. I read that George W.Bush was one of the most frequently vandalised articles so I decided to see for myself. So I found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=676956719&oldid=676384540%7Cthis edit|, which put quotation marks around the word American, this (coupled with their username, which appears to suggest some kind of agenda) suggested that the edit was made so that "American" would be read in a sarcastic on insincere tone (After all, while arguing with other editors, ADI has said "I like humour and I tend to have an ironic, even sarcastic tone") that would suggest that enhanced interrogation techniques had in fact not preserved American lives. I saw that someone else had reverted the quotation marks later in the day and when I saw that ADI had a history of being blocked for disruptive editing and had already been warned about NPOV violations after being blocked but had not been warned about their edit to Bush I decided to warn them about their edit, assuming that would be the end of it.

B) ADI's reply highlighted my main problem with them: their attitude towards other editors. If they had just left me a quick note telling me that the edit was a mistake then I would never have to interact with them again. However instead ADI called my message "aggressive" and said "Do you spend your time looking up old versions to send threats to editors you don't like? Wikipedia is not the place for such negative behaviour." I found this incredibly bizarre: how could I not like someone I had never met or had any meaningful interaction with? And also I never considered my behaviour "negative", if anything I was trying to help ADI avoid getting blocked again in the future; but most of all I was offended by their comments.

C) So I replied to ADI saying that it was okay they had removed their warning (I had not complained about its removal as ADI claimed, I had even said "it is after all your talk page") but while I was sorry that they felt strongly about my warning they still had to to follow the rules. I was surprised when in reply they said "it makes me really suspicious about your real motives or who is behind your username", and found these accusations strange, rude and offensive.

D) The issue is not about Eastern Europe, I have little interest in topics relating to Eastern Europe, my main interests are British Politics and Scottish Independence, the issue is about ADI's general attitude towards other editors: it seems being confrontational and replying disproportionately is symptomatic of them. I can point to all the personal and unsubstantiated accusations ADI has made against me in the responses to my noticeboard placement alone:

• He has suggested that I am only pretending to be a new editor and am someone who is "acting under a second username" and has "taken a grudge" against them.

• He has suggested I am using a second account to "tarnish" his reputation "while remaining in the dark."

• He has suggested that I am "acting on behalf of a group of people who prefer to stay in the backstage" and "very dishonest".

These accusations are wild and obviously untrue, again I have little interest in Eastern European topics or RT, I simply wanted to help an editor avoid being banned again for NPOV violation.

E) When I ended my message with "adieu" I did intend to never interacted with ADI again. However what changed my mind was that I realised that ADI's argumentative behaviour was not just confined to me, but appears symptomatic of his general attitude towards other editors.

For example when Xx236 (talk) questioned his name's neutrality he responded with "personal attacks are not welcome here" and "in the unlikely event that you are in good faith".

This was what prompted me to raise this issue, I think ADI needs to be far more civil in his dealings with other editors, realise that when people question his neutrality they are not attacking him as a person. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this exchange with Reaganomics88 could go on forever and, also, that it is getting tiresome for everyone. Therefore, unless I am asked to clarify some point, this will be my final answer to Reaganomics 88 contentions. I first became aware of his existence through the following warning he left on my talk page: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at George W. Bush, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not a place for activism or sardonic commentary." Reaganomics88 (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC) I had to look up the article to see what he meant. The edit incriminated concerns the phrase these enhanced interrogations "provided critical information" to preserve American lives. I wanted to change it to “these enhanced interrogations provided critical information to preserve American lives.” , since the whole phrase is from George W. Bush. Alas, I changed it to these enhanced interrogations provided critical information to preserve “American" lives. This was a typo, perhaps a Freudian slip, I am willing to concede, since I read that article because of a discussion about waterboarding with another editor, but it was unintentional and had anyway been corrected the following day. Of course, I felt somewhat irritated that Reaganomics 88 assumed bad faith on my part and refused to accept it was a typo. I told him I found it negative to dredge other editor’s history and to send them warnings about mistakes long since corrected. Indeed I find this user’s whole attitude weird. He claims that “if anything I was trying to help ADI avoid getting blocked again in the future”. But, after I told him at 19:43, 25 August 2015 that I found his attitude negative, he reported me for ‘vandalism’ at 22:09, 25 August 2015 (without letting me know) and, after we finally both agreed that the matter was over at 01:18, 26 August 2015, he decided nonetheless to mention me on the Administrator Noticeboard at 23:31, 26 August 2015 without any intervening interaction. I find this weird. I also find unfair, to say the least, the way he uses my discussions with other editors to support his bizarre contention that I made that typo in order to subliminally suggest that the Bush Administration’s enhanced interrogation techniques were ineffective at saving American lives. I have since learnt that he has been doing the same with other editors. I am sorry to use harsh words, but I find all this very silly and a loss of time which would be much better used constructively. Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you find this silly then you can only imagine how silly I find your wild, unsubstantiated accusations that I am part of some kind of shady conspiracy working against you while "remaining in the dark". I find them absurd, tiring and offensive.

I did not view your edit history to find the Bush edit, like I said I viewed the George W.Bush page edit history, don't spread disinformation.

And may I ask, if your edit really was a typo why did you not, after realising that the quotation marks from the word American had been removed, add quotation marks to the section so that it resembled "these enhanced interrogations provided critical information to preserve American lives." as you supposedly intended to?

From this it can been determined that your so-called typo was in fact intentional NPOV violation and I was right in warning you about it. Even that is only part of the issue, the main issue is your behaviour.

And, between you and me, don't worry, I will accept your apology.

--Reaganomics88 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (non admin observation) This has all the characteristics of a failure to drop the stick by Reaganomics88. First talk page, then the vandalism noticeboards, now here. All over quotation marks that were removed the same day in successive edits [119] that he was not involved in? This is very close to WP:OWN behaviour and its possible a flying piece of wood maybe nearby. AlbinoFerret 19:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how I could WP:OWN a article I have never edited, nor have much of an interest in. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That makes it even worse, not better. Who appointed you the investigator? AlbinoFerret 20:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I never intended to investigate anything I simply looked at the page's edit history. Besides I wasn't trying to punish ADI, only help him avoid being blocked again in the future. If you actually read what I have to say you will find that the edit itself is not the main issue. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

So a new editor wasnt trying to investigate on an article they have no interest in or has edited by going through someone elses edits, bringing it to the vandalism noticeboard, and then to AN/I? Have you ever heard of the Law of holes? AlbinoFerret 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, Law of Holes, what a lovely aphorism. I think you may be the one in the hole. For a start I did not go through anyone's edits, I went through the edit history of the page warned a user about NPOV who had not been warned. Besides what's wrong with taking action against disruptive editing?--Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

First off, you brought a editor to a noticeboard. Above I linked to WP:BOOMERANG, I suggest you read it. Me in a hole, no, I didnt open a section here, and I am uninvolved, you on the other hand should be on the lookout for flying objects. AlbinoFerret 20:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Not involved, really? You got involved the moment you started commenting, you simply latched on and hoped to engage in some merry Ochlocracy. If you understood the situation fully then you would realise that I never threw any 'boomerangs'. You a neither the judge, jury or the executioner, witch hunts, while exciting for the participators, are not fun for the victim. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your WP:POINTy post and your aggressive nature are poking through. You are investigating another editor and failed to WP:AGF. When it is pointed out to you to WP:DROPTHESTICK and you are in a situation where you may have a WP:BOOMERANG tossed at you, you think its ok to attack the person telling you. You keep digging and have no idea that when you bring something here the community can and will point out the problems with what you are doing. But, you dont have to listen to me, go ahead grab a bigger shovel. AlbinoFerret 21:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay so i'm going to ignore all of your "aggressive nature" and digging a hole jibes and cut to the chase. It is clear that there was no need to assume good faith because the edit in question was obvious vandalism, evidenced by what I have pointed out in the last addition to the discussion before your comment. This shows you do not understand the situation fully. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals quotation marks are not vandalism. This is at least the second editor you have done this to. There is another section below that involves you doing the same thing. AlbinoFerret 21:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your welcome. Anyway I did not leave a warning on ADI's talk page about vandalism, I left one about NPOV violation. As for the other editor, have you actually read the conversation? I apologised for the additional warning and the editor admitted they were " incentivised to the addition of the epithet to the page by malice". I will reiterate, my main issue is with ADI's behaviour, not their original offence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaganomics88 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, could we all get back on track as to this ANI being about Againstdisinformation. Another ANI has been for Reaganomics88 below. I can only see this as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. If there's a BOOMERANG in it, it should be discussed here.

There appears to be a lot of bad faith going around on both of these sections. Both parties seem to be new users. I have no knowledge of user Reaganomics88 (nor do I intend to do any ferreting around), but I do now have extensive experience with user Againstdisinformation. This is not the first time we've had new editors clashing with regular (or other) editors in the name of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it going to be the last. Some editors take a while to understand WP:TL;DR and a multitude of other policy and guideline 'sins', but that doesn't automatically mean that they're WP:NOTHERE. If new editors dive straight into contentious articles (and Againstdisinformation has certainly done so on many such articles), the only thing to do is to give them a little time and assistance in understanding how Wikipedia works in order to evaluate whether they're WP:LISTENing or not. Instead of going straight for the WP:BITE, I'd suggest exercising a little more patience. If the behavioural problems persist, then it may be time to open an ANI. Editors don't have to like or agree with each other to work collaboratively, and trying to get rid of editors who could potentially evolve into good editors once they've gained experience is counterproductive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I was happy to ferret around at least one bit of interesting info. Reaganomics88 first edit was in February 2015, but didnt make the second until May [120]. So we have a editor with 4 months of experience doing investigations? Something is strange here. AlbinoFerret 23:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, having taken a cursory look at the activities, I'd agree that there is a sense of sleeper(?) about the account. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

So what's a sleeper? Reaganomics88 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A WP:SLEEPER is an account that has been inactive for a long time. They often feature into sockpuppeting cases because they can be abused. GAB^Hello! 13:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I would advise any administrator who wishes to review my case to take a look at Yulia Tymoshenko's article talk page. It gives a very good understanding of why I could attract such animosity. My sole purpose, which I am vain enough to deem useful, is to help rid Wikipedia of inaccuracies or, worse, disinformation. Againstdisinformation (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As regards Reaganomics88, having had a thorough look through the user's contributions, I'd say that s/he has had little experience - as reflected in the few and sporadic contributions actually made - and doesn't even actually understand how to submit reports: see this recent submission to the AIV, including this and this. No templates are used despite instructions as to how to submit a report with diffs. The submission here was bungled with no diffs, plus without understanding that they need to inform the editor they've reported on this board (which was done on their behalf by GAB). In fact, the user seems to have a genuine concern for NPOV and what is DUE in most cases. My 'sleeper' account was premature and based on a cursory look. Unless anyone has suspicions that there's something not quite right about the account that can be substantiated, I'd still go with allowing both editors an opportunity to gain more experience and understanding of how Wikipedia works. If disruptive behaviour erupts again, it would become a case for the ANI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Againstdisinformation: I have no idea why you've brought up the Yulia Tymoshenko article. Reaganomics88 hasn't been involved in that article... or are you implying that there's a cabal out to get you? No, in this case, there is no cabal. All I can see from your edits there is what has been reflected in your editing on other articles: that you haven't actually grasped the concept of WP:NPOV. We reflect what reliable sources have to say on matters. This does not mean toning down the language used where it has been reflected and reiterated in other RS. It means that, as editors, we keep our own voice out of the narrative and try to make informed decisions as to how to present the content. Wikipedia is not WP:GEVAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, this ANI is not about Reaganomics88, it's about me. I didn't as much as look up his editing history. The reason I brought up the Yulia Tymoshenko article is that it illustrates perfectly the reason I attract so much animosity. As I told another editor, I have set myself the Quixotic goal of trying to help rid Wikipedia of inaccuracies and disinformation, so that, naturally, I have started to watch articles on controversial issues. The Yulia Tymoshenko article stated that the European Court of Justice recognized that she had been tortured. This is false. So I corrected it and provided a link to the Judgment of the court and let the editor know the reasons on the article's talk page. He reverted me and added more links to other Newspapers. I told him that even 1000 links to newspapers are overridden by 1 link to the actual Judgment. I asked him to read it, and reverted him again. He reverted me a second time and I let the matter at that. Thanks God, an administrator noticed what had happened and saw that I was right. So, he reinstated the correct version and got reverted in his turn. He then referred the matter to the Arbitration committee. It seems to me that there is a similarity with the issue that has opposed us. I maintain that "invading Russian Armed Forces" needs a citation and you disagree, claiming that it has been established beyond doubt. It might be true that Tymoshenko was tortured, but this is immaterial. What I object to is Lidaz wrongly claiming that the ECHR recognized that fact. As concerns my disagreement with Santilak and you, again, it might be true that the "invading Russian Armed Forces" violated Ukraine's sovereignty, but sources are needed nonetheless. Having read all that (since he mentions my editing history) R88 decided that my typo could't be anything else but malice, never mind my protestations to the contrary. Unless I am blocked as a result of this ANI, I will continue to track inaccuracies wherever I find them. You may consider this as POV pushing, my feeling is that it helps raising the standards of Wikipedia. Since you are clearly WP:INVOLVED, I do not understand how you can say as you did on the ANI Reaganomics88 that you are "prepared to check into Reaganomics88's behaviour" on the condition that my "editing history and behavioural problems also be investigated". Don't you feel there is something like a conflict of interest here. I can tell you that in a court of Law this would be dismissed outright. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Sorry for this second post when the previous one was already too long. Please, don't attribute to me the claim that there is a cabal against me. Alas, it's a long time since I was a child. I just note that when you try to correct NPOV on sensitive issues, you invariably attract the animosity of people who want to push that point of view. For me, the barrage I encountered when I insisted that "invading Russian Armed Forces" was a statement that needed citation is an oustanding example of this. There is no need to invoke a cabal. Perhaps I am expecting too much from Wikipedia, but let me tell you that among people who have to write down international legal instruments, a 'milieu' I am familiar with, what I am saying would sound like a truism. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

A) "I hope he is not acting on behalf of a group of people who prefer to stay in the backstage, that would be very dishonest. " Er yeah, I would attribute the claim that there is a cabal against you to you.

B) And you still haven't answered my question: if that edit really was a mistake why haven't you added quotation marks in the way that you supposedly intended to while editing it?

You should have added quotation marks so it resembles "provided critical information to preserve American lives." You haven't, suggesting that your edit wasn't a mistake.Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Reaganomics88:Look R88, I have nothing against you, you are the one who started all this. You left what I consider to be an aggressive warning: "stop adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles" and "Wikipedia is not a place for activism or sardonic commentary" and in short order you reported me as a vandal. All that for misplaced quotation marks which I did not even remember. Then you brought me here without even letting me know. So, when I noticed that you were a new user and that your main activity was to report other editors, I found that a bit strange. Then, on this very noticeboard, I read the suggestion "read WP:1AM as it gives good advice for editors in your situation" by Winner42 and, I confess, I started to believe you were a sock. Especially since I just had a series of heated discussions with other people. I never asserted as a fact that you were a sock, I just had doubts. As for your second question, the answer is very simple. After I miscorrected the article George W. Bush I never had so much as a look at it until your warning. After that, since it had previously been corrected by Santilak and you had reported me here, I didn't want to touch it again, lest I be accused of edit warring. You will pardon me for telling you that I don't understand your tenacious hostility. Why do you absolutely refuse to accept that all that might simply have been a misunderstanding? Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Block of Faizan

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 was Faizan blocked by CambridgeBayWeather ? Two old editors with clean block log got blocked for editing Afghan jalebi. Check Human3015's talk page. Dharmadhakshya was edit warring , but Faizan made only one revert. Other than following Human3015's contributions, i can't understand how Faizan was edit warring? --Aero Slicer 16:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aero Slicer: You failed to notify CBW, which I have done for you. Please pay attention to the orange box the next time... Hasteur (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And, actually, before you brought this here, you should have asked the question of CBW directly, on their talk page. BMK (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I have apologised to Faizan for the blocking and of course unblocked them with an edit summary that makes it clear they should not have been blocked. On the other hand Human3015 did not have a clean block log. They were blocked, ignoring the 23 March, twice before. I blocked yesterday for 24 hours for edit warring and then 48 today for the same thing. I'll be gone for about an hour but will check back again when I get to work. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:37, 1 September 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:Skamecrazy123

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.

---

Skamecrazy123 (talk) reverted one of my edits on my own contribution to an ANI discussion that changed 'it' to 'you' so that it made more sense and called the edit vandalism: [121]. They also left me a message on my talk page: [122]. The edit and warning were reverted/removed by Atlan (talk): [123], [124]. The following exchange occurred on Skamecrazy123's talk page: [125], [126],[127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140] Reaganomics88 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please enclose your links in brackets. AlbinoFerret 13:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Was easier to just do it myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not worth starting an ANI thread over. The revert was inappropriate, and the highest level template warning was inappropriate. I explained this to Skamecrazy123 and that should be the end of it. Reaganomics asks me on my talk page what part of his edits I find problematic here on ANI. It's the heat-to-light ratio of your contributions here. This thread for example, is not at all necessary and can only serve to add fuel to the fire of this non-issue. Also, your "Haha" thread on Skamecrazy123's talk page is needlessly confrontational. But it most certainly is not vandalism.--Atlan (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Atlan: No need to worry about adding fuel to a fire that, as far as I'm concerned, hasn't even started. I read your explanation and I'm fine with the reasoning behind it. After that "Haha" thread though, I don't want Reaganomics on my talk page again. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: After your unprovoked and unjustified highest severity level vandalism warning I don't ever want you on my talk page again either.--Reaganomics88 (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Reaganomics88: Sounds good to me. I can get back to whatever I was doing, and you can get back to your other ANI... Closing time. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:07, 1 September 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.

remove talk page access of a 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.

---

[141] Bentogoa (talk) 07:34, 2 September 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.

Complaint by Mavimkojo

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 wikipedia a user name by the name of montell74 is making maliscious changes to a page kindly block him thamnks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavimkojo (talk • contribs) 09:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You did not post anything on Montell74's talk page prior to making this complaint.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:29, 2 September 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 making tiny but significant changes without explaining them.

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.

---

Your attention is called to edits that have been made by User:Daustinc2, in which he or she has made minor adjustments to articles without explanation in the Edit summaries. One example is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inglewood,_California&curid=107640&diff=679035250&oldid=678885064, where census figures for a city were changed. There are many other examples as well, which you can see by examining the changes listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Daustinc2. This user was warned at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daustinc2#Recent_unexplained_changes and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daustinc2#August_2015. I trust that an administrator will take note of this situation. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Even more concerning, looking through the talk page and the block log, he's been blocked for this 3 times already, and the issues seems to go back to at least 2013, with seemingly no improvement... Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The burden is with the editor changing the info, and as they've had blocks in the past for doing the same behavior as outlined above, then another block should be the outcome. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked. Out of 8658 edits, zero are to article talk, and the handful of edits to his own talk page were to delete material only. To me, this looks like years of stealth vandalism, making small incorrect "corrections" to insure everything he touches is incorrect. Even if not, his actions are disruptive and refusing to communicate after being asked so many times tells me he needs to stay unblocked until he can convince someone that he can and will communicate, and explain these edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:09, 2 September 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.

Moving article title without discussion

This user, Jarmur (talk · contribs) is moving a mass of article title without discussion. The discussion was made on this page, and decided we are not moving to the new title despite the changes made by the badminton organisation. --Aleenf1 12:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as the talk page goes, 2 editors one asking a question and another saying "I think" or "I believe" without any real strong conviction does not a consensus make. It was barely even a discussion, just a question and single returned opinion. However I agree that Jarmur should be engaging as they have been questioned a couple of times on their talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 15:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath

He is problematic, moving page title without discussion, revert back the undiscussed move, move a sandbox to a userpage. Does this behaviour doesn't warrant him a warning or block? --Aleenf1 14:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the User page back to his sandbox. Canterbury Tail talk 18:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Alarm bells?

Yes, Jarmur is setting off alarm bells on both Move Stats (Jamur is the dot at the top left of the chart) and Move Watch (first "red listed" entry further down the list). However, they haven't edited in over 24 hours. But I'd advise updating here if they start up again... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• In response to all of the above, it seems that the appropriate response is to reverse the undiscussed moves, and instruct the user to use WP:RM process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:JordanGero editwarring to drastically change the wording of an ongoing RfC

Having been twice requested not to and informed of the talkpage guidelines, JordanGero (talk · contribs) is currently editwarring at Talk:European colonization of the Americas to change the wording of an ongoing rfc to what he considers the RfC should really be about. Admin and arbitrator Dougweller (talk · contribs) has already informed him that this is a bad idea, but he seems not to take the hint. Could someone with greater patience than myself teach this user how to deal properly with disagreements over wordings in an RfC?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

After two months of editing, JordanGero has certainly leapt in with both feet to controversial areas of Wikipedia with fully-blossomed knowledge of how things work, yet a decidedly disruptive bent. My Spidey-sense is tingling: is there any chance that Jordan has visited us before? Elizium23 (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The user ·maunus worded the Rfc inaccurately after having entered an ongoing conversation between myself and another editor about the issue. All but one of the responses to the Rfc came after my edit of it, and all but my own have sided with ·maunus. This is not necessarily evidence that my version was "better" or more neutral, but it does contradict ·maunus's contention that the Rfc was changed after most editors had already responded. JordanGero (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Elizium23, the condescension aside, I've never professed to have "fully-blossomed knowledge of how things work", though I have edited articles on Wikipedia in the past through IP accounts without registering a user name. And as far as the "decidedly disruptive bent", although I've never possessed or professed a desire, direct or otherwise, to disrupt, that is why the policies, guidelines, and processes exist on this site and others like it, precisely to deal with situations such as this one. I consider it one more brick on the road to attaining that "fully-blossomed knowledge" you mentioned. JordanGero (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

My RfC was not worded "inaccurately", it is simply about a different question than the specific one that worries you. Which is why it is totally impossible for you to rewrite the RfC to ask an entirely different question. It is only more problematic that you editwar to do it, violating both the talkpage guidelines AND the RfC guidelines in the process - after having been politely told that what you were doing is wrong. Your editing at this point is non-collaborative, disruptive and out of line with basic policies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was worded "inaccurately", and it is incredibly disingenuous to purposefully word the Rfc to a question different than the one over which the contention is. That way, you are able to sidestep the actual contention by replacing it with a form that is more favorable to you, meaning that when the Rfc is resolved in your favor (since there is a higher chance for this given that you have inaccurately framed the contention leading to it), you are able to effect a change on the article that is not necessarily reflected by the survey of the Rfc- a very clever exercise, for which I salute you, though certainly not very "polite". The question, from the beginning, was whether the use of the word "seize" was appropriate in a specific sentence, not whether it is an appropriate descriptor for an abstract concept describing an abstract subject. This is what I meant about you "jumping in the middle" of a conversation between me and Rjensen. The edit of the word "seize" did not happen in some abstract realm; it happened in a specific sentence in a specific paragraph in a specific section of the article in question that followed directly from another specific sentence in that specific paragraph in that specific section of the article in question. Anyways, the issue is resolved. And regarding my editing being disruptive, non-collaborative, and contrary to established basic policies, I was unaware about the policy of editing the Rfc. Please excuse my natural reaction to change an inaccurate framing of the underlying contention. Edit: Or apparently the issue is not resolved, given that a suggestion has been made by User:KoshVorlon that the current Rfc, given the disagreement over its content, be closed and a new one be opened that better reflects the issue at hand.JordanGero (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually this isn't just about the RFC, this is a continuing argument that appears to have started at this discussion. You're each changing the RFC to support your view points. Why not close this RFC and re-open with both sets of wording as a choice, that would allow an RFC to be used to decide which one consensus favors.  ? KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, this is exactly what I was attempting to do from the start. I am agreeable to this option, but do not wish to take such action myself, given that I am still relatively new on the site, and do not wish to get into more hot water by modifying Maunus' Rfc.JordanGero (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just open a subthread of the RfC asking the related question you want to ask. This is standard operating procedure. Don't try to change the RfC in mid-stream, or you invalidate people's responses to the original question, obviously. So, yes, you'll be reverted on trying to change the question in any major way during an ongoing RfC. Even two months is probably enough time to figure that out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing WP:PROMOTION of www.tellychakkar.com

I came across this edit which was reverted by Jim1138 . Someone had COI with tellychakkar. I searched and found that it exists as reference in various Biographies of Indian TV actors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=www.tellychakkar.com&fulltext=Search

I can remove it one by one, which will take lots of time. Administrators can remove the website links quickly. Tellychakkar is not a reliable source. A single editor or a group is spamming the links. --Aero Slicer 12:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• The proper venue for such reports is MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions. Please take it there. Thomas.W ^talk 16:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This editor User:FreeatlastChitchat is constantly removing sourced information and content and pushing POV

This editor User:FreeatlastChitchat is constantly removing sourced information and content and pushing POV. I know that he will more than likely edit up edit warring with me so I am trying to nip it in the bud. He has a track record of WP:guideline violations just look at how many warnings he has and is constantly removing content to push his sectarian POV. He is removing sourced information and is trying to censor wikipedia because some of the content is offensive to him. I've tried warning him and telling him several times to no avail. Sakimonk ^talk 17:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

here are some examples of his soapboxing / censoring / pushing POV and violating WP:NPOV

• Adding content not from the source just to push his anti-wahhabi sentiment
• censoring the information that Ahmadiyyah is a messianic sect simply because it offends him, he lies and says it isn't in the source but the source is the official Ahmadiyyah website and a text explaining how Ghulam Mirza is their considered Messiah
• HERE
• HERE
• and HERE He reverted three times while a discussion was going on to establish a NPOV as per WP:BRD cycle. He ignored the talk and constantly tried to push his POV and censor wikipedia because he didn't like Ahmdiyyah being listed as Messianic or as Minor.
• His removal of content which is fully sourced to a reliable reference simply because he is pushing his Anti-Jamat Islami POV
• More removal of content which is sourced simply because he is anti-wahhabi and lying that the link is fake even though it is an official university website biography

This user was actually reprimanded for edit warring and disruptive editing only two days ago yet he is at it again!

I kindly ask that you deal with this user in an appropriate way because it is a headache to have to undo all of the damage he is causing Sakimonk ^talk 17:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

And after FreeatlastChitchat you, you reverted him to be reverted in turn by User:Rothorpe. You've made it pretty clear at Template talk:Islam that you are editing with the pov that Sunni Islam is the original and orthodox form of Islam, and that " The only sects in Islam are Sunni'ism and some shia groups, khawarij and sufis. The rest of the groups mentioned here are mostly not actually part of the religion of islam but are offshoot religions." This seems for you to particularly include the Ahmadiyyah. Doug Weller (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Defence, and Proposal to T-Ban Sakimonk from Islam and related topics

I edit in areas which are highly controversial and therefore sometimes editors think that what I have added is "offensive", "anti religious", "propaganda against their particular brand of religion", "an attempt to violate their religious doctrine on wiki". Such editors either edit war with me or try to report me. The user who reported me is one such user. His edit history will show (I can provide diffs but almost every single edit in the last month has been this way so its quite easy to see by just clicking contributions) that he wants to remove anything from wikipedia that he feels is offensive to his version of Islam. Therefore seeing that a large number of editors are being forced to placate him in Talk pages, and seeing that long, long walls of text are being generated just to try to convince him, I've concluded that he is a time sink. In light of this I'd like to propose that Sakimonk is T-banned from Islam and related topics for 6 months and allowed to appeal this ban after six months. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

How ironic, you're using my argument against me? You're the one who is offended by my edits and you are the only one who is censoring information on wikipedia. You're the one who has been warned several times by multiple users for edit warring. The only time I've ever had a problem with editing in recent history is on the Israel page because I accidentally violated the 1 revert policy on Arab/Israeli articles. By the way Doug Weller, if you had even bothered to read what I had actually said you would have realised that I made a clear distinction between my POV which is indeed biased and my intention to have a template which is in line with WP:NPOV guidelines. I do personally believe that the tenets of Islam are violated by groups such as Ahmadiyyah and Mahdavia (as do the vast majority of Muslims) however all I wanted to do was make a clear distinction between mainstream Islam (which literally over 90% of the circa 1.5 billion Muslims follow) and fringe groups who are messianic in nature. How on earth is it POV to call ahmadiyyah messianic? Furthermore, their ideology is actually based on their conviction that Ghulam Mirza is the messiah. I believe that my edits are the most informative and true to the topic's nature whereas removal of this content is simply being politically correct and censoring wikipedia just to not offend Ahmadis. Freeatlastchitchat and Peaceworld are both ahmadis and strongly utilise all means to push their POV and censor wikipedia. You're just enabling them. I've made clear what my personal beliefs are on the matter and I made a clear distinction between my personal feelings on the matter and what I believe that wikipedia should say. Sakimonk ^talk 04:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I just have to point out the hilarity of FreeatlastChitchat 's opening statement. His edits are antithetical to every word he has said. It reminds me of the Hosni mubarak trial. Sakimonk ^talk 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Sakimonk/Archive 1 has multiple edit-war templated warnings, several other notices about various disruptive editing, and indications of multiple times being hauled to WP:AN*. His saying "You're the one who has been warned several times by multiple users for edit warring" about someone else might be true, but it doesn't lessen his apparent involvement and history of the same behaviors. Pot/kettle, etc. DMacks (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that User:Drmies has given a Sakimonk a final warning at Template talk:Islam regarding edit-warring on that template. Other admins have full-protected multiple other pages in which he was involved in edit-wars on Islam-related articles. The general theme is as others have noted: Sakimonk taking an editorial position on what is the "true" Islam based on majority/mainstream and various political/governmental pronouncements, rather than just what is majority/mainstream with more academic sources. That's a series of pretty bad patterns, which don't usually lead to the user's desired outcome. DMacks (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• DMacks, thanks for the ping. I was not aware of this thread, though after I warned the editor I saw that they were edit warring in a number of other articles. Had I seen this thread and dug deeper I might have blocked them on the spot. I don't have to take an opinion on the content of the edits; the edit warring and the budding consensus here about POV editing is probably enough for the next admin to make a swift decision if their editing behavior continues in this vein. But I'll leave that for someone else, perhaps you, DMacks, since I'm done for the day. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That is simply not true. I actually find it quite insulting that you insinuate that I am (sic) taking an editorial position on what is the "true" Islam based on majority/mainstream and various political/governmental pronouncements, rather than just what is majority/mainstream with more academic sources. Time and time again I've made it brutally clear what I believe is my personal POV on the talk pages but I've also made it clear that I don't edit with this POV, I always intend on simply providing an accurate and balanced edit in line with WP:NPOV guidelines. We all have our own biases, at least I am honest unlike other users who do the opposite - hide their agenda and wreck articles with the false pretext of asserting NPOV. Sakimonk ^talk 05:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Support based on comments of the editor here, which seem to equate the views of extant Muslims with what should be presented in wikipedia, as per his statement above about his intentions to "make a clear distinction between mainstream Islam (which literally over 90% of the circa 1.5 billion Muslims follow) and fringe groups who are messianic in nature". Unfortunately, such a view is pretty much completely antithetical to wikipedia policies and guidelines, in this case particularly WP:NPOV. The views of the majority of Muslims at this time are not that which we should base our content on, because religious doctrine in most religions is more or less constantly in flux to one degree or another, and majority groups can sometimes die out to be replaced by others. We are supposed to base our content on what the best peer reviewed sources say, and there are numerous such sources, including those of a broadly encyclopedic nature, which do not make the distinctions that Sakimonk seems to consider so vital. He seems incapable, at least at this time, of differentiating between current majority POV and academic POV. If and when he is able to effectively understand and recognize that distinction, it very much seems to me that he will be ultimately just continuing the current internal majority POV, not the more neutral academic one. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, John Carter why is it that the Christian template has Eastern Western and Nontrinitarian? The seal of prophpethood is a key theological aspect of Islam. A group which espouses that a new messiah or prophet has come is not what is (in the wider academic viewpoint) not a typical form of Islam. It is unfair on readers who are unfamiliar with the topic to be presented with a multitude of "versions" of Islam when they are more than likely to want to read about what is the more prominent, relevant and pertinent topic at hand (which innervates into all other areas of importance such as News, Theology, Socio-economic matters etc.) which is the dominant forms of Islam; Sunni and Shi'ite. You talk about "flux" and so on, in reality Islam has always had a majority sunni following for over 1400 years, this has never fluctuated. It's simply a ridiculous assertion that being "Poliically correct" and not making an objective differentiation between what is normative Islam to what is atypical is simply being truer to the content. Why is it that articles on sciences and philosophy will always point out key influential figures or main branches of philosophy etc. By your logic we might as well list Jim Jones' cult along with Roman Catholicism. Sakimonk ^talk 01:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your comment above dare I say simply goes further to show how you are less than qualified to edit in the topic of Islam, or, for that matter, possibly at all in contentious topics. I had stated above that we are supposed to base our content on the best available sources, which are, in general, the most highly regarded academic ones. If you were to actually review the topic at all, again, from the most highly regarded academic ones, which in this case would include the Brill/Eerdmans' Encyclopedia of Christianity, you would, I think, find that much of our content is consistent with that. Also, honestly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is something most people already know around here, and making an entire point which is contrary to it is at best amusing. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment Sakimonk was previously involved in a dispute discussed here[142] surrounding his wish to have the derogatory term "Qadiani" described as the commonly used term for Ahmadi Muslims, among other things. Editors like these is what is turning Wikipedia's content about Islam into a useless, conflicted mess.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I still stand by that edit, there is no substantial proof that the word "qadiani" is derogatory, it is actually the term most widely known to people to describe followers of those of the ahmadi faith. The term is used as the ahmadi religion emerged in the town of Qadian. It's like calling someone from London a Londoner. This is surely a violation of WP:NPOV since the only POV shown is the Ahmadi one and not the objective POV. The source I cited was an official government document, and you claim I'm being disingenuous? Sakimonk ^talk 01:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

All your claims have already been addressed at Talk:Qadiani which is the page where it should be discussed. Human Rights Watch describe the term as derogatory.[143]--Anders Feder (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@DMacks and Drmies he has started disruptive editing once again inserting POV material into the Mujaddid article. TP consensus clearly shows that EVERYONE is against insertion of such POV. Can we at least give him a warning? Pretty frustrating to revert him every time and then try to explain things to him on the TP when he is not even going to listen. I have requested gold lock on the page for a couple of months so that this can be settled on TP but until then can anyone just warn User:Sakimonk. Regards A tiredFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I can't do much with the information here. Sakimonk's POV is not clear to me "by just clicking contributions". That POV needs to be much more clear to an outsider like me, and that their edits are disruptive, I can only establish if they go against, for instance, clear consensus on a talk page. That was clearly the case in the major/minor thing on Template:Islam, where they were edit warring, but they haven't done that since I warned them. Sakimonk's comments certainly seem a bit tendentious, but that's not much to go on, not for an administrator. I would need to hear more informed opinions by more editors. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. My experience of dealing with Sakimonk has only been good; his/her edits have not been disruptive.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support This user pushes POV across a range of articles and some users are encouraging his behavior it seems. For example he labelled the Barelvi movement a sect because he doesnt believe that they are a valid sunni movement [144]. Another editor pointed out that the edit was not NPOV [145]. He regards Barelvis as uneducated and innovators (bidah) [146]. Its clear that his POV is not restricted to "just" tp as he claims. Misdemenor (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite appalled at your behaviour freeatlast, you've reverted three of my edits across the pages and you're quite clearly harassing me. My edit on Mujaddid which you've claimed I pushed POV is clear indisputable evidence against you. I welcome everyone to go and see exactly what my edit was - I did exactly as requested on the talk page by the administrator who was resolving the conflict. I listed every POV and created subheadings for each. You've also removed my edit on Bin baz because you have immense hatred for 'wahhabis' you don't like that I added sourced content explaining he's a Hanbali. You simply are a very disruptive angry editor pushing your POV and you've hurled all of these accusations to throw off attention to yourself. I've been editing Islam for 6 years on Wikipedia and I've never once had any accusations of pushing a POV which was taken seriously. Also Misdemenor, you've literally hurled extremely vulgar insults at me on several talk pages, if you want to go there you've got some nerve. Why is calling brevlis a sect insulting? Sakimonk ^talk 21:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And the POV, hate speech insertions just continue from Sakimonk. In his latest edit on the Mujaddid article has has again added his own version of Islam which is classic IDLI , OWN and STICK. DeCausa then had to tell him that his edit was, once again, POV. Sakimonk has now started to feel like a time sink to be frank because he cannot even understand what the consensus is. This comment by DeCausa, regarding Sakimonks latest POV edit, is ample proof that Sakimonk has serious competence issues.

As for his Highly Rude language, here is one nugget from that gold mine. The two "mujaddids" of the fourteenth century are both extremist and heretical sectarianists who are rejected by the majority of sunni muslims. The rest of the actual mujaddids are all removed from the list because for some reason my edits are censored. Why is this? My version lists every single school of thought and is fully sourced and it is the most accurate. The current one is a POV car crash and embarrassing to even look at. Shame on you admin User:MelanieN for enabling such an abuse of the WP:BRD and violating WP:NPOV guidelines.

So any admin who goes against him be ready for backlash like this. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Your objection to Sakimonk is that he/she wrote a message on admin's talk page in the same style as the Dorothy Michaels character in the film Tootsie! That does not seem like reasonable grounds for a topic ban.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Toddy1 umm no, that is not the reason. Although the naevity shown in your comment is quite awesome. I want him t-banned due to him being a time sink who does not understand what consensus is and then multiple editors have to talk to him for immense amounts of time on Talk pages. I added his incivility and POV editing to show that on top of being a time sink he is a POV pushing uncivil editor. I hope I cleared that up for you now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The edits of both FreeatLastchitchat and Misdemeanor have been far, far more problematic than Sakimonk' in terms of open POV pushing and combative editing, and both have established histories of edit warring despite being relatively new editors. I'd reckon it would be more appropriate to throw this out and look at why exactly they both seem to have a problem with him, along with another suspicious but relatively new account that battled both Sakimonk and various other editors on similar topics recently. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Reaganomics88

Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh&diff=prev&oldid=678037900, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh&diff=prev&oldid=678099119, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/677766229, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/677760025

This user adds warnings to users' talk pages when they have already been warned and usually ages after the incident in question. I don't know if anything can be done, as I'm not sure it's against the rules, but it is greatly irritating me and, judging by the great argument about it between the reported user and user:Againstdisinformation, it is causing the latter a great deal of upset.

If possible, could something be done to stop user:Reaganomics88, what they're doing is ridiculous and hurtful. The incidents are in the past and have been dealt with already, they need not be unnecessarily dredged up. Indeed, I find it vile and antagonistic to sift through past edits to find stagnating and hitherto forgotten misdeeds and then animadverting to their, already cautioned, authors.

I have attempted to resolve the matter with them on my talk page, on which they had written, but they show no signs of stopping their absurd crusade.

Gotha^☭  _Talk 11:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As for diffs 1 and 2, I apologise, I viewed and still view adding 'Tory Scum' as a name the Conservative Party is referred by constitutes as vandalism rather than POV related offence. However in hindsight maybe one kind of warning was enough.

As for diff 3, that's already being discussed.

As for diff 4, I'm disappointed that you included this because if you actually look at the situation you will see that Mateka9911 was a prolific vandal who (as admin TigerShark (talk) who blocked him after I reported him for vandalism) put it has "a long history of gaming the system by vandalising until you get a final warning and then stopping for a few days, before resuming." To say this is unfair when it is in fact as successful anti-vandal operation is misleading. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Reaganomics88:Thank you, very gracious of you and I am very grateful, perhaps I was quick to report you. I do understand your point and, while I maintain that it is a common name for them, I'll happily concede that I was incentivised to the addition of the epithet to the page by malice. However, I am not the first and I would appreciate it if you would apologise to the other users to whom you have given these supplementary warnings, such as user:Againstdisinformation, and cease giving them, as the offences occurred a great deal of time ago, had been dealt with prior to your intervention and you have caused a great deal of upset in your brash actions. Apologies for any offence, diff four was ill-researched. Thanks again,

Gotha^☭  _Talk 12:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Tory scum" is not a "common name", it is a nasty POV push against a political party. A warning for that is deserved. The terrifying Scourge of Trumpton 12:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Scourge of Trumpton: A warning may well have been deserved. But, the user in question gave me a second warning half a month after the offence and without my repeat offending, indeed I did not so much as restore the edit and I admitted above it was motivated by malice towards the Tories (whom, as you can probably tell, I loath unremittingly). Secondly, Mr(s) Trumpton, you seem to ignore the fact that I am not the only victim, in fact, had I been, I would not have reported the incident.

Gotha^☭  _Talk 12:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be a disturbing pattern. There is another section here where Reaganomics88 has engaged in the same WP:POINTy behaviour. Somehow he has appointed himself an investigator. AlbinoFerret 21:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, this type of disturbing behavior seems to be on the increse on WP. I've run across several new registered accounts this month whose first or recent edits are to begin warning users, oftentimes incorrectly. These include User:Nrwairport. Whether these are sock- or meatpuppets of each other, or of other blocked users, or some new fad that new editors have picked up, I don't know. Gven the fact that, in this case,a newly registered user has immediately begun warning users upon creation of the account, and has done so distinctively, a check user may well be warranted. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh, would you please close this thread. There's already a section discussing user Reaganomics88 open above. This is an unnecessary double-up. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see why an ANI opened by one editor about a second one should be closed because this second editor has himself opened an ANI about a third editor. Why not the reverse then? Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It may be better to combine them as subsections of a larger one so that a fuller picture of the activities is presented. AlbinoFerret 23:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion, AlbinoFerret. This would provide an opportunity for both editor's activities to be scrutinised by sysops (and the community) as Againstdisinformation's contributions to a number of articles that fall under ARB sanctions have been extremely problematic. Under such circumstances, I'd be prepared to check into Reaganomics88's behaviour on the understanding that Againstdisinformation's editing history and behavioural problems also be investigated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, of course I have nothing against my activities being scrutinised. However, when speaking about my "extremely problematic actions" and my behavioural problem I wish you would be a little more specific. Your first interaction with me was what I felt was a frontal attack against me on user Santilak's talk page. I disagreed with his claim that the phrase "invading Russian Forces" (relating to the Donbass) needed no citation. A whole heated discussion ensued, which I proposed to end since it was clearly leading nowhere. You told me that it was not up to me to close a thread, which I never did. All this to say that you should perhaps refrain from intervening too much on this ANI since you are clearly WP:INVOLVED. I hope that, at any rate, you will agree that I have always been polite with you, even though I sometimes felt that you did not always respect WP:BITE in your dealings with a new user like me. I hope you won't mind my asking the series of discussions we had to be scrutinised too. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me add this too. I would hate to give the impression that I want to be pitied, but I have a very poor sight (an understatement) and I have to battle not to make typos, like the one Reaganomics blames me for. Perhaps this also makes me too sensitive to what I perceive as hostility. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh, you should remove the hammer and sickle from your signature. Wikipedia's user name policy prohibits names that are likely to offend other users, make harmonous editing impossible or reference controversies. The symbol is banned in several European countries because of the totalitarian legacy. Thank you. --Pudeo' 02:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• . Chillum 02:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No censorship, granting Pudeo's suggestion would make Wikipedia worse than the Soviet Union. Againstdisinformation (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The Hammer_and_sickle#Legal_status references the legal status. It's pretty clear why it would be offensive or controversial to many especially in Eastern Europe considering their history. Remember that the editing area is already considered contentious and is under WP:ARBEE sanctions. There is also an unicode character for a swastika which would be inappropriate despite that the swastika has had a long history of non-political use unlike the hammer and sickle. --Pudeo' 12:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Comparing the sickle and hammer with the swastika is inappropriate. Of course the swastika predates the Nazis and it would be pure ignorance and stupidity to try to erase it on Hindu temples. On the other hand, it has acquired a quite different meaning in Europe where it is associated with the worst atrocities ever witnessed by mankind. However, the sickle and hammer still represent a revolutionary symbol of liberation of the workers and peasants which has an appeal to some well-meaning persons. Even granted that communism under Stalin led to one of the worst forms of totalitarianism, it still cannot be compared with the Swastika. It would be an insult to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. As far as I am concerned, I am in favour of total freedom of expression. A principle that is not yet universally understood in Eastern Europe. Againstdisinformation (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

We've now gone completely WP:OFFTOPIC for this section. Any WP:SIGPROB issues should be addressed separately. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hounding by Hijiri 88

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, I there I was unsure to yet again bring up the issue but recent events do not leave me with no any other choice – that’s if I still want to be able to edit Nichiren Buddhist related matters. Recently I filed a question at ANI if edits by Hijiri 88 on Kokuchūkai [147] might violate the current IBAN. In the course of events they were blocked form editing Wikipedia for 72h [148]. Much to my surprise they became active on the talk page on Soka Gakkai. Prior to the 72 block they were all of a sudden active on [149] and [150]. Since Nichiren related matters are the most prominent on my watch list of about 200 articles these edits did not slip my attention: [151], [152], [153], [154], [155]. Ever since the events that led up to the IBAN I reduced my activity within articles considerably (except the odd talk page). My prime activity within Wikipedia is on Nichiren Buddhist related matters, therefore I want to file this complaint on the basis of WP:HOUND and ask for a TBAN against Hijiri 88 on articles that fall within the category of Nichiren Buddhism. The field of my activity is fairly limited but the latest activities by Hijiri 88 do seem to be aimed against me as an editor. I would also like to extend the TBAN on the article on Nippon Kaigi as this is an article that I created and do want them to give editors grief who extended the article considerably. I would also like admins to have a look at the somewhat foul language used within notes accompanying some of the edits by the editor in question. I was warned by admins and editors that an IBAN might not bring about the desired effect, but I was not prepared to what lengths some editors might go. I await admins response as I find the latest incidents to be irritating to say the least.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for purposes of clarification, this seems to be a request for a topic-ban from Nichiren Buddhism related content and pages with an additional extension of the ban to the Nippon Kaigi page? John Carter (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@ John Carter Yes! I do not think that anybody owns an article and since I initiated the one on Nippon Kaigi and since I believe the editor in question actions are aimed against me I’d hate to see the work and effort by editors on Nippon Kaigi to be affected just because an editor holds grudges against me. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 You both edit the same pages and the same topics, as we all know. How is it WP:HOUND exactly? It seems Hijiri88 is just editing those pages still. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: I think the above statement might be a bit perhaps oversimplified and not necessarily supported by the evidence. From my own, admittedly weak, memory, given the time elapsed, I don't remember having ever seen Hijiri particularly editing content related to Nichiren Buddhism until the argument at Kenji Miyazawa between Catflap and Hijiri. While I myself have not been the most active in those pages myself, I only remember seeing Hijiri showning up since then. Certainly, I think a review of the statistics indicate that Hijiri did not edit the Soka Gakkai talkpage until August 16 as seen here and he has yet to edit the article itself at all, at least under the name Hijiri88. That being the case, I think there reason to believe that, in terms of at least this article, there is some reason to think that Hijiri88 may be stalking/hounding Catflap, who has been involved in discussion and editing of that particular article for some years now. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oversimplified like, say, slyly leaving out a huge chunk of timeline in order to imply that I was blocked for 72 hours for my edits to the Kokuchukai article, when in fact what happened was an extremely dubious string of events that saw an ANI proposal to dissolve the IBAN slipping onto a user talk page and me inadvertently typing the name "Catflap08" on said user talk page, when Catflap08 had previously gotten away with writing extensive criticism of me ("the other user") on his own talk page? Please could someone other than me and Wikimandia notice that Catflap08 has been lying through his teeth about the nature of this dispute for months on end, now, which is probably what led to the confusion that our "common ground" from which we should probably both, at this point, be TBANned is "Japanese culture"? This is getting utterly ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting you have broken the IBAN. AlbinoFerret 06:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh is that what I did? AlbinoFerret, if that's what you genuinely think my above comment then you need to read WP:LAWYER and seriously consider your place in this community. My using Catflap08's name on a user talk page discussion of the IBAN was a dubious violation at worst because (a) Catflap08 had done the same thing previously, (b) where I said "Catflap08" in an otherwise reserved and inoffensive comments, Catflap's included extensive commentary on the literary tastes and religious affiliations of "the other user", and (c) the blocking admin later (after the block had expired) outright encouraged me to discuss the IBAN and Catflap's edits on my talkpage, assuring me that as long as I didn't use Catflap's name he wouldn't block me again.

But all of this is irrelevant. Even if what I did was a violation, I have already done my time. What my above comment was trying to point out was that Catflap's above claim that I was blocked because my edits to the Kokuchukai article constituted an IBAN was a lie. I was blocked because I used Catflap's name on a talk page; Catflap's AN report on my Kokuchukai edits resulted not in me getting blocked but in several users calling for a boomerang against him.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The terms of the IBAN were well known to you. Excuses for breaking it matter little. With each comment here the hole deepens. AlbinoFerret 13:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The terms of the IBAN were either ill defined or not previously enforced; Catflap breeched the IBAN numerous times but with zero repercussions. Hijiri copied Catflap's breeches with no repercussions. Hijiri simply typed Catflap's username (which Catflap hadn't done) and was blocked for it. I don't see at all how Hijiri is "deepening the hole" with the above comment. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The IBan was a standard one, nothing special, but clearly both editors have shown themselves of being incapable of reigning themselves in to conform to it, hence my proposal below. BMK (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It has been quite a few days since I was active here on Wikipedia. As I said once before my field of activity was quite limited – Nichiren Buddhism – hopefully non-sectarian non-partisan. The only place editors can turn to, in the cases of a dispute of this kind, is this very spot whether you like it or not – this is towards admins. I would like to underline though that there is quite a severe difference between conflicts on content and conflicts which are non-content based. As soon as (and just before) the 72h based ban on H88 was over they popped out of nowhere on Nichiren Buddhist related articles – effectively making it impossible for me to edit the area I have been most active on. Since sectarian views have taken over articles such as the one on Soka Gakkai I hardly even edit this article as it to my mind it is just no use anymore. So to bring the issue back to what I initially requested is me requesting to decide whether H88’s actions can be regarded as being hounded or followed or not. If the answer would have been a ‘No’ that would have been me being taken out the picture (effectively) anyways. If the answer would have been a ‘Yes’ then a TBAN against H88 would have silenced matters, as H88’s activities in other areas is nothing I am neither willing nor interested to comment on. All I can see so far reading this thread is that neither H88’s foul language nor insulting comments will stop. My only intent is to keep articles related to Nichiren Buddhism (except on Soka Gakkai – which I refrain to edit in major ways) as neutral as possible. If you TBAN me that will be out of en.wikipedia anyways. @ H88: you are unable to DISCUSS, if your views do not prevail you victimise yourself and if that fails you insult others. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Even though I have retired for the time being, except an edit on a talk page yesterday, there are a few things I would like to add before the case closes – no matter what the outcome is. Articles contents may or may not be disputed. The area I edit on is not without controversy, as dealing with beliefs which by definition are only rarely based on facts. For this very reason I distanced myself form the article on Soka Gakkai as it’s like fighting windmills. What bugs me most however is if references and further reading notes are deleted, this to my mind is just not on. We all might quarrel about an article’s content but any actions that are geared at disabling the reader to form their own opinion are to my mind not beneficial to the project. There are many references and notes that I do not agree with but I’d hate to see them go as I still believe the readers have enough brains to form their own opinion. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08: Since you are a recipient of the Editor of the Week Award, you know full well that you are the sort of editor Wikipedia can ill afford to lose. We would be sorry to lose you.TH1980 (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the best, if still flawed, ways I can think of to address that point is to find out which extent reference sources deal with the topic in question, like SG, and what sources they use to support their own content. I am the first to admit that this method doesn't work anywhere near as well in current events type topics, which is also unfortunately the area in which the problem most often arises, but it is at least one generally broadly supported way to deal with the problem when such sources are available. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal (Hijiri88 and Catflap08)

The last run-in between Catflap and Hijiri was closed by Drmies as follows

The result is the ongoing and ever-increasing exasperation of the rest of the editors. Let's see. Sure, the edit Catflap complained about last week as a possible IBAN violation was possibly an IBAN violation--about as much as their edit from 4 May 2015 in the same article was probably also an IBAN violation. So I suppose a block for Hijiri could have been warranted. And a BOOMERANG block for Catflap for excessive whining could be warranted too. Hijiri perpetually tests my patience with the enormous number of words they seem to need, and the bigger the forum the more words... I'm inclined to just block both of them for three months to just be done with it, but I'm a pacifist. So I'm just going to ask both to just zip it. Just f***ing zip it. It's a pity there is no broad agreement on any solution, cause boy would I like to put a stop to this. Grow up, both of you.

As it is quite apparent that neither is able to control themselves, per Drmies' sage suggestion, I renew the earlier suggestion that both be indefinitely topic banned from their common ground which I believe is Japanese culture. The only other alternative I can see is to start a new noticeboard just for the two of them and ban them from AN and AN/I, so at least their ongoing battle will be out of sight. BMK (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. BMK (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Please, could any closing admin note that BMK has been corrected on this point numerous times and has not amended his proposal: "their common ground" properly refers to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, an area that comprises probably 80% of Catflap08's edits and 5% of mine. "Japanese culture" is an area that comprises probably 80% of Catflap08's edits and probably 95% of mine. Japanese culture minus Nichiren Buddhist NRMs is an area that comprises 0% of Catflap08's edits, and 90% of mine. The unaccounted 20% of Catflap08's edits appear to mostly relate to German geography and religion in Germany; the unaccounted 5% of my edits are random articles I happen to be reading and decide to touch up a bit. Do the math and you'll see that the proposed topic-ban is both (a) ridiculously broad compared to the super-narrow "common ground" Catflap08 and I share, and (b) appears to have been chosen to disproportionately affect me, despite the unanimous agreement among impartial observers that there is plenty of blame to go around. I have no interest in limiting my Wikipedia activity to "random articles I happen to be reading and decide to touch up a bit", so the TBAN as proposed would amount to a de facto site-ban for me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: It might, maybe, be worth reviewing the history of the editors in question relating to their interactions with other editors. If one (or both) of them act similarly in terms of their interactions with other editors, that might be potentially grounds for thinking that the problems might be more due to one than to the other. Also, I think it might be worth noting that Catflap above has more or less indicated that he is limiting his input to Japanese culture, or at least Nichiren Buddhism, which probably falls within the broad scope of Japanese culture, and that, I think, Hijiri may also be if not an SPA particularly focused on Japanese culture. If true, then the proposal might, in a sense, be considered tantamount to a site ban for one or both, if the defined field is, effectively, their primary or sole area of interest. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

John Carter, if you mean what you earlier implied (that we should unblock Juzumaru, JoshuSasori and so on, and unban Tristan noir) you are clearly insane, and are not here to help build an encyclopedia. Please drop the stick and grow the hell up already. Stop following me, and stop trying to go back through the archives and bring back every user who has ever harassed me. You hounded me in this way from March to May, then disappeared for three months and then immediately come straight back after me -- what gives? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose @ BMK: I have been active here for a quite number of years my area of activity is limited and I do admit the issues are sometimes controversial. I neither support a complete ban on issues regarding Japanese culture against Hijiri 88 nor against me (that would be stupid) as my activities are limited. I do believe that I am fairly neutral on Nichiren related matters, but if you ban us both this will not resolve matters, but just make your job easier and therefore negate current guidelines. Please do keep in mind that all what led here was mentioning a so called poet’s religious affiliation. Banning us, effectively, wont’t help the project and its content. All I am asking is to decide if current guidelines are affected or not. If current guidelines are found not be affected I will piss off anyway (please do note I do not usually use this language usually).--Catflap08 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I will refrain from !voting in this matter given my own history with both editors. Having said that, I have to agree with Catflap above that, in the time I have been to varying degrees involved in Soka Gakkai and NB related content, he has impressed me as being primarily interested in keeping the material from resembling advertorials, which is generally a good thing. I also note that the specific nature of the dubious interaction does seem, as per the initial statement, to be related to Nichiren related content. While Nichiren related content is very significant in the history of Japanese culture, I think limiting the scope of potential sanctions to NB rather than Japanese culture would probably be called for, given the history of this interaction, and I at least would very strongly hope that Catflap not be sanctioned to basically remove himself from his primary field of editing, in which he has been successful and productive in preventing POV pushing by supporters of groups, who often outnumber the less biased editors in those areas by a great number. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I've read a lot recently from a wide variety of editors about how relentless POV warriors create toxic editing environments which drive quality editors away from the site, and just a couple of days ago we lost one of our best admins to a sockpuppeting troll with a throwaway account. Above, Drmies has asked you both to lay off, and you obviously haven't. Listen to Drmies!! If they were to come by here and block both of you right now, I don't think there's anyone here who would object, saving maybe John Carter who makes a compelling argument about Catflap's persistent NPOV in this topic area. WP:CIR applies: if the contributions you make aren't worth the "ever-increasing exasperation of the rest of the editors", you shouldn't be here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Who's a relentless POV warrior? I think you would be hard-pressed to identify any kind of "POV" on my part in any aspect of my interactions with Catflap08 -- I am not a Soka Gakkai member (I don't even much like the group), nor a member of the Kokuchukai, and it wouldn't change my life even a bit if it turned out that Miyazawa Kenji was in fact a "nationalist". I just want Wikipedia to accurately reflect what the best scholarly sources say. The only relentless POV-pusher here is Catflap08, who has been spending years distorting sources and jumping through hoops to make Wikipedia say what he wants it to about various neo-Nichiren groups, both ones he likes (Nichiren-shoushuu) and doesn't (SG, etc.). If your argument is that we should both be TBANned because we are relentless POV warriors, I would ask for evidence of this. Additionally, which "topic" should we/just Catflap08/just me be banned from? "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad, as it bears no relation whatsoever to Catflap08's disputes with me -- "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism" would be a much better proposal, and if the TBAN were mutual I would actually support it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: No, let me be clear about this: I don't care about your or Catflap's POV, or what topics you both edit or don't edit. My only interest in this is not seeing your two names plastered all over this noticeboard any more. My opinion is that you should both be banned outright, since you've both been happy to game the IBAN and it seems likely you'll both be intent on gaming whatever TBAN we're likely to impose. It's ridiculously broad because your ongoing conflict is ridiculous and will require ridiculous measures to stop, apparently. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence that I have gamed the IBAN? I reported Catflap08 for violating it. I only accepted the IBAN (as proposed initially by Catflap08) because I was under the impression that it meant no more interaction between us. I didn't know that it meant that he could revert my edits with impunity and then when I reported him on ANI I would be the one treated to repercussions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This thread is utter nonsense. I have been editing the area of Japanese Buddhism since before Catflap08 even registered an account, and have indisputably contributed more to the area in recent months than he has -- simply editing in the area is not an IBAN-violation, as was decided by AN-consensus when Catflap08 wasn't blocked for doing the same thing (as well as directly reverting my edits). BMK's assertion that our common ground is "Japanese culture" is equally ridiculous. I have only ever been interested in editing articles on "Japanese culture", and 99% of users who share this area with me would vehemently oppose the idea that I be TBANned from this area: just ask @Nishidani: @Shii: @Sturmgewehr88: ... (almost none of whom agree with me 100%, but all of whom legitimately understand this area as well as my contributions to it). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your post is an example of WP:CANVASS. Any comment these editors make should be taken with a grain of salt. AlbinoFerret 14:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support (non admin observation) Enough is enough. This continued disruption is never ending and ongoing where one or the other is on one of the boards giving enough evidence for either of them needing a ban. It doesnt matter what good they have done or how nice the things they have added. This is a behaviour issue. One my new essay WP:NOTABOVE covers nicely without a lot of words. AlbinoFerret 22:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC) I would also support separate or single bans. AlbinoFerret 15:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Albinoferret: Please explain how arbitrarily banning me from every article I have ever edited will help end disruption and improve the project? You are the one who needs to drop the stick in this situation, as you have had it in for me for months, every time this or another issue in which I have been involved comes up on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I watch and contribute on AN/I in discussions, I think more community members should do this. This isnt hounding you, its the community saying enough is enough. If more people frequented this board regularly they would be saying the same thing. The topic ban will just remove an area of WP. You will still be able to edit and show that you are a constructive member of the community, or use it as rope. AlbinoFerret 23:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that you should be indefinitely banned from every article you show an interest in editing because you post on ANI regularly? Your argument makes no sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I am saying both editors consistent gaming and breaking of the IBAN that was the result of constant behaviour problems leading up to said IBAN is a good reason to topci ban them both so there is no winner in a content dispute. That the topic ban needs to have sufficient border so that it doesnt spill into other areas that both editors want to edit and if not able to edit their favourite articles will still stay in the general topic area. This needed to end months ago, its an ongoing behaviour problem. AlbinoFerret 15:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support I have ANI on my watch list and 2/3 of the time it has something to do with Hijiri. Frankly, I am annoyed and I had to peek into it all. It's nothing but disruption and lack of dropping the stick by the file reporter and possibly hounding them as well but that's another matter. It's best that these two editors get topic-banned to end this drama-filled editing between them. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirelal: Excuse me? You claim it's always me, but in reality all the times you are referring to it is me and Catflap08, and you above refer to me as the "file reporter" -- you very clearly have not read this thread very closely. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Uhmmm... Way to give it a go. Please search up who filed this report, hence "file reporter". I have never claimed it was always you. I said what I saw as new sections had something to do with you. Never have I ever claimed it was always you at fault. Please reread my post. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: (sorry for the bad ping previously -- this whole thing has me super stressed out, as what is essentially being discussed here is a one-way de facto SBAN for me) If you do not think that I am always the one at fault, then why are you supporting a TBAN that is tailor-made to force me, not Catflap08, off Wikipedia? Catflap08's main area of interest (Soka Gakkai International) arguably does not fit into "Japanese culture", but is a part of this dispute; my main area of interest (classical Japanese poetry) most certainly fits into "Japanese culture" and has nothing whatsoever to do with this dispute. The proposed TBAN would block both Catflap08 and myself from every article I have ever shown any interest in editing, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my long-running dispute with Catflap08 regarding Nichiren Buddhist NRMs. If the TBAN for which you above expressed "Strong support" were to pass, I would be forced to retire from Wikipedia, since I would be TBANned from the only (very broad) topic area I am interested in. The TBAN would also negatively affect Catflap08, but so would a TBAN on Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, which is the area actually under dispute. If the TBAN was worded properly, it would effectively solve the dispute between me and Catflap08, and allow other users to eventually work out all the kinks in the very narrow group of articles in question; as worded now, it disproportionately affects me by randomly banning me from the thousands upon thousands of articles that are in my area of interest/expertise but have nothing whatsoever to do with my dispute with Catflap08. If you sincerely meant that you support "some kind of two-way topic-ban" for myself and Catflap08, then you and I are actually in agreement, but I would ask that you clarify this position in light of the actual (very narrow) area covered by this dispute (see full list of article Catflap08 and I have disputed on below). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral. Why? Well, it's like this...although I also have pretty much had my fill of these two editors' antics, the conflict between them seems to go far beyond the subject of Japanese culture (or any other topic). I mean, there's an IBAN in place and they still won't cut it out? Maybe general blocks for both of them (length to be determined by closing admin) is in order instead. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support topic ban for Hijiri88 on Japanese culture and history-related topics - I said what needed to be said the last time a topic ban was proposed on Hijiri88. I noted Hijiri88's disruptive and uncooperative pattern of editing in this field and all Hijiri could do in response was openly threaten me with "harsh repercussions". This is Hijiri88's typical reaction to anyone he disagrees with. Catflap and I are just the latest to take this sort of abuse. I'm sorry Catflap has gotten tied up in yet another one of Hijiri's never-ending crusades. This is now the FOURTH time this year (at least) that this kind of sanction has been proposed against Hijiri88. When is the Wikipedia community or an admin finally going to say, "enough is enough"?TH1980 (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• In light of the above, it might not be unreasonable to perhaps break the proposed sanction down into separate proposed sanctions for the two as individuals, and, perhaps, if others see fit, to specify the exact nature of the scope of the proposed sanctions. It seems to me that the scope of the disagreement is Japanese Buddhism, not Japanese culture (but, like with most historical religions, the distinction between the religion and the culture gets blurry), and it might make sense, maybe, to consider limiting the scope to Japanese Buddhism or Nichiren Buddhism. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would strongly object to any alteration of this proposal. If you want to make two additional separate proposals, one for each editor, go ahead and do so in separate sections, not this one, but I guarantee you'll only muddy up the waters, which will end up once again with a continuation of the status quo. In any case my proposal stands as is, clear, equal treatment for both editors, who are equally responsible for the IBan between them not working. BMK (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken:: The proposed variation was only made in light of the !vote above supporting sanctions against one editor only. I have a feeling that such variant !votes might lead to the result Blackmane mentions below, no consensus and ArbCom. Not that ArbCom would, necessarily, necessarily be a bad place to thrash out the whole histories of all involved here, to see if there are any differential levels of guilt as some indicate they see above. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, closers are intelligent enough to figure these things out without having to slice up the conversation for them. Probably best to leave it alone. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Supported it last time, but it was closed without consensus. This is ridiculous, at this rate, ArbCom is the only remaining option. Blackmane (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

After a moment's thought, I'll expand on this. Both are substantial contributors in the content but seem to be unable to restrain themselves when they get together, much like 2 like magnetic poles constantly repelling each other. To remove one without the other could be seen as a validation of either one. I believe BMK's proposal is less about their content contributions than it is their collective behaviour towards each other on articles they have in common. Given they have little in common outside of this single field, it is at least my hope that this will stop. Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane is correct. The ideal here would have been for the IBan to have worked. We'd get the advantage of both editor's contributions, and there would peace across the land. But, unfortunately, for whatever reason (I won't hazard guesses as to why), these two people just cannot get along without bringing their conflicts to the community again and again. My feeling is that the only way to get through to them is with a topic ban. "Indefinite" does not mean permanent. My hope would be that when the two combatants start to tire of not being able to edit in an area they both really enjoy working in, they may begin to see the value of cooperating with the terms of the IBan. Obviouslyt, right now, it means more to the both of them to keep fighting then it does to keep editing. This would change that, and provoke (I hope) a change of heart for both of them. I don't expect them to ever be bosom buddies, but the community does expect them to follow the rules of the IBan. They clearly can't do that, so this is the next available option. BMK (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were proposing to block them both outright, and my earlier comment reflects that. I'll also support a double topic ban, although I expect we'll see them back here again very soon and be discussing blocks for violating the topic ban. I don't support only banning one of them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban is much easier to enforce than the IBAN. Any activity in the topic would be a violation of the ban. But in the IBAN there is the ability to game the system. Making it more difficult to enforce as evident by the sections that have happened in the recent past. But I plan to collect the names of oppose votes and ping them every time this pops up again if the topic ban doesnt pass. The way I see it is they only see part of the problem, whereas most of the supporters recognise this isnt an isolated incident and that its an ongoing problem that never seems to be taken care of. My support of the topic ban isnt tied to this one section, but many going back months.AlbinoFerret 19:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As a stray thought we could use an edit filter to enforce an IBAN, up to a point. I have created an example filter in 1 (logging only). It could be refined to ignore specific name-spaces, or noticeboards. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

• Oppose (for now) What did Hijiri 88 do? I don't see how he is hounding Catflap08 or why this ANI has any merit. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'm sorry Beyond My Ken, but I do not support a topic ban for Catflap. A narrow topic ban for Hijiri, who has broad interests, would not take Catflap out of the Wikipedia picture, and while the case for hounding isn't airtight, I do think that Hijiri is following Catflap--Wikimandia, in the two or three of the articles that I looked, Catflap has edited for a long time and Hijiri is a recent visitor, as on Talk:Soka Gakkai. In other words, I support John Carter's clarification, in the section above. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the edits and it seems they all pertain (mostly) to the Japanese language, etc, which is I think is one of H88's interests. The edits H88 made appear to my eyes to be helpful. I fail to see a solid case for hounding. It seems IMHO that this is more of a "stay out of my area" type of thing ie "I edited here first so it's mine." —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 is being paranoid, and Drmies (despite my history with him) has not looked closely enough at my edit history. I am interested in Japanese religion, and probably know more about Japanese Buddhism than Catflap08 does; my very first edit to Wikipedia back in 2005 was about Shinto. In fact, I think if you went through all of Catflap08's edits and checked his sources, you would find that I have actually contributed more over the years to this particular topic area than he has. TBAN me from NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism except for the Kokuchukai and Miyazawa Kenji (which I would guess accounts for roughly 80% of Catflap08's edits but a relatively small proportion of mine; the two exceptions are to allow me to contrinue to work on two articles to which I am essentially the sole contributor) if need be. Catflap08 hardly ever edits articles related to Nichiren Buddhism before 1900, and almost never edits any articles related to Japanese Buddhism other than Nichiren Buddhism. The "disruption" between the two of us was exclusively in the area of "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism"; the TBAN proposal of "Japanese culture" seems to be a slight against me specifically, since TBANning both of us from "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism" would likely force Catflap08 off Wikipedia, but not me; "Japanese culture" seems to be specifically designed to spite/SBAN me, since the present "disruption" has hardly anything to with "Japanese culture". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Topic ban everyone - God knows his own. Although I see the threat of topic banning them both has actually got them to agree. From past experience of their work - Hijari's would actually be a loss to the encyclopedia, however if they cannot learn to work together, at this point its a hit WP might have to take. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Only in death: Your comment clearly shows you haven't read the thread. Why did you misspell my user name? Why do you think Catflap08 and I need to learn to "work together"? We are already IBANned! What topic do you propose? "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad, and seems to be tailor-made to drive me off Wikipedia; the actual topic area under discussion is "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism". If you had actually been following this dispute long enough to be as frustrated with it as you claim to be, you would not be making these mistakes. Sorry to pick on you, but it's difficult to follow all of this. It seems that a whole bunch of people (friends of BMK?) are ust showing up to support a ridiculous proposal, when virtually everyone who actually understands the dispute in question oppose it. Please read through the past thread if you are taking the "this is incredibly draining on the community" argument to heart, and please consider what topic area you are talking about when you say "topic ban everyone". If it is mutual, I would actually support a topic ban on both of us from the area of "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism"; but the proposed "Japanese culture" has absolutely no logical basis, and no support whatsoever from the community of editors who actually contribute to the area of "Japanese culture". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Whatever past irritants, I do not see what the latest matter is about. What is the evidence of hounding on which Hijiri is supposed to be banned? I do not see any evidence of breach of IBAN either, or at least none has been provided. This kind of reminds me of Alice in Wonderland: "Sentence first, verdict later" (or perhaps not at all?) Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As far as I can see it the mood is towards topic banning us both. Fine go ahead that will leave me out of the game, an outcome H88 has previously hoped for as I “dared” to highlight Kenji-man’s religious affiliation and nationalist tendencies. I wonder these days what ever happened to good faith vs bad faith edits. The diffs I showed in the beginning of this thread had no other purpose than to piss me off – and they did. I can well understand that admins are annoyed about this carry-on but I tried to adhere as much as possible to current guidelines … call it hounding or Wikimandia, but please do be so kind and ditch all current guidelines and means (such as ANI) to highlight a problem and turn to a thumbs up or thumbs down policy only. If the latest edits by H88, keeping in mind the IBAN, are found to be okay and thereby effectively disabling me to edit articles on Nichiren Buddhism – as I would then myself violate the IBAN – fine, so be it. Please do have the guts to admit that the strategy used by H88 then does seem to work, congrats to you H88 btw. Due to the articles I edit I am used to conflict and disagreement but this is an issue I am sure not willing to use my spare time on any longer. In the guideline on hounding it says: “The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. …” Ever since this conflict started I was insulted, followed around even some smearing remark left while H88 edited the article on my hometown (Oh yes SURE he did not know it was my hometown … yea right). I created a few articles, in my books had a more or less neutral input on Nichiren Buddhist related articles, but there is no enjoyment being part of this project anymore. Conflicts can be productive or unproductive - this one is unproductive. I am no longer willing to participate and the “enjoyment” of dealing with H88 is here to stay, bad faith edits, insults and foul language do seem to work then. I guess they will continue to be an issue here in days to come. Good riddance!-- 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08, you don't know a damned thing about Kenji Miyazawa; everyone who has ever contributed anything to the new and improved version of that article has agreed with this. Your edits were highly disruptive, and did not "highlight" anything other than your own hatred of any form of Nichiren Buddhism other than Nichiren-shoushuu. Please drop the damn stick -- it's been more than a frickin' year! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, I thank you for so clearly indicating in the above comment your habit of almost instantly taking recourse to irrational, probably unsupportable, insults and obscenities directed against those with whom you are in disagreement, a habit of yours which I have noted repeatedly. One could just as easily say that, after the 9 years of being an editor that you so regularly boast of, you don't know a damn thing about the policies and guidelines of this site. The fact that you so regularly engage in purely counterproductive personal attacks, as per the above, is one reason why I think that the concept of some sort of stronger sanctions against you is getting a lot of support, whether alone or in tandem with Catflap. You are in control of your own actions and vulgarity, and cannot blame anyone for your own regular displays of obnoxious arrogance, which, as Drmies has said elsewhere in this thread, would decidedly wear on him too. John Carter (talk)

@Catflap08: - I have no idea what this means - "please do be so kind and ditch all current guidelines and means (such as ANI) to highlight a problem and turn to a thumbs up or thumbs down policy only" What are you talking about? —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: I think he means that he wishes that there wasn't all this beauracratic mess to push through just to establish that there's a problem, or to have that problem delt with? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• • I see what edit you mean. It was a while ago, when both of you were up at arbitration, and it is very, very hard to escape the impression that it was done to get a rise out of you, since I don't think Hijiri edits a lot of those articles. All the more reason for me to reiterate that a. both editors have something to contribute to Wikipedia and b. topic-banning Hijiri from some narrowly construed area, the area that Catflap is most active in (I understand it might not be easy to demarcate this, but we could try) keeps both editors on board. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Catflap08 and another user were in off-wiki communication about the edit in question. And I think consensus should be gathered on whether only myself or both of us should be TBANned from Catflap08's preferred area (NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism) -- I think the broad consensus from users involved in editing this area would be that Catflap08 has been highly disruptive over the years, while my relatively few edits have mostly been quite good. I would be happy to take a hit, though, if it meant less disruption to the project from Catflap08, who after years of lectures from me and others still doesn't know how to properly cite sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

My dear Hijiri, if I'd had to sit through years of your lectures I'd be exasperated too. Now, it looks as if BMK's proposal, for a topic ban for the both of you, is gaining plenty of traction; if "take a hit" means you'll accept a limited topic ban, then you're probably making a wise choice. Now, Catflap wasn't in email communication about that edit with me but it didn't take me long to find it. It's a while ago, and it was made at a time that was stressful for the both of you, but it just signifies that...well, what editors here have been saying, editors who want the both of you gone. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88 Do you have diffs that expressly prove that there was off wiki communication that goes against PAG? Also please tell us what PAG they violate. AlbinoFerret 00:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret

19:56, 25 March 2015: John Carter makes his first ever edit remotely related to the poet/children's author Kenji Miyazawa, making a flawed analogy that show his ignorance of (lack of interest in?) the topic.

03:50, 11 April 2015: I make an edit to an article on a German city I happen to be reading (it was over four months ago; I don't remember why).

20:27, 15 April 2015: Catflap08 claims, on-wiki, for the first time ever, almost five days after my edit, that the city in question is where he "currently resides".

21:25, 15 April 2015: John Carter refers to the city as Catflap08's "home town", despite Catflap08 never posting this information on-wiki. Note that during the intervening five days, I never touched the article, and Catflap08, John Carter and I were relatively active in editing, making 10, 217 and 33 edits respectively, and interacting with each other constantly. Catflap08's suddenly noticing my edit several days later and John Carter's immediately picking up on it (having also, apparently, failed to notice it for for five days), and the two of them making it their main talking point all of a sudden, is extremely suspicious. John Carter's knowing a piece of information about Catflap related to this dispute that Catflap never stated on-wiki means he heard it from him off-wiki. John Carter was at the time engaged in off-wiki contact about me with at least two users, and Catflap was engaged in off-wiki contact about me with at least one user, User:Sturmgewehr88, who graciously forwarded said contact to me.

05:14, 17 April 2015: IBAN between Catflap08 and myself put in place.

01:26, 19 April 2015 and 01:27, 19 April 2015: Drmies, at the request of John Carter (why does he care?), reminds both Catflap08 and myself that we are subject to an IBAN.

14:23, 22 April 2015: I make a self-revert to the Kenji Miyazawa article in line with previously-established consensus (my earlier edit of 27-28 March 2015 had been a conditional concession to a vocal minority in an RFC -- who later violated said conditions -- but was never claimed as the "consensus" until 14:14, 15 April 2015, which claim was overruled within a few days). Two hours later, my edit is reverted by John Carter, who has never edited the article before.

16:26, 22 April 2015 - 17:56, 1 May 2015: John Carter suddenly posts 52 times on the Kenji Miyazawa talk page, and reverts me five times in a 31-hour period. Why the sudden interest in Kenji Miyazawa? And why the curious knowledge of how the dispute had gone from June 2014 to March 2015 but with certain key features that didn't support Catflap08's story left out? Did he go through the talk page and read everything that had been posted previously? If so, why did he not know that a unanimous RFC had determined that Kenji should not be referred to as a "nationalist" without further evidence? Or did he receive a summary of the dispute from Catflap08 that left out those details? I of course don't have any conclusive evidence that John Carter definitely was acting as an IBAN-violation proxy for Catflap08, but his suddenly developing an enormous interest in this article that falls so far out of his normal editing area, immediately after the imposition of the IBAN, and his knowing obscure details about the dispute before he joined in but completely missing the massive, unanimous RFC seems highly suspicious, don't you agree?

21:08, 28 April 2015: Catflap08 shows up suddenly on the talk page discussion between John Carter and myself (in what by Drmies' recently-stated definition almost certainly qualifies as a borderline IBAN-violation and "hounding" of me) indicating that he was aware of it (more aware than John Carter, in fact) and following it quite closely, which supports my belief that he had been in contact with John Carter about it prior to his showing up.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You forgot the most important part, what PAG do they violate? Dont go into pages of dialogue, just present the PAG. Seconddly, all I see is circumstantial possibilities that you have jumped to ABF and are casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I want a diff where they admitted emailing each other in order to harass you, again without long explinations from you on how it couldnt be any other way. Present the evidence and let others draw the conclusions. AlbinoFerret 04:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: Surely you are not suggesting that requesting an IBAN with another user while at the same time making plans to immediately violate said IBAN via proxy is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Let alone that the specific edits Catflap08 apparently requested John Carter make in his stead were blatant NPOV and NOR violations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• • @ Drmies As much as I welcome your support for finding a solution to all this I still believe that the willingness to come to an agreement has to be present on all sides. I once hoped that the IBAN would resolve matters as the issues I am dealing with are fairly limited. But there is no winning when dealing with an editor on a complete different agenda – an agenda I am unwilling to understand. Me retiring is the only way that the editor in question will be preoccupied with other topics – and conflicts, and in future other, hopefully unbiased, editors will tend to Nichiren Buddhist related matters. I do care about the subjects I edited on and welcome input as long as it is constructive. H88 has so many conflicts going on that I can only hope that articles on Nichiren Buddhsim will continue to grow and flourish without me being part of it. In the end the reader should be informed. I am sure that admins will be kept busy dealing with H88. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support WOW! This battle has been raging for over half a year. By this point in time, a far-reaching topic ban is probably the only reasonable solution, or else this will go on forever. I see disruptive behavior on both sides. Ahiroy (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ahiroy: Who are you? You have never been involved in this dispute before, so I'm curious as to why you are using an arbitrary (and inaccurate) start-point for the dispute to justify your assertion that a two-way, super-broad topic ban is the way to solve it. So far, virtually everyone who has actually been involved in this dispute for at least several months believes (1) the proposed TBAN is far too broad (the topic-area under dispute is NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism, not "Japanese culture") and (2) the aggressor throughout 90% of the fourteen months this dispute has been running (throughout this time strictly confined to articles related to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs) has been Catflap08, and my "disruptive behavior" has been mostly reactionary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad. I would agree to a week-long block for both users, a TBAN from Nichiren Buddhism for Hijiri, and a page ban from any and all articles that Catflap has been disruptive on (Kenji Miyazawa is the only one I can think of off the top of my head) for Catflap. No more and no less is appropriate. And for those above users who !voted "support" because they got annoyed at seeing either of these editors names a few times here: go do something besides hanging out at ANI. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Japanese culture" (and I actually should have written "Japanese history and culture", but it's too late to go back now) is no broader than "U.S. Politics", which ArbCom used as a topic ban not too long ago. I don't think that anything will come of this unless the editors really start to feel that they're missing out on something they really want to be involved in, and that means that the topic ban needs to be substantial and the time period needs to be indef so they can't just wait it out and then return to the same behavior, as has happened before. If you read this thread, you'll see that some people think Catflap is at fault and some think that Hijiri is at fault -- and, of course, both of them think that the other is the bad guy. This circumstance is the very reason why it must be an equal sanction, with no determination of percentage of blame (pace Drmies). They're clearly both at fault, in one way or another, to one extent or another, and the ongoing tangoing has to stop. Blocks and IBans haven't worked, this is the next step. If this fails, it's either ArbCom or mutual indef blocks -- at some point the net value of the editor just drops below zero. We're not there yet, but that's the direction we're heading in. BMK (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@BMK: "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad. The disruption in question has taken place exclusively on articles related to NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism. To extrapolate from this that a mutual TBAN from "Japanese culture" is warranted is equivalent to proposing a TBAN on "U.S. politics" for two users who have been fighting over articles related to Hillary Clinton. Or rather, it is equivalent to proposing such for two users who have been fighting over Hillary, when one of those users is an SPA whose every edit on Wikipedia has been to insert BLP violations against the woman, and the other user has been making a large number of constructive edits to the broad topic area of "U.S. politics" for years. Such a proposal would be an obvious attempt to needlessly spite the latter user. So far as I can see, Sturmgewehr88 is the only user to so far way in here with any interest in or knowledge of "Japanese culture", and he says the proposal is too broad: ask any other user in WikiProject Japan and they will say the same. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• I hardly need to ask the editors of WikiProject Japan, since you have already WP:CANVASSed them with a non-neutral pointer to this discussion threatening to quit Wikipedia if the proposal goes through. BMK (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The part of that post , which is not neutral, But I find it interesting Hijiri 88 said Another user and I are up for a mutual topic ban from "Japanese culture" because our mutual interaction ban has been an absolute failure. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: @AlbinoFerret: How was my pointer not neutral? How could it possibly violate WP:CANVAS? The only member of WikiProject Japan to express any opinion at all so far has been User:Sturmgewehr88, who thanked me. Was our mutual interaction ban not an absolute failure? And why do I not have a right to quit Wikipedia if I am indefinitely forced out of the only topic area in which I have any interest? It's not a "threat" -- it's an observation that I frankly have no interest in contributing to areas of this project that don't interest me and in which I have very little knowledge. I don't see why I should have to explain why I would want to leave the project if I was forced out of the project, when thus far BMK has made no effort whatsoever to explain his ridiculously-broad TBAN parameters. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Its as far from neutral as can be with a threat to have to leave WP, what else do you expect people who agree with you to do other than come here and defend you? AlbinoFerret 04:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• It isnt annoyance that they have shown up a few time, its more than a few. Its that their behaviour over the span of months is bad. Constant problems with one or the other and nothing is done and I think some editors think it will all go away if we just get past the most recent blow up. Well it hasnt, and I think that the problem is that nothing has happened to them other than an IBAN that they both game. I think when nothing happens it emboldens one or both making them believe that nothing will happen this time, they got away before, and the project suffers. As for telling editors to go someplace else, we all help the project in our own way. This board is open to all members of the community to post on. AlbinoFerret 15:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am myself still undecided that this is the best way to go. It is strictly a personal opinion, of course, but I think that maybe ArbCom might be a preferable alternative. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, are you going to take it to Arbcom? If not who is? If no one is willing to step forward, Arbcom isnt realistic. AlbinoFerret 16:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I remember Catflap already sought input from ArbCom once, prior to the i-ban. That being the case, I think that if this thread closes without a clear decision to do something here, he might do so again, or, failing that, I certainly would be willing to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Such a topic ban would be too broad, and the quarrel in question doesn't concern "Japanese history and culture", it concerns a much smaller subset. If the topic ban is re-scoped towards Nichiren Buddhist topics, I wouldn't find it as concerning, however there is a net loss of benefit from a topic ban for "Japanese history and culture" to the project, especially in regards to the improvements made to articles outside of the realms of this current dispute. Don't get me wrong: I can see the wrongdoings, I'm just looking at the long term effects, and weighing out the pros and cons of such a topic ban. There is definitely a better way to handle this. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• The "quarrel in question" is simply the specific instance at this moment in time of a battle between the two editors that has been going on for over a year, and has wound up on the noticeboards at least a dozen times. Use the search box at the top of the page and put in each of their names (one at a time) and feast your eyes on the time and energy these two have sucked out of the community because they cannot get along. It is their mutual long-term behavior which sparks this proposal, not this relatively minor dispute. BMK (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Benlisquare: Please don't listen to him. The "quarrel in question" is simply the specific instance at this moment in time of a battle between the two editors that has been going on for over a year that has always been confined to a small group of articles related Nichiren Buddhist NRMs. User:Beyond My Ken and others supporting the proposal are simply showing their ignorance of "Japanese culture" (or perhaps their ignorance of my dispute with Catflap08 -- BMK has only been involved in two of the "dozen times" it has appeared on noticeboards, and most of the others even less so) by claiming otherwise. The full (not especially long considering the dispute has been going on for fourteen months) list of articles on which I have disputed with Catflap08 is as follows:

1. Kenji Miyazawa (in a very narrow capacity concerning the subject's relationship with the Kokuchūkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
2. Kokuchūkai (a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
3. Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō (I still don't know what Catflap's problems with my edits were, since all I did was RM the page per WP:COMMONNAME and cut down several very long quotations that bore no relation to the article text, but Catflap apparently thought I was editing the article to be more amenable to the POV of Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; note that I was hiding from an off-wiki stalker at the time so my edits were made under the IP "126.0.96.220")
4. Daisaku Ikeda (a figure notable as the leader of Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
5. Nichiren Buddhism (in a talk page discussion of the Nichiren Buddhist NRM Soka Gakkai's status within Nichiren Buddhism)
6. Karlsruhe (say what you want about me editing our article on a city that Catflap08 claimed was his current residence five days after my edit -- how on earth could I have known this when he never stated it on-wiki!? -- but it apparently is what Catflap08 and some others are discussing further up this thread as "evidence" that I was hounding him; additionally, the timeline of these events was highly suspicious and seems to prove pretty handilly that Catflap08 was engaged in off-wiki contact with another to violate our IBAN by proxy both before and immediately after it came into effect; given this information, I think most good-faith Wikipedians would conclude that Catflap08 was hounding me, not the other way round)
7. Korean influence on Japanese culture (Catflap08 violated the IBAN by showing up suddenly in an ANI discussion and supporting a PAGEBAN for me -- not really relevant, though)
8. Gyōson (as part of a massive drive by me to complete Wikipedia's coverage of the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu poets, I recently created an article on this prelate of Tendai Buddhism; in a manner of speaking, Tendai Buddhism looks kinda-sorta like Nichiren Buddhism, since they both revere the Lotus Sutra; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my creating an article on a monk with a super-vague relationship to a sect of Buddhism that arose centuries after his death, which centuries later still gave rise to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs like Soka Gakkai and Kokuchūkai, may have possibly contributed to Catflap08's, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)
9. Nichiren Shōshū (recent edits by me related the group's relationship with Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM, apparently led Catflap08 to believe that I am "hounding" him, although we have not directly interacted on the page and to the best of my knowledge the text I edited was never edited by him)
10. Nichiren Shū (I RMed the page recently in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME; three years ago Catflap08 was involved in a dispute with another editor on the page about the groups relationship with Soka Gakkai International, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
11. Soka Gakkai (a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
12. Nichirenism (a religio-political philosophy espoused by followers of the Kokuchūkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
13. Shakubuku (not exclusively about Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but the way Catflap wrote the article it certainly looked that way; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
14. Criticism of Buddhism (nothing to do with Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but also nothing to do with this dispute; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently part of what led Catflap08 to the, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)
15. Nichiren (my recent edits here do not relate to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs specifically, and no rational observer can claim to see any problem with said edits in and of themselves -- I was just trying to reformat the references so the tag at the top of the page could be removed -- but Catflap08 apparently believes that I am "hounding" him because I have been interested in Nichiren Buddhism since 2007 and have recently started editing Wikipedia articles relating to it; if someone thinks my edits to this page have been "disruptive", then please PAGEBAN me from this specific article, and TBAN me from NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism)
16. Muju County (nothing to do with Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but also nothing to do with this dispute; I inserted a disambig note linking to our article on Mujū, a Buddhist monk and contemporary/enemy of Nichiren; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page -- Catflap08 has never edited either page -- but my recent activity in an area even remotely related to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs is apparently part of what led Catflap08 to the, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see Law of holes BMK (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Are you insane? Why have you not fixed your TBAN proposal to accurately reflect the "common ground" between myself and Catflap08? Why do you insist on trying to get me indefinitely banned from the 90% of articles I regularly edit that have nothing whatsoever to do with Catflap08? Are you illiterate? Or am I missing some major area of this dispute that I have been involved in for over a year and you have only shown up recently to and pretended like you understand it better than I do? Or User:Sturmgewehr88? Or User:Wikimandia? Or User:Ubikwit? Or User:Nishidani? Or any of the other countless editors of Japan-related articles who have commented on this dispute and would be flabbergasted by your proposals? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I don't think it's particularly helpful to you or to the civility of this discussion to call me (and another editor) "insane", or to ask if I'm "illiterate" (especially since I'm quite obviously not - all these letter going together into words that make coherent sentences is rather proof of that). Your characterization of my motivations and actions is similarly incorrect, as anyone who reads this thread can verify. It's not about your content work, it's about your behavior and your attitude which are clearly a significant part of the reason why you and Catflap cannot get along. That this suggested topic ban would take you away from a subject area you really want to edit is no one's fault but that of the two of you, who could not exist under the previous IBan. In fact, the topic ban is devised to make you want to return to editing the subject area so much that you're willing to behave better to do so. Both of you. BMK (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand BMK's reasoning for "Japanese culture" (although I see it like killing a fly with a cannon), but his comparison with a TBAN from "US politics" by ArbCom recently is a little flawed; were the circumstances around that TBAN at all similar? I'm just guessing but I'm assuming that that case was an editor who caused problems across a random swath of articles that could only be grouped by "US politics". In this case, where the problem occurs specifically within articles related to Nichiren Buddhism, such a broad TBAN is unnecessary and overkill. You said that their net value as editors hasn't dropped to zero yet, so why treat them that way? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, you're kind of making it more difficult to argue for you here. I know you're feeling frustrated, but please try easing up on the attacks, they don't reflect well on you. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Benlisquare: You are right, of course, and this is why I have already apologized for the epithet on my talk page. Several users, including Drmies and BMK himself just above hear, have told me (threatened me) that BMK's own ignorance of "Japanese culture" and his stubborn refusal to admit that he is wrong about the scope of this dispute despite everyone telling him so are now quite likely to result in me getting de facto banned from editing Wikipedia. Just because of a stupid misunderstanding on the part of one user with whom I have never disputed before. But questioning said user's sanity did go too far, and I apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Having a quick look through each of the different article rating categories of WikiProject Japan, I'd estimate that a topic ban on Buddhist topics, even if enforced with a wide filter, would constitute 15-20% of all Japanese historical culture articles. That leaves around 80% of the remaining articles for Hijiri88 to continue working on, hopefully without any further violations of their interaction bans with other users. Hijiri88's ANI shenanigans don't appear to significantly fall outside of these realms, so it seems reasonable to provide a few inches of breathing space. You could even try working with a carrot-and-stick approach here; if, by any chance, the problem continues to worsen and their behaviour continues on articles outside of Buddhist topics, the response can be made more severe in reasonable and logical increments. If you allow them to dig deeper into their hole, you can justify further sanctions against them ("give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves"), and if they do end up having less conflict working outside of Nichiren Buddhist topics, then it's a victory for everyone, is it not?

  I'm trying to point out the implications of a wide-filter topic ban on an extremely broad topic, from an outside perspective. A topic ban on Japanese culture would prohibit them from editing articles such as Guadalcanal Campaign, Enka, Bonsai and History of Toyota, topics which are completely unrelated to the string of ANI issues in question. Then there's the issue of proportions: I'll use myself as an example. These days I tend to steer clear of topics and articles on Wikipedia that I anticipate will bring me into a large conflict against another editor, however assume that I have caused a huge debacle, and needed to be topic banned. There are many different areas that I am involved with on Wikipedia; if I was topic banned from China-related articles I wouldn't be too overly concerned, since they only constitute around 20% of articles that I'm involved with today; the same applies for videogame articles, military history articles and language articles, each of which spanning anywhere between 20-25% of all content that I write. Now in regards to Hijiri88, it isn't far-fetched to state that 95% of what he writes is related to the topic of Japanese culture. After a topic ban, what would you like him to write about? I'm not arguing that he should be "let off", of course they'll need to learn from these long chains of ANI events, and take full responsibility like any adult should. My point is that the punishment needs to suit the circumstance, and a topic ban for Japanese culture doesn't seem to be the most constructive solution that will benefit everyone. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, if the ban isnt wide, it just moves to a different set of articles in a different area Japanese culture. There needs to be a wide area, so that if one of them follows to an area outside of their normal area its easy to spot. Otherwise its an area they both want to edit in. AlbinoFerret 04:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in narrowing the proposal myself, I'm satisfied that, if there is sufficient support for the proposal, the closing admin can evaluate the discussion and decide on that basis if the topic ban should be narrowed or expanded, or kept as originally set. BMK (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, BMK: Where is the evidence that the dispute will move onto a different area of "Japanese culture"? It started fourteen months ago with a Nichiren Buddhist NRM, it was about a Nichiren Buddhist NRM when the IBAN was put in place, and is about a Nichiren Buddhist NRM now. Additionally, could you please define "Japanese culture"? Would I be banned from writing articles on 12th-century waka poets? If so: why? Catflap08 has never edited in this area, and he and I have never disputed over it. If the claim is that if a mutual TBAN were placed on "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs" then Catflap08 would follow me to 12th-century waka poets: AGF obliges me to disagree, and even if such a thing happened it would be a clear IBAN violation and could be dealt with if and when it happens. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support It seems both editors have failed to get the message from the IBAN. The underlying problem is not that the sanctions aren't well framed; the underlying problem is that these two editors refuse to grow up and learn to edit constructively. Then crying, "But... but... a TBAN will hurt my editing!" is missing the point. The easy way to keep editing where you want to edit was to cut the crap out and get on with it. That point is past. GoldenRing (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:GoldenRing: Have you read the above discussion? There is near-unanimous support (including from both me and I think Catflap08) for a TBAN from our shared topic area, but there is disagreement over what topic area this is: Beyond My Ken and AlbinoFerret say it is "Japanese culture"; Catflap08, Drmies, Sturmgewehr88, Benlisquare and I say different (the others appear to agree with me that the area is "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs", but I don't want to put words in their mouths); everyone else has been ambiguous. Please bear in mind that not only have Catflap08 and I never interacted on "Japanese culture" articles not related to Nichiren NRMs -- Catflap08 has never gone near such articles. Furthermore, the quote you give appears to be your own interpretation of something Catflap08 or myself has said -- please refrain from citing your own interpretations as though they were direct quotes, especially when said interpretations are not necessarily backed up by anything the other users said. Neither of us have said that the problem is that it would affect our editing -- of course it would! The problem, as stated by both Catflap and myself, not to mention several other users, is that the TBAN (as proposed by BMKand AlbinoFerret) bears little-to-no relation to the actual dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know, from the above discussion, that you find it hard to believe that anyone who disagrees with you could possibly have read the discussion. You're not exactly drowning us in contrition, are you? GoldenRing (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Its also possible, that having read most of the sections in the last month, that the surprise is because of the wall of text this has become, just like the others. AlbinoFerret 15:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Umm... you didn't answer my question. I asked if you had read the discussion because your post didn't make any sense -- which of the proposals do you "support"? Are your sarcastic comments about me meant to indicate that you want whatever will spite me the worst just because you don't like me? If so, may I ask why? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a message through to you. Inelegantly and imperfectly, I'm sure, but a message nonetheless and a message for your good. My comments were not sarcastic: your standard response to anyone who disagrees is to question whether they have read the discussion. Perhaps it is time for you to question whether you have understood the situation instead. You don't seem to understand that you have caused a problem which the community now has to deal with. I don't think you should get to quibble over the scope of the workaround the community comes up with to deal with the fact you two can't get along. You don't seem to understand that any editing restriction put in place is not a solution to the problem, it is a workaround; the solution is for you to go and learn to work together with other people, both of you. Try going and doing that, instead of sticking your nose in to where the community is trying to find a way of limiting the damage you cause. If you don't, this is very likely to end up at arbcom and there, I suspect, a broad topic ban is less than you can expect. If that's where you want to go then ignore my advice, by all means. GoldenRing (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You are still insinuating that I have somehow causedx damage to the project even though no evidence has been presented of such and several users who have looked through my edits disagree. You say this damage needs to be limited by imposing the maximum possible sanction against me (a de facto site ban): why is a two-way topic ban from the topic area in question insufficient for this? You tell me to go and get along with other people and stop interfering with the community's deliberations -- you do realize that as long as this discussion is open I am unable to continue my normal Wikipedia activity since ALL of it involves "Japanese culture", don't you? You say you support BMK's proposal of a two-way TBAN from "our mutual editing area of Japanese culture" -- which is it, though? Our mutual editing area, or Japanese culture? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine, ignore my advice. And the advice of BMK below, which amounts to the same thing. I wish you well of it, but I don't hold out much hope. GoldenRing (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What advice? Seriously, all you're doing is telling me my contributions are worthless and I'm no longer welcome on this website. I'd much rather listen to the advice of Drmies and Sturmgewehr88 and stay the fuck away from Catflap08 and the articles he edits -- why can't I just do that? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, there you take us into deep waters. Why indeed? If you both did that — or, even better, learned to just get along — we wouldn't be here, would we? If you can't see any advice in what BMK writes below, I suggest you read it again, carefully. GoldenRing (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You do understand that I've been trying to do one or the other of those for over a year now, right? Nichiren Buddhism falls into my normal field of editing anyway -- hence my editing those pages, and hence the majority of objective commenters agreeing that my editing those pages didn't qualify as hounding to begin with -- but I am willing to step away from those articles. There was the time I tried to initiate a talk page discussion on the Miyazawa Kenji article and Catflap08's immediate response was to complain about me on AN, or the time said AN thread was closed as abusive and instead of discussing with me he immediately opened an RFC, or the time the RFC turned against him and he violated it anyway, or the time I reverted his consensus violation and he opened another RFC rather than discussing with me on the talk page, or the time I posted a request on the Kokuchukai talk page to call it quits and work together and he spat in my face, or the time he requested an IBAN so I could not directly revert him, while at the same time striking a deal with another user to revert all my edits to the Miyazawa Kenji article once the IBAN was in place, or the time he himself reverted all my edits to the Kokuchukai article once the IBAN was in place ... When during this process have I been the one behaving in a belligerent manner? How can you justify the clearly-punitive-and-not-at-all-preventative nature of the proposed TBAN when the subject of the punitive measures is the one who throughout has been the one trying to make peace while being met with this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Hijiri88 just left a harassing message on my talk page. It is more evidence that Hijiri88 will never stop making a nuisance of himself to other users editing in this field unless he is topic banned. When is enough enough with his disruptive behavior?TH1980 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Some clarification might be required. In the past four months TH1980 has logged in to Wikipedia intermittently to post ad hominem remarks about me on article talk pages. He has followed me to four articles, and two ANI threads, all the while insisting that I am following him. He insists that he is sick of my "hounding", but every time we have interacted it has been TH1980 who has initiated it. I keep telling him to move on with his life and forget about me, but somehow he just keeps coming back and just keeps insisting that I am following him. It was amusing at first, but I am frankly getting a little fed up with it, which is what prompted the boldface in the above diff. I'm going to request the nearest grown-up to come and take a look at this because I don't have the energy right now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88: I suggest you take a couple of deep breaths, and then re-read your most recent comments. You are coming off in this discussion as such a total and complete asshole that I am sorely tempted to withdraw my proposal for a mutual topic ban for both you and Catflap, and replacing it with a proposal for an indef ban for you alone. You, sir, are your own worst enemy, and the fact that you are totally unaware of that is a matter of concern. Now, if you would take my advice (which I am sure you will not), I would suggest that you shut the fuck up until this thread is closed, and you may have a chance of coming out of this with only a topic ban, and not being banned from Wikipedia entirely. BMK (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I note from your talk page that you told another editor that you couldn't apologize to John Carter and myself for your insults to us, because both of us have asked you not to post to our talk pages, but there's nothing stopping you from apologizing to us here for the remarks that you made here (calling both of us "insane" and myself "illiterate"), is there?. BMK (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, what exactly is so bad about my above summary of my (unrelated and entirely off-topic) dispute with TH1980 that it merits me being called an "asshole" and being told to "shut the fuck up"? I asked you "are you insane?" and was made to apologize, which I did multiple times, but your above epithets are by any measure worse.

Furthermore, my comment wasn't even that bad: TH1980 has posted in multiple venues about me "following" him, and has asked me several times to "leave him alone", and each time I have responded by, as politely as I could under the circumstances, pointing out that he was the one who had followed me to said venue, and that if he wanted me to leave him alone the best way would be for him to leave me alone. I have now done the same thing here, which resulted in him adding the above off-topic commentary to this thread.

As I am sure you can tell I'm quite exasperated with this at the moment, so I'll refrain from further comment until Nishidani or some other user with experience of TH1980's antics helps to deal with the matter.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I really don't care two figs how "exsperated" you are, I -- and I suspect many other editors -- are totally exasperated with you and Catflap, who cannot coexist with each other, cannot conform to the IBan you both agreed to, and constantly bring your conflicts back to the noticeboards, over and over again. What this proposal says is ENOUGH. You two have exhausted the patience of the community, and you need to be stopped. BMK (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

BMK, please don't refactor my posts. When I split my comment into several paragraphs, I prefer to place my sig directly below all of these paragraphs, not attach it to the final paragraph as though said had special significance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: from your tone in the above comments and the fact that you yourself made this proposal (which I already see resulting in nothing again), I would say this isn't about "the community" being fed up, but just you. If the community were truly fed up, this thread would've already ended with TBANs or blocks with near-total consensus, but that's not the case at all. So go ahead and change your proposal to a one-way site ban, you already know that's not going to fly. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri asked me on my page but I prefer not to meddle. All I would note is that anything TH1980 has stated here should be ignored. He is totally incompetent in the Japanese Korean area, as the talk page where I interacted with him will document. He has no idea of polioy.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That's your prerogative. At this point I really only wanted you to comment on TH1980 issue, which you have done. Thank you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Let the record show that Nishidani is an ally of Hijiri 88 who also harasses Wikipedia members. His "He has no idea of polioy [sic]" personal attack on me speaks volumes in this regard. Hijiri88 is also a hopeless liar about how I am the one harassing him, not vice versa--but that is no surprise, given how it is standard practice for bullies the world over.TH1980 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. Also, Nishidani is only my "ally" in that we both understand and make it a habit to follow Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. I call him in to help me deal with issues on talk pages from time to time because (1) he's damned good at it, and (2) he and I hardly ever agree on anything other than the fact that you and that other guy are messing up the articles with your OR/CRUFT, so it cannot reasonably be called canvassing. (The same could be said, mind you, for my requesting WikiProject Japan to weigh in -- the majority of that project's members have a history of disagreement with me, and I'd say any given member probably agrees with my edits less than 40% of the time, but virtually all of them would be flabbergasted at the idea of me being TBANned from "Japanese culture" because of my recent edits to the Soka Gakkai and Kokuchukai articles.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I've remonstrated with Hijiri often as any interaction talk page will show. On the other hand, I have had to revert you far more often, because of your incompetence in subjects like Japanese and Korean history.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Support per BMK - I think Hijiri88 has been editing in a fairly problematic manner in a variety of articles in this general field. I agree with user BMK that a topic ban should extend broadly into Japanese culture and history. Users who have already posted here like BMK and AlbinoFerret are evidently aware of instances of non-collaborative editing by Hijiri88 even well outside of his dispute with Catflap, but apart from those who have already commented, there are other editors who have noted the exact same thing. For instance, the user Snow Rise stated in a Japanese culture case from May unrelated to Catflap that Snow Rise "supported a topic ban on subjects relating to Japanese history and culture, broadly construed, since this is obviously an area where Hijiri cannot edit collaboratively with others and I suspect we shall be seeing him here again soon on a similar topic." Snow Rise proved correct in his theory that Hijiri's non-collaborative approach to editing would bring him back here again and again. User Jayron32 noted in the same case, unrelated to Catflap, that there was "a convincing case that Hijiri is not here to work with others, but has major WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWNership issues." The user Silk Tork was said to have reviewed Hijiri's editing based on information collected by the user John Carter, and concluded that Hijiri is "a brittle and hostile user who makes things difficult for themself and others". This last comment is of course amply proven by this very thread. Many of Hijiri's comments are clear violations of Wikipedia's policies on civility, and the shocking direct threats Hijiri was quoted above as making against the user TH1980 should not be considered acceptable in any context whatsoever. I think there are a lot of other good editors like Catflap08 and TH1980 who at first would have been more than happy to work with Hijiri if Hijiri hadn't spoken to them with such insulting language almost from the outset of meeting them. Actually, based on such evidence, Erpert may be right that even BMK's topic ban will not solve these far-reaching editing issues, but between Erpert's proposal for a site ban, and BMK's proposal for a broad topic ban, I suppose BMK's lenient solution can be attempted first before any harsher sanctions are resorted to.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you meant "BMK's proposal for a topic ban, don't you, CurtisNaito? ;) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume by "non-collaborative editing by Hijiri88 even well outside of his dispute with Catflap" what CurtisNaito actually means is "non-collaborative editing by me with Hijiri88 even well outside of Hijiri88's dispute with Catflap". Just look at the histories ofTalk:Emperor Jimmu, Talk:Soga–Mononobe conflict or Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture to see me working collaboratively with a large number of users (Nishidani, Sturmgewehr88, Curly Turkey, Ubikwit, Phoenix7777 ...) with whom I almost never agree (and had several disagreements with on those pages) but still working together to find solutions to the problems those articles faced, while CurtisNaito was complaining the whole time that we "weren't editing collaboratively" because we were excluding him from most of the deliberations. Ask anyone (Nishidani would be particularly good at answering, IMO) why CurtisNaito is generally not listened to on talk pages relating to Japanese history and culture, but the answer will always be the same. Additionally, CurtisNaito himself appears to have some ego problems -- he recently declared that my contributions to classical Japanese poetry articles were crap because I used so-called "tertiary" sources like Keene's The History of Japanese Literature and the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten, while proclaiming his articles on the Sino-Japanese War to be "Good Articles", even though they are mostly sourced to right-wing magazines, and only passed the "GA" review process because (by the reviewers' own admission) they do not speak Japanese and were unable to check the sources themselves.

If CurtisNaito is right, and BMK was in fact looking at my past disputes with CurtisNaito while forming the wording of his proposed TBAN on me and Catflap08, then I would kindly ask BMK to please be more open about his thought process, and maybe keep off-topic discussion to a minimum. Also, if the proposed TBAN is based on the history of CurtisNaito's disputes with me, Nishidani and Sturmgewehr88, may I ask why exactly CurtisNaito, Nishidani and Sturmgewehr88 are not also up for TBANs for these disputes? Why am I the only veteran of the Korean Influence and Emperor Jimmu disputes being discussed in this manner? Pretty much everyone who was involved in these disputes agreed that I was editing constructively and working hard to end disputes before they started, while CurtisNaito's own passive-aggressive, IDHT behaviour and constant reverting were not helpful and tended to drive other users to the point of using profanity.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as farcically overbroad. I'd support a very narrow mutual topic ban for three months, restraining them both from new religious movement articles relating to Nichiren Buddhism. If that proves to not be quite wide enough, then widen it a little, in direct response to the problem as it surfaces. It is correct that the initial report of an IBAN violation is probably valid, as the edits by Hijiri88 do appear to target Catflap08, and H. did mention C. by name. H's counter-claim of an IBAN violation by C. is also valid; hiding continual discussion of H. by using the euphemism "the other editor", etc., doesn't magically evade the IBAN. It is not correct that raising an IBAN violation discussion is itself an IBAN violation, or people being hounded/harassed would never have any recourse even if their harasser were subject to an IBAN, since there would be no way to report the IBAN violation and continued harassment. Basic WP:COMMONSENSE. The observation by several (not just H.) that C. is acting in a WP:OWNish or WP:VESTED way toward some articles simply by having been at them first is also a valid concern. So is H.'s apparent editing at these articles in a way designed to irritated C., instead of to improve the article in any objectively identifiable way. All of this seems to be solved by getting both editors out of the same virtual room, without favoritism, and without hyperbolically overreactive "remedies" like trying to nuke either or both of them entirely out of their broadest-defined areas of interest. We're losing too many generally productive editors to go around decapitating them every time they get into a personality squabble.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Updated: 21:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish: I think it not unreasonable to point out to you that Catflap has stated in this thread that he edits the area of Nichiren Buddhism almost exclusively, and that the articles not related to Nichiren NRMs are generally stable and don't need as much attention. Soka Gakkai, in particular, is and has been a point of major contention for some time now, not unreasonably, given the political factors in Japan. And Catflap's history at that article is such that I can honestly say he might be the only active editor who has consistently worked to keep it up to reasonable quality levels. I do have to think that, effectively, banning him from what might not unreasonably be seen as being the only active area in his primary area of knowledge interest isn't much different from a site ban. John Carter (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Make it short-term then, enough to get them to back away from each other and rethink. Something has to be done, because neither of them, clearly, are taking an interaction ban seriously, and their continued disputation is affecting others. There months if often enough to bring about change.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per benlisquare-In my opinion, it seems he was cooperative in the talk page before edition. Then I don't see how he is hounding Catflap08. Even user Catflap08 oppose the ban for Hijiri 88.Miracle dream (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

insert point

• Comment In my opinion Hijiri 88 is causing trouble in this discussion as a means of wearing people down to the point this latest proposed ban regarding him gets dropped. I do not think we should cave in here and let him have his way yet again.TH1980 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

TH1980, I have asked you before to stop pinging me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There's also the fact that a sanction discussion which is elongated unnecessarily by Hiriji's wall-of-text comments is much easier for editors reading AN/I to skip over, thinking that the issues will probably be too complex to get involved. Ironically, the issue here is extremely simple, and has nothing to do with subject-matter competence, it's simply that two editors cannot get along and keep bringing their beefs against each other to the noticeboards. I rather doubt that Hiriji does either of these things (wearing down and stretching out) deliberately as a tactic, I think he's just built that way.

I'm going to try to keep away from this discussion for a while, until it's run long enough to request closure, but let me say this as a final point. Catflap may be the more disruptive editor, I don't know, some people clearly think so, but there's one thing you have to say for them: they know when to stop talking and stop digging, something that Hiriji simply cannot seem to understand. But in any case, my proposal doesn't work unless both are sanctioned equally, and, despite the hopeful remarks of a few partisans, it has indeed gained a fair amount of traction: ignoring the two subjects, I believe we're at 9 supports and 4 opposes, with some days left to run. BMK (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

At this point there has been (in fact, at the point I started posting my wall-of-text comments there already had been) more than enough participation both from involved users and outside parties to form a consensus on the proposed TBAN one way or the other. The TBAN is not supported by the community. A TBAN on the common editing area of me and Catflap08 has some support; a TBAN on Japanese culture has some support; there are some users who oppose any form of sanction against me until it can be proven that I violated the IBAN or engaged in disruptive behaviour of some sort. Clearly nothing will come of it and ... well, has anyone else actually noticed that Catflap08 announced both here and on his user page that he was retiring, and hasn't edited at all in days? Is any of this still even necessary? If anyone still thinks my edits in such-and-such area were disruptive a TBAN discussion can take place, but wouldn't it make more sense to do so without all the clutter of "this isn't about your edits -- it's about your inability to work together with another user who has already left the project"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the decision about whether the discussion has run long enough is not yours to make. The proposal has been open for only 4 days, which is less than the usual amount of time that sanction discussions are allowed to run, unless, of ocurse, they are runaways. Please stop trying to make this about me (another of your habits -- attempting deflection), it's clearly not about me, never was and never will be, it's about you and Catflap and your inability to get along without disruption to the community. BMK (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

BMK, did you even read my post before responding? I ask because your response appears to bear no relation whatsoever to my post.

I did not say the discussion had "run long" in a temporal sense: I said it was longer in terms of word count than probably any other ANI thread currently open, and had already seen more community participation than most such discussions, with no consensus in sight. You, AlbinoFerret and Ivanvector are in favour of a super-broad topic ban against me and the now-retired Catflap08; Drmies is in favour of a narrow topic ban against me but not the now-retired Catflap08; Sturmgewehr88 and Benlisquare are against a broad topic ban and appear to be ambivalent on a narrow topic ban for either me or the now-retired Catflap08; Wikimandia and a coupla others are against all sanctions proposed against me, with no explicit opinion on the now-retired Catflap08; several other users expressed support for some kind of topic ban, but given how your initial proposal was ambivalent on whether the topic ban should be on "our common editing area" or "Japanese culture", they can't reasonably be counted unless they explicitly state which of the proposed topic bans they support; John Carter, before Catflap08 retired, expressed neutrality on your proposal but favoured taking it to ArbCom, but it's really not clear how taking my dispute with the now-retired Catflap08 to ArbCom could be of any help when, as I hope I have now made clear to you, one of the two parties appears to have left the project.

When in my above comment was I "trying to make this about you"? You accuse me of making a habit of this, but as far as I can see this is in fact another instance of your habit of either failing to read other users' comments properly or deliberately ignoring the bits that don't support your argument. (Hence your complete failure to acknowledge my diligently listing every single article Catflap08 and I have disputed over or is even remotely related to the dispute -- if you actually read the list you would know how inappropriately broad your proposed topic ban is.)

You spend half of your response to me talking about how I am trying to make this about you when it is about me and Catflap08, but ... you ignored the half of my comment that was about Catflap08 having already retired. Could you please address what my comment actually said, rather than what you wish it said?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore: You earlier criticized me for "threatening" to retire from the project if your super-broad topic ban against me passed. But what about the other party, who actually did retire because of the mere suggestion that he be topic banned? (Let alone the distinct possibility that, like Catflap's earlier "retirements", it is just a stunt to gain sympathy.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Elongation, wearing down, deflection. BMK (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a question regarding whether Hijiri88 is even able to acknowledge that anything he does might ever be counted as really "wrong," at least in situations where he is actively being discussed, such as this one. And the preposterous attempt to impugn Catflap08 in the above just once again calls to attention Hijiri88's attempts to rush to judge the conduct of editors with whom he is in disagreement in such a way as to deflect attention from his own misconduct. Catflap08 has been questioning whether editing here is worth the aggravation he receives from editing here, most recently almost exclusively from Hijiri88 himself, for some time now. To assert, despite the I think rather obviously visible evidence, that it is a "stunt" seems to me to be, considering Hijiri88's own recent conduct regarding this discussion, a rather blatant violation of WP:KETTLE. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: When have I ever performed such a stunt in the past? We know Catflap08 did -- he pretended to retire in March, and the result was an overall increase in his editing output. And what you call a "stunt" on my part is me stating in a matter-of-fact way that the proposed super-broad TBAN is worded in such a manner as to drive me off Wikipedia. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the common editing ground of myself and Catflap08. No one has yet been able to locate a single edit by Catflap08 in the area of "Japanese culture, not Nichiren Buddhist NRMs". This is proof enough that BMK's assertion that in order to prevent further conflict between me and Catflap08 we need to both be banned from "Japanese culture" is overkill at best, and a deliberate attack on my editing without a hint of controversy in unrelated areas at worst.

Please, someone find one single edit by Catflap08 in the proposed TBAN area. ONE EDIT.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have just been subjected to another harassing message from Hijiri88 at my talk page. He is now threatening to request that I be blocked if I make an edits on a page he has contributed edits to. I submit his latest personal attack on me as further proof of his disruptive behavior.TH1980 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• If he is topic-banned, I think that there is perhaps a real chance that, if the article is within the scope of the topic ban, that any discussion to that effect might itself be a violation of that topic ban, and, on that basis, grounds for some sort of block or other sanction. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

TH1980, if you keep following me around like this you should be blocked per WP:HOUND. It is extremely frustrating and more than a little terrifying when you suddenly show up everywhere I do. Give it a break. Do something else. STOP FOLLOWING ME!

Also, if any topic ban is put in place, given John Carter's above threat, I would like it made clear whether other users are allowed unilaterally go around reverting my edits in such-and-such area.

But this is all beside the point -- "editing articles" I contribute to is not the real problem with TH1980's edits, and is not something I highlighted in the above diff. That's just more disruptive misrepresentation by TH1980. It's showing up any time I am involved in an ANI discussion and, without even reading the discussion, requesting that I be SITEBANned for unrelated past disputes with him.

23:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Its simply amazing. People show up and support site bans for you based on your behaviour. Then you blame it on them. I suggest you find a mirror next time you point a finger to find out who else is involved. AlbinoFerret 23:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, how do you explain TH1980's article edits and talk page comments, then? If he were simply a good-faith user doing his duty by supporting "the community"'s efforts on ANI, then why was he already haranguing me on articles and their talk pages before this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone takes this sort of criticism well, and in fairness TH1980 does clearly have past issues with the editor, which smells like unclean hands to me. Let's focus on the actual dispute between Catflap08 and Hijiri88, rather than their tempers as fired up by this ANI dispute and those coming out of the woodwork to pile wood on the fire.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment I disambiguated this section over 18 hours ago with what appeared to be a proximal unique disambiguation as there are multiple "Proposal" sections on the page at any time. Hijiri decided that they would revert the disambiguation title after they thought they understood what my intention was and claimed it was "Good faith mistake on ANI" on my talk page. Hijiri should know better than to attempt to wordsmith sections for which they are the cause of debate. Hijiri is free to propose an alternative disambiguation tag that takes into account both editors, however they should not be changing it on their own involved initiative over an uninvolved and independent third party. Hasteur (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur: It's extremely debatable, as the discussion above demonstrates, whether I or Catflap08 was the true cause of this debate. The proposal affects both of us, not just me. Your inserting my name, but not Catflap08's, was inappropriate, as I explained on your talk page. There is no need to disambiguate both, because this one will be closed and archived shortly, and you disambiguated the RetProf proposal as well. I have had just about enough of my name getting dragged through the mud over the past few weeks -- I've had Wikipedians I considered "friends" (at least as far as Wikipedia cohorts can be) state on-wiki that they think I should be TBANned, but admit to me in private that they know my "violations" were later than the same exact violations by other parties against me. I have had a user stalk my edits. Several, in fact. I have had two users (other than the ones who have been wiki-hounding me) who have never edited an article on Japanese culture in their Wikipedia careers say "oh, well obviously Hijiri88 should be TBANned indefinitely from Japanese culture -- all of his disruption has taken place within this area", while ignoring the fact that all of my non-disruptive edits also take place within this area.

I'm sorry if it seems like I am putting all this on you -- I know you have had nothing to do with the abuse I have had to endure -- but I would have appreciated that if you were going to revert me, you would take my reasoning into account and give a more neutral section heading that actually reflects the proposal in question.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If your way to discuss is to first accuse and then take unilateral action over BRD (I don't know who reverted this back. I don't frankly want to know. But I've had just about enough of my name getting dragged through the mud over the past few weeks. This is ridiculous. Leave both names in the section title if you NEED to disambiguate.) then I am going to call for your head on a "Competence is required" pike. The page history is available and there is clear evidence of "Winning by wearing down opposition with TLDR" and "It's everyone's fault but mine". Your debate and editing style is disjoint with (as I understand it) the current consensus on wikipedia and has a high probability of your editing privileges being curtailed. Hasteur (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't accuse anyone of anything. The title "Proposal (Hijiri)" was inaccurate, so I changed it. When did I say anything was "everyone's fault but mine"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Counterproposal

I'm going to say exactly what I said last time. This needs to go to ArbCom. ANI is clearly unable to deal with this situation. Editors here are recommending punitive measures purely for being sick of it all. To me this has become the equivalent of two little kids fighting in the back seat of the car and being told to stop it or else; one hits the other who bursts into tears and the frustrated parent punishes them both, even though the kid who got hit didn't do anything, and they both start fighting again. How many ANIs have these two been involved with? It just has to stop and it should come from ArbCom as any topic ban etc would likely result in appeals to them anyway. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• It does not require community consensus to file a case request at ArbCom, but as long as this AN/I report is open, ArbCOm is unlikely to take the case. Their recent history has been to allow the community to handle the problem first. BMK (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, ArbCom won't raise a hand until ANI has been thoroughly tested and it's been repeatedly shown that community sanctions haven't worked. At this point, there is an existing iban and now a topic ban proposal. If the TBAN doesn't work either then by all means feel free to raise an request at ArbCom. 60.240.52.73 (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to log in. Blackmane (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Some might be surprised if this fails, that an arbcom case is started, I wont be. The editors in question should not be hoping for arbcom, because imho its more likely to end in blocks rather than topic bans. Topic bans, even if they are indef can end if the editor goes elsewhere on WP and shows they can work well with others, blocks are much harder to remove. AlbinoFerret 15:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

As an individual, I think that there may well be unique circumstances in this particular situation which might best be handled in more formal arbitration. I hesitate to say what they may be, but I believe this may well be a rather unusual situation in at least some regards which might benefit from what might be a more thorough review than might necessarily be possible here. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly unique in two editors being unable to get along, it happens all the time. Also, as AlbinoFerret points out, an ArbCom case for this is a crapshoot. In many situations it's fairly easy to foresee what the Committee is going to do, but in this one, I think it's just as likely that they'll deal out indef blocks for one or both as it is that topic bans will be the result. BMK (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything unique about this that ArbCom could speak to, or would be likely to act upon. It's two editors who don't like each other, who refuse to collaborate, and who are wasting far too much of the community's time with trying to police their ongoing conflict. Topic ban them both. Indefinitely. If they can show that they can edit constructively in other areas then they should have the opportunity to appeal in no less than a year. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Why exactly should I have to prove I can edit constructively in areas I have no interest in and/or knowledge of? The proposed TBAN parameters were arbitrarily selected to ban me from editing every article in any topic area I am remotely interested in, rather than to prevent me from editing in the (much, much narrower) topic area where there has been disruption. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The topic area really doesn't matter, except to be selected to prevent ongoing disruption. You should have to prove you can edit constructively at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: if you don't think Hijiri can edit constructively "at all", then you've obviously never looked through his contributions. Here's] your proof of constructive editing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe what Ivanvector is referring to is the two editors' inability to edit without disruption. As I've said repeatedly, this is not about the ability to create content, it's about the behavior of Hijiri and Catflap. BMK (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Could Beyond My Ken, AlbinoFerret, and Ivanvector please stop and consider -- who is it that has been/still is causing disruption here?

Where is the evidence that disruption on my part led to an IBAN? The initial IBAN discussion saw two users (Catflap08 and John Carter) claiming I was abusive, two users (Sturmgewehr88 and myself) saying Catflap08 and John Carter were disruptive, and a whole bunch of other users saying "I don't know who's right and who's wrong, but the best solution here would probably be to separate them".

Where is the evidence that the recent disruption since the IBAN was mine? Virtually everyone except maybe Drmies (who gave Catflap08 a slap on the wrist for his violations but blocked me) has acknowledged that Catflap08 and not I had violated the IBAN numerous times.

Where is the evidence that any of the proposed solutions would solve whatever problems still exist? A mutual or one-way (for me) TBAN on "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs" is the most logical solution and appears to have the broadest support among the community -- even Drmies backs it, despite early comments by BMK and Ivanvector misrepresenting him as being on their side. But is even that necessary when Catflap08 has been "retired" for over half a week already? Is the insinuation here that I need to be restricted to prevent me from grave-dancing? Where is the evidence that I will do something like that? I haven't gone around systematically reverting all of the edits of any of these users -- when in the past have I ever either done or threatened to do such a thing?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have thought about it again, you two still need a topic ban. Every post you make makes me (and probably anyone who reads them) believe you need a topic ban. You are digging a deeper hole. AlbinoFerret 14:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I keep suggesting this topic be brought to ArbCom is because ANI has failed so far to deal with this, over and over. Yes, Hijiri88 is long-winded, but there's nothing that says one must be brief here, and I truly don't believe it is some malicious plot. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

As I've said, you're free to file a case request at any time, but a number of editors have reported as to what the expected outcome of that would be at the moment. BMK (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't misrepresented anyone. I referred to exactly two comments made by Drmies: one, the "the ongoing and ever-increasing exasperation of the rest of the editors", and two, "just f***ing zip it". I interpret one as an accurate observation that you are wearing the community's patience thin, and two as an expression of frustration that we keep having to hear about the two of you. Sturmgewehr88 is right, I have never looked through Hijiri's contributions. Editors who are constructive and collaborative contributors don't get blocked for crossing ibans because they don't have ibans in the first place, and don't have 18,000-word, 120,000-byte threads at ANI about their conduct after having been asked by an administrator in a previous ANI thread to shut up. I'll add a three from Drmies' previous close: "boy would I like to put a stop to this." Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Admins, are we closing this yet? Consider issuing a narrow topic ban as outlined above, the kind of topic ban which, if I read their comments correctly, even Hijiri agrees with. Someone cut this Gordian knot. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion was opened on the 20th, before Catflap, apparently from what I have been able to determine, finally may have retired outright due to the misconduct of others involved in this thread, with much of that misconduct directly visible here. That being the case, I suppose it might make some sense to let the discussion wind down naturally, after the full seven days have elapsed. Somehow, I have a feeling at least one person here is perhaps going to continue to argue every point he can think of, be it rational or irrational, and on that basis I suppose it might make sense to give him as little reason to argue later as possible. John Carter (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• We must keep in mind, though, that the very large majority of editors commenting on this case favor the broad topic ban proposed by BMK.TH1980 (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's currently 10 in favor, 6 against, and 1 neutral, with some of the supporters prefering a narrow TBAN. Hardly a "very large" majority. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well... not really. It's true that both Catflap and Hijiri gave "oppose" !votes, but all that really means is that, if the mutual topic ban proposal is implemented, it's not being done voluntarily -- so those two opposes can be ignored. That means 10 supports and 4 against by your count. (Who is the neutral, BYW?) What's interesting is that virtually everybody in this discussion says that there is ongoing disruption, the difference is that the "supports" see a potential solution in the mutual topic bans, while most of the "opposes" point the finger of blame in various directions. It's virtually unanimous that there's disruption which needs to be dealt with, a fact which I hope the closer of this discussion will take into consideration. BMK (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Incidentally, the fact that we just got another editor's opinion is an indication that this thread is not, at least, overripe for closure. I was thing of waiting for 7 days after the opening of the thread, presuming that there hadn't been any new !votes in the previous 24 hours, before asking for closure. BMK (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: John Carter cast the neutral !vote. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, of course, thank you. BMK (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to note here that the above support counts appear to include both TH1980 and CurtisNaito, two users who were quite open about their !votes being based on their pre-existent opinions of me rather than any actual evidence relevant to THIS situation. Both users have an established history of wiki-stalking me, as Nishidani attested above. It should also be pointed out that TH1980's claim of broad support for a "Japanese culture" TBAN is unfounded. Disregarding said wiki-stalkers, we have only three explicit supports (BMK, AlbinoFerret and Ivanvector) for the super-broad TBAN that covers mostly articles irrelevant to this dispute, and one explicit oppose (Drmies said he would support a narrow TBAN, not a broad one) being inadvisedly counted as a support. Additionally, it should also be noted that Catflap08 appears to have left the project, and the proposed super-broad ban covers mostly topic areas he never edited to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And I would like to note that the above comment is at best only at best partially supported by the facts, on this same page, What Nishidani said above, and I quote, is "All I would note is that anything TH1980 has stated here should be ignored," along with some other comments about that editor. At no point that I can see did he say anyone has "an established history of wiki-stalking" Hijiri88, as he attests above. The fact that Hijiri88 is once again engaging in transparently dishonest representations of the statements of others to support his own statements is I believe a serious enough problem as per WP:HONESTY to in and of itself raise questions.

Also, I think it worth noting that the reason I had stated earlier that I would not offer an "official" !vote was because that I was somewhat sympathetic to one of the parties involved, User:Catflap08, who has, so far as I can tell, finally done what he has been considering doing for some time and retiring from wikipedia. I hesitated to cast a !vote to limit him based on the conduct I had had with him earlier. I have never had any particular objection to sanctions against Hijiri88, however, and the conduct he has engaged in on this thread is to my eyes sufficient to believe that he should not be allowed to continue in like manner without facing the prospect of some sort of sanctions. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It does look like Catflap08 has retired. In that case I think this thread should be closed. I don't see much proof that H88 was really hounding in this complaint, so perhaps it's time to retire this thread as well. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the retirement was in April. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, is it actually standard practice to disregard the !votes of users directly affected by a two-way TBAN proposal? I have never heard of this practice before. I can understand not counting a user's individual request that they not receive a one-way ban if everyone else agrees that they should be banned, but in this case both the initial proposal and most of the "supports" have been for a mutual TBAN, and Catflap08 and I have expressed conflicting views on it. Catflap08 opposed any TBAN for himself, apparently rejecting all sanctions that weren't one-way sanctions on me; I expressed pretty strong support for a two-way TBAN on the relatively narrow area Catflap08 and I have in common, while opposing the super-broad TBAN. Drmies explicitly opposed both a mutual TBAN and a broad TBAN, saying he might support a narrow TBAN on me. At least two other "supports" were unclear. Several more users expressed explicit opposition to sanctions against me than opposition to sanctions against Catflap08. Of the three users who aren't explicitly in favour of a two-way, broad TBAN but appear to be in favour of some sort of TBAN (Drmies, Sturmgewehr88 and myself), all three are explicitly opposed to a broad TBAN. Of the six editors in favour of a broad TBAN (BMK, AlbinoFerret, GoldenRing, Ivanvector BMK, John Carter, TH1980 and CurtisNaito), the lattet two almost certainly need to be discarded since they are not !voting based on the evidence presented here but based on their personal dislike of me, as indicated by their complete reliance on external, unrelated "evidence", their not expressing any opinion at all on whether the MUTUAL TBAN proposal should apply to Catflap08 and one of them not knowing who originally made the proposal (clearly not having read the discussion). AlbinoFerret and TH1980 have in the past couple of days been spinning this highly-complex !vote breakdown as some kind of a 2.5-1 advantage in favour of a broad TBAN, when it really isn't borne out by the numbers. When 3/4 of the people asked what they mean by "support" say explicitly that they support a narrow ban and oppose a broad one, we can't just go assuming that everyone else must be supporting a broad ban.

Also, John Carter has explicitly stated above that the mutual nature of the proposal is why he has remained "neutral" on whether a ban should be put in place at all -- in layman's terms, he likes Catflap08, and he doesn't like me. Why, then, is he not equally neutral on the scope of the mutual ban? Why does he care whether his friend and his enemy are equally banned from "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs" or "Japanese culture"? It couldn't be that one of these options is actually mutual, and the other is tilted against one party more than the other, could it? A large number of users have explicitly pointed out that "Japanese culture" is not "common" to me and Catflap08; it is my area of interest. Our actual common area of interest is much narrower, and John Carter is propping up the option that hits my harder and hits Catflap08 the same either way.

Nd if, as John Carter has been claiming above (Ctrl+F "stunt"), Catflap08 is sincere in his recent "retirement" statements, this whole debate is moot anyway, since my dispute with Catflap08 can't cause further disruption if Catflap08 is no longer part of the project.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stabila711 (talk • contribs) Note: SineBot seems to be referring to this edit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, I have come to the conclusion that you are fanatically, if not obsessively, devoted to spin control at virtually any or all costs. I realize that your above attempt at spin control is simply another in your history of such edits, which you seem to have little if any control over. I will repeat what I have said before in this thread. Your conduct here has been nothing less than disgraceful, and several people here have already noted that. Perhaps you have had some provocation, as have others, but that in no way frees you from any responsibility for your own actions. Also, as I have noted before, you seem to be at best dubiously capable of ever believing anything you do could be wrong. Certainly, I cannot remember ever seeing you admit the possibility of error on your part. So yes, in you I see someone who has on more than one occasion rather obviously, hypocritically, sought to impose on others standards of behaviour which you frankly refuse to abide by yourself. No reasonable person would expect anyone to "like" someone who so regularly engages in what could reasonably be described as transparent hypocrisy. And, honestly, I have seen that ever since what I can only describe as a temper tantrum at [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention]], regarding Catflap's nomination. And, frankly, I am nothing less than disgusted by your statement above, which seems to me to indicate that you think you should be freed from any responsibility for your actions if you have successfully harassed the other party involved off the project. I very sincerely hope, for your own benefit, that you realize that should you continue to indulge in behaviour of the type you have rather consistently displayed throughout virtually the entire period I have dealt with you, there would be no reason to believe you would escape some sort of disciplinary measures the next time you indulge in such behaviour, whether you in that theoretical instance continue to blame others for your misconduct or not. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

For once I agree with Hijiri88. Since we seem to lack the willingness to put a stop to clearly disruptive editors before they drive other productive contributors away from the project, we have allowed yet another clearly disruptive editor to drive another productive contributor away from the project. The damage is done, then; we can't do anything more here to prevent it. Any new blocks coming out of this are clearly punitive which is not allowed by policy. All we're doing here now is wikilawyering about whether or not different editors' comments are valid or not, and there's no point to it. I withdraw my support for any sanctions for Hijiri88. I'm sure I'll see you all again when Nichiren Buddhism becomes yet another general sanctions cesspool. Good work, team. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawing my withdrawal above in light of Catflap having returned, and there still being an ongoing dispute. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Its also common for users canvassed into the discussion to have less effect on the outcome. There are posts by Hijiri88 above that could be considered canvassing. 2 Where he pinged editors[156][157] and one that deals with a non neutral notification on a project page[158], and one a post to a user page of an editor who helps him with other users who he disagrees with [159]. If these factors are taken into account he has very little editors comments to support his desired outcome. AlbinoFerret 14:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sure Catflap will be back--"retired" here means "temporarily driven off", possibly in disgust. Hijiri88, for the life of me, I don't understand how you can go canvassing around for a thread like this--are you just trying to make yourself look bad? Don't answer that. Some admin might block you for it. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting closure

I think the required seven days have passed. If anyone wants to weigh through the wall of words this thread is and draw a conclusion regarding the outcome, that would be most appreciated. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, high time to close this. If it results in no sanctions, I'll be disappointed; the discussion above on its own highly merits them (and note that Hijiri is sticking his very sizeable oar into another discussion further down this page). GoldenRing (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I too will be disappointed if no sanctions are levied. We have a situation here that is clearly out of hand that warrants strict corrective measures.TH1980 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added a request to WP:ANRFC AlbinoFerret 17:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi admin--please consider looking for a consensus for the narrow topic ban proposed above for Hijiri. Topic banning both editors the same way is highly unfair to Catflap, who was not the bad guy here and who would suffer in a very different measure. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It is probably worth noting that Catflap will probably remain active in the WF entities in general, probably particularly the German wikipedia. But this is also a controversial content area here, particularly regarding Soka Gakkai and a few other related topics, and the more informed, competent, and effective editors we have available the better off we will be. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: "Catflap, who was not the bad guy here" are you kidding me? He constantly, although following the letter of the IBAN, showed total contempt for the spirit of the IBAN. I'm also convinced that he asked John Carter to proxy for him on the Kenji Miyazawa article via email (plus there was that "you editied my hometown" conspiracy). And now he is yet again pulling this retirement stunt. He deserves blocks or bans just as much or more than Hijiri. Both should be banned from Nichiren Buddhism articles. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am not kidding you, and if I were you I would be very careful about making unfounded accusations about proxying. That is a pretty serious violation of AGF, and thus of NPA. I got more acronyms if you need them. As for the "hometown conspiracy"--there is no conspiracy, and Hijiri made that edit. As I said before, it was a while ago, so it's not that big of a deal, but it did happen. That you can't seem to find the evidence is your problem, not mine. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• It should be noted that I when I sought to send information to Hijiri that I recovered from various databanks, it had to be through Sturmgewehr. I have no reservations whatsoever actually about allowing access to my e-mail records to someone trustworthy. I wonder if Hijiri and Sturmgewehr can say the same thing. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Some points the closing admin may wish to consider:

• This is a long term dispute. I was going to comb through the archives and post the large number of noticeboard threads concerning these two editors, but, frankly, the thought of doing so was onerous, so I'll just suggest that you use the search facility and check for yourself.
• In other words, my proposal, which seems totally out of scale for the reported problem, is provoked by the history of disruption to the community caused by the length and public nature of the conflict, and not by the specific incident.
• My proposal was for standard indefinite indefinite standard topic bans from the subject area of "Japanese culture" for both editors involved, Catflap09 and Hijiri88.
• This is clearly not a slam dunk in terms of support for my proposal, but, as I mentioned above, it is nearly universal that all commenters see disruption, that the locus is these two editors, and that something needs to be done.
• The difference between the supporters and the oppposers is that the opposers cannot agree as to which individual editor is responsible, pointing fingers in both directions.
• Despite there not being a snow consensus for my proposal, there is a clear consensus that something needs to be done here. Failing to levy some kind of sanction would be, I think, a disservice to the community.
• The previously imposed IBan has not been effective in quelling the disruption.
• As Drmies says, there is sentiment -- from opposing voters, primarily -- that the scope of my proposed sanction is too broad, and that it may be possible to see a consensus for narrower mutual topic bans. While I wouldn't object to that, I do agree with AlbinoFerret that the dispute is just as likely to move to another area. However, again, some sanction, some attempt to stop the bleeding, would be better than nothing.
• Catflap09's "retirement" should not be considered, as it's been up since April, and he has continued editing. In all likelihood, he will return to editing.
• Finally, it's worth noting Hijiri's misbehavior in this very discussion: personal attacks, failure to AGF, borderline harassment, and, worst of all, blatant canvassing, both in the thread and elsewhere, when he posted a non-neutral pointer to the discussion at the Japan Project containing an implicit threat to quit editing Wikipedia if he didn't get support from the editors there. Such behavior should not go unsanctioned.
• Good luck!

BMK (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

How are indefinite topic bans from the subject area of "Japanese culture" "standard? Can you provide some precedent for that? A mutual TBAN in a broad area that covers all of one party's edits even though the other party only ever edits in a very small sub-section of said area, and thus 100% of the disruption has taken place in the small sub-section? I'm sure the closing admin would like to see some kind of evidence for this being in any way "standard"... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The topic ban itself is a standard one, i.e. all the terms of a standard topic ban apply. The specifics in this case are the subject area, i.e. Japanese culture, and the time period, i.e. indefinite, (which of course does not mean "infinite"). Those are not standard, because they're different from topic ban to topic ban, but the terms of the ban itself are standard, and any admin looking to apply a block based on thse bans should be familiar with those terms, and doesn't have to look up specifics about the terms of these topic bans. I hope that's clear to you.

I'm not sure what you mean by "precedent" in regard to this -- this is not a court of law, and we are neither judges nor a jury. We are a community of editors, and the community can put into effect any kind of sanction it wishes to, if there is consensus to do so. In this case, the proposal called for 2 topic bans, one for each of you, and the closer is called upon to determine if there was a consensus in this discussion for that proposed sanction, or for some other sanction. There's nothing unusual in any of that, it's entirely within the purview of the community, and of the closing admin. BMK (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reversed the order of "indefinite" and "standard" to make my point clearer. BMK (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me. My problem is not with the length, but the scope. If the point of a TBAN is (as you and others have said above) to allow me and Catflap08 to demonstrate that we can edit constructively in other areas, then why does it cover such a broad area as to force at least one of us off Wikipedia? I have never shown any interest in editing articles outside the "Japanese culture" area; this is because Wikipedia is voluntary, I edit because I enjoy it, and I don't enjoy writing about subjects (a) of which I have no specialist knowledge and (b) in which I have no interest. I can't edit constructively without causing disruption, if I can't edit period. On top of this, as demonstrated much further up the thread, all of the disruption has taken place within the area of Nichiren Buddhist new religious movements. No evidence has been presented of any disruption in any article on "Japanese culture" that was not centered around this narrow area; indeed, no evidence has been presented of Catflap08 ever having edited any article on "Japanese culture" that was not centered around this narrow area. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The scope of topic bans can be everything from extremely narrow to extremely broad. I have suggested what I thought was appropriate, and the editors who !voted "support" agreed. Other editors have disagreed -- fine, let's see what kind of consensus the closer finds, if any. BMK (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There does seem to be consensus for some form of sanctions. If the closing admin finds that the consensus for sanctions is sufficient, but, perhaps, that no particular sanctions proposed have sufficient support, I think that there might be precedent, somewhere, to keep the thread open or reopen another one with a broader range of possible sanctions. God knows I don't wanna see this drag on any longer than it has to, but if the closing admin deems it reasonable, I guess we would have to live with it. John Carter (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I’d like to insert that it is not my intention to see Hijirii88 banned on Japanese Culture even though I find their edits in other areas quite disturbing (especially in lacking respect for other editors reading the notes accompanying edits) those areas are not my business though. At the very beginning of this thread I gave the reasons for why I think a TBAN on Hijirii88 regarding topics falling within the category of Nichiren Buddhsim would be beneficial. May I say that it was not me who was blocked for 72h and it was Hijirii88 who popped up on Nichiren related articles they never really showed up on before? The IBAN does not seem to work – and there do seem to be ways round it. The reason for me starting this ANI is simply that if Hijirii88 would have continued editing on Nichiren related matters (defined by a category) I would not have been able to further edit the only area I am basically active on - without violating the IBAN. May I also say that I usually work on Nichiren Buddhist matters only in general? Articles dealing with major historic figures and traditional schools within Nichiren Budhism are fairly “quiet” anyways – there just is no controversy as compared to those Nichiren groups being regarded as new religious movements. This is also the very reason I do not edit articles (except the talk page), such as Soka Gakkai, in major ways anymore. In the article on SGI there is so much POV that I could not care less anymore as the project does not seem to care either, so why bother? Since the outcome of this is still open I would like to thank those who joined adding information on Nichiren Buddhism in general – since I was once an adherent of one of those new religious movements based on Nichiren Buddhism (now not affiliated with any school or group) Wikipedia helped in replacing myths, lies and ignorance about Nichiren Buddhism in general with facts. This is what I came here for. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has harassed CurtisNaito on a closed good article review (see here), and has been involved in further hounding on the Talk:History of Japan#Article should not be citing Jared Diamond talk page. I have warned Hijiri88 for vandalism on History of Japan (I believe he also crossed the 3RR), to which he simply removed my warning from his talk.  — Calvin999 16:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that some days after the request for closure on this ANI thread was placed, and all participants agreed to wait for the closure and accept whatever consensus statement is drawn by the closing admin, I got involved in a completely unrelated content dispute on the History of Japan article. There was no "vandalism", and whether "edit-warring" has taken place is up for grabs (if one side has two or more users and therefore doesn't technically violate 3RR, but also refuses to engage in talk page discussion, does it count as an edit war?). Calvin999 showed up out of nowhere and started making several gross personal attacks and threats against me, and apparently looked through my edit history to find out that there had recently been an ANI thread about me. Without checking what the current status of the thread, he posted the above off-topic rant about how I am "harassing" the other user in the dispute (whose own comment in this thread shows quite the opposite). I am trying to engage in civilized talk page discussion, but have received threats and personal attacks from one user, blank reverts without any attempt to use the talk page from another, and blank reverts with some talk-page-based off-topic avoidance of the issues from another. Full disclosure, I have emailed an administrator (Cuchullain -- I don't want to ping him for fear he'll comment here and exacerbate the problem) to look into the problem with Calvin999. The personal remarks are annoying, but it's the threats that I'm worried about. Please, no one else comment on this here. Just ignore it. If you want to weigh in on the content dispute, all input is still welcome. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As has already been noted in this thread, Hijiri has a tendency to issue disturbing threats against other editors who criticize him. However, what's even more concerning is that he follows through with his threats by harassing these editors. Not long after I suggested that Hijiri be page banned he responded by posting negative messages on my good article review for Iwane Matsui. Hijiri had taken no interest in good article reviews before then, and the reviewer found his concerns to be without foundation. Now after I have posted a message about Hijiri in this thread, he responded by doing the same thing, posting negative messages on a recent good article review of mine, even though he had shown no interest in good article reviews before. The fact that his behavior constituted harassment and disruptive editing was clearly pointed out by the user Calvin999 on multiple occasions. Meanwhile Hijiri posted several harassing messages on my talk page. During a simultaneous dispute on the talk page at History of Japan he canvassed both Nishidani and Sturmgewehr88, the exact same users he was explicitly warned about canvassing in this very thread! All these policy violations would be enough to fill an entire thread, but since this thread is still open, I figured I would post it here.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the same sort of stalking and harassment I have experienced (including this recent harassing message Hijiri left on my talk page). This is the same sort of stalking and harassment that Catflap08 demonstrated at the start of the thread, and the same sort of stalking and harassment many other editors have experienced.TH1980 (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

TH1980 has been engaged in a slow-motion hounding campaign of me over the past four months. I plan on doing something about this once the present Catflap08 mess has wound down -- I won't post all the evidence until then, but it's there, as you can see in his edit history. He recently showed up on the History of Japan article, having never edited it before or shown any interest in it, and reverted me. CurtisNaito and two of his cronies (TH1980 and Calvin999) have been edit-warring to preserve a controversial version of the article. Neither Calvin999 nor TH1980 have made any attempt whatsoever to use the talk page, and CurtisNaito has been all-but copy-pasting the same comment over and over again, not actually addressing other users' concerns. The edit war is over whether some controversial (unsourced, OR, misrepresentation of sources, sourced to an unreliable opinion piece) material should be tagged as such while discussion on the talk page takes place. Every outside editor who has weighed in has agreed with my POV on the content dispute, because I am right (as I have been in all of my past disputes with these editors -- they simple don't understand our content policies; see here). If I violated 3RR, I apologize. But I am not the one who has been "edit-warring", since I was until User:Sturmgewehr88 showed up the only one attempting to engage in discussion on the talk page -- the ones who don't use the talk page are the ones who were edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

For everyone's information, I have had an interest in Japanese history for some time. I was recently browsing the history of Japan article and its talk page when I noticed the recent dispute there. I am dismayed by Hijiri88's penchant for splitting hairs as to whether or not a source is reliable, especially when it is written by as noted a scholar as Jared Diamond.TH1980 (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of this already finished and waiting to be closed ANI discussion, I will not address all of CurtisNaito's above off-topic, content-dispute related comments. However, it needs to be pointed out that the reason I had not taken an interest in GA reviews until just before the Iwane Matsui affair was because I don't much care for petty medals. CurtisNaito, on the other hand asserted that I had contributed nothing of worth to Wikipedia's coverage of Japanese history because he had created more "GA" articles than I had. Both the "good article" in question had at review and still have now serious sourcing issues, and in the case of the Iwane Matsui article the reviewer admitted he was unable to read 95% of the article's sources. Now enough of this off-topic content discussion on ANI already! Let some admin close this thread however they see fit, and take the content dispute back to the talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I see why your in such a hurry to close. More is coming out about your behaviour. I hope the closer takes into account that you are now harassing those that oppose you. Perhaps a nice indef Block is needed. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) Hijiri, your refusal to address concerns of others is noted, as is your discussion of off-topic, content-dispute related content and how it has no place here, which, in all honesty, is more than a little amusing considering how you had above said Catflap didn't know a damn thing about some content with which you had been in disagreement with him. This would seem to my eyes to be at least the second time WP:KETTLE could be reasonably invoked regarding your behavior here. If, and although I do not want to predict the outcome, I think there is a reasonable chance that it will end in at least some further sanctions against Hijiri, I hope he realizes, if that does come to pass, that, should he continue to engage in the problematic conduct which has been displayed not only in the links in previous discussions regarding him here, and, in fact, in his own conduct in this thread, there is a very real chance that the sanctions will be that much stronger, and, basically, there aren't that many possible sanctions stronger than a topic ban. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. I have been trying to discuss on the article talk page. CurtisNaito and Calvin999 have been blankly reverting me, ignoring the concerns of me and other users on the talk page, and have now taken the content dispute to ANI rather than going through the normal dispute resolution process. I agree with the two of you -- I hope the closing admin does look at the History of Japan dispute and take it into account (something it's quite clear neither of you have done).

Closer: Please look at the History of Japan dispute and tell off either me, Sturmgewehr88, Phoenix7777 and Vivexdino, or CurtisNaito, Rjensen, TH1980 and Calvin999 as appropriate. I'm sure both AlbinoFerret and John Carter would be very interested in what you have to say. (Note that another admin has already been invited to look into the dispute, though.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

And throughout all that time, you as an individual have shown by your behaviour, bluntly, the self-aggrandizement and paranoia which has been rather obvious in your conduct for some time. And nothing in the above comment, which us apparently supposed to be taken as an attempt to address the concerns of the previous comment I made, even remotely relates to it. I will try to say this in a way that even you might be forced to see it. You are responsible for your conduct. You have regularly engaged in gross insults, unfounded allegations, and other grossly obnoxious behaviour, in this thread and elsewhere, which can and I believe do raise in the minds of several whether you are even remotely competent to adhere to the behaviour guidelines we are all supposed to follow. Failure to address those concerns regarding your own conduct is, at best, not in your interests.

Should your conduct continue to regularly fail to meet even the most basic standards of reasonable conduct as per our conduct guidelines, which I strongly suggest you at some point maybe look over, the disruption caused by your obfuscations, attempts and misdirection, and other misconduct honestly leaves little if any option to others but some sort of external sanction. Considering you are already under low-level sanctions, that only leaves the higher-level sanctions as viable options. I believe more than one person, including BMK, has said your conduct in this thread is completely inappropriate. I very much doubt anyone other than perhaps you will see how your attempt to apparently continue to refuse to even consider dealing with the frankly, at times, repulsive conduct you so regularly have engaged in in multiple discussions, and which has been pointed in multiple discussions at ANI and elsewhere, and efforts at blaming the other guy for your own misconduct, will be at all sufficient grounds to not impose sanctions on you.John Carter (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Since I think we're just spinning our wheels at this point, I've posted a request for closure on AN, here. BMK (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, BMK. That is certainly the best way to deal with it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Even though I do find other editors coming forward indeed interesting - when it come s to general conduct, but must underline that this thread cannot be a hanger for their own quarrels with Hijirii88. All that I wanted to know is how and under what circumstances I can edit within the category I have gathered an expertise, without corrupting the current IBAN. I do not pride myself with being fairly neutral on Nichiren Buddhist related matters, but others have said so too that I am – even off Wikipedia. My prime objective focus is to keep articles based on Nichiren Buddhism being based on facts. Deleting references is just not on. One might question them but then there has to be hell of a Consensus not only by numbers but on content.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• In what may be a vain hope that this may still be dealt with by an admin closure, I'm adding this comment so that the thread doesn't scroll off the board, however, if a few more days pass, I'll be forced to conclude that no admin is interested in dealing with it, and I'll cease taking action to keep it open and give it up as a loss. Others may do as they wish. It's now been 2 weeks since the discussion was begun. BMK (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

At risk of drawing attention away from the earnest, sincere, and heartfelt call for help above, I think we can be fairly sure that any admin closing this can except a little bribery, like a barnstar, for going beyond the call of duty and actually reading this whole damn thing to draw a conclusion about it. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I've read through it all, and considered closing, but doing so with such a wide variety of opinions and problems, it would take a bit of a supervote to do so. Technically, any admin can act on the case regardless of discussion and local consensus (but not without controversy), assuming he acts consistent with the global consensus, but that would likely set off another chain of debates. In my opinion, these two editors are less important than Wikipedia as a whole, and it seems the only way to guarantee at least a period of peace without disruption would be to block them both for 30 days and narrow the topic ban to an indef on Nichiren Budhism, which is consistent with all the supports, being a narrower subset of the greater proposal. That sounds harsh, and perhaps I lack imagination, but I couldn't come up with a better solution, although the combined sanction is at the fringes of the consensus. Using a gentle hand would be foolish here, and this would set a firm precedent if there are future problems, putting more at risk, thus lowering the chance we would see future disruption. Whoever closes can expect to have to explain it at WP:AN, and I'm just not up for a fight right now, still recovering. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Dennis, which, as always, is appreciated. BMK (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Dennis Brown Fair enough, but in that case one could skip the 30 day ban as I do not really engage on other topics here. Blocking both of us on Nichiren related matters indef will be me out of en.wikipedia completely - we could have come to that conclusion earlier. If that were the case I will indeed wander off coming making my own conclusions. That being a. that the problem has not been addressed. b. that the edits by H88 within an area I am most active in and that in which they never really had much of an interest in before are indeed a means to misuse an IBAN. c. That the, to my mind, somewhat disturbing editing style of H88 has full admins support. d. If all that were the case I have indeed wasted hell of a lot of time here including the creation of articles.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Having said that following media reports on the mass deletion of sock puppets active here in Wikipedia admins may have to ask themselves far more urgent questions – I hope they do at least.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

First, to Dennis, thank you for having subjected yourself to reviewing this.

One other option, at this point, would be to maybe, somehow, open up separate sections for all the various options which have been proposed or considered, and allow for an ArbCom-like vote on all the options, allowing for a 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc., system. Or, alternately, as has been suggested above, to take this to the ArbCom.

Also, I guess personally at @Catflap08:, I remember in one of the old Falun Gong arbitrations I proposed the idea of allowing topic-banned editors to work to develop new content relating to that topic in my user space, with me retaining control of the space, moving any content developed there into article space on my own, at my discretion, and, if required, rather clearly telling individuals to leave them alone. The Arbs indicated at that time that there was nothing the Arbs could do about what an individual editor allows in their user space. I've looked over a lot of religion content over the years, and I know full well that the number of articles of the "Religion by country" type, articles on individual jurisdictions or temples, major figures in the traditions, the social practices of the traditions, books or works about the groups, and a whole almost endless stream of other subjects, is a lot less than could be supported after reviewing other encyclopedic reference sources. I suppose the same might be possible here. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

As one user put it I am not the bad guy here, thanks for that :-) In effect some are not sure whether to block me on NB “only” or nor not – in effect that boils down to blocking me from en.Wikipedia anyways. The subject area I am interested in is fairly limited so is my time I can spend on the project in general (you know job, family other interests and so forth - life). So for goodness sake block me, that’s me off your back, but I do have the incline that H88 will keep on keeping ANI busy. BTW do stop that bad habit used by some editors of deleting contributions – a word written is there to stay deleted or not. My proposal was a TBAN for H88 – decide on that – is that so difficult? If there is no TBAN on H88 that’s me disabled anyways no official ban needed anyway.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• To be clear, I don't think more polling is necessary or beneficial. What is needed is bold, balanced action by an admin who knows how to do the right thing (whatever he or she may think that is, and not necessarily my idea) and be willing to put up with some temporary heat for it. The time for talk is over, it is time for someone to step up and implement something reasonable so we may move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Here here! (Or is it "hear hear"? I've never been sure. In any case, what he said.) BMK (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I basically agree, with the one proviso that maybe, and this is just a maybe, maybe someone should take this to ArbCom and give some of them additional reasons to hate some of us for making their lives more difficult. Having multiple people take part in a short discussion examining all the possible variation on sanctions might be useful, but it would also almost certainly generate as much heat and pointless verbiage as this one has. Maybe, anyway. The downside, of course, is that it would keep the level of dramah-mongering and other unfortunate conduct from some involved ongoing, and the additional time might just cement enmity further. Of course, if someone with a lot of guts wants to demonstrate their courage by doing something about this, I don't think anyone could object too strongly. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:It's "hear, hear" if it gets tricky, perhaps going for a close by a triumvirate of admins as has happened for the more difficult RFC's that have happened in the past. That might be overkill... Blackmane (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to remember. BMK (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

T-bans and I-bans and whatever-bans would be more trouble than they're worth. Simply block both editors for 30 days for WP:TE -- it's really not worth the community effort to figure out who is more at fault. NE Ent 02:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Break

Is this seriously still going on? It's been two weeks. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:15, 3 September 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.

A new sock drawer opens

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 far it contains:

• User:Brian Sadowski is unemployed and on welfare (blocked under UAA)
• User:Favo is unemployed and on welfare (blocked under UAA)
• User:So ironic anymore (still active)

I assume this is someone who has had a run-in with Bsadowskil. I'm off to bed; if others could keep an eye on things overnight I'd appreciate it. GoldenRing (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I see the third one has also been blocked now. Please keep an eye on the situation still. GoldenRing (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Judging from its "style", this is the life form that's been haunting Bongwarrior's user/talk pages for quite a while, and those of anyone who sees fit to interfere. WP:RBI. Favonian (talk) 17:14, 31 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.

Disruptive editing by User:Tortle

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 really didn't want to post this to ANI, since it appears that the edits made by this user were done in good faith. However, I see a WP:COMPETENCE problem with their editing.

Tortle is a member that first edited on August 18, 2015 who claims that they has edited Wikipedia "five or six years ago". They nominated and reviewed articles without good understanding of the GA criteria; see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Bulk reviews and nominations by new editor. They also founded Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia, which is unrelated to the original WikiProject Wikipedia (which has been renamed WP:WikiProject Improving Wikipedia), and basically implies that Tortle WP:OWNs the project. (I do not have to provide any diffs; just look at the project pages.) The project is broadly redundant to the existing Wikipedia:Help Project. I appreciate their enthusiasm, but I think that currently they is doing more harm than good to Wikipedia. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There are also concerns about changes to various help & directory pages. I raised one question at Wikipedia talk:Department directory. As the OP said, I'm sure that the edits are well-intentioned, but I do not think that it is wise for a new user (still at school according to his user page) to undertake such drastic restructuring without having discussed the idea with the community. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Tortle set about changing the leads to the 600 odd "[date] in literature" pages and appears to have completed this time-consuming task. The problem is that the lead he chose is ambiguous in my view (the pages do not list historical events, only literary ones). I tried to point this out to him as he began the project but he paid no attention. As I understand it, there should have been an open discussion on the matter at that point. In practical terms, I can't see myself finding the two or three days required to alter the 600 leads again at any time in the next few months, although eventually I would like to comb them all out for other reasons: inconsistent punctuation and layout, for instance. I feel that Tortle (apparently still a schoolboy) hasn't grasped that Wikipedia is a cooperative project. I think he should be asked to acknowledge this and undertake to act in a cooperative fashion in future. Ideally his energy and enthusiasm should not be lost to us if possible. Bmcln1 (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed some of the templates (barnstars, trophies, and whatnot) intended for use in the the "new" WikiProject when they were created while browsing through Special:NewPages templates the other day. I was concerned at the time about the ones related to the "founder" in respect to WP:OWN, and the other membership statuses. I've kept an eye on it ever since. As the main page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia) has now been deleted, I've nominated several corresponding pages which rely on it for speedy deletion. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, and if those are deleted; I may also look into the page moves which have been reverted that left perhaps undesirable redirects (i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Improving Wikipedia related).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I moved the original Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia back to its original name. It has been an inactive WikiProject but I don't believe that one editor, especially an editor who has been around two weeks, can move an existing WikiProject and place it with one with the same name that they created themselves with no input from other editors. It was suggested to them that they take their proposal to the WikiProject Council talk page but that suggestion was rejected. This seems like this editor is in a hurry (2,000+ edits in two weeks?) that doesn't allow for consensus decision-making.

I think the pages s/he created could be restored (and adapted) if Tortle finds support to create a WikiProject with a different name. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

And if they address the WP:OWN issues, which is not hard.All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

I spent a few hours last night fixing redirects.... does look like everything was done with good intentions but way too fast.... many errors that other editors are not trying to fix. all edits should be reviewedMoxy (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this user after I received an invite to join a vaguely purpose project they'd created. I noticed the user had trouble deciding on a username for some odd reason, and WP:COMPETENCE came to mind. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I also get the strong impression that Tortle is acting in good faith, but possibly more enthusiasm than caution. I would like to see this handled with that in mind, as I think Tortle could become a valued contributor once they get a better feel for the system. The basic concept of the new project is commendable, even if the execution was problematic. I was hoping that it could have been sorted out less bluntly. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We might be better able to judge Tortle's competence if we could check the edits under his previous username from when he was active several years ago, and see what occurred at the time. Given that the Orange Tortle and Green Tortle accounts noted by Ohnoitsjamie are also still out there, perhaps a full disclosure of all related accounts is in order. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about previous edits, or legitimate alternate accounts. The important thing is to establish dialogue, which indeed some of us were already trying to do. It may be a little hard, but it's worth the effort. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

Responding to this user by speedy-deleting their contributions as g2/g3 (hoax or vandalism) when they are clearly neither is not helpful. Moving the "project" to a holding name would have been quicker and less harmful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

I have to agree with this. While I can see arguments for not keeping the page, it being a hoax or obvious vandalism is not one of them. Sam Walton (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I am kind of hurt because I woke up to find everything that I spent hours on deleted. I feel like it could have at least been moved to another name. I am very frustrated that it was all done before I could suggest a move. I could have fixed the problems with WP:OWN and continued with it under a different name. It is suggested but not required that one discuss a wikiproject before creating it. I looked at that page where people suggest wikiprojects and there doesn't even seem to be any conversation going on anyway. So all I'm asking is that an admin who probably can, restore the wikiproject under a new name so that changes can be made and all of the hard work on the code isnt lost. I feel that this was handed hastily as many of you feel the WikiProject was. Thanks Tortle (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Liz, User:Rich Farmbrough, User:Ohnoitsjamie, or User:Samwalton9 can one of you restore the project under a random name? I feel like everything got deleted faster due to hoax and vandalism being on the speedy deletion templates and that didn't even give me a chance to copy and past code or anything. Thanks Tortle (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadly I don't have those kinds of superpowers. (I have other kinds, but there is too much kryptonite about to use most of them.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

Well who has them User:Rich Farmbrough? Tortle (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The other three users you pinged, for starters. Full list here. But I suggest that one of those three will probably turn up soemtime soonish. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

Thanks Rich Farmbrough Tortle (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I made a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion so perhaps one of you that I pinged can review the request over there.

Tortle, my sympathy for you is limited at this point as I am still undoing your (and Jj98's) edits for this undertaking you pursued without discussing it with any other editors working in the WikiProject area. I keep finding more pages to move, edits to undo and categories to tag for deletion. Categories should never be moved without going through a WP:CFD discussion or, if warranted, they can be suggested for a speedy category rename. I am baffled that an editor with a two week old account would move an entire WikiProject and all of its associated pages and categories to a different name without discussing it first at some talk page, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council which is where new proposals for WikiProjects are posted and considered.

On one hand, I can appreciate all of the work you put into this but on the other hand, all I've been doing today is fixing your mistakes. This could have been easily avoided if you had just discussed your idea first. Some other admin might jump in here to help you with the restorations but as for me, I will not restore any pages until I have cleaned up this mess first.

You could aid in this process by undoing the hundreds of associated edits you have made regarding the faux WikiProject Improving Wikipedia. All of the changes you made have need to be undone before I'd consider restoring any pages. Don't fret, a restoration is likely but it will occur faster if you help with the work! Besides undoing your changes, if you want to create a new WikiProject, I suggest you reply to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Tortle's new WikiProject and float your ideas there. WikiProjects are collaborations among editors, not solo creations of "founders". 22:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I probably should have seen this coming a couple days ago and acted. I had no idea of the wholesale changes and policy violations that were going on. I asked Tortle if he needed any help with the project and he assured me he did not. In a spirit of good humor I asked to be a charter member, but failed to look more deeply into the matter. Had I done so, it would have been obvious what was going on, and I could have spoken up. My apologies to all concerned. Jusdafax 01:08, 3 September 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.

Persistent copyvios

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.

---

WikipediaismadebypeoplelikeM78E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly uploading copyvio images to Commons and adding them to articles here, namely Maine Mendoza, Pabebe Wave and AlDub. This is despite warnings on their talk page both here and on Commons. I request that they be given a block or at the very least an absolutely final warning.

I have made the same request also on Commons. BethNaught (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Indef blocked with a standard note that they can be unblocked if they show they understand and are willing to abide by Wikipedia's copyright policies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, NeilN. BethNaught (talk) 17:08, 2 September 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.

Lost Embers 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.

---

I notice that the Lost Embers page has been removed and the editor blocked from editing the page. Please can this block be revoked as Lost Embers is a UK based musician and all information provided was correct and referenced.

Please let me know how this block can be revoked.

Thanks

John Boon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.253.165 (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The subject does not meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria, and as such there is no compelling reason to recreate it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:09, 2 September 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.

Personal Threats from User:Ebyabe

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:Ebyabe has threatened me ("hope things are nice in Warrington btw"). I found that terrifying and did not know the finding of that info was possible. In my view nothing, nothing whatsoever can warrant so personal and sinister a threat, especially not such comparably petty sins as an apologised for violation of WP:AGF and supposed -unproved-sock puppetry. Frankly, it's the sort of thing usually reserved for psychopathic criminals in TV shows. I would advocate a permanent ban. They give wiki a bad name and such stalking is a deterrent to editors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/679161407

5.69.65.122 (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I recommended that this user report me at ANI. They forgot to notify me, so I took the liberty of notifying myself. The user's actions may have influenced me to go a bit far with the Warrington comment, and for that I apologize. I used the IP trace tools (which are available to every registered user, not just admins) to find an approximate location. I could have done it and not mentioned it, but perhaps unwisely chose otherwise. Of course, that's a reason to create an account so any Wikipedia user can't do that, but that's another issue. Thank you all for your consideration in this matter. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 21:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

An IP is not anonymous in the slightest. All IPs generally indicate where they're assigned as a matter of course. That said, Ebyabe's comment was out of line. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh is still open so nothing is proved or unproved at this moment. An edit like this shows a familiarity with how things work around here so it is hard to imagine that someone would be completely unaware of the geolocate functions. BTW there is a large orange box stating that you must notify an editor when you open a thread about them. You failed to do this. On top of that the personal attacks added to your post here make AGF difficult. MarnetteD|Talk 21:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

SPIs will never connect accounts to IPs absent severe, systemic abuse. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• IP is a block evading sock editing disruptively; edit-warring; and then complaining about other editors for calling them out. Have closed SPI as a WP:DUCK case and blocked IP and master. CU's are not allowed to connect IPs and accounts based on non-public evidence. Admins do it all the time using public behavioral evidence. I am in a soup if I am wrong about this. :) ) Abecedare (talk) 21:24, 2 September 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.

Davefelmer

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.

---

Davefelmer (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, but has simply continued to edit the same things over and over again that caused him to come into trouble. He has also used an IP (136.167.9.178 (talk)), accidental or not, in order to do this. Some further action against this person for his behaviour would be nice. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)that is blatantly not true and I have only edited factual information that was incorrectly used before.

• Davefelmer just needs to be banned outright. ALL of its edits are tendentious - treating wikipedia as a battleground between Manchester United and Liverpool FC. It's childish and pathetic. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I have great sympathy for User:Davefelmer's position on several things, but his conduct has been abominable. An outright ban would not be appropriate, but a longer block may be appropriate until he can show he can work collaboratively with others. – PeeJay 21:14, 2 September 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:Kalakannija's derogatory 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.

---

Kalakannija has made several personal attacks/disrespectful-comments over the past few months and has been warned adequately. Diffs:1, 2, 3, 4 (This is a serious vulgar attack against against the other party in discussion which states he/she should be a Norwegian slave instead being a Sri Lankan. After being warned multiple times he still continue to make personal attacks. Diff: 5. He recently broke my talk page with this edit to reply to a discussion (sparked due to this warning by me) that has been archived a long time ago. I had to revert him back and comment on his talk page instead. Initially I thought I could resolve this dispute by a talk page discussion, but I'm unable to, and I have no idea what I should do next. He also claimed that I should not participate in a discussion if my nationality is irrelevant to the topic, which is ridiculous. -- Chamith (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours for that last edit on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 3 September 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.

Princess Marie of Hesse and by Rhine (1874–1878)

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 a religion listed in Marie's infobox?

A four year old toddler who cannot tell time or tie her own shoes is not old enough to have a religion. Paul Austin (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is an issue the admins should handle, as this is discussing content on a page. I did see you posed a question on the Talk Page of the article, which I would say is the right place to bring this up. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 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.

Deleting pages created by User:MusicAngels

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 has been copied from ANI's talk page) Bgwhite (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

About a month ago User:MusicAngels created long, complex poetry pages without any scholarly consensus and has in the past week or so, most likely as teachers are returning from vacation, individuals have begun chipping away at these pages. User:MusicAngels has refused to allow editing, has labeled all editing vandalism, and disallowed any conversation. Some of his/her pages have been tagged for deletion but they should all be investigated. 64.9.146.210 (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The article you refer to was created and patroled about six months ago. You appear not to be reading the link provided for you at WP:BRD. You are not supposed to be editing on the article page until consensus is reached on the Talk page. Please stop misattributing dates of article creation to other editors at Wikipedia as you have been doing here. You should not be editing on the article page until you make consensus on the Talk page of the article. MusicAngels (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Something odd is going on.

1. A copyright problem tag has been applied to the articles MusicAngels has created by MusikAnimal.
2. MusicAngels asked for a GA review of W. H. Auden over a week ago. Review is here. It appears MusicAngels has copied someone else's critique of Auden, struck out another editor's comments they didn't like, left several upset message. In the meantime, MusicAngel is leaving messages on other edit's talk pages to visit the review. Macspaunday has been involved in this.
3. MusicAngels is adding links to other poet's to articles they have created. The links have been reverted by multiple people, including IPs with claims of consensus being reached, but I see nothing on the talk pages about this, little alone consensus. An ANI discussion was started a couple days ago by MusicAngels on their links being removed by Macspaunday. They were told it was valid to remove the links, but MusicAngels has been adding them again.

Some investigating needs to happen to ascertain if copyright violations and POV pushing are happening. Bgwhite (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There are no copyright violations of any kind in the article which fully attributes all of its many citations. The policy about valid forms of using old material in Wikipedia in new articles which have been reviewed and patrolled by WikiProjects and WikiPartrol are documented in WP:CWW (Copying within wikipedia) and in WP:Forking for Valid forms of use of old material within wikipedia. There is no copyright violation anywhere in the article of any kind and I have gone out of my way to bring the references up to date and ensuring that the links are working. Any flags for copyright violations should be removed since there is no copyright violation in the reviewed article. Item (3) above appears to refer to a "See also" section addition which I added to related articles which appears to be the form which in preferred. MusicAngels (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Attribution is absolutely required, end of discussion. I don't see that anywhere in the articles or page histories. From what I could tell there is a section on each poet, with content copied from that poet's article – so potentially a lot of work to fix the lack of attribution. To clarify, the issue is someone authored that content, which you copied and pasted, so now it looks like you authored it. I'm sure this wasn't intentional, and again it can be fixed.

I briefly looked over the hatnotes, and I agree there might be some misuse, particularly WP:RELATED. Also we should be using a template, and not bare bones formatting.

Finally, there might be some concern with ownership of articles. How I originally got involved was an AIV report about MusicAngels removing user's comments from the articles' talk page. You can observe this behaviour at here, where they are removing constructive comments from anonymous users, with rationale that they did not properly format their comment (e.g. was unsigned), among other nonsensical reasons. See User talk:MusicAngels#IP editor identified for vandalism by three separate bots for more on that issue. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also why is this discussion here? We should probably move it to WP:AN/I? — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There are over 80 (eighty) citations in the bibliography which are fully documented and which I have gone out of my way to make sure they are up to date and functioning. The attribution is as full as it can be and there is no copyright violation in the article of any kind to my knowledge. If you have something unrelated to this is mind please indicate it, since I know that there are no copyright violation in the article of any kind and the banner notice should be removed. If you can provide any example of the type of attribution or notification which you want to see then point me to it and I will do my best to follow any well intended advice. The comments from the IP-user with dynamically changing IP addresses, to me, has looked more like graffiti to me rather than having content. I have maintained it on the Page at your request, and have tried to provide further links to help the IP-editor to try to communicate more effectively. There is no ownership of any article at Wikipedia, and I claim and assert no type of ownership of the article of any kind. The edits there yesterday by another editor adding various links to the article done by another editor looked perfectly reasonable and done fully responsibly. The eighty citations in the bibliography of the article have all been fully researched and fully attributed, there are no copyright violations to my knowledge of any kind in the article and any flags stating otherwise should be removed from the article. MusicAngels (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you bother to actually read the above, you see the copyright infringement they are talking about. If you take prose from a website that uses CCBYSA but don't properly attribute the source, that is copyright infringement. Wikipedia is a website. That means if you borrow from an article here, you still have to give attribution, except that it is trivial to do. If you have been borrowing a lot from articles here, you may be forcing an audit of all your edits to that article, which is a major pain in the arse to do, because you infringed copyright. Do you not understand this? Editors at Wikipedia have the same rights to attribution you would give editors from other websites, you can't just lift their work and act like it is your own. Are they wrong, have you not been doing this? Since they saw no attribution, can you stand here and say you didn't take any content from other articles at Wikipedia and put it into this one? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Proper attribution is always important. In the version of the article that is posted, I had made sure that the original articles were all linked (each and every one of them) in both the lead section and elsewhere using double-square brackets to link directly to the original pages. In fact one of my purposes in creating the article was to get more people to read the related full biographies of the leading poets mentioned. There are more ways to enhance the attribution of the related articles and biographies by using the "Further" template or the "Main" template in each one of the subsections of the article. I am fully supportive of this type of attribution and would like to add them into the article myself. MusicAngels (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That is not attribution, that is simply page integration via links. We need it to say "text taken from this article at this time", etc, and when it entered your article. The problem is you took text from numerous pages and compiled them into one (times three to account for all of the concerned articles). That would have been easier if you had used edit summaries when you created the page. I'm sure you didn't intentionally introduce copyright infringement but we do need to fix this. I thought about posting at WP:CP but I'm not sure if that's the right venue given we know there's a problem, we just don't know the best way to fix it. To other observers, I've explained the full, safe way to do belated attribution at User talk:MusicAngels#Copying from other articles, but that route will surely take quite some time to implement. It's unclear to me if we could get away with dummy edits and informative edit summaries. Advice is needed — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Dummy edits should be fine, imo, as long as we cover each article and carefully document each instance. The key is getting that info into individual edit summaries. Personally, I would compile a complete list first, and post that on the talk page, then work from that. That should clear up any confusion and provide a single record of all previous attribution as a bonus. It's also the best way to insure we get them all, and is simply the easiest and fastest way to get the job done in a case like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just saw in your link where you talk about using talk pages as well, so that sounds like I agree with you, MusikAnimal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see comments by me and another user at [160] both saying it would be easiest and best simply to delete MusicAngel's "Poetry in XYZ" pages and asking an admin to Speedy Delete them. Why do all that work fixing pages that shouldn't be there at all? 86.175.175.114 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• My concern is that, for example, Poetry in the early 21st century isn't actually about that subject. 90% of it is about influences on C21 poetry by earlier poets. Given that the whole thing's a copyvio anyway, wouldn't it be better to just delete it and start again? Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'm coming around to that as well. The articles are essays on American, English, and a little French poetry--their lack of globality is quite striking, almost as striking as their sheer size. So content-wise there are plenty of problems already, and while it's a shame to delete something with such bibliographies, the combination of content problems, essay-style, and copyvio is insurmountable (I mean, simply documenting where the sentences came from is for Sisyphus, not for us). So yes, I favor deletion, as harsh as it may sound. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I thought that as well, but didn't like the idea of deleting so much material. I read some, wasn't particularly impressed with the tone and scope, but this is so far out of my normal areas, I didn't want to judge. That said, I wouldn't oppose deleting. I surely don't want to have to do the ground work for copyvio myself, to be honest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• The whole point of permitting speedy deletion for copyright infringements is to save admins and other good-faith editors from having to do the ground work themselves. This is no different from any other copyright infringement: our license clearly states This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. As any other copyright infringement case that I've worked in, I've deleted the infringing pages and issued an only warning. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't normally delete in-house copyright infringement when we are able to simply correct the attribution, but here it seemed the pages were almost entirely borrowed content, and in large quantity. It's difficult to justify a standalone article when there is no substantial additional prose. Furthermore it was copied from so many articles, rendering it quite cumbersome to properly attribute to the original authors. A book may be the more appropriate way to compile such content — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Nyttend, I appreciate your comments here, which should also tell our readers that we don't do these things lightly. (As it happens I just deleted an article with a very similar background but nowhere near as good as the ones we were discussing here.) I am inclined to let things slide more easily with content copied internally, since that's often an easier fix, but even that would have been very difficult here. MusicAngels, please take these comments to heart, and take some comfort in the fact that it took six admins to make this decision. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• And a lot of readers and editors will admire the way you reached this decision. This was obviously a difficult situation, and the admins did a perfect job of resolving it. Thank you. 86.147.174.79 (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• MusicAngels seems to be deep in another edit war at Birdman_(film). Unfortunately, the editor who MusicAngels is mostly warring with seems to think the page belongs to him/her instead, so this may need some sorting out on both sides. But MusicAngels is back again doing what he/she was warned against in the talk pages attached to the poetry pages that are now deleted, that is, he/she is trying to block all edits by anyone else until "consensus" is reached on a talk page and is claiming that this is WP policy. MusicAngels seems to be unstoppable in these bad habits, even after many warnings from admins. 86.182.17.155 (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the editor whom MusicAngels is warring with. I disagree with the statement that I seem to think the page belongs to me (indeed, while at one stage I got upset with someone editing a section to begin, after discussion I was very grateful for the edits!), though obviously everyone's entitled to their opinion. I'd like it if you read my summary over at the edit warring noticeboard though. I just care about additions to the article being good, and am not happy when people bully others into keeping poor additions. Neuroxic (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Y'all, it's worthwhile keeping an eye on the deluge of IP disruptors on Talk:Birdman (film), and now also on my talk page. I don't know if this IP is part of that assholery, but I ended up semi-protecting that talk page: comments made there were just personal attacks on MusicAngels and had nothing to do with the content of Birdman. They're on my talk page too, blathering a bunch about how they're academics but can't have accounts and I hate IP editors and blah blah blah.

  I don't know if any of you are smart enough to figure out what's going on. Maybe it's one person who knows how to hop IPs all over the place; maybe it's a bunch of meaty IPs. It's a minor irritation, and it's getting in the way of Neuroxic and MusicAngels reaching a solution on the article--but perhaps some of you content editors and GA-warriors can have a look as well. Note: I have no dog in this fight; I haven't seen the movie, read the article, or even glanced at the GA review or reassessment. I don't know Neuroxic or MusicAngels from Adam. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm the anonymous IP who wrote the paragraphs "A lot of readers" and "MusicAngels seems to be deep in..." I'm not part of any asshattery and I don't write personal attacks like the ones on the talk pages. I don't know how to hop IPs, but I visit from other people's computers, so my IP is probably different now from what it was before. I've been watching this story from a distance, and it's fascinating to see how some editors can disrupt Wikipedia and waste other people's time. 86.171.78.94 (talk) 17:34, 30 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.

revdel request

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 revdel the latest nationalist WP:NOTFORUM messages from 217.225.41.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in the edit history of Talk:Germany please? Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Keegan (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit warring

User:Garageland66 is edit warring on Communist Party of Britain. Repeated removal of far-left and "of Britain" in the party's name despite reliable sources supporting their presence.

Diffs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/678589268 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/678594432 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/678591812 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/678567897

Those are just examples. See here the user has been warned over page ownership, a warning which they dismissed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/678258213

I'm sorry unremittingly for my participation in the edit war.

Gotha^☭  _Talk 12:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Communist Party of Britain (or whatever it's called today). Both issues are discussed at some length. Garageland does not seem to consider that consensus amongst between others (no matter how weak) is something to consider. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Can some other editors / admins please take a look at User_talk:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh#Block.

A purely preventative [sic] block has been issued on just one of the editors here, on the sole grounds that the other editor is "less familiar" with WP. So they have of course now continued their edit warring unopposed, as after all they now have clear admin approval that their version is "right". How does that one work? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

New User:Mike.James 11

Mike.James 11 (talk · contribs) - This editor has a beef about the definition used by ONS in the UK for the Birkenhead urban area - see that article and List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Warnings have had no effect, other than seeming to escalate his disgruntlement, now to section blanking. Some more pairs of eyes, and more words to the new editor, would be helpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Persistant unconstructive accusations

I hate to do this as I always try to assume good faith in every editors' contributions but there has been one editor that has consistently been unconstructive in his activity on the page of Paul Singer (businessman). Though me and User:SegataSanshiro1 have engaged in thorough discussion, he has made several false accusations about me on the grounds of WP:HARASSMENT and violated WP:BLP on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman) by giving his unwarranted opinion on the subject. Even after several attempts to remain civil by focusing on content rather than slamming the subject and accusing me of COI, he continues his hostile activity. I don't know if any sanctions are justified in this situation but I wanted to get a second opinion on how to handle this. Below is an incomplete list of some of SegataSanshiro's edits I have an issue with:

• [161]
• [162]
• [163]
• [164]
• [165]
• [166]

Thanks in advance for the help. Meatsgains (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed his/her recent accusation against you [167] on the Paul Singer talk page. I'm sorry you've been attacked in this way--I'm familiar with your editing history and it is clear to me you've edited in good faith and that you've attempted to apply Wikipedia policies fairly. It seems the editor has an axe to grind with Paul Singer and you've received the brunt of his/her wrath. I hope action is taken to protect you from further unsubstantiated attacks. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I asked many times politely to disclose any conflicts of interests and this was repeatedly ignored. I think given this editor's string of edits and extremely odd editing behaviour on the page in question, the accusation is hardly unfounded and doesn't constitute abuse. There have been many cases of paid editing surrounding the pages of businesses and wealthy businesspeople reported in the press and this user's edits fit that pattern of behaviour. Of course, he could also have a genuine and profound long-term interest in a 70 year old hedge fund manager, which is why I posed it as a question on numerous occasions. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have denied your false accusations, not ignored them, multiple times [168] [169] and yet you continue your antics and attacks. My editing behavior has always been civil and of good faith. Meatsgains (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you asked many times for Meatsgains to disclose a COI. But Meatsgains didn't disclose a COI. There are two options: they don't have a COI, so they can't possibly disclose one, or they do have a COI, but they are lying about it. If you truly feel that Meatsgains has a COI, you need to bring that up at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Repeatedly badgering another user about a suspected COI is not productive. If there's evidence of one, bring it up and let the investigation begin. Personally, I think the assertion that Meatsgains has a COI is dubious given the editor's long and varied edit history and lack of disciplinary action against him/her. But certainly repeatedly accusing someone of COI, having that person deny it, but then continuing to accuse them is only resulting in spinning your wheels. Either drop it, or move forward on the COI noticeboard. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

These continuing attacks should stop. The long time editor has explicitly stated he has no COI yet the accusations continue. It is a disruptive provocation. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:‎YuuOtosaka

There is currently an ongoing dispute between me and ‎YuuOtosaka (talk · contribs) over the choice of infobox image on Charlotte (anime). I say dispute, but so far, despite me trying to reach out to the editor on their talk page, the editor has continued to ignore me. The issue stems from YuuOtosaka changing the infobox image from File:Charlotte anime.jpg to File:Charlotte anime 2.jpg. On their talk page, I have tried to explain why I believe the former image should be kept to better represent the series, but the user has not responded, and has continued to change the image even after I tried to reach out to them regarding the issue.--十八 12:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: YuuOtosaka changed it back to the former image after I opened this thread.--十八 12:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) I looked at the page history, it doesnt appear to be edit warring. It appears to be a content dispute. This is a page for behaviour problems that go against policy and guidelines. If I am missing something please point out what policy or guideline this breaks. AlbinoFerret 17:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

151.49.94.203

151.49.94.203 (talk · contribs) - Could somebody please give an official warning to this user, who keeps vandalising Giorgia Marin? As an editor on nl-wiki I don't really know how to do this or what the procedures are. Thank you. I'm sorry if I should have reported this on another page. Regards, ErikvanB (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• @ErikvanB: Anytime you file a request on this board you MUST notify the user using {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their talk page. I have done that for you. In addition, I have left a warning regarding the unexplained removal of maintenance tags. For future reference please see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for a list of warnings. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Stabila711: Excellent. Understood. Thank you. ErikvanB (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Josu4u disruptive use of Page Curation

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.

---

Josu4u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I bring to your attention the user Josu4u who appears to lack an understanding of deletion criteria, but over at least the past couple of months has been persistently using WP:Page Curation to flag new and not-so-new articles with tags which are at best sort of random, and at worst completely wrong. Some examples:

• Kiel Society for Film Music Research - tagged A1 (it has definite context), A7 (it asserts significance and has multiple sources), G11 (it's not clear advertising)
• Tim Huebschle - tagged {{blp sources}}, it's a stub with six references
• Unni maya ( Singer ) - tagged {{blp prod}} even though it has seven references
• Anju Kurian - Josu4u removed a number of sources, then immediately nominated the article for deletion (improperly, I'm going to fix it) with the rationale "URLs used for References are abuse and there's no importance of the article." He has nominated several others solely due to having unformatted references.
• Z word - tagged G3 and A1 (this was clearly not vandalism, it's a redirect that's been around since 2010)
• Jothisha - tagged A7 (article has references)

On the user's talk page you'll find a number of requests stretching back over a couple of months (most recently by DGG today) to stop speedy-tagging articles because they clearly lack understanding of the criteria, and improperly tagging articles wastes admin time and unnecessarily bites the newcomers, yet they don't seem to be getting the point. Several of the articles Josu4u suggests should be deleted eventually are, but rarely for the reasons he suggests, and usually only after a separate discussion. Therefore, Josu4u's use of Page Curation is of no benefit (and of noted detriment) to the project, and I propose he be at least temporarily banned from its use. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ivanvector, Please have a look on my explanation. Articles Jothisha, Anju Kurian, Unni maya ( Singer )  : These articles are created by a Wikipedian, by submitting references which are not related to any importance of articles, some of the references mentioned within the article doesn't even mention anything about the article. I'm from Kerala. That article creator is creating Wikipedia Articles as a package here for an amount, according to the latest method for verifying Facebook pages, Facebook check whether Wikipedia is there for that person or not, because Wikipedia is referred as an importance of significance of the person. I have already mentioned about the creator of these Wikipedia articles in various discussions and none of them even tried to check the URLs submitted by the creator is from any trusted online newspapers or not. If these continues that article creator will create Wikipedia articles for anyone who showed their faces in a crowd sequence in a small movie and still you are going to requesting to block me for reporting these kinds of non-significant articles, then I am very sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josu4u (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to excuse all the page curation issues raised in this thread, but several of the articles noted are creations of JithDominicJose04 and have been extremely problematic; they are often referenced by sources which do not support the claims for which they are cited (nor mention the subject at all, in many cases). I've raised the issue in a thread a few below this for potential administrative action, as they've been at it for a really long time. That said, Josu4u is clearly not a native speaker of English and has an imperfect grasp of the project's sundry deletion processes (to say nothing of our local jargon), and that's presented some difficulties. Page Curation is perhaps not the area to which their time is best applied. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for saying it, I had meant to. It is quite clear that Josu4u is operating in good faith but perhaps in over his head with Page Curation. His allegations of abuse are important, and I'm glad that the thread below has been opened, especially in light of the recent revelation of a massive paid editing operation. However, I still think it would be very wise for him to report any future abuse to an administrator or this board, and not use Page Curation until he better understands the tags he's placing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Josu4u not only has good intentions, but his identification of this problem has been very helpful. Unfortunately, checking new pages uses a specialized Wikipedia terminology which causes confusion if not used as expected. I urge Josu4u to keep going here till he has the experience (first watching and then commenting at AfD is the way to learn how to handle deletions)/And if he says anything that really needs attention, let me or another admin know. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems that the editor is good faith and just needs a helping help. I recommend voluntary mentorship or adoption if Josu4u is willing. I can volunteer as needed. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think given the recent discovery of socks by the user discussed here: discussion that this should be closed. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:01, 3 September 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:CombatMarshmallow

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 seems to exist solely to propagate discussion of the band Hogan's Heroes on wikipedia as a pioneer of various metal genres, despite not having any reliable sources that solidify this claim, and perhaps even their notability. He/she has inserted discussion of this band where it is not necessarily warranted, including top-level articles such as Heavy metal music, Metalcore, and likely others utilizing sources such as fanzines, fanmade content, that apparently label this band as a pioneer. This is not a huge problem, though, although they likely should not be discussed as pioneers on top level articles if their sources are unreliable in determining pioneer status. I'm also curious as to whether the band in question's main article has any truly reliable sources.

Moreover, after insertion of this band into the article Heavy Metal Music, the member has approached WP:OWN levels of reverting and preventing content additions to the article, consistently refuting any and all proposals to add content to the article on the article's talk page, acting passive aggressively and occasionally making personal attacks to those who disagree with his/her views. He/she has consistently reverted any disputation to the fact the band is not labelled by reliable sources as a pioneer to the respective genres.

The main reason I am posting about this is because I am a bit fed up with the consistent passive aggressive talk page behaviour and WP:OWN editing style on a very important article. It's been discussed and requested to stop, but even that was left with a similar response. Multiple users have complained on the talk page.

Unreliably sourced additions

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&curid=13869&diff=679369038&oldid=679367996

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metalcore&diff=prev&oldid=494506007

See contributions and the respective focus specifically on Hogan's Heroes

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/CombatMarshmallow&dir=prev&limit=500&target=CombatMarshmallow

Inflammatory and WP:OWN-style talkpage edits on Heavy metal music

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHeavy_metal_music&type=revision&diff=679364254&oldid=679353627

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHeavy_metal_music&type=revision&diff=679219970&oldid=679214323

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHeavy_metal_music&type=revision&diff=678356808&oldid=678356203

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHeavy_metal_music&type=revision&diff=678328731&oldid=678326495

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHeavy_metal_music&type=revision&diff=678321572&oldid=678313764

Consistent removal of any new content to the page, referring users that wish to add content to the talk page and thus berating them upon disagreement (more than i've ever seen in 2 years of watching this article at FA status)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&action=history

Vortiene (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Great Fabrication. "having any reliable sources that solidify this claim" sure there is. "curious as to whether the band in question's main article has any truly reliable sources." You mean like Rolling Stone, displayed right on their page. Anyhow this is the Heavy Metal Music talk page. The only editors taking issue with my debating towards truth and not POV is the 3 or so who want an addition to the article. None other of the 8 or so others involved have had any issues with me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music . I also didnt put Hogan's Heroes in the heavy metal article. So be correct. They were there, the whole section was called "early groups" being Hogan's Heroes precedes some of them by 10 years I corrected it to "pioneering bands" and "other prominent bands" I tried to add Integrity (band) I wasn't able to. Also "reverting and preventing content additions to the article, consistently refuting any and all proposals to add content to the article" you mean I was told its a featured article and all and any drastic changes have to reach consensus. Also you forgot about the way the addition was not written in a Professional manor. Funny that about 8? other editors agreed or made similar points as me, but you didnt want to object, just to me. "It's been discussed and requested to stop, but even that was left with a similar response. Multiple users have complained on the talk page." thats also not true in honesty, the only people to complain are the 3 or so who want to add stuff, saying its "not there" then after I helped them to see it is there, they change their attention to "well theres no paragraph". They don't want to work together nor hear any other editors points on why their proposals aren't good for the article, or are already there. No one has been "berated". Typed words, you can't hear. Inflection changes so much in the way something comes across. Assume good faith. I like focusing on Hogan's Heroes. Just like the person who focuses on Tales of Terror (band). Its fun to find a group that isn't so big that they have constant edits, and to develop the page accordingly. They have Metalcore page Consensus and sources. They meet all the criteria. You apparently haven't noticed they've been there for years. Its been discussed on talk pages. They have sources, plenty, see their LP article pages. You should have done that already so you were prepared, but its fine. The source at Heavy Metal from Phonolog is the band in the "Pop Artists" section. The other source is just some info. It doesn't matter if either are there, they are a Pioneer no matter what the source.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 05:34, 4 September 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:Byrin123

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.

---

Byrin123 turned his own talk page into a ranting place to curse, insult, and otherwise attack users and Wikipedia in general. See diff listed here. Page marked for WP:G10 CSD RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 12:14, 4 September 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.

Jackson5Dr - Attack 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.

---

Jackson5Dr is an attack-only SPA account. Since August 31, s/he's been edit warring at Direct Action Everywhere in an attempt to insert this controversy section which is mostly unsourced and sourced with non-reliable sources where it is sourced. Today in this edit he replaced a good photo of a protest by that group with a photo of an individual which he posted at Commons using the title, "Wayne Hsiung Cult Leader.jpg" only to replace it a few minutes later with a photo-manipulated copy of that same photo entitled "Cult Leader Wayne Hsiung.JPG" in which the caption on the sign being held by the person in the photo has been changed to something which is a BLP violation. When that was reverted with a edit caption referring to BLP, Jackson5Dr immediately reverted it back in. User is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Though not at English Wikipedia, you might also want to take into account for purposes of determining motive for being here this edit at Commons, where the image description for the photo which was in use before s/he changed it as described above was changed by Jackson5Dr from "Direct Action Everywhere activists march outside a Whole Foods Market in San Francisco, carrying a colorful banner and signs." to "Direct Action Everywhere wishing for sexual assault and abuse of Whole Foods shoppers and young activists." — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the acct and deleted some stuff, and an oversighter is working through their contribs right now as we speak. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa. Just for the record, I've also made this report at Commons AN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:13, 3 September 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.

Materialscientist using Check User tools in a hurry

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 have found that Mike V, Callanec, Ponyo, Risker and Bbb23 knows how to use check user tools. They always track socks correctly. Materialscientist only matches the IP address and blocks innocent users. You need to match the operating system (as important as IP address) and browser also along with some secret details that I won't mention here. If I create 3 socks Materialscientist catches 6 socks. Some people are going to close this discussion as (self-admitted blocked user) and my IP will be blocked, but you must ask Materialscientist not to do these checks in a hurry. Check user must have patience. Collateral damage is not something to be proud of. If you don't listen to me, you will be violating the principle of Don't bite newcomers. Some editors with two edits are blocked as my socks by Materialscientist.

Mike V, Callanec, DoRD are right minded check Users.--112.79.38.210 (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you just stop socking? Not an option, right? Doc talk 09:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't come here to sock. More than a year ago, I found one article has very wrong information. I tried to correct it. The article was full protected. I had to move to talk page. Five accounts started harassing me, along with Ips writing vulgar words on my talk page in Urdu/Pashto language so that administrators won't understand. I was blocked by DangerousPanda for edit warring. I was new user. I found all the accounts behave like one person. I had to file SPi and all of them turned out to be socks of an old sock master. I was giving 10 reliable sources and he was giving sources from blogs but still DangerousPanda wanted me to discuss the matter with them (one person with five accounts). Now so many administrators were not able to see the truth. Later on I was topic banned due to complain by another user who turned out to be a sock himself. I lost complete faith in so called assume good faith and foolish administrators. Later on this paranoia made me believe that whenever anyone disagrees with me is a sockpuppet. Due to this i got blocked. Somehow my socks were getting caught. I waited for few months and created a new account. Once again I was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks when others get blocked for 24 hours/48 hours. They were not able to link me to my previous accounts. This time these administrators had crossed all limits. So i abused my blocking administrator to let the steam off. I asked why others get blocked for the first time for 24 hours if they make gross personal attack and I was blocked indefinitely with less personal attack. I got the reply WP:NOTTHEM. In this time Materialscientist blocked at least 8 accounts tagging me as sockmaster which I didn't create. Alison, DoRD, Mike V, Bbb23, Callanec tagged my socks correctly. Most likely Materialscientist checks in a hurry. 112.79.35.39 (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It's an interesting situation when someone says "sockpuppets A, B, and C were me, but you blocked innocent third parties when you blocked D, E, and F thinking they were me." If they were willing to lie to us when posting using socks, why should we believe they are telling us the truth now? We certainly aren't going to unblock anyone on the word of a sockpuppeteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You have not provided a single concrete example of any error in M's blocks nor have you informed M of this thread as required. Thus, it is difficult to give credence to your posts here. MarnetteD|Talk 14:30, 4 September 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.

Oldtimers: you realize who used to make complaints very similar to this, right? BMK (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

André Gayot and Wikidemon

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 the article André Gayot is/was a link to gayot.com. This is a blacklisted link so Cyberbot II repeatedly tagged that article for that. Wikidemon is in effect editwarring with this bot to get the warning out again. I have requested him a few times to follow the proper route and file a request to get the link from the spam-blacklist. Something he refused to do. So the bot replaces that tag and Wikidemon removed/hid the tag and on and on and on.

Interested thing is that he refuses to notice that he is edit warring with a bot and that the warnings are valid. But restoring the tag or removing the link is something he considers vandalism. Even a page protection did not convince him about the uselessness of his action, he considered it Nice way to poison the editing environment for no discernible improvement to the encyclopedia. Don't you have anything better to do than to harass good faith editors in stupid process wars?.

This absolutely no useful behaviour. The Banner talk 15:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The useful behavior is that but for the above editor's vandalism the article would be just fine. The editor deliberately sabotaged the article about Andre Gayot by removing the link to his official webiste, as they have done in the past to a few other articles, knowing that it couldn't be restored without going through a laborious and bureaucratic white-listing process. That's not a good faith edit, it is not intended to improve the content of the encyclopedia. It's sole effect is to force me and other editors to do time-consuming process work to restore links that are incorrectly blacklisted. Most bots that edit articles in automated fashion have a work-around so that human editors can use their discretion: some do their edit once, but won't repeat it if reverted by a human editor. This one leaves a warning template that includes a flag that can be set to hide the template, intended exactly for situations like this one and that's exactly what I did after inspecting it. Poorly programmed bots like this one are an occasional problem on the encyclopedia. Editors like the above who purposefully flummox the work of others just to prove a weird WP:POINT about bots are also an occasional problem. Nothing to see here and no problem to solve, although this editor does seem to be making a Wikipedia career out of griefing other editors. Actually, if an admin with access to the whitelist is watching, could you please whitelist gayot.com (the landing page of the official site) so the bio article about this particular food critic can point to his professional site? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is the link blacklisted? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the links here due to spamming. The Banner talk 15:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It was a behavioral issue, not an issue with the site itself. Gayot.com is a restaurant guide, just like perhaps Michelin or Forbes Travel Guide but less prominent. Generally not reliable because it's critical opinion, but it can be reliable for sourcing certain facts about restaurants, chefs, and food movements. The problem was that about four years ago somebody affiliated with the guides was adding a number of links to the guide site, and didn't immediately understand why this is considered COI spamming behavior. The blacklisting was to deter the COI accounts, not a judgment on the link. They appear to have long gone away at this point. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Then why did you not request whitelisting? And why did you do everything to keep the link alive? The Banner talk 16:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it was not necessary to do so. It is not a mandatory process. There is no policy or guideline to say that I must request whitelisting if I disagree with the bot's application of a tag. If the bot behaved like other bots, simply removing the tag would work. But this bot is poorly designed, and sporadic in its function. The tag it leaves does have a parameter to hide the link, something I did that remained in place for more than a year and a half. In July the bot inexplicably removed the tag, and a few weeks later added it back again. I fixed it again, and the article would have been fine for another year and a half if you hadn't taken it on yourself to renew your edit warring over this. You're not editing to improve the article at all, you're just trying to force me into an obscure Wikipedia process that I have chosen not to use. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Aha, so that was why your were disguising the links with nowiki and are now turning the article about a person in something promotional for the guide ([170])? Sorry, but seeing this and combined with your aggressive behaviour when removing the link, I get suspicious. The Banner talk 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I'm not going to waste brain cycles trying to figure it out. Just try to concentrate on productive editing of the encyclopedia, not broadsiding other editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"productive editing" as in edit warring with a bot instead of solving the issue? The Banner talk 19:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, productive editing as in going away and working on some article content of your own. Perhaps being a little courteous and respectful if that's not too much. Could somebody please close this stupid topic so I don't have to keep answering vexatious accusations from this person, also whitelist the gayot.com site so we can add it back to the article about gayot? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have anything positive to add? You are accusing me of vandalism harassing, uncourteousness and unrespectfulness, but in fact is that just your own behaviour. The Banner talk 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Parroting my observations is not going to help you. Anyway, please do disengage. I'm trying to actually deal with some content and sourcing issues here to improve the article in question. Look, you won your vexatious little battle, your sabotaging the link forced me to go through the bureaucratic process you were demanding of me instead of the simple process setup by the bot. There is nothing more to discuss here, so please respect that. If you can try not to provoke me with more accusations, and perhaps even if you do, I'm going to ignore this and get back to other things. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It is about time for that... The Banner talk 21:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I've un-blacklisted the URL. If spamming resumes to the point that we need to re-blacklist it, we'll need to whitelist it for this article per WP:ELOFFICIAL. Hint: if someone's having difficulties with a bot, don't automatically assume that the bot's in the right, and don't waste our time with frivolous and bad-faith complaints at the admin boards. Nyttend (talk) 21:29, 4 September 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.

Obsessive cursing on 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.

---

I've run across a user who adds "fuck you" or "bitch" to messages and especially to edit summaries (four examples in three days), and claims not to be able to help herself. This is her explanation: I have obsessive-compulsive disorder… Perhaps my strangest symptom is typing out curse words… hovering over the Save or Post button... and pressing on the left-click button… without releasing it (for obvious reasons). Sometimes, I do accidentally release. This explanation came only after I wrote to her about the pattern, with diffs. She resented my diffs ("playing gotcha", "compiling mounting "evidence"", "waiting to pounce") and altogether thinks I'm inconsiderate. She says she has stopped using e-mails because of the problem, but would still like to contribute to Wikipedia. I have to say I'm dubious about this, in more ways than one. Thoughts? Unless she herself want to contribute to this thread, it may be as well to not mention her name here, but people will easily find her talkpage from my contributions. Bishonen | talk 08:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

You've got to be kidding. Doc talk 08:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Not therapy. I think there is probably an essay somewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's WP:NOTTHERAPY. You're not even trying. :P -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Is it disrupting anything? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  This is a strange report. It took me less than a minute to determine who was being... sorta(?) reported. And it's a semi-secret? Doc talk 08:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It does not sound particularly offensive in the adult community either way. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree. Having taken a crawl through the editors edits the offending items almost always show up when they get into a conflict situation. This may not be overtly aggressive, it might just be a content dispute, but the editor doesnt make a content edit and add on a swear word. Its always when in dialogue with another editor - either in the edit itself or the summary. This gives the impression (ignoring their intent) they are being directly offensive to another member of the community. Now I do know personally someone who has a disorder which means when stressed they cannot moderate their internal monologue - so they pretty much always say to people what they actually think about them, I have never heard about someone who cant stop writing/typing it. However I am not a mental health professional but then no editors are expected to be, and we end up back at WP:NOTTHERAPY. I would say I find it a bit odd that the expletives are not in the same place. Sometimes they are at the end (Bitch) sometimes at the beginning (Fuck you <editors name). Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Per all of the above, Wikipedia is about results, not reasons. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, and just as we don't carve out special exceptions to our NPOV and OR policies for people who claim special credentials, we ONLY care about article content and reliable sources, we should ALSO not carve out special exceptions to NPA and CIVIL because people claim special credentials. It doesn't really matter WHY someone is disruptive. If aliens had kidnapped their brain and forced them to be rude, it doesn't really matter. They are still creating a hostile environment, and as a collabortative project, that environment objectively and directly leads to quality editors leaving, which then leads to quality editing declining. --Jayron32 10:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you, Only in death does duty end and Jayron32, you have restored some of my faith in humanity, which was teetering on the brink. 'Is it disrupting anything?' 'Is it a semi-secret?' 'It does not sound particularly offensive'. I'm hereby page-banning myself from ANI for three months, in the hope of regaining some of my patience with the uselessness of so much of the commentary here. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

Take in mind Curly Turkey's question was pertinant however. Your description didnt really identify if it was swearing directed *at* someone, or random expletives (eg Tourettes). The former is disruptive, the latter not so much. I take a strict line in regards to civility but knowing someone with Tourettes means you do tend to learn what is/isnt a directed insult. My own take on the above is given the circumstances and fairly consistant nature I am not inclined to be leniant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

1) Even if they have tourettes, it doesn't really matter. Results, not reasons. If the actions disrupt, it's a problem for the encyclopedia, and something needs to be done. Full stop. 2) Tourettes is not a swearing disease. It's a tic disease. I know of no tic so complex that it compels a person to go through the complicated set of actions necessary to type and hit "save page". So, even if it WAS tourettes or something like it, it wouldn't matter. And it's not tourettes or anything like it. --Jayron32 12:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I know that :P (Although there are some OCD actions that can get quite complex but they would not really be considered tics) I was pointing out tourettes as the closest example that makes a reasonable excuse. Since what is currently happening does not seem to resemble the closest reasonable excuse, the only option left is unreasonable. Otherwise I concur completely with yourself. If was an OCD issue I would expect it to be all the time in the same places. If it was something akin to tourettes, I would expect it to be a *lot* more random. I am left with 'intentionally being offensive' Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to introduce myself fully here, and I don't think I've been completely fairly represented by Bishonen. Her implication that comes with the statement that I gave the explanation only after the diffs is possibly incriminating, while the true reason, as you can see, is because I was afraid it would be too difficult to explain in short (after explaining to the best of my ability, I realize that this fear was somewhat misguided). Also, my "resentment" didn't come from her presenting of diffs (my explanation, by the way, could only come after her diffs, because that was her very first message.), and her "phrase quoting" of me only represented part of the responses I wrote, made toward my perception of her tone, and again, not of her diffs. Finally, I would like to add that edit summaries, with a couple of possible exceptions which I don't believe I have off of the top of my head (at least, that I haven't reverted immediately), are the only places where I have included such obscenities, and that the timeframe Bishonen chose was the most (for lack of a better term, prolific) period of time for my adding bad words to summaries. As part of a last attempt to convince even an administrator with the reputation of being one of the most patient or tolerant ones in the community, I'll post the full exchange here—if only because some administrators might read it again, and reconsider:

This is an interesting pattern of edit summaries:[171][172][173][174] Do you have "fuck you" on a hot key or something? Or "bitch", for that matter.[175] "An accident"? "Not malicious"? That's wearing a bit thin. Just stop it before you're blocked. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

I never expected others to understand, and I think, in at least the first and this second case, my expectations were right. I've also edited back every obscenity on the article page immediately after I clicked the Save page button, as your investigation has hopefully shown. The third source you cite explicitly states that "I apologize again, the short explanation* was that it was an accident" before I put in another "fuck you" at the end. I knew I couldn't explain it all in time in the edit summary (which, at least on mobile appears to have a character limit, and hoped that those who frequently edited the page would understand. Nobody got back to me with the exception of another administrator who asked me to stop vandalizing, even after I had quickly edited it back. I've deleted the warning now, but, as you know, it's in the page history, where you can find my response.

Instead of an an administrator snarkily asking whether or not I have the phrase on a hot key, compiling mounting "evidence" (there's more that you've missed, if you're intent on collecting it all) and a "gotcha" (Did you read my exchange with Pepperbeast on his talk page? I felt like I was being fairly courteous [After visiting again, I think I'm zero for three, as he took a single line in my edit summary as my address to him, not what I actually typed on his Talk page. I initially believed that because his second reply didn't mention my language, and that he understood]) demeanor regarding my claims that I didn't mean what I typed, I was hoping (with futility, I now realize) that reception would be more accommodating or understanding.

I have no intent to harass other users, am aware of the guidelines within the links Pepperbeast sent me, and have the same goal as most editors on Wikipedia. I can't assure you that I'll stop, and *this peculiar aspect of my editing will take an explanation possibly longer than this response. But for now, I'll be directing any potential individual on the receiving end (or one who notices) of my words and their meaningless intent to this section of my talk page. I hope you'll understand, but will likely not be too hurt if you don't. I'm not a victim here, nor am I the offender. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you won't be too hurt if I don't understand, because I don't. If you think edit summaries matter less than what you "actually type" (?) on pages, you're completely mistaken. It's more important, not less, to be reasonably courteous in edit summaries, as you can't go back and change them, and people look at page histories. Dawnseeker2000 is not an admin, but I am, and I will block you if you offer more bad language and attacks in edit summaries or on pages. If you think you're "not the offender", you'll have to explain how the persistent additions of "fuck you" are "accidents"; if not on a hot key, where do they come from, without your volition? If you're saying you can't help yourself, Wikipedia may not be a good fit for you. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

(I really want to get this response out as soon as I can, so expect some typos.) You're not being considerate, and I honestly think you're wielding your authority as a weapon. I was already worried given your lead into your issues with my edits, as if you were waiting to pounce. You know that I don't have "fuck you" on a hotkey, and you've assumed quite a few points that are wrong—never once in my response did I state that edit summaries are less important than the actual edits on the article pages and that I am "attack[ing]" other individuals (Doesn't my willingness to engage courteously in discussion mean anything?) I'm aware of edit summaries, and you can go back and scroll through my contributions, which I am confident include edit summaries are reasonably courteous sans the admittedly oddly placed obscenities (Is there not, then, a clear pattern here?). It isn't logical for me to secretly send hateful messages to others because most of them have more experience than I do and are aware of page histories too, like you said. That's because I'm not trying to secretly send hateful messages.

If I can't convince you that I'm not the offender (and that nobody is, in this case) with this attempt, then I'm truly at a loss (Maybe I can see if another admin will understand, if you don't?):

I have obsessive-compulsive disorder, an anxiety disorder which you likely know of, being an avid user of Wikipedia. Perhaps my strangest symptom (and undoubtedly the most difficult to intuitively characterize as OCD) is typing out curse words in emails or various places on the Internet, hovering over the Save or Post button (or an equivalent), and pressing on the left-click button (or directly on the screen, if I'm using a mobile device) without releasing it (for obvious reasons). Sometimes, I do accidentally release, and by now if you've inferred that these aren't isolated incidents, then you'd be right. Most of the people on the receiving end have accepted my simple, incomplete apology, at least, when I met them in person, and some haven't. Regardless, I don't use email anymore, at least as of now, mostly due to this symptom. (I am somewhat hurt [this is, of course, easy comment to ridicule, but I hope you refrain], however, by your dismissive comment about Wikipedia not being for me.)

I still would like to contribute to Wikipedia, and I think I have been reasonable and cautious in my editing, especially recently when I began to read into more of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I don't want to lose my right to edit, and certainly hope these incidents don't put me under. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Lu, I'm sorry that you have an illness and have difficulty exercising self-control. I'm very sympathetic, but unfortunately it's just not our problem. Edit summaries are more or less permanent, and it reflects poorly on the project when they contain more than the rare expletive insult. I think you have to either figure out how to control yourself, or stop contributing here. - MrX 14:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You said that "[e]dit summaries are more or less permanent." Is it possible to remove them? I really don't want to lose this privilege. Please, help me on this. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what diseases you say you have. Wikipedia's purpose is to build an encyclopedia, and if your actions on Wikipedia interfere with that purpose, you can be asked to leave. We don't really care why you're making it hard for us to do our work, but so long as your actions get in the way of others efficiently working, you're going to be stopped. --Jayron32 15:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• You've been here for quite some time, yet this compulsion only seems to have started on 19 August, unless I'm missing something. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• You're right—these were pretty recent occurrences. But my compulsions do change, and frequently. A similar compulsion began earlier in what I'll call the "email fiascos" mentioned above, which began to occur at the beginning of 2015 (when I sent the first obscene email). This itself branched off from a somewhat embarrassing compulsion that involved clicking (or pressing) on a button (or power button on a computer or laptop) and dragging off of it, thereby avoiding publishing/turning off/acting on unnecessarily a program that would have otherwise had some detrimental effect if I had clicked and released (however, as evidenced by the proceedings above,I would occasionally "slip" and my action would cause that effect, whatever it was). Also, I wasn't aware of edit summaries in the beginning. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• The 19th August example wasn't in an edit summary (and you started using edit summaries on 8th September 2014, probably about 65% of your edits have been since then). You were fairly active in April and May of this year. So it does seem a bit strange the problem is suddenly so severe when it didn't seem to show at all in the past. Perhaps you need a new mouse since your current one is being accidently released too easily all of a sudden?

  Any way, the only suggestion I have is you see if you can beg someone to make a Wikipedia:User scripts for you which will prevent the submission of edit summariesedits with any cuss words. Failing that, perhaps you can find a browser or general OS addon which will prevent the typing of cuss words completely.

  Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I know it wasn't—and I understand that it's a bad thing no matter the place in which place words are typed (I may have also forgotten to mention that the inappropriate words or phrases can appear in any form, even in the form of a general insult, but if I quickly revert them, you can reasonably assume that my intent was not to offend), but as Bishonen noted above, edit summaries are perhaps more important than edits themselves, because edit summaries can't be reverted (I'm a bit confused about MrX's comment that they're "more or less permanent". By the way, I reverted the "fuck cunts" edits immediately after they went live. I also don't think the mouse (or my finger) is the problem, because if you pressed down on the left-click hundreds or even thousands of times, there likely would be at least a few times in which it would cause an unintended action, such as publishing cuss words (the problem arose before, but the difference is that the first time it went live for all to see was on August 19).

Finally, I thank you for being to one to offer help (although I think I understand that administrators might not be able to dedicate as much time in helping errant users as in using their authority to warn users to stop doing whatever is objectionable and in generally in contrast with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines) on what I may be able to do in order to help with this problem. I'll see if I have the courage to ask another for this service (without, of course, typing cuss words when addressing them), particularly if further incidents do guarantee a total loss of my editing privileges. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, this was the point I was going to make. I work with young people with obsessive-compulsive disorders, including tourettes, and in no person I have worked with has that compulsion "come and gone", or "suddenly appeared". You made 134 edits to Wikipedia over a year before this behaviour occurred. I am assuming AGF, but you're going to need to explain this. Black Kite (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There's another aspect to this that nobody has mentioned. If an exception is made for this particular editor on the grounds of illness, we set a precedent for others to claim the same illness as an excuse for posting offensive language. Personally WP:OR, I think this editor may well have the illness he/she claims, but it's not the cause of the behaviour, merely a claim made to mitigate any censure handed out. Akld guy (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you come to the conclusion that it's not the cause of my behavior? The additional aspect to this, I think, is valid, but in the end, still a shortcoming of Internet anonymity, but please, tell me how you came to the previously mentioned conclusion? (I'll correct Jayron32 for saying that it's a tourettes symptom. It's a result of OCD, which is quite fundamentally different and does involve sometimes complex rituals such as typing an obscenity after an edit and pressing (but not intentionally releasing) the Save page button on a Wikipedia article.

By the way, if it turns out that we can work through this, I want to be as least disruptive as I can if further incidents do happen. If any editor finds issue with such a potential incident, perhaps I can link them back to this discussion, my talk page, or a future user page, in the hope that they can understand and continue to discuss the matter regarding editing at hand without being too hurt or negatively affected (I consider myself fairly polite when engaging others, both offline and online, and you can decide for yourself by going to my list of contributions). Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

How is it you managed to get through this entire discussion without giving in to your "compulsion"? If you can do it here, you can do it at other times. And if you can't -- well, not everyone is cut out to edit Wikipedia, you may just need to stop editing and find another hobby. BMK (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I was expecting a suspicion about my symptom not appearing to pop up throughout this thread. The short answer is: it has. The longer one is that my symptoms are not consistent, and will fluctuate in their intensity. Referring back to my shorter answer, I say that my symptom has popped up, because most of the time, I can stop myself before publishing the edit summary live. I estimate people who visit the recent page history would have seen 5-10 expletives if my "success" rate in publishing the edits was 100%. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me make it clear, Lu. I don't care what reason you give. Absolutely no one does. It doesn't matter whether you are intentionally attacking users, OR if you are incapable of stopping yourself. The event happened, and unless it stops happening, we will stop it for you. It makes not a lick of difference whether or not you can control your disruption as to whether or not the disruption is allowed at Wikipedia. It will stop. There's nothing you can say that will allow us to let you continue abusing other editors. You can stop abusing other editors all by yourself, and we'll let you go about your business. If you don't stop, whether or not you have the ability to stop yourself, we'll send you on your way. --Jayron32 03:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, call me Laurence. At this point, I don't think I have anything to lose by being addressed personally and putting my full name out in the open. Most people close to me already know about my condition, so it's not a concern of mine that they find out.

Anyway—I don't mind you being blunt, and I think I can empathize with any frustration an administrator might have dealing with vandals day and night. But there's one aspect of your message that stands out, and one that doesn't seem to be just a matter of semantics. Your passing comment that I'm actually "abusing" other editors appears to have been a part of your message that you didn't give significantly more thought than other aspects, but while you may deny this and claim that it's all for the sake of the encyclopedia and thus concerns your more than it does me, let me assure you that it's the other way around. Now, you may not care about my feelings, to which I don't (and shouldn't) take offense. But when I say that it's more than just semantics, I mean it. "Abuse" of others implies pretty clearly malicious intent, which I don't have.

Now, the evidence is there, so it's meaningless to assume good faith on the question of whether or not I typed out these obscenities. Rather, I think that you've jumped the gun (made significantly more easy with your authority to assume any tone and ability to use a very wide range of options in dealing with vandals [which I wouldn't be wrong in assuming that you think I'm one, correct?]), taking an extra step to think I'm probably lying in my explanation of these obscenities.

Finally, partially again in response to BMK's suspicion that I'm fabricating my story because I haven't had any incidents involving typing cuss words in edit summaries (or typing directly into the article phrases or parts of sentences that would be compromising [e.g. "Jayron32, I don't mind you being abrasive" (This is not a veiled message, if you were wondering), or "Ha ha you fell for it I'm lying about it all"] or have a negative effect as a direct result), I'll reference Godwin's law in a dark resemblance: "Even if Laurence Lu has typed no obscene messages or words in edit summaries and/or edits themselves, the absolute probability of Laurence's typing of said messages or words increases, approaching 1 with every subsequent edit he makes." I say this because I'm afraid of typing obscenities here and administrators immediately shutting the case because they've seen it firsthand, and perceive it to be directed at them. (Admittedly, I'm most afraid of typing them in a message to you, and I say this regardless of how I suspect you'll feel about my being afraid.) Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It really strains my mind to assume good faith and believe the story as given. I have Tourette syndrome and this is nothing like anything I have ever encountered. For me it is bursts of impulse, never amounting to the complexity of going through multiple steps involving fine motor control. However I don't think it matters if the story is true or not because the result is the same and the result is disruptive. We are not therapy and if you cannot figure out how to not type insulting language and click save against your will then the result is the same as if you were doing it on purpose. Chillum 01:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I know that this thread is long, but to respond, I think one should read the whole thing carefully. I never said that my symptom was the result of Tourettes. I'm not sure who gave you that impression, but I explicitly said that it was a symptom of OCD, which includes more complex rituals than just a vocal tic, a clapping of the hands, or flick of the wrist (my Tourettes syndrome has gotten better, but I'm personally familiar with the first and last symptoms included in the list.)

Also, your reminder that it doesn't matter whether or not I put curse words in my edit summaries isn't the first, or second, or even third time I've heard it in just this thread. I know it's still disruptive, but if I don't mean it and apologize (and possibly link them to this thread or my Talk page by way of explanation), I think that's different. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Encyclopedia Lu: Would you kindly stop inserting your posts between the posts of previous commenters and instead simply append them. I noticed that you inserted two posts timestamped 03:55 before Chillum's one at 01:43, the first of which gave the impression that you had claimed to have OCD before he commented about Tourettes. As it turns out, the claim was actually made in the repost by Bishonen at the very start of this thread, but I hope you can see that inserting posts may lead to misunderstandings. Akld guy (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Edited Akld guy (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that. However, the timestamp of the post you mentioned, at 3:55, never mentioned OCD before Chillum commented about Tourettes. By the way, the fact that the very first post quotes my mention of OCD should make it pretty clear I'm not referring to Tourettes, which Chillum suggested in passing when questioning the truthfulness of my "Tourettes" claim. Also, I forgot to say: If I chose to append my message to BMK, I think it would give an equally if not more misleading impression that I was responding to Chillum, given that my message would appear under the latter's. Finally, timestamps, such as the one you presumably noticed quickly in my case, are fool-proof enough, aren't they? Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Well they are foolproof as a record of what was said at the timestamped time, but the reality is that insertion forces readers to interpret what the context of the post is in relation to those around it. If you wish to reply to another poster, simply address him/her by username and append your post to those already present. That way, we don't need to figure things out. To ping another editor and be guaranteed of a response, take a look at the edit of my previous post to see how I pinged you (two curly brackets, 'ping', etcetera). Akld guy (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Akld guy: It works. Thanks. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"[T]he timestamp of the post you mentioned, at 3:55, never mentioned OCD before Chillum commented..." As I stated, you made two posts at 3:55. The upper one did mention OCD. Akld guy (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Did I? I'm certain there was only one edit at 3:55, and no other edits inserted above Chillum's comment that could give a misleading impression of chronology. Anyway—I think Bishonen's reposting was enough, don't you agree? I only ever linked my symptom with OCD, never with Tourette syndrome. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32's comments. They became a bit harsh but only after you failed to hear them the first time. The point is that explanations, understanding, and credibility of the explanations are all beside the point. Either you can meet community behavior standards or you can't, and we're asking for big trouble if we start handing out exemptions. I happen to be a very slow reader, which I attribute to undiagnosed ADD. That means I can't read and absorb large amounts of written information, which puts me at a disadvantage when it comes to Wikipedia policy and guideline. I pick it up a little bit at a time, and I don't claim an ADD exemption when I screw up. It also means I have to skim large discussions like this one and I sometimes miss something important. If this made it impossible for me to meet community standards I would leave, reluctantly but without objection. The project must come before the individual. Others could honestly attribute their Wikipedia behavior problems to any of a number of recognized personality disorders; should we give them a pass, too? I encourage you to pursue available avenues of treatment; if treatment is not possible or ineffective, you should accept that Wikipedia is not a good place for you, or find a way to contribute that does not involve communicating with other editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Akld guy: can't say I agree with your advice. Inserting properly WP:indented threaded discussion in the proper location is common behaviour and fully supported, in fact encouraged by our guidelines (earlier is an essay but see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Technical and format standards and Help:Using talk pages#Indentation and probably others). In some cases, particularly long discussions, it can be confusing, especially since many people fail to follow good indented discussion protocol, you sometimes want to reply to multiple threads in a single comment, and there is a risk your comments may be missed by most participants if you locate them properly but it's fairly early in the discussion.

But when people do follow proper indentation protocol to the best of their abilities considering whatever the state of the discussion, we shouldn't fault them. If people fail to check time stamps of indented posts, that's the own fault. People continually adding their posts to the end can in fact make the discussion very confusing, when a simple properly threaded discussion would have been far clearer.

This isn't to say I feel all of Lu's replies were well located. For example, I don't understand why they replied only to Drmies at 17:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC), it would have made more sense for them to reply to both Drmies and Black Kite. But your particular advice seem to be discouraging all forms of properly indented threaded discussion.

Also in case there is some confusion, Lu said they had OCD here [176] and [177] (the later one specifically mentioned it wasn't Tourette syndrome) before Chillum replied here [178]. And as I think was already mentioned, it being OCD was what was said at the start of this discussion. I myself was aware when replying, also before Chillum [179] that Lu said they had OCD (not Tourette syndrome). Note that I'm not sure if Chillum was suggesting the Lu had Tourette syndrome or instead that they would have expected to have encountered someone like that before given that they may have experience with support groups, research or whatever.

Either way I think this is largely an aside to the main points namely that it doesn't really matter whether the claim is genuine or not, and there's nothing wrong with properly indented threaded discussion.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• This should be closed with a final warning in the terms patiently explained by Jayron32. Someone is either able to edit collaboratively or not. There was a case like this a couple of years ago at ANI, although as I recall the editor there was much more blatant. The details do not matter—stop or be stopped. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Please, not quite yet. (Also, could you link me to that editor's incidents a couple of years ago? I'm genuinely interested.) I still think I am able to edit collaboratively—you can see the discussion with Pepperbeast (and, if you look deeper, Dawnseeker2000) I had about an edit regarding the Atheism article page. I've maintained that I'm fairly polite and courteous in discussion, and I still think that remains true. I intend to collaborate (and, if it's warranted, provide an explanation for my obscenities) with other users, and believe most can understand. I want to improve Wikipedia with others.

Maybe you can get Jayron32 to explain the terms, although, being on the receiving end, I have doubts about his "patience," at least in this case. I've read his comments to me multiple times already—I understand what he's saying, but I want to see if there is even a mathematical possibility that I can somehow stay on Wikipedia with my symptom. Maybe the final warning and this thread can serve as an example to others, but I do not need Jayron to explain the guidelines to me again.

I expect that this issue will be resolved when I wake up the next morning, regardless of the outcome. If, as likely everybody expects, the outcome is that my typing obscenities in edit summaries (and, occasionally, edits themselves [which I can thankfully revert]) cannot coexist with my editing privileges, then I'll at least have a sense of closure.

Believe me when I say that I thank you all for at least considering my case. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 07:15, 5 September 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:SuperFriendlyEditor

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'm involved in a dispute at the Martin Heidegger article with SuperFriendlyEditor. Unfortunately, this new user, whose well-intentioned but unhelpful edits I have reverted, has directed a stream of personal attacks against me. See here where I am accused in an edit summary of being a "liar". I informed this user about WP:NPA here, but the personal abuse has continued. Here the user comments, " I can smell bullshitters like you who have failed to do the assigned reading a mile away. You get an F, friend". There's yet another example of personal abuse in an edit summary here; I am the user SuperFriendlyEditor is insulting. I request that this user be given a short block for personal attacks, or at least a warning to stop this abusive behavior, just to make it clear that WP:NPA is a policy taken seriously here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

My edits were not "unhelpful." I collaboratively worked to improve a page with at least 4 other editors, as the record shows. The editor who has brought the complaint has no collaborators on his side. My "attack" was to ask if he has ever read Heidegger. He was unable to name a work of Heidegger's he has read. The talk page for Heidegger contained requests for over 4 months to improve the lead, which was referred to by several other editors as sophmoric, factually incorrect, etc. These are not insults. These are the opinions which any professional in the field would have had of the state the article is in. I have listend to this editor's complaints, which solely consist of the charge the "lead is too long." I am actively, and selectively removing material. The editor who has brought this frivolous complaint has made no such efforts to constructively contribute to the article. Not only has he not read Heidegger, he has not even been able to name one of Heidegger's works. Again, many editors had been complaining that the lead was completely factually mistaken about Heidegger. 4 other editors approved my edits. I am continuing to shorten the lead in response to this editors's complaints. No one supports his side. He was unable to demonstrate even a basic familiarity with who Heidegger is.SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I said, the fact that other editors did not revert you doesn't necessarily indicate agreement with your edits. Your asking me whether I have read Heidegger, etc, is an example of game-playing behaviour; it just distracts attention away from your inability to make a persuasive case for your edits. I could ask you whether you have read Heidegger, too, but what would be the point? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

They collaborated with me and made changes to my edits. I can name some of Heidegger's works. Can you? I have made a persuasive case for my edits. Everyone agrees the previous lead was bad. See the talk page. No one likes your lead. You do not even have a basic familiarity with the topic. You seem to be highly intelligent. I have great respect for you. Please contribute knowledge where you have knowledge. If you wish to contribute to Heidegger, collaborate with me in selectively reducing the length of the lead, as I am in the middle of doing, and as you are interrupting with this, instead of your WIkilawyering and destruction of the total content en masse. I asked if you had read Heidegger because the only reason why you would just mass revert rather than selectively reduce length of something you found "too long" is that you lacked sufficient familairtity with the topic to do so. Please. Enough with these attacks. We are both here to add knowledge to the world and your attacks are incomprehensible. You find the lead too long? I am in the middle of shortening it as you bring this case! Help me shorten it instead of wasting both of our time with this garbage.SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your repeatedly insulting me and failing to apologize for it, and suggesting in edit summaries that I be blocked (visible here) suggests that you do not, contrary to your claims, have "great respect" for me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I have consensus, he does not, he has not even read the author, and he is attempting to make Wikipedia a worse, less informative place by Wikilawyering. Sad. Why dont you just create free knowledge somewhere where you are well informed on the topic? I have repeatedly said you seem like a smart person, please contribute where you know the topic, or if you know this topic and find the new lead too long, help me to reduce its length, rather than just destroy the whole thing en masse, when everyone agreed on the talk page that the previous lead was horrible and ridden with factual errors? 4 other editors agreed with me; none of the editors who regularly contribute at that page agreed with you. Why exactly are you pursuing this pointless administrative nonsense when you have lost the argument on the page?SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your comment shows that you don't take WP:NPA seriously. I have taken matters here because of your ongoing and unapologetic abuse. I see no awareness on your part that your insults are unacceptable. That's exactly why you deserve at least a short block. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Asking you if you have read Heidegger is not a personal attack. My mother has never read Heidegger. Neither have you. This does not constitute an attack on my mother, nor does it constitute an attack on you, dear colleague.SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No, calling me a liar and a bullshitter were the personal attacks, for which you deserve a block. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow! How many years did it take for you to finish your J.D. in Wikipedia Law? Please friend, enough with this. I have told I find you extremely intelligent and I am sure you are a fine contributor to Wikipedia. I have great, deep, abiding respect for you. Why can we stop this trite, childish nonsense and get back to improving the article? I notice you have made no edits to that article aside from mass reversion of my work this evening, in which you also reverted the hard work of 4 other editors I collaborated with, who helped improve the work I spent several hours on. Why exactly can we not stop with this useless war which helps no one, contributes nothing to the mission of the encylopedia, and helps no poor souls undertake the extremely difficult task of understanding Heidegger, which I would have thought was the point of having a Heidegger article in the first place? What exactly is the point of this? Who does this benefit? What are you getting out of this? SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I take the mission of Wikipedia seriously. Do you? that means I contribute where I have contributions to make, and I do not destroy the work of others, and remove knowledge from Wikipedia to make points. Please stop this harassment. Take the dont bite the newbies, assume good faith, etc policies seriously I could say to you but I am not an amateur Wikilawyer and I only ask you to make selective contributions to Heidegger, or contribute where you have more knowledge to share, as you seem like a highly intelligent individual who loves knowledge.SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

SuperFriendlyEditor, whether or not FreeKnowledgeCreator has ever read, or can even name the works of Heidegger may not be a PA, but it is almost totally irrelevant. WP is not a senior common room debate about whose interpretation is correct or who knows more about the subject. Going round in circles on that issue, just clogs up discussion here. Pincrete (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue is the personal insults ("liar", "bullshitter") the user has directed against me, not the (irrelevant) stuff about what books I have or have not read. The insults are the basis of my request the user be blocked or warned; I don't care about anything else, including those comments that are simply uncivil. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, the point is this: I undertook work this evening, along with 4 other editors, who assisted and gave away their time to your project. Rather than tighten up the lead, FKC decides to destroy that work en masse, giving no justification, and no evidence of having read the edits or having any previous interest in the topic. Multiple parties on the talk page had been begging since May to fix the lead, which was ridden with so many errors as to have been called an "embarrassment" on the talk page, months before I got here. I am in the process of shortening the lead, as FKC requests. He or she makes no contributions to that effort. There is no point to this. Why can we not get back to fixing the page, which everyone agrees was factually so long as to have deserved deletion in its previous form, as anyone who read the previous lead of the article would have come away knowing less about Heidegger than when they began the article? If you consider this an idiosyncratic opinion, please check the history of the talk page, in which you will see an uproar of voices protesting the completely misinformed, factually mistaken, faulty lead. I am trying to improve the article, and have asked FKC to contribute in a collaborative way. I have gone out of my way to tell him or her how deeply I respect him or her, and how intelligent I consider him or her to be. What the hell can possibly be the point of this?SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, FKC made numerous uncivil remarks. And committed the gross incivility of destroying a great deal of work without reason or ANY discussion beforehand, when massive changes had been requested to the lead for months on the talk page. Please check the talk page and you will see how fully I am exonerated. And It is not uncivil to ask for qualifications or to say that someone else has told an untruth. This is absolutely a scandal. Why would you waste your time on this rather than improving pages? Outrageous. This is the most childish, preposterous thing I have ever heard of. No wonder so many philosophy articles are in such great need of work if this is how people who are qualified to edit them are treated around here, with open harassment and hounding and lawyering over ridiculous technical nonsense.SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

One does not normally insult people one deeply respects. You called me a liar and a bullshitter. That's why I'm here requesting you be blocked. WP:NPA is not "ridiculous technical nonsense". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

And additionally, I have repeatedly asked you in several places to tell me how long you would like the lead to be (rather than simply destroy what myself and 4 other editors worked on this evening.) Your silence of any constructive feedback or opinion of a general word length appropriate for a top-top importance philosophy article is rather deafening. Why no interest in any constructive collaboration? Why only interest in trying to see penalties meted out on me, rather than working with me to improve the article, if you are indeed a deep reader of Heidegger as you claim? What can possibly be the point of the present thread? SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You have demonstrated zero interest in improving the truly decrepit Martin Heidegger article, described by multiple contributors as "an embarassment" on the talk page, a judgment with which I sadly concur. You demonstrate an extremely strong interest in handing out punishments for the usage of swear words. Ergo, you are far more interested in ridiculous technical nonsense than the actual mission of Wikipedia. Q.E.D. Any other obviously logically fallacious arguments for me to dispense with this? The sooner you stop wasting my time, the sooner I can finish shortening the lead, per your request, your majesty. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop. I think you have brought enough evidence here for a review for now, and the discussion between you two gets quite heated here. I recommend a short break here for you, while others can look at what was reported, by both sides. Further arguments without additions from others are not likely helping any of you two.Müdigkeit (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

OK.User:SuperFriendlyEditor, you have said that FKC has made uncivil remarks. Can you provide difflinks, please? Why did you call others "liars" or "bullshitters" instead of simply telling them that what they said is factually incorrect and why? User:FreeKnowledgeCreator, why did you revert outright, when it seemed too long for you, instead of removing excessive material manually and leaving improvements in place? (See also:WP:DONTREVERT)--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• I just went through the history of this conflict and, like Müdigkeit, I find fault with the behavior of both editors. @FreeKnowledgeCreator:, you were dealing with a new editor, so you should have put in more effort explaining policies and guidelines (with links to them), before starting edit-warring. SuperFriendlyEditor, you're not innocent here either. You just barge in and when your edits are challenged, instead of pointing out clearly what errors there are in the lead and explaining all your edits (that indeed did make the lead way too bloated), you just told the other editor that they should start reading Heidegger, because they clearly didn't know what they were talking about, claiming that because you teach about Heidegger, your edits should not be reverted. Please read On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, which is to say that professional credentials don't count for much here. We do not accept edits on the authority of an editor claiming superior knowledge. Edits need to be accepted on the authority of the reliable sources that they are based on, regardless of whether the person writing them is a street sweeper or has a Nobel Prize in the subject at hand. I have found no incivility from the part of FreeKnowledgeCreator, so please drop the stick. I suggest that you both take a deep breath and discuss the matter on the article's talk page in a reasonable and civil way, using arguments based on reason, not authority. Anybody deviating from that can look forward to a block for disruptive editing. --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't care to see FKC punished. I'm sure he has made excellent contributions here. I simply think it was uncivil to delete in mass. People on talk page requested that the existing article, specifically the lead, be changed, as it contained an embarassingly wrong presentation of Heidegger. I don't remember what FKC said that I thought was a lie, or bullshit. I hope his or her feelings have not been too badly hurt by this. Can we all stop the mass deletion, and collaboratively work to improve the article? Selectively removing content we find irrelecant, or overly long, while contributing content of our own? And also, not simply PRESSING DELETE and destroying several hours of work on an article that had been openly begging for someone to change the "embarrassing" lead which contained gross errors and misrepresentations for months? I really don't see how anyone benefits from any of this. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Free Knowledge Creator: Violations of the Following Policies: Harassment, Not Here to Build an Encyclopedia, Wikilawyering, Don't Bite the Newbies, Incivility, No personal attacks, Edit Warring, No Assumption of Good Faith, No Consensus

The evidence speaks clearly enough for itself. I have no desire to do this. But his insistent harassment has forced my hand. I prefer to see no punishment meted out. I only wish for him to leave me alone, and let us both get back to work. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I just picked up the changes on the watch list and I'ver reverted SuperFriendlyEditor changes as they read like a personal essay. I was promptly reverted with a false edit summary so I've gone back to the stable state again and put a 3RR warning on his/her page. This may be just an over enthusiastic newbe so bringing it to ANI is a bit OTT. If the editor can't learn to use the talk page then they will end up with a block or two and hopefully learn from it. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Repeated copyright violations by Indian Historian Ramshankar

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.

---

Indian Historian Ramshankar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned (#1, #2) for adding copyrighted material on Goa (#1, #2; admitting in the edit summary for the second edit that it was ripped from somewhere else), removing the warnings and thus showing that he has seen them. In spite of that they have added more copyrighted text twice today (#1, #2), edits where most of the text added has been ripped from the text accompanying this video on You Tube, which is covered by the YouTube standard license and thus AFAIK not free to use on WP. So could someone please stop them? Thomas.W ^talk 13:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Diff for ANI-notice since they have removed it from the talk page, so that no-one thinks I have failed to notify them... Thomas.W ^talk 13:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked, can be unblocked once they show an understanding of our copyright policy and acknowledge that they will adhere to it. —SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 5 September 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.

Frederick Achom

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 please protect the page Frederick Achom please? I placed a request in at WP:RFPP but the situation is getting too far out of hand for me to wait any longer. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:45, 5 September 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 from 54.147.55.196

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.

---

[180] Bentogoa (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd block as it's a fairly open and shut case of WP:NLT, but looking at the storied history of Nanak Shah Fakir it looks like they have plenty of IP addresses at their disposal, so I'm not sure that blocking just one will achieve much. Paging User:Jayron32 to the discussion since it's his talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to @Chillum: for blocking. The article in question will remain protected until all parties involved in the edit war agree on a consensus version. --Jayron32 1:44 pm, Today (UTC−6)

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.

Reporting IP user 31.50.140.54

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 IP user 31.50.140.54 (talk) was vandalizing the article Deep Fear with this edit [1] and this edit [2]. I reverted these edits and notified the user on his/her talkpage. Now, problem is that this user posted on my talkpage and calling me an idiot and telling me that what s/he is doing is right. I really have no idea what to do so that's why I require an admin help to resolve this. Thanks. Ayub407^talk 11:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked and explained to him/her. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ayub407^talk 11:30, 5 September 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.

freeKnowledgeCreator has violated policy WP:DONTREVERT

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.

---

Policy clearly states edits should not be reverted in full if the edits are not vandalism. Edits are clearly not vandalism, and corrected many obvious falsehoods in Martin Heidegger , which has been called an "embarrassingly crass" "sophomoric drivel" etc by MANY users on the talk page for months to years. Policy requires editor to have selectively removed content if he disagreed, not deleted it in en masse as if it was vandalism. I demand this illegal user be banned for the destruction of content and his guarding of his demonstrably erroneous and logically false article. 2600:1017:B41C:FFAB:7400:41D8:830B:2573 (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:DONTREVERT isn't policy. It is an essay :" the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

And why has User:FreeKnowledgeCreator got two AN/I notifications from two different editors, both phrased in exactly the same way today? Sock or meatpuppet? Either way, I imagine something will ding you on the back of the head soonish. 20:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}

Please I beg of you to take a look at the page. he destroys contributions en masse, knows nothing about the topic, writes at a 4th grade level at best, and refuses to allow changes when I have explained to him and his toadies time and time again in language simple enough to fit into their tiny brains just why at least 50 percent of the sentences in the current article, are false, misleading , distortion a of scholarly consensus, or give an absurd amount of weight to the Heidegger Nazi controversy. He is an outrageously Ill-informed editor who is largely responsible for the decrepitude of the philosophy articles on here, since he deliberately inserts falsehoods. My eminent colleagues have asked me to come on here to correct the outrage that is the Martin Heidegger article, but this country rube prevents me from making my dear friends and fellow scholars from making any changes at all to an article that reads like the machine translated text of a German 4th grader. The article is a crass embarrassment and several of us have come on to stand together against this outrage.

Given that this is clearly the self-evidently-misnamamed User:SuperFriendlyEditor posting as an IP after being blocked, I suggest that this thread be closed - though someone may wish to consider extending the block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yah Andy, I just extended the block on the main acct to one week. Further input welcome. If anyone thinks that we should go to an indef block right now, I would not object. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Another sock just created User:HermanHeidegger, I suggest an indef ----Snowded ^TALK 20:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, and I have semi-protected the article talk page Talk:Martin Heidegger for two days as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:04, 5 September 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.

More socks

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 we also get a block for User:DrHermannHeidegger, newly created sock? BMK (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Chillum has since put that sock back in the drawer...but then 2600:1017:B415:575A:8D11:AD20:2467:C311 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) showed up. I notified Diannaa about it but she apparently isn't online right now, so if another admin wants to do something about it, feel free. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:44, 6 September 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.

WikiBullying

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 has gone on for a few days now and has caused an enormous amount of undue stress. For the original thread see WP:AN#BMK questioning Stabila711. I don't deserve this. I have tried to ignore it, I have denied the allegations and the thread just continues to roll on without any evidence presented that I have done anything wrong. This is not only a clear example of BITE it is also blatantly assuming bad faith just because I happen to have read the policies before jumping into editing. I will not be bullied off the project regardless of how much BMK wants that to happen. I have done nothing wrong. I have never harmed the project nor will I ever harm the project. This witch hunt has to stop. Obviously having the thread open on AN for a few days has done nothing to stop this blatant bullying so I appeal here. Please would an admin put a stop to this. The incivility that has been shown to me by BMK is abhorrent and against everything Wikipedia stands for. I reiterate, I have done nothing wrong. I have never vandalized any article. I have always tried to be constructive and I have never purposefully harmed any aspect of the project. I do not deserve to be treated with such disdain as has been shown in the AN thread. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(There's nothing new to say about this that hasn't been said on the AN thread, so I'm not going to repeat it. My concerns are completely legitimate, considering Stabila711's extremely unusual appearance on the scene, and that's all I have to say. All that remains to be seen is which one of my fan club shows up first, and in what order they get here.) BMK (talk) 00:10, 6 September 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:Jaronie

Please block Jaronie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at least temporarily for repeat self-promotion despite warnings. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but AN/I needs a little more substance than that. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, going through their edit history, here is some substance:

• The following edits: [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] add a reference to a paper co-authored by Jaronie Mohd Jani
• The following edits: [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] add a reference to another paper co-authored by Jaronie Mohd Jani
• The following edits: [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] add a reference to a third paper co-authored by Jaronie Mohd Jani
• The following edits: [200] [201] [202] add a reference to a paper co-authored by Jaronie Mohd Jani

Of the user’s other edits, one adds a seemingly-unrelated reference, one is on an unrelated topic, a couple added copyvio images (which is how I got pulled into this), all others are minor.

User:Ohnoitsjamie warned them yesterday but this morning here we are again. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• So, we are lucky enough to recruit a published author in a technical field and what is WP's immediate reaction? Call for a block! How the hell is this reckoned to be a positive action?

What content we used to have here was not constructed by people who were very conscientious about enforcing policy, it was built by people who understood a topic. Why are we now seeking to drive them away as rudely as possible? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User:DPGCMonsta

Over the past several months, DPGCMonsta has been adding erronenous edits to the Ice Cube discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page. Ice Cube's sales figured were inflated without any viable source and chart positions were modified without any supporting evidence. As shown on the RIAA reference pages, the certifications for all of Ice Cube's albums are indeed much lower than stated. This isn't accidental reproduction of fiction; it's all pure and intentional vandalism to this page.

Reference 1 Reference 2 Reference 3 Reference 4

Users such as myself and Mmrsofgreenhave reverted his/her's edits on multiple occassions, only to have our edits reverted back. It's rather annoying having to fix this page constantly just to provide the most accurate information. If you could look into this situation, that would be well appreciated. WolfSpear (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't WP:AIV or WP:RFPP. User:DPGCMonsta was blocked back in June for a week for copyright violation. Your edits show the reversions (both before and after the block) even though the editor has done a ton of edits in the page in sets like [203][204]. These seem to be reverted in full, is that all nonsense? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding to what Ricky81682 said; I notice that no discussion had been made on the article talk page, or DPGCMonsta's talk page. It is usually best to try to initiate a conversation (AGF and such). For all we know, DPGCMonsta may not know what they are doing wrong (although, it does not seem entirely likely that he is ignorant). -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that I recommended WolfSpear come here after seeing a report at RFPP. Protection is of little use here and the situation is too complicated for AIV. If DPGCMonsta is deliberately adding factual errors they should be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Reference source #11 is providing accurate information for the RIAA statistics (Gold, Platinum awards). The edits being made are inconsistent with that source and are purposely being made to enhance sales figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfSpear (talk • contribs) 12:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeated copyvio

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

After receiving warnings from multiple users about WP:COPYVIO, Esufalim has once again posted the same damn material as last time. WP:CIR block needed. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Indef blocked. I don't know what it is about that source. That's at least the fifth editor I've come across copying from it word for word. And the source itself is very likely a copyright violation as it copies a chunk of text from a 11,000 page, $750 book. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

92.40.249.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is likely linked as I just reverted a copy paste to Nizari. NeilN, given your familiarity with the source, you may want to check the other stuff and revert or see if there's a connection to the other editors. (Dynamic IP, not used since Aug 22, so not notifying). —SpacemanSpiff 15:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Got them. It'd be easier to check for connections if [insert standard rant about how the WMF dev department lacks competence or professionalism]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppet of banned spammer

82.232.81.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the latest IP of banned editor Archiboule. Eik Corell (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Archiboule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The 4th Coming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Archiboule's account has been globally locked by a steward, but they are still evading the block with IPs. I'm semiprotecting The 4th Coming for three months and leaving a ping for User:Materialscientist. His name is mentioned at Talk:The 4th Coming as having issued some blocks in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion request / Can anybody speak Hebrew?

LizT800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded several images from http://www.rabbikohane.org with the claim that Kohane has released them into the public domain. I doubt this for several reasons:

• The files are of varying age. This makes me suspicious that the webmaster does not own the rights.
• At the bottom of the gallery pages which are given as sources, there is a notice which, according to Google Translate, says "(c) All Rights Reserved".
• Several files are photos of people's writings and so derivative works.

I nominated one for speedy deletion but then thought it would be better to post here to get a unified response an in case any Hebrew-speakers could bring to light anything relevant on the site.

To be clear, I think these should be presumed copyvios and deleted. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Meir Kahane (listed as the author) was assassinated in 1990, so unless she's got a good medium, it would be interesting to know how he managed to give permission to release them into the public domain. However, as he is in most of the photos, I don't think he is the actual author. You are correct about the translation of the copyright though. Number 57 12:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Number 57. Pinging Diannaa because she has just tagged them for F11. Does this information make you think they should be F9? BethNaught (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) These images all qualify for deletion under criterion WP:F11 (no evidence of permission). There's a source and a license, but no proof that the images are released under the license provided. F9 is not the correct criterion in this instance. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Even where Kahane is patently not the author? BethNaught (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It is obviously against copyright, just delete it. The terrifying Scourge of Trumpton 14:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@BethNaught: That's the way I have been interpreting the criteria. Off to work now, ttyl. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Request block of 141.239.155.158

The contributions speak for themselves, really.

• 141.239.155.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Idiopathic environmental intolerances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit warring to include copy-pasted conspiracy theorizing and egregious BLP violations, with a generous portion of vicious personal attacks in his edit summaries. Would place the block myself, but I reverted him yesterday and it will save some nuisance unblock requests if someone else does it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours for egregious personal attack. --Randykitty (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. Semi-protection of the article might be required, too, but we'll see. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

RefHistory

RefHistory (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account out to promote Philip Benedict. We had to go through a RfC to determine that it's inappropriate to add the books written by his students, with no sources other than those books. That doesn't stop RefHistory from re-adding the very same content over and over again: [205] That was after a rather unambiguous warning I left at their talk page. RefHistory obviously is unwilling to accept the community's consensus, and I tire of trying to educate him on what constitutes a third-party source. I propose they're not here to improve the encyclopedia and should be dealt with accordingly. Huon (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing promotional about the content. All content is sourced by articles and university press books. There is no community consensus on the two sentences in dispute. Huon refuses to allow any information on the page that he doesn't like. When he loses a battle on one ground, he simply deletes the material again and makes up another reason. Though I do not believe that prize-winning academic history books published by academic presses constitute a primary source; Huon needs to be reminded that Wikipedia allows for the use of primary sources.RefHistory (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow this is still going on? @RefHistory: you need to give it up here, the RFC result and consensus are both against you. The material is not going to stay in the article, and continually re-adding it isn't going to change that. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There has been no justification that these two sentences are inappropriate. The debate was over the sentence that came afterwards. It is fine.12.47.233.82 (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal (RefHistory)

Propose article/topic ban for RefHistory on Philip Benedict and related articles, as WP:NOTHERE. GregJackP Boomer! 04:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• RefHistory seems to suffer from a severe case of I didn't hear that. Support topic ban. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Support indef per NOT HERE. If he doesn't get it then he doesn't get it. Pulling the same wikilawyering and copious amounts of "I didn't hear ya" at another article doesn't help the project at all. We would just be revisiting this another day. Socking/Meat has been going on with that article.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support per BH. If you aren't here to build an encyclopedia, you are getting in the way of those that are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban of indefinite length (until there is no need for the ban) widely construed on Phillip Benedict to be enforceable by blocks of escalating length (1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, indef). User has had more than enough opportunities to become educated with the rules of the road, but still feels the need to push their content without any new argument as to why declined content should be added. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see much of an effective difference between an indef-block and a topic ban in this case and would support either. I'm obviously involved in the article. Huon (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Can someone who is suggesting this change please make a concise defense for the most recent deletes by Huon? These particular sentences were never part of the original complaint.RefHistory (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • We are currently discussing your behavior and not the actual content. Three different editors have reverted you and yet you come back today and go against that implied consensus and revert yet again while this thread at ANI is ongoing and an open thread is on the talk page concerning the matter. The last two editors that reverted you aren't Huon. Your fixation on that editor combined with your subject interests makes me wonder if you ran these accounts. The level of I didn't hear that and wikilawyering are on par with that.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• "The RFC never covered this last sentence. Did it?" Yes it did. "Aspect 1) Does a student mentioning/giving thanks to Philip Benedict in the acknowledgment or similar page of the book rise to the level of importance that the student/book should be covered in this article..." His other recent edit to an unrelated article removed parts of a quote explicitly marked as one, in quotation marks, backed up by a reliable source confirming that quote, and commented that there's "no support for this sentence". So either RefHistory lacks basic reading competence in English, or he's editing with an agenda so strong that it takes precedence over obvious facts. Either way, this is no longer just topic ban territory; thus I support an indef-block. Huon (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This editor has not yet made 500 edits, and has become fixated on one article. A topic ban sounds about right so than perhaps they broaden their editing and learn to work with others. If they do not, this will give them enough rope and a block will soon follow. AlbinoFerret 23:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban over indefinite ban, but support both. The history indicates that the individual could very easily be an SPA, and efforts to "reform" them by trying to get them to learn elsewhere very rarely work. Having said that, idiot optimist that I am, it might be the case here. I think, maybe, the best way to go would be to impose the topic ban, and if it gets violated more than let's say two times with no reasonable contributions elsewhere, then drop the site ban hammer on him. John Carter (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Jakesyl

Jakesyl (talk · contribs)

• Editor for 5 years, with a few score edits, have reviewed his edits briefly, can't spot a good one.
• Regularly wipes warnings from his talk page.
• Vandalism such as this in 2012
• Today he fake-AfD'd a bivalve article, and templated a dozen editor's talk pages.

Suggest user is not here to contribute, and should be indef blocked.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

• You want somebody indefinitely blocked from editing because...they remove things from their talk page, which they are allowed to do, and because of an edit from three years ago, which I personally believe you falsely labeled as vandalism? As for the AfD, it seems to be the first AfD Jake has tried to open, and they may not have understood how to properly complete the process, as opposed to deliberately wanting to disrupt. Yes, they've been here over six years, but in that time they've only made 172 contributions to the site. Perhaps we should show them how things work around here, instead of trying to get them indefinitely banned from editing. Azealia911 _talk 02:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I've tried to learn, and have tried to be adopted in the past to no avail. Also would someone please tell me what was wrong with the AFD? The article is a stub on a non notable topic? Jakesyl (talk)jakesyl

Maybe I was too harsh. Lets try a fresh welcome instead. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

Except that this has happened before more than once Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

… and this is a little odd. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

Rich, Unfortanutely, I log on from a public computer, and will occasionally forget to log out/stay logged in for some reason. Additionally, wikipedia doesn't offer MFA Jakesyl (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)jakesyl

A bit early for WP:NOTHERE I think, but their talk page hardly inspires confidence. [206] [207] [208] [209]. I'm not sure if trolling or WP:COMPETENCE, but probably a bit of both. Suggest an admonition, and a warning that further behaviour of this ilk will lead blocks. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I went over this, I work a lot from public computers and will occasionally forget to log out. Someone sees a Wikipedia account with a few hundred edits and I guess they figure you're less likely to revert. I also want to mention that I think as dedicated editors you lose sight of why I have a Wikipedia account. It's not to maintain the site or be an active contributor, its so when I'm browsing the web and I see something wrong on Wikipedia I can change it and make the Wikipedia project better. What I did with the AFD would never be considered vandalism in open source software, but the mark of an inexperienced user and would be corrected. If you delete someones account every time they attempt (but fail) to make a change you'll end up with no users left. If you're really committed to building Wikipedia as a community and a reliable source of information, consider telling me what I did wrong rather than outright banning me with no explanation of why my edit was wrong. I did everything on the afd page. Additionally, I may have been "an editor" for 5 years, but I've probably spent less than an hour and a half editing. After doing some reasearch and trying to figure out what I did wrong, I looked at some of your edits to try to see how a proper deletion would go. While I was there, I came across many edits that conflict with WP:DNB. I'd hate to boomerang, but suggesting to delete a new users account after a ill-formatted AFD is wrong. We all make mistakes. Jakesyl (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)jakesyl

The problem with the AfD was that you didn't create the actual AfD page itself. With such a number of notifications, including Jimbo Wales it looked disruptive.

It's also worth knowing that some discussions have been had so many times that the outcome is a foregone conclusion, for AfD there are some examples at WP:OUTCOMES - in particular WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR

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

---

Is this an acceptable user name? It just looks like Spam to me and is not reader friendly. It's offputting for people to approach somebody with a name that long and that incoherent, I urge somebody to change this user's account name to 1Wiki8.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• We have another user that is a very regular contributor with a similar name and length, I can remember for the life of me his name, quite obviously. I agree that it is problematic, but I don't think policy disallows it unless there is a clear showing of an attempt to be disruptive. Of course, if I'm wrong, someone please correct me because I agree it is a bit annoying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, you're right. Policy discourages, but does certainly not disallow it - WP:UNCONF. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should introduce something which prohibits a user name over 20 characters length for one word, 33 is just ridiculous. It wouldn't be so bad if it actually meant something but it looks like spam. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I've started a thread proposal at Wikipedia talk:Username policy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 5 September 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.

Deflategate

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

---

Hello, can someone take a look at Deflategate? It appears that there are people vandalizing the page. It just got reverted again but he's been fairly persistant. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deflategate&oldid=679306770

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deflategate&type=revision&diff=679305314&oldid=679304787

Some kind of troll I think. the profile is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.218.237.3

Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, looking at his history it's almost [210] entirely composed of vandalism to football articles. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 19:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for approximately the same duration as it has been used to vandalise articles.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:06, 3 September 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.

Macon, Georgia

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 Macon, Georgia article is seeing a slow-motion edit war by IP editors (and one new registered user) about the population. One of the regular editors laid out the sourcing on the talk page, but no discussion resulted, just more reverts. Might I suggest short-term semiprotection to encourage the edit warring IPs to discuss the evidence on the article talk page? Full disclosure: The city was named after one of my ancestors, but I have no other connection to the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you might (lol), but WP:RPP is thataway. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:53, 6 September 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.

Possible legal threat by User:Correctfact

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 constitutes a legal threat, but I thought I would check here and find out anyway. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds more like a meltdown than an actual hard threat, but I agree it's a fine line between making a threat and wishing it to actually happen _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Would this push it over the edge? It's certainly chilling behavior, if nothing else. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Skamecrazy123 Did you call a fellow editor a jerk and, if so, what were the circumstances? If you were uncivil to this level then it is you that should receive the sanction. GregKaye 13:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No I did not. I believe that comment was aimed at User:AussieLegend. As it stands, even if it was me, I don't see why I should receive the sanction for a legal threat I never made. Prehaps you could explain this convoluted thought process to me... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

:::I've looked through all the edits and I can't find where anyone called Skamecrazy123 a jerk, or any other name. Skamecrazy123 did have a go at me in an edit summary,[211] but that was because I reverted his disruptive edit with the edit summary "Persistently disruptive editor", which was simply a statement of fact. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I did...? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit summary: "Correcting fact. You guys are why wikie is not reliable. Printing what you believe over FACT. Calling people names is against wiki rules AussieLegend... A name you heaps don't deserve (John Laws really?).)" ...can't really see where he's having a go at you, apart from perhaps question the true depth to which you are a legend. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Correctfact (got it right this time!) was having a go at me for calling him persistently disruptive. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the first statement is still technically correct, because nobody called you a jerk, ;) but I meant Correctfact in both cases. Sorry about that. That'll teach me for not checking when I CTRL-V. I actually did find another post where somebody referred to him as a jerk, which was inappropriate, but that was fairly early on, and not related to the legal threat. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• It skims the sides. The basic rule of thumb is whether or not the comment is designed to chill discussion. It isn't wise, and it only takes one admin to disagree, so it is an unwise thing for him to have said, but strictly speaking, it isn't a direct call to legal action nor is it designed specifically to chill discussion. It was an overreaction, or as Fortuna puts it, a meltdown of sorts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree. He wants his version of the page up (as evidenced by the reverting) and no one elses, and he's having to resort to hoping that everyone else gets sued as a last resort. It's chilling behavior, pure and simple. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Disruptive editing, incivility, all this is not the same as legal threat. If Correctfact were wise, he would go have a cup of tea and let time give him some perspective here, calm down, and try again. While I'm not likely to block for a legal threat that skirts the boundaries, plenty of admin like myself will block for other problems. Turning all this into a drama fest is disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No someone called me a jerk (Correctfact) which is what I copied and pasted. Have another look and I have screen shotted it as well. Thank you. And yes I want the truth up. As what is written is not fact (undermining Wiki's credibility). I looked at Wiki rules... Nothing against hoping, I even clarified for you. You are just trying really hard to get me banished. Simple as that. But I didn't break the rules and I didn't call someone a jerk (but I was called the jerk), nor am I putting untruths on Wiki. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctfact (talk • contribs) 14:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with your possible legal threat. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

although it perhaps does demonstrate a similarly bizarre ranting aspect...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Correctfact wrote Was that before or after you called me a jerk? at WP:BLPN. The person who actually referred to him as that wasn't even involved in the BLPN discussion at that point. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

So, what's it to be folks?

Is this to be closed as a "meltdown" or as a legal threat? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment FYI, he's just been blocked 31 hours by User:NeilN. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• The page protection and notes on their user page should have acted as a clear warning not to edit like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Time to close, people? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think so. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:05, 6 September 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... again.

After receiving a 24 hour ban a month ago for OR and altering sourced content, he's returned to doing the latter. Actually, he returned to doing that about two weeks ago (see [212]), and I warned him about that (see [213]).

Now, the following edits ([214], [215], [216]) are another instance of altering sourced content. Fortunately, I have that book, and I can confirm that what he added is not what the source says. Peter238 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is also this edit, where his edit summary clearly indicates OR. --JorisvS (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's more of a ref falsification than OR. That vowel is quite noticeably fronted, at least according to the vowel chart in Jassem (2003). Peter238 (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, both then, basically. From the edit summary it sounds like the listened to the audio file and concluded that he didn't really hear it. Inappropriate anyway. --JorisvS (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep. My question is: is anyone going to do something about that? I don't think it's a complicated issue. Peter238 (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Beukford

Beukford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to include contentious WP:BLP material in Ali Khamenei. The consensus on the talk page[217] prior to their arrival was that the source was not reliable enough. Despite being informed that both the burden to demonstrate reliability of the source and the the onus to achieve consensus for including the material, they flaunted both as well as the talk page consensus and reverted multiple times to re-insert the disputed material[218][219][220]. They will continue doing so until an admin intervenes.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• There was no such "consensus", only you objected the cited content, which was in the article long time ago. And several reliable newspapers reported it, including Globalnews from Canada, The Slatest, CNN and Jerusalem Post (not to mention it was published by Khamenei himself in his twitter account). It's not a BLP violation. Just a pertinent and related comment about Israel reported by several reliable sources in an impeccable place.--Beukford (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• As predicted, the user has now reverted another editor too over the same material[221].--Anders Feder (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I went to https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir which also contains tweets that aren't in English, scrolled down, hit auto translate and am pasting results below.

Extended content

Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Aug 1Infanticide is the policy of savage and wolfish Israeli regime. 7/23/14#AliDawabshe #WasBurnedAlive Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Jul 20#Israel's security will not be ensured whether there will be an #IranDeal or not. 11/27/2014https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4lPGXmXb3c …#Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Jul 17‘Down to US,’ ‘Down to Israel’ slogans changed country’s atmosphere and it was not only in Tehran or big cities. Khamenei.ir retweeted Ayatolá Jamenei ‏@Khamenei_es Jul 9 ~#AlgoQueNecesitoYaEs :#Libertad dlos territorios palestinos ocupados por el #Israel. #DíaMundialdeAlQuds,#Palestina Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir May 16The cause of insecurity& massacre in #Yemen are some so-called Islamic countries which are actually deceived by US&Israel.#YemenUnderAttack Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir May 13Terrorist groups in #Syria under various names work to the benefit of #Israel& those who seek instability in region to impose their own will Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir May 6In the world of deception, the most racist govts become flag-bearers of human rights#US #Israel #BlackLivesMatterhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PPeQP-bY38&list=PLP9XKFcmDYv4hmgwVEXplXrfnVeZQk-St&index=1 … Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Apr 21If Israel can achieve victory in Gaza,Saudis too will achieve victory in #Yemen.Their noses will be rubbed in dirt over Yemen.4/9/15#REVIEW Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Apr 21Saudis established a bad tradition in region;they made a mistake.What Saudis did in #Yemen is exactly what Israel did to #Palestine.#REVIEW Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Apr 9Israel’s military is bigger than Saudi’s& #Gaza is a small area,but they failed;#Yemen is a vast country w a population of tens of millions. Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Apr 9What Saudis did in #Yemen is exactly what Israel did to #Palestine.Acting agnst Yemenis is a genocide that can be prosecuted in int’l courts Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 17Once people in the West realize … #RachelCorrie #KillerIsrael Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 3US is now facing a #dilemma. It should either stop unlimited services to #Israel or they’ll lose more face in the world.10/1/11 Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 3We can't overlook #Israel's crimes agnst Palestinians;we can't remain silent towards Israel's role in regional unrest. #IsraeliApartheidWeek Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 3US officials are obliged to show consideration for #Israel & cover up its #crimes. Zionists corporations' money & power have troubled them. Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 3For +50yrs, Israel’s tried to destroy Palestinian nation w US supports but Palestinians disgraced Israel w bare hands. #BeliefInGod10/14/00 Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 3All what US has paid to protect #Israel faced a big obstacle:#Palestine has won the hearts of justice-seekers of world.#IsraeliApartheidWeek Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 3In the past 50 yrs, how much money and #reputation has it cost US to support #Israel’s crimes? Who other than its nation has paid for it? Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 2Increasing global hatred of #Israel is a sign of divine help. Today Israel is more isolated&its supporters are more embattled#ShutDownAIPAC Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 2Zionists’ hegemony over US officials is such that these poor ppl have to show consideration for #Israel& cover up its crimes. #ShutDownAIPAC Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Feb 23+50M US blacks are deprived of human rights b/c their national interests are spent on covering the costs of #Israel's crimes.5/6/92#MalcomX

While I sympathise with views such as Israel should withdraw from settlements and the West Bank inc. East Jerusalem and perhaps further territories that it has taken - the above content seems pretty venemous to me. I see no reason to doubt the JP content which is inclusive of a screen shot of at least one tweet. If the jpost had falsified the story then it would be big news.

I also scrolled through the twitter feed in hope of find content such as of an incitement to love but saw nothing. GregKaye 15:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Anyone can access the Twitter account and analyze it for themselves. That is not the point. What gives you reason to believe that it is even Khamenei's account? What gives you reason to believe a source like JPost, which have previously has propagated such ridiculous "stories" as the Norwegian Finance Minister having shouted "Death to the Jews" in a demonstration[222], would have bothered fact-checking such a critical point? In any case, this is not the place where the source should be discussed. The user could easily have respected WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS and talk page consensus and gone through normal processes like WP:RSN or WP:RFC if he disagree. Instead he is engaged in edit warring. If your attempts to defend such behavior is considered good practice, it isn't surprising so many editors have quit Wikipedia.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: "What gives you reason to believe that it is even Khamenei's account?" It seems i had no basis other than my own gullibility. Apologies. Have you asked similar of User:Beukford and, if so, where? GregKaye 16:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not engaged in any analysis of the account, no. I have requested any evidence that the source is reliable.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

For interested editors, I've done a bit of research regarding the extent of usage of quotes from the account in reliable sources and added it to Talk:Ali Khamenei GregKaye 18:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• And again, as predicted, the user has now reverted a third user over the same material.[223]--Anders Feder (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Ankhsoprah2 engaging in WP:HOLYWAR and accusing Beukford of being a "Jewish POV pusher"

Ankhsoprah2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted Beukford while refering to him as a "Jewish POV pusher." On the talk page in response to a Shia editor he comments "Shias are always looking for excuses to eat porks, what's the big deal? lol. As long as sanction are in place, they have a great excuse... Maybe that's why Khamenei is against Iran Deal?" Can someone please permablock this fellow?Brustopher (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

For completeness, link to 3RR discussion against the same user yesterday.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked Ankhsoprah2. As to the edits, I've responded on the talk page and tried my hand at a re-write. Just repeating tweets without a real context (or point) just made Ali_Khamenei#Zionism_and_Israel a random set of insulting tweets and comments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• With Ankhsoprah2, the question was really when this was going to happen. As for Beukford, they are clearly edit warring. They're also, of course, a brand-new account with a distinct POV, walking into a hot-button issue with guns blazing and a pretty decent knowledge of how Wikipedia works. In other words, I have no doubt that this is a returning editor, and I will block the account accordingly. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Between the two blocks, a modicum of order should have been restored. Thanks.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ankhsoprah2 has apologized and I have unblocked the user. I assume the situation has calmed down nevertheless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Question His history of reilgious insults and claims of "propaganda" are extensive; [224] calling an editor "a Jewish POV pusher," [225] "illegitimate Israel #1 terrorist" on an editors talk page, [226] addressed to a Shia editor - "Shias are always looking for a reason to eat pork," claims an editor is part of "Jewish Propaganda" [227], and these are just a few from the past few days alone. Given this, should the block be reinstated.? Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You already got the answer from the admin who blocked me and then unblocked me,[228] why post it here again? BTW, after posting the question here, you reverted this edit of mine, stating in the edit summary that my edit was POV. Actually, you readded unsourced POV that is not related to the biography.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Although I'm extremely shamed of my actions, & I promise not to act that way again. I would like to point out a few things: the Shia editor, with whom I had a lighthearted exchange, actually misunderstood me as a sectarian editor and attacked me first, which another editor redacted [229]. Although I didn't mind, and didn't even think of it as an attack. Although, it was lighthearted, we ended with agreement that sectarianism is ignorant[230]. With User:Iran nuclear weapons 2, he was claiming that Iran has most record of assasination and would assasinate him for editing Wikipedia![231]. I again apologize for my actions, and promise that I will not repeat them. Thank you and best regards to all.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Pgbrux

Pgbrux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Atacama skeleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Steven M. Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pgbrux is a single purpose account, used for no other purpose than the promotion of a fringe POV regarding extraterrestrials in regard to our article on the Atacama skeleton, and to the related Steven M. Greer biography. As our article makes clear, the skeleton has unequivocally been demonstrated to be human, by DNA evidence. Pgbrux has however repeatedly edited the articles to refer to the skeleton as 'humanoid', and to otherwise promote the discredited 'extraterrestrial' hypothesis. Despite repeated requests to engage in discussion, and despite repeated warnings over edit-warring (see User talk:Pgbrux) the contributor has refused to do anything but restore the fringe material - frequently using entirely bogus edit summaries. (see e.g. [232][233]) Given that Pgbrux seems to have made no useful contributions to Wikipedia, and instead seems to think that relentless promotion of fringe material is an appropriate way to behave, I would have to suggest that an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE would be the best course of action. It has been suggested that Pgbrux may possibly be a sock of User:Schladd and/or (blocked) User:Stickleback987, given the similarities in edit history, but frankly I don't think a SPI is necessary - sock or not, we can do without this sort of 'contributor'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Diffs on Pbrux' talk made in preparation for an ANEW report. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: even after being notified of this ANI report [234], Pgbrux has continued to add the disputed material. [235] Evidently nothing but a block is going to have any effect whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Mock RfA

A newly registered user with just 12 edits put me up on RfA. It's hard to judge whether it's just a good faith newby, or just one of the countless trolls I deal with on my talk page. In any case, I'd like the RfA page deleted. As far as action on the account is concerned, I'll leave it up to the admins though it does seem like a fake account IMO. Mar4d (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done deleted the page. I also suppressed some early userpage edit. Leaving the rest to another admin's judgement. Keegan (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action Keegan. Mar4d (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Not actually newly registered, Mar4d; they registered on 23 August ands made a couple of edits then, that Keegan has oversighted. The user's contribs list shows the classic "back-and-forth-to-get-autoconfirmed" pattern. All edits are from today, excepting only the two from 23 August. I presume the oversight of the earlier edits prevented the autoconfirmation? But the contribs pattern itself is a bad sign: it's characteristic of a sleeper intended to be used for vandalism at semi'd pages. Or alternatively, in this case, to be used for creating Mar4d's RFA (I'm not sure if you need to be autoconfirmed to create an RFA, but it does involve creating a page). Altogether, it doesn't look good, and I'm pretty sure this is a troll amusing themselves. Please note, AGF-warriors, and feel free to execrate me below.

Keegan, I presume you had a reason for oversighting those early edits. Abuse or merely self-outing? Anyway, it might be interesting to watch for when they actually become autoconfirmed, on 7 Sept 06:54 UTC. Not a very good time in my timezone, so perhaps another admin or two would like to keep an eye out as well. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

Can these pointless TP nil-edits be redacted too? That way the user will go back to zero count, and will at least have to make sensible edits to become auto-c. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I don't think deleting edits effects autoconfirm. Even if it did that is not what revdel is for. Chillum 15:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion or suppression of a user's edits has absolutely no effect on their autoconfirmed status. Graham87 08:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

My logic, a) If they know how to bypass autoconfirm and how to file an RfA then this is not their first account, b) From WP:SOCK: "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.", like creating an RfA. This seems like an inappropriate use of an alternate account to me. Chillum 16:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Cause-of-death vandal -- rangeblock him?

The Cause-of-death vandal just got blocked for a week, but this guy doesn't respect any of our blocks. Can we rangeblock him to make it more difficult for him to disrupt the project? The IPs 86.174.160.xx to 86.174.162.xx are often involved, along with other very different IPs in the same geographic area. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you give me a range to block, I'll do it, but I don't trust myself to select the right range in the first place. Best format is to give me a link to Special:Block/replacethesewordswiththerangetoblock. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Too much collateral damage. unfortunately. I asked for an edit filter about two months ago but it hasn't been actioned. I'll add some more information now. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hounding by User:‎Pluto2012

‎Pluto2012 has been hounding me for some time now. I have asked him to stop stalking me but he continued to follow me and revert good edits. I list only reverts on pages he had never edited before.

1. Susya, Har Hebron‎ - Removing material under bogus claim while deletion dicussion was taking place in which he voted 'delete'.
2. 2006 Jerusalem gay pride parade - This article was merged with Jerusalem gay pride parade after swift discussion. Pluto reverted claiming "no such discussion on the talk page" only to reply to it later (and not revert). I have followed protocol for a merge, to which Pluto didn't bother comment, and then finally made the merge.
3. Yaakov Havakook - His edits were decent but one in which he claim 'Category:Israeli anthropologists' is only for scholars though Havakook is mentioned by many sources as an anthropologist. I am not sure about this but the hounding is clear.
4. Anarchists Against the Wall - Deleted text b/c I mistaken page 83 to 82. Good edit. Still hounding.
5. Ta'ayush - Like the above.
6. At-Tuwani - Deleted two RS. The first is an Israeli encyclopedia used 41 times on wikipedia. The second was essentially copied from Susya and the source was discussed here.

I asked him to self-revert but upon playing games and repeated refusal I am asking for this discussion for his practice of hounding me as well as unjustified reverts. Settleman (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Just one comment: that "Ariel Encyclopedia" is used 41 places on Wikipedia, is absolutely no argument in favour of it being WP:RS: I have several times removed fake sources (like palestinefacts.org), used here many more times. However, I´m not familiar with "Ariel Encyclopedia": does it have anything to do with the Israeli Ariel-settlement on the West Bank? Huldra (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: No, it's nothing to do with the settlement. The encyclopedia was written by Zev Vilnay, a renowned geographer and Israel Prize winner. The first volume was published in 1969, almost a decade before the settlement was founded. There is an article on the he.wiki about it if you would like to read further. It is almost certainly a RS given its author's credentials and the fact that it was published by Am Oved. Number 57 22:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this but this is not wp:rs. According to its article, Am Oved was created by Histadrut "with a goal of publishing books that would "meet the spiritual needs of the working public" and according to his article, Zev Vilany was not a "reknown geographer" but a "a military topographer in the Haganah, and later in the Israel Defense Forces". I don't know that man but having in mind his personal encyclopedia (in 10 vol. indeed) was published after '67, has the name of the main Israeli settlement of West Bank at the time, and published books titled "Legends of Judea and Samaria", "Sinai, Avar Vehoveh", "Golan Vehermon" he may have some ideas in mind...Pluto2012 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ariel was established in 1978; the first volume was published in 1969, so Ariel was clearly not "the main Israeli settlement of West Bank at the time". In addition, your pooh-poohing of Am Oved suggests a distinct ignorance about the subject (for instance, it published Correcting a Mistake: Jews and Arabs in Palestine/Israel, 1936-1956 and several Amos Oz books). Number 57 22:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You are right. There is no link with the settlement.
Regarding Am Oved reliability at the time (a Publishing house evolves as society. The left at the Birth of Israel was not the left at the time of Morris and Oz and is not the left today), as well as Zev Vilany reliability, that requires more study and I don't know that man. His background doesn't talk for him, not at all. But he can be found in numerous bibliographies. I would have expected to find references of his "books" in academic publications but could not. He is also notorious, without doubt Pluto2012 (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Irrespective of the content or of their political leanings, Am Oved is one of the leading Israeli publishing companies, and Vilnay a leading geographer. This is certainly a reliable source; though it does not appear to have been cited or paraphrased accurately in the edits under question. RolandR (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't "hound" Settleman. I am one of the many contributors who see what he does. For some points I have supported his mind (eg here) but for many I am opposed.

Settleman is frustrated because the reliability of the sources that he uses is questionned as here or here for Arutz 7, because he has no answer to provide and because nobody supports his points.

He created the article about "Mr" Havakook on 10 August after he found a source with him and because he wanted to use it, thinking that would create notoriety for him. But he doesn't know anything on the topic or that man and has never had a book of this man in hand or studied what he could have said. He just "needs" him.

Same for Ariel Encyclopedia. He has just discovered this and doesn't want to know what it is but just wants to use an information from there because it does interest him to push a point on an article. And that's it.

He is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to explain to the world that the Israeli settlers claims on Susiya are legitimate. No more, no less.

The issue for me to manage him is that he really looks really good faith but just doesn't understand. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What's said above is a good example of inappropriate stalking: regardless of the "good" or "bad" in your edits, if you're editing to stalk another user, you don't belong here. Blocked for 48 hours with a reminder that recidivism will result in longer blocks. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The material from Ariel on Tuwani article supports the Palestinian side b/c it is an evidence of the village existence prior to 1967. I checked Ariel at a request from Huldra and found the info so I added it.

The Susya article was solely PNPOV (Palestinian Nerrative POV) before I started editing it. The view Regavim writes about is similar to the official Israeli position. Even if it wasn't, Wikipedia aims to be neutral so I don't see why it shouldn't be on the article. Settleman (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)