Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive896

Ludwigpaisteman

I think we've got another "sorry, can't hear you" editor in Ludwigpaisteman (talk · contribs), a straight copyeditor with 0 talk or user talk edits. He seems to go around adding lots of unsourced or poorly sourced content to music articles, and gets reverted all over the place ([1],[2],[3],[4]). I've already dropped him a note saying, "can we talk?" but had no response. Now, if he doesn't mind having edits reverted, I guess there's not much of an issue - but I think my problem is more over articles that nobody watches anymore which have a risk of being subtly degraded and looking a little bit worse. Should we do anything or shall I go and listen to some soothing peaceful music and think happy thoughts instead? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I left him a more specific message directly requesting a response. It's possible that he just hasn't felt the need to respond since no one has asked him a direct question. He's been lighting up my watchlist for quite some time now. His edits are at least sometimes correct, albeit unsourced. --Laser brain (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think when, in all likelihood, the user doesn't respond a brief block may wake them up and nudge a response. Normally, I work on lesser-known bands, albums, and songs than what Ludwig is editing in, but it's still concerning that many articles on renowned musicians are potentially being degraded by unsourced material.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked for the time being. I particularly want to discuss his changes to Richard Wright as I can't find a source for the date given. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war at Chartres article

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

---

Over the past two days there has been an edit war going on at Chartres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit summaries also indicate possible sockpuppetry. The editors who have edited the Chartres article after 30 July are Blue Indigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Whiteflagfl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ScrapIronIV, Europatygr, Blaue Max, Huntermiam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), KateWishing and finally myself (only to fully protect the article). FWIW, Blaue Max ScrapIronIV and KateWishing do not appear to be implicated in the war. Europatygr is also probably not involved. As I'm not feeling that confident of being able to fully investigate this myself due to off-wiki issues, I'm raising this here for action. I will notify all mentioned above and post evidence that such notification has been given. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The following editors have been notified of this discussion:- KateWishing, Huntermiam, Europatygr, ScrapIronIV, Whiteflagfl and Blue Indigo Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Blaue Max has also been notified. Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I simply is a local from the region around, I was against focusing on the Cathedral, on foreigners and on the Royalist period; also Blue Indigo seemed doing self promotion; I was reverted, I opened a debate on the talk page with no response from Blue Indigo, I think he should be banned, as for myself I ' m logging myself out very soon because I was only interested in Chartres future and a few other edits as for Kate "mes hommages Madame".Whiteflagfl (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is strong evidence that Huntermiam is a sockpuppet of Whiteflagfl at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whiteflagfl. It has been suggested that both are sockpuppets of Aubmn. I'm not familiar with that user, but at a glance, their English is broken in similar ways. Aubmn was recently subject to a complaint here with clear consensus for a topic ban, but the thread was archived without action. KateWishing (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No evidence at all. Kate is just feeling bitter because she feels Chartres has been locked on the wrong version. So everyone must be "socking". Martin Cold Mans (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Pretty amazing that you're an editor with under 50 edits, registered yesterday, and yet you are here on ANI linking to a meta essay on the wrong version. Oh, and I'm uninvolved with the article or any of the editors. GregJackP Boomer! 18:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin review this user's edit history[5][6][7] and the message spelled out on their userpage? KateWishing (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF and all, it appears that we are being trolled at least in the above examples and recently created pages...and as I typed that the user was indeffed.Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser results posted at the relevant SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I did edit that article yesterday: one restore after examining the merits of the contributions of the warring parties, with an encouragement for them to go to the talk page; and one minor change to a date immediately following. I don't believe that would make me involved in an edit war on this article, but I am open to correction if it is warranted. Please let me know. Scr★pIron^IV 19:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It is my belief that ScrapIronIV was not involved in the edit war. No action is warranted against him/her. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I've decided not to block BlueIndigo for edit warring. Suitable advice has been given as to dealing with a similar scenario should it happen in the future. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A contributor with multi new accounts opened on 8 August, 12 August & 14 August, in addition to the regular account he has had for a couple of years, has been tracking me at every article I edit & automatically reverts my edits. This contributor is Aubmn.

How do I know this is the same person? An obvious sign is his handling of the English language, then the tactics he employs, disrupting one's work & provoking battles. Once he has pushed an editor to put his work back, he happily announces that you have reached the 3-revert & are thus guilty of breaching wiki rules. No need to go any further: that is Aubmn's tactic, very well calculated. Beside the war being started, the sad result is that regular contributors stop editing the article, and the article remains unfinished. The perfect example is the article on Marie Antoinette, together with its discussion page.

My problem with Aubmn began last June, but others had battles with him for months before. The problem was never resolved, and it all came to a head on 6 August, when NeilN locked the article for a few days. It has been freed since, with no further participation, however. Since the Marie Antoinette affair, Aubmn has not participated in any article, at least under that user name – nonetheless, he has been busy by using other accounts

What happened next is what is bringing the affair here: Since 12 August, every time I begin working on an article, a newly registered editor comes & reverts my work. Up to today, three (3) have done so:

Whiteflagfl – opened account 12 Aug went directly to Chartres article & reverted my work [8] of a couple of hours before. A couple of hours later, he left this message on my talk page:

Hello, one you focus to much on nobility history even not France before 1789 plus you seems doing self promotion and you seems to belong to the region.

Whiteflagfl (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2015

Up to time article was locked, he argued every one of my edits, reverting all the time, then went at Welborn Griffith, an American Officer KIA on 16AUG44, during the battle of Chartres. Griffith's article is very short, and Whiteflagfl began removing info which he judged unnecessary, nothing more than Griffith's military awards, Légion d'honneur, etc. He then went back to the Chartres article continued hacking away details on the history of the city, reproaching me to mention too much of the nobility (!) - hard not to do when one relates the history of France, or England for that matter, or of any country of Europe, However, he does not seem to realize, or rather does not want to because it is not his purpose, that to go on working at an article, one has to be left alone & be given the time to go to the end (which is what could never happen to the article on Marie Antoinette). The situation is comparable to someone writing with a pen & having the pen taken away after every word. To top it all off, he accuses me of doing self-promotion because I had changed the date of the times of office of the mayor of Chartres, which had been left at 2008. As I told Whiteflagfl: we are in 2015. As for my doing self promotion: I am not the mayor of Chartres, I am not an elected official of Chartres. I do not work for the Chamber of Commerce of Chartres. I am not the bishop of Chartres. Even if I wanted to, I could not be elected to any office for the good reason that I am not a French citizen, although I pass easily for one because of my knowledge of the country and its language. And I am not the only foreigner in France in that position. So, that should settle the accusation of “doing self promotion”, which should be rejected.

Europatygr - opened account 08AUG, got busy & reverted at Louis XVI article, in exactly the same manner as that used by Aubmn at Marie Antoinette.

Huntermiam – opened account today, 14AUG, went directly to Chartres' article, reverting my work exactly in the same manner done previously by Aubmn at Marie Antoinette. Then came and threatened me on my talk page because he had followed every one of my moves at Wikipedia, and read what I had left at someone else's page.

One last thing: RE the accusation by Aubmn & others that I do not respond to msgs left on my talk page: I have responded to Aubmn in a rather lengthy manner on the Marie Antoinette discussion page & really do not wish to have my talk page turned into a battlefield. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing more for me to tell Aubmn and Associates.

That's about it, and it's rather long. Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

Seems that there was quite a sockfarm going on. As all the puppets have been blocked, we now need to deal with the puppeteer. Therefore I propose that Aubmn is banned from editing the Chartres article. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree only in that, as discussed below, I Support a Site Ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • PROPOSAL WITHDRAWN, see site ban discussion immediately below this subsection. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn again... What to do?

I recently brought the topic of Aubmn (talk · contribs)'s problematic editing to this noticeboard, and that thread, which was in favor of topic banning Aubmn with regard to the Marie Antoinette article, was archived without a close as to whether the topic ban should be enacted. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895#WP:Topic ban for Aubmn. Aubmn stated that the ban was not needed because he would stop editing the article. But I knew that he'd end up WP:Socking again, and continuing with his problematic edits. And sure enough, he started doing just that, though he didn't go back to editing the Marie Antoinette article. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whiteflagfl. Surely, he would have eventually gone back to the Marie Antoinette article. And, clearly, this editor shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. So, for Aubmn, do we enact the previously supported topic ban, broaden the ban to certain topics, propose a site ban, or just go with an indefinite block?

WP:Pinging all the editors who supported a topic ban in the aforementioned thread: JzG (Guy), Softlavender, MrX, AlbinoFerret, NebY, Xcuref1endx and Blue Indigo. Also WP:Pinging the editors who commented in the aforementioned WP:Sockpuppet investigation: KateWishing and Ponyo (Jezebel's Ponyo). Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support a Site Ban for the sockmaster, who appears to be User:Aubmn. Perhaps I take the rules too seriously, but I have no tolerance for anyone who creates multiple registered accounts other than for declared legitimate purposes. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Banninate. Long past time. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Site ban for all the socks and their master. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Block Sockpuppetry is never a good thing. Looks like instead of ignoring the article Aubmn put the rope around their neck and jumped up and down on the gallows trap door. AlbinoFerret 22:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  Without opining on the proposal here: you know how there's a discussion right now about WP:ROPE and how the metaphor is kind of inappropriately violent? Here's a good example. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban. They seem to disrupt any article they touch. KateWishing (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban - That trip to Monte Carlo with his/her girlfriend is long overdue. Bon voyage! - MrX 22:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Site ban for master and all socks, for abusing not only multiple accounts but also abusing the community's trust in the worst sort of way. Softlavender (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Site ban. Someone needs to trip the trap door on the gallows. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support a site ban. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Also see the #Edit war at Chartres article section above; I hadn't seen that section before creating this one. This section can be made into a subsection of that one. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban. This recent spate of clear malicious damage backed with specious arguments suggests that for many months their behaviour on Marie Antoinette was also a conscious and deliberate mockery _{(and I was a fool to WP:AGF)}. NebY (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Request closure

Per the #Aubmn again... What to do? section above, we don't need this matter be archived again without a close. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 16 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.

Thesongfan

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.

---

Thesongfan (talk · contribs) may have some possible COI going on at Chris Janson, as this editor is scrubbing any mention of the fact that Janson was originally signed to another label, and removing other sourced content in favor of stuffing the article with name-drops of artists to whom Janson is only passingly connected at best. (Compare the diffs here). After I warned them for possible COI, they proceeded to attack me in an edit summary and accuse me of stalking. I proceeded to give them a warning against personal attacks, after which they once again removed sourced content from the article without explanation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I know Hammer already warned him/her, but this was pretty out of line. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It is out of line. I am considering this user fully warned and may block if disruptive editing continues. Chillum 04:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, that edit summary and this one suggest that Thesongfan thinks s/he owns the article ("I'm allowing you to leave most of the content you've posted"?). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Chillum: See the above post, Thesongfan has continued their disruptive editing and is now claiming ownership of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Note the timestamp of my comment on the timestamp of the above diff. There have been no edits since I said that, while another admin may feel differently I don't wish to block at this point. Also please take care not to get caught up in edit warring. Chillum 05:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It has continued so I am blocking them. SmartSE (talk) 07:55, 17 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.

Freeze Out (game show)

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

---

There's a bit of an argument on the talk page of this regarding a critical reception section. Please advise on who is the unreasonable one of the two.--Launchballer 19:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This appears to me to be a content dispute, with no misbehavior on anyone's part that belongs here at ANI. General Ization ^Talk 19:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

(A bit more) When two editors have a different interpretation of a Wikipedia policy, and both are convinced they are right, an appropriate course of action is to start an RfC, not to bring the dispute to ANI. General Ization ^Talk 21:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

See Third opinion. Might be useful. --Zyma (talk) 14:11, 17 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.

Attempt to censor 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.

---

[9] Roscelese is trying to remove sourced information from Reza Aslan, in which Reza supports the killing of Mummar Gaddafi, because he wants to control Reza's image.Big-Endians (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reza Aslan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Actually, you are edit warring after being blocked for edit warring. Per WP:BOOMERANG I suggest a block for user Big Endians. I invite editors to look at the editing history of the page Reza Aslan and the editing history of this editor. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've already blocked the complainant for two weeks for edit-warring to insert BLP violations. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

And I was just getting diffs together and everything...... Thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the subject has been a longstanding target for BLP violations I've semi-protected indefinitely. As for Big-Endians, they're millimeters away from an indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 22:18, 16 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?

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 believe that a legal threat has been made against me on my talk page here. I request review by an administrator. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The relevant Teahouse thread is Cyberbullying on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a legal threat to me, but they are clearly NOTHERE. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

NOTHERE or not, that to me is a clear attempt to create a chilling effect by mentioning "my attorney" over something that was said to them in the middle of a content discussion. Blocked. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

That's something that commenters often miss, I think, that it's the intent to create a chilling effect that's important about NLT, not the actual words said. There's no magic formula. BMK (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't read the diff closely enough, missed the "and my attorney" bit. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with BMK and FreeRangeFrog. The blocked editor clearly implied that legal action was underway, and implied further action depending on Cullen's response. Very, very improper. North of Eden (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Unquestionably, qualifies as a legal threat under Wikipedia guidelines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This message was clearly meant to have a chilling effect. Chillum 03:47, 17 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:Tehseenahmad96 biographical changes

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

---

Having exhausted all attempts at communicating directly with Tehseenahmad96 (talk · contribs), I am now requesting administrative assistance.

Tehseenahmad96 is a relatively new account, having registered on 14 July 2015. Since then this account has been adding unsourced material to various WP:BLP articles, going as far as to ignore and overwrite the commented remarks specifically requesting sources for the fields changed. For example: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

Please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page if there are any additional questions or concerns. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:47, 17 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 talk:EspectrumHD

While I have given several warning since he began to edit in the Wikipedia in English, the user did not want to change their attitude, it's going to add information without references in multiple articles. In the article "Doña Bárbara" made vandalism without any reason, the user does not understand the language or simply gives same messages that are left. I hope that any admin can do something about. Thank you.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Issues/Cyberbullying concerning Krull The Eternal

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

This user has been flaming my talk page for the past two months. After being told clearly to stop posting offensive links on my talk page. This type of behavior obviously is obnoxious and should be resolved. I'm requesting an administrator's opinion and action on this matter. If anything this is cyberbullying and holding a grudge.

Examples of this user's behavior:

• 1 (latest incident)
• 2 (second incident)
• 3
• 4

It seems the user is holding a grudge regarding a matter settled two months ago. link This user apparently feels the need to post offensive comments, whether it be on edit descriptions or talk pages. --Sciophobiaranger (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see evidence of consistent flaming but the latest post is far from being in order. Lessons from the march "Ha-ha-ha. ... Ho-ho-ho-he-he-he-hi-hi-hi." comment have not been learned. Krull_The_Eternal Please knock it off.

One possibility would be to ban Krull from initiating threads on Sciophobiaranger's TP. GregKaye 22:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

SPA User:Tdauletk removing deletion tags

The article Farleon was deleted yesterday after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farleon (2nd nomination) ended in delete. Today Tdauletk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recreated the article (including copyvio, according to CorenSearchBot) and has removed the cpyvio tag and then twice the G4 tag. See [22]. The user has been warned on the article talk page and on his own talk page, to no avail. Kraxler (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have looked after this. Just a reminder, you are supposed to notify the user when you post on this board. I have included that notification in my message. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I really forgot it. After checking the user's talk page and looking where the previous notifications went (they deleted them without answering), I got sidetracked somehow... Kraxler (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems like this is a less experienced user, likely an honest mistake. This user could use some guidance on how our inclusion and deletion policies work. Chillum 01:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Stacy Gunn

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.

---

• Stacy Gunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Help, please. Persistent removal of AfD and other templates, substituting copyright violation spam text instead. Speedy would be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to add onto an archived thread, but could an admin please bring a bit of WP:SALT to this article as it's been recreated two more times. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Creation protected. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:15, 17 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.

Harassment by User:Brad Dyer

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

---

A few weeks ago, Brad Dyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) copied and pasted some text from The New York Times to Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. I assumed good faith, reverted his WP:COPYVIO, and warned him about it. I thought that was the end of it.

A week later, Brad wrote at Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries that I was lying: there had been no COPYVIO. I replied, demonstrating exactly what he had copied and pasted. Again, I thought that was the end of it.

Today, Brad showed up at B'Tselem, an article he has never edited before, and reverted a relatively insignificant edit of mine (I had reverted the addition of scare quotes to the lead), claiming it was COPYVIO. On the article's Talk page, other editors have accused him of being WP:POINTy. See Talk:B'Tselem/Archives/ 1#Copyvio?

I warned Brad about harassing me, because that's what this is, and he replied that he is only doing to me what I did to him. See User talk:Brad Dyer#August 2015. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Malik's edit, removing something that was indicted as a direct quote coming from B'Tselem's page turned that quote into a statement in wikipedia's voice - and that statement was copied and pasted from B'tselem's web site. I undid that copyright violation, and asked him not to do so again, exactly as he had done to my edit a couple of weeks ago.

In response , he wrote the following on my talk page [24]- calling me an "asshole' , "fucking stupid" and "too stupid to edit Wikipedia". Can some administrator ask him to tone down the personal attacks, and if he refuses, block him for this blatant incivility? Brad Dyer (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

And he's now added the following [25] - calling me a "moron". Are administrators subject to a different set of rules re:civility than the rest of us? Brad Dyer (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You're lying, Brad. Those quotes don't appear in the sources in those paragraphs. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not lying. Those statements appear, word for word, in B'tselm's "About page". Brad Dyer (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

All three of the phrases/words around which Dyer placed quotes appear in the cited source at http://www.btselem.org/about_btselem; the second and third in the first paragraph of the source, and the word "independent" in the fourth. General Ization ^Talk 22:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I can appreciate, however, why the insertion of the quotes around those phrases might have been interpreted as the use of scare quotes, even though they are in fact quotes from the source. The language used in Malik's response is troubling. General Ization ^Talk 22:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This (the archived version) is the page that's cited as the source. In any event, Brad is lying when he says I added the material. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The same phrases appear in the same positions in both the archived and current versions of the source. General Ization ^Talk 22:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, General Ization, I must have accidentally clicked on a different archived footnote before because that text was not on the page I saw. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Having established that , go strike your false accusations of my lying, above, and in the edit summaries. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless you changed your name to General Ization, sonny boy, I don't believe I was addressing you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't care who you were addressing. You've just admitted your claims are false and based on a mistake you made. Go and fix that mistake, which also violates Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. Brad Dyer (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually missed the edit summaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brad_Dyer&diff=prev&oldid=676581427 "suck my dick, asshole" - can someone strike that offensive personal attack, and just block him until he cools down? Brad Dyer (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

{sexually explicit personal attack removed} What'll you call me next, nigger? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC) (Your belated attempt to hide your contempt for me is duly noted, Brad.[26] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC))

Any admin willing to put a stop to this? Brad Dyer (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering that you're the one who started it, I think it's funny that you're asking for somebody to block you, but I suppose that's your prerogative. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The obscenities and personal attacks are yours, and yours alone. You probably have time to remove them, before you are blocked. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

As much fun as it's been, sonny boy, I'm going to bid you adieu. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Knock it the hell off, both of you. @Brad Dyer: Your reversion sure does look retaliatory. I know copyright issues are sensitive, but they're not *that* sensitive; I don't think reversion of an edit that, among others, removes quotation marks around the use of a single word is berserker-worthy. It seems obvious to me that those quotation marks signify an issue with the article whether they're in there or not, so discussion would've been a much better step. Also, please do more research when making accusations of copyvio, because you are wrong about one thing, at least: the bulk of the alleged copyvio was in fact added by a user called "Economust", back in 2013. (Incidentally, that user has been blocked for over a year and a half). Given that, it's not hard to see why Malik reacted with such hostility; accusations of copy-paste copyright violations are not usually taken lightly, and it certainly looks like you're jumping to conclusions in your haste to accuse them of wrongdoing. And remember, it is quite easy to be a brat while remaining civil on the surface: don't do that. That said: @Malik Shabazz: Your tone here is way over the line and you know it. (Especially given your revdelete of your own edit summary). C'mon, you're better than this; acting like this never helps. So: cut it out, the both of you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

personal attacks in edits summaries, redux

Last week I was here to note that I was the subject of a childish personal attack, made in an edit summary (see [27]). It took some prodding, but eventually the administrator behind that personal attack removed the offending edit summary.

Unfortunately, it appears to be a pattern of behavior with him. Today he's back, with a nearly identical attack - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=676582429, as well as this and this.

And since that was apparently not enough, we have this gem - [28] - "suck my dick, asshole".

Can an administrator remove these edit summaries, and have a word with the person behind them? Brad Dyer (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I just gave a 2 day block to User:Malik Shabazz for "suck my dick, asshole" and "No, you can suck it, sonny boy. What'll you call me next, nigger?".

When I made the block I had not seen the above discussion(at the time this was in its own section) and I did not know that Malik was an admin. Regardless this sort of abusive behaviour is not acceptable from anyone, especially an admin. I invite review of this block by others. Chillum 23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but what I am actually lookign for is someone to remove the offensive edit summaries. I can't do it myself. (And, out of curiosity, why would it matter that Malik is an admin? Is there a special rule set for admins?) Brad Dyer (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec)There are special rules for admins. Specifically WP:ADMIN says "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". It is important information that this person is an admin because more is expected from them. Chillum 23:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Malik being an admin has little to do with it. When I posted in the thread above, I had decided to not block anyone quite yet, because while Malik clearly blew their top, there was provocation on Brad's part. Nonetheless, blocking wasn't an unreasonable choice, so a fair block, I'd say.

For Brad: revision deletion, which is what is required to delete edit summaries, is typically reserved for only the absolute worst things, and bad as they are, I don't think those edit summaries qualify. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as Brad goes I have no opinion as I have not read up on the underlying dispute. If there was provocation then that should be addressed. I agree the revdel is not called for as these don't rise the gross level that we normally reserve it for. Chillum 23:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Good block, Chillum. These are outrageous personal attacks, the sort that would probably be worthy of an indef in a different situation. I do wonder if an interaction ban is warranted here, given these two users' history. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears Malik isn't quite done with the abuse, [29]. This conduct of an administrator is completely and totally unjustified. If there was ever a case why we need community desysop procedures, this is it. Other admins should consider revoking talk page assess and lengthening the block. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Noting for the record (don't seem to be able to diff this):

At 00:32, "Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: content unhidden and edit summary unhidden ‎(Restoring the truth -- you people can ignore this is you want, I won't)" General Ization ^Talk 00:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We have a community desysop procedure, it is called arbcom. I am sure arbcom will have no problem desysoping someone who calls another editor a "jewboy". Chillum 00:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Just saw what General Ization posted, looks like this desysop will be a fast one. Chillum 00:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Here he revision-deleted one of his own remarks. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper:Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction #2 allows revision deletion for is "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". Suppression, on the other hand, has a higher bar. In my opinion "suck my dick, asshole" is grossly insulting. Maybe I'm just showing my age, and the world has just gotten coarser and cruder, but that is the kind of statement which would have gotten my mouth washed out with soap at home or in school (eons ago) if I ever said anything like that. I would not think it problematic to revdelete statements of that ilk, especially if they are causing the recipient distress. -- Avi (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I will say this is very out of character for Malik, who in all of my interactions with him for years, has always been polite and level headed. I hope everything is OK with him in RL. -- Avi (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed -- Diannaa (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Me too. As I said at his talk page, I've seen him absorb some of the most vicious personal attacks imaginable with the utmost restraint and professionalism. This isn't him -- it just isn't. I also mused that his account might have been hacked, although I don't have the technical expertise to know if that's even possible. I get that anybody can lose it if pushed far enough, but Malik is absolutely the last editor I would have thought likely to do so. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought, but if so his account was hacked a week ago [30] and the hacker has done a good job of otherwise emulating Malik's normal editing patterns (in terms of articles edited, etc.). General Ization ^Talk 00:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a hack; maybe his RL is under pressure and his natural patience and willpower are compromised. The statements were clear violations; it's the behavior so different from the norm which has me worried for him. -- Avi (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I do not appreciate a couple of relatively new editors and ANI visitors to call for Malik to be desysopped. I agree that he said some pretty bad and possibly inexcusable things, but let's not forget that Mr. Tibbs taught us a long time ago that you don't call an adult black man "boy". For some that may not be so obviously a racial insult, but it is. Besides, plenty of people here can attest to Malik's many years of service, and you don't just yank his tool because, uncharacteristically, someone got under his skin enough for him to lose his cool. Now, can we all just wait, and rush to judgment a little bit more slowly and deliberately? Drmies (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, a temporary desysop by motion of an admin who continued attack behavior through a block using the tools, is not irregular at all. I don't support a permanent removal at this time, it needs to get talked out. And the provocations need closer examination. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • That seems to me to be the best way to go. There is obviously something extraordinary happening right now, particularly given Malik's exemplary conduct for years now. This very very much seems to be some sort of aberration, possibly caused by RL events of which we might not be aware. If that is the case, then I think that it would make most sense to find out what the hell is really happening here first before taking any permanent action. John Carter (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  Agree completely with Drmies. Also, RE: the "Jewboy" reference -- it should be noted that Malik is himself Jewish, and identifies as such on his home page. Not trying to make excuses for him, but that should be noted. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I would have to say that argues against Malik, not for him – as it means he has every reason to know that "jewboy" is not an acceptable mode of address under any circumstances. General Ization ^Talk 01:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• • It also probably should be noted that broader social tensions have been rather markedly higher lately, what with the first anniversary of the Shooting of Michael Brown (in my area), all the recent violence in Baltimore, and other things. Sometimes outside events can impact the best admins, too. John Carter (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the quickest was to be desysoped is to use your tools to get around a block. I would not hold out for an outcome where this editor remains an admin. Chillum 01:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hold on. Last week he revdeleted his own dumb edit summary, realizing fully well, I have no doubt, that the summary was wrong and the revdel not entirely right but perhaps a lesser wrong, at least lessening the wrong for those without admin glasses. And now he unrevdeleted a rather insulting and angry remark. That's two things, only one of which done after he was blocked--that is not much in the great scheme of admin abuse. Sure it was wrong, but not every insult needs to be followed by a block, and not every administrative error needs to be followed by a desysopping, temporary or otherwise. And a man who has done so much for us, who's been on the receiving end of more racial abuse than most of us (I almost said "us white folk", which statistically is probably correct) can imagine, we're going to desysop him over that one thing? I sure hope not. Malik is a rock. I don't know what happened to drive him over the edge, but Malik is a rock. The project will be the poorer without him. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems like a lot of people here are giving Mr. Shabazz rope because of his otherwise good behavior. Now, I'll admit that I generally haven't seen him behave this way before either, but bad behavior is bad behavior; he shouldn't just get an automatic pass. And if he is going through stressful times in his real life right now, well, maybe a wikibreak is in order. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

blocked for a week without TPA is an automatic pass? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to say Drmies but it is already happening: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Level_1_desysop Chillum 02:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, I know where you're coming from, but this was pretty bad. I hope the situation can be resolved and it can be returned to him later. It all is making me pretty sad at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

While I do some periodic gnoming work around the place, I do read ANI regularly and also agree that Malik is generally unflappable and clam. There is something distinctly strange going on here. Blackmane (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Swarm, with all due respect, I don't think this is either done or getting off the rails, but to appease you and the others who seem happy to close this unsavory bit, in which an admin did one single thing wrong and in hours a group of admins, ArbCom, a Steward, and the Ways and Means Committee to agree on an emergency desysop, let me just say, in the strongest possible words, that editors here do not seem to understand how deeply insulting "boy" is to a black man. I am very saddened by that, and don't rightly know what to say. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 18 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.

Related block review

I just blocked DissidentAggressor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for tapdancing on Malik's grave / talk page a second time after a warning not to; I would like that situation reviewed. It appeared clear to me, but I'd rather more eyes on it than just let it sit there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Good call to block, but indef might be much. I'd say a week would've been better (which would prevent DA from commenting while Malik can't respond). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

If admin consensus agrees on that, anyone can reduce the block with my blessing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a good block. I also think in this case "indef" should not mean forever. I would like to see this user make a case at ANI to be unblocked once some time has passed. Chillum 02:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• It was a good block, but indefinite should not be more than a week, in my opinion. Georgewilliamherbert, with your permission, may I reduce the block length to a week? --ceradon (talk • edits) 02:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would give it a bit longer to see if consensus develops in another direction such as Chillum's, but I'm OK with either approach of those. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I reduced it to a week. If consensus turns, so be it. --ceradon (talk • edits) 02:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support a week. After that, Malik can respond and discuss it fairly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Move vandalism

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.

---

Willie on wheels is moving front page ITN articles. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Which articles? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this was in reference to 2015 Tianjin explosions, and it looks like it's been taken care of by a couple of Admins... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any moves on that article's logs. I think this might be about 2015 Baghdad market truck bombing (look at the logs for the article). By the way, the page-moving vandal for the Baghdad bombing article has been globally locked. CabbagePotato (talk) 05:55, 15 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.

Block Bella7790

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.

---

• Bella7790 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I need help with this user. I think she needs to be blocked. She is basicaly always inventing and faking information in diverse pages. Let me know what you think. She has been adviced according to her talk page several times. Anonpediann (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have forgotten to notify Bella of this discussion. I took the liberty of doing so. Zarcusian (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks i appreciate it. Anonpediann (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocks and bans aren't punishments; they're remedies to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. While this editor has been warned for unconstructive behavior in the past, I'm not [seeing] a sufficiently problematic history to indicate she's a disruptive editor. North of Eden (talk) 01:18, 17 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.

WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK: cleanup needed

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

---

Muhammad.Taimoor.Hameed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has since March been using his userspace as a social network page, promoting his blogs etc. At some point he had the bright idea to move his user page and talk page to Wikipedia: space. I tried to revert this just now but due to intervening messages about problems with his two image uploads (one selfie, one non-selfie with an impossible public domain tag), messages had been left on both, so replacing his talk page failed. This at least needs to be cleaned up. Other action I shall leave to your discretion. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fixed. RJFJR (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So do I. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 14:12, 18 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.

Nrwairport (talk · contribs) and WP:NOTHERE

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 strongly concerned about the named user's editing. To summarize, Nrwairport (talk · contribs) has attempted to deceive the community, per the below timeline:

• Yesterday, the user tried to request adminship.
• On that RfA, the user claimed that he had a previous account that he lost the password to, also claiming that the account has 50,000 edits and 6 years' tenure to its name.
• When asked twice to reveal his previous account, if there is one, the user simply asserted that he has an account with that number of edits and tenure, without actually revealing it! Also, the user reacted in a hostile manner when asked (see permalinked user page § 10 and 13.

This is clearly an attempt to gain adminship early, which is characteristic of hat collecting and sockpuppetry (the user has 700 edits and knows about adminship).

But that's not all:

• The user claimed to be an admin, even though they (isn't) one.
• The user put a invalid warning on YSSYguy after edit warring over a valid edit, see page history, specifically this diff. There is also a history of more inflammatory warning and bitey deletion tagging, see permalinked user page § 15.
• The user is a suspected sockpuppet of Cyntiamaspian et al. and shares many characteristics with them, but it is pretty unlikely overall.

I propose that action should be taken from here, as the user is simply not here to build Wikipedia. Esquivalience ^t 03:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I concur that this user is a problem. To me the problem is not primarily the deceptions, although they are troubling. To me the problem is that his editing is harming the encyclopedia. Maybe it's a case of WP:NOTHERE (which is what I suspect); maybe it's simple incompetence. But in either case, User:Nrwairport has been adding inappropriate tags and deletion nominations to many, many pages. Examples of inappropriate deletion nominations can be found here, here, and here. These incorrect tags have resulted in inappropriate warnings to the innocent authors of the articles, a very bitey outcome. In one recent case they tagged a perfectly good article for CSD,[31], gave an inappropriate "final warning" to the author, and reported the author to AIV! [32]
  Recent tags have seemed random or even nonsensical, such as tagging these articles as "not English". [33] [34]
  They have been advised multiple times on their talk page[35] that they should not do any tagging, warning, or vandalism patrol until they learn how. They have deleted many of these warnings from their talk page, and continued their tagging and warnings. The most recent inappropriate tag [36] was about 24 hours ago. If they do any more - even one more - I believe they should be banned from curating new pages, tagging articles, and warning other users until they demonstrate competence. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) They actually claimed 500,000 edits earlier, and reduced this when they were called out on it. See [37]. They claimed on their talk page when questioned on this that they had an inactive account they had lost the password to with 500,000 edits. When I pointed out that there were only 14 accounts on the English Wikipedia that met this criteria and all listed ones were still active, they quietly changed to 50,000. See [38]. While 50,000 edits is possible, 500,000 is absurd. ~ Rob^Talk 04:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I should probably make clear that having started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyntiamaspian and having looked at Nrwairport's edits, I'm more or less certain that they aren't the same person - as I've already explained in the SPI. Cyntiamaspian has a poor grasp of English (I think their native language may be Indonesian - they edited the Indonesian Wikipedia), and seems to have very little idea what they are doing. Nrwairport is clearly a native English speaker, and shows at least some familiarity with Wikipedia processes. There are clearly reasons to be concerned about Nrwairport's editing history, but I don't think that it is wise to conflate investigations into what appear to be two different people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• This user's patrolling is disasterous - little more than arbitrary clicking on the various options/criteria on the Curation Tool, not to mention all the other issues including masquerading as an admin and claiming to have 500,000 edits under an admitted previous account they refuse to publish. Please see the many messages on their talk page and the mess:age my talk page. The user is also under investigation at SPI. I venture to suggest that this is either a compromised account or plain, simple trolling. User is now largely incommunicative and has taken to selectively removing comments from their tp. For more background see user:Kudpung#Nrwairport creating problems, and User talk:GB fan#Nrwairport RfA request: comments, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyntiamaspian, and the previously deleted RfA attempt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• I've blocked them indefinitely for disruptive editing and as a WP:NOTHERE user. If he's a sockpuppet he can be reblocked and tagged, but offhand he's just being far too disruptive for us to leave unblocked for the time being. His seemingly random page tagging is pretty disruptive in and of itself, especially since it shows that he has little to no understanding of how notability works - nor does he seem particularly interested in learning this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

The user is asking for his or her rope

Although I oppose giving this deceptionist any rope except with WP:SO and a WP:CU, s/he's asking for it: User_talk:Nrwairport#August_2015_2. Esquivalience ^t 19:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: rope has been burnt and declined by MaxSem. Esquivalience ^t 19:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I would suggest that any unblock was conditional on this user disclosing all previous accounts, and with a warning that any repeat of the behaviour which led to the block would lead to a permanent ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• With such egregious behavior, I'd say s/he should be subject to the following if s/he wants to be unblocked:

• A CheckUser.
• Disclosure of his/her previous accounts after the CheckUser results, to test if s/he has any honesty left (probably not).
• The standard offer, short-term if honest, never if dishonest.

• I doubt that s/he would be able to get through the second step. Esquivalience ^t 19:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser data is only kept for a few months if I recall correctly, so that may not work. Dustin (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Having been one of the first to query this editor's claims, [39] I am glad it seems to be over now. 220 of ^Borg 19:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Conduct 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.

---

I would appreciate help with resolving one conduct related dispute. I first posted this question at WP:THIRDOPINION, but since it was not content dispute I posted it here based on this advice.

There is a disagreement in this discussion between me and Drmies. My question was:

• Is this edit (diff) of Joy another comment which contains speculation about my ethnicity? (diff)

1. Drmies said "My answer is no, Joy is commenting on aspects of the discussion." (diff) and "Joy is quoting from an earlier discussion, I assume, or he doesn't know how to use quotation marks. " (diff)
2. My answer is yes. I think that Joy did write another comment with speculation about my ethnicity when he wrote "some Serbian people (including AD)"

What is correct answer to the above question: yes or no?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say no; Joy's mentioning the previous comment to provide context of the discusssion they linked to on Drmies's page (see Use–mention distinction). But why does this matter? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, notified Drmies Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call it "speculation about my ethnicity". Given that until 25 February you had a "This user is a native speaker of Serbian" userbox, it's fairly safe to assume your ethnicity is from somewhere in former Yugoslavia, even if you actually reside somewhere else. ‑ iridescent 19:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

At the top of this page, it says "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors."

Can you briefly state (a) the nature of the administrative intervention you would like to see take place; and (b) how, specifically the answer to your particular question bears on part (a)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't want admin intervention but help with resolving one conduct related dispute. In first paragraph of my comment I explained that I first posted my question at WP:THIRDOPINION and moved it here based on this advice. Was it a mistake? If yes, what is the appropriate place to resolve this dispute?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:13, 18 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.

Whore of Babylon

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

---

CAn someone please semi-protect the Whore of Babylon article? We've got multiple socks of blocked User:Biblestudyprof edit-warring badly-sourced, NPOV-violating, editorialising content into the article. I've asked at WP:RFPP, but it seems to be backlogged, and the sooner this nonsense is stopped, the better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please - I started an SPI on this issue, edit warring going on with one master and six socks so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Biblestudyprof#18_August_2015 Scr★pIron^IV 19:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done, semiprotected for a month. Nakon 19:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We now have a POV-fork article created at Great Whore of Babylon - I suggest that speedy deletion and salting is appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done, redirected and SALTed. Nakon 19:53, 18 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.

Helpchat

• Helpchat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No good deed goes unpunished. I've tried to edit this new article into acceptable condition, and the creator continues to add non notable employees and external links to the body. Ignores my warnings, and rather than plaster this with templates and edit war, I'd really appreciate some other eyes and minds here. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be little evidence that the company meets our notability guidelines - the sources are little more than announcements of what it intends to do. AfD would seem the logical solution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think I was too quick to remove the speedy template, I'd be happy to have the action reversed. But an AfD will work as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether it meets the strict speedy deletion criteria might be open to question - AfDs look at the broader guidelines. I have posted a comment on the talk page, and placed a notability template on the article. It will probably be best to see how the article creator reacts before proceeding further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The presence of "references" is probably enough to save this from CSD A7, but I don't think anything will save it from an AFD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

Repeated recreation of a copyvio

User:Mr. Nah has repeatedly recreated Draft:Pop Music: An overview and a history of a legend of Bangladesh after it has been speedy deleted for copyright violation. I'm afraid this SPA is impervious to the multiple warnings on their talk page that a block may result from their behaviour. There doesn't seem to be any indication to deleting admins to show that a page has been speedied multiple times. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I will look aflter this. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Maltin Kant and continued inappropriate page creation

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

User keeps creating WP:COPYVIO pages, behavioral evidence is strong that Kant is a sock, and CU wasn't against it. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, purely on the grounds that one copyvio is understandable, but the cavalcade we see here is too much. No opinion either way on the socking. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

• I might agree that this is a little over the top for a more dynamic IP, but this is part of a /24 with a similarly patchy record. For example [40], [41] [42], [43], [44] and [45] together with good edits such as [46]. I would suggest that it might be worth considering a range block. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC).
  

Wikihounding by MSJapan

Editor MSJapan has followed my every move since I disagreed with his opinion on the AfD debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somewhere in America (album), to which he also replied with a personal attack, stating that I did not have the experience required to give my opininon on an AfD debate, which is also an example of WP:BITE (which he acknowledged, but did anyway).

Following my pointing out that he had committed this WP:BITE, he then moved to my talk page, where he thinly-veiled another indirect personal attack on me with, I quote, "instead of calling you "a disruptive single-purpose account who has no interest in contributing to Wikipedia in a positive manner."", followed by various other derogatory statements regarding my edit history. He then proceeded to claim that my pointing out he had committed BITE-ing was a personal attack and mentioned that I was apparently a "disruptive editor". Next, he referenced his earlier passive-aggressive attack by saying "it's very likely the initial comment I didn't make is correct.".

After this, he nominated all of my files for upload for speedy deletion claiming that they were improperly licensed (which they are not), despite me noting that I would provide permission upon request, thus not giving me a chance to do so.

Lastly, he has listed me as a conflict of interest in order to have a page of mine removed, disregarding the fact that an AfD discussion was already in place about said article. Furthermore, I have since been listed for an SPI, despite the fact that I have no relation to the user in question besides that we commented on the same AfD debate with moderately similar viewpoints. This is the only basis for said SPI.

This is a blatant case of Wikihounding, not least because all these events have taken places within two days.Flobberz (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's get one thing out of the way: "All these events have taken place within two days" because Flobberz has only been here for two days. This is the diff in question: [47]. As you can see, there is a misunderstanding of policies here, and I responded such because an editor who is here for three days (at the time), has less than 50 edits (at the time), maintains that Wikipedia's notability guidelines are unrealistic, and focuses editing on one article certainly has an opinion that needs to be taken with a grain of salt, especially with the contention that was already present in the AfD.

Flobberz' response was to grab a snapshot of a WP policy, make it into a graphic and then upload it back to WP to be used in an AfD comment. That file was CSDed because of a) the misuse of WP as personal file storage and b) because the license was given as "PD because Wikipedia." This made me curious as to the user's contribs in general; I wondered if I would find a pattern. Well, I did. Every file I CSDed in that batch indicated that the uploaded website screenshots were "free files from someone else, and permission will be provided if asked." See here for an example; the others are the same. Website screenshots are not "free from other people", and we do not upload first and get permission later, especially when one screenshot is a game and not the IP of the website.

He also accused someone else of PA [48] here in another clearly contentious AfD. He clearly waded right into the middle of it and created an issue. I weighed in because someone asked for the opinion of a more experienced editor, and there didn't appear to be a clear consensus as of yet. A decade and 15000 edits should be good enough to be experienced, I thought, so I did the same thing as I did elsewhere, which is to review sources and give an opinion. I might have found it while looking for other stuff, but how I found it doesn't preclude me giving an opinion, especially because I didn't even interact with Flobberz there.

I'd also note some tendentious editing by Flobberz on FreeWorldGroup: [49], [50] where he had reverted others.

Flobberz was listed for an SPI by someone else because of this COIN Report I filed. I filed it because Flobberz clearly stated in the AfD that he was a moderator on the website he was writing an article about [51], a friend of the website owner, and clearly alluded to group editing. Let's also note that the other group editor, User:Icamenal was registered at around the same time and also only edited the FreeWorldGroup article. Add to that an account that was dormant for months User:JSwho that popped up simply to vote keep on the AfD, and things start to look suspicious. I'd also point out that JSwho's only other contribution ever was to GA review an article the first day he registered the username (wherein he claimed he was not a new user). So, a) I wasn't responsible for the SPI, and b) it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone under the circumstances. I'd also note the editor interaction report is really interesting. MSJapan (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time so I'm going to simply correct a few things you have wrong. Don't think that I don't see your point, because I do, I just feel that the response was harsh and the SPI taken too seriously, as you will see when it concludes. I've been here for 5 days. As I've already mentioned, there was no misunderstanding of the WP policies involved. I had been referring to more than one related AfD debate, and the two policies mentioned were for the multiple AfD debates. Apologies if this wasn't clear enough. The policy grab was simply to prove a point more soundly than mindlessly linking the article, which I didn't believe to be prominent enough. The copyright status is irrelevant really (the reason I gave such a brief justification [and the fact that it was to be used in an AfD debate and not an article]); yes I shouldn't have posted it in the first place - again, apologies - and copyright was not the issue you took with it, we both know both of those things. Copyright is very confusing when uploading Wikipedia articles. I was told which to use and the button I clicked says "I will give evidence of permission when requested", so I don't see why there is a contradiction. Could you clarify on the "IP of the website" part please? The other accusation of PA was because in an all-too-similar situation, another user insulted me, whilst accusing me of a PA, which I was nothing close to. "Wading right in" is unfair, I was simply giving an opinion, which is allowed. I did not create the issue. When I created the article I had simply tried to create an informative page for a popular games portal, something which has been done many times. There is nothing wrong with the article itself - I haven't made false claims, promoted, advertised or "upped" the company which was the cause for my frustration. Cross my heart, I have no relation to JSWho (as the SPI will tell you). I don't know or particularly care who they are, it is simply a very unfortunate coincidence that their good intentions have unwittingly caused more harm than good. Also, if I had created the account of the other editor and not used it vote that would have been slightly pointless, so that too is kind of irrelevant.

I'm sorry if I've taken my frustration out on you. I simply want to be left alone for the fact that I am a new user, because when I registered to the site I had hoped it had changed from when I last registered to it, when I had also experienced discrimination for the fact that I was new. However, I only experienced it again, from multiple people, not just you, and it frustrated me. Let me reiterate that if you read the FreeWorldGroup article there is nothing wrong with it, and there is no reason for it to be deleted, not least because many other pages have many fewer reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flobberz (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbullying from G1234~eswiki sockpuppets

Socks of Leguiler blocked by Dennis Brown, and SPI filed for the rest. Users need to follow the policies and procedures of each Wikipedia that they edit; we cannot help here if they get themselves blocked in other languages, and coming here to harass other-language admins will just get you blocked here too. Re-closing since there's nothing more to do here. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Original closing comment: (non-admin closure) OP's problems on Spanish Wikipedia cannot be solved here. WP:BOLD close by semi-involved non-admin due to apparent admin indifference. Anyone except the OP should reopen at will, especially if there's something that can be done for or to the OP. BMK (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

 Reopened This discussion was closed because "OP's problems on Spanish Wikipedia cannot be solved here." However, the problems are here, on en.wiki, not es.wiki. (The user is already blocked indefinitely on es.wiki.) They just originate from es.wiki. What we have is a clear case of block evasion where the block is being evaded for the purpose of harassing the admins involved in blocking said user; it just happens that the block was on es.wiki, and the harassment is happening on en.wiki. -- Irn (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The user G1234~eswiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked from Spanish Wikipedia few months ago but he created a sort of sockpuppets and he persist the harrasment in Spanish Wikipedia and here:

List of sockpuppets

• Creador del cielo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Por la justicia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Todos me aman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I am god and you know (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Also the IP 181.233.197.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Here, Por la justicia sended to me, and two other users (Fixertool and Antur) a sort of harrasments in Spanish ([52], [53], [54]) protesting over and over his unblock and the unprotect of a erased article in Spanish Wikipedia. Usually I don't enter here but its very disgusting see this harrasment. --Taichi (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Taichi:, our sockpuppet investigations page is here. I added links to the usernames above; I see that "Creador del cielo" and "I am god and you know" have no edits here, and "Todos me aman" has only edited "I am god"'s talk page. Are you saying that they are confirmed sockpuppets at Spanish Wikipedia? If they are harassing users here in Spanish, then I think we should consider their edits here editing around a block, and should block them here too. I don't see strong evidence of sockpuppetry on this wiki, however. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: These users are confirmed sockpuppets from Spanish Wikipedia, it's totally inneccesary reconfirming here. --Taichi (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Now, he harrases another Spanish Wikipedia sysop here: [55]. --Taichi (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note: The account I am god and you know is not attached to any other wiki [56], and does not exist on the spanish wiki [57]. I am not sure about the IP however. The rest should be blocked for cross wiki abuse and sockpuppetry. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: The username I am god and you know is almost certainly a username policy violation, and should be blocked on that basis alone. Now, I haven't had the greatest luck at WP:UAA, so someone else may want to try to take that one there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If this case is complex because some sockpuppets don't have editions, at least I demand a quickly solution for Por la justicia. While we are debating here, now he bullyies against another Spanish Wikipedia sysop (5th es.wikipedia user in row). --Taichi (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yo si tengo títeres porque ustedes no quieren entender, de que lo que se me acusa es falso y ustedes no pueden comprender. reitero mi postura, yo solo quiero editar sin que me molesten.Ademas no es Ciberbullyng son quejas simples, que tienen el mismo objetivo, solo es que ustedes creen que yo entre para vandalizar la wiki pero eso no es verdad tengo muchas colaboraciones buenas, y Es la lluvia que cae es una de ellas, pero si al final no me creen, pues ya no puedo hacer nada. --Por la justicia (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Admin action needed - the user Por la justicia is a confirmed (on es-wiki) sockpuppet (usuario titere) of a blocked and banned (on es-wiki) user, who is using en-wiki to contact es-wiki admins, which is editing to circumvent their block (their talk page access is revoked, no puede editar su propia página de discusión). They and their socks need to be blocked here as well, maybe globally. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also they do not appear to speak English. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussions on the English Wikipedia should be in English. If you do not understand English sufficiently to discuss your editing in English, then you should not be editing here. BMK (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yo digo que lo mejor seria que me bloqueen por 1 mes y ya no les digo nada ya no les reprocho nada, Déjenme editar porque no soy vándalo y sere un buen wikipedista. Saludos --Por la justicia (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Excusame, mi español es no muy bueno. Usted es bloqueado en la Wikipedia Español. Los administradores inglés no puede ayudar, y usted necesita que dejar molestarlos. Por desbloquear, en inglés nos hacemos "Unblock Ticket Request System", pero yo no encontrarlo en español. Folks who know the Spanish Wikipedia: what is their equivalent of WP:UTRS? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Entendido ya no molestare a nadie, la manera de desbloquearse en wikipedia español es con esta etiqueta y abajo pones la razón para ser desbloqueado. . Saludos cordiales --Por la justicia (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Si, pero no puede editar tu página de discusión para utilizar la etiqueta, no? Cuando los usuarios inglés están bloqueado y no pueden editar ellos paginas de discusion, ellos pueden utilizar WP:UTRS para contactar un administrador para apelar el bloque. No se que donde el página es en el Wikipedia Español. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC) User:Ivanvector no existe en wikipedia en español. User:Taichi y yo me veo muy disgustado por tu incredulidad, te juro que me da rabia que pienses así de mi pero como no te puedo hacer nada, te digo eres muy hartarte, y odioso no me crees a mi. Mas disgusto me da a mi que pienses así. Saludos --Por la justicia (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, anybody take a quickly solution, it's unbelievable that the harrassment comes here in this noticeboard, the user don't speak English and he emphasizes bad words in Spanish here. --Taichi (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Taichi ¿cuales malas palabras?. Traduzcan mis palabras de ahi y no van a ver ninguna mala palabra. --Por la justicia (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I say this, only ublock me. --Por la justicia (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me my english is bad, It notes that administrators of Wikipedia in English were the same that contributed to my block. Therefore I think it is my right to claim.--Por la justicia (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This is other sockpuppet of me.

Contributions/Guillermo_Armas12 This is my other sockpuppet.]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Por la justicia (talk • contribs) 02:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• SPANISH-SPEAKING ADMIN ATTENTION NEEDED - Would someone please figure out what the heck is going on here, and deal out some warnings, or indef blocks for sockpuppetry, or something? Add then ask es.wiki to keep their problematic editors to themselves? BMK (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken I'm trying to speak English.--Por la justicia (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Then explain what you want. BMK (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think my right to claim, librarians who blocked me in es.wiki.--Por la justicia (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you have no rights regarding Spanish Wikipedia here on English Wikipedia. None. We have no power or authority over them, and you're being disruptive here. If you have problems at es.wiki, deal with them there with whatever procedures they have --- NOT' here on English Wikipedia.

I'm going to be BOLD and close this, as no admin seems interested in blocking your sockpuppets, which I believe would be appropriate. Anyone who disagrees with this close, especially Spanish-speaking admins, please feel free to re-open it. BMK (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Reopened by User:Irn. See his comment at the top. BMK (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to elaborate a little on my comment at the top. I don't know what happened on es.wiki, and if you can understand the Spanish, you'll see that Por la justicia's edits aren't threatening or harassing in that sense. However, Por la justicia has explicitly targeted admins from es.wiki (in a way that they see as harassment) to argue regarding the creation of a page in es.wiki and is edit warring those comments onto their talk pages. Por la justicia has brought this discussion to en.wiki to evade a block as Por la justicia is banned at es.wiki. Most edits are in Spanish, and this is basically a single-purpose account for fighting a fight that has already been lost and doing so in a manner that violates all sorts of behavioral policies. (This page is far too active for my watchlist; please {{ping}} me if you want me to respond. Thanks!) -- Irn (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Irn,Everything falls to me, all accuse me, say the harassment, but if you only complain.

This time say that reopening this case makes no sense. --Por la justicia (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Irn: I've been trying to sort this out myself here and in Spanish for the past couple of days. As we know, the different Wikipedias have different policies. In English, our highest form of sanction is an indefinite block - "indefinite" because blocks can always be appealed through WP:UTRS, and users can always reform. In Spanish, users can be blocked permanently for repeated violations, and there is no avenue for appeal whatsoever. This is what has happened to this user, for insulting users, repeatedly creating hoax and nonsense articles, blanking comments and insulting editors on their talk page while blocked, and using sockpuppets to edit through blocks. They've permanently lost their Spanish editing privileges: eswiki doesn't want them back, and nothing we can do here can change that. As long as all they do here is complain about their eswiki block, they are not here to contribute to this project and should be blocked here too. But there don't seem to be any admins willing to act on this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

But if I did not hoax, create an important page of a song known in Latin America as well I have not insulted users.--Por la justicia (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We're not here to argue the merits of your block on eswiki; we're here to discuss your behavior on enwiki - that's the problem right now. You're seeking out other editors with whom you have a disagreement to bother them with the same questions over and over and edit-warring with them on their own talk pages, behavior which they consider to be harassment. -- Irn (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually came to this discussion because of your post in eswiki, (I'm more active over there at the moment.) and my read of the situation is pretty much the same as yours. I just find it hard to believe that no admin is willing to take any action. -- Irn (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:, I want to add an old thread about this. The fact is that Leguiler = Por la justicia = Todos me aman, because this. Check about the claim of Leguiler, the same article in Spanish that claim Por la justicia (Es la lluvia que cae article in es.wikipedia). But, in July, Leguiler insulted to me and Fixertool added a sort of inadequeate edit resume "chino de mierda Taichi" ("Taichi chinese shit"), but he was blocked by Dennis Brown one month ago. In Spanish Wikipedia, Leguiler is a sockpuppet of G1234~eswiki encircling all the connections about this crosswiki cyberbullying issue, ergo he's evading an en.wikipedia block actually. --Taichi (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked I am god and you know and Por la justicia for clearly being socks of Leguiler (and others). The other accounts haven't edited, so we generally don't block them until they do. Filing a formal WP:SPI case and asking for CU to check for sleepers would be a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Overhanded Administrator - Banned For Life from Ukrainian 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.

---

Hi I'm having problems with an overly aggressive editor "Green Zero" in Ukrainian Wikipedia who has banned me for life from writing in Ukrainian Wikipedia. He apparently believes that my articles are not unique enough and they are too direct a translation from English and French. He seems to lack the spirit of international corporation. I was writing for over eight years and completed over 1400 articles two of which made the article of the week - NHL Hockey and the second the Space Shuttle. Now I'm banned.

Is there a way that this can be solved? Thank you for reading Chris Kyrzyk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.215.202 (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

See the note at the top of this page: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors". The English-language Wikipedia has no control whatsoever over Ukrainian Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is essentially nothing we can do from here, as each language Wikipedia is governed independently. The only thing you can do is escalate your unblock request up the chain at the Ukrainian Wikipedia. I notice that the Ukrainian Wikipedia has its own arbitration committee, uk:Вікіпедія:Арбітражний комітет, which would be the final point of escalation. I claim no expertise in block/ban appeals on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:40, 19 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.

• I have a question: if someone's banned for life, do they get unbanned when they die? Just wondering. EEng (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• EEng, apparently so: sitebanned users are routinely blocked, and Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines says "accounts of deceased Wikipedians should not be blocked unless they have been compromised". If sitebanned, then blocked. Not blocked. Therefore, not sitebanned. Modus tollens. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If, after that, editing activity resumes under that username, do we open a Spiritual/Paranormal Investigation? EEng (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

:-) No, just {{Compromised}}. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal Threat at Talk:Ketchapp

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, just saw this [58]. Will notify user now of ANI. Zarcusian (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

User blocked again. Simply socking / trolling. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 19 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.

Competence and civility issues with Koala15

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.

---

• Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My latest encounter with Koala15 was on the Ted 2 page, where I fixed a fairly simple grammatical error [59] and was blankly reverted on sight [60]. I reverted back with the summary "Unexplained" [61] and he kept edit warring with the summary "Go home, your [sic] drunk" [62]. This happened again, until General Ization issued an EW warning on my talk page, and a civility warning [63] on Koala15's page. Koala15 repeatedly refused to apologize or even acknowledge that he was edit warring, dismissing General Ization with sentences such as "Have a sense of humor" and "There is no need for you to get so worked up over this", assuring him that he matter had been resolved, when in fact, it was not - and still is not. I explained very clearly on my talk page why I performed said edit, which prompted Koala15 to respond with a guideline that directly contradicts his edit - which I also explained. However, he refuses to "get it", while writing replies on the grammar level of a twelve year old - which I extensively tried to explain within the same discussion, examples being seeing him "use patently incorrect expressions like "more clearer", open a sentence with "hence", miss punctuation, or consistently not capitalize "I" as in first person", not to mention his first reply to me via edit summary: "Go home, your drunk".

A quick look on Koala15's talk page will reveal that he has been taunting other editors for a while, in an abrasive and unapologetic manner. A few select examples: User talk:Koala15#Reversions... [64], User talk:Koala15#July 2015 [65], User talk:Koala15#No [66], User talk:Koala15#Redirecting [67]. Another example of insisting on edit warring and being rude is here. I would like to finish this nuisance on the Ted 2 page and move on, but I would like to ensure that he doesn't spite revert me again. Please take care of this matter. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about this at all. Thank you very much. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i tried to work with you, but you don't seem to wanna work with me. Most of the things you are linking from my talk page are simple misunderstandings. And i don't think you can report anyone for a 'lack of competence". Koala15 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How ironic... you have just given another dismissive and offensive reply. You are either not realizing it or deliberately insulting me, and neither case is welcome on Wikipedia. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have had my own run-ins with Koala15, which can be seen at Talk:Penguins of Madagascar and Penguins of Madagascar. Koala15 had initially participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR over a copyedit tag about the article with a reason saying "And i do think an IP's suggestion is less valid, cause the majority of them are vandals.". Not all IPs are vandals. Some contribute with no issues at all. I find that comment uncivil and rather a POV statement. They persistently removed the tag until they reached 3 reverts. They stayed quiet on the article, but they removed it again but this time with reasons but not valid ones. There was still WP:Consensus going on in the talk page, which Koala15 dismissed. Instead of participating in WP:Discussion and ask for opinions, they removed the template again. I reverted them, stating that they weren't the user who added the template and to remove it from a user who disagreed with it in the beginning is very questionable. They started edit warring, making 5 reverts within a span of 12 hours, I believe. If they reached the 6th revert, I was going to report them. My warnings can be seen on the user's talk page and PfM's talk page. In terms of Koala15, I do think they make good edits and they help the community, but my only concern is the way they act. Upon disagreements they edit war and so on, it seems. I do agree that saying a user is drunk is uncivil as much as saying to a user they need help. It seems they have had run-ins with other people, excluding me, EauZenCashHaveIt and General Ization. I would suggest a warning about continuing disruptive editing but I'm not sure. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i apologize, i shouldn't have removed those maintenance templates without asking. And i don't think its fair to say i participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Koala15 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Per one of the bullets, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." You removed the template with this reasoning: "Uhm, yeah no." which certainly counts as you saying it's unnecessary without valid reasons and follows on of the statements "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." which you've given the impression (not even at this point) since the beginning and on the talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note for reviewing admins: here's the last "clean" version of Koala15's talk page, before he panicked and blanked it in order to invalidate the links I brought up earlier: [68]. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it was time they cleaned their talk page (no offense, Koala15). It was so long, over 200 posts. They kept some stuff, so I don't think it would really matter since it's their talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The timing though... anyway, I've said too much already. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• First, 200 posts going all the way back to 2012 probably needs archiving (and no, archiving isn't just blanking all the warnings) but that's not the issue here. Second, Wikipedia:Competence is required which includes social competency. Koala15's edits are problematic. Insulting and being uncivil is a concern. Individuals who cannot corroborate effectively have been shown the door before. I'd say there's civility here but I'll let some others chime on what they think should be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Having had run-ins with Koala15 before, some of which have been referenced in this post, I thought I'd also chime in. While their edits themselves are not disruptive or problematic, aside from a lack of edit summary usage, Koala15's conduct towards other users is condescending, patronizing and downright rude in some cases. On multiple occasions I have been told by the user that I don't understand Wikipedia, ("You don't understand the guidelines") and that I'm a newbie who interprets policies wrong ("I understand that you are new here, but you seem to lack a simple understanding of the rules of Wikipedia."), which if anyone else has been on the receiving end of, would know that it's incredibly frustrating. Initially I thought I was the only one to be scolded as deluded by Koala15, but apparently I'm not the only one. A quick CNTRL+F searching for the word "understand" on an old revision of their talk page shows three distinct immediate instances where Koala15 downplayed other editors, brushing them off as not understanding some aspect of the project: I'm not even gonna bother responding to this nonsense, cause you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of Wikipedia., "Once again you show that you don't understand the guidelines." and "It sounds like you don't understand Wikipedia." and "You are possibly the most clueless editor i have ever met.". While Koala15's talk page only showed a few instances of their incivility, I imagine I wasn't the first to be insulted on their talk page or via edit summaries. A block doesn't seem appropriate to me, and would quite possibly chase Koala15 away, given how bitter and angry they already come off with a near-clean block log, but an assurance from the user that the'll try and be more civil and get off their high horse would be nice. Azealia911 _talk 10:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Koala15 care to respond? Azealia911 _talk 10:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its easy to take my quotes out of context and try to me make me look bad, but in the context of the conversation they were more or less facts. Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines. Which is fine, it took me a while when i first joined Wikipedia. Koala15 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh Koala15, you really are being serious aren't you? You're not even trolling, sigh. I guess that means no chance of an apology for being rude and condescending? (the latter of which is ironically displayed in your most recent reply). Azealia911 _talk 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its definitely not my intention to be "rude and condescending" that's just how I talk. I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words. In the future, i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much. Now hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us and move on. Koala15 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we can't... at least not while you maintain these dismissive and unapologetic replies. Each and every one of those reinforces the incompetence claim. You've been told the same thing by everyone here: apologize, show genuine regret, and we will move on. Your telling everyone to move on while sarcastically dismissing every concern raised on this page is nothing short of offensive. Notice that it's you who keeps brushing off every opportunity to make things right. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I second EauZenCashHaveIt's comments, completely accurate. Koala15, your replies just demonstrate what everyone here is trying to tell you, you just seem to not be hearing us, replying with the behavior and tone that landed you here. Back handed comments like "Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines" don't do anything but frustrate me, and "I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words" is absurd, so it's our fault for getting offended at what you say? "i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much" you say, acting as if we're burdening you with actually being...nice?! Maybe take responsibility for your actions, genuinely apologize (which you have yet to do) and maybe then we can move on. Azealia911 _talk 18:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought i did apologize. But yes i apologize if i offended anyone, that was definitely not my intention. Hopefully we can move on now. Koala15 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for apologising Koala15, yep, that's all I needed, take care. Azealia911 _talk 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

slightly-off-topic discussion on grammar

jeez a bit hypocritical to talk about incivility when you're saying he has the grammar of a 12 year old. and why would you care about grammar on the internet anyway? poli 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC) I was wondering when the usual devil's advocate would make their appearance. This is an encyclopedia, grammar is a basic requirement here. And most importantly: while Azealia may or may not have gotten their apology, the general issue is still unresolved. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC) obsessing over grammar is so pretentious. i promise you're not smarter than anyone else here so chill. poli 22:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Would you like your name to be added to the report? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC) that's so petty. smh poli 02:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• EauZenCashHaveIt, what exactly are you looking to happen? Koala15 has apologized and said that they will be more thoughtful with their conduct. I say leave it, we've given them the rope, its their choice to hang themselves with more rudeness, land back here, and ultimately be blocked, or lasso their next edits with both hands (yes, that is literally the only analogy I could think of for positive things to do with rope). What else would you propose? Azealia911 _talk 19:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: I am looking for a more permanent solution than an obviously insincere apology with no indication of any behavioral change. But hey, if there are no takers then I guess we both have better things to do than bark up that tree. If you are satisfied then I won't say anything, at least until something new happens. Sadly, I have a feeling I am not mistaken. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt I can also see us returning here, but that's up to Koala15. If required, bring it back here and I'll be the first to recommend implications. Azealia911 _talk 16:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• To me, Koala15's contribution to this new discussion on their Talk page suggests that Koala15 has learned nothing from this process. Still arbitrarily removing maintenance templates from articles without participating in the discussions they reference, a behavior just recently discussed with them here. General Ization ^Talk 18:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Christ, didn't take them long, I really did think they'd be more considerate. General Ization what do you suggest doing? Azealia911 _talk 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know. I know I spent more time than I could really afford to trying to explain to them why this is a problem on their Talk page and here, and what mostly comes back is from the editor is I didn't hear that. I really think it's a competence issue. General Ization ^Talk 18:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely seems like the case, considering their edits aren't specific to one or one set of pages, perhaps a short term block would be appropriate. Azealia911 _talk 19:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i make mistakes like everyone else, Jeez, i didn't realize my every edit would be under a microscope. Its also strange that you have my talk page watchlisted. Koala15 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Everyone whose edits cause them to be brought to this page will find their subsequent edits to be "under a microscope" for some period of time, especially while the case is unresolved. Most at least make an effort to not engage in the same behaviors during that time. And it's not strange at all – your Talk page was placed on my watch list when you and I discussed the matter above. General Ization ^Talk 21:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It was my bad, i didn't know what the statute of limitations was on page a split discussion that had no responses. I realized it was a mistake after i did it. I will refrain from making edits like that in the future. I go on Wikipedia for fun, and i'm not here to start trouble or anything like that. I'm gonna try to stay out of things like this and mind my own business. Koala15 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the template was just placed this month (and says so within the template as any reader sees it), you might reasonably have assumed it had not expired; if you were unsure, you could click the Discuss link and ask. Your "No need for a discussion" comment linked above shows either a lack of understanding or contempt for editing processes here, not confusion over an expiration date. General Ization ^Talk 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Koala15 has decided to play possum, I am asking the patrolling admins to make the appropriate decision here. This discussion cannot simply vanish as stale. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely seeing Koala15's edits as problematic after going through the diffs. No specific action has been proposed yet, but there may be some lingering hope Koala can improve. My first thought was to just close this with the closer stating that if this kind of issue happens again, that would expedite a block by linking back to that decision. A short term block could be used instead of essentially a warning, but both would take a WP:ROPE approach. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 EauZenCashHaveIt, I'd be more lenient to go with a short-block, maybe as short as two weeks. Earlier on this post, I urged nothing to happen, giving Koala15 the rope, and within two days they were removing merger notices and playing the old apologetic "I'll never do it again" card, when it had been discussed with them before. I'm not sure how many times Koala15 expects us to take their fake apologies before doing anything. The block may be the wake-up call they need to understand their attitude and actions won't be at all tolerated. Azealia911 _talk 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Azealia911. In fairness, Koala15 has in fact seemed to "stay out of things like this and mind [their] own business" (as they put it above) for the past week or so, but without a real understanding by Koala15 of why their (past) behavior is a problem, all it will take is one editor to object to/revert one of their edits (rightly or wrongly) and I expect we'll be right back here again. I haven't heard or seen anything here that makes me think that understanding exists as yet. General Ization ^Talk 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My experience with Koala15 at Penguins of Madagascar was similar to User:Tokyogirl79's [69] in February. This wasn't a controversial topic or sensitive BLP. The article's about a movie that features talking commando penguins. After copyediting and cleanup edits, I later added a tag regarding prose issues and a thousand-word quotefarm plus explained the tag on the Talk page. Koala15 reverted with a derisory summary. Days later I restore the tag due to the encyclopedic text and non-free content concerns, and post on his talkpage. He responded dismissively and immediately undid my edit as vandalism. Only after multiple other editors become involved did he finally visit the Talk page.

He then engages in IDHT--continuing to say he doesn't see the problem ("as far as I know this is how the majority of reception sections are written") and asking for suggestions on to how to fix it--despite multiple editors having already provided them, edit-wars over the tag, plus adds quoteboxes making the quotefarm even more glaring. We all assume good faith and spend time explaining. ...Only later to discover it's all happened before. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed short-term block for Koala15

I'll repeat a comment I made above, earlier in this post, I urged nothing to happen to Koala15, giving them the "rope", and within two days they were removing merger notices and playing the old apologetic "I'll never do it again" card, when the same issue had been discussed with them before. I'm not sure how many times Koala15 expects us to take their fake apologies before doing anything. A block may be the wake-up call they need to understand their attitude and actions won't be at all tolerated. The amount of said block can be determined by whoever closes the post.

Pinging all past contributors who may not keep track of the post: EauZenCashHaveIt, General Ization, Callmemirela, Ricky81682, Kingofaces43, Politoed89, and most importantly Koala15.

• Support as proposer – recommending a 2-4 week block. Azealia911 _talk 01:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Striking my support, may sound odd considering I'm the proposer. I've decided to give Koala15 one last chance, their recent behavior has seemed less aggressive and more open to discussion. Weather that lasts is up to them, but I firmly believe they'll reduce their negativity on the site for the foreseeable future. But this isn't an oppose, I'm staying neutral, I think comments from both sides are equally valid. Azealia911 _talk 22:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Anddd I switch again. As a result of IP 146's overwhelming evidence, showcasing that Koala15 not only breaks rules over and over after being warned, but doesn't seem to care about the ramifications (apparent from the fact he's hardly contributed to the discussion even trying to defend himself and given that the only response to 146.200.32.196's CCI report was whining that he's a victim and trying to get him blocked is a "trend") A six-month block at the least seems appropriate in my eyes. Azealia911 _talk 02:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support per preceding thread. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 01:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per proposer's comments (thanks) and my comments above. General Ization ^Talk 01:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see why you guys are so against giving me another chance to redeem myself. I admit I made a few mistakes, but I don't think we should overlook all of the good work I have done on here in the past few years. I genuinely promise to have a better attitude when communicating with other editors. I look forward to working with you all again in a positive way. Koala15 (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No one's against your having, or denying you, a chance to redeem yourself. If we were, we would be proposing an indefinite block (which none of us think is appropriate at this time). You will hopefully redeem yourself in any case. But it's precisely because you're thinking of this matter as so trivial that a block is appropriate. Many editors who produce good edits but cannot collaborate constructively with other editors have been blocked before you and many will be blocked after you. Assuming our proposal is implemented, please spend at least some of the time actually reading the many Wikipedia policies and guidelines we have tried over several weeks to get you to consider carefully. General Ization ^Talk 02:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why a block is necessary, I'm not gonna learn anything that i already haven't. I am gonna make a change in my behavior on here from this day on. And if you catch me breaking any rules, than block me. Take me at my word on this one. Koala15 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

To me, this attitude right here is the epitome of your problem. You don't get to tell us what is necessary and what is not necessary. You can ask, you can argue your case, or anything else that is genuinely collaborative. You are still trying to take the lead and dictate the outcome. This is why the block is proposed. Azealia911, General Ization and others - I am not sure how else I can put it. @Chillum: this should address your concern. Nothing has changed. Literally, nothing. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral. I have no preference on a short term block either way. It's clear that this editor will be back to editing in awhile even if they were blocked, so the the important thing for this conversation is to show that they are sitting on their last chance per WP:ROPE if the issue comes up again. Sometimes ANI closures aren't clear on this, so as long as that point gets across, I'm content with just closing this as such. A block will demonstrate that as much as a well-worded close (and may be warranted given the continued behavior that popped up, but I'm not digging further into this to evaluate that), so I'm fine either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The block would not be preventative at this point in my opinion. If anyone can explain how it would be preventative I will gladly reconsider. Chillum 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

My hope is that it will give the editor some (enforced) time, if they are so inclined, to actually learn how to be a better and more collaborative editor, rather than just editing in a vacuum. A "time out" if you will. We've been hearing a lot of I didn't hear that from Koala15, and my personal opinion is that it's because they won't stop editing long enough to actually read policies and guidelines and learn how to and why they should avoid this kind of issue. If they were not so inclined, then indeed all it would do is give them a reason to remember that incivility and disruptive editing have consequences. General Ization ^Talk 03:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chillum, it sounds more a punitive than a preventive block. Also, while Koala certainly had been sometimes rude, most of the differences above just document talk page discussions, but not the actual "incidents", or at least not the whole picture, so it is hard to judge who is really innocent here. Eg, it was linked at least three times (if I have not missed some other links) this talk page discussion as a proof of Koala's problematic behavior, yet it all started by an editor boldly redirecting a Koala's article a few hours after it had been created and then edit warring with Koala to have it redirected without any community discussion. The dispute eventually ended in an AfD, where the article was kept with no votes for deletion outside the nominator. The same with the Ted 2 incident, where the opener of this ANI discussion just showed some incompetence (he, not Koala), first battling to add a bizarre and non-standard "Elsewhere in the United States" in the infobox-date of release [70], then, after being explained why he was wrong, still trying to remove the premiere date with a poor rationale [71]. Rudeness is not excusable, and Koala should be more collaborative and use the edit summaries to immediately explain his actions and not to attack other editors, but the context is important, and so far the "incidents" do not rise to a level requiring a block IMO. Cavarrone 07:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's a shame that the devil's advocate sometimes wears an admin's hat. In their opposing statement, Cavarrone seems to have turned the wheel around and accused me, Koala15's victim, of incompetence, having completely ignored a discussion which I cited earlier. There is a considerable difference between sheer unprovoked rudeness and a stern reaction to sheer unprovoked rudeness, but apparently, to them the two are one and the same. This doesn't look very neutral to me, but I will be more than happy to be proven wrong. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral, as stated in my intial comment above. Whilst I do believe Koala15 has good editing-related intentions, discussion-wise is a mess. I do believe that they are aware of the issue of civility and so on. They are being watched and if any further comments that are deemed uncivil, inappropriate, and so on, they will be reported once more and consequently blocked as they were given chances. And I will take their above comment "If I break the rules, block me." (not exact) seriously. I expect them to learn their mistakes and choose their words carefully instead of being rude and uncalled for. I choose to believe they will stop edit warring and stop engaging in OWNBEHAVIOR and start discussing in good matters. And that their competence here will improve. The way they type and what they say are supporting that issue. Thank you for the ping, Eau (I really don't know your username that easily) Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 20:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support short term block up to a month (uninvolved non admin) Clearly preventive block to stop the ongoing problems that resurface in no time. Perhaps the time off will also bring about a change for the better and prevent this from happening again. AlbinoFerret 19:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support a block, oppose short-term. I don't think a short-term block would do anything a previous block and about 85 warnings & interventions did not. Then there's a further 15 or so copyright etc. notices. How many warnings does he get? His response to the CCI notification was typical: brushed off as "old news" (I'm positive the blatant copyvios hadn't been mentioned on his talkpage) and a "trend" of trying to get him blocked. The usual way we deal with those who create long-term copyright problems and refuse to mend their ways despite warnings is an indefinite vacation from editing. In this case I think an indef block is necessary. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose (uninvolved non admin) A suitable warning is sufficient. If this is Koala15's first ANI report after three years of editing, 75,000 edits and creating an incredible 1,713 new articles [72] (the only one that was deleted has since been recreated), this is NOT a competency issue. With those numbers, 15 copyright warnings are really not indicative of a real pattern of violation. If there is a long-term plagiarizing or copyright issue then that needs to be examined as such with actual diffs. Koala15 has genuinely shown good faith by admitting mistakes were made and asked for another chance.[73] "Go home, you're drunk" is a common Internet meme [74] and only shows humour that should not have been used in this case. Additionally, reporter proposer has graciously accepted apology and opposes is neutral on block. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: I'm not the actual original reporter, if you were referencing me with "reporter has graciously accepted apology and opposes block" which I have a inkling you were per the civility barnstar you kindly just awarded me with (thanks for that by the way!). I also don't oppose the block, just as I don't support it, staying neutral, however 146.200.32.196's slew of evidence isn't pushing me in the opposing direction to be frank. It should also be noted that you reference their article creations, however most are blank film stubs that list a cast list and minor details, with Koala15 even leaving the plot blank with a "section expansion" tag, leaving someone else to do the work after he's quickly filled in the blanks. I may be mistaken but I swear I'd read somewhere that they'd been warned for this in the past under WP:MASSCREATION grounds. Azealia911 _talk 16:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(interject) It's possible you saw something on it in my notes, Az. The mass creation of plotless film substubs was one of the things I left out for length really. While he wasn't specifically warned for violation of that policy, given how effective those relating to other policies were it's unlikely any warning would've done much. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, oops, hah. Struck through. You still very graciously accepted the apology and went neutral, which is still very nice to see. I don't think this [75] is really a blank stub, just a stub lacking plot, as it's referenced and has a good introduction and everything. Mass creation of blank stubs to me is like that obnoxious sock puppeteer who created hundreds of fish stubs that consisted entirely of the species infobox only and an external link to a Thailand university database in order to linkspam. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Мандичка, there're plenty more copyright violations besides those for which he received the 15 or so (ineffectual) cautions. Here's one, from February. I've moved another two - made after this thread began - to the CCI report. He continues to post more and shows no sign he'll stop of his own accord. –146.200.32.196 22:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support a block, oppose short-term. This editor refuses to abide by WP:COPYRIGHT despite warnings stretching back years. This calls for an indef block. Thanks to 146.xx for compiling such a detailed history. Lagrange613 01:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support longterm block, per the "Detailed evidence" (in three green collapsed boxes below this section). Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Long term disruption and copyvios

collapsed/non-essential discussion
The following content has been placed in a collapse box to save space.
Hi, I'm the editor who User:Callmemirela indirectly referred to above. I want to put this one to bed so we can all move on, too. Having looked into this a bit more, however, there're some additional aspects that should be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, it'll take me just a little while longer to put the details into a neat orderly manner, dot the i's and cross the t's so to speak, ready to post here. I'm pretty sure I can do so within 24hrs. –146.200.32.196 (talk) (formerly 146.'115 / 146.'207) 02:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC) While we wait, or to help us/admins decide whether we should, it would be helpful to understand your relationship to the case (since you are currently an IP with only this edit in your history). Are you the editor who formerly used IP 146.198.28.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 146.199.67.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (see contribs)? General Ization Talk 03:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Yes. (Powercut last night.) Incidentally, thank you for your application of meatball:DefendEachOther at the talkpage. Looking into this took a while (complexity and depth of the edit history among other factors) and, as we can see, a poll began in the meantime. It's preferable that reports here don't stay open for extended periods, so I can understand why Azealia initiated it. 146.200.32.196 (talk)(formerly 146.'115 / 146.'207) 03:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC) @146.200.32.196: Did you plan to provide us with some additional insight concerning this matter, as your post above suggested? If so, please do so quickly or if not, please let us know, so that either way we can move this case toward closure. It's unfair both to the subject editor and the rest of us watching this section to leave it in limbo any longer. General Ization Talk 16:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC) I apologise to the community. In hindsight my 24hrs estimate was over optimistic. I misjudged the time needed wrt the large quantity of edits. Fortunately, having worked through the night, twice, things moved right along. I do intend to provide some additional material facts asap, so we can wrap this up. I'll come back here later today. Thanks. 146.200.32.196 (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Seemingly the IP's 72 hour estimate was also unrealistic. Move for closure, as at this point I can't imagine what revelations they could bring to the discussion that would make it worth our waiting any longer. General Ization Talk 18:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC) I see now that the IP has added to the open discussion above today, though they do not offer a closing recommendation. So I again move for closure, but now because it appears all who have an interest in commenting on this matter have done so. General Ization Talk 20:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC) The IP's entry only reinforces the view of Koala15 as ill-faithed (not sure if this is a good antonym for good faith) and a repeat offender that has not shown any signs of real regret for their actions. As far as I see it, they are a ticking time bomb. Closure without action is precisely what they are hoping for. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC) List of Warner Bros. films - Hello. I'm having an issue with the same user. He's deleting information that has been proven with citations from reliable sources. He's doing so on the basis of what he thinks is necessary on the page, whereas it's not entirely up to him. StephenCezar15 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Final note to closer: An IP who commented on this post has seemingly been working on an account of Koala15's disruptive behavior, a very detailed account of it to be exact. After checking on it every couple days, work on it seems to have stopped. It may be worth giving it a full read through before making a formal decision on how to proceed with actions upon closure. The account of their behavior can be found <redacted: mv'd to thread inside green {{cot}}s> . Azealia911 talk 23:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC) That is a very interesting and very detailed log. It hasn't been worked on in two days, and the penultimate edit summary is "kinda done with this", so I hope he or she posts it here in the next few days. Especially since this ANI has been here for going on one month at this point, and the IP said a week ago s/he could have it for us "within 24 hrs". Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Softlavender, although I didn't say quite say that. I said I hoped to add additional info and did post a comment (on their recidivist edit-warring). I overran by a day or so on that and apologised for the delay. I do agree the thread's gone on a while, though I only came across it more recently. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC) @Azealia911: In future please ask or notify a fellow editor before linking their notes (esp. if edited in the last 48hrs) on a highly-watched page and inviting everyone to go look. Please read this. Thanks. 146.200.32.196 (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC) My linking to your notes was a move of panic, not one of ignorance. You'd seemingly finished with the notes, and forgotten to link them here, and had been offline for a couple of days. Myself and another editor had requested this be closed and I didn't want to take the chance of waiting days for you to respond, to only have this be closed while waiting. Yes, in hindsight, I should have, I apologise. I should add though, I gravely resent your request that I read WP:HUMAN. You know full well that I respect you, as I do with all editors exactly the same. I suggest if you don't want something seen by the community, don't save it for the community to see, perhaps write, preview, and copy/paste to an offline document in the future. Best, Azealia911 talk 22:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC) I intentionally worked on it in plain sight, rather than solely offline, so others might see what I was working on. That's not the same as pointing folks to my rough notes on a high-traffic page without so much as a talkpage note (much less 'will you be posting your notes or would you like a hand perhaps?'). And these had after all been edited within the last 48hrs. I wasn't seeking an apology only that you learn what may be learnt and move on. On reflection, if there were do-overs there'd be several things in this whole saga I'd do differently myself. Like you pretty much say, hindsight's a wonderful thing. Best, 146.200.32.196 (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been nearly four days since somebody commented on this, and nobody else seems interested to comment, what's been said seems to be all that'll be said, can this be closed please? With the closer doing what they see fit? Azealia911 _talk 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Detailed evidence ~ personal attacks, incivility, and the uncollegial

reverts saying "i wrote that myself. We don't take IP's serious." told it's unacceptable by a second editor, he tries to downplay it claiming he "didn't mean it literally" [76] July 2014 reverts saying "Go home, your drunk" [77] a second editor brings it up and he brushes it off as "just a joke", "have a sense of humor" [78] July 2015 [79] [80] warned (template:uw-tdel2) tells another who added a maintenance template "i'm not a lazy editor that just places tags so someone else will do the job", then replies "i didn't call you a "lazy editor" you just assumed i was talking about you". February 2014 puts ==hypocrite== on an editor's talkpage in a content dispute because otherstuffexists [81] 13 October 2013 "its been a pleasure not running into the most stubborn editor on Wikipedia for a while, until now" "You are possibly the most clueless editor i have ever met" tells a ten-year editor he won't respond as "you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of Wikipedia" objects to an admin's page deletion so awards barnstar "for most clueless admin" [82], warns him "It better be reinstated by the next time i log on" [83], that he's "lucky I'm being this polite" [84], and "should be more professional" [85] May 2014 (later, another admin touches on volunteers, attitude of entitlement, and civility; Koala berates him for being snippy and tells him he expects admins to fix their mistakes promptly) "You just sit in your basement and destroy other peoples work?" [86], "just another random know it all editor" [87] and "extremely unreasonable person that i would never want to meet" [88] for over 3hrs, August 2014 "Random IP's do not decide if we keep articles or not" [89] compare with him redirecting: "Theres nothing that makes this page notable. Message me before reverting again" [90] 18 May 2013 "that you think you can revert an article like this is ridiculous." 22 February 2015 (incident led to AN3 warning: you even refused to discuss them here at your talk page, saying that the film is "of course notable") "Quit being a hurt iranian" [91] "This tag is unnecessary, and hiding under ip's i see?" [92] "redacted may be the most difficult editor on Wikipedia and i have met alot of difficult ones" [93] "you are nothing but a WP:GWAR" [94] January 2014 falsely reverts with "poorly written." [95] August 2013 all existing reviews on page are negative. was correctly-formatted cited quote of a positive review (disliked album?) "Your writing is horrible, We can't use it in this article" [96] May 2013 reverts addition restored after he undid it as vandalism with "The grammar is awful" [97] September 2013 editor spends over an hour on wikignomish edits. reverts with "awful fixes" [98] January 2014 "your writing is awful" [99] January 2015 “On at least two occasions it's significantly likely that his hostility drove editors off Wikipedia altogether.” tells a user who'd templated him with uw-genre [100], that'd posted on article talk, "You are a joke for sending me that message" [101] (didn't join discussion) (Nov 2013); user complained, replies: In what why did i insult you? [102]. Other user never edited again new users worked for days on improving the Shrek article [103] and added a themes section using impeccable peer-reviewed scholarly sources. wiped out in two edits with: [104] "very poor" and "The Themes section is very poorly sourced we can't use it"[105] February 2014 baseless and extremely unkind. the users never edited again

Detailed evidence ~ Copyvios and NFC issues, quotefarms, and related

Copyvios and NFC Copyvios and non-free content warnings go from April 2013 to present. Typically copypasted plots, long and/or excessive quotes, and close paraphrasing. Copyright-related Warnings April 2013 Warned. [106] June 2013 exact copying and pasting, overquotes, close paraphrasing at DYK [107] | Warned: [108] (template:uw-copyright-new) [109] August 2013 restores "plagiarized content" inserted by user since indef-blocked for copyright violations, with "these summarys are not plagiarised." [110]. user that removed it responds: "In spite of what Koala15 asserts, some of these episode synopses represent unambiguous copy/pasting from unattributed sources" February 2014 Warned. added copy/pasted synopses then reverts removal saying otherstuff exists "Feel free to reword them" [111] April 2014 [112] revert-warring Moonriddengirl over template:copyvio (copyviocore) [113]/[114] "in the meantime, as the [copyvio] template indicates, it should not be removed" May 2014 CorenSearchBot warning [115]. silently removes warning May 2014 Warned. replies "I don't know how words can be copyrighted, I don't think I'll ever understand why we can't copy a plot". [116] July 2014 reverted "removal of copied tvguide.com plot summaries and then altered only one of them" [117] August 2014 CorenSearchBot warning September 2014 Warned. replies "So your trying get me blocked for this?" says he still doesn't get how sentences can be copyrighted and tells them to "Rewrite the summary's then". The warning user refers to his POV edits, edit-warring reversions, lack of collaborative editing and says attempts to explain to him have proved "unfruitful". [118] 19 October 2014 Warned, again. replies "My bad, that was an error. It won't happen again". [119] An insincere apology and empty promise. 23 October 2014 CorenSearchBot warning [120] re article composed of stitched together quotes. silently blanks warning December 2014 undoes CorenSearchBot warning [121] page creation, large quote [122]. notified re copyvios by CorenSearchBot again, January 2015 June 2015 editor had tagged a quotefarm "Needs copy editing" - reverts saying he made it and in his eyes there's no problem [123] page composed of quotes July 2015 Warned (template:uw-copyright) copypasted episode summaries False claims of having written copyrighted content edit-warring to keep in copyrighted & non-free content, on one occasion deleting a url to conceal the original source then falsely claiming to have written it himself. User:Psychonaut rv's "copyvio of official episode summaries" added a month before episodes air [124] 20:37, 15 June 2014 They're subsequently re-removed as plagiarism/copyvios. Koala15 reverts that as vandalism again and again [125], [126] Finally he removes the source url, re-adds part of the copied content (matches text inserted by another user one month earlier and official site [127] website), without a summary, [128], and repeatedly lies that he wrote it himself [129], [130], with a passing dig at the other editor Quotefarms articles and sections composed entirely or primarily of quotes, and excessive quoting "The Life and Times of Jonny Valiant" [131] composed of brief proseline+quotes May 2013 now has more quotes "Kiss Land" [132] composed of brief proseline+quotes July 2013 now has more quotes Underground Luxury" [133] October 2013 composed of quotes; quotefarm album [134] created page with two thousand words of quotes. promptly speedied; self-removes csd tag, says "they are only quotes". swaps two extensive quotes [135], [136] [137], [138] adds quotes to around 600 words. July 2014 composed of (fewer) quotes "Directors of Photography" [139] August 2014 composed of quotes; quotefarm "Cadillactica" [140] October 2014 composed of quotes; quotefarm "Frankenweenie (2012 film)" [141] February 2014 critical response section quotefarm "Tomorrowland (film)" [142] May 2015 critical response section quotefarm "Fly International Luxurious Art" reverts user trimming quotefarm [143], added more later "American Dad! (S10)"[144] plagiarizing, close paraphrasing Dec 2013 (IP editor fixes it [145]) December 2013 "Shrek" [146] close paraphrasing January 2014 Large copyvios "Aloha" matches synopsis on IMDb [147] 3 June 2015 It flows well. It uses 'there' correctly. It's a copyvio. "Toy Story of Terror!" Here he adds a 1,231 word plot for a 22 min film. [148] 24 December 2013. Example: “Mr. Pricklepants states, á la classic horror films (which he, apparently, believes this to be), "And so it begins."” Note: use of parentheticals, commas to separate clauses and use of French loanwords. It's a copyvio. [149] Two weeks earlier, Koala answered a query about an unexplained revert saying "the plot was at 699 words and has to be under 700 words" 9 December 2013. It wasn't. 661 word count (or 639 with prosesize tool) - with the change it was still under 700 words. [150] and to a later query February 2014: "a lot of editors add to the movie plots and the plots are supposed to be under 700 words" (was 701 words before, 730 after) "The Yellow Badge of Cowardge" [151] 19:45, 19 May 2014 "added a plot feel free to add to it" (comparison) Matches article on Thecelebritycafe.com by regular writer May Chan. Publication date is the same day it was added here. Again the language style is different from Koala15's e.g. "The fireworks go awry". Another recap of hers [152] bears no resemblance to ours. [153] Recurring source matches include IMDb and TheMovieSpoiler.com. Evidence: Source: TheMovieSpoiler.com. Its Facebook page [https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Movie-Spoiler/158384470875779] announces newly published reviews in timestamped entries (mouseover date or view source for 'utime' (converter)). The announcements include 'read the rest at themoviespoiler.com' snippet text that matches Koala's additions. All times given as UTC. "Tomorrowland (film)" [154] 18:57, 23 May 2015 Added to original source: 17:30, 23 May 2015 comparison "Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2" [155] 23:12, 19 April 2015 (sought semi-prot 00:31, 19 April 2015) Added to original source: 06:37, 19 April 2015 comparison "The Age of Adaline" [156] 01:47, 1 May 2015 UTC Added to original source: 07:45, 27 April 2015 comparison "Hot Tub Time Machine" [157] 19:43, 21 February 2015 UTC Added to original source: 14:02, 20 Feb 2015 comparison There are several authors here: prolific TheMovieSpoiler writer "Jeremy" and first-time author "Elizabeth", plus IMDb contributor "mep1019" and regular Thecelebritycafe.com writer May Chan. Punctuation differences e.g: The Age of Adaline uses a spaced ndash and “curly quotes”; the Toy Story one uses double hyphens and "ascii quotes". Grammar is at odds with Koala's, such as the use of 'whom' in Hot Tub Time Machine 2. Koala15's own writing tends to be short phrases used to stitch together quotes, and 'on date released/interviewed in' proseline sentences. The writing style is pretty different between, say, The Age of Adaline plot (Elizabeth's) and Tomorrowland or HTTM2 (Jeremy's). http://tools.wmflabs.org/contributionsurveyor/survey.php?user=Koala15

Detailed evidence ~ warnings received ∘ diffs/dates  (excludes image-related)

Note i: Excludes image-related warnings. Does not include level 1–4 warnings received for edits while logged out Note ii: Over a hundred warnings and pleas over unexplained removals, edit summaries, wrongly claiming vandalism, ownership, edit-warring and disruptive editing (plus a couple for gaming the system), and copyright violations. At: levels 1–4 Note iii: warned & asked to use edit summaries and not edit/revert-war around 85 times. pretty much every month since he got here [158] unexplained removal, no edit summary <!-- template:uw-delete2 --> 19 October 2012 [159] edit warring 21 October 2012 [160] multiple articles <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> & images <!-- template:uw-nonfree --> 24 October 2012 [161] Let me be a little more clear this time: repeatedly creating articles on non-notable subjects is disruptive 4 November 2012 [162] please use an edit summary 10 November 2012 [163] <!-- template:uw-unsourced2 --> 22 November 2012 [164] <!-- template:uw-unsourced3 --> 4 Dec 2012 [165] "if you continue to make disruptive edits, i.e. edits you know are against policies and guidelines, you may be blocked" 10 December 2012 [166] <!-- template:uw-editsummary --> 16 December 2012 [167] <!-- template:uw-unsourced1 --> 17 January 2013 [168] unexplained content removal <!-- template:uw-delete1 --> 21 February 2013 [169] please fill in the edit summary 15 March 2013 [170] original research 18 March 2013 [171] <!-- template:uw-delete2 --> 14 April 2013 [172] copypasting copyrighted content 19 April 2013 [173] "without edit summaries, then when reverted by another editor using an edit summary, you keep reverting back. Images have to be orphaned for seven continuous days to be deleted. Once the tag has been removed, you cannot simply revert because the process would have to start over again. You are clearly trying to game the system as can be seen in your edits to [[:File:David Banner - Certified.jpg]]. You re-orphaned the image on April 25 after three days of it being back in the article, so you should have tagged it for that date. You clearly tried to speed up the deletion today by changing the date to the 17th, then to the original 20 and eventually to the 18th. These are very disingenuous edits that are not acting in good faith. In summary, I hope that you discuss these edits here instead of reverting back to your preferred versions. 28 April 2013 [174] sarcasm, assuming bad faith ... can lead to blocks 10 May 2013 [175] sourcing, excessive snark in edit summary 19 May 2013 [176] "you've made nominations that barely apply to the articles at all, at times (naming individual musicians as groups). you've nominated far too many, far too quickly. If you didn't have so many edits, I'd think you just didn't understand what notability means, but your long tenure here makes me wonder about your motivation. ...On one AfD you state, "Regardless of the sources, he still does not meet notability guidelines." That simply doesn't make any sense ...hard to AGF here, because I explicitly said, just above, that "--" is clearly notable, as she has received multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources" 25 May 2013 [177] queries unexplained revert [178] 25 May 2013 [179] no edit summary, content removal <!-- template:uw-delete2 --> 11 June 2013 [180] <!-- template:uw-editsummary --> 23 June 2013 [181] maintenance template removal <!-- template:uw-tdel1 --> 23 June 2013 [182] <!-- uw-copyright-new --> exact copypasting, overquotes, close paraphrasing [183][184] 23 June 2013 [185] <!-- template:uw-nor2 --> 1 July 2013 [186] edit summaries 1 July 2013 [187] <!-- template:uw-disruptive2 --> 2 July 2013 [188] please stop reverting, WP:3RR warning 14 July 2013 [189] restores "plagiarized content" inserted by user since indef-blocked for copyright violations, with "these summarys are not plagiarised." [190]. user that removed it responds: "In spite of what Koala15 asserts, some of these episode synopses represent unambiguous copy/pasting from unattributed sources" 2 August 2013 [191] queries unexplained revert 8 August 2013 [192] reverting an edit in whole when I fixed other mistakes is kind of disruptive, if you do not agree with one part of an edit, fix that one part 11 September 2013 [193] "Unless you have a source for the deal being "fake" or a "rumor" or incorrect at all, I consider your reverts without discussion pretty disruptive" 17 September 2013 [194] unsourced genre changes 4 October 2013 [195] <!--uw-genre3 --> ([196] 'start a discussion' 'no you') 4 October 2013 [197] personal attacks, refusal to take part in consensus-building 7 November 2013 [198] <!-- template:uw-own1 --> 8 November 2013 [199] unexplained removal of content next time ... blocked from editing 8 November 2013 [200] "could you please explain why you have undone three of my edits on the plot section of [article], even when I had explained my edits the second and third times. 7 December 2013 "As a third party ...I would also appreciate it if you would explain your edits. many of the edits you're reverting were made in good faith, and it's courteous (and considered good practice, especially in this case) to provide some reason." 9 December 2013 [201] "you simply reverted all my changes without an edit summary and without any kind of comment on the talk page of the article" 9 January 2014 [202] edit summaries, reverts 14 January 2014 [203] "you reverted my edit to the Shrek article, with the comment "Not a Universal film.", which leaves me confused as to why you would revert my changes rather than just removing the references and links to Universal Pictures. please explain?" 30 January 2014 [204] edit warring <!-- template:uw-3rr --> January 2014 [205] removal of maintenance templates <!-- template:uw-tdel2 --> 7 February 2014 [206] 3RR warning 8 February 2014 [207] add summaries to your edits 10 February 2014 [208] edit warring and ownership 13 February 2014 [209] warned, added copy/pasted synopses then reverts removal 18 February 2014 [210] edit warring, lack of edit summary 19 February 2014 [211] undid me, no edit summary; my edit wasn't vandalism 23 February 2014 [212] edit-war; unexplained reverts 25 February 2014 [213] undid without non-default edit summary. why was edit considered vandalism 2 March 2014 [214] idontlikeit, idontknowofit; original research. "This time you have deleted the section created by the other user and you said in your comment that it is unsourced material. ... this other contributor gave a source, namely the BBC article. article thread [215] 8 March 2014 [216] revert-warring Moonriddengirl over <!-- template:copyvio --> (copyviocore) [217]/[218] "in the meantime, as the [copyvio] template indicates, it should not be removed" 5 April 2014 [219] CorenSearchBot warning 2 May 2014 [220] maintenance template removal "prose needs improvement so fix it if you wish the tag to be removed" 3 May 2014 [221] <!-- template:uw-3rr --> 25 May 2014 [222] copypasting copyrighted content 25 May 2014 [223] <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> 10 June 2014 [224] "been told several times, and have never given a reason for the removals. You do not own the article, it's not up to you to decide what is or isn't hip hop. Stop trying to covertly delete entries" [225] <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> 23 June 2014 [226] no edit summary, content removal <!-- template:uw-delete2 --> 28 June 2014 [227] <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> 28 June 2014 [228] removing sourced content without reason <!-- template:uw-delete4 --> 4 July 2014 [229] reverted "removal of copied tvguide.com plot summaries and then altered only one of them" 22 July 2014 [230] reverting w/out edit summaries 24 July 2014 [231] <!-- template:uw-delete3 --> 31 July 2014 [232] CorenSearchBot copyright warning 18 August 2014 [233] repeated reversions, ownership, claims otherstuffexists 30 August 2014 [234] copyright warning. replies says he still doesn't get how sentences can be copyrighted. warning user says attempts to explain to him have proved "unfruitful". 23 September 2014 [235] "may I demand an explanation as to why you would remove Carl Thiel as co-composer" 15 October 2014 [236] copyright warning. 19 October 2014 [237] copyright warning, CorenSearchBot 23 October 2014 [238] <!-- template:uw-ew --> 19 November 2014 [239] copyright warning, CorenSearchBot 7 December 2014 [240] edit warring 15 December 2014 [241] why did you revert 19 December 2014 [242] edit warring 8 January 2015 [243] copyright warning, CorenSearchBot 15 January 2015 [244] <!-- template:uw-3rr --> 31 January 2015 [245] Reverting without explanations 1 February 2015 [246] please stop reverting + not discussing + WP:AN3 & warned 23 February 2015 [247] asked to explain sourced edit undone as vandalism (genres) 27 March 2015 [248] <!-- template:uw-genre1 --> 5 April 2015 [249] queries unexplained revert undone as vandalism 11 April 2015 [250] "I obviously looked up the information. I even included the references and he still undoes them" ([251] silent removal). I'm just so angry and frustrated [by] it" 22 April 2015 [252] adding unreferenced material [253] to BLP 24 April 2015 [254] <!-- template:uw-unsourced2 --> 7 May 2015 [255] querying revert undone as vandalism 14 May 2015 [256] or/pov/genre-warring revert on film 18 May 2015 [257] asked to explain revert of edit undone as vandalism 21 May 2015 [258] "wondering why you undid my revision, as you didn't provide an explanation" 5 June 2015 [259] OR, WP:CRYSTAL 24 June 2015 [260] re revert of redirect of an unsourced article, failed general and subject-specific notability guidelines - no it's notable now - not without sources enabling it to pass guidelines it isn't - you don't understand the guidelines 4 July 2015 [261] <!-- template:uw-copyright --> 5 July 2015 [262] persistently reverting 7 July 2015 [263] quotefarming, persistent reverts [264] unexplained content removal <!-- template:uw-delete1 --> 10 July 2015 [265] edit warring <!-- template:uw-ew --> 10 July 2015 [266] ANI notification for edit warring, unexplained reverting 12 July 2015 [267] queries unexplained revert undone as vandalism 14 July 2015 [268] unexplained removal of content <!-- template:uw-vandalism2 --> 15 July 2015

(←) Koala15's been persistently disruptive since he started here in 2012. Despite over a hundred warnings and reminders,[269][270] and a past block, he continues to be uncollaborative, and engage in disruptive behaviour with edit warring and personal attacks. On at least two occasions it's significantly likely that his hostility drove editors off Wikipedia altogether.

Editors' legitimate concerns are routinely met with deflection and gaming. They're fobbed off on a string of pretexts,[271] downplayed to others as "misunderstandings" or "simple disagreement", ignoring his refusal to discuss it (exactly my experience), or met with insincere apologies[272] and empty promises.[273]

Pleas and warnings for edit summaries have been ineffective. Once you discount tool-appended automatic ones, his mainspace edit summary use is around 7%, and those are often uncollegial or deceptive.[274][275]
Policies and norms seem to be used as weapons. He'll caution others to adhere to the very ones he refuses to,[276][277] cherrypick from guidelines;[278] or use one to belatedly excuse a revert, such as falsely claiming the edit pushed the plot over 700 words[279][280] yet he copypastes huge plots from copyrighted sources. Not only has he outright lied that he wrote copyrighted material, he edit-wars to keep it in while accusing editors who try to address it of vandalism.[281]

The community's treated him with kid gloves because it appeared he was also doing good content work. It turns out this consists of serial copyright violations, quotefarming, and plagiarism—see CCI report. Due to the long-term disruption and copyright violations, in my view an indef-block is appropriate. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I admit I'm not a perfect editor, I don't think its fair to take edits from 2-3 years ago out of context to fit the narrative that I'm only here to be disruptive. They are from a time when I was less experienced. I know we got started of wrong but I hope you guys can forgive me. I have good intentions and from now on I'm gonna try to follow guidelines more closely. Koala15 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The narrative is not that you are only here to be disruptive. The narrative is that you have continued to engage in unconstructive and/or prohibited behaviors that you engaged in 2-3 years ago and have been warned about multiple times since then, and that you either are unable to or don't care to learn, despite two to three years of OJT, what is and isn't appropriate under Wikipedia policies. As you yourself put it earlier, "[you're] not gonna learn anything that [you] already haven't", which is what's causing us to look at this from the standpoint of competence, not just arrogance. General Ization ^Talk 23:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No, again, that's more smoke and mirrors. The newbie defense isn't applicable, nor are the claims of unreliable narration or the repeated 'it's all taken out of context' deflection attempts. At least 3 diffs in that comment are from 2015. The collapsed warnings show disruption by way of edit-warring and persistent reverting without explanation throughout 2015. The additional long term evidence shows you are NOTHERE to collaboratively build an encyclopedia or not quite able (CIR) to do so. You've added yet another copyvio in the last few weeks and, the very day you replied, undid more good faith edits as "vandalism". Enough. –146.200.32.196 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Closure requested

• I've just taken this out of the archive for a second time, please can an uninvolved admin close this ASAP. Azealia911 _talk 08:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, COULD AN ADMIN LOOK AT THIS AND TAKE ACTION?

Forgive the shouting, but his thread has been open for well over a month, has an abundance of evidence and opinion, and has been requested to be closed several times. Note to closing admin: Please view in particular the three collapsed lists of Koala15's infractions (in green collapsed boxes). Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 18 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.

Repeated/escalating non-AGF and personal attacks

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.

---

My apologies ahead of time for the wall of text below. This report, however is the result of several weeks of continued incivility and personal attacks and deserves -- I believe -- to be looked at from the complete history, not just what it has escalated to be as of today.

In spite of repeated warnings, User:MaverickLittle has continued to make personal attacks and demonstrate non-AGF behavior on talk pages and in edit summaries. I have asked him to stop numerous times and have left warnings on his talk page as the attacks were repeated and escalated. His non-AGF and uncivil behavior have not been limited to me of late, as Cwobeel has also brought it up to him. His rude comments and nasty attitude have not been limited to being directed at just me.

From his talk page history, one can see that the same behavior has been happening for a while with other editors with his comments directed at them escalating into incivility: Edit summary here, here. He was taken to AN3 at the end of June, where an administrator (Darkwind noted the the case was not really edit warring and advised the filer (SanAnMan that the complaint seemed more in line with disruptive editing behavior (AN3 report here). Darkwind further notified MaverickLittle with a Discretionary Sanctions alert here; ML's response was to remove the notice and with uncivil comments in the editing summary - it is at this point where the escalation in ML's aggressive tone is first evident: "Removed info that was attempt to find something that I did wrong, which of course there wasn't. One editor just did not want to add the information to the article and took a lame case to an admin. Nothing came of it. Nothing."; (edit summary found here). Another example of incivility ("Explanation to Jd027 to check his work before he re-inserts--especially when he adds an unnecessary and incorrect to talk page lecture on top of it.") occurred here. Next example of continuing incivility toward editors in an edit summary here. When notified that he was edit warring, his response was less than polite (see here) and was followed by removal of the notice with another curt comment in the edit summary here.

It was at this point where he then went to AN3 to make the following comments directed at me (even though he was not involved in the AN3 filing at all) : "I would take just about any comment that Winkelvi about other people's edit habits with a huge grain of salt. He does not engage in conversation. He just states what he wants the article to be. Period. He reverts you immediately and then states that his version is the stable version, even if it isn't. I have only encounter Winkelvi in the last two days, concerning two different articles, Ted Cruz and Rachel Dolezal, but his actions are the same. His way or the highway. He is not someone to take his comments about other's edit habits seriously. I made one edit to the Ted Cruz article and he reverted me and other information that has been in the article for almost a year and then he puts a warning on my talk page that I was engaged in an edit war. His claim that I was engaging in an edit war was a lie. There is no other way to describe his outrageous claim. I merely walked away from the article instead of attempting in interact with him because he is unreasonable. Yeah, I made these comments, Winkelvi believes that it is his right to be critical of others but he needs the same instruction." - diff here. He was warned by another editor regarding the comments here and they were removed. Everything escalated from that point on - ML's response was "Your comments written above are obnoxious and narrow. You need to find something else to spend your free time on."

I have left the appropriate amount of warnings on ML's talk page since the incident at AN3: #1, #2, #3, #4. His comments regarding the warnings have continued with more personal attacks and all along the same theme as this: ("Stay off my talk page. You are a bully. You like to push others around. I reject all of your comments. You should follow your own advice." (found here. The personal attacks and uncivil behavior at the following talk pages have continued, up to today, even after he has been asked numerous times there to dial it down and behave more civilly: Columba Bush talk page, the Ted Cruz talk page, and the Carly Fiorina talk page.

I know I am far from perfect and have certainly had my moments of anger and incivility; many could probably say I have no room to file a complaint. Even so, it seems to me that even with the amount of warnings and advice and patience by others offered to MaverickLittle, he believes he can continue in the same vein of incivility without consequence. He appears to be fairly new, and his repeated WP:IDHT and WP:NOTTHEM-related comments attest to such. Because he is a relative newbie, I am not asking for nor am I suggesting any kind of block at this time. That said, something needs to be done that will make a stronger impression on him than what he's gotten from several veteran editors. If it doesn't happen soon, he will continue down this road of incivility and personal attacks to the point of where we have a situation of where a Wiki-monster has been created and allowed to flourish. He has made some decent content additions, but the attacks and battleground mentality get in the way to the point of obvious disruption that makes the signal to noise ratio a net negative. The underlying tone of hostility and aggressiveness he has employed pretty much since he started editing here has grown and become, in my opinion, abusive with almost an attitude of "I dare you to report me". I've been putting up with it from him for a while now and am finally at the point of where I'm saying 'enough'. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Adding this example of further personal attacks by ML on August 6, 2015 at my talk page: "You are a typical bully of Wikipedia. You should be embarrassed. I'm not going to engage with someone who lies like you did when you claimed that I was engaging in an edit war. That was a damn lie and since you are willing to flat out lie like that it is clear that having an intelligent discussion with you is not possible. It was not just a lie; it was a damnable lie." (diff here). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I said all of the things above. Yes. It is correct Winkelvi is a very aggressive editor. Yes, Winkelvi does not cooperate when he edits. Yes, he lectures others about things that he does not do himself. Yes, disagrees with my edits constantly and he immediately reverts them. Yes, I follow neutral point of view. Yes, I use reliable sources to back up my edits. Yes, I am good editor. I admit to all of these things. Yes, I have told Winkelvi to follow his own advice. Yes, I refused to read an essay, which is not Wikipedia policy and that made Winkelvi dig down even deeper to give me a second lecture about how I must read everything that he tells me to. Yes, I raised my issues with Winkelvi with an admin. Yes, no matter what article I go to edit to get away from Winkelvi he follows me there and starts reverting my edits. Yes, if Winkelvi does not like my style or working with me why does Winkelvi follow me wherever I go? It is nonsense. He engages in incivility but he complains about incivility. He does every single thing that he complains about. It makes no sense.--ML (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note: ML's claim that I am following him to articles is incorrect. All of the articles we have in common have been on my watchlist for months, in some cases, years. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I called Winkelvi a bully because he is constantly following me around bullying me. Why can't he see that? Yes, I called Winkelvi a bully because I make suggestions, no matter what they are, and he immediately disagrees and usually but not always reverts me. I admit that I called him a bully because he tells me that I have to read anything that he tells me to. I admit that I called him a bully because he does not even read the links that I provide him when we are attempting to have a conversation. Yes, I admit I called him a bully because he tells me that I don't listen to the other editors but I response to every editors comments. He just does not like what I have to say to the other editors. Yes, I admit I called him a bully because he acts like a bully.--ML (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hogwash!!! I went to the Jimmy Carter article to get away from him and he followed. I went to the Carly Fiorina article to get away from him and he followed. That is hogwash. Why is he following me around? It is creepy!--ML (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

My first edit to the Carter article was on 5 July 2015, yours was on 12 August 2015. Evidence of same here and here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle needs to cool it, and do that sooner than later. His approach to editing is highly combative and most definitively not helpful. A strong warning is certainly due. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A warning for what? Did you read the comments that Winkelvi quotes. There is nothing there. I would ask anyone who reads this to review the series of edits that led to these claims by Winkelvi. I edited the Carly Fiorina article so that it read correctly that Fiorina is the first woman to lead a "Fortune 20" company. It did not say that before. What is said: (1) in the first place it said something to the effect that "some people believe that Fiorina might be the first woman to lead a Fortune 20 company" which left the impression that may be she or may be she didn't and of course the truth is quite clear that she is was, without question, the first woman to be CEO of a Fortune 20 company and (2) in the second place it said she was the first woman to lead a top 20 U.S. company, which is not entirely true. I edited so that it states clearly that she is the first woman to be CEO of a Fortune 20 company. You immediately protested by stating, falsely, that there is no phrase such as "Fortune 20" and you wanted it reverted to back what it was. I pointed out clearly that I was quoting the reliable source word for word. Winkelvi immediately jumped in and stated that my edits needed to be reverted immediately. I told Winkelvi to review the reliable source and I provided him with a link to the reliable source that I quoted word for word. He did not read the correct link and then he immediately stated that my edit needed to be reverted because the incorrect link did not support my edit. I told him pay attention to my comments (the exact same thing that he claims against me constantly) and to read the right link. He then read the right link and he still demanded that my edits be reverted. You supported him during this silliness and so I went and looked up about 27 different reliable sources that supported my wording of the phrase "Fortune 20". And all of my 27 or so reliable sources not only used the phrase "Fortune 20", the exact same phrase that you and Winkelvi were demanding that my edits be reverted and removed from the article. Winkelvi gave me a lecture and told him again (for the sixth or seventh time) to follow his own advice. Neither you or Winkelvi took the time to do the simple research required to see that the phrase "Fortune 20" is a valid term of art and that it applies to Carly Fiorina and that is the correct way to phrase the topic. You both ganged up and attempted to force me to revert my edits immediately. When you say that my edits have "most definitely not helpful" that is just flat out not true. When I started editing the Fiorina article it was mass of POV pushing. For example, I took down a home-made stock price chart for HP that was chock full of false and defamatory information. It made the false and defamatory claim that the stock price for HP fell 65% during Fiorina time period. It had false and incorrect numbers in the stock chart to support this biased false conclusion of 65%. When I removed it you immediately reverted me and then you continued to revert me until I finally got the false and defamatory graph out of the article for good. Moreover, there was a "Controversy" section in the article even though it is long-time policy to remove "Controversy" sections, throw out what needs to go and work the information that is valid into the regular sections of the article. You have been fight that for the last week or so. You have been the rude the whole time. Now, the comments by quoted above might be rude and short, but they are not any less rude or short than the comments made by either you or Winkelvi. This complaint is ultimately about how to edit the Fiorina article and you and Winkelvi have decided that instead of moving forward with a civil debate about what the next step is you want to stop me from editing the article. This is ultimately a content dispute it is not about me being rude because if it was about rudeness then you and Winkelvi would be subject to the same restrictions. It is not a just a coincidence that this complaint happened moments after the two of you attempted to bully me into reverting a well-thoughtout, relevant, reliably source edit that I made in a neutral manner. And it is not just a coincidence that you and him both decided to work together on this complaint. If you were so concerned about rudeness then why don't you file a complaint against yourself or file a complaint against Winkelvi? Lord knows you will find tons of examples for both of you.--ML (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• TL;DR. You need to definitively cool it. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for adding support to my comments.--ML (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

ML: Do you want a civility block? Because if you don't change something quick in how you deal with other editors, that's what you're heading toward. Three veteran editors have told you the same thing as nicely as possible (one being an administrator). Do you really need more people to say the same before you heed the advice you're being given? Making some kind of a sincere indication here that you will change your attitude and behavior would be a good start. Or is a very stern warning something you'd rather see before turning things around? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This comment by you is a fine example of what I am talking about. I honestly believe that Cwobeel made the extraneous comment above to poke me in the eye by telling me flat out that he did not read what I wrote and that he just does not care what I have to say. His response makes it clear that he has no intention to work with me in a give and take manner. Now in response I wrote that I think that his comment does add support to what I have been saying. If you read what he directed me to it means "Too Long, Didn't Read". How can we have meaningful communication if he won't read what I wrote? We can't. Also, you have tag teamed with him and gave me a lecture that you do not care that what I wrote what sincere and serious. I think he added support to my comments by just telling me he is not going to read what I wrote. Then you started another lecture to me. Your lectures tell me that you are not serious about having a conversation, but just want me to go away. Also, I am sincere and serious when I say to you that you should apply some the same principals that you lecture me about to yourself. I am sincere when I say please listen to me and stop lecturing me and please follow your own advice. Nothing that I have in here is uncivil. You just don't like what I have to say. Those two things are different.--ML (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I give up. I've done everything I can to get you to see that you are going down a path that will lead to somewhere and something you don't want. Two other editors have tried, unsuccessfully, as well. Ironically, while accusing Cwobeel and I of collusion and conspiracy against you and making more non-AGF/uncivil remarks about us here, you took a totally different approach with Drmies at his talk page. Here, you continue to battle and behave in a hostile manner. This duplicity shows you know there are eyes on your behavior and will do what you can to stay out of dutch (no aspersion casting meant, Drmies!) but will still jab and make uncivil remarks toward those you see as enemies who can't hurt you like an administrator could. So, while I once thought you were only going the way of WP:IDHT and WP:NOTTHEM, it's starting to look like gaming the system could be part of this too. Whatever the case, I'm throwing my hands up on this, walking away, and will allow those who can actually do something that will make an impression on you to do exactly that. Obviously, what Cwobeel and I have said means little to nothing to you. So be it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• OK. I have not followed every link offered here, but I followed a few. I think we're dealing here with an escalation of tempers, and I hope that these editors can stay away from each other a bit more. Focus on the issues. I settled one, if it needed settling, and I'm sure that these reasonable editors will move on from that particular one. I do not think that the diffs Winkelvi provided are so terrible as to warrant administrative intervention, but I do think that MaverickLittle is a bit on the combative side. It is in their best interest to tone that down some--it makes working with other editors that much easier. And that, of course, goes for everyone involved here, including yours truly. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC).

Fair enough.--ML (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Update: 36 hours later, and nothing has changed with this editor. Still making rude comments directed at specific editors, and after telling an administrator Drmies he would tone it down. Both Cwobeel and I have tried to reason with this editor, asking him numerous times to comment on edits, not editors. When given basic, non-threatening advice, shown policy, asked questions, or reminded to keep his comments about edits alone, his responses are as follows: "That is pure extrapolation on your part. Do not read into the comments that is not there. That is you...Please stop with the false and incorrect lectures and warnings." found here; "did your comment improve the article? No." found here. When Cwobeel also tells him enough is enough, ML responds, "You are absolutely right. WV's comment was absolute nonsense. I agree." found here. Cwobeel informs ML that is was his comments he was referring to, ML responds, "And I was referring to his. Also, if don't want the conversation to keep going why are participating in it? You need to focus on constructive edits. found here. My response was that nothing has changed and he has not lived up to his agreement with Drmies. His response to that was more WP:IDHT: "I agree. You should not be rude such as when you told me that my comments "were not helpful" when they were completely helpful. Please stop being rude. Nothing in your behavior has changed. found here. This editor does not want to change his behavior and attitude -- even after indicating he would do so. My personal feeling is that it has nothing to do with not getting it. It has to do with not caring if he gets it because he believes his edits are so valuable to Wikipedia that no one with any authority here will do anything to keep him from editing. Just like his self-praise in his comments above, the edit summaries he leaves also indicate a very cocky attitude (just one example: "I just provided another great solution...Oh, yes, my work is damn helpful."). Like I said two days ago, unless someone makes a very strong impression on him that his behavior is not acceptable, he won't change. My prediction has come to fruition. How much longer will this go on? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, MaverickLittle is unlikely to behave differently. If combativeness and lack of good faith was the only problem, somehow we could simple ignore and get on with doing the work. But when the editor starts misusing sources [282] then we have a real problem. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, frankly, I see it all going hand-in-hand. If one is allowed to slide (lack of AGF and personal attacks), then why wouldn't misuse of sources and synthesis be allowed as well? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not misuse any sources. That is a bald untruth. Do not make things up. That claim is bald faced untruth. Please stop.--ML (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You did, as Cwobeel has pointed out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Update A couple of days more, and MaverickLittle is still attacking editors with comments designed to belittle their editing and efforts to discuss issues on talk pages as seen here (calling an editor's questions and concerns "silliness". He dares anyone to do anything about it. As I have stated twice, if something isn't done that will make a definite impression on him, the behavior and nastiness will continue (as it is now). There has been no change, no indication that he wants to change or treat fellow editors more kindly. Drmies, I know you are currently busy with the Malik Shabazz "issue", but I am asking for some help. Direction, guidance, something that will give a solution. He appeared to listen to you before, only to return to the same behavior almost immediately. What else can be done except to ignore his biting comments directed at other editors? Are we to employ WP:ROPE? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a suggestion Winkelvi. Please stop following me around. You have started editing the Ted Cruz article and have followed me over there. Why do you have to be everywhere that I am, if you dislike editing with me so much. You seem to enjoy the bickering and the browbeating. Please go find other places to edit.--ML (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not followed you to the Cruz article or any article. The Ted Cruz article has been on my watchlist for quite some time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Winkelvi, but I don't think that the particular utterance of "silliness" was particularly nasty. At any rate, it's in reference to commentary, not to an editor per se. As you know there are plenty of editors whose means of communication are objectionable; there isn't always something we can do about it except ask for more consideration. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 18 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.

SavEyChauhan

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:SavEyChauhan has created two pages that are a weird mixture of being autobiographies and duplicates of Andy Biersack. The articles are Savey and SavEyChauhan. I couldn't think of a speedy deletion criterion these pages fell under (other than A10 before one was rewritten), but they clearly should not continue existing any longer than necessary. Everymorning (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:CSD#G3 applies, but I'm going for WP:CSD#A7. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The same person also created this Template:Infobox Developer which needs some form of attention as well. MarnetteD|Talk 20:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's CSD A7: the notability of the subject was not asserted. The template appeared to be a first attempt to create, so I deleted it under CSD G2. I deleted the articles CSD A7. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for filling us in and for taking care of the necessaries C.Fred MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 18 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.

Problems with 4TheWynne

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 Wikipedia, I'm a very frequent contributor to the music band wikis and this guy 4TheWynne is absolutely being rude to me. So I was trying to help the readers get a better idea of what members contributed on releases by adding more than just studio albums onto timelines of the band members and then he messaged me telling me i was tredding on his pages and I needed to stop trying to help people and completely give up contributing because it was going to be removed by him every time. Then, he even went as far as to tell me my contributions were useless and reported me. Then he said i was "vandalizing." Not to mention, he was extremely rude about the whole thing. Also, he told me he "gave me many warnings" but this was the first time I ever heard from him. what sort of position is this guy in to do this to me? Why is he trying to start stuff? Can i get my account back track? thanks, Cameronsmiley2345qwerty (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Procedural note: 4TheWynne has been notified about this thread. —C.Fred (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Two things:

• Firstly, I actually chose the "disruptive editing" warning on the most recent occasion, so I didn't mean to say "vandalising" on his talk page in this instance (not sure how that happened). Most of this user's edits were made without consensus (discussion on the appropriate talk page), which is part of the reason why I was telling him to stop making these edits. And I definitely made it known to him more than once – along with Sergecross73, an administrator, who agreed with my reasoning. Then, this morning, he went as far as to edit my personal band page, which I saw as a really low blow (I don't like other editors editing within my userspace, as it is personal), before going to my talk page and leaving me a message. I was by no means being rude, I just wasn't happy that he ignored my previous warnings and went onto my personal band page.

• Secondly, half of what this user has accused me of is completely made up. As I said, this user never went to a single talk page before making these edits to timelines. I never asked him to "stop trying to help people and completely give up contributing" and never said that his edits "[were] going to be [reverted] by me every time". And I definitely did not say that his contributions were "useless", nor did I report him. I am by no means trying to "start stuff", nor am I intentionally trying to be rude to this editor.

So, it's clear that this user has panicked and reported me. Additionally, he did so without notifying me first – it took C.Fred to do so. I don't believe I have a case to answer for. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:45, 19 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:Mqst north

This user continually ignores consensus thinking that his way is the only way. This has been discussed with him on his talk page at User talk:Mqst north#A bit of free advice and the following paragraph also applies following his incorrectly accusing editors who disagree with as sockpuppets. In Talk:Bomaderry railway station#Platform allocations discussion has been taking place concerning changes he has made to that article. He has totally ignored consensus and has continued making similar changes to other stations removing templates which are accepted as being used in stations worldwide and replacing them with his own verbage.Kiama railway station has been totally ruined by him in this way. He has added good historic information but this should not be done at the expense of other information. I believe his attitude in this and other articles such as WestConnex where he has for a third time deleted an infobox against consensus is totally unacceptable in Wikipedia.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression we were reaching agreement on the specifics at the relevant talk pages. Clearly, you regard my suspicions of sock puppetry/meatpuppetry to be a personal attack, and interpreted it as an escalation, but I think there is a reasonable prima facie case to be made there. In any case, this is not an appropriate place to litigate that issue. Mqst north (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We were close to reaching agreement on one point only and that was the non enclyclopedic nature of having full bus route lists within each station. But no agreement or consensus whatsoever on the removal of the universally used templates which define services and neighbouring stations and hence such changes should not be continued until some agreement or consensus is reached. Hence this report or your continual ignoring of wikipedia procedures. It has nothing to do with the sockpuppet allegations about me and User talk:JCN217 although they certainly do not improve our relationship.Fleet Lists (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed nationalistically motivated page move on Vladimir the Great

A number of IPs have recently, without prior discussion and support on the talk page of the article, changed every instance of the name Vladimir the Great, the common name in English, to the Ukrainian version of the name, Volodymyr in the article, and minutes ago EricLewan, who, judging by their talk page and contributions, have been repeatedly edit-warring over the name Kiev/Kyiv on multiple articles, moved the article, again without prior discussion and support on the talk page, from Vladimir the Great to Volodymyr Sviatoslavych, a name that is totally unknown to English speakers. So I request both a move back to the original name (which I can't do since it was done over a redirect), and full move protection until the matter has been settled on the talk page, the way it should have been done before the move.

I would also welcome a discussion here about both the name of the article and the, to me at least, seemingly organised attempts by several editors to both change all mentions of names that are even loosely connected to the Ukraine, both of cities and of historical persons and entities, to the modern day Ukrainian versions of them, even though for example Vladimir the Great and Kievan Rus' predate both the Ukraine and the Ukrainian language as we know it by several hundred years. Thomas.W ^talk 16:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I moved it back, per the previous talk page consensus at a requested move. You don't need admin powers to undo a page move. BethNaught (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried to move it, but the system wouldn't let me do it. Moves over a redirect often require admin powers, BTW, to remove/delete the redirect and make way for the move... Thomas.W ^talk 16:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of that; this case falls into the limited exception. Strange it didn't work for you though, since it worked for me and I'm not an admin. BethNaught (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If the redirect has been edited after the move, you need to be an admin to move it back; not otherwise. I don't know how the system could have stopped you, Tom. What exactly happened? Bishonen | talk 16:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

I got a message that said that the page had been moved back, even though it obviously hadn't been. (If the name of Vladimir the Great should be changed to the original name it wouldn't be the modern day Ukrainian version of the name, BTW, but to Valdemar Sveinarsson, since he was Scandinavian, not Ukrainian...) Thomas.W ^talk 16:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Just guessing, but you might have hit the undo button, which will give you an erroneous "The edit appears to have already been undone." Along with "You may have attempted to undo a pagemove or protection action; these cannot be undone this way." Instead of hitting undo, you should have hit the move button. Just guessing, but that was usually what I saw happen. (Used to do a lot of page move undo's back in the day). Rgrds. --64.85.217.37 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's possible since I was a bit upset when I did it. The reason I was upset was that I very much dislike attempts to falsify history, such as the repeated attempts to make Vladimir the Great a Ukrainian, even though there was no such thing as a Ukrainian people or a Ukrainian language back then. The Ukraine is also far from the only present day country that can rightfully claim descent from the Rus'. Thomas.W ^talk 12:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Many problems with cut and paste merger without discussion (several articles)

Editor Lfstevens recently manually cut and pasted several pages. However, as i pointed out, the merging of several articles lacks in many regards (subjective content deletion, rewrite of lede per none RS, selective reference removal, just to name a few issues). The user edit history contains many summaries with merge, all appear to be not in line with WP procedure. The user also was notified on his talk page on August 12 by editor shoy to follow WP:Merge and contact admin Moonriddengirl, which he didn't. I also asked the editor to respond on his talk page. prokaryotes (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have limited time right now but have left a note at his talk page explaining the situation a bit more completely and asking him to assist with one of the recent issues. A glance shows that this may be a widespread issue in need of repair, but further assessment is needed there. I think it's worth emphasizing to people that this attribution is a legal requirement and mandatory under our Terms of Use. There is an effort to attribute at [283]; I believe this is a good faith effort, although inconsistent as this is also copied, but without attribution. It should be reparable, as long as Lfstevens is willing to assist.

I would very much like to know which administrator he has been working with and references here. I do not see edits to any user talk page other than his own in recent history, or to Wikipedia space or engagement on the issue at any article talk pages. If there is an admin who was notified of "the whole mess" and didn't advise, I'd like to be sure said admin is conscious of the legal issues as well. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi folks. I am just about through with the editing process on a bunch of articles about the Sun. Before beginning, I requested feedback on the project on the talk pages of the major articles involved. The only feedback I got was encouragement. I did not contact an administrator when requested because I had not finished and therefore was unsure of exactly what admin help was required and didn't want to waste anyone's time. I plan only a couple of additional changes at this point. In the end, three existing articles ended up as redirects, one of which has already had its history moved. Most of my changes were moves, rather than copies. Finally, most of my pastes also involved revisions along the way, if that matters.

Sorry for any violations that may have ensued. I am happy to do whatever I can to remedy any problems. I hope that doesn't involve reverting everything. I'm surprised that in all my 10ks of edits I've never run into this before (either as an editor or as an observer). Always more to learn. Lfstevens (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do the following: Tag the destination page's talk page with {{merged-from|source page|date}}, and the source page's talk page with {{merged-to|destination page|date}}. Place these tags at the top of the talk pages. -- from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging#How_to_merge However, it is unclear at this point if a merge must be reverted. If you use sources, links to other wiki websites are not sufficient.

prokaryotes (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I generally retained the sources from the original articles, which generally did not use wiki sources. To summarize, for material that was copied from one article to another, I should used {{copied}} and for material that was moved, I should use {{merge-to/from}}. And for the redirects, the history should be moved. Is that correct? Lfstevens (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Re other wiki websites: The edit about you adding links to wiki websites to the lede, can be found here. Someone has to go to all your related activities and assess your decisions when you removed or added content. prokaryotes (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to be obtuse, but I don't see any use of wiki sources in that edit. The refs were to external sites (merriam webster, etc.) Are you referring to the File? Lfstevens (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Both links are not reliable (they don't cite any sources, and we do not link to other dictionaries or Enceclopedia. Please read WP:RS, additionally carefully read WP:OR. The lede is wrong, Solar irradiance (also Insolation -- this is not in the cited sources and could be considered original research. prokaryotes (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Those links were in the Insolation article where I found the material. Lfstevens (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why you think Insolation and Solar irradiance should be merged, do you have any source for this? According to some websites these are two different things. prokaryotes (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

From the version I merged: "Insolation (from Latin insolare, to expose to the sun)[1][2] is the power per unit area produced by the Sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation. It is also called solar irradiation." (I would so much rather have had this discussion before I did the work. Where were you then?) Lfstevens (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You can hardly complain now when you did a merger without a merger discussion. I guess you just merged the pages because you thought it might be okay, but you have not researched each subject to be sure. prokaryotes (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Lfstevens, no deletion should be necessary, as long as the content is properly attributed now. But it does require that you acknowledge the copying in edit summary, and it does require (where taking is extensive) acknowledgement of the copying on the talk pages of the articles. Where content is merged, the template used above is a good idea. Where it's just copied, {{copied}} is the way to go. Even if you modify the content, you have to attribute to meet the requirements of our licenses. The question of whether isolation and solar irradiance should be merged is really a content discussion and likely best at the article's talk page or at personal talk page. Administrative intervention is not need there, at least at this stage, but we do need to address the copyright issues. (Even if a merger is reverted, for attribution history, the edit summary should be used.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the user is well aware of merging, see this past edit. I'd like to point out that a merger on these solar articles is a good idea, but he needs to add the required data as mentioned above, and should respond on the talk page about his merge edits. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Mergers include There is this merger from Solar variation into Solar cycle (See in particular this old content), and a merger from Insolation into Solar irradiance (See also talk page there), and moved Solar and celestial effects on climate to Orbital effects on climate and Solar and celestial effects on climate, and then moved content to new article Solar activity and climate.prokaryotes (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we're getting to closure here. If I understand the rules, what I need to do is:

- use {{merge-to}}/{{merge-from}} on Solar irradiance/Insolation and Solar phenomenon/Solar activity. Administrators will handle the history merge. - use {{copied}} on Solar cycle X, Solar cycle (to Solar phenomenon and Solar activity and climate), Solar activity and Sunspot (to Solar cycle and Solar activity and climate) and Solar irradiance to Solar activity and climate. Happy to make those changes, once they are confirmed. Please let me know of any other things needed. Lfstevens (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I looked more closely at the merger of 3 articles and it appears that it is basically okay, though there night be an issue with Solar irradiance and insolation, but this might be covered at one place. There are still some problems, as mentioned above, but i think this can be worked out. When you have specific questions about merging i can only point you to the guides, also linked above. You should at least add the templates to the talk pages, i guess this would resolve the copyright concerns too.prokaryotes (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks prokaryotes and Moonriddengirl for sorting this out. shoy (reactions) 13:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Violation of 1RR on sanctioned article.

User:Jason_from_nyc Has violated the 1RR rule on Margret Sanger, an sanctioned article. He has reverted edits by more than three editors simultaneously. This is becoming a problem as Jason has been pushing against the controversies section for the notably controversial activist and has used his ability of completely ignoring the 1RR to seriously cripple any chance of the article maintaining any neutrality. Chrononem ☎ 12:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the complaint. I have discussed and achieved a consensus in the talk for my changes. I have objected to Chrononem's original research and others have agreed. I have left a comment on Chrononem's talk about about his original research and refusal to provide secondary sources. I will be away for most of the day but would like to know exactly what Chrononem is talking about so that I can respond Jason from nyc (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think WP:1RR has been violated. At any rate, a report like this should be at WP:AE because the article (according to boxes at the top of Talk:Margaret Sanger) is under discretionary sanctions. I didn't examine the diff but it superficially seems ok, and Jason from nyc is making a lot of sense on the talk page. A very quick look makes me wonder if this edit is reasonable—are you sure that someone working in the early 1900s was doing anything like the bad things that a modern interpretation of "eugenics" entails? Johnuniq (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

My edit was reasonable as I was restoring two good edits along with the bad one. Arxiloxos was doing the same thing as Jason except he stopped when he was told of the 1RR in place. If you examine the diff in the articles you'll see that he reverted multiple edits by at least three editors. All I ask is that he be warned about the 1RR by someone with authority and told to restrict his reversions to one per day. Chrononem ☎ 12:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You're getting confused by the term 1RR. Under 1RR restrictions, a person is allowed one revert in a 24-hour period; it doesn't matter how many edits were caught in that revert, they have still only reverted once. That doesn't mean that revert was correct or anything, but reverting 3 edits (as an example) in one action is not breaking 1RR. Therefore, Jason_from_nyc did not break 1RR - Happysailor ^(Talk) 15:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, is 24.216.168.184 you editing logged out? Looking at a post on your talk page where you said you reverted multiple times, it suggests that it's you. If it is, you reverted twice in 3 hours on a 1RR article... - Happysailor ^(Talk) 15:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

1RR requires that you do not make two reverting edits in a 24-hour period. As you made a revert at 22:23 on 16 August (UTC), your revert at 15:49 on 17 August was a breach of 1RR. NebY (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This discussion made me guess that blocks would be inappropriate: like 3RR blocks, 1RR blocks should be handed out when people are reverting instead of discussing, or reverting while discussing, but here it looked like people were discussing instead of reverting. However, the page history showed me that lots of people were edit-warring, and while not too many were violating 1RR, we had a multi-sided edit war on our hands, so I just protected the whole thing (see "Content disputes" near the top of WP:FPP) for 24 hours. As I said at the talk page, just come to my talk page to request uncontroversial changes, whether typo fixes or simple factual things, or to ask me to lengthen/shorten/remove the protection. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I inadvertently made one revert logged out, you can see it was me by the summary. and I wasn't intending to have to make an additional reversion so I was not timing my edits to avoid two in 22 hours. Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding of the 1RR rule if I had understood that an editor could remove many edits I would not have made an additional reversion myself. With this new information I can see that good part of the edit war was a result of my own ignorance. Chrononem ☎ 18:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible legal threat at Jerry Speziale

Is this a legal threat? I also received this note from a different, just-registered user on my talk page this morning, which may be related. The article has had legal threats made over it previously, see previous ANI thread and the recent discussion at COIN for context. SPAs and apparent COI editing has been a huge headache on this article - it was semi-protected for 6 months yesterday. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• The first diff, IMO, is not a legal threat, but a request to clean up what they believe if defamatory material. The second is closer to the line, but probably still under it as there is no overt threat to go to court, nor a thinly veiled threat. It's probably connected to the COI issue, and based on the language used in all, probably socks. You may have better luck at WP:SPI. GregJackP Boomer! 22:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There is now [284] and [285]. Zarcusian (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• All of those comments qualify as legal threats under Wikipedia guidelines. The users posting them must be blocked. However, it would behoove someone to investigate whether the complaints have merit in terms of BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52: removed some material from the article yesterday, I think (though I'm making an assumption here) in response to an OTRS complaint. Even then, I think the problem was that the general tone or balance of the article was too negative rather than that there were any BLP violations as such. Never hurts to have someone heretofore uninvolved look it over though.

As I mentioned above and at COIN, this article has a long history of someone putting a lot of effort into making it read like a PR piece, I think we are very likely dealing with that same person or persons here. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, the changes were done completely in my personal volunteer capacity, as opposed to any sort of OTRS action or edit request made via that channel. Mdann52 (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Mdann52, sorry for jumping to that conclusion! Fyddlestix (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is a definate legal threat. The rest of the comments have a chilling effect, intended or otherwise. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hi I'm a physician with experience in biomedical ethics. I have added a part of a scientific paper of one of my colleagues which focused on the importance of including medical ethics in training programs to "Ethics" but Jytdog deleted that post without any explanation and finally mentioned conflicts of interest as the reason even when I suggested adding that part without any citation. I believe that it's really inappropriate that a non-expert user abuse his/her administrative ability to just based on a biased judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad1985k (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note: When creating a thread about a user on ANI, you are supposed to leave a notice on their talk page, as it says at the top of the page. In this case, I have done so for you. However, please keep this in mind. Thank you. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see No original research and Citing sources, along with Conflict of interest. While I'm sure you are expert in biomedical ethics, you seem to have missed the fact that Wikipedia relies on cited, reliable, published sources to ensure that we don't offer an encyclopedia full of misinformation, conjecture and non-expert personal opinion. Your suggestion that the content be posted without any citation was correctly rejected as it does not solve the problem. General Ization ^Talk 20:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, did you notify Jytdog that you were bringing your objection to his action here, as is required so he can present his side of the dispute? General Ization ^Talk 21:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Attention is brought to this note to jytdog and this note on my talkpage left by M1985k. I think he needs to be brought up to speed on how we do things here. "Take a part in a scientific entry if only and only you know enough to talk about" ain't it. — Brianhe (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I invited him to the teahouse; hope that helps. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• This user seems intent on ramming citations from a certain author into articles. There are communications issues, it seems plausible that English may not be his first language. People are trying to help him and there's nothing more to do in this thread, but.... how come he found his way to the drama board with his 11th edit? This smells of fish to me. Or rather, duck. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oops, I didn't realize that the OP was the same user I invited to the teahouse. At any rate, I agree with all of Guy's points; and frankly, maybe the OP should consider other options. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

CIR at Bhumihar

Please can someone review the efforts of Chrishitch (talk · contribs), in particular at Talk:Bhumihar. While this is underpinned by a content dispute, the real problem seems to be one of competence and tendentiousness. They seem unable to comprehend what our article says regarding the various theories of origin for that caste. We're getting long screeds and after Bgwhite closed the first discussion, Chrishitch began all over again. They still do not understand what our article says and seem to think that the source is giving one theory when in fact it is examining several.

They've had an explanatory note from Bgwhite on their talk page and also formal notification of WP:GS/Caste. They're the latest in a long line of people who have tried to change this reliably sourced article, most apparently being members of the caste in question and several being socks.

We're well into WP:CIR territory and I'm likely to lose my temper sooner rather than later, having kept a lid on it thus far. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are certainly problems of competence, and at the same time some indications that they're not a new user. I've asked about those indications on their page. Just take it easy, please, Sitush. Sit on the lid. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

Oh, the indications were there from an early stage and I am gratified to see that someone else has spotted that they might exist. But even without those, this is something that probably should not have required me to raise the issue here. By my standards, which I realise some people think are not that high, I'm sitting remarkably firmly on the lid. It does look like I need yet another break, during which the rubbish will continue to flood umpteen caste-related articles and be accepted by experienced contributors who tinker round the edges with gnomish edits etc, making it harder to spot the real issues that underlie their well-intentioned efforts. They mean well but we really do need to clamp down in this area, especially regarding WP:V - if an addition is not reliably sourced then bin it.

We've lost several of the few admins who take an interest in that area and I'm afraid that it means WP:GS/Caste will lack the support that it should have, sans frequent referrals here. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Be more specific than "please review his efforts." The talk page is over 100k, incomprehensible in many places and there's IP addresses, and numerous unsigned comments. Please do a little more than say "look at the talk page" and pointing to a discussion that was closed (without a single link in the discussion to the source in question) and reopened again. Did you ask User:Bgwhite (an administrator who seemed to have forgotten a signature to the close) about it? I still have no idea in all the edits all over the place what is the problematic article edit at issue here (if any). I have zero idea of its a legitimate issue with both sources or just nonsense all around or what. The editor's conduct at Patna seems fine so I don't know what's going on and what sort of ban or block or protection if any is appropriate. As someone who deals with plenty of this caste idiocy, other admins aren't going to jump in if you don't make the discussion easier enough to follow than "here's an editor editing an caste issue, please help." It may be obvious to you what are reliable sources and what are people spouting unsourced dogma about every caste being kings and whatever nonsense de jour but ANI is basically fly-by-screen admins requests. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that useless commentary, Ricky81682. You clearly cannot see the wood for the trees; for example, the incomprehensibility is a part of the CIR problem with their edits. Please don't bother responding to me in future. - Sitush (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't be a dick to your fellow contributors. Someone asked you for some helpful followup information and you told them to piss up a rope. How does that help resolve anything? Protonk (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• That attitude is why reports like these goes straight into the archive without a comment and why admins don't care to get into the caste articles. The ones who do get attacked equally for asking for an explanation as much as they do from the trolls. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Think whatever you like. I'll always think better when it comes to caste stuff. If you cannot see the blindingly obvious then that is not my fault. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Think what better? Think that just naming people and saying "it's another caste issue" is going to get these things resolved? Were my questions so ridiculously out of place or offensive or something? I just asked if you spoke with the admin who closed the discussion and what is the actual source at issue (literally not one person once linked to it in the entire discussion section). I read the entire damn discussion, it was nutty as hell, but I don't know who Kumar is, I couldn't find the actual source everyone is arguing about (the entire argument is about a single word so it would be actually helpful to know what the hell everyone is complaining about). Another admin closed the discussion and didn't block Chrishitch which should mean something. You expect someone to just say "hey if Sitush says there's a caste article issue, well let me block him right now, there's no point in even seeing what the actual source anyone is talking about or asking what the admin who was involved there before did or didn't do or if anyone spoke to him, just go right in and be the bull in a china shop because no one should have to provide background information"? If those are the kinds of questions that require too much work to respond to, make you need to take a break from the subject matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• "I'm likely to lose my temper sooner rather than later, having kept a lid on it thus far." Sitush, how would we tell the difference and why should any of us give a rip if you do? Protonk (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682 asked if I'd comment as I was the one who closed the discussion. I don't think a block is warrantied, yet. Chrishitch does have competency issues. Currently, Chrishitch is correcting grammar on multiple pages and causing the same amount of problems as they are correcting. When I closed the discussion, on Sitush's talk page I left, "I've closed the discussion as it was going nowhere. I'd highly suggest not to respond to them anymore." There is obvious meatpuppet or sockpuppet issues on that page which is why I did page protection. When it comes to Bhumihar, I think the best option is continued page protection if problems resume when current PP is lifted. As for Chrishitch, will need to keep an eye on them. A block will probably warranted if they continue down their current path. Bgwhite (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There seem to have arisen many issues with my conduct and competence viz

1. Tendentious editing
2. Sock issues
3. Content dispute
4. Insolence
5. Incompetence

I don't wish to contest any of the issues here , may be i cannot judge myself . However,plz bother to scrutinize the edits i have attempted to make. I may be an incompetent editor, but in my incompetent endeavour i have tried improving some wiki articles. These articles are in a very very bad shape. They are replete with unsourced , whimsical content. These articles are neither protected nor edited properly. May be they warrant more attention from competent people than my modest efforts at making them a tad better with my perceived incompetence. rahila 10:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC) (talk)

• The talk page is very mysterious. Clearly there is a lot of talking past one another going on. The situation is not helped by obscure wording in the sources. For example (a cite used in one version of the article)

"He consequently ascribed to them kshatriya status. Gait followed suit in his census report at the turn of the century, though he left the question of Bhumihar status officially unresolved..."

From this one protagonist uses "Gait followed suit in his census report at the turn of the century" to show that "Another census classified the Bhumihars as Kshatriyas.", but is reverted because of the second part (and following illustrative quote) "he left the question of Bhumihar status officially unresolved..." One cannot fault either party in this case. Without turning to the GOI census of India vol 6, part 1, page 379, one cannot gain clarity either, even that is not guaranteed to supply it.

Similarly "The Sabha concentrated almost entirely on asserting their claim as Bhumihars to Brahmin status by starting schools to teach Sanskrit and purge the community of Brahmin priests." As Sitush says it is not clear, without context, which community and which Brahmin priests. (It's not even clear if this is a direct quote from the source, or a statement relying on the source.)

Unless Chrishitch can respond to these types of question with pertinent answers (or even "I don't know.") it is hard for other editors to communicate with him.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC).

Subtropical-man

I propose that Subtropical-man be topic-banned from all matters concerning deletion of pages concerning pornography, including in particular the removal of PROD nominations.
Subtropical-man rather volubly disagrees with the revisions to WP:PORNBIO enacted early last year, despite their being supported by an "overwhelming consensus among experienced editors." He has, for more than a year, expressed his disagreement by objecting to virtually all proposed deletion nominations of porn performer articles, without regard to the merits of the nominations, with uncommunicative edit summaries. (Examples: [286], [287], [288], [289], [290]. A full listing would require significant work by an administrator, because most of the deprodded articles have gone to AFD and been deleted uncontroversially, removing the relevant edit history from public view.) This indiscriminate PROD removal has led to scores of unnecessary AFDs, leading to complaints about the volume. See comments on @Spartaz:'s talk page here [291]. Subtropical-man's behavior in the resulting and related AFDs has also been disruptive, in recent months including:

• False accusations of personal attacks for criticism of his arguments Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrina Kraven
• Striking comments by other editors (in this case, @Tarc:) [292]
• Ridiculously tendentious arguments ("how do I know if current WP:PORNBIO is not prank by some IP?") [293]
• False (and rather obviously false) accusation of topic ban violations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Diesel (this AFD is messy, but see my comment here [294]
• Harassing an editor he disagreed with by refiling an SPI claim without providing any new evidence, after the initial claim was rejected "in the absence of actual evidence". [295] (original); [296] (refile)

The length and range of misbehaviour is striking, but the indiscriminate, WP:POINTY deprodding is itself enough to justify the topic ban. Subtropical-man has pretty clearly acknowledged that his PROD removals are not made in any good faith dispute over the subject's notability under the applicable guidelines, but to force interminable rearguments about the applicable SNG every time an effort is made to enforce it [297][298]. And "arguments" like "how do I know if current WP:PORNBIO is not prank by some IP?" would never be made by a reasonable, good faith user. Eighteen months of this has proved far too disruptive and wasted far too much of the community's time, and it's time for it to stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Subtropical man !votes indiscriminately "keep" at all discussions without checking out, pondering and evaluating the actual merit of any particular subject, and thus doesn't add anything of value to the discussion. Kraxler (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding: I don't support the topic ban because they vote "keep". The key word here is indiscriminately. They vote, if they vote at porn bios, always "keep" and state "passes PORNBIO", although, as a question of fact, and conceded by all other voters in the few AfDs with a "keep" result, the bio does not pass PORNBIO. The guideline was amended recently, and is very well defined. Obviously they even are on the winning side in a few cases, having voted "keep", but all other voters in these cases voted "keep" because the subject passes GNG, not PORNBIO. Thus, Subtropical man's votes are useless and disruptive, and being topic-banned from porn-related AfDs just lowers the amount of aspersions and unhelpful discussions, without any bad side effects. Kraxler (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Borderline WP:DE - editor should take this as a warning a think themselves lucky it's not going to harsher terms, such as a block. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose -please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, see links to AfD pages from 2014. I voted only in part, not in all AfD about pornography. In many Afd pages I don't vote, if the article was weak or person are not notable. If a person are notable, in my opinion, I voting for keep. Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) wrote: "This indiscriminate PROD removal has led to scores of unnecessary AFDs" - solution of problem: please stop try removed very many pornography articles. My WP:DEPRODs are problem? I did it only a dozen times. AfD is necessary for many articles, instead speedy delection (without discussion), for example: Dee (actress). Why deprod [299]? Please see article, this article is extensive, has a sources, image, 5x interwiki. And speedy delection? No, should be discussion. Please Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, almost always vote for delete the same users: The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), Spartaz, Gene93k, Davey2010, Tarc; other users very rarely vote. Now they're trying do topic banned for opposition. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban - I'm not at all a fan of "Sub-tropicalman's" dePRODing of articles without improvement (I've tried to treat PRODs in the past like actual AfDs without needed the discussion), but the actual PROD guidelines technically allow for that kind of editing behavior: "Any editor may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag" and "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the 'proposed deletion/dated' tag from the article. You are encouraged, but not required, to" (emphasis mine).

Not all of the above evidence actually shows disruptive behavior either IMO, since Jennifer Luv & Babysitters (film) both won some likely major awards, the Shane Diesel AfD (and resulting DRV) was a huge mess that was mostly caused by a voluminous sockpuppet ("Redban"), and those supposed "bogus" SPI reports yielded some actual, needed results on that front.

What's mostly, really going on here at this time is that some are trying to engage in some (rapid?) "trimming of the fat" from many of the pornography-related BLPs on Wikipedia, which pleases some & possibly upsets some others. In any event, it is what it is... Guy1890 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - If I see one more thread here about conduct issues involving pornography, I will propose that pornography be placed under community general sanctions to get a few of the pro-porn and a few of the anti-porn editors topic-banned. For now, try being civil about pornography, even though some of you love it and some of you hate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - The deprodding although annoying isn't really that bad, It's the !voting that I'm concerned with, Sub Man has a habit of simply putting "Notable" or "per above" [300][301][302][303][304][305][306][307][308][309][310] and or on occasions will Keep "per nominations"[311][312][313][314][315][316][317][318] (Despite being told nominations don't count inregards to PORNBIO), It's simply distruptive and despite being guided more than once he's simply ignored everyone and continued regardless so personally feel Topic banning is the right move here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: generally, opinion by opposition of Subtropical-man i.e: The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), Spartaz, Gene93k, Davey2010, Tarc (who always vote differently than Subtropical-man) is clear. The opposition is opposition. Welcome are the opinions of other users, neutral users. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Since you are bringing me in, that "opposition" to your keep votes is the application of consensus guidelines that you reject wholesale and challenging of arguments not supported by facts. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) and Davey2010. I agree with opinion by user Robert McClenon (above), there are two sides in case: pro-porn and anti-porn editors, if topic-banned for pro-porn side, must to be also for anti-porn side. Anti-porn editors are responsible for remove hundreds of articles, they vote for the removal in all AfD pages about pornography in the last period. The length and range of misbehaviour is striking (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion#Closed) and their actions can be considered as destructive to Wikipedia. Previously, user Раціональне анархіст (Pax) and earlier user Redban who very many porn-articles marked to deletion got topic-ban (in AN/I). These users doing the same thing, so. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I am not seeing the type or depth of disruption that justifies community sanctions here. Without a whole lot more diffs on actionable misbehavior this does not seems like something that should be up for proposal. Proponents, please add more specific history about earlier issues, diffs, interventions, earlier admin actions, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There doesn't seem to be a great deal of disruptive behavior going on. Simply objecting to an AfD, even a poorly thought out objection, isn't worthy of a topic ban. Looking at his contribution log doesn't show any sort of edit warring or other. His English seems fairly broken so some of his replies come off strangely. I don't see anything on WP:DRN (which would seem a more appropriate venue for this) and no one has apparently tried talking to him (all I see on his talk page is a nomination for a userspace deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/Catfight by the same person who brought this ANI). According to WP:DDE ANI is one of the last resorts, not the first.--Savonneux (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although Subtropical-man's rationales for !keep in various porn-related articles don't always adhere to the current version of WP:PORNBIO (for example, nominations alone), I still think a topic ban is a little premature; in addition, as Guy1890 pointed out, deprodding an article without reason actually is allowed per WP:DEPROD. But to be honest, Robert McClenon's suggestion makes the most sense; and if it came to a topic ban at all with the current behavior that's going on on both sides of the pornography issue ("angry" arguments on the pro-porn side and the anti-porn side), sanctions should be given out to people on both sides of the issue, not just one side (whom those people should be, though, should be determined in their own respective threads, if necessary). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Although he only votes "delete" 4 or 5 percent of the time and "keep" 95% of the time, I find no reason to debar him from voicing his opinions in a civil manner at XfD discussions. Any more than I would debar those who vote to delete, say, 80% of the time. Wikipedia has enough people that we can afford some "inclusionists" and some "deletionists" to exist, I trust. That noted, I tend to prefer seeking some level of balance in my own positions, but grant forbearance to those who have different mileage. Collect (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• oppose. I have gone through subtropical-man's contributions, and they by and large seem responsible and competent. He also seems to be a natural counterbalance to the surprising amount of triggerhappy deletionists we have on english wiki. 89.243.10.130 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes, putting Nelson Rockefeller's mother on a list of performers in "catfight" pornography is just the sort of responsible, competent editing that is expected of Wikipedia editors. Only a ftriggerhappy deletionist would think otherwise. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • bad redirecting, Abby Aldrich is porn actress but in the Wikipedia, Abby Aldrich is redirect to Abby Aldrich Rockefeller (Abigail Greene "Abby" Aldrich Rockefeller). This error is not in article, there is in the sandbox (user space for building and correction data before introduction to articles). Your argument is ridiculous. I suggest you to go on vacation, you've done three personal attacks against another user [319][320][321], and an half of hour before you made nonsensical post here. Subtropical-man talk
      (en-2) 14:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, we know. Wolfowitz bad. Wolfowitz is picking on an oh-so-valuable troll who gets his kicks by WP:BITING inexperienced editors. Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Sea 1618 for more details. And your vital contribution to this discussion by maligning my character in lieu of, say, correcting the BLP violations in your moribund sandbox draft is a clear demonstration of the value your contributions carry. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • That's a pretty gross mischaracterisation of exactly what happened there. --Savonneux (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savonneux (talk • contribs) 10:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

What should I do about Tor exit nodes?

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.

---

When I blocked 2C0F:F930:0:3:0:0:0:221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for persistent vandalism today, they kindly informed me that the IP is a Tor exit node. What's that supposed to mean to me? That blocking them is pointless? Bishonen | talk 14:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: It means that it's an exit point for totally anonymous encrypted edits, like an open proxy where even the ones who operate the proxy don't know the real IP of the people using the proxy. And since Tor exit points per WP:Tor should be blocked on sight, it was a good block. Thomas.W ^talk 14:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Aren't Tor exit nodes auto-blocked? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. It's possible they weren't telling the truth, QEDK. Maybe they know an ignorant admin when they see one, and were having some fun. Anyway, the user will flit elsewhere, I expect. Sigh. Bishonen | talk 14:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

(edit conflict) @QEDK: Usually, yes, but no detection system is 100% accurate. Thomas.W ^talk 14:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Thomas.W: Oh, so that is it. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 15:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Genuine ToR nodes don't usually get auto-blocked, but they do get IP blocked as fast as we find them. (I don't know how we find them, but there is someone maintaining a list somewhere.) ToR nodes can be used by people from repressive regimes, both to browse and to edit. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

Which can be a good thing, that's why there's WP:IPBE. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Tor exit nodes are transitory, however part of the protocol involved keeping a full and up to date list. A copy can be seen here: [322]. Chillum 17:42, 17 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.

Erratic behavior by user:Andrewgprout

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 Andrewgprout has been erratically deleting my posts to the JAL 123 talk page. How can I stop this? --Westwind273 (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

If you stop making comments like this one, they will stop getting deleted. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not improvements to government policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Describing what actually happened would be an improvement to the article. If you delete my comment on this basis, then you will probably also need to delete about 40% of what is written on Wikipedia talk pages, especially the smaller articles. I am really sick of this hypocrisy toward my comments. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The comments were restored. References were asked for, and supplied. Life goes on.

In an ideal world, the references would have come with the original comments.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 18 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 vandalism at Summerside, Prince Edward Island

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

---

IP 216.36.168.227 is persistently vandalising Summerside, Prince Edward Island. Citobun (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. —Soap— 03:59, 20 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:Michael Drew and bare urls

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 hope this is the correct place to raise this matter.

Michael Drew (talk · contribs) is consistently using bare urls for inline citations ([323], [324], [325], [326], [327], [328]; it is more of the same going back many months), seemingly in contradiction to WP:CS#Avoid embedded links and WP:BAREURLS. This has been brought to his attention by at least two editors at his talk page. However, he refuses to respond and continues the habit.

I believe he may require a word from an admin and subsequently some mentorship from an experienced editor. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoid_embedded_links which you link to gives good advice: "Since any citation that accurately identifies the source is better than none, do not revert the good-faith addition of partial citations. They should be considered temporary, and replaced with more complete, properly formatted citations as soon as possible."

The addition of a bare URL while not the ideal state for an article is a step in the correct direction for the purposes of establishing verifiability. I don't think failing to use the correct reference formatting is a behavioural issue. These things can be fixed later through regular editing. Chillum 00:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Creating citations can be a drag, I should know. But yeah, bare URLs should be avoided whenever possible. Perhaps Webreflinks or reFill could be used by this editor. They're not perfect, but they usually get you halfway there. I do agree the lack of communication on this issue is worrying. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

As a non-admin who sometimes adds bare URLs and sometimes turns the bare URLs of others into fully formatted URLs, my suggestion is not to hector this editor at all. Someone has already made the suggestion to him. His edits may not leave the article in the idealized state, but as long as they are improving the article - and adding cited information is doing so - then he's not a problem, and he should not be made to feel like he's a problem. If the complaining editor is unhappy with Wikipedia not being idealized in this particular manner, he is free to use his energy to format the citations. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The information added is worthy, yes. However, taken in its totality, it's accompanied by what must be hundreds of bare url inline citations. If you'd like to convert each and every one of those, be my guest!

Of course, the increasing number of bare urls is not the lone issue. There's also the total non-responsiveness to notifications (not hectoring) that we shouldn't be using bare urls for citations. If you look at his talk page, he was back in May gently pointed (by two editors) to all the relevant guidelines. Yet, he posted no response and continued through May, June, July, and August adding bare url after bare url. It's clearly deliberate. Altogether, the actions don't strike me as either responsible or cooperative. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

So the "issue" is that in addition to doing edits that add sourced information to Wikipedia, he is not bothering to respond to people who are telling him that he's not doing enough good in his volunteer work on this vast project? Good for him. It is not incumbent on him to respond, nor to only do edits that meet your idea of perfection. You are not this person's boss, he has not done harm, he does not owe you or anyone else a response. That you are trying to turn administrators on him is clearly deliberate. If he has chosen to ignore the requests thus far, siccing more folks on him would be harassment. We don't go after people for adding stub articles, so long as they establish notability, even though starting with a viable featured article candidate would of course be better, and we have plenty of guidelines on how that would be achieved. Planting the stub can help the full article eventually appear. Similarly, we may have an ideal for what a reference should look like, but as long as the ref is there, he's given the basis for others to drag the ball closer to the goal line, if that's the work they choose to do. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

In other words: Wikipedia guidelines and the manual of style are optional; whether or not one follows them depends upon one's whim. Interesting opinion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, yes, that's what guidelines mean, and they all say so explicitly right at the top. Formatted citations would be better than bare links, but bare links are better than nothing; since they're improved the situation, it's good stuff. Ignoring someone who's pestering you is a pretty civil response, dragging someone to ANI because they're not doing the work you can't be bothered to do is a pretty rude response. WilyD 06:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. I said very clearly at the top I hoped this was the right place to raise the topic; as in: I wasn't sure if this is the appropriate place or not, but I couldn't find anywhere else after looking. The passive-aggressive accusations of persecution are sad and misplaced.

Well, it's good to know I can opt not to follow guidelines and the MoS, if I choose to. I can just dump raw data at the top of articles, without proper syntax or context, with some bare urls for sources, and let other people do the rest of the work. Here I was thinking all this time I was responsible for making sure my work met some kind of project-wide standards. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Better than fake citations. There's guides on how you can google to get the names of books and just "cite" them for whatever you want. Make people really work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.204 (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

We should accept these positive edits and be thankful that a user is taking the effort to provide an actual source. While bare links have the problem of going stale it is still better than no reference at all and the idea of taking an article so far and letting others finish is the essence of Wikipedia.

If as Miesianiacal says hundreds of such links are being added then hundreds of verifiable claims are being added to the encyclopedia. Sounds like a win to me. If some of them become stale because they never got upgraded to proper refs then they can be removed or have new citations added. I don't think it is disruptive as long as the links support the content being added. Chillum 02:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with the proper form for citations can be difficult until one gets used to them so don't forget that anyone can go to toollabs:refill to get most of the bare URLs in a given article fixed. If an editor is not comfortable using that then the Template:Cleanup-bare URLs can be added in the ref section and that will bring other editors along to fix things. As others have said legit references are better than none and there are ways of bringing those up to snuff. These tools allow us to work together to make any article better. MarnetteD|Talk 04:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"Dealing with the proper form for citations can be difficult" ... you said it. I have watched people edit Wikipedia and there is a class of people for whom {{cite magic|url=http://this.that.other/blablablah#abcd1234666|first=Class|second=Coming|publisher=Creep|isbn=978-0-666-123445|ref=harvester}} is completely indistinguishable from gobbledegook. Frankly, you'll have a losing battle convincing some people to use the full gamut of citation templates as this a voluntary project and I do not believe anyone for whom this stuff is hard will stick around - especially when hectored about it on ANI! I'm sure Derek R Bullamore can fix the raw URLs, he's quite good and diligent about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

In this case, we have a editor who has stuck around. He's been with the project for over a decade, looks like over 12,000 edits, had created over 100 articles by 2008 (he stopped adding to his user page not long after that) and several categories. He is clearly an asset, and does not show signs of needing an "experienced editor" to mentor him. He seems disinterested in the complaining editor's criticisms, and I suggest that the complaining editor accept his silent response and stop posting to the editor's talk page less he be seen as crossing the line to WP:HARASSment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If the citations being provided are generally to sources of high quality and relevance (and I see nothing in the above discussion to suggest that they are not) then I can't see getting bent out of shape. There are lots of editors who thrive on Wikignoming tasks, including the conversion and formatting of bare-URL references. The skills required to locate and identify good sources are different from the skills required to properly wikicode a citation; I see nothing wrong with welcoming and encouraging the enthusiastic participation of volunteers who have either one, or both, skill sets. Different people are welcome to contribute in different ways according to their own interests and abilities. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

For what it is worth, both Wikipedia:Bare URLs and Wikipedia:Embedded citations are essays, not guidelines or policies. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links is a guideline, but states "…this is no longer recommended. Raw links are not recommended in lieu of properly written out citations….Since any citation that accurately identifies the source is better than none, do not revert the good-faith addition of partial citations. They should be considered temporary, and replaced with more complete, properly formatted citations as soon as possible." While it would be easier for all involved if everyone added properly templated citations, that does not mean that one cannot add the bare links. It is much more important, in my opinion, to uphold WP:V than to have wikified citations; this user is supporting the project and we are better off with his edits than without them. We can leave it to the Wikignomes to wikify the links. -- Avi (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to add in my understanding, that unlike switching from footnote to Harvard-type referencing, turning bare links into templated citations is not only not a violation of switching reference styles, but desired. -- Avi (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone questioned the value of sources, nor called the guidelines and manual of style anything other than what they are: guidelines and a manual. However, it seemed evident guidelines and manuals are meant to be followed. I.e. one can insert bare urls as citations, but, the guideline and manual of style advise us not to, and each of us follows that advice so there's consistency across Wikipedia. Now, however, it appears following the guidelines is entirely optional. Just as Michael Drew can endlessly add bare urls, guidelines be damned, so can I consistently add valid material, but in the wrong place in articles, without proper punctuation or grammar, and bare urls as refs, and every time just expect others to maybe clean up after me, or maybe not. I can simply ignore all advice to learn the guidelines and MoS. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Putting information in the wrong place or not grammatically correct is more of a WP:POINT, is it not? In this case, everything is aas it should be, except that the link is not wrapped in template code. It isn't as if the wrong link, the wrong information, or invalid English is being used. Using proper grammar and writing proper prose is not a suggestion; it is a requirement. Of course it would be better if Michael Drew (talk · contribs) were to develop more facility with template code and one of the two major reference schema, but that is more minor than the proper writing and building of the encyclopedia. At least that is how I see it. -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal adding a bare URL to accurately cite content to a valid source improves the article. Adding content in the wrong place might well not improve the articles in question, depending on the details. Intentionally doing this because we failed to sanction an editor whose editing methods you disapprove of is a violation of WP:POINT and a form of disruptive editing. If you want to run the reflinks or refill tool over the pages edited by Michael Drew, you would also be improving the articles. Or you could simply tag them with the proper maintenance tag. Or just ignore them and let another editor deal with the matter. The edits you complain about do net seem to disrupt the project or cause anyone (but you) a problem, compared to the situation that would exist if the edits were not made, and that is the real test. I advise you to drop the stick. DES ^(talk) 16:57, 19 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.

Mental illness and NPA

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 unhappy with the following attack made from the relative "safety" of a user's own talk page: [329] by No names left!! abcd (talk · contribs). (Also here [330].) The user seems mostly to be a troll-only account, and he responded to the user doing the most to clean up after him with attacks accusing him of "mental illness", based on that user very publicly identifying himself as having Asperger's. There is absolutely no excuse for this. I believe such attacks should be treated with the same severity as race-baiting and other grossly incivil behaviors (I'm thinking of the recent WP:ROPE mess and the in-progress WP:ARC mess), and not like the more run-of-the-mill incivilities that seem to have become the institutional norm here. Comments? Choor monster (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That user with the disease was not doing "clean up" but rather re-introducing bad prose and other errors that I fixed. No names left!! abcd (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Seconded And his one contribution is imaginary too. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

On edit- now attacking me too. I'm mad too. (here) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Improper discussion because no notification to me.

Fortuna has slapped a speedy delete tag which can be seen as harassment. The article in question is an AFD so it is poor form to short circuit that discussion. Besides, that ariticle is part of a series of articles in a template (List of Airports in Europe, with links to every European country). Even if Fortuna doesn't like the article, discuss it with the template creators, which did it years ago.

Also Fortuna has a history of ANI problems as evidenced by his barnstar of ANI attacks.

Let Wikipedia be a friendly place...people creating and improving articles. No names left!! abcd (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• User:No names left!! abcd blocked as a trolling-only account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@abcd - (edit conflict × 2) Wikipedia will be a much friendlier place if you can manage to make any comment at all without assessing other contributors. Any comment at all. Try it. Comment on content, not contributors. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the bother of replying! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:13, 19 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 continues to vandalize

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

---

IP......if an admin would care to take a look. Looks like a shared IP. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:58, 19 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 ChahatKi

Looking at this editor's few contributions, I think it is clear that ChahatKi (talk · contribs) is more interested in pushing points of view than contributing collegially to the encyclopedia, but I would request another few sets of eyes. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Examples include [331], [332], [333]. -- Avi (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction alert given. —C.Fred (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, C.Fred. I consider myself an involved admin as respects ARBPIA, thus I wanted other sets of eyes. -- Avi (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Original research by IP 2601:4C1:C001:1878:D16B:6CA7:37BB:F6B9 (and several other addresses)

An IP user keeps adding original research to Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, despite discussions why this is wrong on the article Talk and user's own pages. This person never acknowledges OR or synthesis, just talks about "censorship" of what he considers "common sense" and increases the complexity of his argument on the article page, adding more and more sources, none of which verifies his thesis. Person also switches to several different IP addresses (sockpuppetry?), though I have no proof this is deliberate. He has also made recent similarly contentious edits to Italian sausage, reverted by another editor.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:b8ca:e339:1f3b:7ed8 (talk · contribs) 19 June:Special:Diff/666807252/667575426

2601:4c1:c001:1878:d969:4c02:c5e0:1822 (talk · contribs) 10 July: Special:Diff/669242714/670769577

2601:4c1:c001:1878:c00f:507a:d436:ce86 (talk · contribs) 11 July: Special:Diff/670828010/670984416 Source used for the above is Astronauts Wives Club (book), on which I obtained consensus as unreliable on Reliable Sources noticeboard. After I was able to check this book, I found absolutely no reference to what the user was saying.

68.46.226.6 (talk · contribs) 17 July: Special:Diff/671287921/671805064 and following; obviously same editor starts misusing an already-used reliable source to make it appear to say what it doesn't in fact say.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:cc45:c492:4758:9370 (talk · contribs) 10 August: Special:Diff/674386723/675453615 User now starts to construct his increasingly elaborate argument with sources which don't support his claim, except by his own synthesis.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:d16b:6ca7:37bb:f6b9 (talk · contribs) 13 August: Special:Diff/675506264/675856593 At this point, I have started to warn him on his own talk page.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:d16b:6ca7:37bb:f6b9 (talk · contribs) 14 August: Special:Diff/675936899/675999116

JustinTime55 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

IP Address 68.46.226.6 shows edits consistent with this same IP user. Same articles, same rationale. Editor located in same area too according to Geolocator. 2601:240:C501:3C40:28F3:97FF:F1E4:D19 (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, D19. But no admins seem to have weighed in yet, after four days. Can we have some more comment? Can anything be done in terms of a block of this user, or page protection, or ??? I realize there's lots more exciting drama here on other threads, but I don't want to just see this get archived with no action. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest page protection (since the IP keeps changing), and if no one further replies, just make a request at WP:RFPP. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Racist user name

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 don't know how this one slipped through: block please. Cassianto^Talk 21:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) No filter is perfect, but ya, that one is bad. AlbinoFerret 21:30, 21 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.

Erratic behavior by user:Westwind273

Can someone look at these edits by user_talk:Westwind273

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndrewgprout&type=revision&diff=676572096&oldid=668422379 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Westwind273

Andrewgprout (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• The edits, while perhaps misguided, are hardly erratic. Westwind273 and Andrewgprout appear to be involved in a content dispute-come-talk page feud, where each editor has deleted the other's talkpage comments. I would advise both to tone down the dispute and to cease removing others' talk page comments. It's fine to do so at one's own user talk page, but nowhere else. North of Eden (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

I have stopped removing Andrewgprout's comments, but he continues to try to remove mine. (See his repeated attempts today to re-delete my comments that I restored on the JAL 123 talk page. How can I prevent his repeated attempts to delete my comments? --Westwind273 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

please detail where I have repeatedly and continued to remove any of your comments your statement regarding this is simply untrue. if you contested my original deletion of your content all you had to do was revert that edit.Andrewgprout (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps we should leave the situation as it lies. I just want to say I deleted one set of non constructive comments on a talk page a week or so ago - maybe that was misguided, I don't know. user:Westwind273's deleting a whole series of my previous edits on a number of talk pages with nothing to do with the original edit I made - plus the threat on my talk page this morning does to me appear "erratic" (I was picking a nicer word than I probably felt like writing) and way beyond reasonableness.Andrewgprout (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC

It was definitely misguided, and you knew it was when to did it. Do not remove my comments ever again and this matter will be over. It is in your hands. You are the erratic one. You were the one who initially decided to go in a start deleting comments, not me. Do nothing further and the matter is over. I would also note that I have also seen other Wikipedia users who are equally upset with your erratic behavior of deleting other peoples' comments. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And I would also have a few choice words to say about you, Andrewgprout, if I were to write what I felt and not stick to nice words. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification of suspicious behavior by administrator

I have been engaged with Admin JzG/Guy (he does not have a user page - this is his talk page) over the content of two articles, one I created and one I tried to help edit. I have experienced what appears to be a suspicious pattern of behavior that I wanted to share with the group, in the hopes that I can get help and clarification, or at the very least get consensus to put this to rest. If I am wrong for posting this activity here I apologize in advance, but cannot let this go without at least trying to highlight administrative behavior that I feel is at best inconsistent with the spirit of Wikipedia, and at worst harmful to Wikipedia, through what can only be referred to as censorship.

I came across the Academy of Achievement article when I read this Steve Jobs article [[334]] in The Business Insider. It includes a recording of the acceptance speech he gave for an award he received from the Academy on June 26, 1982. I'd never heard of the group or the award, so of course I went right to Wikipedia to learn more. This was the state of the article when I found it: [[335]] There was no information about Steve Jobs, and after reading this article which was one of the sources, [[336]], I realized the article was missing a lot of info. But it was quickly apparent the article itself had issues. There was a history of disclosed paid editing and some patterns of what also appeared to be additional paid editing. Many of the sources were listed as PDFs on an Amazon server, which is something no independent editor would have access to. It also appeared that admin JzG/Guy had nominated the article in March 6 2007 for deletion. The motion was rejected, but I see in the talk that the idea has come up again. I naively thought that I could repair the article, replace the PDFs with proper sources and add information justifying notability, so that when I was done, there would be no question that the group was worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. I added a direct quote from the Wall Street Journal to the lede "The organization hosts an annual International Achievement Summit, a gathering of speakers and panelists which the Wall Street Journal called 'perhaps the glitziest gathering of intellect and celebrity that no one has ever heard of.'" This was intended to establish the context for readers, and to show that the group eschewed publicity, which is why the group was not more familiar to us. I also wanted to put in information about the awardees and speakers, since they are all notable, are all on Wikipedia and are all mentioned in mainstream press coverage. You can see that my edits were removed, and the article was gutted to a state even more sparse than I found it. I politely asked the admin to discuss before reverting, and restored the content. Properly sourced content shouldn't be removed by an administrator who has in the past made it clear he doesn't want the article on the site. I restored the content, asked for consensus but it was removed again. Only this time JzG/Guy also added some vandalism - he put in as the Academy motto "po" which I assume was supposed to mock me for being "pissed off", only I wasn't. I restored the content, politely templated his user page and asked him to refrain from possible vandalism. He restored the content, vandalism and all, and apparently started a COI investigation into me. I spent several days defending myself against charges that my editing history suggested a non-neutral point of view. I tried to bring in another editor (a disclosed paid editor) who I thought was fair and would help me in my efforts, and to my surprise he agreed with JzG/Guy and gutted the article.

I realize now in retrospect that it is unlikely that a disclosed paid editor would stand up to an admin who has a history of striking content from the site. But is this kind of herd mentality good for Wikipedia? Nonetheless, I wrote a final note on the talk page and decided to move on.

That was apparently not enough for JzG/Guy. In what can only be considered a form of retribution, he just removed all the sources from an article I wrote last year Dave Kurlan, including Inc, Business Week and Huffington Post articles, and after waiting a few days, flagged the article for deletion, saying it had no sources. I just restored the sources and asked that the article be judged in its original form, rather than the heavily gutted version JzG/Guy wants people to see and judge. I can also look for more sources - Googling Dave Kurlan brings up a lot of content.

In the big scheme of things, these two articles aren't going to make or break Wikipedia, but admins targeting volunteers with vindictive edits and bullying cannot be in the spirit that Jimmy Wales had in mind. I bring this to the attention of the group and await consensus.TechnoTalk (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not vindictiveness; User:CorporateM was completely correct in removing the primary-sourced material from the article in question. Wikipedia only repeats content from reliable sources and doesn't work from either original research or primary sources—a Wikipedia article should only include what significant and reliable media outlets say about the topic, not what the topic says about themselves. ‑ iridescent 20:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no comment on the situation described above, but it is wrong to say WP does not use primary sources. We fully allow primary sources, though put more value in information that extends from secondary sources and delete articles that only can be sourced to primary material. But articles can include primary along with secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not in this context; All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors if you want policy chapter and verse. Primary sources are valid for "He said xxx on his own website" type comments, but not for commentary. ‑ iridescent 20:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously in the case above, yes we can't use primary, but your statement implied that no primary sources may be used anywhere, which is not true; they have to be used with care and with more weight given to secondary. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No comment on the merits, but our rules require you to notify users that you report on this board. I have taken the liberty to notify JzG of this thread. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I flagged Guy's page with the notification template - it appears on the top of his talk page. Did I not do it right? Sorry - I'm trying to follow the rules.TechnoTalk (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It usually would go at the bottom, as a new message. That's why I missed it. No worries either way. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• This seems more like an attempt to lay a smoke screen covering your own behaviour than a legitimate complaint. Anyone and everyone who files a report here can expect to have their own behaviour scrutinised too, so let's start by informing the readers here that you received a formal notice a week ago about Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules, because of being under suspicion of engaging in undisclosed paid editing. With the reason given in the notice being "You have created a series of somewhat promotional articles on companies and people, some of which have been the subject of confirmed promotional editing in the past. This is the pattern of paid editing in Wikipedia.". Just so that people here know what this is about. Thomas.W ^talk 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't see evidence of bullying. I can however see evidence of experienced contributors removing poorly-sourced puffery from articles TechnoTalk has contributed to. I suggest this thread be closed for lack of evidence that JzG has done anything wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor comment, and several observations. The history of Academy of Achivement shows it to be under near-constant attack by COI editors and spammers. If you are not another COI editor (as you claim), then we can forgive JzG for thinking you were. A lot of your "sources" are from YouTube or their own website, and it is just a list of names that have spoken, a common spammer tactic. Furthermore, both Jytdog and CorporateM have tried to help you on your talk page and the AA talk page, and you have mostly resisted their efforts. As for JzG's part, his comment on your talk page You have virtually no history on Wikipedia. I, on the other hand, have been here a long time - see (admin toolbox). smacks of pulling rank. What we have here is essentially a slow-moving edit war where the participants are not cooperating with eachother. Bottom line: TechnoTalk: you need to become more acquainted with the rules here, and when you feel proficient, come back to the talk page with proposed changes, and do not make them to the article yet. Just put them up for discussion, and see if the others feel it needs tweaking. When there is consensus, you should add the changes. KonveyorBelt 20:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "pull rank", I posted JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which allows the user to check my entire history there and then and establish whether I genuinely do have the experience to be able to judge. Nothing else. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think the community should consider a boomerang here. At least three experienced editors have tried to advise this editor that their editing is promotional and that they need to slow down and learn what NPOV means, and all that is coming back is WP:IDHT, and now this bogus ANI filing. I did not get involved in the content dispute, but did discuss COI matters with TechnoTalk and reviewed their overall edits in the course of that. I think it may take a short block to get TechnoTalk to stop and listen. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm willing to assume good faith for the moment. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone would find the topic interesting and decide to bulk it out, without realizing that promotional sources aren't usable, and "new editor gets overly defensive when their edits are reverted" would hardly be a first. If the OP is a spammer, he's just learned that Wikipedia is better at spotting them than we're commonly given credit for; if he's a good faith editor, give him a chance to prove it. ‑ iridescent 20:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

My participation in this article was as a result of @TechnoTalk: asking for my input on my Talk page. He felt JzG was treating him unfairly by labeling content as promotion, whereas I felt that not nearly enough promotion had been removed. This version of the article contained language like "a gathering of speakers and panelists which the Wall Street Journal called "perhaps the glitziest gathering of intellect and celebrity that no one has ever heard of,"[2] and the Washington Post called "one of the world's most dazzling gatherings of international celebrities." I felt this was highly inappropriate for Wikipedia and mentioned the advice at Wikipedia:Quotations, that quoting sources directly are often used to introduce non-neutral language that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I was disappointed to see TechnoTalk restore this content without discussion and against consensus.

I am not sure if Techno's claims to being a disinterested party are credible. This contains many of the classic signs of promotional paid editing, such as an undue emphasis on awards and "In the News"-type information. His work on the Academy page also contains similar behavioral patterns.

I haven't seen any recent deletion discussions, so I'm confused by this reference. My only minor quip with JzG is that the way he mentioned being an admin was probably not appropriate, but this is still a boomerang situation. CorporateM (Talk) 20:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's just indef TechnoTalk as WP:NOTHERE and terms of use violations and move on. This is clearly an undisclosed paid editor, perfectly fitting the pattern, and a bad paid editor at that. Bonus troll points for telling Guy to "get a life." Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, looks like BOMMERANG material to me. BMK (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't "politely template" an admin's page. GAB^Hello! 21:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

GAB - statements like this do concern me. Templating an admin is no different than templating another user. CorporateM (Talk) 23:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Perhaps so. But it's not very helpful when you're trying to tell someone specifically what they did wrong. GAB^Hello! 23:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There is "suspicious behavior" here, but on your part, as evidenced by some of those diffs. I suggest a boomerang is in order. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think everyone has worked out what's going on here. The history of the article pretty much speaks for itself. This request indicates the OP's poor judgment, IMO. And I am pretty confident that the OP's decision to take on this article was not a coincidence. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody except GAB has addressed the administrative vandalism (yes I see the unintended irony). I used the mildest notification template, per the template instructions, and then the next higher level when the vandalism was replicated. I think that's as polite as one can be given the circumstances. From this brief response sample, which I appreciate everyone taking the time to submit, it appears that I'm in the minority. It does not seem to bother anyone that an admin nominated an article for deletion after removing the primary sources showing notability, and that the action appears to be retaliatory for pointing out prior possible vandalism on an earlier article. If it's easier for you to reject my concerns by labeling me as a paid editor and saying I'm throwing up a smokescreen, so be it, but you can look at my edit history and see that I've had no issues with the site before this. None of my handful of articles were flagged for COI or NPOV - and everything was patrolled. Consider the context of this sudden crackdown on my site contributions. Just like that I became a bad editor?TechnoTalk (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• If you are going to accuse someone of vandalism, you need to provide proper evidence, not a confusing wall of text. Please do as requested at the top of this page, and provide a diff so we can see what you are referring to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• No, you didn't become a bad editor "just like that", your editing history shows that you've been a "bad editor" since August of last year, your early editing history also shows that you with all probability weren't a new editor when you created your account. So what other accounts have you used before you created the current one? Thomas.W ^talk 23:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Since TechnoTalk has suggested that we look at his edit history, I'd like to see what contributors think of Black Book Market Research, which he also created. I'd have to suggest that it appears distinctly promotional, and over-reliant on primary sources. The claims to notability seem to be based on "rankings [that] have been mentioned and referenced" in sources, rather than on in-depth coverage of the company itself. The company might possibly meet our notability guidelines, but an article like this doesn't seem at all appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the one I was thinking of when I wrote that he's been a "bad editor" since August of last year, the Black Book article was created in his sandbox on 1 August last year, with the preparations starting on 25 July 2014, when he copied an existing article and pasted it into his sandbox for use as a template. New editors with only a dozen edits don't do things like that. And before that he had spent four of that dozen edits on an article where he showed that he knew how to pipe internal links from scratch (i.e. not just modifying an existing link). Another thing new users don't do. Thomas.W ^talk 23:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't written any articles from scratch. Everything is a cut and paste. You'll see in my edit history that I've made some mistakes and forgot to replace old info. Here's where Guy put in the motto as being "po".[[337]] At first I thought it was an inadvertent typo but I pointed it out and he put it back in, and has refused to acknowledge or explain it. It seems an odd place to have a careless typo. I had moved on to other things when he started challenging my old articles - this is my reaction to system-enabled unfairness.TechnoTalk (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"At first I thought it was an inadvertent typo". Yup. "I pointed it out and he put it back in, and has refused to acknowledge or explain it"? Where? All I can find are edit summaries making vague accusations of 'vandalism', and a post to Guy's talk page doing the same thing. Where exactly did you point out to Guy that he'd added a couple of stray characters to the infobox while deleting something else? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick timeline. Typo introduced in this diff followed by TechnoTalk's removal. Guy's subsequent reversion of TechnoTalk's edits that added puffery also inadevertently reintroduced the typo, which Technotalk then removed again leading to the vandalism warning. Blackmane (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Bob Lazar

I would not normally post an issue regarding article content here at ANI. But the current state of this article, a BLP, Bob Lazar, is so bizarre and so conspiratorial and so deranged that I believe that it requires immediate attention from an administrator. If I am wrong, let me know and I will pursue other options. Thank you for your consideration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

An entertaining read, though not very encyclopedic. Chillum 05:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

We are not in the business of "entertaining reading" I do not think, Chillum, so I hope that either you, or another administrator, will revdel totally inappropriate BLP violating content, and warn the responsible editors. Please. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked through the sources? This guy has claimed much of the stuff being attributed to him. If you think there is a clear and urgent BLP violation then edit the article, if you really think something needs revdel'n then you will need to be more specific. Chillum 06:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I did some housekeeping. Perhaps Chillum can take a look and see if there is improvement. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The article's been around for about 10 years, and it started as what could be termed an attack page. Is this guy even notable by Wikipedia standards? Should the article be deleted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw him on unsolved mysteries when I was young, so I had heard of him before seeing the article. The guy does have some fame. Chillum 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Bob Lazar has been the focus of more than one TV show and surely lots of print. Unquestionably notable. He has some outrageous claims, some of which might be considered "out there", but notability isn't about how right a person is, just how notable he is. And I've seen a few shows focused on him, highly entertaining stuff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The thing about Bob Lazar is that the craziest of claims about him turn out to be true. He might not be right about 115, but other sources (as we report) are right when they report what he has claimed. There's also a whole pile of "unusual" stuff (rocket Honda for one) that does pan out. It's like claiming that one of the leading lights of early JPL was a colleague of Aleister Crowley, but that's just Jack Parsons for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Bingonzaga and Parents for Education

Bingonzaga , who has a COI regarding Parents for Education ("On behalf of PARED Foundation..."),[338] has been repeatedly blanking that page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've reverted the blanking and left a warning on the user's talk page. If they continue, they can always be reported to WP:AIV. ~ Rob^Talk 05:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• User:JJMC89 had previously warned this user about blanking, I warned this user previously about WP:COI. See also this comment at the help desk. DES ^(talk) 12:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Here is a behavior I have never seen before; adding an AfD notice pointing to a nonexistent Afd page.[339] Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Never seen that before? You haven't lived! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC).
    
    • Delicate flower that I am, I lead a sheltered life... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Samsamcat

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

---

I recently noticed this personal attack posted by Samsamcat (talk · contribs), and issued them a final warning, which they immediately removed. On further checking, it turns out this isn't the first time they've received (nor subsequently removed), a "final" warning for personal attacks:

• Final personal attack warning from User:Black Kite (21 February 2014)
• Samsamcat deletes warning (21 February 2014)
• Final personal attack warning from User:Tiptoety (12 July 2014)
• Samsamcat deletes warning (12 July 2014)
• Personal attack warning from User:Mrschimpf (13 July 2014)
• Samsamcat deletes warning (13 July 2014)
• Personal attack warning from User:Winkelvi (3 March 2015)
• Samsamcat deletes warning (3 March 2015)
• Final personal attack warning from User:331dot (3 March 2015)
• Samsamcat deletes warning (3 March 2015)
• Final personal attack warning from me (20 August 2015)
• Samsamcat deletes warning (20 August 2015)

Even non-attack-related warnings get met with immediate removals, and sometimes replacement with personal attacks (e.g., [340] [341]). Attacking other editors seems to be a recurring problem with Samsamcat, and one for which they try to suppress evidence in an attempt to avoid any negative consequences for themselves. I don't think this should be allowed to continue. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this guy. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samsamcat/Archive and 207.34.115.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Propose banning this user. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

They have had enough warnings, I have indef the account for personal attacks. -- GB fan 13:48, 20 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 adding and removing blank lines in hundreds of articles in bot-like behavior

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 subject line explains it, see 108.195.136.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have no idea what this is about but it can't be good. I will leave a note on the talk page, for what it's worth. Looie496 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

They appear to be adding/removing blank lines from articles as they browse from article-to-article, with the odd good edit here and there. Could it be a VisualEditor bug? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this one of the block evading IPs on Arthur Rubin's list? There was another blocked earlier today.- MrX 21:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours as the editor has not responded and continues to delete blank lines without explanation. If they begin to respond on their talk page any admin is welcome to lift the block without reference to me if they wish. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:16, 20 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.

It is almost certainly one of the block-evading IPs on my list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Attack only 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.

---

My User-page/biography has been subject to harassment and vandalism via Twitter by a Far-Left individual (SLATUKIP) who opposes the political party I am a member of. Would the admin on Twitter be able to protect my page so only myself or site admin have the capability to alter it. It can be viewed on my User page via the end of this message. I have undone the vandalism concerned. But this individual has already been warned with banning on another website (Facebook) for photoshopping my user picture onto a racist comment and it would appear he is going to continue the same form of treatment on here and elsewhere.RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2015 (GMT)

I find myself in sympathy with this users plight, but not his politics. I will remove the current vandalism. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 23:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:SLATUKIP should be indef blocked under WP:NOTHERE, and I would suggest a semi-protection on RoverTheBendInSussex. I am copying this section to WP:ANI#Attack only account from WP:BLP/Noticeboard. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC).

Just so you know though, Rover, we can't really do anything here about another user bothering you on Facebook and Twitter. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:09, 21 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.

204.186.232.58 and 24.229.120.178

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.

---

Reporting these two IPs for vandalism on List of Major League Baseball career home run leaders. Side Note: There is vandalism at least every two weeks on this page and it really should be made so only auto confirmed users can edit. Taffe316 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it the same every time? If so, an edit filter might be called for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much. It's always just someone changing Barry Bonds's, Hank Aaron's, or Alex Rodriguez's name to something silly Taffe316 (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's probably easier to handle with page protection. I have semi-protected for one week to start. If/when the problem resumes, you can post at WP:RFPP to have the protection renewed. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated thank you Taffe316 (talk) 02:49, 21 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 attack

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

---

This edit summary needs attention. the sock problem in the Gamergate neighborhood continues to grow.MarkBernstein (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

THe edit summary has been suppressed and the IP address blocked for three months. Are we done here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:56, 20 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.

Savile

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 could someone lose this edit:[342]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Could you explain why? BMK (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• It was stupid and abusive about other living people.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have taken out the edit due to the comments about other people. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

My mate is called Rolf Savile. Poor bastard. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A bloke walks onto a beach with Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter. His mate looks at him and says, "You idiot - I said bring a couple of _S_peedoes!" I'll get me coat.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm in complete shock about the recent Savile investigations. For my whole life, I've been spelling his surname with two Ls. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:44, 21 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, with legal threat thrown in for good measure

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.

---

• JamesPark17 (talk · contribs)

See all edits, including latest to my talk page [343]. 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Luvdawayudie (talk · contribs) Very similar history, including addition of Alexandre Jr. Assi to other articles. 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Threatening to sue in a content dispute is not acceptable. I have blocked the user for legal threats per this comment[344]. As usual we should look into whatever it was the person was taking issue with to see if there is merit to the complaint. Chillum 15:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There isn't, and Luvdawayudie is obviously the same user: compare "hasn't been revealed yet" in [345] vs. [346]. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As well as Alexandre Jr. Assi. No significant history, but based on context (JamesPark17 et. al. claim to be the only ones who know about this player's existence) likely to also be the same user. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup. THe FC Barcelona website makes no mention of this player, and Google finds nothing either - I think we can safely assume that it is a hoax. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the article as A7. For footballers it's generally accepted that claiming to play for a fully professional team is enough to pass the importance threshold, but apparently the subject does not play for a Series B team even yet, and the other claims are appearances with a U20 non-professional team. It might even be a hoax, since I can't find much online and a big red flag is when the Wikipedia article is the first Google hit. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd asked for speedy as a likely hoax for just those reasons, then gave the disruptive parties the benefit of the doubt and added less draconian templates. Which didn't ease things. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I created an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesPark17 and blocked the three sock accounts for obvious duck behavior. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's funny, I created an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luvdawayudie but I can't block anyone. Yours is better, mine can be closed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we obviously created simultaneous reports. But yours is fine. Thanks for creating it. I went ahead and added the other blocked sock to it, changed the sock templates and redirected the JamePark17 SPI to yours. All should be fine with it now. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:14, 21 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 CFD

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.

---

Ther wa a massive disruption going on with Ricky81682 at CFD. He's already nominated Harry Potter and continues with vehement nasty attack on other editors at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.115 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting IP. As it stands, there's no disruption or any nasty attacks from the user. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This IP is from the range that's been rather aggressively targetting Ricky81682 and basically trolling the WP:WOP. See this archived ANI discussion and those below it. Ravensfire (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This IP is likely the same editor as 166.170.48.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which started another ANI thread about Ricky just yesterday, as well as 166.170.48.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 166.170.49.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who participated in that discussion as well. This is not a report made in good faith. Ricky's participation in those TfDs is perfectly fine. ~ Rob^Talk 19:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I also took the effort to actually inform Ricky of this ANI discussion, as should have been done. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

still disruptive

I know no one here cares about the real issue but the CFD discussion is still disruptive. There's no need to delete templates from 2007 just because someone hates citing sources. 166.171.121.217 (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC) block evasion

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.

Rangeblocking the IPs mentioned just above

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 section above has already been archived, but the IPs 166.170.48.75 166.170.48.115 166.170.49.99 166.170.48.93 are a very small range: 166.170.48.0/23. Not sure if somebody has already blocked a larger version of it, but, anyway, I've blocked the /23 for a week. The rangeblock contribs tool is down as usual, but it's hard to believe such a small range block would inconvenience anybody else. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 21 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.

Seeking Clarification on User KH-1 undoing Edits

Hey there
I am trying to get clarification on edits I have made that user KH-1 has undone. These edits have included grammar edits, edits to company infomation, and adding a link that cites the info I was adding. It seems this user feels because I am a newer user I am clueless to the subject I am editing. Here are a few examples...

This edit is not me but its a good place to start. This user is posting links that are directly relevant to the article. [347]
In this instance I corrected the name of the company and added additional info about the company and it was undone. [348]
Here I added a reference to a website that had company documents that showed a timeline of the company during the period I edited.I did this to back up the info that I was editing. His reason is this is spam. I thought the idea of this was to be able to verify the info being submitted? [349]

On another article I get much of the same [350]

And another article [351]. On this one I did simple grammar edits. An example would be "this company" to "This company" . I also added a few weblinks that included one for the actual company in the article instead of the weblink to a website list that has the company's name and address. I also added a new manufacture to the "UK" section of the page. Again not spam but a link to a company that produces a kit car (The article is about kit cars) I have to question how that website kitcarlist.com can be referenced multiple times in the kit car article and not be considered spam but the companies own website cant be used instead. The same would go with me citing the priceofhistoys website that contained the timeline and company documents I linked above.

I tried to get in touch with the user to get clarification but I had no luck. I have been a kit car enthusiast/historian for the better part of 25 years. Any edits I have done have been to add value to the article and based on verifiable information. Not to raise spam flags of any kind.

I just want to get some clarification and perhaps resolution to this
Thanks Kitcarguy (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Kitcarguy Looks like what you were adding in wasn't reliable (i.e yahoo groups, forums...etc..) Also, I note your username is very close to a website you're adding in, and this might be a COI. If you want your additions to stay, you'll need a reliable source to back them up , take a look at this as it will explain what a reliable source in on Wikipedia. In addition, it looks like KH-1 should be assuming good faith with you, his first and so far only message on your user page was a final warning, that's a bit much without anything else to back it up. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon The first edits I posted were not from me. That was just an example. Yes it did appear to be yahoo groups and such. But at the same time these groups are full of owners, builders, and more information than can be crammed into an article. I did have a look at the reliable sources link and I thank you for that. If you do not mind I would like to toss an example at you or anyone who may be reading

On the page [352] under "United States" My edit was undone. The edit was to remove the referenced page kitcarlist.com from "Acme Car Company" and replace is with the companies own website at acmecarco.com . In that same section Aldino Car Company is referenced to kitcarlist.com when they to have their own website. How is this not spam but is considered reliable info? The person who created a list that shows kit car manufacturers, and has this disclaimer on their submit page "If you do not wish to link to us, we will still post your company... We would prefer to continue to give you free advertising, but if you prefer not to link to us, all we ask is that you pay $19.99 per month for your advertising with us:" or the company that produces the product?

I also understand that "Blogs" may or may not be used as a reliable source. At the same time just going by what is said about reliable sources that can be tricky. For example I would not consider "E! News any more reliable than perez hilton, KBB any more reliable than jalopnik, and so on. Same goes with forums. Funny thing is I was going to remove a forum link from one of the articles I was editing, but I left it because it did have a lot of info about the topic at hand.

Should I change my username, or stop attempting to edit anything in regards to kit cars? I have 25+ years in the field and know it well. I can certainly write about gardening, mowing the lawn, or even physics...lol You get what I am saying. Im not trying to be a smart ass. And I was not even going to bring up the fact that he was immediate in his Final warning, banning me, yada yada, immediately. Seems like a bit of a little man complex but hey whatever. Its the internet everyone is a bad ass ..hahaha

Thanks for your help and I look forward to more insight from people who can help me be a better user and avoid this sort of frustration.
Thanks Kitcarguy (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Kitcarguy Did you mean | this edit. Not sure why he did that, but your edit seems correct, the comment about your name is that it's very close to Kitcarlist.com. (I admit when I read that diff the first time, I thought it was you that inserted kitcarlist.com, that's why I made the comment about your name. And no, you don't have to change it, (I'm not a sysop or anything, so no, I can't make you do that). As far as blogs go, they're not reliable , except on what that blog writer thinks, that's it. Anything else needs to have reliable sources on it. I'm sure others will chime in here and offer more advice as well. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 18:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlonYes that was one of the edits. Simple grammar was undone? LOL Now to his defense I did ad a link to a kit car company but that was only because it was in the "Examples of UK Kit Car" Section . I live in the US and that was a new kit car company in the UK and felt it should be there. I changed a car company to reflect the website of the company instead of kitcarlist.com (which I do not own) and it was undone. Is there a reason you can think of that kitcarlist.com (a personal webpage) should be the reference to a company that has a valid website? Only one I can but hey whatever. I also referenced http://priceofhistoys.com/history-of-fiberfab/ in another edit . It is a blog but it had the history of the company, and even supporting documents that were from a former company owner. I will admit I do own priceofhistoys.com but again I only added it to the article because it contained this . http://priceofhistoys.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Fiberfab-History-842x1024.jpg . I figured if you would be citing something original company docs are hard to dispute.I know now that something from the company and provided by the former company of the owner is not considered reliable because it is on a blog.

I went back today and corrected grammar again in the article. I guess I will see if it sticks this time. What should be done about the links to kitcarlist.com ? The user seems hellbent on keeping them right as they are. If any link I have posted is "spam" surely that link is not more reliable. Am I mistaken?
Thanks again for all your helpKitcarguy (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Cuzkatzimhut and YohanN7

Yesterday, Cuzkatzimhut reported me for edit warring.1. However, he failed so far to provide any diffs for that claim. When admin EdJohnston asked for diffs, the editor responded, I asked the noticeboard to identify the evident pattern of systematic unconstructive editing. WP should be able to police itself, pursuant to whatever format strictures, and not leave things to the successful formatting of the appeals of complainants. Another account, YohanN7 is always present in favor of Cuzkatzimhut edits/opinion. EdJohnston saw then the need to warn of possible sanctions, Calling people idiots or crackpots isn't charming and may cause you to be sanctioned.

• References are often lacking

Initially i've asked editor Cuzkatzimhut to provide proper references for his extensive edits (i.e. recently no references for edits, or here - these edits are very extensive in his edit history, wrong way to add references or here). Additionally his edits are often not in regards to WP:TECHNICAL. Many of the talk pages of the article Cuzkatzimhut edits contain reader comments about too technical or lacking references. (i.e. 1 (See glossary), 2 (No Ref), 3(Insults reader), 4(No ref, claims everything is correct) -- These are just the most recent edits.

• Unexplained reverts

Today, he and YohanN7 begun reverting many of my edits i tagged in regards to references or for OR. An attempt to explain OR to the editors has failed so far. There is this No original research/Noticeboard discussion, where Kingsindian called the incident a classic OR.

Even though with repeated attempts to explain in length the issue of OR (article talk page , or at YohanN7's talk page to the editors, both show no sign of understanding, or willingness to except anything. Yohan's edit summary states several times, Reverting editor showing evident pattern of systematic nonconstructive editing, and Cuzkatzimhut stated about my edits, evident pattern of systematic nonconstructive editing.

• Summary

Even with extensive explanations, links to Wikipedia guidelines or the opinion of other editors, both editors do not seem to understand basic rules. Garchy cautioned in response to Cuzkatzimhut -- let's not make this about WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, which is bordering on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thus, besides WP:OR, WP:CIR the editors are just not there where Wikipedia wants to be. I am not sure exactly how to proceed or what exactly should be done about the conflicts mentioned here. prokaryotes (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Update Yohan now makes threatening comments in response to a support question. prokaryotes (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral here, but...how is that a threatening comment? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

He implies i did something wrong then states i should never do this again, implying a threat if i do it again, what the user perceives as stalking. However, if we actually look at the page on harassment (WP:HOUND) it makes clear that i wasn't stalking recent changes by user Cuzkatzimhut. My edits mostly added ref tags. prokaryotes (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

He is using unrelated support questions to interfere, for whatever reason. My question was unrelated to the user or any articles in question, initially. Now he hijacks my support question to explain his version of my edits, again look at those edits, which have added ref tags to a couple of articles. prokaryotes (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I was briefly involved with this as an outside editor on the WP:NORN page. I have reviewed some of the diffs above. I see what is going on. The basic issue here is that Cuzkatzimhut and YohanN7 are familiar with the subject matter and assume a level of background knowledge to someone reading the article, which is not unreasonable in itself. If someone is reading these highly technical articles, it is likely they have some familiarity with the relevant background. Often they leave certain statements uncited, because of this. They are indeed cited in the general references contained at the end of the article. Prokaryotes (correct me if I'm wrong), a layman like me, is trying in good faith to have as many inline citations as possible, even for things which the other two believe are obvious to anyone who is familiar with this area.

In discussion at WP:NORN, Cuzkatzimhut did indeed understand the WP:OR issue and tried to address it, though I am not sure Yohan understands it. In my opinion, everyone is acting in good faith, though tempers have become a bit frayed because of the non-aligned expectations of reader's background knowledge. In my opinion, if everyone stays focused on content, this can still end well. I see no evidence of WP:HOUNDing, though I see how it may be perceived that way. There is nothing wrong with looking through an editor's edits and flagging similar issues in other pages. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian, you are correct, I aim for best verifiability, imho the most important part of Wikipedia is content which is properly referenced, no matter how clear cut something may or not may be. prokaryotes (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Intervention request Could someone please notify these 2 accounts here, why they post in the wrong spot, i think the accusations of both users are getting out of hands now and require some admin intervention. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Both users continue a battleground behavior, and Cuzkatzimhut stated recently, in response to his edit warring request. I will try to fight the good fight away from that disappointing board Besides the continued aggressive tone(you have to read his lengthly replies), the user is unwilling to understand or accept WP rules and sees tagging of articles he edits as a threat to him.prokaryotes (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"Battleground behavior"? After the the highly personalized rampage I reported and documented painstakingly, of Aug 13, UT 15:05 - 27:10?? Rolling back, in rapid-fire succession, pages I had edited last: Adjugate matrix, Fermi's golden rule, scale invariance, special unitary group, non-linear sigma model, De Sitter special relativity, Rotation formalisms in three dimensions, canonical commutation relation, wave packet, Polynomial Wigner–Ville distribution, wave packet, pauli matrices, etc, including references I put in (scale invariance) summary deleted only to be supplanted by requests for references templates? I understand. I have to play "nice". I'll leave the bellicose talk to the cold record and invite the readership to advise me on how they would have responded to the rampage. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not true that i reverted all above articles (only the first 2), the other articles were just reference taggings, at scale invarience Cuzkatzimhut defends a link to scholarpedia, just the page ofc, no pointers what so ever. To call this a rampage you need to ignore Wikipedia rules.prokaryotes (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Aug 13, contris: UT 17:37, 17:47, 17:09, 17:33, 17:48, 18:38, 22:06, 22:38. In that streak, to unjustifiably eschew "rampage", no pages appear to have anyone but me as the last editor. I now appreciate this may well be a part of an aspirational project to tag all technical WP pages with "missing citations" tags? As for myself, I am so nice I have nothing to say. Just behold. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with tagging recent edits of articles based of 1 editors edit history.prokaryotes (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing against it in WP rules, sure. Now, then, close examination of the gratuitous deletions and destruction of content and formatting (red links) accompanying those tags will also let the reader decide what is "wrong" or not. Ad hominem attacks on Yohan when he reverts your reversions is probably also within the purview of the system. The systematic pattern, however, is undeniable: I am baffled you declare yourself its anapologetic practitioner. Is that a warning to everyone here to not call your bluff on that scalar field theory reference? You think everyone will be bullied?? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: WP:SCG is the standing general guidance on recommended citation practice in technical science articles. Is it something you have had a chance to look at, and would you see yourself in broad agreement with it? Jheald (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

SCG is exactly covering my edit motives. prokaryotes (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It is my feeling that Yohan and Cuzkatzimhut are thinking of their practice as falling under Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines#Uncontroversial_knowledge. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• 19 August 2015 Edior YohanN7 keeps removing content and references with a battleground behavior. The editor does not assumes good faith, in his edit he states "Revert vandalism" DIF prokaryotes (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I fear the summary peremptoriness of the original revert today, could give grounds to assume lack of courtesy. I implore, in the talkpage, to desist from reverts (and the required counter-reverts) before reaching some consensus on the talk page. Importantly, the crucial, and much needed references were just gratuitously degraded and yanked out with the bathwater. All this in the wake of hectoring, for 6 days, about the need for meticulous referencing? The changes so blandly smeared were, in fact, salutary and helped the reader. if only the reverter could explain why they hinder him instead of helping him in the talkpage? Why should the readers of the page not benefit from referenced background? Why? Why?Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A technical note: I did not state "Revert vandalism" when I did the + 1075 edit as the suspect claims. In that edit, a sole sentence (because it made no sense in the context) together with a to the article irrelevant reference was removed. I stated "revert vandalism" only when it was true, i.e. the time after the suspects revert of my edit adding solid referenced (Steven Weinberg) content. YohanN7 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Another response from YohanN7, "Suspect vandal already at ANI whining. I removed one sentence of gibberish of his and a totally irrelevant "reference." DIF - Notice that he removed article structure in his recent edits and is reluctant to properly or at all, reference his edits per Wikipedia guidelines. prokaryotes (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't lie to the judge my friend. As a blind monkey can see, I referenced my edit with a real reference. Weinberg QFT vol. I in one spot and Weinberg vol. II in another spot. YohanN7 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Another response from YohanN7, "...the vandal would have reverted every any any edit of mine. In fact, I am almost entirely sure he never read it. As for the reference I removed, it is a "perfectly normal paper" (except it is l-o-n-g), but certainly not dedicated to scalar field theory. The whole thing is just a set-up." DIF Notice that YohanN7 has reverted around 10 edits of mien (all linked in this section), i reverted 2 or 3 edits of him. prokaryotes (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The simple reason being that none of my edits should be reverted, while most of your edits have been rubbish, needing a revert. You are vandalizing, and that is it. YohanN7 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Another response from YohanN7, "Don't lie. You can lie when you cry at the ANI, but not here. My edit did not lack references." DIFprokaryotes (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the real diff of my edit my friend. Don't try such cheap tricks. The judge, even if a paper shuffler of your liking, will not like your lying. YohanN7 (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That paper, is, as YohanN asserts, definitely not an illuminating review on scalar field theory, by any scholarly standard. The recursive tendentiousness underlying these (by now) routine reverts certainly suggests a setup. The statistical counting is magnificently specious: let the reader look at the size of the reverts. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Closure review: Antidiskriminator's topic ban appeal

Hello all,

Here I closed a discussion concerning the topic ban of Antidiskriminator with: "There is, at this point, no consensus to remove or alter Antidiskriminator's topic ban. Several editors have thrown around ideas (probation, etc.), but that is moot if Antidiskriminator cannot demonstrate that he both understands why he was topic banned in the first place (blaming others, as if they have a vendetta out for you, isn't cutting it) and presents a detailed and sensible plan on how he expects to avoid further conflict in the areas in which he is topic banned. As for appeal, Antidiskriminator is advised to not appeal until at least six months have elapsed." It's clear to me that the discussion on my talk page regarding my close is going around in circles, so I defer to the community's judgement.

If I may give some advice to Antidiskriminator, I would be more than will to reconsider my close if you would (A) stop wikilawyering, (B) state specifically what it is that you did to get yourself topic-banned, and (C) state specifically a plan that you would adhere to and other could hold you to, to prevent the behavior that got you topic-banned from recurring.

If my close is allowed to stand, I would also like to ask that Antidiskriminator be strongly advised to let the matter rest until he can appeal again in six months. --ceradon (talk • edits) 21:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe your closure was appropriate and reflected the opinions expressed. On your talk page, Antid stated that it was what he wrote on the talk pages of articles that got him banned. I believe that is a serious understatement and an attempt to avoid any admission that his behaviour was unwikilike. It was his behaviour that got him banned: creating endless new threads about contentious matters, wikilawyering as soon as anyone questioned his sources or his use of untranslated quotes, tendentious carping about minor issues, creating articles with entirely generic names (like "Muslim Militia" and defending them when others tried to move them) and refusing to edit in article space to address issues he raised on the talk page when there were no objections to him doing so. That's just for starters. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse close (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) - clearly no consensus to unban: I count two supports that were "meh, I guess", one that admitted to having been canvassed, and a plurality of very strong opposes. I also don't see that there was even a weak consensus that the user should be conditionally unbanned, so there's not much point discussing what the conditions of such an unban would be. The community of editors who edit in the Macedonia topic area are not many, but their patience with this editor seems to have long been exhausted. If Antidiskriminator has been a prolific and successful editor in other subject areas, then bravo and keep up the good work, but the very fact that they're bludgeoning the talk page of the closing admin is evidence of their lack of introspection that has apparently led to the failure of these appeals. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• Firstly I don't fault your close, it follows pretty much the standard appeal close in these circumstances.

• I think there is some mileage in what Antidiskriminator (AD) said at AN namely: "I will stop people from making trouble for me by following the rules." It's a hard furrow to plough, but it need not concern (the rest of) us why they are following the rules - although it may make it harder for AD to stick to them.
• AD's successful avoidance of these problems in related areas indicates a possibility that AD can return successfully to editing in the contested area.
• A typical result of reversing such sanctions is that the behaviour recurs and the sanctions are re-imposed or increased.

Given the above, is it possible to take an innovative approach, and reduce the scope of sanctions incrementally? For example to material before 1910 instead of 1900?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

• Ceradon, bless your heart. There's some more of AD's wikilawyering on my talk page--and mind you, I'm one of the ones who didn't oppose a lifting of the ban. That whole discussion is sad, because no outside editors are willing to get involved, and so yeah, there's more going around in circles there. As long as no one besides the little cabal of entrenched editors speak out, we'll hear the same thing, and AD is not changing their tune either. Anywayz, I predicted a "no consensus" close a while ago, and there we are. Your close is fine. Rich, if you're willing to stick your neck and propose something else, please go for it. At the same time, yes, AD is really not helping his cause. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I resent being referred to as being in an "entrenched cabal" in any way. I deal with Antid based entirely on what I get from him. I was willing to consider raising the ban in a limited way, but Antid did not respond. To my knowledge there is no collusion against Antid, just people who have actual experience of dealing with him in a rarely-traversed subject area that has more than its fair share of POV warriors and disruptive editors. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps the moral of the story here is that if you're an entrenched POV warrior butting heads with editors in a sparsely populated but highly contentious topic area, it's going to be a tough uphill battle to get your editing privileges back. As an uninvolved non-admin, I'd be open to supporting an alternative unblock proposal (I quite like innovative solutions, actually) if not for two things: 1) Antid continues to avoid answering multiple questions of self-examination, but rather continues to assert that they were blocked simply because more editors were against them than with them, failing to understand (or bother trying to understand) why the behaviour that led to the block was unacceptable; and 2) probably as a result, the most recent unban request clearly didn't have consensus, and reopening that discussion here disrespects the editors who were involved in it. However, if those editors agree that some alternate solution should be tried, then I happily withdraw my objection. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that some of you others have been exposed to all this pointless toxicity, I feel both sort of satisfied that I'm not alone and then also sort of depressed that even more people have had to repeat this lesson. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think that closuring administrator did not consider the lack of uninvolved input issue. Closing administrator dismissed all concerns for lack of uninvolved input as irrelevant. Even if "no consensus" closure is endorsed, the closing sentence should be amended to mention valid concerns about lack of uninvolved input. Multiple editors speculated about what I think or understand and based on that !voted against my ban. There is a freedom of thought. Article 19 of the UDHR guarantees that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference". Editors who banned me and who want to keep me banned because of what I think should think twice. What only matters is what I do. Not what I think. I respected the ban for more than a year by following the plan I presented, without anybody complaining I repeated the same behavior. That is what I did. And only that can serve as basis for decision whether I should be/remain banned or not.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• The closing sentence should be amended to mention valid concerns about lack of uninvolved input - to what end? It's hardly admins' nor the community's fault that you misbehaved and got yourself topic-banned from an extremely vitriolic topic area that sane editors don't want to stick their noses into. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I resemble that remark... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Apologies, I hadn't meant to call any editors sane. ;) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think that closing admin did not interpreted consensus correctly in their closing sentence. The lack of uninvolved input issue concerned some editors on both sides. That is why I said that the closing sentence should be amended to mention valid concerns about lack of uninvolved input Your comment Ivanvector can probably also be seen as confirmation that additional uninvolved input in this topic area would be beneficial, if it is really so extremely vitriolic that other editors don't want to stick their noses into. That is not completely true though. I am not afraid to stick my nose into it.
• I think that my pre-ban behavior can not be valid argument for rejection of my ban appeal.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

User:E.M.Gregory

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 went to take a look at the Matthew C. Whitaker article as an uninvolved editor. I looked it over, and given that the article is about Whitaker's plagiarism and not Whitaker himself, and furthermore does not explain why any of said plagiarism is actually notable, and further seems to be an object of editwarring for no reason, I decided to prod it, and then opened a discussion on the talk page in order to try to figure out what was going on - I would have had no problem unprodding if something useful had been accomplished.

Instead, I'm at ANI because User:E.M.Gregory has edited my signature on a prior comment and addressed me as the article subject. I'm not going to stand for that sort of accusation, period. This isn't a content problem, it's an editor with a serious behavioral issue. It seems that the user has edited tendentiously before aside from the editwarring on the Whitaker article. I'm not even an admin; there shouldn't be any reason for me to get stuck in multiple ANI threads a week. MSJapan (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed the sig back and left a comment there telling E.M.Gregory not to do that. Is any more action needed at this time? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, as I didn't want to touch it myself. As for further action, I'm not sure. I definitely think this needs to remain open pending any response from EMG on the matter either here or at the talk page.

For sure, EMG is preventing any changes to the article he doesn't like, and seeing everyone else being against his way, which is classic OWN (which he was warned about before elsewhere). The use of a BLP article to be about nothing but an event (or events) is really BLP1E, and I'd almost be inclined to call it an attack page, because there's nothing else in the article (nor will there be - the subject's research is nil, and there were issues with his appointment in the department in the first place). EMG's also showing no understanding of policy relating to academics. These seem to be deeper editing behaviors that go beyond simple content disagreement. So I'm mixed; this problem may or may not be solved, but there's a pattern not being addressed if it drops. MSJapan (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) I dropped a warning on their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Given EMG's responses everywhere but here, I believe further action is warranted. EMG is claiming here on BlueMoonset's page and here on the Whitaker article talk that his actions were a mistake because "he was tired." BlueMoonset's not buying it, I don't either, and EMG is not taking responsibility for his actions - he's too concerned about SPAs adding "glowing biography" (which actually is sourced from the subject's official bio - I checked). He's also not considering NOTNEWS, hasn't addressed questions/comments from either myself or David Eppstein, and is clearly engaging in OWN and violating NPOV. MSJapan (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So I felt we had actually made some headway to at least have a discussion. I outlined every point where notability was not met, and we ended up with, while my points were valid, it's national news because it makes Inside Higher Ed and Wikipedia is "not censored". Somebody else is going to need to deal with this at this juncture. MSJapan (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

i just removed a prod tag--the place to discuss notability is AfD, & if it brought there I'll give my opinion. Similar situations have come up before. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This looks like a copy/paste error to me. EMG probably meant to copy MSJapan but instead pasted and again (my "command/CTRL" key was not working consistently recently, I kept doing the same thing, I would hit CTRL-C and think it copied but it didn't, and then I would do CTRL V and it would paste what I previously had on the keyboard. So I can see this happened. EMG is an active editor and is clearly not a troll or a vandal, so I see no legitimate reason why he/she would have messed with your signature. This is most definitely an occasion to WP:AGF. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, I only just noticed the notice on my user page. I was indeed editing-while-sleep-deprived. Foolish. And I apologized. As I explained elsewhere, it was the first time I had encountered an SPA repeatedly blanking a page to replace it with a bio so rich in personal detail and laudatory that it cold only have been written by someone very close to the subject - I knew this because I had tried to source that page and although this guy writes op-eds and goes on talk shows, I could find no profiles or in-depth articles about his background. I did get annoyed and revert it more than once, but I had not understood that the 3RR applies to all topics, not just to contentious ones. It takes a while to learn the rulebook, I am really good on a few things, like sourcing and notability. But I didn't know this. I asked an administrator for help and posted the SPA and the IP of the page blankers on a noticeboard. Hours later when I went to see if the page had been protected in some way, I found that I was being attacked by an editoyr I had never heard of before, Aggressively attacked, I thought, when all I had tried to do was to stop an SPA from blanking a page and replacing it with a hagiography. I then committed the crime of editing while groggy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 21 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:99.109.125.16

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 is adding unnecessary blank lines on many different pages.[353][354][355] In addition, user has undid a rollback by User:Arthur Rubin here[356] that was undone for block evasion. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BRD. 99.109.125.16 (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Just the 2¢ of a random passerby, but I see no problems with adding a single line of whitespace that doesn’t affect layout. On the latter issue, this user may want to act on the “D” part of “BRD”; It appears only Arthur has attempted to. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Look deeper, a potential starting place. 99.109.125.16 (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Regardless of whether Arthur may need his own ANI thread, it seems this user has some sort of vendetta against him, whether justified or not. But I’ll take my big nose out of this now. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Quite the opposite. All about WikiLove here. (",) 99.109.125.16 (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

An IP user who is doing the same exact thing (adding and deleting blank lines on multiple articles in a short time span) as multiple previously blocked IP users who were all blocked for evasion. Per WP:DUCK that looks like a block evasion attempt to me. In addition, the user's IP address is in the same range and traces to the same general location as previously documented IPs that have all been blocked for evasion. That is my reasoning for reporting it. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

User was blocked so this is now a moot point and I am not entirely sure if I am allowed to non-admin close my own thread. If anyone else would like to do that I would appreciate it. Thanks! --Stabila711 (talk) 07:28, 22 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.

Report an inconsiderate 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.

---

I've been editting in Wikipedia for quite sometime now.But one user User:Philip J Fry,hss been disagreeing with all my edits.Even in obvious staff he still rejects.It all started when he reportedly editing filmography sections of Latin actors by Changing Protagonist/Antagonist to Lead role/Co-lead role.On explaining to him the subject he was noting was a Telenovela,he blantantly refused.In the issue of Wild at Heart (telenovela) he repeatedly undid my edit since I changed title card with original name and moved page to the original spanish name.Surprisingly I also moved the page,The Stray Cat to "La Gata"(2014 telenovela) he moved it back to The Stray Cat with an explanation that the title card was in English.So I was asking you to please assist me on how to handle such a User that is giving me a hell of time with my edits which I think he is taking it personal.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyanchoka (talk • contribs) 12:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nyanchoka, you MUST notify the user on their talk page when starting a discussion here about them. And why have you started a different thread for exactly the same topic just three discussions above this? This seems most unconstructive. JZCL 14:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against the user, that's a lie. The user makes changes without reaching a concessive and sometimes reversed my edits without any explanation, as you can see here and here.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 14:59, 22 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 talk:Sriabhaya hospital

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 editor keeps adding inappropriate/spammy content to their talk page even after being blocked for spamming. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've revoked talk page access Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:44, 22 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.

Rangeblock needed for Kenny Loggins vandal

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

---

The very disruptive person described at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Kenny Loggins vandal has been at it again. The recent IP6 addresses appear to be vulnerable to a rangeblock:

• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:F04F:AB81:C5FA:5C27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 21–22 August 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:613A:4EC4:F36B:EB1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 20 August 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:18E9:46E9:62CF:183D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 20 August 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:8044:3D3C:1BC6:F9A6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 19 August 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:A1D3:9BE1:C1A2:3BFC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 16–17 June 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:5413:8F44:17A6:5B40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 15 June 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:316C:945D:AF85:E19A (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 15 June 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:EC17:89A4:43AD:3068 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 14 May 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:AC67:5AE4:64D0:5866 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 12 May 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:11B6:7883:D72F:DCBA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 10 May 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:C0CD:8D3F:91EC:9C86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 10 May 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:60A6:27A2:DB2D:5B7F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 9–10, 14 May 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:2D2D:71E4:AACF:ABF9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 9 May 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:5D6C:668A:6F5B:7918 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 8 May 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:2845:83F8:E7F5:FED7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 7 May 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:9551:E08E:E172:568B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 6 May 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:391B:D7BB:66B5:59BC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 2–4 May 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:956C:FF1A:F22E:2052 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 1–2 May 2015
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:B041:B822:A099:19C3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 23 April 2015

All of these share the sequence 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0. Can we rangeblock 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0? Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

2602:306:bd7e:caa0::/64 blocked 3 months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I updated the LTA case page. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 22 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 claims to share an 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.

---

On 18 August, user Stopedits11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stated on his Talk page that he shares an account. I don’t know the details (he didn’t offer any, and blanked the page on further inquiry), but it’s my understanding that account-sharing is generally forbidden here per WP:ROLE. I’m not asking for any action on my behalf, just thought it should be brought to administrator attention. If there’s no violation, then cool, but that policy page may need updating in that case. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right and the account had been blocked accordingly. Good catch, thanks! Swarm ♠ 06:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's against policy, so I've blocked them. It also looks like they were previously blocked for personal attacks, so that won't really look good for them if they want to be unblocked since the edit about "I share accounts" seems to be sort of done in an argumentative format. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like the account was also being nasty towards the IP that reported this, so I'm going to just say that it's going to be nearly impossible for this person to be unblocked, since it's pretty much impossible to prove that only one person is operating an account after someone claims otherwise AND they'd have to show that they wouldn't act like this again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:41, 22 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.

Further disruption at WOP articles

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

---

disruption at WOP articles. Now User:Ricky81682 continues his campaign of harassment by deleting Koto Okubo. It's been kept for years and she was one the world's oldest women for almost a month. I mean, this wasn't random, it was also 28 days as the oldest person in the world. We need a topic ban — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.75 (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — 166.170.48.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Procedural note: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have done so here. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

sorry. Her page should be speedy kept too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.75 (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I initially closed this discussion since the AfD was speedily kept...but then I realized that an IP tried to close the AfD. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If a rangeblock is needed, 166.170.48.0/22 would be a good place to start. --MuZemike 04:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Background history can be found here. As usual, I'm called for a topic ban (at least not a desyop). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo was closed as merge in 2012 but it was fought repeatedly and so the new discussion is to re-doing the arguments in my view. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Will anyone agree to a topic ban? We had three editors in support with one verbal oppose and yet it was not not imposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.49.99 (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — 166.170.49.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you mean a topic ban for you, I think that may be in the cards, yes. EEng (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is the second IP the same as the first IP? The range is clearly the same (I know that doesn't automatically lead to the pond, but...). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to pick on that guy. 166.170.48.93 (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

And now a third IP from the same range? Okay, now it's duck season. (word to Baseball Bugs)... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The WOP project is clearly toxic. The behavior of this serial IP editor is symptomatic, as is that of more than one previous member. A range block of the IP is clearly required. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not fair to paint every WOP project member under the same brush. This person isn't even a member of the project, they're an anonymous IP. A block would be most welcome. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Short term targeted blocks and semi-protection is the best solution in this case. A rangeblock on 166.170.48.0/22 would unfortunately cause too much collateral.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• See the Disruption at CFD thread for further bad faith reports from this IP range. ~ Rob^Talk 19:36, 21 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:LesVegas

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:LesVegas primarily / only edits acupuncture. Today they added an incredible statement:

acupuncture to be a safe and effective treatment for supraventricular tachycardia[357]

The source supporting it is in Chinese from the Journal Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. This journal has an impact factor of zero.[358] The SJR is 0.12 which is very low.[359] After being reverted they added 5 tags to the article three times [360], [361], [362].

They continue not see see anything wrong with the content or source they added.[363][364]

On Aug 20th they were warned by User:Manul for using a misleading edit summary in this edit here [365]. To which they replied Thanks for the advice. Here is some for you: Wikipedia:KETTLE

The user has already been warned as I just noticed that this article is also under discretionary sanctions.[366]

To summary I do not think this user can properly edit in this topic area. Have also reported this user to 3RR here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarification, are you requesting a topic ban? If so, AE might be the best way to go, as the discretionary sanctions were imposed by ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks yes User:John Carter we do have [367]. We could consider community sanctions here or move it their? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I think AE sanctions are both harder to overturn, and maybe easier to follow up on, so maybe moving it there would be more effective. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) There is currently a open section on WP:AN/3 on this same dispute. AlbinoFerret 18:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes which I mention above in my opening remarks. The issue goes beyond the 3RR however. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Must have missed that, sorry. But that section on WP:AN/3 is showing that there were only two reverts by LesVegas to your three. AlbinoFerret 18:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be a content dispute and really seems best addressed elsewhere, perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine where more eyes can look at the dispute. Bringing this to WP:ANI and WP:AN3 (which Doc James also apparently did, despite no 3rr violation [368]) seems odd.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  I am of the opinion that sactions are needed as this appears to be an ongoing issue with little understanding on the part of Vegas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• None of these edits improved the article.[369][370][371][372] User:LesVegas was previously warned not to edit war. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture for a previous discussion. See User_talk:John/Archive_2015#What_can_I_do_to_stop_an_incivil_admim.3F for another discussion. I think uninvolved admins can handle this here. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Only, LesVegas didnt edit war, he made two reverts, that isnt edit warring. 3 reverts, which Doc James did [373][374][375] is closer, perhaps its enough for a WP:BOOMERANG when the fact is included he posted this to two boards WP:FORUMSHOP. The other edits you point out are a content disgreement, not something that is discussed normally on this board. AlbinoFerret 19:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Obvious WP:FRINGE warrior is obvious. Recommend WP:DS be brought at WP:AE, I think that these are generally easier than community action. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AlbinoFerret on some counts, and frankly LasVegas clearly and extensively explained the tags, so I have no problems with them. However, James has legitimate concerns about a safety issue in terms of content. The way to deal with that for both editors is to take the issues to the appropriate dispute resolution board, and have the community input. Its better to err on the side of extreme caution in MEDRS related content. Boomerang is not necessary nor is the labeling of an editor, just get more input(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC))

I do suggest that accusations of edit warring be carefully documented and accurate.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC))

Previous POV tag added to the top of the page.[376][377][378][379][380][381] Even more tags added to the top of the page.[382][383][384] Does anyone think this is appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is I made the reverts primarily because several of the templates being reverted say "do not remove until the disputes have been resolved". I added a rather lengthy section on the talk page regarding the issues on Acupuncture such as self-published sources being used in the lede of all places, weasel words, miscellaneous POV issues in the lede and throughout the article, and systemic bias issues since Chinese sources have had a long history of being kept off the article. What I hoped the tags would do is attract new editors to the article to help solve the numerous issues. Do we really not want to have new editors looking at the article? I want to make it clear: after DocJames reverted the two sources, I did not edit war and add them back in. I respect the talk page process. If he has objections I want to hear them, and I hope he will hear me. But what I respect even more is signaling new editors to the talk page rather than entrenched ones determined to keep the article the way it is. Hence the purpose of the tags. When I do everything required to add tags to an article and tags that say "do not remove until disputes have been resolved" are removed, it's disruptive. That article really needs to get looked at by a wider audience, checked for its neutrality, or something. It's a shame some editors seem to fear that. LesVegas (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru The diffs are about a year apart. The recent set accompanied a talk section, so the addition of tags is appropriate. But edit warring to remove them is not the case. These were the 2 and 3rd reverts Doc James made to edits by LesVegas today. I notice that Doc has stopped digging, Im not so sure he would like to see you pick up the shovel and make the hole deeper. AlbinoFerret 20:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree the best way forward is not to remove the tags. and in a sense they provide a level of protection for the reader on such articles. The article does need input but it needs input from editors who can read and understand research which is not always the editor who wanders over. At the same time, the Chinese research is contentious. What is not needed in the mix is knee jerk reaction from either skeptics or others rather than careful analysis of each source. It can be hard to tell the legitimate editor from the ones with agendas, and the reaction on Wikipedia can be to burn them all at the stake. I don't know what the answer is but safety first is my preferred underlying principle, and that the punitive model is archaic and useless in the long run.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC))

• strongly support admin-administered DS for LesVegas - this edit] is outrageous on an article with discretionary sanctions in place. The edit added way FRINGE content (not a little bit FRINGE but rather way, way outside the medical mainstream), to a highly contested article without prior discussion. The subsequent tag-bombing was clearly retaliatory. This is exactly what DS are for and it is time to kick them in, and ANI is a place to alert admins to activity where their actions are needed. I would propose a week-long block from Acupuncture but the sanctions are discretionary, of course. DS do not need community consensus. In case anybody is unclear, the edit said that a review (in a crap journal) found "acupuncture to be a safe and effective treatment for supraventricular tachycardia" -- that is a complex medical condition where your heart is driving itself to beat too fast - it takes serious drugs, a pacemaker, or defibrillation (clear!) to treat. POV-pushing edits of content like this is the biggest reason why this article is a BATTLEGROUND - why the quackfighters need to stay alert and deal with this kind of lunatic charlatan editing. Really. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

In a similar situation in the past, when I saw what was clearly a violation of arbitration sanctions at ANI, I was told that the appropriate way to proceed would be to take the matter to AE. On the basis of that previous discussion, and taking into account some of the other matters raised here, I really think it would be best to refer this to AE, although, after a discussion of this length here, I am unsure exactly how to present it to them there. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That is baloney. Any admin can administer DS. I will wait a day and see if an admin takes action. If no one does, I will ask Doc James to close this thread and will open the AE myself. The edit and tag-bombing are way out of line. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Any admin can impose DS, but most admins are (not without reason) afraid to act in controversial areas. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This is another case of MEDRS being used to close off an article from other opinions. Sad. The Banner talk 20:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Using MEDRS to "close off an article from other opinions" seems similar to me to using RS to close off an article from claims or "facts" that are not supported by a reliable source. And that is bad.... why? BMK (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

If you don't think MEDRS applies to acupuncture, you truly are a lost cause. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Regardless of the merits of this journal or that, or this needle or that, LesVegas was clearly guilty of pointy editing, esp. when they said, on the talk page after their edits were reverted and their opinion on the Chinese journal was gaining no traction, "In order to gain an outside point of view by more neutral, third-party Wikipedians, I have added tags outlining multiple issues on the article." I do not think there's enough edit warring for a block (I looked at the 3R report), unless LesVegas has a history of edit warring. Whether there is enough for a block for DS/disruption, that I cannot determine based on these edits alone, but I'll have a look later. In the meantime I welcome others' opinions. In the other meantime, can we stop running to ArbCom all the time? Those poor guys have it hard enough already, what with all the necessary emergency desysops. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support, regrettably. As the consensus against uncritical coverage has become clearer, LesVegas seems to me to have become more aggressive and more inclined to push the envelope of what is acceptable. This is Wikipedia, our articles on topics related to medicine are dominated by the scientific perspective, and this is by design. The lack of scienctific support for the bulk of what acupuncturists claim is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support per JzG and Drmies above. I would think ArbCom has enough on their plate to deal with at this time. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  23:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• OK. Given that this is under DS, and given that the user has been notified of those, and considering that this user has before made rather pointy edits (tagging as a weapon), and given that considering all that tagging and re-tagging is certainly disruptive, I will block LesVegas for a week. Now, if one of you can add it to the log, I can get back to other things. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to see this. If there was one sanction being handed out per the discretionary sanctions there should have been many. Again and again an editor who has the tenacity to hang in with the skeptics and much less experience is brought to a NB and is sanctioned while other behaviours are not looked at. This whole article is contentious and that was not created by one editor nor was it appropriate for an admin to bring this issue to a NB while using inaccurate information. I know having watched this article for along time that LesVegas intent was not to be pointy but a desperate attempt to bring in new blood to a muddy controlled, environment. I didn't want to see anyone sanctioned here. I had hope Doc and LesVegas could discuss this themselves. Anyway my view such as it is, and I do respect your work Drmies.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC))
  • Littleolive oil, such blocks give me no pleasure. The edit, followed by the tag bomb, followed by again the tag bomb, that's too much. I understand the talk page is a mire, and obviously something needs to be done/decided about those Chinese-language sources, but pushing the envelope is not the right way. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

While I disagree with the view of what happened; I respect you decision and position.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:29, 23 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.

Rangeblock request to contain excessive sockpuppetry by User:KunoxTxa

This was recently discussed at SPI, and deemed to be not feasible, but I think it needs to be revisited. Their sockpuppetry has grown to frankly ridiculous proportions since then, with no fewer than twenty-two (!!) suspected sockpuppets being blocked in the last six weeks.

This has lead to the repeated deletion, and create protection of a significant number of articles. Add to that the editor's own statement of intending to continue indefinitely, and I think we've gotten to the point were even some level of collateral damage caused by a range block is preferable to allowing the disruption from this editor to continue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Many of these haven't edited. It would take some analysis to see the type of edits and establish if it's worth setting up an edit filter. A range block would require checkuser info, and does sound like it would not be a good idea. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Check their deleted edits. The creation of inappropriate articles is one of the hallmarks of this editor. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a limited view of deleted edits, not being an admin at the moment. I have set up a draft edit filter entitled Armenian football vandal, but there's more work needed to make it truly effective. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC).

Mass salting

Could someone please create-protect all the articles created by Ramzan Kadiryan, SizinGünbəzDoqquz, and MER HAYRENIK? Socks of KunoxTxa keep recreating the articles, some as many as six times. Thanks, Conifer (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think User:Shirt58 is already on it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please provide me with a list, by email if desired. I am looking at this sockmaster for other reasons. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Deletions for MER HAYRENIK here (tagged with the username), for SizinGünbəzDoqquz here (tagged G5, KunoxTxa). I don't have comprehensive list for Ramzan Kadiryan, unfortunately. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll build this information in tomorrow, semi-protecting these would be sensible instead/as well. I am picking up a lot from existing EF logs too. The red-linked players from FC Pyunic are already in the EF, even the Armenian WP does not have articles about them yet (except one). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC).

'fixed typos'

• 76.65.166.158 (talk · contribs)

Sorry to bring this here, but a spate of misleading edit summaries always raises a flag for me. Would someone more familiar with pop music categories like to take a look at these edits? I'm not buying them, but don't feel comfortable reverting a few dozen on anything more than my gut. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like this user may have been down this road before: [385]. And here [386], so I guess this is a 'thing'.2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Reported at WP:AIV. General Ization ^Talk 03:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that those are Canned edit summaries -- they're one of the default values for the mobile app (you could consider it similar to leaving a blank summary). Doesn't mean that their edits aren't an issue, though. (not an admin) --Pokechu22 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Pokechu22; I didn't know that, but it makes sense now. And thanks, General Ization; I was hesitant to bring it to AIV. Unless the edits are blatant vandalism, some admins will recommend to file here. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Anytime I see an IP editor using that edit summary I revert it without question. I've not been wrong so far. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: if such reverts are standard procedure, could they be done by a bot? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine a bot request ever being approved, as some tree-hugger will find one in every 1,000 edits of that nature to be good. It doesn't happen a great deal TBH. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I am one such tree-hugger. My findings are pretty much the same as Lugnuts' though. Edits from IPs and new accounts using these canned edit summaries are very, very often edits that need to be reverted. Not always necessarily vandalism, but often genre warring, adding pointless trivia, commenting on the subject of the article within the article, just generally unconstructive stuff. There's even a "canned edit summary" tag in recent changes - it almost always shows up alongside "mobile edit, mobile web edit". But assume good faith, y'all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I go down the Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper route - "I would sooner accept a few casualties through accidents rather losing the entire base and its personnel through carelessness". Not that I'm some sort of psychotic eager to start a nuclear war. Well, not yet. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur, such reverts are not standard procedure. Lugnuts simply gave a personal view. AIUI, users on mobile devices get a dropdown menu of ready-made edit summaries. As for the edits reported above, from a brief look it was spot on to revert those. In contrast, casual reversion of good-faith edits based on actual or perceived aspects of contributors rather than content is very harmful to the project; in pervasive cases doing so leads to restrictions or blocks. Basically, judge edits on their own merits and you'll be fine. –80.229.177.245 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I certainly hope I will indeed be fine! Thank you, IP editor 80.229.177.245. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

user:rojomoke

user:Rojomoke removed my question on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science and called it "opinions, predictions or debate" then how come questions like An evolutionary biologist that studies biological complexity or Natural Resources and the Environment be allowed? Dannis243 (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Asking for the name of a specific scientist isn't asking for an opinion or speculation. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 12:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

First, it was not removed, it was "hatted" and collapsed - I was able to read it, and I've now unhatted it. I'd suggest you could have talked to Rojomoke or the reference desk talk page, and only posted here if those avenues were not helpful in resolving the issue. In the future, please be careful not to ask for prediction at the ref desk. In this case, I provided references that I think you may find helpful. This question would have caused no problems if phrased as such - "I have read that some people think that rare earth minerals, oil, etc. will become scarce in the future, preventing widespread use of computers etc. (ideally include a representative link). Where can I read more about this? Are there any WP articles that address this subject?" As long as you make it a point to ask for references (including newspapers, scholarly journals, textbooks, WP articles, etc), most any question is allowed, and I will usually defend the right of any user to ask for any references on the reference desk :) SemanticMantis (talk)

The Babys

Reverts of edits are getting more aggressive each time from a party appearing to represent a reformed "The Babys." Their edits are clumsy and unencyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stedbeat (talk • contribs) 12:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

To give some background here, The Babys has an IP address with some aggressive editing regarding the rights to the name at the moment among the band members (and some sort of revival) [387] including adding a link to the USPTO office search function which doesn't actually work. Article has since been semi-protected so I think we're done at the moment here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre Cyberbot II edit

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

---

Would someone please look at this bizarre edit by Cyberbot II at Ferguson unrest? I fear the bot has been compromised. General Ization ^Talk 02:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I've notified cyberpower678 of this thread. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I was actually notifying cyberpower678 of the issue (not this thread since Cyberbot II is not a human editor) at the same time you posted on their Talk page, but I appreciate your having done so. However, cyberpower678's Talk page does suggest that they may be unavailable for some time. Is there anyone else familiar with the bot who could take a look and try to figure out how this happened? General Ization ^Talk 02:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like MediaWiki failed to catch an edit conflict. No issue with the bot here. This is what it was trying to do.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. General Ization ^Talk 02:57, 23 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.

Unfounded allegations and deliberately preventing the accused from answering 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.

---

An SPI case has been raised here against a user unrelated to this case. JoeSperrazza (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has added another IP address editor 86.153.131.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to the list claiming that it is a sock of the same investigation and JoeSperrazza has used the allegation as an excuse to revert this IP's edits under WP:BE example. The examples of edits that he has provided appear to have little to with the case as given. In addition, the case page has been semi-protected to ensure that none of the IP addresses accused can respond to the case (a request for removal has been filed).

It is worth noting that there has been a flurry of editing activity at Prime meridian (Greenwich) within which two editors are attempting to WP:OWN the article by objecting to what others are editing in. I have to note that Jc3s5h (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) who is also attempting to own the article has also chimed in and reverting the same good faith (and correct) edits. I would therefore suggest that these two may even be sockpuppets ofeach other. 86.145.209.15 (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Also see WP:ANI Community ban proposal: Vote (X) for Change: closing -- banned:

• “…filing bogus reports at AN/I”
• “…His ANI reports usually contain much indignation about admins not assuming good faith. If he keeps on doing this enough times perhaps it will become easier to recognize the bogus ANI reports.”

JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Since I have been deliberately prevented from responding at the SPI. According to the evidence put up by Jc3s5h (talk · contribs), everyone who edits Wikipedia and lives in London must be sockpuppets of each other. That is his sole evidence. With a population of 8.6 million people, I await all the future SPI cases whenever he dislikes anyone's editing. 86.145.209.15 (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Prime meridian (Greenwich). Jc3s5h (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That is nothing more than your determined attempt to make sure that I cannot respond to your malicious allegations where you made them. I note that you continue to add irelevances secure in the knowledge that they cannot be answered.

It is now very clear that Jc3s5h (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and JoeSperrazza (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) are sockpuppets of each other. Both are intent on reverting the IP address editors without any case having been proven (diff1 and diff2 AND using an identical edit summary].

Both users have also redacted good faith discussion atempts left on their talk pages, diff3 and diff4. It is unusual to find two editors who both clean such comments off their talk pages, even less so, two who claim to be doing it for alleged sockpuppets of banned users before they have even produced a viable case let alone proven the point.

And both users, are intent on proving sockpuppetry relying solely on the fact that the accused happens to geolocate to London. Problem is: that the case falls down because this IP address does not geolocate to London, but around 10 miles or so east of where I am (though it probably will do if my IP address changes - something over which I have no control). 86.145.209.15 (talk) 13:04, 23 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 repeatedly introduces false precision errors from an account and 3 IP addresses

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.

---

Christina1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

89.132.19.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

89.134.28.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

89.134.20.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

As can be seen from the history of Gustave (crocodile), the above user keeps changing "2,000 pounds (900 kg)" to "2,000 pounds (907 kg)" (as .154, as .238, as .54, as Christina1969). The source says "2,000 pounds" so this introduces an error via false precision. Myself and other editors have repeatedly tried to explain this concept (here, here, here, here), but there seems to be a WP:IDHT/WP:CIR problem.

Note this person has a history of block evasion (see here). I've delivered {{ANI-notice}} to User talk:Christina1969. Pinging admin JamesBWatson who has dealt with this person before. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely. There is no indication that this editor has taken advice to heart or that they will change their editing pattern. Acroterion (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that the proper start point for units conversions is the source reference units.... Which were Pounds. Corrected the conversion in the infobox. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:55, 23 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.

Eduardo Franco

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 page Eduardo Franco redirect to Los Iracundos i have this, I need to remove the redirection to place the translation of this wiki-page here because it is two different things. Best Regards --The Silver (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This does not require administrative action as you can follow the redirect and replace it yourself. Click here[388] to do so. --Stabila711 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!!!! --The Silver (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you have any other question please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. --Stabila711 (talk) 16:42, 23 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.

False accusation and personal attack

user:Toddy1, has a history of making false and baseless accusations against me. He claimed here [389] that I added the following, when it was there long before I started editing the article: "Under Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab it says "Salafists consider Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab as the first figure in the modern era to push for a return to the religious practices of the salaf as-salih". As we may see here [390], this statement has existed long before I started editing.

Today he posted a menacing personal attack on my talk page, accusing me of being a user I have no connection with and do not know who he/she is. His message may be seen here [391]. This is clearly a violation of a variety of wikipedia policies pertaining to civility and personal attacks. I would recommend that disciplinary action be taken against him. Xtremedood (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see a big BOOMERANG coming back at Xtremedood. The user hasn't even informed Toddy1 formally. Leaving a manual missive on Toddy1's talk page is bad form. Please put a lid on it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor who interacted with Toddy1 sometime ago I had a brief interaction with Toddy1 a while ago. At first I thought that he was quite obnoxious, overbearing and very rude. But when I went to his talk page I found out that he speaks English language as a second language and therefore they sometimes try to say one thing and it comes out as another. Perhaps you can be kind enough to give them some rope?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, I have informed Toddy1 here [392], however he deleted it.

I have seen other users post more "informal" notices on pages and their complaint was not declared a boomerang, see here [393]. Is there a Wikipedia policy as to a specific format upon which a notice must be placed on a user's page? Xtremedood (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no such required format - as the notice at the top of the page says (with my emphasis)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

The requirement is to notify, the option for using that template is "may" not "should" or "must" - Arjayay (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Arjayay, my comment on BOOMERANG was unrelated to the type of notification left for Toddy1. I was referring to Xtremedood's WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavioural pattern which I determined just in a cursory look at the user's editing history, and the fact that this ANI complaint is a tendentious waste of editor time and energy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Background. Xtremedood is involved in a content dispute concerning the article on the Salafi movement. He/she made changes on 24 July, 25 July, 8 August, and 10 August. I tried reverting on 24 July on the grounds that two citations that I checked did not support the text. He/she reverted back and started a talk page discussion at Talk:Salafi movement#Revert by Toddy1. In the talk page discussion @Brustopher: supported Xtremedood's changes, whilst @MezzoMezzo:, @DeCausa: and myself objected to them. Xtremedood's changes to the article were partially reverted by MezzoMezzo, and completely reverted by me on 11 August.

Xtremedood's complaints about my conduct.

1. I received a message posted by an IP threatening to report me to Interpol on my talk page on 13 August. It seemed obvious that this was from Xtremedood, so I responded by posting a message on User talk:Xtremedood politely asking him/her not to send me threatening messages.[394]
2. Regarding Xtremedood's other complaint - during the discussion on the article talk page I mentioned two citations that I had checked and found not to support the text they were there for.[395] He/she is right that one of those citations was there before his edits. His/her edits of 8 August had moved the paragraph to a different part of the article, and I mistakenly thought that he/she had introduced that part.
3. I do not understand why Xtremedood believes that I deleted his ANI notification from my talk page. It is still there.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ugh. Relatively new editor Xtremedood is trying to POV push a fringe view into Salafi movement and finds established editors MezzoMezzo and Toddy1 resisting on the basis of policy. Xtremedood proceeds on the basis of WP:BATTLE and uses ANI report based on a trivial diff as a tactic to attack one of the editors they're in dispute with. Thread needs to be dismissed with an admin keeping an eye on the OP. That's the story here. DeCausa (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not POV. It was sourced. I am against dogma being promoted in this article over verifiable facts and sources. Xtremedood (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As we can see above, user:Toddy1, once against falsely accuses me of leaving that message when I have no connection to that user and I do not know who that user is. Clearly this has to stop. Xtremedood (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa knocked it out of the water, though Iryna Harpy figured it out pretty fast as well. Xtremedood: give it a rest. I advised you more than once that your combative methods got you blocked for edit warring on other articles. You aren't going to get your way by attacking other editors all the time; stop seeing us as adversaries and start treating is as colleagues working together to improve articles, otherwise you're just going to be marginalized and your suggested edits will be rejected. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The complaint is about a false accusation, stay on topic. There is no need to gang up on me if I disagree with your position or Toddy1's position. I did not send Toddy1 that message. Toddy1 should not be falsely accusing me. For the admins who may be confused about this, the dispute this user is mentioning refers to the article Salafi movement and the discussion between MezzoMezzo, Toddy1, DeCausa, and I may be viewed here: [396]. Xtremedood (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the fact is that you are being tendentious and nit-picking in order to get your way instead of listening to discussion and consensus on the article's talk page. You're now heading towards pushing the limits of 'they're ganging up on me'. Please pay attention and drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your accusation that I am being tendentious and nitpicking. My sources are clear and may be seen here [397] before you reverted them. However, this is not the place to discuss this. This is regarding an incident where I was falsely accused of something I did not do. This violates a multitude of wikipedia policies pertaining to civility and personal attacks. I have opened a dispute on the dispute resolution noticeboard here [398] (feel free to state whatever you wish over there), however I now see that a decision should be made here before pursuing a case on the DRN. Regardless, stay on topic. Xtremedood (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is staying on what only you seem to think the topic is, Xtremedood, because your "topic" is a false premise. Nobody attacked you personally and nobody accused you of things falsely. Everybody here recognizes that and your attempt to forum shop won't help you.

Know what will help you? Stop being combative and trying to use debate tactics, and start being cooperative and trying to work together with other editors as colleagues instead of enemies. You're wasting your time doing anything else. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Provocation and character assassination by User:Eladynnus

I will take my chances here. Would someone kindly warn Eladynnus (talk · contribs) for their systematic provocation, insults and character assassination stretching back 3 years? I first came across this editor 3 years ago on the Serer religion talk page] (and other Serer articles) where persistent insults, provocation and character assassinations by he and co. drove me out of the project. I will not waste your time or mine giving details about their historic behaviour all those years ago but if you want I will. The purpose of reporting this person is their recent attack on my talk page [399]. I gave them a warning on their talk page but they did not heed my warning and left another remark on my talk page.

I have not edited Wikipedia for 3 years since I retired from this project thanks to the systematic provocation, character assassination and insults by this editor and co. Because I created a portal before, I was asked to help create other portals which I hesitantly agreed to because I did not want to go through what these people put me through 3 years ago. This editor has not been active on Wikipedia since May 16 2015 [400] (see Talk:Gamergate controversy). I find it ironic that this editor's return coincided with my return and their second edit was on my talk page [401]. Would someone kindly deal with this individual? I would like to add that there is more to this. Therefore, I would respectfully ask that only non-involved Administrators part take in this issue. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sure Tamsier does not consider me non-involved, but I'll speak my mind anyway. Eladynnus said, "Your aggressive behavior and ownership mentality made working with you an impossible task"--that's strong, but not much of a personal attack. "you have a history of telling mistruths - or have you forgotten the "Raampa" incident, or being admonished for deceptive edit summaries?" maybe comes closer, but it comes with evidence, or at least what the writer considers evidence. Whether Eladynnus was wise in leaving that comment on Tamsier's talk page is a different question, but that this, and their subsequent post on Tamsier's talk page, does not constitute an instance of "systematic provocation etc", that much is clear. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC
  • I'm very involved so won't take any Admin action. I certainly would welcome uninvolved Admins, reviewing the context to this. Tamsier's just come off a 3 day block for attacking me, attacks strewn over 4 article talk pages and RSN and continued on his talk page during the block, where he also attacked Drmies ]. Tamsier's had 7 blocks, 6 in a 14 month period between June 2011 and August 2012 after which he retired. These were for disruptive/pov editing, harassment and personal attacks and should be taken into account by any uninvolved Admins when examining what Tamsier has said. Doug Weller (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Notice that I said "non-involved" and have not mentioned the names of the two editors above. My recent block was for posting my references and comments on the talk pages of the relevant articles which were the subject of discussion at RSN. As those articles were affected and were the subject of discussion, I believe it was proper to add my references and comments on their talk pages so that future editors can examine it for themselves and take the necessary action as they see fit. After posting my refs and comments, I noted I am done discussing this issue and was not involved in any sort of vandalism or revert war. As such, I though it was improper to block me for that because a fundamental principle of Wikipedia is to put your case and sources on the talk page. Since my comments and references at RSN were material to those articles, I thought it was proper to post them on the talk pages of those articles. If I wanted to open another ANI, I would have done it. This report is about the recent provocation of this editor (Eladynnus). Not only was his second contribution since his return posted on my talk page, but most importantly, he had no reason to post on my talk page and made their remarks under my block. I strongly feel that he wanted me to retaliate thereby allowing admins to give me an indefinite block. When I failed to retaliate and gave him a warning on his talk page, he increased the pressure by posting another remark on my talk page, hence why I filed this incident. I would respectfully urge uninvolved Administrators not to allow themselves to be sidetracked from the purpose of this report. This report is about the editor's recent edits. If I or another editor made such remarks or provocations, I or others would have been blocked and rightly so. As such, it is reasonable to assume the same rules/policy would be applied to each and every editor no matter who they are. I will now leave it to the better judgement of uninvolved Administrators. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      • How can you say you didn't retaliate when you're here? Drmies (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Tamsier blocked indefinitely. Disclosure: I have never had anything to do with Tamsier or Eladynnus or the articles in question. I took a look, and Tamsier, for a start, I'm not impressed by the way you run your talkpage. Anybody interested should read the history rather than merely the page. Tamsier has removed comments from Drmies and Eladynnus as "insults,"[402] and has removed Doug Weller's response to his comprehensive attack ("Ha ha ha! This doesn't look good for Doug Weller does it?" etc) as "irrelevant".[403] It's "permitted" to remove comments ad lib, but those removals are what I'd call uncollaborative, and downright misleading for readers who don't study the history, because, well, the comments really aren't irrelevant. That said, I'm inclined, on principle, to give blocked users a lot of leeway wrt venting during a block.

However. Taking a look at your battleground editing of Talk:Serer history, Talk:Saloum, Talk:Serer people and Talk:Kingdom of Sine, I'm astonished that Drmies merely blocked you for 72 hours. You have inserted this egregious attack on Doug Weller, header and edit summary "User:Doug Weller and his POV pushing on Serer and African related article" on all four talkpages, all four screenfuls of it on my good big oldfashioned monitor — you're a fine one to talk about "character assassination". It is also notable that, although Tamsier took a 3-year break from wiki from August 2012 to August 2015, he left something of a trail of disruption behind in his 2011 — 2012 editing, with 6 blocks of increasing length in just over a year[404]. The last one was for three months, and after that he retired, for what he describes as being hounded off wiki. These blocks were for disruptive/pov editing, harassment, personal attacks and sockpuppetry (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tamsier/Archive). Has he turned over a new leaf in 2015? No, it doesn't look like it. It's also worth noting the little handful of angry edits in 2013, showing that he was keeping his resentment agains Drmies and in particular Dougweller simmering, with accusations of racism etc etc: "You (Doug Weller) are the biggest POV editor I have ever seen on Wiki. Not only do you insert POV, but you are also a liar. … You use one source as scripture and plaster it all over Serer related articles. You take his writing as scripture just because he is a White American like yourself…You were more interested in peddling your POV and lying about me in talk pages…What a joke you are… However you were not interested in that, you were interested in your POV and vendetta. This appears to be a user with still, in August 2015, no interest in collaborative editing but only in changing Wikipedia to fit his beliefs, and thinking it can be done through series of intemperate attacks against the good faith and veracity of others. Now he has made the classic mistake of thinking an ANI review will only address his own complaint ("This report is about the recent provocation of this editor (Eladynnus)"), not his own conduct. No, typically, on all noticeboards, the reporters own actions will also be scrutinised. I have done so, and have blocked Tamsier indefinitely as not being here to create an encyclopedia. Considering the background I've outlined, I see no point in starting over with the piddling blocks as soon as this disruptive user returns from his self-imposed exile. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Drmies, with your 72 hours.) However, I believe Tamsier has knowledge and skills that could potentially help the encyclopedia; if he writes a reasonable unblock request, which shows some awareness of the problems with his own editing, it should certainly be entertained. As for Eladynnus, the way Tamsier has exploded because E posted on his page and retaliated with furious WARNINGs (original capitalisation) as well as this ANI report seems merely a characteristic overreaction. Bishonen | talk 08:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

He's accepted your decision and thanked you: "Thank you for your decision Bishonen. I reported an editor for systematic provocation, insults and character assassination to ANI and in your judgment you felt I deserved to be blocked. I would like to thank you for taking the time to examine the case as diligently as you have. And I fully accept your decision to block. " Doug Weller (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I stand behind my original statements. Although they in themselves were aggressive, I believe that anyone who reads the attacks strewn across the Serer talk pages (as well as on several pages that I created, such as on Talk:Frei_Caneca) will see exactly what I am talking about. Eladynnus (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Looking right back at you, Bish. I'm just not a very good blocker. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

User FkpCascais modifying and removing my 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.

---

Hello, another user is removing my comments and accusing me of sock puppetry. I do not know what gives him the right to designate someone as a sock and remove his comments without a report. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the talk page: [405]

Here are the edits: [406] [407] [408] [409] [410] [411]

He continues to remove my edits even after I reported [412] and notified him:

[413] [414] [415] [416] [417] [418] [419]

89.164.239.139 (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

FkpCascais must be pretty clever because the above post confirms their diagnosis. Please just stick to the terms of whatever sanction was originally made, without wikilawyering about how we can't prove you aren't a sock. Johnuniq (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, FkpCascais seems to be violating both WP:AGF and WP:3RR. Unfortunately, 89.164.239.139 is also in for a WP:BOOMERANG as they are equally involved in the edit war. --Stabila711 (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry. I did not know that 2RR is also applicable to talk pages. I haven't done a single edit to the article. I just participated the discussion in an effort to establish a consensus when this user started removing and modifying my comments. I reverted that but I did not know that I would be breaking 3RR by restoring my comments on the talk page that were modified and removed. I apologize, but then I do not know how to defend my comments from being deleted and modified if I'm not allowed to revert those edits. I made this report but he continued with removing my comments, so I followed his pace. I thought he is the more experienced user and if he thinks it's ok to repedetly delete my comments I'm certainly right to restore them, even if i make as much edits as he does, because I knew that editing other people's comments is frowned upon on Wikipedia. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment The IP's first edit was today, yet they already seem to know a fair bit about wiki procedures. I quite understand why this account has been assumed to be a sock, even if it isn't. JZCL 12:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

But what gives him the right to single handedly conclude that and remove my edits? I'm somewhat familiar with the rules and I though a report should be done and that administrators are the only one who can remove someone's comments. I know that other people had strong objection when I modified their comments because of spelling mistakes. I thought that modifying someones comments is frowned upon on wikipedia even if done in good faith. Just read my 2 posts before he started to delete my comments. You say that because of my knowledge to make this report someone can assume I'm a sock, but he had assumed that even before this report. I just made 2(I think) posts and he already started to remove my edits. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Those IPs are clearly User:Asdisis. First he used the same IP he admitted to be him at Tesla talk-page, 141.138.50.1 , then he continued the discussion using IP 89.164.239.139. FkpCascais (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't admitted anything. I don't understand what's so wrong with my initial posts that you started deleting them. I even pinged you so I could get more familiar with your opinion since we seem to disagree.89.164.239.139 (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that FkpCascais said on the talk page that I'm a sock of Michael Cambridge and he says here that I'm a sock of Asdisis. Again I'm very confused by all this, why did you change this now? Why are you telling that I admitted being a sock? Where did I admit that? Why would any sock admit he is a sock? That's and immediate ban. You said on the talk page that I'm a sock of Michael Cambridge and that admitted that, and you say now I'm a sock of Asdisis and that admitted that. So did I make an admission 2 times? Why didn't you make a report instead of deleting my comments. If I admitted being a sock then a simple report would be sufficient. Why are you telling I admitted something without providing my edit? I'm very puzzled by all this. Could you explain a bit better this whole situation and why did you feel it is ok to delete my comments? What is so wrong with them? There are just 2-3 comments and I do not see anything wrong in them apart from me disagreeing with you. Well only initially, so I pinged you to get familiar with your stand. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

We have had a set of IPs that are clearly the same person repeatedly pretending to be a new person freshly making the same arguments in an attempt to establish a "consensus" that is basically opposite to the consensus that actually exists. This IP always mentions how unfair Asdisis was treated, in fact the seem to know about Asdisis pretty much every time. While Michael Cambridge may be a different person who is also engaging in sock puppetry, it is very clear from timing and content that Michael Cambridge and Asdisis are at the very least in coordination if not the same person.

There is no failure of AGF on the part of FkpCascais because WP:AGF does not require the assumption of good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. This is simply a case of sock puppetry and most likely block evasion. Chillum 16:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what is going on and nobody of you who seem to know a great deal about that had tried to explain. What is so similar between me and those persons, so my comments are to be deleted without any report? I was under impression that for someone to be designated as a sock, first a misconduct should be determined. That nobody can be a suspected puppet if he does not exhibit a misconduct. What is my misconduct. The only misconduct that I see is the case of FkpCascais deleting my comments without any reason to do so. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The basis of me calling you a sock puppet is Wikipedia:The duck test. It is obvious you are the same IP that has been showing up for weeks now pretending to be a new person. The fact that you often refer to Asdisis and how unfair he was treated makes it pretty obvious. Chillum 18:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Coincidentally 89.164.239.139 edits from the same city as Asdisis, has defended the edits of another IP from the same city, has jumped into the middle of a Serbian/Croatian dispute, and shows an uncanny knowledge of Wikipedia arcana like WP:PING and WP:ANI.  Looks like a duck to me. - MrX 18:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to defend myself from this allegations. I have no idea who these people are and I don't care about your disputes with them. They are not participating in the discussion. This isn't a report against me and this is a report of FkpCascais who made a dozen edits where he changed and removed my comments. If he felt I was a sock he could have made a report. I told him that but he continued to delete my comments. I didn't know what to do so I made this report. He continued delete my comments even after I made this report. He only stopped when Stabila711 agreed that is a misconduct. Since that had stopped him I really have nothing to do in this report. I do not care whether he is sancioned. Bye. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note 89.164.239.139 has been blocked for sock puppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis, as has another IP created by the same user since. I hope that we get some uninvolved admins watching the relevant articles to catch future incarnations. I will leave this to somebody uninvolved to close this. Chillum 20:35, 23 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.

Dukisuzuki/Slavojm

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

---

After an indefinite block by User:Georgewilliamherbert (see WP:AE#Dukisuzuki), Dukisuzuki (talk · contribs) continues ethnic-motivated edit warring as Slavojm (talk · contribs). I would kindly ask for a block, and maybe even an indefinite semiprotection of Meša Selimović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Death and the Dervish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – all we ever got from IPs there was The Truth about the writer's ethnicity (cf. Nikola Tesla). No such user (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for forum-shopping, I didn't notice that my "sockpuppet" Volunteer Marek opened a SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dukisuzuki). In any case, it's a WP:DUCK case so... No such user (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dukisuzuki#Comments_by_other_users

"I searched for Mesa Selimovic a few times over the past couple of days for a project and noticed that each time his ethnicity was changed from Serb to Yugoslav and back again. I looked in the edit history tab and saw your and Dukisuzuki's conflict. Today I checked again and once again his ethnicity was changed. Then I looked at the edit history tab and noticed that Dukisuzuki was banned for insulting you. I thought that this was wrong to do, as he was correct, because Mesa Selimovic said "I am a Serb by ethnicity, I belong to Serbian literature" in his autobiography.

This motivated me to create an account in order to ask you, VolunteerMarek, why are you trying to delete Selimovic's quote from the article? I won't insult anybody like Dukisuzuki did, and I don't support his insults, but his reasoning for the article itself was right. I intend to use this account to share my plentiful knowledge on Balkan subjects, but I must say, seeing edit reverts seemingly done for the sole purpose of obscuring facts and then accusations of "sockpuppeting" is very discouraging for somebody like myself who would like to become an active user of this website. Slavojm (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)"

"Thank you very much for your message, I honestly appreciate it. Please take 10 seconds to read mine to understand my position. The "edit war" deals with an author's ethnicity. This author, Mehmed Selimovic, explicitly stated his ethnicity in his autobiography: "By ethnicity I am a Serb. I belong to Serbian literature." Volunteer Marek keeps deleting the citation to his autobiography that says this in order to obscure his ethnicity, calling him a "Yugoslav" instead, because his edits tend to follow an anti-Serb agenda. It should be noted that this author's works primarily deal with ethnic questions in the Balkans, and his ethnicity is hence a major factor when considering his work. Slavojm (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC) I don't know enough about Balkan politics to comment specifically, but your edits suggest that although your account is new, you are an experienced Wikipedia editor, quite likely a reincarnation of a previously blocked editor. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC) You do not need to have any knowledge of balkan politics to understand my viewpoint. I feel as though this Volunteer Marek has plentiful connections with administrators on this site and uses these connections and his abundant knowledge relating to wikipedia rules to snuff out any contributions to the site that go against his agenda; because you left an edit war warning for me and not for him, and because you attacking me with his unfounded slander that I am a sockpuppet. Are you a part of a conspiracy that he controls? I already addressed his accusation here btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dukisuzuki#Comments_by_other_users Slavojm (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mean_as_custard#Re:_Edit_War

The only WP:DUCK here is that Volunteer Marek rounds up his friends to conspire against editors who go against his agenda. Slavojm (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(non-admin) Why does this belong on ANI? If there's a duck, it belongs on SPI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, WP:SPI says that This page is for requesting that we investigate whether two or more Wikipedia accounts are being abusively operated by the same person. There's nothing to investigate, the matter is obvious. Besides, Marek and myself have been dealing with this persistent POV-pusher for a week now, with very little help from administrators, despite WP:ARBMAC and stuff. I'm looking for some admin expedience, we both have much better use for our time. No such user (talk) 08:29, 24 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 from WikiWipe

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 was just posted onto my talk page. Quoting from the account's edit: "The social media campaign that this has generated is now in the hands of the legal team - and this content (the content that I tried to delete) is incorrect and should be removed. Please provide me with this assurance or I will need to refer this to the legal teams also." - Reporting this here per the directions stated in no legal threats. WikiWipe has been notified of this discussion on his talk page. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: Account has been blocked per NLT. Looks like this can be closed. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

User was blocked by Lankiveil however I've re-blocked with an extended reason. While the legal threat was terms for the instant block, even if they retract it I would be hesitant to unblock due to their disruptive editing. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:50, 24 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.

WP:NOTHERE IP, blocked, but continues racist rant on own talkpage

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

---

137.147.7.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I posted this on WP:AIV but it was "helpfully" removed by the bot since the IP is already blocked. They are continuing their racist rants on their talkpage. Should be indeffed and/or talkpage access removed? Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In cases like this, the fastest way to get action is often to ping or email the blocking admin. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed their talk page access and extended the block to 1 week. --Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Randykitty: Another IP has begun making the same edits on the page again here. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The second IP was already blocked but I've removed tpa from them as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 24 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:MacsPaunday: Report of link vandalism as listed in WP:VANDTYPES.

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

---

Page being reported for WP:Vandalism is Poetry in the early 20th century. This is to report 2 issues of link vandalism (listed under WP:VANDTYPES) and sneak vandalism WP:SNEAKY as documented under WP:Vandalism done by User:Macspaunday. (This is currently being listed by Wikipedia as WP:Vandalism and not under WP:EW or WP:3RR for those noticeboards).

Over the summer, as I am only now discovering, another editor has apparently intentionally removed all links to an article I had written titled Poetry in the early 20th century by serially and surreptitiously removing all links to the article system-wide throughout Wikipedia and therefore leaving it as an Orphan article of almost no value to Wikipedia. By removing all links to the article from other articles there is no practical way to get to the new article which I wrote and its usefulness to Wikipedia has been crippled as a result by very low page count stats which have dropped to single digits on many days. The new article was reviewed as useful by both Wikiprojects and Wikipatrol.

The intentional link vandalism by User:Macspaunday was apparently done as a type of "road rage" or "edit rage" in response to a single edit which I placed on one of the articles for one of the poets (W. H. Auden) I had mentioned in a poetry article which I wrote. I placed a single line redirect on the Auden page (as I had done on other related poet pages) allowing the article users to link to the poetry page I had written in case they were interested in the historical context in which Auden was writing his poems, as requested by another editor to do this consistent with recommendations made by Wikiprojects for other poetry articles. I placed the redirect link at the top of the Auden page, and occasionally some editors of other poet's pages have moved the link to the "See Also" section at the bottom of the poet's article pages. Either one of these options is fine with me and in the past I had not made any comments to other editors about whether the link appeared at the top of the page or at the bottom of the page.

The response of User:Mac to my putting the link into the Auden article, however, was apparently an inner rage response which then led to him hunting out and removing all wiki links to the article I wrote in order to fully damage its usefulness for the Wikipedia community, and the deteriorating page count stats can be seen here: [420] and [421]. This is the list of serial edits through which User:Mac did this which I am hatting for space considerations:

I. Sequence of serial deletions by User:Macs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
02:58, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-13)‎ . . m William Carlos Williams ‎ (→‎top: Fixing typo) 02:56, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-13)‎ . . m A. E. Housman ‎ (Fixing typo raised by BracketBot) 02:56, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-17)‎ . . m Geoffrey Hill ‎ (→‎top: Fix hat note) 02:54, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-128)‎ . . m Countee Cullen ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note) (current) 02:54, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-126)‎ . . m Claude McKay ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hatnote.) 02:53, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-127)‎ . . m Robert Graves ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note) 02:52, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-125)‎ . . m Jean Toomer ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note) 02:52, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-127)‎ . . m E. E. Cummings ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note) 02:51, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-97)‎ . . m H.D. ‎ (→‎top: remove improper hat note) 02:50, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-124)‎ . . m William Carlos Williams ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note) 02:50, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-129)‎ . . m Wallace Stevens ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note.) 02:45, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-128)‎ . . m Edwin Arlington Robinson ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hatnote.) 02:45, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-122)‎ . . m A. E. Housman ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hatnote.) 02:44, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-124)‎ . . m Allen Tate ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note.) 02:44, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-124)‎ . . m Hart Crane ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note.)

After doing it to one article I wrote, User:Macspaunday then decided to repeat the process again through his own approach to link vandalism of another article I wrote titled Poetry in the early 19th century making another orphan article on Wikipedia with no notification to anyone of any kind. The link vandalism was devastating in the harm caused to the use of the article in reducing the page count stats down to single digit counts on many days. This LINK vandalism was done surreptitiously by the User:Macspaunday who did not send any type of notification or warning to me of any kind or indicate any issue needing to be addressed.

II. Second sequence of serial deletions by User:Macs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
02:43, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-129)‎ . . m Arthur Rimbaud ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hatnote.) 02:42, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-132)‎ . . m Christina Rossetti ‎ (Remove improper hatnote; see also Elizabeth Barrett Browning, etc. etc.) 02:38, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-125)‎ . . m A. R. Ammons ‎ (Remove improper hatnote; see also Elizabeth Barrett Browning, etc. etc.) 12:43, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-132)‎ . . m Charles Baudelaire ‎ (Remove improper hatnote; see also Elizabeth Barrett Browning, etc. etc.) 12:42, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-126)‎ . . m Walt Whitman ‎ (Remove improper hatnote) (current) 12:42, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-161)‎ . . m Robert Browning ‎ (Remove improper hat note as in similar change by another editor at Elizabeth Barrett Browning) 12:40, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-94)‎ . . m Lord Byron ‎ (Move see-also link from top of page to more suitable location) 12:36, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-93)‎ . . m Samuel Taylor Coleridge ‎ (Move see-also link from top of page to more suitable location) 12:35, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-101)‎ . . m William Wordsworth ‎ (Move see-also link from top of page to more suitable location) 01:19, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-89)‎ . . m William Blake ‎ (Move see-also link from very top of page to more suitable location) 01:16, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-96)‎ . . m Percy Bysshe Shelley ‎ (Move see-also link from very top of page to more suitable location) 01:15, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-81)‎ . . m John Keats ‎ (Move see-also link to more suitable location (was at the very top of the page)) 01:13, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-92)‎ . . m Alexander Pushkin ‎ (Move see-also link from top of page to more suitable location) 01:11, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-99)‎ . . m Matthew Arnold ‎ (Move see-also link from top of page to more suitable location) 01:10, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-91)‎ . . Emily Dickinson ‎ (Move over-prominent see-also link from top of page to more suitable location) 01:07, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-97)‎ . . Gerard Manley Hopkins ‎ (Move over-prominent link (added by the editor who wrote the linked-to page); moved to more appropriate place on page.) 12:49, 8 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-77)‎ . . W. B. Yeats ‎ (Move over-prominent link to summary page) 12:47, 8 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-83)‎ . . Elizabeth Bishop ‎ (Move over-prominent link to page with summary information) 18:16, 7 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-78)‎ . . W. H. Auden ‎ (Moving (away from top of page) over-prominent link to summary history page.)

Further, User:Macspaunday apparently deliberately avoided using the "undo" tab to remove the link edits which I had placed (which would have been the easiest way to make removals) and which would have notified me automatically that the de-linking was serially and systematically taking place.

Due to the sheer number of the edits made in this extended link vandalism done by User:Macspaunday, it does not appear that this could have been accidental or a mere oversight by that editor. Instead it looks to be the case that the link vandalism was intentional and done on the sly by being surreptitious (no notifications of any kind), also against WP:SNEAKY (sneak) vandalism policy under WP:Vandalism. The general policy of Wikipedia is for editors to collaborate with one another in order to help improve Wikipedia, rather than User:Macspauday approach of appointing himself as judge and jury, and then intentionally turning 2 articles into Orphan articles and hurting their usefulness and utility to Wikipedia over an extended period of time.

I learned of this only by accident this last week-end when User:Macspaunday himself joined a GA review I had requested for the Auden page which had not been reviewed since 2009. In his trying to make an unrelated point, User:Macs inadvertently started to assert what looked like bragging rights about assigning himself as judge and jury over delinking any article which I wrote in order to satisfy his version of "road rage" or "edit rage", in effect seeming to state that he did the link vandalism and the WP:SNEAKY vandalism to intentionally turn my article into an Orphan article and compromise its use. I look forward to your comments and guidance. MusicAngels (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I had a look at the editing history of Macspaunday and as far as I can see, their edits were completely justified. They did not remove all links to the article that you wrote. You had improperly added hatnotes to a great many biographies of early 20th century poets. Macspaunday removed those and in several instances (perhaps even all, I did not check every single edit) moved the link to the appropriate section ("See also"). I also note that you apparently did not engage this editor on their talk page, whereas you improperly struck one of their comments at the GA review for the W.H. Auden article. I suggest that you read WP:BOOMERANG and try to engage Macspaunday in a constructive way before returning here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll let the facts speak for themselves. I removed all the improper hat notes that I could find that linked to pages created by this editor; they had the effect of placing (on many long-established pages) a prominent link to pages of at least doubtful value. At least one such hat note had already been removed (I think on Elizabeth Barrett Browning) and I thought (and still think) it would be useful to Wikipedia to remove the others. There was certainly nothing secret about this, and at least one of the linked pages seems to be the subject of a separate dispute about its value to the project. I will be interested to learn if there was anything in my actions that was improper (as the removed hat notes certainly seem to have been improper). - Macspaunday (talk) 16:51, 24 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.

Dadisacoolman

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.

---

Dadisacoolman (talk · contribs) is a vandalism-only account. Blanking pages, creating hoax articles etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 24 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:OmgWeegeetime

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.

---

OmgWeegeetime (talk · contribs) has certain strongly-held personal opinions concerning the legitimacy of the governments controlling the Korean peninsula, and has been systematically altering Korea-related articles in line with these opinions but against consensus. The alterations include:

• changing references to "South Korea" to "Republic of Korea" (e.g., [422] [423] [424])
• changing references to "DPRK" and "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" to "North Korea" (e.g., [425] [426] [427])
• renaming references to North Korean territories in line with the pre-1945 borders recognized only by the Republic of Korea (e.g., [428] [429] [430])

He's continued this behaviour even after been warned five times by four different users ([431] [432] [433] [434] [435]). I suggest that the only thing likely to prevent further disruption is a block. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it's a sock of banned User:Badguyfallsinpoop or of previously blocked User:Mychicken4444. I suggest enjoining him from editing Korea-based articles, and blocking if he persists. This isn't the place for political activism. Owen× ☎ 17:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like User:OmgWeegeetime is a sockpuppet of User:Mychicken4444. Both users are obsessed with changing the country and political subdivision listed in the Panmunjom infobox, and both users have made identical edits to various articles: compare [436] and [437], for example. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

As well as trying to blank this section, which I just reverted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

He's just blanked this section two more times, once replacing it with a personal attack. A swift block (and one for the sockmaster too) would be appreciated. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked OmgWeegeetime indef per WP:NOTHERE. Is there a SPI for the other editors? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No. I could create one if you'd like, but it would only repeat the evidence posted here. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Psychonaut, yes please. And ask for a checkuser to check for sleepers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Psychonaut I messed up ping --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Done; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mychicken4444. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:47, 24 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.

Indian Film School Spammers

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.

---

Various IPs are adding promotional content (and, apparently fighting to remove the promotional content from their competitors) on the List_of_film_schools article. Previously, when this happened, I took it to WP:AIV but was told to bring it here as it was not obvious enough for their intervention. However page protection kept them at bay, so I never brought the issue here. The page is now unprotected, and they're back. I've request page protection again, but wanted to see if something could be done to block the IPs (although they seem to be change fairly frequently, so it may not be possible to effectively block them). Currently active IPs are listed below, with examples of their promotional edits (in particular changes to the lead of the article).

• User:106.194.0.163 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_film_schools&diff=prev&oldid=677731741
• User:182.58.163.66 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_film_schools&diff=prev&oldid=677659687
• User:182.58.1.108 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_film_schools&diff=prev&oldid=677619928 - in particular, this user shows a sustained history of promotional edits to this page

GoddersUK (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've protected the article based on your request at RFPP but as you implied, a rangeblock is not feasible. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:NeilN. Great, thanks! GoddersUK (talk) 14:32, 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.

124.188.8.78 copyvio

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.

---

124.188.8.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has previously been warned and blocked twice for copyright breaches [438], [439], they have continued to infringe with this edit today [440], which is blatantly copied from this. Flickerd (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggest a long-term block, this is obviously a static IP with only one person editing from it. They refuse to take on board advice or criticism and never take part in any discussions. Plus the blatant copyvios are continuing despite two blocks for it. I'd do it myself, but I'm involved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked for one year, the IP looks to be very static, and they have rec'd final warning. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 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.

More harassment

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 is clearly the same racist scumbag who is hounding Ian Thompson and myself and they are now persistently thanking me for each and every edit I perform. I'm trying to construct an FAC in my sandbox and they are trespassing as far as i'm concerned. Cassianto^Talk 14:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a reoccurring character around here. Blocked, talk page access removed, edits reverted, pages deleted. Admin extraordinaire at your service. See, I do contribute here. Chillum 14:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. If you carry on like this, I may have to eat my own words in that respect. Cassianto^Talk 14:54, 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.

Chris Janson again

(crossposting from BLPN; the user in question has had an ANI thread recently so I didn't re-notify)

Tonight, I received off-wiki threats of legal action on Facebook from a user claiming to represent Chris Janson, probably the same user who has been blanking content from their article. (see Thesongfan (talk · contribs)). The user threatened legal action and demanded that any edits be made through the Bobby Roberts agency, but backed down on the threat after I linked them to WP:OWN. The main concerns were that the article had the (backed by a secondary source) names of Chris's children, and mentioned two duets that he did early in his career (also verified by a reliable source). I explained that I could remove the names until I find a compromise, as I don't know the specifics on revealing the names of a famous person's underaged child, but when I asked why the duet information was controversial, they dodged the question and recommended that I talk to their agency or label. Per their request I have also shot an e-mail to the Bobby Roberts agency asking why the Holly Williams information has been deemed controversial. I would appreciate any further help in this matter. Thank you. I will include screen caps of the facebook conversation and e-mail if needed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

we remove names of underaged children on request even if they can be found in RSs; personally, I think we always should, whether or not the subject wants us, but that is not our current policy , at least not if the subject is famous. Parts of his earlier public career he may not want to emphasise is another matter. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: In that case, you might also want to take a look at Shane McAnally. Someone claiming to be a representative of him is scrubbing info on his debut album while also restructuring things in odd ways and claiming it's how Shane wants the article to look. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The actual editing would be better done by someone who knows the subject field--I was responding generally. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Account Deactivation/Deletion

How can I get my account deactivated/deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyllful Hinge (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You can't. The closest is requesting an account vanish, which is not guaranteed and pretty much only renames your account. If you don't care about your account name, you can just leave {{retired}} at the top of your user talk page, disable your email in your preferences, change your password to random gibberish, log out, and not log back in. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You can probably get your user page (or pages) deleted by replacing it with {{G7}}, you can blank your talk page (if there are no warnings on it) and stop editing.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC).

Ghumen1 copy-pasting articles

User:Ghumen1, who appears to be a sockpuppet of Ghumen, is creating articles by copy-pasting material from other, related articles, with rather chaotic results. Compare Scandinavian migration to Britain and Scandinavian migration to France, for instance. I've requested a sockpuppet investigation, but what should I do about the articles? Can/should they be nominated for speedy deletion? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Belgians in France appears to have been created using text from the one source cited put through Google Translate. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

German migration to France is also a partial copy, of Germans in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I just deleted that one, and Doug Weller the France one. Yes, you can tag them for CSD as copyvio ("internal" copyvio I suppose). I'd look into the other too but I gotta run. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Drmies and Doug Weller. I've deleted the material in Scandinavian migration to France that was copied from Scandinavian migration to Britain, and done the same for Dutch people in France, which leaves very little content in either article. Is there action that can be taken against Ghumen1 (if only a warning) to prevent them from creating more articles in this way? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I left a note. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • I wouldn't want to see "internal copyvio" speedies. After all attribution can be trivially added. Clearly there are content issues here that should be addressed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC).
      

User:Nyanchoka

Hello. I would ask that any administrator do something regard User:Nyanchoka. This is something that already has me a bit upset. The user insists on generate wars of editions in various articles without reaching a consensus. Days ago denouncing the user by wars of editions in the article "Altair Jarabo", where he began to revert me without any explanation. Apparently the user stopped, and the user EdJohnston i leave a message here. Today started a dispute in the article "Flavio Medina", and in my editions summaries I told him to not explain him anything, since long ago I told him about this. And lately it just ignores messages that left him. Also did the same in "Wild at Heart (telenovela)", changing the name of the article to the name in Spanish. Up to where you have understood in this wikipedia titles can be used in English in Spanish-speaking programs. And in United Kingdom this telenovela was produced with voices in English. And if you don't believe me you can see a trailer here. I'm actually a little tired, this user creates dispute in several articles when disagrees on something. If leave you a message, he responds badly or sometimes or is understood what you mean.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This is what I say, Nyanchoka make changes without asking or without reaching an agreement.I took three years editing this wikipedia. And now I see that the user has started with the article "The Color of Passion" and so will be several more items.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Fry, I suspect English isn't your first language, so I'm having a little trouble figuring out exactly what your complaint is. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I speak Spanish. And I think that the problem has been solved for now..--Philip J Fry • (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Problematic editor

User:Davefelmer has been reverting or arbitrarily deleting the list of honours of several football clubs, such as Peñarol here, Nacional, here, and Boca Juniors here. This user has also been involved in an edit warring on this page, and was warned on his talk page (see) but he persists.

Simular edits were done by an anonymous user (himself?) on Nacional here and Peñarol articles here. He has arbitrarily removed sourced content instead of asking other editors or opening a thread on the respective talk pages. Fma12 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Davefelmer is repeatedly breaching WP:CIVIL. e.g.1, e.g.2, e.g.3, e.g.4. All of its edits are of poor quality and are tendentious, treating wikipedia as some sort of battlefield to make Manchester United look better. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Jmorrison230582, you neglected to notify Davefelmer of this discussion as required, but I took care of that. At any rate, Dave's entire talk page suggests some serious WP:IDHT. Block? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)I havent breached anything. I have sourced and explained my viewpoints on the Manchester-Liverpool rivalry debate. There is great irony in accusing me of bias as the "accepted edit" (by all of about 3 editors) is clearly heavily biased towards Liverpool. It is full of unfactual information, from claims supposedly made on the Man Utd website which simply dont exist to clear manipulation of word choice in order to spin the truth of another website's information, to the use of an unreliable site as it's main support for the argument and finally to the use of a "trophy count" not consistent with a single other page of this type in a clear attempt to favorite one club. I am simply standing up for the facts. As for my actions on a few Urugyuan team sites, I was simply led to believe that amateur trophies dont count as honours and hence removed them in the interest of doing the right thing so that people had the right data. I have since been proven wrong on that front and so have not edited any further. As for the two other user comments on my page, they were misunderstandings that were since cleared up. I always reference my information and explain my edits. You cannot highlight examples of my acting 'in poor conduct' when I have made totally fair changes and sourced them. I tried to come up with a balanced and equal view for the Liverpool-United article but it is clear some editors would rather persist with a heavily biased article.

I suppose Liverpool fans have to cling to something now that they're no longer a force in English football. As for User:Davefelmer, I agree with his sentiments, but his actions are completely inappropriate. I know I can talk, but this is getting to be rather disruptive. Per WP:POINT, I'd agree a short block is in order. – PeeJay 09:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3. Those comments are uncalled for and while you and Davefelmer may be Manchester United fans, you have to respect WP:NPOV and you are encouraging his disruptive behaviour. Usually you're an excellent editor but your comments here and on his talkpage suggest you are expressing fandom - please avoid WP:PROMOTION.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean, encouraging his disruptive behaviour? Did you not read the rest of my comment? Davefelmer has acted completely inappropriately the last few days, and I condemn his actions, but that doesn't mean I can't agree with him on a personal level. – PeeJay 19:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, just wanted to clear up that we should make it clear personal views should be completely separate from viewpoints when editing.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

71.167.102.150

This IP keeps going nowhere. He keeps complaining people about adding sister stations that include overlapping stations. Well, WPVI and WABC should be listed as sister stations because NJ does not have an ABC station of its own, I also reorganized the sister stations box on many TV station articles that will be easier to read. TV on one row, Radio In another. This user keeps reverting my edits which were accurate! In addition, on WNYW-TV he reverted the call letter meaning which is What New Yorker's Watch which was a slogan back 15 years ago. To avoid an edit war, let's discuss it. I'm taking a break on editing materials on Wikipedia until this user calms down and relaxed. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Which article(s) are you referring to? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, it seems to me that WP:Dispute resolution is where you want to go, and this should maybe have been reported to WP:DRN instead of here. “Reporting” a user should almost never be the first response; rather, attempting to engage in genuine discussion (before taking it to admins) is almost always a better decision than accusing each other of vandalism as on WNYW. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Issue is Fox and ABC's stations in New York and Philadelphia being listed in each other's infoboxes. Frankly AWN, they shouldn't be listed in the infobox together; the existing mentions of their news-sharing agreements and common ownership in the article body is enough and fighting about infobox items is WP:LAMEesque. The WNYW meaning should remain solely 'disambig from former WNEW calls' as the station has never really confirmed the meaning and the only people who ever paid attention to that promo are obsessives. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed contentious page move

Please can someone move Amores Perros back to Amores perros. Film Fan has a habit of moving articles where there is a good chance of someone disagreeing with the page move without raising a discussion via WP:RM. Please can the status quo be restored until after a WP:RM has happened? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't think there was a good chance someone would disagree with me, since almost all English-language sources capitalize the P. Film Fan 16:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: According to WP:NCCAPS the capitalization of foreign films should be decided by the English-language reliable sources. After looking at the page and the references, they all use Perros not perros. --Stabila711 (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

At least one other editor disagrees. As the article title has been stable for more than ten years, then WP:RM would be the way to go. It may be that WP:NCCAPS comes into play, along with WP:RS for the title. But there should be a discussion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

So why not have a discussion now? Leave the article where it is for now. Open a request for move, and have the discussion on whether or not to move it back and see where that takes you. To move it back just to have a discussion is adding an unnecessary step to the process. --Stabila711 (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Because that's what we do per WP:RM#CM. It's disruptive to move something that could be challenged, as per this instance. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have moved it back. Film Fan, please post a note on the talk page in the future and wait a few days before moving a page. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If I anticipate some resistance/controversy, then sure. I don't want to create unnecessary hassle for others. Film Fan 00:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You should not edit the redirect, like you did here, and also did at Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck. Now that creates unnecessary hassle, because the page can then only be moved back by an admin. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

One issue not discussed here is why the move back could not have been moved. It appears that Film Fan deliberately edited the redirect to prevent their move being undone (the edit can be viewed by admins, and is only adding a return to it). This is effectively gaming the system, and I would strongly advise Film Fan not to repeat this behaviour. Number 57 19:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:COP-related CfD closure review

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:COP-related CfD closure review for closure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Lg16spears

User:Lg16spears frequently references rumor sites on various pop culture articles, has been warned before many times, and it still continues. So much I can't even keep track, just noticed this passing by an article. Thechased (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I got it now! Lg16spears (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You got what? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There are over 130 notices at User talk:Lg16spears so User:Thechased, a little background would be helpful here. User_talk:Lg16spears#January_2014 shows that the editor was blocked last year for repeatedly ignoring notices and discussions that sources like Twitter are not reliable sources and has dozens of warnings and notices about incomplete brackets and other formatting errors. The block in User_talk:Lg16spears#July_2014 for two weeks is just for "Disruptive editing". The editing problems continue here and here today (poor sourcing and didn't even describe the website "Comicbook.com" correctly"). This seems like an issue of WP:CIR. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Bbundu

Requesting a block for Bbundu for consistent disruptive editing to Summerslam (2015). He was warned repeatedly to stop, but he keeps on doing it. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Where are the diffs that show that he has "kept on doing it"? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I have taken the liberty of letting Bbindu know that you have opened an ANI case against him (which it quite explicitly states you must do, in a big orange box at the top of the edit page). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: All due respect, but you sent the ANI to the wrong editor. I clearly sent one to Bbundu, who keeps making disruptive edits. You sent one to Bbindu. Similar name, but the wrong guy. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

As I followed the first link in the paragraph you typed, it might have been a typo on your part that sent me there. Regardless, any diffs to back up your claims would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: That was on me...I saw what I did - I hit i when I meant u. Easy to do since they're right next to each other on the keyboard. But Bbundu is the focus. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. So lets take a look at those diffs I asked for, shall we? :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible breach of 3RR by both User:Vjmlhds and User:Bbundu

I have taken a quick look at the page history for Summerslam (2015) and I am more concerned with the amount of reverting and re-reverting done by these two (done within the 24 hour time period specified). None of the edits seem like vandalism (although I will continue to look into it), but it seems like both users are stuck in an edit war that could do with being stopped. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment - I don't think this is an edit war per se, it looks to me like Vjmlhds is trying to enforce their preferred version using the revert button: [441] [442] [443] [444] [445] [446]. That's six reverts today. None of the edits are vandalism, Vjmlhds just disagrees with them, but has made no effort at all to communicate with the new editor Bbundu other than condescending edit summaries and filling their talk page with warnings. Two notes: 1) Summerslam (2015) has recently come off full protection, and 2) Vjmlhds has just come off an indef for gross incivility. I think a WP:3RR block is well in order here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: I didn't realize it got that far. But if you look at it, it just seems as though Bbundu was going tit for tat just for the sake of going tit for tat. I was just trying to add some details to the article, and Bbundu just seemed as though he reverted for the sake of reverting (his way or the highway). Vjmlhds (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hence why I mentioned both of you in my missive. And I don't buy the whole "I didn't realise" thing. I am sure you are able to count up to three, and this went way beyond that. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: Sometimes you just get caught up in things and you lose track...happens all the time in real life, and it can certainly happen in Wikipedia. I'll refrain from editing the article as a show of good faith and a willingness to tamp things down, but as I said earlier, it was Bbundu who seemed to be hot on my heels ready to pounce after I made an edit. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: As I said, ignorance is no excuse, especially not from a user that has been around since 2008 and, whilst your offer to refrain from editing the article is appreciated, it still doesn't change the fact that both of you have breached WP:3RR. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: I'll make life easy on you...if you're willing to overlook this slip up, I'll impose my own embargo on the article until Monday. And if I go against my own word, feel free to drop whatever hammer on me you see fit. I slipped up and I'm willing to go on record as saying I'll self monitor (with oversight) so that it won't happen again...no need to make a drastic decision. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds:As I am not an admin, I have no power to block you. All I did was look at the history page of an article, notice that you and another user had gone way beyond 3 reverts in 24 hours, and reported it here (because your actions are just as accountable as the user(s) you are complaining about. Whether the reviewing admin will listen to your plea or not will be down to that admin alone, although I have my doubts considering you have just been unblocked. We shall see. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: Wait..if you're not an admin, what are you doing replying to an ANI? Shouldn't that be the job of an admin? I figured you were an admin the way you responded...I kinda feel as though you duped me into thinking you were something you weren't. If you're not an admin, don't present yourself as one. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds:First thing, scroll to the top of the page. In one of the blue boxes at the top, it states "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.". Note, if you would, the experienced editor part and then feel free to strike through the drivel about me not commenting on ANI. Second, nowhere do I claim to be an admin (in fact, I have a user box on my page stating that I have no wish to be an admin), so feel free to strike through that drivel about me supposedly presenting myself as an admin. Third, I would be very careful about your above attitude given that you have not long been unblocked for incivility and some quite horrific personal attacks. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawing ANI request...more trouble than what it's worth. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2015

@Vjmlhds:Fair enough (although there is still the matter of you two breaching 3RR to deal with). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: I'm already on record as saying I've washed my hands of the article, and won't touch it anymore. I can't, won't ,and don't care to speculate what Bbundu will do. I can only tell you where I sit, and as far as that article is concerned, I'm done. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: That still doesn't absolve you of your transgression, although a reviewing admin may, or may not, take them into account when deciding what to do. We shall see. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that at this point both editors would best be let off with a stern warning. As the adage goes, blocking is preventative not punitive and issuing blocks now would definitely be punitive. Blackmane (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: Maybe for Bbundu, but given that majority of Vjmlhds previous blocks have been for edit warring, I really do think something stronger than a slap on the wrist is required, in my opinion. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but unless they're continuing to edit war or cause general disruption, I highly doubt any admin will block now. Blackmane (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: 4 blocks (for edit warring) before this incident and he is going to get off with a slap on the wrist (if that?). I'm not even disagreeing with the fact that an admin won't block now, but surely this requires more than a warning. Hell, I would support a 1RR/0RR for both users, but a warning is going to achieve less than a block would at this point. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Speaking as the target of the "gross incivility" and "horrific" personal attacks leveled by Vjmlhds, I can say that I never felt particularly threatened; that by no means makes his comments acceptable, but some perspective may be in order. He generally means well and does make positive contributions. From time to time he may need to be reminded to stop edit-warring, and he does occasionally display frustration (if not outright contempt) for the deliberative nature of this site's procedures. That said, I'm sure he's well aware of the situation in which he presently finds himself. Blocks are not punitive -- a serious warning may well suffice for now. Levdr1lp / talk 23:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to propose sanctions. I merely a gave a non admin opinion based on my view of the situation. Blackmane (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Levdr1lostpassword: So, in your opinion, four blocks for edit warring aren't serious warning enough? Interesting... @Blackmane: I intend to. Typing: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skamecrazy123 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: Another warning may suffice. It may not. I will not stand in the way if you think something more is necessary. Levdr1lp / talk 23:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed 0RR sanction for User:Vjmlhds

I propose that User:Vjmlhds be put under a months 0RR editing sanction for repeated edit warring. I understand that some time has passed since the last edit war on the 19th August, but I brought it up on the 19th and nothing has been done about it. I understand that a block at this time would be punitive rather than preventative, but the fact remains that he is still edit warring, even after being blocked four times for it.

Here are diffs for the most recent edit war:

• 2:12am 19th August (First edit by Vjmlhds)
• 2:14 19th August (Revert by Bbundu)
• 2:17 19th August (Revert by Vjmlhds)
• 2:19 19th August (Revert by Bbundu)

It takes a break from here, with several other editors editing, until:

• 12:18 19th August (Revert by Vjmlhds)
• 12:24 19th August (Revert by Bbundu) 3rd Revert reached
• 12:55 19th August (Revert by Vjmlhds) 3rd Revert reached
• 13:01 19th August (Revert by Bbundu)
• 13:02 19th August (Revert by Vjmlhds)
• 13:45 19th August (Revert by Bbundu)
• 14:33 19th August (Revert by Vjmlhds
• 14:41 19th August (Revert by Bbundu)
• 14:56 19th August (Revert by Vjmlhds)
• 15:13 19th August (Revert by Bbundu)

I would also be interested to hear what should be done about User:Bbundu. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Proposer. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Abuse and Personal attack

I reported Faizan and FreeatlastChitchat for possible meat puppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan and I think they didn't like it much. On Talk:Hafiz Muhammad Saeed they are doing personal attack which is hurtning, they should comment on content and not on contributor. Firstly I ignored this gross abuse by FreeatlastChitchat but now they are commenting on my comprehension of English language. In that sock puppet investigation I mentioned that "English is my 3rd language", now they got only that point to discuss. Firstly Faizan said me to read his comment again as he thought there are possibilities that I will not understand it, I still ignored it. But later I pinged FreeatlastChitchat [447] to resolve the dispute quickly, but instead of talking on content FreeatlastChitchat also commented on my English comprehension [448], he even adviced me to use google translator, he also claimed that he broke his 2 ribs of laughing. Also claimed that he will laugh whole day. In return Faizan sent beer to FreeatlastChitchat stating "I cracked a couple of ribs too. Cheers". All this was very harassing. Despite my appeals of talking on content they are just making fun of mine. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  21:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Le defence

Human has classic POV pushing, edit warring, TRUTH, STICK, IDLI issues. On top of that he has major competence issues and is a major timesink. And on top of those issues his understanding of what I, and others, try to tell him is appalling. And on top of this mountain of issues is the fact that according to his sense of logic anyone who lodges a report against another person at ANI will get his way. He has launched 3, yes that right folks, THREE, False reports against me within the past week. My only error is "not agreeing" with his POV content. This is just a little background to put things into perspective. Now onto the issue in question. We have been trying to talk some sense into him at the [Hafiz Saeed] Talkpage. The issue is that someone mentioned in an opinion piece a couple of years ago that police set up a check point near Hafiz Saeed's house. This is a pretty routine incident in Pakistan, happens every hour in big cities, no big deal. Human ,on the other hand, wants to put it in the article making it look as if some big fat posse was posted outside Hafiz Saeed's door, which of course is not the case. When it was pointed out that the opinion piece in question is almost two years old , therefore the word "recent" in the article cannot be taken literally, things took a turn for the hilarious, with Human asking if major events should be removed just because they are not recent. Seeing this hilarious misunderstanding, I advised him to use google translate and divulged the fact that I had laughed at his hilarious mix up. I'll let Faizan explain the rest. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (non admin observation) I see some rather bad language from FreeatlastChitchat, and perhaps some anger or fustration, but I dont see the personal attacks. The SPI investigation should be looked at. It is ABF from beginning to end. AlbinoFerret 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, concur with AlbinoFerret. This seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to me, especially after Swarm warned Human about his actions at the SPI. GregJackP Boomer! 01:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Per Human's comment below, and would point out that FreeatlastChitchat's actions in cutting and pasting an admin's sig should be addressed. That was completely inappropriate. However, the rest of my comment stands. GregJackP Boomer! 05:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@GregJackP:. I assumed that there was no harm in copy pasting as the time stamp and the general wording of the comment was enough to show that swarm had replied elsewhere and I just copy pasted it. However, we all fail to see our own POV editing and this may be the case here. It appears all right to me but is inappropriate to everyone else. Therefore when Human pointed out the misunderstanding, I at once changed the wording even more and then left a message at Swarms TP requesting him to endorse his comment. I'm not sure what else I can do. If you require I can remove the comment but deleting it takes away the argument that human has been reprimanded by admins about his Frivolous reports. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, the problem is you used Swarm's exact signature including formatting codes and symbols. That gives the air of impersonation even if it was unintentional. Next time, instead of using the signature code you could say "Admin Swarm said on this date (include diff)..." You should never use the actual signature code of another user as that can be misconstrued as impersonation. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Stabila711. I just linked it without formatting, I hope that solves this problem. Feel free to have a look and see if its all ok now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, better. Just be careful to not use the signature codes in the future. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Human3015, I find it somewhat rich that you accuse FreeatlastChitchat of "gross abuse" when you make a pointed remark about their nationality. In the face of that one comment, your "appeals of talking on content" are pretty weak. For a wider look, I read through this particular thread and it's laden with a lot of IDHT, such as this and this commenting on the contributor instead of the content, this is a pretty good example, this is a blatant assumption of bad faith based on an editor's nationality. The sound of the boomerang is very loud. Blackmane (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: @GregJackP: Swarm has "no comment" on that SPI investigation. It is old copy-pasted comment from edit warring board. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  03:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Blackmane: I don't know what bad you found in my this, this and this edits. I was calling "militant" to person on which that article is, Hafeez Saeed. You may find this edit little bit awkward where I said to FreelastChitchat that "Faizan is more experienced than you", it was just to see opinion of Freeatlaschitchat on Faizan because that discussion was of time before filling meat puppetry case against them. But I do accept that my this comment was not good, but it was just came out of frustration, when you are debating with 2 Pakistani editors how they will accept that "Pakistani police protects terrorist Hafeez Saeed"? Even if it was New York Times source plus several other sources still it is impossible for anyone from Pakistan to accept that at any cost, thats why in that comment I also said that if I were a Pakistani then me too would have supported you people. At least I have not used any abusive language. Neither mocked "English" of other people. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  03:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm replying here as my comments are relevant to this part. The "bad" part of those three diffs shows that you are not listening to what others are saying. Each time, FreelastChichar and Faizan post a direct reply to your comment your replies give the impression that you are not responding to what they are saying, hence WP:IDHT. When an editor arrives to comment on content, do you not see how disrespectful and rude it is when you respond with "you don't have as much experience as the other guy". You are basically baiting FLCC. With regards to the Pakistani comment, you don't have a leg to stand on. Everything Faizan and FLCC had posted before that comment had been on the content. The only area of content with a similar level of discontent to India-Pakistan related articles are the Israel Palestine articles. The fact that you speak english as a 3rd language is commendable, however not being a native speaker lends one to be unfamiliar with nuances that native speakers use regularly. That's not to say I condone the level of anger and ridicule you received, but you should understand that the way you posted to FLCC and Faizan is in part the cause of it.

• @GregJackP and Blackmane: In our one other discussion 10 days ago same FreelastChitchat said that "English is his 2nd language". read here. But I didn't even mentioned it anytime later, even when they were mocking me for English being my 3rd language even at that time I didn't said that "English is your 2nd language so I think you are not understanding my English comments". I don't make issue of these things. Moreover, his "Fu*k" comment is 4 days old, I didn't complained about it at that time, I just ignored it, using word "Fu*k" is may not be "gross abuse" for you but I don't use such words even in my real life or not even on social networking sites so it was "Gross" for me. But anyway I ignored it 4 days ago. I only came here after they mocked me for my "English". It gives sense of inferiority, using word "Fu*k" don't hurt us or don't make any impact but making feel us inferior and saying that "use google translator to understand our comments" do hurts and it is harrassment, moreover they are giving "beer" and writing that "me too broke my 2 ribs out of laughing", I even find it very cruel. They are behaving like they have complete dominance over few articles and no one will harm them, because I'm the only editor there and they are two. I think few articles do need admin's attention. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  04:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I made a brief comment with regards to this above, but I'll expand somewhat. While different cultures use curse words differently, I do believe that if one editor asks that another editor to refrain from excessive cursing there should be some common courtesy such that this language be self moderated. I certainly agree that, while Human3015 should accept some responsibility, there should be no excuse for the belittling, humiliation or bullying of another editor because their command of English is not at the same level. Human3015's command of English as a 3rd language is strong, though lacking in understanding in some nuances. In that regard, I would suggest that FLCC be given a very strongly worded warning that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane, not to be rude but how much baiting do you think should be 'allowed' before a user can respond. I know that some people give a lot of ROPE but you can yourself see that he reported me once out of bad faith, I didn't do anything, he reported me again, I said nothing, He opened up a bad faith SPI, I kept my cool. He then went to Pakistan article and just reverted me out of spite(yes I get to assume bad faith because he restored a version which was 'proven' to be vandalism), and in that revert he said that ahmadies are not muslims, again and again, he then went on the TP of that article and again went on to state that my religion was not part of Islam. I still kept my cool and guided him towards the relevant discussions and RFC's. Not a single harsh word will you find from me despite this hounding. He then started Ad Hom attacks on Hafiz Saeed TP and commented again and again and again on my "emotional state", my "nationality" and my "inexperience". I retaliated by telling him to stay the fuck away from discussing my personality, and I think I have every right in the world to tell a person to just stop hounding me, and I have all the right to use fuck. The only time I have commented on "the editor" instead of edits has been 'one single comment' where (AFTER wasting a long time trying to make him understand) I found the situation hilarious and baited him a little, and he comes here to whine about it?. So What I'd like to ask from you is, what is this strongly worded warning going to tell me to do? should I just let another person hound me again and again and again? I know internet etiquette is mighty different from our everyday lives but I'm 100% sure that even in real world if you start to comment on a person "emotional state" and his "nationality" during a debate, the reply will be a resounding "what the Hell". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Why don't you give "diffs" for your claims? When did I say that "your religion is not part of Islam" etc? How would I know your religion or sub-sect within religion? When did I again and again talked about your personality? And yes, you have all rights to say anything in democracy but sadly Wikipedia is not democracy. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  07:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

So now you provided "diffs". So according to this edit you are saying I said that you are not muslim. Ok. I never knew that you are Abdus Salam. Moreover, I already gave explanation about this and other related edits. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  08:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring your sarcasm, this edit is sufficentevidence that you are using an article to push your religious pov. As FreeatlastChitchat said, we do not follow Pakistanis law. We don't decide who is really a Christian or a Muslim, etc. When Mormons say they are Christians we accept that even though there's a yawning gulf between their views and that of most of Christianity. I've seen this going on for so long I've become of the opinion that editors who try to use our articles to determine who is really what religion should be topic banned. Perhaps you need a topic ban from all articles relating to Islam. Doug Weller (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I particularly don't edit Islam related articles on Philosophical level. This can be great debate wether Ahmadiyya's are muslims or not. But I was really not knowing that editor in question is Ahmadiyya Muslim as he is claiming now. I have also given some expalnation regarding this on talk page of that article on Talk:Pakistan. Also given some sources. Ahmadiyya's don't believe that Prophet Mohammad is last prophet of Islam which is very basic thing of Islam. you can read this BBC article. Not only in Pakistan but in many nations Ahmadiyya's are not muslims read this. [449]. I just want to say that my revert was not blind revert or POV revert to topic ban me from Islam related articles, when FreeatlastChitchat said on Talk:Pakistan that there is discussion 4 year old in archive where some people accepted to write word "Muslim" for them then I searched in archive and found that 2-3 people in past were agreeing to use word Muslim for them. So I left that matter and stopped reverting or discussing that matter. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  13:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

no, this has nothing to do with another editor but your edit summary "(Reverted 1 edit by FreeatlastChitchat (talk): Unexplained revert. Ahmadis are not muslims according to Pakistani law". Doug Weller (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I can't write much things in edit summary, I have later explained my point on talk page too. my next revert of same things reads as "they are not muslim according to Quaran too". Because it is basic principle of Islam that Prophet Mohamad is last Prophet and no divine person came after him. But Ahmadis do believe that there is divine person after Prophet Mohamad that too in 20th century. I have given sources that no muslim country considers them as "Muslim". But as I seen in archives that few people were agreeing to use term "Muslim" for them on the basis of "self-identification" so I left that matter. My point was, Abdus Salam got Nobel Prize, so he got Nobel Prize then some people will call him "pride of Muslims", "first Muslim to get Nobel Prize" etc. But when it comes to social ethics, democratic values then these Ahmadiya people are discriminated in every muslim country and there are numerous cases of violence against them. It means when any Ahmadiyya brings some glory then he is "Muslim" otherwise he is not Muslim. And I don't really have any POV regarding these issues. You can check my contribution. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  14:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I wonder here FreeatlastChitchat is again saying that "I have right to use word Fu*k" as if he has right to abuse anyone. And still no comments by Faizan, I think he don't want to highlight himself (or FreeatlastChitchat is defending here, no need for Faizan to come in scenario, because I consider both are "related" persons). At least I hope that in future these people will not abuse me. They are very aggressive. And I also appeal to admins to look for articles in which we are involved, because I can't go for DRN all the time for minor and obvious issues. DRN is time consuming process and should be used for only most controversial text. On various topics these people are saying "two editors are against you, so you can't add that text in article". "2 editors are against me"? What that means? They are not even giving any valid or acceptable reason for not adding any matter in article. "Just we both are against you so you can't add it". What is this? For example on 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes, they reverted my neutral edits. According to them we can't add "injuries" in ceasefire violations. I also discussed this on their Meat puppetry case. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  15:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sportsmen/sportswomen dispute

Hello, all. I'm in something of a dilemma, and wanted to ask for some opinions on what to do next here.

Yesterday, while using AWB to add people to various "sportsmen/sportswomen by nationalities" categories, it was pointed out to me that my category sweep picked up some inappropriate entries which I inadvertently edited incorrectly. See this dif and this dif. I have apologized profusely and worked to correct the errors I made, and am avoiding going any further with the sports articles for now. However, a third editor, User:Akseli9, has also raised quite a few complaints, first at the Reference Desk and then on my talkpage. I have attempted to engage with the latter editor to find out which edits, specifically, he objects to, and he responds that he will not tell me and that I should undo all edits to the subject I have made. This I think is excessive - I know that many of the edits I made were indeed accurate. I checked them.

If a specific article is pointed out to me, I will take a look and either a.) say why I felt the article belonged in the category, and/or b.) remove the category. But I cannot do so without specific evidence. I have asked for it repeatedly and not received it. Consequently, I'm at something of an impasse.

I asked the other editor to bring any complaints he may have with my editing here to ANI, but he has not done so. As a result, I'm reporting myself and asking for some suggestions on where to go further. (Besides the self-imposed ban on editing sports biographies, which I will be implementing for a while, at least.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Are you sure it is not something wrong with AWB as some of the articles like Heather Watson are clearly not American sportswomen and most of the others are similar. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• I think the problem is that you may be using the cat intersect or roll-up and therefore recategorizing Category:Sportspeople from Bradenton, Florida and the like into American sportswomen. The from and nationality should be separate I think. —SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, that's what it was. When I did sportsmen last night, I tried to exclude anyone who was listed as a "sportsman" of another nation. This seems, however, not to have excluded the NHL players for some reason... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I prefer not to do sportsmen at night. They require too much energy. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I prefer not to do 'em in the morning - then I require too much energy. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Well since editor Ser Amantio di Nicolao reported himself on this error I think he should be banned from wikipedia for life ;-) Seriously I'm the one who first noticed the problem with many many tennis players. It seems it was picking up anyone who, though clearly not American, had trained or lived in the USA at some point in their lives. Also, many former tennis players buy second homes in Florida (or Monaco) for tax purposes and that must have triggered somthing too. I had a dozen or so on my watchlist and I knew there were many others that got this category added. User SAdN promptly got back to me and said he'd fix the rest of the tennis players. I didn't really give it another thought till I saw this ANI today. I hope it's mostly solved. Good luck all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Please read the talk we had on my talkpage. The problem is not fixed for mountaineers and people at large related to mountains, despite it was supposed to be fixed "in a couple of hours". My point is the problem is not specifically about American hockey players and specifically about American tenniswoman and specifically about American mountaineers. Choosing to address the problem this specific way, is a way to avoid (deny) the real problem, the real danger. The real problem here is to mass-edit articles without reading them, without knowing the subject, without even remembering which article you edit. The real problem is, here is a contributor who can produce mass-mistakes at an alarming rate, and then hopes someone will notice the mistakes on their watchlist, and waste a lot of time and energy in trying to fix hopefully all his mistakes, and having to discuss it on this very board and on talkpages, and having to work on it in order to be convincing, etc. Akseli9 (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• All of which is an unfair categorization of anything that I do. I am constantly aware that AWB runs the risk of making mass errors, and always strive to be careful when choosing articles to edit. I made more than my share in this run of edits. I have been trying to fix them, but I cannot do so unless I am told which articles are at fault and what the problem is perceived to be. I did not just set AWB to run over a bunch of articles I felt like. I chose them carefully, and there were reasons why; to suggest otherwise is unfair at best. If I am pointed to an article, I can explain that rationale. I am not going to undo every edit I made; many of them were legitimate and supportable. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Looking at the most recent 2000 contributions shows they occurred in the last 40 hours, and of the 2000, 1979 have "category" in the edit summary. Many articles on my watchlist receive category changes by the OP and I would happily support any procedure which stopped mass changing without prior clear consensus at a widely discussed RfC. At least link to a page showing why thousands of articles need to have their categories changed, in ten cases twice (example) or even three times. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'll accept an RfC, if it's proposed. But I would note that for the most part I am adding categories that have existed for years without being filled - if they are not in use then they should be pruned. Besides which, using AWB for mass categorization is a longstanding practice, not only by me but by other editors. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• I thought I would throw in my two cents here. I am less concerned about it happening, mistakes happen and it is not like you are trying to hide your mistake. We are all human even if we are using an automated machine. I am more concerned about it not happening again. If it happened once it is conceivable that it has a) happened before and b) will probably happen again. Perhaps the better course of action is to decide on how to make it so it can't happen again. Perhaps a tool built into the AWB that can perform an emergency undo of the actions performed during a session. Once the actions are undone, the AWB user can look at what happened and adjust their inputs so it doesn't happen again. I feel that categorization is important and I see the value of AWB in that it can quickly place articles in the categories that they should have been in all along. However, there should be a way to rollback a user's session on AWB without having to go through manually. That way if this does happen again, it can be easily, and quickly, undone. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hrm. Interesting proposal - hadn't considered something like that. What I usually do in a situation when I've missed a group of articles is simply to isolate that group using HotCat and run AWB again to remove the offending category. It's quick, it's dirty, but it gets the job done. I don't know the first thing about coding, so I wouldn't know where to start making suggestions - maybe I'll raise it at the AWB talkpages tomorrow and see if anyone has any ideas. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• AWB has an option to look through user contributions (including a prior set number). You'd have to program a reversal of their edits however. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Why so few participants in this discussion? Perhaps because the title is misleading readers that the dispute is about sportsmen and sportswomen, which it is not? What if the title was something like "problem with mass-editing causing mass-mistakes"? Akseli9 (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In that case, what is the problem then? That mass mistakes were made is not in dispute. Ser Amantio himself has admitted that and has also been working to correct that (as my watchlist will attest). So I am left to ask, what is your problem? Do you have specific examples of errors not yet fixed that you are holding hostage in an attempt to force him to roll back everything? Or are you just assuming there are more incorrectly categorized articles and are demanding a blanket reversion? Resolute 14:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • What is the problem? The problem is mass-editing without reading articles, without knowing the subject, without even remembering which articles you edit. Addressing one's mistake is what we all are doing naturally, by reverting what we have on our watchlists, by inventing new codes as it was said above. But if we don't think about the cause of the problem, well the problem remains. We should be thinking further about what it is to contribute to Wikipedia, especially we should be repeating that Wikipedia is not only a hobby for a few mass-contributors/record-seekers, that Wikipedia articles should be meant to be written by people who care about the subject, in order to be reliable and to get a good reputation of reliability, we should also discuss about categories and the compulsory habits they tend to create, etc this kind of stuff we should be discussing, if only the title was not narrowing this essential/global problem into a question of sportsmen. About errors not yet fixed, yes there are still a couple or three on my watchlist that I will easily fix, there are also some that I already fixed and that prove the articles were not chosen carefully for new wrong catergorization, and about errors that nobody has noticed and that will remain, of course there is probably a lot of them, as Stabila711 already said above. Akseli9 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

User claiming defamatory material about an heir ancestor on Wikipedia and Commons

I have an unusual circumstance that I don't quite know how to deal with. User:Jagtig has left several notes on Wikipedia and on Commons claiming that he is the grandson of the Alfred de Grazia. He adamantly claims that an image of a man standing over a bunch of dead bodies in Dachau, which is used on the article, is not in fact his grandfather, and is thus defamatory (possibly violating WP:BDP).

The image was originally uploaded by User:Aldegraz/User:Amideg. After Jagtig made the claim, another user, 108.24.111.82 came and claimed to be John Sebastian deGrazia, son of the subject of the image. (see also the IP's Commons contributions)

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever how to handle this situation. Could someone(s) who (is|are) wiser than me please help? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• On the Internet, no one knows you're an heir. I think this should be dealt with by OTRS, since the claim of being the son or grandson is easily said, but should be proved. That being done, then the issue of the identity of the man in the photo might be easier to establish. BMK (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I see no way in which the photo can be "defamatory". The claim is that it was taken after the liberation of the camp, so the soldier seen is an Allied soldier, and not in any way responsible for the death of the bodies shown. BMK (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• ANd just to note that the image has an OTRS ticket on Commons, so some proof of its authenticity must have been provided to them. BMK (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an OTRS matter. The individuals claiming to be the son and grandson need to provide suitable identification and lineage and the photo info... To OTRS not on wiki. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The original upload claims that it was included in a self-published book by the subject of the photo, That book is for sale on Amazon, and its "look inside" feature shows the exact same image, with a caption giving the same identification. See here. DES ^(talk) 20:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC) (Apparently on page 481, at least just prior to page 482) DES ^(talk) 20:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

A book self-published by the subject of the article includes the picture. It was uploaded by the subject and cleared by Commons OTRS. That seems pretty definitive, unless the author/subject was lying. BMK (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Or just wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps but I doubt that someone creating a self-published book would mistakenly place a photo of another person thinking it was them.--67.68.162.189 (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree. BMK (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Repetitive edits from IP

IP user adds content related to news article on Wikipedia to talk page headers. DIF or here. Someone should check various repetitive edits. Clearly not just a wrong talk page edit. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify the user possibly acts in good faith but i don't just want to go there and revert. prokaryotes (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Should i go there and mass revert, the user doesn't seem to respond. Is it considered okay to revert such talk page entries? prokaryotes (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's nothing wrong with it, why you should revert it? For the record, that's my IP (and before you ask about me logged out, it's my own preference). I doubt any IP editor acting in good faith should be taken to ANI this way. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Tbhotch, you added to like 10 articles in the header template a link to some study results. This is at ANI because it concerns so many talk pages and is considered a unusual addition. The study might be interesting but the results can be interpreted differently. This was also discussed on Jimbo Wales talk page. There is no reason to past the link and mention sabotage in so many places. The edits concern OR and NPOV, please revert. prokaryotes (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

Can an uninvolved admin please block Special:Contributions/82.214.103.10 for block evasion. This is blocked user User:Asdisis as can be seen by this post: "Hello, this is Asdisis. I was blocked because I kept battling this user and his disruptive behavior".

They picked up where they left off today: [450].

I would normally do this myself but I am involved in a content dispute on the page. Chillum 18:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems there is another IP with the same writing style, in the same place, with the same point of view at Talk:Serbs of Croatia. They always show up one at a time right after the last one is blocked. I don't know if anyone feels like playing whack-a-mole today, it seems this person has more IPs than hobbies. This character showing up as different IPs pretending to be a new person making the same argument has been going on for months(since Asdisis got blocked), this talk page could use some loving attention from uninvolved admins. Chillum 19:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

One more IP address: 65.49.14.165. FkpCascais (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You can add User:65.49.14.93 and User:65.49.14.164 as well. At this point the person is rapidly changing IPs and edit warring on the talk page. I think a semi-protection may be in order. Alternative suggestions are welcome. Chillum 21:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those IPs belong to a compromised proxy server (which is essentially an open proxy server). You may want to report it to WP:OP or someone can just range block 65.49.14.* and wait for the next proxy IP to appear. Sigh. - MrX 21:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semied 1 week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, if the range is not coming from an open proxy, I think there'd be too much collateral damage to block 65.49.14.0/24. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• 65.49.14.0/24 is a proxy server, and I've blocked it, but there are another 127 /24s on that range; whether they're similar I don't know. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Jesus, this person is on a rampage. I'm doing all the work of reverting more socks here at ANI. What now? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. - MrX 01:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Reflexed block review

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.

---

Since Calidum stated he would raise this to AN/I, I figured I might as well do so myself while I'll be around and able to further explain my rationale. All parties will be notified after this. I recently blocked @JackTheVicar: for uncivil/NPAish behavior, that might be better termed as wikihounding or just disruption, with his target being @Winkelvi:. I have previously blocked JtV for their interactions with WV, I have no other involvement with either party. My original block was brought to ANI and was upheld - I imagine partly because it came out that JtV had been doing some serious off-wiki admin shopping. JtV put himself under a unilateral iban - something that was done under a cloud, so in the same way that admin tools given up under a cloud cannot be given back without community consent, neither can an iban you place on yourself be spontaneously undone. Even in the recent past, JtV realized that he couldn't interact with WV. Yet for no apparent reason, yesterday JtV chose to make these [451] insulting and unsolicited comments to other people who were in unrelated disputes with WV.

WV brought them to my attention, and I blocked JtV for two weeks for disruption/npa/etc, and for leaving questionable unsolicited comments about a user with whom he had pledged to follow an iban with. There's a cycle here that needs to be broken. JtV says something inappropriate about WV, then realizes he shouldn't be interacting with WV. Several weeks later, JtV forgets that he probably shouldn't be interacting with WV, and does it again - then shortly thereafter goes 'whoops.' The last time he interacted with WV was incidental enough that all I did was suggest he should try to avoid interacting with WV in the future, but his unsolicited comments here are pretty much flat out trolling. Unfortunately, the only way I see to break that cycle is with escalating blocks - I (and others) have tried to explain to JtV why his behavior is inappropriate both now in the past, and he has deflected blame consistently.

I'm perfectly willing to reduce JtV's block period if he finally files an unblock request demonstrating he understands the issue and intends to actually avoid WV in the future. But for now since I'll be around for a while myself to explain my viewpoint myself, I'll put it to ANI - good block? bad block? Kevin Gorman (talk)

• Endorse The block. While not filled with profanity, I think those commetns violate WP:NPA, and clearly violate the self-imposed iban. I agree with Kevin Gorman that under the circs although the iban was voluntarily accepted, it cannot be unilaterally removed or ignored, ans should be treated as if formally imposed by the community. DES ^(talk) 16:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Bad block, the iBan offer was on the condition that he be unblocked, which he was not. If you don't follow through on both sides of a deal, you don't get to enforce the other sides offer. Plus, as Ritchie333 noted, KG appears to be WP:INVOLVED. Also, JtV is a content creator, we should be keeping the area clear so he can create content without being bothered by others. GregJackP Boomer! 16:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have never interacted with either WV or JTV outside of these administrative kerfurfuffles. This statement doesn't look like an offer of an iban contingent on an unblock. It looks like him swearing he'll follow an iban regardless. Outside of that, you're still ignoring the NPA violation - and the fact that I'm not WP:INVOLVED Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see it that way. Neither do most of the comments below. GregJackP Boomer! 22:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Bad block (non admin observation) In order for there to be an agreement, there has to be at least two people who agree. There was an offer to avoid, but that offer was not accepted. To hold someone to an offer, not an agreement, is wrong. AlbinoFerret 19:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"despite your prediction on the ANI discussion I have no intention of contacting or interacting ever going forward with Winkelvi or his close associates who have deemed fit to call for my head and posted on the initial ANI and this one. If he ever contacts me, I will contact an administrator. Your prediction makes an assumption without evidentiary basis. Further, I made a promise to Ritchie333, and I don't renege on promises" from JtV is not an offer, it's him putting himself under a unilateral iban under a shadow. Moreover, there's still the NPA and disruption parts, which are still perfectly blockable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

JackTheVicar's response

I apologize this is a little long, but it all needs to be said. I am not going to get into a protracted argument with Kevin. I will answer any other administrator's questions if there are pertinent issues to be addressed.

Kevin, based on my two unfortunately nasty episodes with you, you strike me as someone angry, embittered, and rather irritable. When I wrote in my block appeal that we had a contentious incident last time, one where I believed you acted nasty, and arrogant (I should have said imperious)—is my genuine, rightly-held opinion of you and your administrative conduct. Frankly put, I think you are a horrible administrator in that your actions are unduly harsh, rebarbative, and that dealing with you is a thoroughly unpleasant interpersonal experience. You consider that a personal attack, I consider that constructive criticism on which you should reflect. From other comments about your conduct as an admin elsewhere, I am not alone in my assessment.

• You blocked me claiming I for incivility and personal attacks. That block was overturned—because we had an acrimonious interaction before, your actions I feel are violative of WP:INVOLVED and you would have been better served by passing it on to an administrator who was entirely uninvolved or raising it at WP:AN – something policy suggests.
• Further, I think your block violates WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. There is no damage to the encyclopedia. You can not say that two innocuous talk pages messages—one to an admin, the other to advise an editor to pull back from an edit war, are disruptive in any way much less that they inherently disruptive. There was no continued issue of concern—two comments several hours before after which I went back to editing, improving aritcles. I guess hours later those comments continued to be disruptive? Were they disruptive as ongoing repeated incidents of edit-warring by other parties?
• The only option left is that you purposefully and knowingly blocked me intending to punish me. That is detestible, and you have to answer for that per WP:ADMINACCT.
• I prefer to avoid Winkelvi, yes. Only because he’s an unpleasant person and an unneeded headache. He has stalked discussions where I have commented (insiting on adding his two cents), and I have duly left. Why, because it’s better to avoid getting locked in a discussion with him. In any interaction with other users, he is equally unpleasant (as his repeated arguments at dramaboards indicates). There is no explicit iban in place, just a decided avoidance. There was an IBAN proposed that I would have agreed to CONTINGENT on my being unblocked last time. I was not unblocked early and therefore not bound to it anything I indicated I would agree to if circumstances resolved differently. The other end of the bargain—me being unblocked—did not happen, so why should I unilaterally be obligated to something. I consider the act of declining my appeal to nullify any of the negotiations or what the negotiations could have led to. Can’t bind someone to a contract if you don’t give anything in return and the contracted negotiations don’t bear the desired fruit. However, there is nothing that prevents me from contacting an admin about another user’s conduct or mentioning to someone locking horns with him to back off and saying why it is prudent to do so. If you want to propose an IBAN that doesn’t exist, then you’re exceeding your authority.
• If he doesn’t want to be talked about, he shouldn’t have a dozen edit-wars a week. Sorry, but I couldn’t care less if he wants to whine that other people are talking about him. If he wants to cry about it to you, he’s just attempting to game the system.
• Your definition of a personal attack is overly broad, as none of my statements (one notifying an admin of a user’s continued pattern of editwarring, another advising a fellow user to back off an edit war since it would do him no good), while unsolicited, do not rise to the level of a personal attack as enumerated WP:WIAPA. None of my comments were insulting or disparaging, simply pointing out that they are rather intractable in edit wars, their actions tend toward what is described in WP:OWN and WP:IDHT, and the best option is not to play with the editwarring editor.
• Blocking policy does not require an admin to always contact the blocking editor when considering an unblock appeal. It states that ‘’is often asked’’, but not always. Ritchie333 is familiar with the historical context. He stated he believed your block was ‘’there was a clear mistake’’ and is not required to contact you if he believes your block was an unambiguous error. You were involved, and I would venture to say emotionally compromised by your ill-feelings toward me, therefore, you unambiguously should NOT have been involved in blocking and ought to have passed the buck to someone decidely and unambiguously NOT INVOLVED.
• My sole interaction with Ritchie was when he declined my previous unblock request several weeks ago and when I notified him of Winkelvi’s continued bad acts. If Ritchie333 thought I violated policy, he would have been well within his right to act accordingly. He did not.
• If you accuse him of favouring me for being a content contributor (which he doesn’t, we don’t interact for there to be any cultivation of favoritism) then you could equally be accused of playing favorites with Winkelvi whose actions, including repeated editwarring, repeated drama at WP:ANI and WP:AN3, you decidely OVERLOOK. I would call that an arbitrarily uneven administration of discipline. I indictated in my message to Ritchie333 that I would chuckle at Winkelvi’s continued antics while continuing to work on content—something I did immediately after. Ritchie’s response in the unblocking was encouragement to “get back to what is important”.
• Quite frankly, Ritchie333 is a kinder administrator—he exercises good judgment and doesn’t overstep common decency and good sense. By comparison, you make no effort to resolve matters or to seek dispute resolution. You act, harshly and imperiously. I would venture to think you block that way in order to drive someone away rather than find a constructive solution to the underlying issues. And based on what I perceive as an angry and imperious choice of words, your choice to be decidedly harsh, I think you issue blocks out of emotiveness and irritability rather than good judgment.
• Lastly, you notified other users of an ANI discussion, but not explicitly notifying me although I am mentioned. Your ping above did not create a notification but you didn’t add a template to my talk page like you did for others. You failed in one of the rules of ANI.
• I think your conduct as an administrator is clear evidence of why some people distrust and actively dislike administrators on this site. You are exceptionally hostile in your duties. I can see how some users would be driven away by such nastiness. If I had a thinner skin, I’d have left specifically because of what I perceive as a nastiness and power-mad administrative actions.
• I believe that you should be desysoped. I think you lack the civil temperament and good judgment to be a fair administrator. I am currently making enquiries regarding the dispute resolution process to pursue that. I think you, as an administrator, are not the kind of leader Wikipedia needs and your treatment of others is rather appalling—as other editors have described your blocks as unnecessary overkill and unacceptable. I know I'm not the easiest of persons to get along with, but the proof of the pudding is in the taste. I have disagreements with two users: You've blocked me twice based on the backfire of one edit war and blowup with someone who seems to get into a new edit-war debate every day. It was an uneven administration of justice. I have no other editwarring, no other disruption with any other users, and I generally stay away from contentious areas. Given that, even under the doctrine of contributory negligence, I am not the majority of the problem. JackTheVicar (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Unless someone creates a TLDR of this, no one is likely to read it. Moreover, it's kind of amazing that after breaking WP:NPA in your block appeal, you also did so in the first couple lines of this post. Learn to take responsibility for your own actions; you'll notice your last block was upheld at ANI, and that I almost universally either significantly reduce or remove entirely blocks when block appeals show that the blocked editor understands what the problem is. You didn't do so, so you served your last block out. If you had done so (and keep in mind listeners, his behavior involved canvassing a dozen admins offite) then you would not have served anything near a three week block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• What personal attack? GregJackP Boomer! 23:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333's use of the admin tools

I'm making this a separate section because, imo, use of admin tools in this fashion has the potential to be bigger an issue than the block review I originally posted. Ritchie333 accepted an unblock without consulting the original admin when:

• The unblock appeal did not contain the required elements of an unblock appeal.
• The unblock appeal contained an explicit violation of NPA - "Given the contentious and arrogantly nasty block Kevin executed against me last time, describe by another editor as "overkill" and his vindictive scorched earth campaign against my appeal (apparently I didn't grovel and apologise enough for his tastes), this ban appears to be violative of WP:INVOLVED as this is an undeniable conflict of interest if involvement is indeed construed broadly to include past incidents."
• Ritchie333 both didn't consult the original admin, and was unfamiliar with the history of the case as outlined above - as demonstrated by the fact that he said he thought I was too WP:INVOLVED to block and his apparent lack of awareness of the situation outlined above

To me, this looks like Ritchie333 unblocked JtV simply because he creates content, with no attention paid to the original block rationale, or to the explicit personal attack in the block appeal. I'm not going to spend the time to wikistalk enough to see if they have prior involvement, but this looks quite a bit like Ritchie333 unblocked JtV simply because he disagrees with any block of someone who is admittedly a productive content creator. When that's done without consulting the original admin, especially without knowledge of the background, and with a block appeal that would be rejected by anyone else, it looks to me like Ritchie non-trivially abused his admin tools

So, Ritchie, per WP:ADMINACCT, please explain your actions. You accepted a block appeal that not only didn't fit the format of a block appeal, but that itself literally contained an NPA significant enough that it would be blockable by itself Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Obviously, Kevin is not unbiased - it was his block that was unilaterally overturned. But I don't know how an unblock that starts by citing "WP:TLDR" can be accepted at all. You essentially validate every spurious claim in the request, and you openly admit that you didn't even read it! What the hell, Ritchie? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll clarify - I would have declined this unblock request outright, whatever the merits of the original block. The request goes into too many side issues and there is too much "It's not my fault" going on. It's not a good request. And I do find that Ritchie's citing WP:TLDR gives the very strong impression that he didn't even bother reading the request before approving it. Doesn't matter whether he did hours of research and reflection before judging on the merits or not - it looks like a dad giving his kid whatever she wants just so she'll go somewhere else and be quiet. It reflects poorly on him as an admin, even if the decision itself (to unblock) is totally correct. Next time, decline the obviously flawed request and then unblock on your own, citing the merits and the shenanigans or whatever. This isn't the blocked editor successfully arguing that they should not be blocked, this is Ritchie reversing a potentially bad block, and that's not as clear as it should be. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Good unblock, I see no reason for him to explain here, he explained his unblock when he executed it. GregJackP Boomer! 16:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• No Greg, he didn't. His unblock statement was two sentences long, one of them relying on me being WP:INVOLVED, which is not true. On top of everything above in this section. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• bad unblock Whether Kevin was involved or not, three was a violation of NPA that was not only not apologized for, but defended in the so-called appeal, and a further violation in the appeal itself. DES ^(talk) 16:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Good unblock/terrible block. There was never an interaction ban imposed between JTV and WV. JTV had agreed to avoid the other user as a condition of unblock, which was unsuccessful in part because Kevin Gorman was adamantly opposed to his three-week block for a first-time offender being altered. (See archived discussion here). It's clear from Kevin's comments about JTV that he is biased against him. Why else would WV complain at his talk page instead of taking it to a community message board such as this? Because he had assurances Kevin would break a two-week wikibreak to issue a block [452]. Calidum 16:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC

• Calidum, I've asked you this before but please stop misrepresenting my opinions. I was actively open to the original block being completely removed, all I required was for JTV to acknowledge the things that he did were wrong. He didn't. As for WV taking it to my page - it's pretty common for people to bring things directly to the original blocking admin instead of message boards since the original blocking admin will be more familiar with the situation. His original unblock was unsuccessful in large part because he canvassed a dozen admins offwiki. Also going to point out that you just endorsed an unblock that contained a blockable personal attack in the appeal itself, and the diff I linked at the start of this section surely didn't look like it was meant to be dependent on a successful unblock. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Definetly a bad unblock Any other time I saw a screed like that on an unblock request, I would have seen the reviewing admin decline with something like WP:NOTTHEM or something indicating that they wouldn't consider it unless an understanding of the problem that got them blocked in the first place was expressed. None of that existed. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 17:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good unblock, Wikipedia was in no danger, and is better with a content editor working. I would recommend to JackTheVicar not to waste time by mentioning the other editor's name again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good unblock -- Maybe people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Cassianto^Talk 17:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Good unblock. To be frank, the initial block gives the impression of an admin looking for any pretext to block. I know I'm wasting my breath saying this, but I honestly believe Kevin Gorman should consider voluntarily avoiding the use of the block button; there seems to be a consistent pattern developing of "nobody else can see the problem so it's down to me to enforce it". If an editor is genuinely doing something blockworthy, Wikipedia is hardly short of admins to block them. (Before the usual conspiracy theorists emerge, to the best of my knowledge I have never interacted with any of the parties in this incident.) ‑ iridescent 17:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  +1 Arkon (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  +2 GregJackP Boomer! 22:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - We should be assuming good faith that Ritchie did his due diligence before deciding Kevin was WP:INVOLVED, so whether or not Kevin actually is involved shouldn't really be relevant to this subsection about Ritchie's use of admin tools (i.e. even if Ritchie was mistaken, that's not a matter of abusing admin tools -- it just means he made a mistake). As WP:INVOLVED was the single and specific rationale Ritchie gave for the unblock, everything else regarding the case and its background seems pretty immaterial, too (in this subsection about the unblock). The only problem is that Ritchie didn't contact Kevin before unblocking ("Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter"). So a Trout/Reminder for Ritchie, but then it may be most productive to close this subsection to focus on the block and events leading up to the block. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• I probably would not have done that unblock. What I most certainly would not have done is unblock without discussing with the blocking admin or getting a consensus to do so from the community, because that is what WP:ADMIN requires of us. Hardly actionable but certainly not in line with the admin policy. That being said I things should be left where they are unless a clear consensus forms to take a specific action, the time for admin discretion has passed now. Chillum 18:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Good unblock an administrative action that aids us in building the encyclopedia is by definition good. That's what it's all about.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Has anyone saying 'good' unblock actualy read my rationale for the block to begin with, or the block appeal he granted that was a screed full of personal attacks? Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, we have. We just don't agree with you. GregJackP Boomer! 22:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good unblock This was a poorly thought out block to begin with: protecting the encyclopedia from nothing in particular, on the basis of enforcing an interaction ban that doesn't exist, using a technique that doesn't work, at the personal request of the aggrieved party. As for the unblock request, it'd be one thing if it were a long screed full of personal attacks about someone else, but expressing displeasure with the admin who blocked you in the course of advocating for your own unblock is hardly exceptional. I don't believe I've interacted with either Jack or WV previously, but I did post some critical comments about Kevin in the run-up to the AE arbcom case; this looks rather like another part of the same pattern, of Kevin wanting to enforce what he thinks the rules should be. All of that being said, it would be smart for Jack to stop mentioning WV on other editors' talk pages; discovering that you've been griped about in the third person is kind of annoying. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"at the personal request of the aggrieved party". Absolutely untrue. This is what was said at Kevin Gorman's talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Bad block, acceptable unblock given circumstances - I agree with iridescent above, and this is the 2nd or 3rd time I've publicly questioned Kevin's competency for adminship. Ritchie saw all the original reasons for the block, he was capable of determining if an unblock was needed, no policy violations by Ritchie have been claimed, so this is all theatrics. While Ritchie's procedure isn't exactly textbook, it is within the broad allowances adminship gives us all. None of this drama builds an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't describe an admin accepting an unblock that was a screed that contained in itself what would normally be itself a blockable personal attack to unblock someone who had committed both a clear personal attack as well within the broad allowances adminship gives us all. You're welcome to question my competency as an admin, but in the meantime I'll continual blocking for disruptive editing and personal attacks where they occur. This is, btw, one of two blocks of mine that have ever been overturned - and was overturned in the most out of process fashion I've ever seen. I'd challenge you to find a single instance of an unblock that reads like JtV's screed being accepted. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• If a block is a bad block and is obviously so on it's face, the wording of the unblock request (which may contain venting) isn't the issue, the original block is. This those cases, the unblock might be seen as a reverting of the original block, not an unblock. Second, if you are getting multiple, unusual unblocks to your blocks, it is possible that the problem is you. If you aren't questioning your own actions, not even a little, then that might be the problem. Most admin have the good judgement to at least review their own actions with a smidgen of objectivity, to make sure they aren't the problem. Get outside opinions, like you are getting here, and hopefully, they listen to them. Your IQ is fine, but it is your inability to adapt and listen to your fellow editors that makes me question your competency. Arbcom is littered with the spent admin bits of those that couldn't listen and adapt. Go check the archives, you won't have to go back far. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Dennis - you realize that this is exactly the second block I have had overturned in the time I've been an admin, right? I have something like a hundred blocks performed, and another 3 or 400 spoonfed to admins to block before I was an admin. Which makes for around a 2% error rate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've had one reversed out of 1800 (and I went to their talk page and apologized in plain site), but that isn't how you calculate an error rate. A bad block that leads to a retirement but is never asked to be unblocked, is that an error? It wouldn't count as one using that method. The worse outcome to a block isn't having it reversed, it is losing a good editor. Overzealous blocking costs us more editors than occasional course language, for instance. Personally, I count success as talking an editor off the ledge of incivility so I don't HAVE to block him. Those don't show up in the logs, however. Counting how many (or few) blocks are unblocked is not a valid measure of success or even how "right" you are. It doesn't work that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• You're perfectly right that that's not a proper way to calculate an overall error rate, but your initial post suggested directly that I had multiple overturned previous blocks, which is incorrect. It's kind of amusing that I'm being treated as if I'm a particularly harsh blocker here when I've previously spent quite a while talking down and eventually unblocking, often under conditions, editors who were under long blocks who later turned out to be quite productive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Questionable block, unacceptable unblock - myself, I don't see the incivility and personal attacks in the diffs offered by Kevin which warrant a block, but I also don't see that the block was unambiguously wrong. Both the blocking policy and the administrators policy state that blocks(/admin actions) should not be overturned without consultation with the blocking administrator. BLOCK gives some latitude for clear errors and clear changes in circumstances, but neither occurred here. Simply disagreeing with a block rationale is absolutely not good enough reason for unilaterally overturning it. I disagree strongly that administrators are granted that sort of latitude; why is one admin given latitude and another not? Ritchie absolutely should have contacted Kevin (or BLOCK offers posting at ANI as an alternative) before considering the unblock request. However I think it's pretty clear that there isn't anything actionable happening here, the [un]block has been resolved, let's move on. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Respectfully, I don't see the blockable personal attack in the unblock request either. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ivan - though I'm not sure I'd block for it, if it weren't a situation directly concerning me and I saw someone write "Given the contentious and arrogantly nasty block Kevin executed against me last time, describe by another editor as "overkill" and his vindictive scorched earth campaign against my appeal (apparently I didn't grovel and apologise enough for his tastes), this ban appears to be violative of WP:INVOLVED as this is an undeniable conflict of interest if involvement is indeed construed broadly to include past incidents," I'd certainly take a second look at it and at least warn the person (particularly when the block in question was upheld at ANI in part because it came out he had canvassed a dozen admins.) I sure as hell wouldn't grant the unblock request. I also wouldn't have blocked JtV if not for the background history outlined in the earlier ANI I linked and involving many other places - there's a cycle of him certainly being uncivil and arguably violating NPA against the same person who said "despite your prediction on the ANI discussion I have no intention of contacting or interacting ever going forward with Winkelvi or his close associates who have deemed fit to call for my head and posted on the initial ANI and this one. If he ever contacts me, I will contact an administrator. Your prediction makes an assumption without evidentiary basis. Further, I made a promise to Ritchie333, and I don't renege on promises," with no caveat about the his stateent being tied to an unblock. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I admit I don't know the history and can only comment on what I see currently. JtV's conduct and language was certainly less than ideal, but I think stayed above "you are an idiot" in the hierarchy, which I think is a reasonable threshold for NPA blocks. Considering they had just been slapped with what they believed to be an unjustifiable block from an involved admin, some straying into the ad hominems is probably forgivable with a warning, and that probably would have avoided the current dramah. It's dangerous to say that WP:INVOLVED covers every interaction an administrator has ever had with a user, but you do seem to have history with this one, or at least they seem to strongly believe that you do. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I request this section stay open until Ritchie has a chance to explain his actions per WP:ADMINACCT Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that you read some of the comments above, think about them, and perhaps apologize to the victim of a block that solves nothing and to the community whose time you take - again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I've certainly read and taken in to account every comment made here, and also regret the rather ridiculous fact that what should've been an uncontroversial block has turned in to a giant ANI thread. Someone violated policy; I blocked them. As I told JtV during his original block (which was upheld here,) if he recognized the disruption he had caused (and in that case it included not only NPA and trolling as here, but canvassing a dozen admins offwiki) I would be glad to have either substantially shortened or removed his block. He chose to serve out his first block instead of acknowledging he had done anything wrong (and I have copies of emails of him canvassing, so that's not an unfounded claim.) In this case, Ritchie, for reasons that still need explanation, chose to unblock someone who had been blocked to minimize disruption for a period of time with the goal of eventually eliminating it, where their block appeal was... well.. I challenge anyone to find a single additional situation where such a block appeal had been accepted. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually Kevin, I did apologize and acknowledge what I did wrong last time. You made it abundantly clear in a lot of adamant and vindictive language, that it wasn't "enough" for you. I didn't grovel and beg right. There was no damage then, not much of a disruption, just Winkelvi's hurt feelings. The accusation of "canvassing" was quite histrionically exaggerated. But then, no one—especially you—considers the hurt feelings of the two dozen editors who have had unrelated but similar issues with him in the last two months since you blocked me last. I assert I wasn't the greater problem then. I felt you were being vindictive then as I think you are being now. Editors described your block as "overkill"--and at ANI last time because it was a mixed bag of several "unblock" opinions versus several "keep blocked" opinions (some, I add, by Winkelvi's clique) Accordingly, there was no consensus either way for Ritchie333 (who stated that given certain circumstances he was somewhat inclined to reduce if not overturn my block) to determine whether it would be right to overturn the block then in light of the no consensus (it was not anywhere near "unanimous") and we ended up with the status quo. But your conduct was rash and too involved to be impartial, and that's why I'm going to be making an effort as soon as I learn the appropriate process to request your desysopping. You could just put yourself up for recall given that I am not alone in having doubts about your temperament as an admin, but given how you treated Eric, I doubt you're confident of how that kind of discussion will end up. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't care if he "canvassed" admins by email; admins are big boys and girls and have got what one might call "volition". Jack's made some unkind remarks about Winkelvi on a couple of user talk pages. The best way to deal with it would be to approach Jack, preferably in private, and advise him to stop, however peeved he might - justifiably or unjustifiably - be with Winkelvi; it's just not cool to toottle-tittle-tattle behind their back. Just try to distance yourself from the wikijargon (no, Jack's not being "disruptive"), and ponder over how we might reach an amicable conclusion. Throwing out blocks like it's fucking confetti never helped anybody. Alakzi (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Alakzi And it wasn't admins who reacted to emails at ANI. None of them showed up. Some emailed back privately saying "i'm too busy, try X admin"...the person who sent Kevin the emails was Oliver Keys (Ironholds). One person. I stated frustrated what my side of it was and asked him to take a look and act on the matter. I would come to learn he wasn't an admin, and more that he isn't held in high regard by many onwiki or offwiki (they don't particularly care for him on Wikipediocracy, from what I read) because of a litany of bad attitude and some things he's said in the past (a lot of misogyny). Wikipedia lost three weeks of content work from me because Oliver and Kevin overreacted to what, in the greater scheme of things, was an exaggerated non-issue. In that time, Winkelvi was at ANI twice. Sometimes they get it so wrong. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• And to make matters worse, "he who shouldn't be named" is yet again frothing, chomping at the bit to get me blocked thinking his favorite admin will leap tall buildings to react.[453][454]. Methinks he doth protest too much. I'm not that stupid. JackTheVicar (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Block everyone. That'll fix Wikipedia. Alakzi (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Good unblock There was no iban to begin with and the comments weren't NPAs to begin with. The block exacerbated what would have been nothing into this dramafest. As for calling the unblock request a screed? I see a user outlining their rationale for why it was a bad block. Clearly others agree with that rationale. Saying it didn't meet the criteria outlined for an unblock request is basically saying the blocked user is always wrong and the blocking admin is always right so the blocked user needs to give a half-hearted "I understand what I did wrong and won't do it again" speech even when they don't believe they're wrong. Capeo (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Bad block, good unblock - My thoughts echo what Cassianto and Iridescent have said. If Kevin Gorman can't keep his itchy block finger under control, then maybe being an admin isn't for him. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment !-tally:

• Good unblock: 11: GregJackP, Calidum, Gerda Arendt, Cassianto, iridescent, Rhododendrites (not explicit), Wehwalt, Opabinia regalis, Dennis Brown, Capeo, Sportsguy17
• Bad unblock: 5: UltraExactZZ (not explicit), DES, KoshVorlon, Chillum, Ivanvector
• Block everybody: 1: Alakzi
• Good block: 1: DES
• Bad block: 6: GregJackP, AlbinoFerret, Calidum, Opabinia regalis, Dennis Brown, Sportsguy17
• Questionable block: 1: Ivanvector

While a mere count is not a valid way of determining consensus, I believe that the summary in this !-tally does show what the community thinks of this. Kevin, it might be best to drop this. GregJackP Boomer! 01:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Community interaction ban proposal: JackTheVicar

Obviously I misread the nature of the situation compared to community consensus regarding who's at fault. Withdrawn. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposed: JackTheVicar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned by the community from any interactions with or regarding User:Winkelvi. Support as proposer - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose at this time as it is undefined as to what interaction is. I don't interact with Winkelvi. Winkelvi shouldn't be free to stalk conversations I have with third parties and whine, nor should he stalk me to articles I may work on. A unilateral iban is unenforceable with a ever-complaining antagonist free to disrupt by complaint (which is frowned on in WP:NPA..i.e. "shouldn't be used as a weapon against another editor...") or to stalk me to disrupt my content creation efforts (i.e. I fear returning John Forbes Nash because of the headaches he'd start there) Further I request that Kevin Gorman needs apply WP:INVOLVED and pass the buck to an impartial admin in further matters. JackTheVicar (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Please see WP:IBAN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose as written Please provide some evidence that JtV warrants any kind of ban whereas WV and KG do not. I would support a proposal to mutually IBAN all three of them because then we wouldn't have to spend an hour working out what the underlying issue is, but the above suggests the fault is on one side. My observations so far would suggest that JtV is the one who needs a barnstar, not a ban. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose. I would support a one-way interaction ban on WV and KG interacting with JtV, but I don't see that JtV did anything wrong here. GregJackP Boomer! 01:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose - The purpose of this thread is was to examine the conduct/actions of an administrator, which appear to have been upheld. To now suddenly propose an interaction ban for someone who wasn't the primary party seems out of process. I would also note that the comments above do not condone his conduct, nor do they indicate any desire to initiate any type of ban, so again, this seems out of process. As a matter of fact, it is starting to look like a bludgeoning because the outcome wasn't what a few expected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose. One sided, doesn't get to the root of the problem, and could embolden future misconduct from other parties. Calidum 01:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Although generally fatigued enough that my participation on Wikipedia will be limited until tomorrow, the links I provided in my original post provide justification for an iban (since JtV's promise to follow a self-imposed iban failed,) and the ANI section for his original block provides further evidence (tangentially, yes, one of the emails I got forwarded was from Ironholds, but no, he was not the only person who forwarded me an email of you canvassing.) JtV has no reason to routinely post provocative, trollish, and (as at least one widely respected admin posted above in agreement with) in violation of NPA posts about Winkelvi, an editor who he has sworn to ignore. JtV: WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply when the only involvement was in an administrative capacity, and I've never been in a content dispute with you. A mutual WV-JtV iban is probably in order, because unilateral ibans are not generally effective. It's odd to propose it under a subsection talking about Ritchie's out of process behavior, but passing it will reduce further disruption, so passing it is probably in the interests of the wiki. I've only been involved in any capacity with any of them a handful of times, primarily to police policy violations (I've blocked JtV twice; the first block was upheld after a weeklong ANI section, and the second was overturned by someone whose sole reasoning seems to have been that content creators should never be blocked.) If ibans start getting handed out to administrators who block the same person twice with one block upheld and the other unilaterally overturned with no discussion and no apparent reasoning, then this place is going to get pretty interesting pretty fast. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC) your first block was not in any way unanimously upheld. There was division and intense debate...one where I was not permitted to defend myself, which was unconventional. The ANI was a week long mess because several users opposed your block as heavyhanded. Saying just that it was upheld without mentioning it was despite the significant disagreement, and with appeal-reviewing admin who was inclined to overturn it, except that there was a divided no consensus...that is justifying yourself in a quite disingenuous manner. It's weaseling. Things weren't so clean cut and packaged. JackTheVicar (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Kevin, this post repeats a great deal of what was already said above, without demonstrably engaging with any of the community feedback you've received here. What do you think of the fact that no one seems to agree that this putative interaction ban existed to be violated? Or the fact that many see Ritchie's unblock as not nearly so far 'out of process' as you believe? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose - this is a surprising proposal, to be honest. I don't see any rationale behind it at all, nor any explanation as to what problem this is meant to solve. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose - JtV is not the problem here. L1975p (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose, I trust that JackTheVicar will know to ignore the other user without a formality, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose. There seems to be a regular misconception that every case brought to ANI has to end in a block or a ban of some kind for somebody. Very often the discussion clears the air and those involved can go home with a lesson learned and somthing to think about while they sit on the bus without stinking the rest of the passengers out with a fresh wet trout in their shopping bag. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose, I had written something else but after an edit conflict, Kudpung's is funny, so per that ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC) This proposal seems to be going nowhere fast. Can we close it per WP:SNOW? --Stabila711 (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I might recommend that we close this entire discussion, or rather an uninvolved admin close it. It's not going anywhere. GregJackP Boomer! 19:40, 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.

LEOcoin

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 an admin take a look at newly created LEOcoin and the deleted contributions of User:LEOcoin?

The press appears to be full of discussion about LEOcoin [455] - almost all of it negative, warning of pyramid schemes and "pump and dump" plans. I found it extremely surprising that nothing about all this existed on Wikipedia already but all I could find other than the new page is that User LEOcoin was blocked for being a promotion account. None of their contributions survive so I don't know what they were.

The author of the new article is User:Geoff round, the same name as LEOcoin's global marketing manager.

Is there an explanation from the deleted contributions of User LEOcoin as to why there was nothing on Wikipedia about LEOcoin before? And do User LEOcoin's deleted contributions suggest that sockpuppetry is taking place now?

Many thanks!

RichardOSmith (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The two pages weren't identical but had quite a lot of phrases in common. Looking deeper led me to this LEOcoin brochure which also contained a lot of the same marketing buzzwords and word-for-word hype. As such I've deleted it as copyright infringement, although it probably also qualified as spam. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC).

Many thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi this is Geoff Round. You have correctly identified me as part of LEOcoin and the publisher of the White Paper you refer to. I am not trying to use your site to market or sell. I see other digital currencies (like Etherium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum )with a page and would like LEOcoin to be equally accessible to any who search for factual information about its structure etc. I've tried to be factual and not use sales or marketing messages. Can you allow me a further chance to submit a fact only entry that complies with your rules? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoff round (talk • contribs) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologise that I did not notify you of this discussion as I should have done; fortunately you found it. As an admin has not responded to your question I will, but bear in mind that I have no more editing privileges than you do. (1) There is no reason why an article on this subject should not exist, however (2) the article will need to demonstrate WP:N, which the previous version did not; (3) the article must not copy directly from other sources, which the previous version did (unless the copyright holder has explicitly donated the copyright materials); (4) the article must be balanced and not overly promotional, which the previous article failed on both counts. Note also that it is generally frowned upon to write an article about a subject with which you have a strong interest, as you did in this case. It's not impossible to do so but it tends to make it difficult to objectively consider the subject in terms of the inclusion criteria. As you maintain that the previous article was not promotional but admin Lankiveil affirmed that it was suggests you may be better to stand back and let someone else write the article. If you do still decide to go ahead, you may find it useful to do so via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:34, 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.

haloactive.com

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.

---

• Bulk spamming of references and external links by multiple accounts over the past 24 hours:

[[456]], [[457]], [[458]], [[459]], [[460]], [[461]], [[462]], [[463]], [[464]], [[465]]

• Intervention was requested earlier today at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist but not yet actioned.
• Mean as custard (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• I just blocked one of those cats--Bangladnd. I'm not smart enough to do blacklist stuff. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• And now I blocked a bunch more. I didn't block Syang4, maybe I should. Thanks, Mean as Custard. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm working remotely, but can blacklist later today if the blocks do not resolve the problem. Hopefully, the spamming will stop now that blocks have been done. If spamming continues under additional socks now that the original accounts have been blocked, I can blacklist the URL later today when I have full access. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 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.

delete

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.

---

How can I get List of Hiking Trails in the United States deleted? It essentially has no content, and if it was to live up to its title it would be an exceedingly long list to the point of being useless and unweildly. 203.173.186.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

We have exceedingly long lists elsewhere and it is being edited so it won't be deleted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

In the future please reference WP:AfD for instructions on the deletion of articles. In general, if an article is actively being improved on and does not fit into one of the categories for speedy deletion it is allowed to be worked on. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:20, 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.

Winkelvi Violating Talk Space

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.

---

Winkelvi continues to post irrelevant and provocative comments to my Talk page after repeatedly being told to stop by me. I previously requested he not post to my Talk page due to his increasingly unusual behavior across the Wiki into which I have repeatedly said I do not wish to be drawn. He has plainly indicated he intends to disregard my repeated requests. This doesn't really merit an IBAN, our edit interaction on articles is limited to non-existent when taken in context of his edit volume. I just want him to stop posting to my Talk page.
WL has a tendency to relentlessly besiege other editors whom he perceives to be his "adversaries" - this pattern of behavior is the subject of active discussion right now at Jehochman's Talk. While Winkelvi has taken great delight in calling me names and accusing me (and many others) of being part of a conspiracy of editors that is out to "get" him, I have in my power the ability to simply ignore those things, which is why I have not brought them to ANI. It is not within the power of the user tools I have available as an editor to compel him to stop posting to my Talk page, which is why I have brought this to ANI. (Note - I am pinging him here, however, have not left a corresponding template about this ANI on his Talk page due to an, apparent, retaliatory non-post request he made to me.) Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You must post the {{subst:ANI-notice}} to his talk page anyway. A user-imposed "ban" on posts to their talk page is not binding and is overriden by a requirement, which ANI has, for notice to be posted to the talk page. Normally, once you have been told not to post to another editor's talk page, it is disruptive to post to it, but you must post what you must post. Previous comment made by Robert McClenon. Misplaced / made it so the four tilde replacement script did not execute.

Done. Previous comment made by BlueSalix. Same reasoning as above. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Winkelvi, generally accepted practice is that if an editor asks you to not post on their talk page, you should not do so except for necessary notifications. Continuing to do so after being asked multiple times is harassment. Taunting BlueSalix like you did here will get you blocked pretty quick. This is getting old. Stop posting on the user talk pages of people who have asked you to not do so. If you have a problem with their behavior, take it to the proper venue and request assistance. I don't get why you are doing this, you know perfectly well this will get you blocked, and you have already been warned about this type of behavior. You should consider this a last warning: Anything that remotely looks like harassing someone, anyone, will result in a block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• It would appear that Winkelvi refers to BlueSalix as "prick" on another user's talk page here [466] and doubled down on the personal attack by calling him "Definitely the worst of the dark underside of Wikipedia. Clever and tricky along with conniving and dishonest, but not always the brightest bulb on the tree when allowing true motives shine through through what's being said. This is the kind of person I look at and wonder, 'With the talents you obviously possess, why not use them for good instead of hurting others.' Plenty of books have been written about that type of personality, no doubt" [467]. Obviously, WV was smart enough not to mention said user by name, but it appears obvious he is referring to BlueSalix given this comment by Cwobeel (talk · contribs) an hour prior to the "prick comment" [468] and the discussion on Cwobeel's talk page here. (This thread on Jehochman's talk page is also a good read if someone has the time, as are several recent AN3 reports here, here and here)Calidum 16:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  Please keep me out of this. I had a long and protracted issue with BlueSalix a while ago (you can ask Bishonen for some background if you want to), which makes me not wanting to engage with him ever again if at all possible. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks much, Calidum. Just to clarify, while I know Winkelvi and Cwobeel invest a large quantity of time name-calling me on their respective userspaces, that is not a subject I wish to broach at ANI as it is perfectly within my power to simply ignore that. I also, as Cwobeel noted, had a past "issue" with him and don't believe it's fruitful to include him in this ANI as we have each done a good job of giving each other a clear berth since then and I have no desire to lodge a note regarding anything he says about me in the relative privacy of his own user-space (I have a pretty thick skin). My only issue is the incessant provocative posts to my Talk page by Winkelvi after being repeatedly asked to stop posting, as that is something I can't control with access to only the editor toolset. BlueSalix (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Calidum is correct. I did call Blue Salix a prick, because he was being one then and had definitely been one in the past. But all of this needs some explaining as to how I got to the point of calling him what I did and why we are here today. Further, Dennis Brown, it goes far beyond me just posting on his talk page:

• First, look at Blue Salix's history starting last year here [469] and scrolling down to here [470]. Looking into the history, it seems that admins such as Bishonen and Worm That Turned are very familiar with Blue Salix and might be able to give some insight.
• Next, take a look at his recent editing history here [471] and note that pretty much everywhere I've gone since he and I first encountered each other on the 8/20/15, he's suddenly appeared. Note: It is my belief that he was initially following the edits of Cwobeel, with whom the two have a pretty extensive history - Cwobeel and I had been editing the Josh Duggar article, and that is where Blue Salix first showed.
• Examples of such are to follow:
  • [472], [473]; Blue Salix then, while there was a discussion occurring and not taking part in the discussion, decided to override the discussion and make his own change [474], at which point he then added a discussion talking point regarding specific details of Duggar's sexual proclivities [475]. This was met with a unanamous "No". The unanimous disagreement with him led him to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard [476] using accusation and innuendo not based in fact; it ended up like this: [477].
  • He then showed up at the talk page of an editor both Cwobeel and I were having back-and-forth content disputes and discussions with at other articles (Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina) that has been going on for a couple of weeks now. Blue had never had contact with this editor previously, but gives him a barnstar. The barnstar placement can only be seen as a taunt, hoping I would see it, and as a way to ruffle the feathers of Cwobeel and myself: [478].
  • He then decided to show up at the talk page of an editor with whom I (and a couple of other editors) was involved in a content dispute at another article, giving him a barnstar. Because he had no (recent) contact with that editor, the barnstar placement can only be seen as the previous one on ML's talk page: [479].
  • He then suddenly appeared at an article where he had never edited previously, but I had been editing for a few days - there, he chastised me on the talk page: Shaun King (activist): [480].
  • He next showed up at the Jared Fogle talk page, where he had never edited before, and again to chastise me: [481]
  • He then went to another editor's talk page with whom both Cwobeel and I had been having content disputes, and gave him a barnstar. The editor is brand new, has been exhibiting severe battleground mentality and is prone to edit warring to make a point. Blue Salix had never been in contact with him prior. Another barnstar, another effort at taunting me and Cwobeel: [482]. The note on the barnstar reads: "Supporting good sourcing in the face of cynicism by problem editors.".
  • Lootbrewed then posted on Blue Salix's talk page - Blue's response is here: [483].
  • Blue Salix once again followed me, this time to an editor talk page where he inserted himself for some old fashioned pot-stirring: [484]; the continuation of his insertion(s) can be seen here: [485].
  • It was at this point that I told him to stop hounding me: [486].
  • He then followed me to a report I filed at AN3, and continued stirring the pot:[487]
  • More pot stirring at RSN:[488]
  • More pot stirring and contentious "discussion" at the Josh Duggar talk page: [489], [490], including weird back-reverts of something I had put in the article and was rightly removed by StAnselm: [491] and contentious mini-edit warring reverts [492] designed to get at Cwobeel (again).
  • Another "gotcha" aimed at me was at Drmies' talk page, where I had left a Wiki-beer for Drmies: [493]. Titled "too slow", the message said, "BlueSalix has drunk the pint that another user has bought you!".
  • It was finally this threat in the edit summary that caused me to post this on his talk page. The edit summary, "[I was replying to your first comment, following your sig line. If you move my comment again to change the character or meaning, I'm taking this to ANI", I felt, was a bluff designed to scare me, to bully me.
  • Just as he has been trying to bully me and use psychological backhanding by insisting it is me who is in the wrong as well as crazy through various snide comments and twisting of what people have said. The best example of this is here [494] "just a few hours ago another editor had to advise you that I wanted you to know what is acceptable so that you dont make unintentional false statements. So it seems, at a very cursory glance by an uninvolved editor (me), you do in fact have a propensity to spread falsehoods and that propensity has been observed even by editors whom you haven't subjected to siege." He was referring to this exchange on my talk page between AlbinoFerret and me: [495]. Please also note his comment to imply I am mentally disturbed: "whether you are cognizant to the disruption your unusual behavior is causing. I suspect you're not doing it on purpose and are not aware". Indeed, "unusual behavior", "whether you are cognizant" -- it's obvious what he is implying.
  • Please also note with this [496] he has an agenda in regard to me: "I am, personally, of the opinion that a six-month block would afford you the time to better familiarize yourself with WP in an observer capacity and you might be better able to positively contribute in a non-disruptive manner on your return.".

There is much more to this than meets the eye with the report Blue Salix has filed. WAY more. As the block reasons given for an indef block he received last year stated, "You have been blocked indefinitely for personal attacks, calumny, and trollish evasion, [as well as] abuse and character assassination". I submit he is engaging in same once again. Can I stay off his talk page? No problem. I hope I never run into him again. And that would happen, of course, if he would stop following me pretty much everywhere I go. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi: as you know, in some of the other threads currently devoted to your unusual behavior (this one and this one), Jehochman, Coretheapple, NorthBySouthBaranof, Lootbrewed, and others, have all repeatedly told you that you are not the subject of an ongoing conspiracy. You think I posted a Wikilove to Drmies talk page in order to secretly harass you? (believe it or not, I'm currently working with Drmies on other articles in which you're not involved, like David B. Axelrod) That I gave a Barnstar to another editor just to irritate you? That I'm using a web of "psychological backhanding" as part of my "agenda" to "get" you? You've provided an exhaustive list of diffs with the summaries "stirring the pot" that consist of a few instances of me disagreeing with you. As you have been repeatedly told - editors who disagree with you on content are not out to "get" you, "stir the pot" or plot your personal demise.

Obviously I'm not going to offer a bulleted response to this insanity. You've been blocked 5 times in the last few months and Dennis Brown has just informed you it will be a sixth if you continue posting to my Talk page while Jehochman told you just today that "you are likely to get indefinitely blocked sooner or later." [497] It's an honest shame you seem so set on this self-destructive path. If saying that makes me a "prick" [sic], oh well. BlueSalix (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I see a fairly obvious solution, but I'm not sure it's one that either editor would like. Hint: it's not an interaction ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the situation is solved already assuming WL takes Dennis Brown's counsel to heart and stops posting on my Talk page. That was my only objective coming here. This was not intended by me to prompt an open investigation of WL - the other issues regarding him are being dealt with in other forums by other editors and I don't feel it's fruitful to duplicate efforts. My only purpose here was to receive some immediate relief from getting my Talk page double-barreled while these other discussions move toward their inevitable conclusions. And I think I've received said relief and am fully satisfied. BlueSalix (talk) 18:47, 26 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.

AfD in Bad Faith

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 created article on popular recent Bollywood song Afghan Jalebi (Ya Baba) 2 days ago. Then on editor named Dharmadhyaksha (with whom I had several rifts in past) tagged article with "notability" tag [498] even after article was already having plenty of reliable sources. I removed "notability" tag and added 6 more references [499]. Now Dharmadhyaksha had nothing to tag in article so he nominated article for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan Jalebi (Ya Baba). Even when article is very newly created and is in development stage and has plenty of sources still he nominated it for deletion. Till this moment everything was tolerable, but on that AfD people with whom had rifts are commenting "delete", some of them are fans of Dharmadhyaksha. This is very discouraging. Article is getting more than 500 views daily. [500]. This article is just 2 days old, I wanted to improve it more, but it is just discouraging that someone nominated it for AfD, it have sense that even if I improve this article still there is no use because it will get deleted on the basis of votes on AfD. Senior editors like Dharmadhyaksha should encourage others to build Wikipedia leaving behind personal rifts on some issues in past.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  09:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Saying again, you are still not producing any evidence on why you think I am editing in bad faith. It would be good if you bring in links of so called "rifts" over here so admins and others can judge your case in better manner. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• We have nominated several each other's work for deletion in past (either in good faith or bad faith from either side). He nominated mine work [501], [502], [503]. Later in some bad faith I also nominated his work for deletion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_20#Category:Samyukta_Socialist_Party, [504]. We also had some spat over my talk page [505]. To resolve issue I gave him sweet dish. In other incidence Dharmadhyksha who is admin on Wikimedia commons deleted my one image which was not having metadata, I have no complain about it, he was right at his place, but later I requested another admin to restore my image [506] because it was not violating any copyrighs, that admin restored my deleted image in good faith. It is obvious awkward moment for any admin that his deleted work is restored by another admin. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  10:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Good to know that you admit to have nominated my work for deletion in bad faith and here you are crying foul. Ever heard of WP:BOOMERANG? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Human3015, you've come here complaining that someone AfD'd one of your articles in bad faith...and just admitted that you did the very same thing. Concerning your article, deletion isn't decided on how many views a page gets each day, if I created a page titled "Justin Bieber sex tape" and inserted the aforementioned, it would get tonnes of views, but it'd still be deleted. What exactly are you expecting the outcome of this discussion to be, considering you just admitted to doing exactly what you were complaining about. Azealia911 _talk 11:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: I "admitted" it to just see reply of Dharma. You can see how happy he became. I actually did not nominate it in "bad faith, one out of 3 work I nominated of Dharma was deleted, other one work got "delete" voting but saved just because improvement in that disamb page. And lastly I also commented "keep" on that thread which I nominated. Dharma didn't commented anything on my other text, he just commented that Good to know that you admit to have nominated my work for deletion in bad faith and here you are crying foul.. Means he is indirectly accepting that "You nominated my work in bad faith then why you are crying foul when I nominated your work in bad faith?". I already said that, he should maintain good faith and should not nominate my work just to sake of his satisfaction. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  13:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I can't help but to notice that the stuff Dharma nominated was actually deleted while the stuff Human nominated ended up in a keep every time. Human should consider the possibility that Dharma knows what he is doing and that consensus tends to agree with him. But getting to the meat of the discussion, Human is accusing Dharma of acting in bad faith, yet hasn't provided a shred of evidence that Dharma has acted in bad faith. Indeed, Human has confessed to acting in bad faith previously. This is the stage where Human needs to "put up or shut up": either provide evidence of some misdeed or withdraw the claim. And for the record, conjecture is not the same thing as evidence. If you don't provide evidence or withdraw, you set yourself up for a nasty fall, friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Completely second all of this, Dennis Brown. Human3015, you came here complaining of bad faith, but all's you've done is confess to bad faith yourself, fail to provide evidence to back up your complaint, and generally shoot yourself in the foot. Proceed with caution, my friend. Azealia911 _talk 14:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911 and Dennis Brown: Why don't you read my comments, 1 out of 3 work that I nominated of Dharma was got deleted, on other I myself commented 'keep" after he improved it. And my work that he nominated for deletion, one of it I blanked and marked for speedily deleted to stop annoyance from Dharma. Moreover, please, this is not discussion of about our past, this is about current nomination, I was just proving that "we had rift in past" nothing else. I'm not saying I was right or he was right. We just had rift thats what I'm saying. You can read his nomination rationale of current article, he is selectively mentioning few websites and avoiding to mention national level news websites. Song is already charted on many places but he is claiming that song is not charted. He at least should have given opportunity to upadate the article. And yes, whenever I report someone on any place that time I always ready for BOOMERANG, any admin can block me if they are thinking that I'm wrong at this place. I will not even appeal to unblock me. My point was song is notable enough and even after knowing that Dharma nominated it in bad faith, if it was created by one of his fan then he would not have nominated it for deletion. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  14:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Major competence issues with Human, Proposal that someone mentors him and he stays away from ANI

Firstly Human3015 when you start an ANI you should 'PING THE INVOLVED PARTIES'. It is simple as that, you have a beef with someone, you ping them and let them have their say. You are reporting not only the NOM here but also the ones who voted to del, therefore you should ping them too. not doing so is very very very bad faith. As Human3015 just mentioned in his insane start to this report. I'm one of the so called "fans of dharma" who is "supposed" to be in favour of deletion just because I have rifts with Human3015, Even though my interaction with dharma is virtually nill, nada, zero. Being sick and insanely tired being dragged to ANI 'every freaking time' I interact with Human I would like to propose that Human3015 is admonished not to start 'insane' ANI reports and someone takes him under his/wing. He has launched 'FIVE' False reports against me in the past week, a couple more and he will be doing this on daily basis. I'm sure there are rules against this kind of harassment. I mean seriously dude WTH? Regards. A very tiredFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Read above comment, such people will going to comment "delete" on that AfD in any case, even if God says that "this song is notable and even I like it very much" still these people will vote for "delete". This is not my personal lose, but I think Wikipedia do need coverage of vast articles, this is very notable song and my "opponents" just want to take some "revenge" or "just fun to tease me". If you see "Thank log" of Dharma, he thanked me for this edit on my talk page where I reverted his notices without giving any edit summary. He thanked me because he knew I must be in very much tension and I will be very irrited. He must be laughing while thanking me for that edit. I just have one question, does my every article in future will get nominated for deletion? I have so many dedicated enemies that everyone will comment for "delete" and my article will get deleted. I have very big heart, if Dharma requests me, I will blank my article myself and can nominate it for speedy deletion under "author blanking" criteria, as I done same on previous nominations of Dharma. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  15:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Human, you're not listening to what everyone else is saying. Dharmadhyaksha's nominations will be found disruptive if there are a lot of them and they all end up being keep, that's not the case here. And this is not the place to argue notability of those topics either, that's for AfD, and if you disagree with the notability guidelines take it to those talk pages. The fact that you think in terms of enemies is troubling enough, but you just have to learn to drop the stick as you aren't doing yourself any favors by continuing this line of argument. —SpacemanSpiff 15:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly the point: When a consensus says to "delete", you respect it and don't start naming everyone in a conspiracy theory. Maybe, just maybe, they understand the policy better than you, thus your time is better spent learning from the experience, learning the policy, and only creating articles that you know the majority will agree are "notable". I will remind Human that making unsubstantiated claims about "bad faith" is itself a bad faith act and uncivil, thus it isn't something I recommend you do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Human3015 Your statement ' Read above comment, such people will going to comment "delete" on that AfD in any case, even if God says that "this song is notable and even I like it very much" still these people will vote for "delete". This is not my personal lose, but I think Wikipedia do need coverage of vast articles, this is very notable song and my "opponents" just want to take some "revenge" or "just fun to tease me"' is borderline insanity to be frank. Simple as that. boarderline insanity which makes me want to pull my hair out when I look at all the time you have wasted on malicious reports and bad faith reports. There is no way to counter this type of ad hom comments so consider yourself ignored until you start speaking something which makes sense. Why do you consider me an opponent? I mean srsly dude why? What gain is there for me in this? I get this article deleted and I get richer? Is my kid going to get a scholarship for her college? Is my salary going to increase? This is friggin annoying when someone whom you are trying to help just gets an insane martyr complex and goes on a rant about being persecuted. JUST an FYI, but most of us are not free all day, we have jobs and families. We take time out of our daily lives, time which we could have spent with our daughters and our wives, in order to edit wikipedia and we don't do it for ourselves, we do it for the readers. So it will be highly , highly appreciated if our time is not wasted in these god damn shenanigans when you throw a friggin hissy fit every time one of your edits is reverted or one of your articles is up for AFD. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, I take my ANI back, my apologies to Dharma and other involved parties.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  16:33, 26 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 attack by Alakzi

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

---

User Alakzi (talk · contribs) does not like the color template for California wildfires and kept undoing it, possibly using a sockpuppet IP address to get around 3RR. This should have gone through the BRD process, but he would not allow the Discussion. I'm all for good-natured joking but this edit calling @Zackmann08: and I "morons" is a violation of WP:NPA. Alakzi has already been blocked about about six or seven times since July for violating NPA, disruptive editing and ban evading. I would propose WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not that I did not like it; IT VIOLATES WP:COLOUR, WHICH EXISTS TO ENSURE THAT COLOURBLIND AND VISION-IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS CAN READ WIKIPEDIA. I contributed the most to the discussion; your only input has been that you, personally, can read the template - completely irrelevant. And fuck off with the sockpuppetry accusations. Alakzi (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And as noted, the default template is not even compliant, is it. So all you are doing is reverting from one non-compliant color scheme to the next. We were happy to discuss it as part of the BRD cycle. We'll be happy to get the template compliant for accessibility without you and your attitude and personal attacks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The default navbox is not AAA-compliant; the California wilfdires navbox is not compliant, period. Yes, when you collude to revert to an inaccessible version, I get upset - imagine that! What were you even thinking? Alakzi (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The sock allegation is made here without evidence, and should be struck. It serves only to goad and inflame. The same is true of the allegation of "six or seven" blocks, which number includes reductions in the duration and scope of an overly heavy-handed block, and a block based on a fallacious allegation of socking which was undone as a "misunderstanding". Given Alakzi's considerable contribution in just a few months, the NOTHERE allegation is laughable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, WP:BOOMERANG applies. In the talk page section discussed, Zackmann08, who had already breached 3RR, canvasses Wikimandia, who then edit wars as a meatpuppet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: LOL I'm hardly a meatpuppet as I can think for myself, thank you. I have had very little interaction relatively with Zackmann except occasionally at AfD, so he hardly would have know that I was going to agree with him on something like template color. We're not sitting in the tree. Being a California girl, I can form my own strong opinion here, which I have. I believe he pinged me because I generally have a level head, am a laugh a minute and am unbiased, which hopefully other people who interact with me would agree. The main issue here is the total uncivil behavior and personal attacks by this editor who has been banned for abusive and disruptive behavior over and over. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Any one but a fool can see what transpired on Zackmann08's talk page, where they pinged you saying: "I guess this is where I turn to you my friend! :-p Care to help me out?" and you replied "Reverted like a boss"`. In fact, you reverted not once, but twice, even though you were involved in a discussion where a 3RR warning had already been given. Alakzi has never been subject to ban; that's another false slur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, please read the definition that you just linked. The policy page discusses recruiting new people to come to Wikipedia for the first time to participate in discussions, with an effect similar to sockpuppet accounts except created by different people. Wikimandia's been here since 2007 and is definitely not a new account created to help one side in a discussion! Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

So the link should be to WP:CANVASS. Same difference. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Finally, WTF does it mean that I would not "allow" the discussion? The template doesn't need to be at your favourite version for you to contribute to the discussion, from which you've been largely absent. Alakzi (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read up on BRD. It is BRD, not BRR. OK, Pigsonthewing sock is IP address 173.197.107.20, which has now been blocked for being a SPA that was edit warring on the same template up for discussion. Seems a bit odd an IP would come along and jump right in to change the color scheme on the template for California wildfires, don't you think? Additionally Alakzi's block log speaks for itself. Alakzi, if you can't hold yourself together on WP and are so "upset" by changes in template colors that you must lash out and resort to PA, then maybe you should find another hobby. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What was I saying about goading? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's BRD; it's not R till we're back to the start. Well, if it seems fishy, it must be me - flawless fucking logic. I can very well hold myself together; I've simply reached a point where I don't care what you, or the "community" at large, think. Alakzi (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, BRD calls for the article to be left in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing, which sometimes requires an additional revert to get to. BMK (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, "BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas." Alakzi (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Note also that the IP address made the first edit to improve the template's colour, and opened the talk page discussion. Hardly the behaviour of a 3RR-avoiding sock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I won't comment on whether Alakzi occasionally loses their temper, but the NOTHERE allegation is just blatantly false. There should be no doubt that Alakzi is here to build an encyclopedia. Whenever personal attacks have been an issue, it's been as part of a content dispute where Alakzi has been attempting to make the project accessible to all potential readers. Attempting to claim he's not here to build an encyclopedia because he's been slightly uncivil during a content dispute with you is indefensible. That ignores all the positive contributions he's made and the fact that he's attempting to make another one here by complying with existing guidelines over local consensus. ~ Rob^Talk 10:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And by "occasionally loses their temper" you mean violates WP:NPA? As I stated, I am happy to continue discussing the template and coming up with color schemes that don't look like shades of panty hose. The personal attacks are the issue. Considering the excessive number of blocks for disruptive editing and personal attacks in the past month or so, I don't see how he manages to contribute much to the project. He's been warned; calling people "morons" is unacceptable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

When you say you are "happy to continue discussing the template...", do you mean you will "stop edit warring as a meatpuppet and start discussing"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm commenting only on your claim that Alakzi is not here to build an encyclopedia, which usually means you're seeking an indef. That is an absurd claim, and I'm responding to that. Yes, Alakzi has made personal attacks in the past. No, he's not a net negative. Take a look at his talk page and look at how many people he's helped with template issues in the past week alone. He's clearly WP:HERE. ~ Rob^Talk 11:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not that I have looked deeply at this, but if neither version is colour-compliant, why are you all wasting time arguing and reverting instead of just changing it to one that is compliant? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi changed it to the default color scheme and proposed a color scheme that is AAA compliant on the talk page. He removed the non-compliant custom color scheme while discussion occurred, but was then reverted by an editor who was canvassed. ~ Rob^Talk 12:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I took a closer look. Leaving aside canvassing accusations, Wikimandia you really should have looked into accessibility issues regarding colour blind before reverting to that custom scheme even if you think the change needs to be discussed. It breaks so many accessibility (and I am not talking about Wikipedias internal guideline here) rules that I would have been tempted to respond as Alakzi did. If you dont understand why someone has done something, despite them giving you a clear reason. Ask someone who does. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I propose this thread be added to WP:Lamest edit wars - note how many times edit wars over background colours have come up there. Calm down and use the talk page, you guys. Alakzi, you are gaining a reputation here for your short temper, and I assure you the community has frequently concluded that is a competence issue. Accessibility is important but it is not an emergency - we can always fix it after a discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The community - which is to say, the ANI regulars, the functionaries and various other reactionaries - have deemed me to be untrustworthy, so I no longer concern myself with what the community thinks of me. When the community has made any effort to regain my trust, I might reconsider. You will also note that I'd only reverted twice the day prior, and did not contest a third revert. I only reverted again when an attempt was made by Zack and co. to circumvent discussion. Andy has provided a truncated timeline above. Further, WP:BRD is an essay; it's not a panacea. Common sense says when X is unambiguously harmful but Y isn't quite as harmful, we keep Y in the interim. Alakzi (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It may not be an emergency for you, but it is WMF policy that we must not discriminate against people on the grounds of disability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, nobody here is contesting that the accessibility issue is important and that the changes should be made. We're only here because of an argument about how many reverts occurred or how many should be allowed, and it's pointless. Just discuss the changes on the talk page: WP:CONSENSUS is policy. So some user comes along and fucks up the page while you're discussing? So what? Fuck that guy. You'll fix the page when the discussion concludes, and you'll have consensus to back up your change. Or, you can just blindly revert and edit war and haul everyone to ANI in a fit of rage where people will likely (rightly) point out that you seem to be here to pick fights rather than build an encyclopedia, and how will getting yourself banned help Wikipedia's accessibility? You don't need to be the guy that flies off the handle all the time. ANI is extremely poor at determining the correct course of action when editors are angry: many, many users who were right are now gone. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, "lame edit wars" are edit wars over something inconsequential. This isn't one of those cases. If you want to see something lame, look for the edit summary "it looks better orange", which seems to make a mockery of Alakzi's serious concern. So the lack of competence is not with Alakzi, and the NOTHERE accusation flies in the face of common sense. Sorry Wikimandia but I call em as I see em, and this is how my old eyes see em. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn - clearly accessibility is a paramount issue (I'm not arguing that) and Alakzi is quite clearly a valuable contributor (not arguing that either). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Both sides have gotten far too overheated and acted in less than stellar ways. Just return to the talk page, Alakzi's WP:COLOR based argument is reasonable and can't be rejected on personal preference grounds.--Staberinde (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• For the life of me, I can't believe why editors would want to impose some color scheme that flies in the face of accessibility guidelines, and then edit war and start ANI threads to enforce it--or to force an editor out. I think I frequently disagree with Andy, and I think that Alakzi has a bit of a short fuse, but in this case they're right in a way that goes beyond being right in a "regular" edit war over content. This isn't about content, it's about accessibility to content. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Since we're apparently here (mostly) because I said "morons", that was in the heat of the moment, and I apologise unconditionally. Alakzi (talk) 15:22, 26 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 Danube

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:-Sombrero19- has repeatedly removed content at Danube without explanation, at least 12 times over the past week. He has been reverted, asked to explain his edits, and warned on his talk page numerous times. The user provides no reason for removing the content and will not engage in discussion. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Was going to block for edit warring but another admin got there first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, should have said something but I got distracted by a discretionary sanctions notification bug squirrel... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:00, 26 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.

Copypasta

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.

---

Esufalim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added a sizeable copypasta to Satpanth: [507]--Anders Feder (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The major copyvio has been rev-deleted, others appear to have been reverted, user has been alerted to copyvio policy. —SpacemanSpiff 17:25, 26 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.

Page with many "script errors"

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 think someone needs to look at this page: Cary_Stayner

The page is littered with errors like this:

Script error: The module returned a value. It is supposed to return an export table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.184.105 (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Purge fixed it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Weird. I saw this same thing on another page, Newsreader (Usenet), early today – it looks like there was some problem with {{citation needed}} that was causing this... But purging did fix the issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• If you are interested in reading more about this please view this explanation at the village pump [508] --Stabila711 (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This looks to be related to an issue that was raised by the Wikipedia Ops team the other day. If this is still being seen, just purge the article (add ?action=purge to the end of the URL), and you'll be good to go. Cheers. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:17, 27 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.

Wikipedia not loading always

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

---

I am not aware of others, but when i am trying to view Wikipedia pages sometimes it comes sometimes it doesn't. When i used VPN server based in Canada and Europe, Wikipedia loaded instantly, when i disconnected VPN, it took five minutes to load this page. It's strange as VPN is slower than normal internet speed. I have tried cyber cafes, they also have same problem. Is it happening only in India? If this continues I will have to apply for IP block exempt as only VPN will allow me to view Wikipedia--117.99.167.150 (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are having technical issues perhaps you should inquire at the village pump. They may be able to help you better there. Also, range block exemptions are only for editing Wikipedia. Even blocked users can still read the articles. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:50, 27 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.

4th Punjab Irregular Frontier Force Regiment

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 Col Manzoor Iqbal Awan from 9th Battalion (Wilde's) The Frontier Force Regiment, the successor of 4th Punjab Irregular Frontier Force Regiment. I commanded it twice, and incidentally its now my son Lieutenant Colonel Nauman Manzoor Awan who is its current commanding officer. As of now I am a visiting professor at a number of universities at Islamabad.

Saw the titled page on Wikipedia; its a great job done; my compliments to the contributors and editor(s). I can serve as a liaison for obtaining and proving the post-partition updates including some valuable photographs for enhancing value of this page. I can be reached (redacted contact info for privacy reasons Nate • (chatter) 11:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Col Manzoor Awan (talk • contribs) 06:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Is this much info a good idea ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.108.117 (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It isn't; I've redacted the info, because if Jorge Ramos and Lindsey Graham didn't find it fun, I'm sure the OP won't either later on. Nate • (chatter) 11:00, 27 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.

Long-term abuse, personal attacks and racist comments by disruptive-only account

• Nikmand (talk · contribs)
• Another sleeper account. Last activity 28 December 2013, but suddenly activated this account on 18 August 2015. He came to my talk page and wrote these personal attacks, racist comments and harassment diff1, diff2.
• He trolled Talk:Persian peoples, See his last sentence on this diff3. Obvious racist and hate speech. Then he replaced it with a forum-like comment diff4.
• The guys is not here to contribute. See his disruptive actions on Mahabad. He did them to only pass auto-confirmed user right: [509], [510], [511], [512], [513], [514], [515], [516], [517], [518], [519], [520].
• He's a sock puppet/alternative account of previous blocked users because of their disruptive actions on Persian people. He has a lot of sleeper and stale accounts. I submitted a SPI case, but it was closed without investigation. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iranmehr27.
• I want admins to find a solution to deal with this guy. He ruined both Persian people and Talk:Persian peoples since 2013–2014, a long-term abuse. --Zyma (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, this edit and the last paragraph of this edit clearly show that the editor is WP:NOTHERE for building an encyclopaedia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC).

I should add that if User:Iranmehr2015 and User:Nikmand are not the same person, they're doing an excellent job of giving the impression that they are. Both accounts have vehemently pushed the same POV on Talk:Persian people, and both have engaged in the same unusual practice of filling in their user pages with a single letter "a" (see here and here). I think it passes the WP:DUCK test, but I'm happy to let another unrelated admin review before taking any action. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC).

I'm sure he's a WP:GHBH-type editor ("Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts). If it's possible to check his IP-range, I want admins find his alternative accounts or related accounts. Because I guess he uses those trollish and disruptive accounts to attack and POV-pushing, so blocking does not affect his "clean and good" account(s). It's possible he's related to some other editors who are involved in editing of Persian people. --Zyma (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

While I'm hesitant to offer the benefit of the doubt to accounts that have made comments like this individual has, there isn't any overlap between when the three accounts were used, so I'm not certain that there's an attempt to deceive. Someone not familiar with our practices might serially register accounts rather than recovering a lost password without realising that looks pretty suspicious to regulars here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC).

Note that given the subsequent personal attacks and vandalism, I'm no longer willing to extend the benefit of the doubt as I did in the above comment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC).

• I've reverted his edits to the talk page due to their nature. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears that there is a sock targeting the page right now. Cantoun1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Now checked my talk page and he returned with 2 new accounts. Please see my talk page, Persian people history and its talk page history. They troll those pages and my talk page. A serious action is necessary. IP-range block and please ban all of his active/stale/sleeper accounts. --Zyma (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Note I have blocked Kamzad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit warring and outright vandalism as seen here. Not sure if the account is related or there's an SPI active, but it sure looks like quacking to me, so perhaps an indef as sock once more information is available would be appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If these sleepers have been lying dormant for over three years, like User:Kamzad was, then a checkuser isn't going to be of much help in flushing out any other ones that might be lying about, unfortunately. I wonder whether lodging an SPI request just so that this is noted in the records might be a good idea though? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: I don't submit another SPI. Because it's obvious they're same person or they work as a team. I think this report and his recent activities are good evidences to submit a new SPI report. Also, Why that Kamzad (talk · contribs) was just blocked for 1 week, when it's obvious he's just another alternative account (sock)? It's better admins watch targeted pages. Anyway, he will return very soon, then how should I deal with him? Just report to ANI board again? --Zyma (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Also please consider this: After expiration of 48-hour protection [521], He started his vandalism again. This time, he added anti-ethnic and racist commentary to his edit summaries too [522], [523], [524], [525], [526], [527]. Why we allow him to spread his hate agenda on that article (specially the talk page)? I don't know why some editors/admins restored his nationalistic and racist rants and reply to him. He ruined the talk page with his forum-like comments. Every time he returns, he copy-paste same stuff on talk page. Now, the talk page turned into his personal blog. --Zyma (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I've created a new sockpuppet investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iranmehr27. It seems obvious to me that the accounts are related but there may be other trolls to be flushed out from under their bridges, given that some of these accounts were pre-existing before showing up to cause trouble. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC).

Thanks. I think the problem is under control now. The new SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Escoperloit. Checkusers and other admins found and blocked both of his oldest accounts and newest ones. --Zyma (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Same person two articles - Problem with language links

Hello admins, we have a small issue with these articles:

• Giorgos Dervisis and Georgios Dervisis same person
• Chrysi Diamantopoulou and Chrysoula Diamantopoulou same person

I don't know what's the drill here, are you going to merge them or delete one of them? If you delete one of each, I would stongly suggest that you KEEP Chrysi Diamantopoulou, it's more detailed and sourced.

There is another problem in this article Konstantinos Mourikis: When I'm trying to add the greek article (as well as the italian) in the language links (el:Κωνσταντίνος Μουρίκης), a technical issue arises: [528] . It says (quote): "The link elwiki:Κωνσταντίνος Μουρίκης is already used by item Κωνσταντίνος Μουρίκης (Q17121777). You may remove it from Κωνσταντίνος Μουρίκης (Q17121777) if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic." I'd love some help here. Thank you so much, Gtrbolivar (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Simply redirect the incorrect title to the correct article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done --GRuban (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually articles redirected; language links issue remains. --GRuban (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nimeia001 seems to be a vandalism-only 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.

---

Hi,

Nimeia001 was previously vandalising article pages ([529]) and is now posting ads on his/her own talk page ([530][531]). I am not particularly keen on removing those content from the user's own talk page but I am just wondering if it would be possible for the user to be blocked base on such behaviour?

Thanks, — TaqPol _{talk contrib} 12:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If the bad Google translation can be trusted, yeah, they can't do that. I have marked their page for speedy deletion. --Stabila711 (talk) 12:33, 27 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.

Need page protection on 2015 MTV Europe Music Awards

Article protected, apparent socks blocked. Thanks everyone! --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

---

For the last 2.5 hours, there's been a spree of vandalism on 2015 MTV Europe Music Awards. I placed a RFPP (see this), but the requests there are taking more than 12 hours to answer right now. There's been almost 300 vandalism and vandalism reverts in this 2.5 hour spree. Help please. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, a block of User:ThomasSidney1 is in order (report at WP:AIV currently), with account creation blocked. I think the person behind it is creating multiple accounts for the same vandalism (User:Jadexperry, User:Heeyitsme, User:Teonity15). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Between MusikAnimal and me I think we got it covered. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Indeed. @Hammersoft: When something is getting really out of hand is in dire need of admin attention, I recommend hopping on to #wikipedia-en ^connect or #wikipedia-en-help ^connect and type !admin. Do however reserve this recourse for urgent matters, as on-wiki is preferred — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks everybody for the help! Note; I don't do IRC, but thanks. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Blatant and nasty personal attacks from IP

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.

---

68.172.52.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This IP user began a concerted and foul-mouthed series of rants after being asked not to call other editors "dumbass"[532] when correcting their edits. The IP responded with the following comments, which I will not deign to type here. Suffice to say they are the height of WP:NPA: [533], and doubled down [534]

I removed the comments, with a "Removing personal attacks" edit summary[535] and received the following biologically impossible suggestion in response[536] I reverted and warned[537], and have since received accusations of being Hitler[538], and other suggestions[539] When warned that the next step was AN/I, I received this[540]

Submitted for Admin review of my actions and the IP's. Scr★pIron^IV 21:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• IP's first reaction was to post a personal attack in this very thread. Not sure how much there is to discuss, really. --Richard Yin (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 68.172.52.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:44, 27 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.

Vandalism, attacks.

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.

---

75.107.214.12 has been making personal attacks: [541][542] and vandalizing Battle of Kursk and my talk page: [543]. This came after I warned them for making personal attacks on another user. GAB^Hello! 00:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, the IP has been blocked. GAB^Hello! 00:36, 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.

GregJackP on RFA ( Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wbm1058 )

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

---

This is a complex page (project and its talk page) to try and figure out where it went off the rails, but there is both a lot of GregJackP harassing people for voting for the RfA, and a lot of people harassing GregJackP for harassing people. It's not clear what came first.

I don't understand it enough to do anything yet, but I don't think the totality of the conduct is OK and it needs more attention. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have read through a lot of the posts and I really don't see a problem. Part of the process of RfA is the discussion process. An editor's comments regarding a potential admin will not dissuade people who are in support of that admin anyways (unless a large problem is uncovered like gross incivility). Asking for an explanation does not equate to harassment especially since !voters can just ignore the request. In the end, it is up to the bureaucrat to decide what consensus is and which (if any) !votes to discount. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the timeline here, as I'm sure others are. I can try to clarify later if someone decides it's necessary, but I don't think there is anything that needs to be done. Gregjack has strong feelings about this RFA, other people have strong feelings about Gregjack's strong feelings, blah blah drama. The RFA will end in a few days and we can all move on. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Someguy1221 and Stabila711. Earlier today, I had already went to Greg's talk page and left a kind but clear message that he might have overdone it, he agreed and understand and that he might have got a bit caught up, which is encouraging and would make any action here seem punitive. Others contributed to the verbosity at the RFA as well. It is an ugly RFA in many respects, but I think it is a systemic problem that we are working on, and Greg's actions aren't "the problem". Actually, he made some valid points about how supports should be supported by reasons, and that opposers shouldn't be badgered, but then it just went too far on both sides. Regardless, I don't see a need for action against anyone at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree that this is typical RfA drama that will end with this particular RfA. This is part of a larger issue that's literally continuing at this very moment. Greg fairly recently became an active RfA participant. Since then he's been vetting candidates primarily off of his standard of content creation. His standards for content creation are particularly high within the context most people's requirements and as such his opinions generate a decent amount of controversy. Obviously this is par for the course at RfA, but the problem lies not there but in his responses to the controversy. He could, of course, civilly debate the merits of his rationale and the responses, or merely not reply to them, but instead he engages the people who challenge him in a most disruptive manner, clashing viciously with them. He refuses to listen to what other people are saying, instead claiming that he's being "harassed" or "badgered" because he's "not part of the hivemind", he employs passive-aggressive, uncivil, rude, and outright belligerent commentary, lambasting others for behavioral problems while ignoring any and all on his part. It's been getting progressively worse as time goes on and it's now gotten to the point where he's challenging numerous people in the support section out of obvious retaliation, and is taunting admins to block him. What started as a minor controversial opinion at RfA has escalated into progressively pointy behavior. I suspect many if not most of his edits at RfA can serve as evidence of his conduct there. Swarm ♠ 02:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I thought it was odd when he suggested I might block him[544]. I had to explain that admins can't just block people they disagree with. Chillum 02:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• He told me to either block him or leave him alone rather than address the comment he was replying to at all.. Swarm ♠ 03:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And might that be because he's sick of receiving your endless, repetitive, pompous lecturing? IHTS (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't necessarily agree with Greg's views. I believe that every single constructive person on Wikipedia is equally important. From the content creators down to the WikiGnomes. I also believe that everyone has the right to put themselves through the hazing that is the current RfA process regardless if they are a content creator or not and if the community wants to give them a mop so be it. I don't support Greg's views but I support him voicing them. Was he a little pointy with his views? Probably. But people with strong views usually are. Pretty much everyone who has been on Wikipedia for enough time to see the "behind-the-scenes" action knows that the RfA system is broken but that nobody actually knows how to fix it. Greg's vocalness regarding RfA candidate's content creation stems from the pretty arbitrary guidelines that the community has set up for admin candidates. Obviously this has been discussed many many times before leading only to a massive waste of time and no changes and this isn't the venue to go into that discussion again but the problem still exists. I really don't see what path is bring proposed here for Greg (or ultimately for RfA). Any action against Greg would seem far more punitive than is necessary. His baiting of admins was unnecessary but not something that rises to a bannable/blockable offense. I really think everyone needs to step back and breathe. Ultimately, it is up to the bureaucrats to decide who to give the mop to. They are the ones tasked with going through all the comments and deciding one way or the other. Reading through their discussion on Liz's RfA showed that they took into consideration Greg's objections then and, likewise, they will do so this time as well. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the key issues is a questionable process followed by nearly everyone to evaluate consensus. Generally closers use the expressed votes as a straw poll, and try to discount votes based on strength of argument. This is fundamentally problematic, though, since it ignores each person's evaluation of the relative merits of the situation and only looks at the net result. Because of this, discussion participants feel a need to convince others to agree with their evaluation of the acceptable tradeoffs, in an attempt to change the raw counts. If instead closers would try to determine a consensus view of what the community feels are the appropriate weights to give to a candidate's pros and cons, then there would be no need to argue with someone whose weighting is in direct opposition with the community's view. The net "support/oppose" would not be the key contribution of a participant; the relative importance placed on the good and bad qualities of the candidate would be the primary input towards establishing a consensus view. isaacl (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Why is this here? Disagreement, even at length, is not disruption. The RfA itself (with an unexceptional number of actual votes, interestingly) is fine, without any more insults or harassment of the candidate than usual; it's just become the site of some lengthy accompanying meta-debates. GJP has the option of not posting if he finds being disagreed with so disagreeable; meanwhile, turning a long discussion into an "incident requiring administrator attention" is just validating the impression that people are watching his posts and waiting for an excuse to shut him up. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• This conversation should be closed. As this is a project to build an encyclopedia, Greg's opinion that a prerequisite for administratorship ought to be creation of high quality encyclopedic content is not exactly out of line. Every editor is entitled to their own RfA criteria. There is no need to exchange eleventy-eleven criticisms and replies. Greg is far from the only one who has engaged in making the same point over and over and OVER again. All should desist, but there is no need for an administrator to start waving mops and buckets around. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. I've done it below and I want someone to top it off here. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• The annoying part isn't Greg's obsessing wonkishly over his one pet issue. He's free to choose any RfA criterion he likes. After all, we've previously tolerated people who opposed every RfA with "prima facie power hunger" and "we currently have too many admins" type rationales. But I do think that, if Greg is going to purposely talk to people in a dismissive and smug way, he should not be surprised to receive more objections and disagreements than usual, and the amount of butthurt he is emitting over it is truly extraordinary. But I'm not seeing any reason for administrators to get involved here. Reyk _YO! 08:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• I've put the brakes on the discussion. It started out being somewhat helpful but now it's just a waste of time. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I really don't see the problem. Everybody knows the RfA process is flawed and not fit for purpose. You know it's a complete laughing stock when you have people say things like: "sure", "I don't see why not", "seems like a nice guy", and "just to counter the content creator bullshit" in their reasons to support. Jack, like me and others, don't want the tools handed out to every Tom, Dick, and Harry; but they are and that has to stop. Cassianto^Talk 09:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Cassianto: Every Tom, Dick, and Harry? That is simply not the truth. According to statistics there have been 36 RfAs so far this year. Out of those only 12 have been successful. That is a 33% chance for success. Not really an "everybody" situation. Since 2002, the successful RfA percentage is 47%. Adminship is certainly not given to "everybody" and it certainly is not given to everyone who applies. Sure, some of the reasons given for granting adminship to this individual are a little ridiculous but that is to be expected during a community driven, wide ranged, discussion. --Stabila711 (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree this should be closed. I will admit to being struck by the thoughtful nature of some supports, which clearly required much agonizing pondering following a painstaking and searching inquiry into the candidate's qualifications and suitability.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:10, 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:HughD

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.

---

HughD needs help. He's been unfairly targeted by an admin who does nothing but attack and attack. 166.170.51.220 (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Directly related to the Kochtruth situation complained about in the previous section: Ricky81682 is the abused admin in both cases. Nyttend (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The abus***ing*** admin. Why is a one year topic ban appropriate for forgetting why you didn't edit an article? I mean that's just nuts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.220 (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(Got caught by an edit conflict- I'll post below not inside the archive (Got archived while I was writing this ) )

This appears to be related to this back and forth on HughD's talk page. I would question Rick81682's quick block of Kochtruth, as typically I've seen admin's ask a user to change their name first, he/she was given no such warning, second their contributions were not vandalism nor disruptive, it looked to be good faith contributions with some good sources (rolling stone ) and some not-so-good sources. The posted once, then when it was reverted, went to the discussion page to talk about it. I'd say this block was a bad block, revert the block and give the user a change to change their name and remove the ban on the Tea Part Movement for HughD, as he appears to be getting blamed for someone else's actions. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed my close to allow discussion of these points, however, it really needs to be HughD raising this issue, not a block evading IP, and if he doesn't raise the issue here soon, it will need to be closed again. Normally, a discussion at WP:AN is used for reversal of an admin, but it's here so no need to be slavish to the bureaucracy. If the block evading IP comes back, I will reblock again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• This section should really be closed per DENY, because this (block-evading) IP editor, it seems, is not going to stop running to ANI every time Ricky81862 makes an administrative decision. This is effectively harrassment related to sections above. If HughD wants to raise the issue here (or at AN, or elsewhere), then that's fine. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have noticed Ricky81682 doing excellent admin work recently, and there was an obvious need to apply the user name policy per the comments at Talk:Koch Industries#Update. Anyone wanting to appeal the topic ban should study this. This section should be closed as there has already been far too much noise generated in relation to the users concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 12:18, 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.

Please re-open. Respectfully may I please be allowed to contribute to this discussion? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Its been closed twice. It might just be better to start a new discussion at WP:AN to address your concerns, without the baggage of the block evading IP being involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, new discussion. May I ask your advice, I have never appealed a discretionary sanction. I have just now read that WP:AN and WP:AE are possible venues. I am optimistic the charge of collaborating with a new user with a bad user name will be handled quickly, and I need to focus on once again explaining an alleged misleading AE filing. Might there be some marginal utility in WP:AE, where the alleged deceit took place? Or are you specifically recommending WP:AN? On the other hand, the AE filing is still open, and I think it is important and I do not want to interfere with it. How does one decide between the two? I would greatly appreciate your advice. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Just saw the AE. I don't recommend you rattle any more cages right now. What you do is up to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications says:

"Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org)."

The definitions section of the same page says:

• "AE ("arbitration enforcement noticeboard”) is the venue for requesting, applying, discussing and appealing most enforcement requests.
• AN ("administrators’ noticeboard") is the alternative venue for appeals.
• ARCA ("Requests for Amendment") is the venue for appealing to the committee."

(The ARCA route would be if you want to request that the US politics pages no longer be under discretionary sanctions, not for appealing your topic ban)

Also, using Template:Sanction appeal is highly recommended.

I would strongly that you give serious thought to what it would take to actually get the topic ban reversed. You will have to show that you understand why you were topic banned and give the community reasons to believe that you will change the behavior that resulted in your topic ban. Blaming others or claiming innocence in the face of multiple uninvolved editors and administrators all telling you that your behavior is a problem is not helping your case. See Law of Holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Update

HughD's immediate edits (after starting this sandbox which may be helpful eventually) was to start a draft at User:HughD/donorstrust for language I'm presuming intended to be included at Donors Trust and then to edit the actual Citizens United decision. I blocked HughD for a week. I have no real involvement or idea about the Tea party movement but ARBCOM's decision used "pages" so I assume draft text to be included in live articles qualify and that potential text qualified as part of it. I'm not totally certain if the Citizens United decision technically falls under the ban but it's enough related to the general politics that it's problematic. I'm asking for further input here. I don't prefer blocking people so one option may be a broader topic ban on all post-1932 politics articles to see if HughD can edit anywhere in a productive manner. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

And regarding the username, looks like it's been solved. I specifically permitted user creation from the blocked name for that reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

So you're out to get Hugh aren't you? 166.170.48.130 (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Overturn. Bad block. HughD was working on that Donors Trust in his sandbox before so it wasn't a new piece. Citizens United has nothing to do with the teabagging idiots. 166.170.50.156 (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Kochtruth"? What kind of user name is that anyways? JordanGero (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Publishing the truth about Koch Industries. 166.170.50.156 (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)