Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive952

Blatant canvassing by Herostratus

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

So, this user wrote an essay Wikipedia:Being blocked hurts. In January they moved it from user space to project space. I made some edits to that essay that they reverted.[1] I opened a discussion on the talk page [2] regarding my perspective on the essay. They did not engage in that discussion in the nearly two months that followed. I then proposed moving it back into userspace as it seems they wanted to WP:OWN it and keep it complete with the over-the-top hyperbole that comprises basically the entire essay. [3]

So, a discussion ensued. Now, I get that the nature of the discussion by definition personalized it from the outset a bit more than is usual in a move discussion. But what has gone on there is, like the essay itself, a bit over the top:

• this edit] Which is entirely directed at me, and in which I am told "Stop it", "calm down", "You have an overly harsh and punitive attitude", "You are not entitled to vandalize this one, which is what you did -- " ( a fairly serious accusation) "On being told by me that you can't do that, you're now having a tantrum and suggesting moving it out of main essay space. Stop it." (a second direct order to cease and desist in the same edit) and "leave this work to others".

• Some other users commented over the next week and a half, and one of them seemed not to have gotten what the nomination was saying, so I attempted to clarify it [4] and that was met with another long rant by Herostratus, ending with this proclamation: "I have no choice but to call in reinforcements. If you think I am "owning" this page, I feel bound to get other editors involved with the page." [5]

• And they did just that, going not to a central noticeboard, but to the editor retention WikiProject, and posting not a neutral request for previously uninvolved users to comment, but a direct attempt to recruit users to do things to "de-fang" the rationale for the move. [6]

• I warned them for canvassing, using both the standard template and a my own personal message. [7] to which their reaction was to cite WP:TEMPLAR and suggest that I am the one in the wrong here, and that by saying they wanted to own the essay I gave them no choice but to go ahead and willfully canvass people to do their bidding, while actually suggesting at the same time that "isn't their fault" if people find the move discussion as a result of their canvassing. [8]

I honestly don't know what to say or do with someone who shows such a startling lack of self-awareness and denial of their own culpability, while simultaneously displaying the very traits under discussion. Help. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

My feeling is that unless Herostratus allows other editors to contribute to the essay, it needs to be moved out of Wikipedia-space into their user space, where it can represent their own personal opinion, and they can maintain complete control over its contents. Otherwise, if it stays in Wikipedia space, it's subject to the policy against WP:OWNERSHIP - although any editor, including the creator, can protect the essay against attempts to pervert its message to something opposed to the original point of the essay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And, the openly-declared, deliberate violation of WP:CANVASS? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say those deserve a firm "don't do it again" warning, maybe even a trout, since Herostratus should know better, and a follow up block if they do it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• ANI? Over an essay? REALLY??? EEng 21:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not "over the essay". The requested move is where the essay itself is being discussed, or should be anyway. I'm looking to address the behavioral issues, specifically deliberate, premeditated canvassing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• XFD for the subtle attack on the establishment. What useless writings. L3X1 (distant write) 21:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean, but FYI, there is no "XFD" just a move request, and the subkject here is Herostratus' behavior in that discussion, not the merits of the essay itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm a somewhat involved party to this mess, but I'd like to point out that more than once Herostratus has admitted to wrongdoing and claimed that they had no choice. I urge admins to uphold the concept that our guidelines and policies do not become moot if you think you need to have your way. Also anyone that says "Those are on me, but since I'm the one templated and then dragged here, I'll add WP:BULLY and Violation Of WP:FUN With Aggravated Failure To Be A Womble on Beebs." probably ought not be editing this encyclopedia. That's just my opinion and no one likes my opinions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• I looked at the diffs in support of the so-called "blatant canvassing". It was no more canvassing than it was canvassing for the OP to start this ANI thread here. It's not canvassing, and certainly not blatant. What we have here is a "content" dispute over a mere essay, which does not belong at ANI. If it's not the worst thing in the world to be blocked, then it's not the worst thing in the world to have someone disagree with you about adding a paragraph about it not being the worst thing in the world to be blocked. I expect that the parties here are familiar with WP:BRD. Now go and D. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No Administrative Action Needed

Per WP:Canvassing: not all canvassing is harmful to the encyclopedia or even forbidden. There are clear conditions for improper canvassing and the specific actions shown here of this regular and experienced editor do not meet those IMO. No action is necessary. I agree with the comment by Beyond My Ken, ownership is a problem here, but I do not see clear evidence of that being disruptive (edit warring) here. Canvassing when done properly is not ownership IMO but an attempt to prevent wp:local consensus. I also agree with EEng that this AN/I was not called for and a wp:boomerang may occur if this is not closed. And on that note it should be mentioned that this appears to come from a disagreement at a RfC Wikipedia talk:Being blocked hurts where admin input may be helpful. This AN/I may represent wp:battleground.--Endercase (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The user is obviously emotional about the suggestion that "their" essay should get demoted to userspace, this is a normal reaction. The user does not represent a harmful or disruptive faction in Wikipedia. Their essay is separate issue that should not be discussed at this AN/I. Canvassing and WP:own are the point. Once again they have not done anything mentioned in the improper portion of WP:Canvassing nor do they appear to be engaged in edit warring. They do, however, not filter their comments addressed to other users this could be problematic in the future. They also appear to ignore the advice of multiple editors to refrain from commenting on WP:HURTS and from commenting on their AN/I in an emotional manner. However, I once again do not think that any Administrative or AN/I based action is needed in this case at this point. As to Hijiri88 suggestion that I should be banned for these comments please provide a policy or consensus based explanation for what I am doing wrong. Endercase (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I never suggested a boomerang. EEng 22:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry EEng#s I did not intend for it to look like either one of us was suggesting a boomerang, I intended for it to state that that is generally the consequence of AN/I like this that go on for too long. The crowd likes blood or something, hopefully they don't turn on me XD. I have just removed that portion of the statement. Endercase (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(Response from User:Herostratus). I agree, no action needed. Let's see, to break it out, I think there are four things in play here:

1. User:Beeblebrox sure doesn't like me, my essay, or my whole general attitude very much.
2. WP:OWN on WP:HURTS.
3. WP:CANVASS, on the Requested Move at WP:HURTS.
4. Those are on me, but since I'm the one templated and then dragged here, I'll add WP:BULLY and Violation Of WP:FUN With Aggravated Failure To Be A Womble on Beebs.

As to the first: oh well. Not sure what we can do about that here. Can't expect everyone to like us.

As to the second (WP:OWN)... as User:Beyond My Ken says "any editor, including the creator, can protect the essay against attempts to pervert its message to something opposed to the original point of the essay"; this makes sense to me, and that's exactly what I was doing, in my opinion. Maybe my opinion is wrong, but it's reasonable. Since it is reasonable I'm entitled to act on for the time being, I think.

I explained all this on the talk page of the essay (Wikipedia talk:Being blocked hurts) and on my talk page (at User talk:Herostratus#April 2017. It's all there, here's an excerpt:

Upon encountering this page, if you don't agree with it (and fine, that's your perfect right), you are entitled to write your own essay... and link to it from this page. You are not entitled to vandalize this one, which is what you did -- man, you can't add a section to an essay that contradicts the nutshell and the basic thrust of the essay. I can't go over to the essay Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band and add a section to the effect of "On the other hand, forget what you just read and ignore everything else in this essay. If you have a band, you should write an article about it, because our mission is or should be to document the artistic life of the world, including every band that exists" or whatever.

The main reason for this is: the only real use of any essay is to present a cogent argument with examples and so forth so that editors can make a point by invoking the shortcut without having to type it over and over. That's the main use. The essay needs to speak in one voice -- not rigidly, but more or less having a coherent point of view.

But OK, if you don't agree, what's the remedy? If it's a Wikispace page, Userfy it -- which is being proposed right now. I think the WP:OWN argument is false and disingenuous (the real motive is objection to the text of the essay on the merits), but I could be wrong, and anyway, if Beeblebrox can convince or bamboozle enough people into believing it, then that solves that problem. And if he can't... that is life I guess.

As to the third, WP:CANVASS.

I mean, yeah, I see the point, but on the other hand, what am I supposed to do? As I explained on my talk page, if I'm WP:OWNing the page as I've been accused of, I need to try to get other eyes and voices involved in helping to curate and improve the page. I mean, I didn't do anything for a long time, but Beeblebrox kept accusing me of OWN. Anyway, if I am guilty of canvassing (could be, but I think I have justification, probably) what's a good remedy? Well, coming here! Here there's a bunch of people (adminst) who as a statistical group probably won't take kindly to the page, so maybe some of you will go there and vote it off the island, and again, everything shipshape and Bristol fashion.

As to the forth... User:Beeblebrox should relax about this. For some reason he just hates this fucken essay. It's not a condemnation of the admin corps or of anybody. Hell, I've blocked plenty people (90%+ are just drive-by vandals or obvious net negatives (and possibly we should block more people to enforce polite behavior), but for the others -- I didn't like doing it, and it is stressful, and it's doubly stressful if you worry about it and doubt yourself -- but you have to never stop worrying and doubting yourself, and asking yourself if you did everything reasonably possible to avoid that outcome. Otherwise you wake up and you're the LAPD. And I get that its a burnout job and its worse if you're not confident that every block was right -- but every block isn't right, so what can I say?

But that's another discussion. This essay is trying to say one small thing, that is worth saying, and worth saying often enough to be in Wikispace and have a shortcut. And if it really is fringe nonsense, let it ride and everybody will see it for fringe nonsense, and there's your remedy there. Herostratus (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You keep saying that this is because I don't like you as a person, and then saying nasty things about me. You invoke WP:BULLY when in fact it is you who have tried to bully me away from your precious essay, repeatedly directly ordering me to "stop it". "it" being opening a discussion ion the talk page, which last time I checked is exactly how we are supposed to go about trying to resolve things. And your canvassing really could not be more =blatant. That you would even try to define it as soemthing else or worse yet, openly say that I made you do it is appalling. You announced you were going to do it, and then you did it. That's substantially worse than someone who just doesn't know any better. You've essentially tried to tell me that I have no right to even be at that page if I'm not 100% in agreement with it's overly-privileged first-world-problems perspective on life. Your own privilege is showing, int hat you essentially told me I simply must go away, and when I didn't you called for those you assumed to be your equals to come and assist you in defeating me and making me leave your space, when it was actually our space all along, since you chose to move it into project space. That you can't see how ridiculous you are acting while making it out like I'm tha bad guy is telling. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox and Herostratus: I think both editors are editing in good faith, however your actions are often close to battleground and harassment, at the very least both of you appear to not be AGF on the part of the other editor. I would like to request that both of you leave the AN/I and the RfC alone for a little while and consider removing some of your comments. I'm sure both of you have conveyed your POV on the issue and the community as a whole will come to a consensus on these matters. You both appear to be very involved in these issues. If you would like to take a break from them please work together and critique User:Endercase/Argument from authority introduction as it is up for RfC and will be merged soon. Endercase (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

OK! OK, if it will help: I was canvassing. I did it and it felt good. There! But I'm not lying when I say I also wanted to de-fang the OWN accusations by getting other eyes on the page. I did! And I was frustrated by these accusations since, rightly or wrongly, I believe they're not justified. So it's complicated.

Maybe you're right about all this Beeblebrox, OK? Who can truly know these things. It's hard to know if one's actions are proper. You're a good Wikipedian and very valuable, and I'm sorry we're at loggerheads here. It's not a big deal, and maybe you'll win your point. I'll shut up now, and whatever is decided here or there by consensus is fine. Herostratus (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: For the essay to remain in Wikipedia space it needs to be subject to normal community editing practices and participation. Are you willing to let that happen? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Beeb, please leave the damn essay alone, except add a link to an opposing separate one if you write it (and Herostratus, please allow such a link). That's a known viable practice: see for example WP:FAIL near the top. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @User:NeilNWell yes, of course. I mean, ANI is not a place to decide the placement of an essay anyway. That's up to discussion on the talk page or WP:MFD (or in this case WP:RM). I mean, obviously I can't edit the page now -- I'd get blocked for sure, probably even if I reverted a page blanking. So "willing to let that happen" is out of my hands in any case. But I was not going to edit the page anymore anyway, since I'd been accused of owning it, and even though I don't agree with accusation I'm sensitive to the possibility that I might be wrong about that.

As an aside, I thought I was writing a little anodyne essay that would probably never go anywhere. I'm actually gobsmacked by the hornet's nest I've stirred up here -- the visceral strength of the response "No. Being blocked does not affect editors emotionally, or if it does it is not worth considering -- and it is not just wrongheaded, but illegitimate for anyone to say different".

It's depressing. Although certainly educational.

In the meantime... so, now an editor has changed the nutshell from

to

which I consider a hostile edit, because it weakens the thrust of the essay.

I mean, did the editor approach the page with with the frame of mind "Well, I generally agree with the point, but it could be improved, to make its point better. It could be trimmed, or other edits made for clarity, or perhaps some ancillary points expounded on" and so forth. Well of course not. The editor approached it "Well, I sure don't agree with that, guess I'll weaken and muddy up the message". I consider that a hostile and deliberately destructive edit.

Obviously I can't do anything about it, though. Oh well. But really, for shame on the admin corps for acceding to this kind of behavior.

Another example, although I've already provided some

I get that I'm not getting through. I feel like a traveler in strange lands -- if I just repeat myself loudly and slowly enough, I'll be understood. So let's see, I'll try again. Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources (WP:NPOVS) has the nutshell

I don't particularly agree with WP:NPOVS. It says that National Review is a reliable source, while I think that National Review is usually a poor source for facts, and so forth. (It's a valid essay though because it is cogent and makes reasonable argument for its points, which are sensible and worth considering though IMO mostly wrong.)

So OK, can I go in and change the nutshell of WP:NPOVS to

and make commensurate changes to the body of the page?

Of course not. Instead, the proper thing to do is to for me to write an essay refuting WP:NPOVS, link to it at the bottom of WP:NPOVS if I want, and when someone throws WP:NPOVS at me in conversation (which is just a proxy for typing the entire essay into the conversation after all) respond with "can't agree, see X essay for detailed reasons why". That is the Wikipedia way, and it always has been. And it has to be that way. We can't have people making hostile edits in essay space and have a functioning essay system. That would be the way toward chaos. As administrators charged with keeping the peace you should be to suss that.

I've made this point several times, here, on the essay talk page, and on my page. No one has refuted it because it can't be refuted by pointing to logic or practice, and you all know it can't be refuted.

Look, I understand the sentiment "Wow, I hate this essay. I totally disagree with it". I'm asking people to step away from that for a moment and consider the principle. As administrators you are supposed to be able to do that. We have procedural remedies for "I don't like this essay". One really good remedy is "then don't cite it, and ignore or refute it when someone does". Other remedies are nominating the page for deletion, which a procedure is undergoing right now. There is no good basis for deleting the page -- it's not nonsense, or badly written, or unclear, pointless, or fringe, or said better elsewhere, or any of the actual reason we delete essays, of which "I don't agree with it" is not one -- but, you know how it it goes. It will probably be deleted anyway, because... well, Wikipedia is not Nirvana, it is full of people and people have emotions, and fine.

But it doesn't really belong here at ANI. Herostratus (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Bona fide canvassing is never acceptable. Sometimes what is called "canvassing" is not bona fide canvassing. What happened here was bona fine canvassing. It was anything but neutral, and was posted in an extremely biased forum. WER, honestly, comes across as a cess-pool of "I was blocked and I didn't deserve it; I'm done with Wikipedia" and "my friend was blocked and he didn't deserve it; he told me that he's done with Wikipedia"; other users who have legitimate ER concerns have told me the feel essentially the same about the forum, including one recipient of their "Editor of the Week" award.

Endercase should, if he doesn't strike his above comments, probably be blocked. He posted a similar comment about me a few weeks earlier and was told by Bishonen that he was lucky she hadn't blocked him. He posted an insincere-looking apology at that time, and has now done essentially the same to another editor.

Honestly, I think several of the "oppose" !votes in the RM should not be posting there until they have a few more blocks under their belt. I don't feel like Herostratus fully understands the experience of Wikipedians who have received several blocks that probably weren't warranted. My first block was the result of a disruptive user lying to an admin about my behaviour (the admin apologized to me a few days later); my second was the result of a misunderstanding for which I immediately apologized; ditto for my most recent block (I think it was my sixth overall); I could go on, but honestly I don't care. those things are in the past, and I'm here to build an encyclopedia. No one who isn't here to build an encyclopedia (and that includes people who spend all their time complaining about Wikipedia) has a "right" to edit here. An essay that essentially says "Don't block people because they might not be HERE and we don't want NOTHERE users to get upset and leave" is way out of line with the core principles of the encyclopedia. Editors who actually work to build the encyclopedia are allowed hold this view, but they should express it in their user space.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's a lot to chew on... these're interesting questions, how well our blocking policy works, what are some of the intended and unintended side effects of how we block, whether in general we're blocking for the right things, and so forth. Probably ANI is not the best place for that, one reason being the threads don't last...

If "Wikipedians who have received several blocks that probably weren't warranted" is a large class (I don't know), that IMO is a problem. You don't think its a problem, and obviously a lot of people agree with you.

Welp, OK then. But... If you select for editors who don't mind being blocked, you are selecting for editors who don't have self-respect. If you select for editors who don't have self-respect, you will not have many accomplished people.

Whether we want accomplished people here , or not, is a separate question. Herostratus (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• We're on completely the wrong track. Essays are supposed to be opinion pieces presenting an argument. If the main contributors to an essay don't like your edits because they think you're not improving the essay (i.e. strengthening the argument), then write an opposing essay. Fairness would require that the original essay should link to yours and vice versa, but WP:POVFORK only applies to articles, not essays. Could someone start an essay called "being blocked feels good" or whatever the opposite of Hierostratus's essay would be called? 50.0.136.56 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Like Being Blocked Is not the End of the World? L3X1 (distant write) 00:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

'Straight up WP:OWN. If an article, rfc or essay is written on Wikipedia, other editors have the right to contribute to it, vandalism is pretty tightly defined over here. The edit you described as "vandalisdm" doesn't meet that criteria. If you don't want other to edit your essay, you'll need to move it out of Wikipedia.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Endercase: - You've seemed to wholly miss the mark. "Canvassing" is an inherently-malicious behavior that is rightly prohibited. Wikipedia is a self-governing project. We achieve this by discussing issues in good faith and forming consensuses. Canvassing is a serious form of disruption that makes consensus-building impossible and replaces actual discussion with a predetermined pseudo-consensus that would not otherwise exist. That may be completely opposite to what the actual community/local consensus might be. The whole point of WP:CANVASS is to draw a distinction between that behavior and actual consensus building. Going to a community noticeboard to ask for input is not canvassing. Adding something to WP:CD is not canvassing. Letting a regular editor of an article know about your proposal is not canvassing. Going to a WikiProject to solicit editors who will take your side is canvassing. Pinging 5 of your on-wiki allies when you see a proposal you disagree with is canvassing. Understand? Canvassing is already enough of a problem without uninformed comments such as this. And a side note, please don't create subheadings that imply an administrative judgment has been made. I know it wasn't your intent but it's not helpful for non-admins to be making statements like that at AN/I. Swarm ♠ 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: I'm willing to admit that is entirely possible, I have been known to miss the mark in the past. I understand that the interpretation of the inappropriate portion of wp:canvass is a bit up for debate these days. For instance is pinging other users or even posting on their talkpage canvassing inappropriate? Or is it just "appropriate notification"? I have seen this debated recently to no effect (draw/no decisive close). Personally I think wp:canvass needs to be split moved to Wp:inappropriate notification and wp:appropriate notification or something of that nature so that these issues can be hammered out. It really isn't my place to do that though, as you point out I am less experienced than many users. Most of us at least agree that notifying other users in secret is inappropriate at least. Also there is general consensus that if you feel like the !vote has been swayed by canvassing a general banner should be added to notify the closing user so that they weigh the logic of !votes and not just the number (as they should be doing anyway). I have not seen any punitive or preventive measures taken recently on this topic though. Also all users are equal, Admin is just a user with direct access to more tools and who has passed a RfA at some point (standards used to be much lower I've been told). Jimbo also suggests it is not a big deal to be an Admin (of course he is just another user too). Back to a point, aren't subheading how !votes for specific proposals organized? Endercase (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

See also WP:Village pump (policy)#WP:CANVASS per my argument that there is not currently consensus. Endercase (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: POV Forks

Related Discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive951#POV_forks_being_created_as_school_project

Hi...I am the instructor for the class at Berkeley. Thanks for this conversation. We are very glad that WikiEdu provides the additional support needed to make university students great contributors to Wikipedia. It resources the students to be able to bring their considerable research skills to bear on creating great, neutral content.

The topic of environmental justice is particularly tricky right now. President Trump is on the record as having said a number of pretty inflammatory things about race and the environment and also having done some. These strike the eye and appear incredible to some members of the Wikipedia community. In one case, a Wikipedian accused our students of manufacturing the claim that Trump called climate change a Chinese hoax, going so far as to correct them by saying that Hillary Clinton accused him of having said that. He had tweeted it personally.

It has been suggested that the students are committing the error of going into too much depth in their articles. Environmental problems don't occur in isolation from human systems and are in fact caused by social and economic factors. I think the underlying challenges the community faces with these articles have quite a bit to do with systemic biases. I'd suggest a read of this article to help understand some of the reactions the students' work is eliciting, and a focus particularly on what to do about it

Finally, a number of Wikipedians have suggested that our class syllabus is itself flawed and biased. I would welcome their input to improve it and make it more factually correct.

And thanks again to WikiEdu and Ian in particular for creating a vehicle for rigorously trained students to improve Wikipedia and create vital resources for people affected by pollution and injustice, despite their novice-level skills at negotiating this particular technology. --EJustice (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have replaced what EJustice was trying to post without the breaking of the page. --Tarage (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Upon reading the above post, I am trying... very hard to continue to assume good faith, but there appears to be a serious disconnect between what this educator wishes to achieve and the goals of Wikipedia. Hopefully someone more eloquent than I can set EJustice on a better path than they are right now. Messing up ANI is not a good first step when assuming Wikipedia competency. --Tarage (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's nothing to do with "good faith", though. I'm sure the fella means exactly what he says, and that he's doing it for our own good. Whether we need it or like or not. I'm from the University & I'm here to save help you! Anmccaff (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) At this point I feel obliged to point out that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. From the above, I do get the distinct impression that this bit of knowledge hasn't yet arrived in Berkeley. Kleuske (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This class is also being discussed at WP:ENI, where the issue of a possible shared account, violating WP:NOSHARING, has arisen. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@EJustice: You said, "A Wikipedian accused our students of manufacturing the claim that Trump called climate change a Chinese hoax, going so far as to correct them by saying that Hillary Clinton accused him of having said that. He had tweeted it personally."

You have yet to acknowledge that your students misquoted an attributed source.

The editor wrote, "He once called climate change a Chinese 'hoax'". But the original source said "concept" -- not "hoax".

Per MOS:PMC, "quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." More generally, all student writers should be taught this principle. See Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed.: "It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of meticulous accuracy in quoting from the works of others. Authors should check every direct quotation against the original."

An unrelated point: I think that if your students are seeking to advance social justice through their contributions here, they must by definition act "on behalf of ... communities who are ... excluded from meaningful participation" in Wikipedia. See Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed., s.v. "social justice". I suspect that this would include, in particular, lower socioeconomic-class communities, whose members lack the leisure time or education needed to take part here. You may accordingly want to have your students search for and publish more information about what the administration's environmental policy means for working-class communities generally, not just for particular subsets of those communities. [Resolved by information provided in subsequent comment] --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC) 20:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is so awkward. User:EJustice you and your class are attempting to use WP as a WP:SOAPBOX (which is part of WP:NOT - which defines the mission of Wikipedia and says what WP is, and what it is not) as well as violating WP:NPOV. Your class is adding loads of very bad-by-WP-standards in a topic that is so controversial that it has been to our "Supreme Court" (WP:ARBCOM) on multiple occasions and has what we call discretionary sanctions" on it, namely contemporary US politics. We generally warn people not to make their first edits on topics that are so hard to work in. You have led a whole class of new editors into it, in a very foot-stomping way.

The problems go far beyond "going into too much depth in their articles" (part of what we call WP:UNDUE). Almost all the content is pure advocacy with explicit POV language and sourcing. The same content and ideas have been added to many articles and new articles, with no effort to integrate or deal with WP:WEIGHT. There has been a lot of WP:CRYSTALBALL content with negative projections about the future. There have been WP:BLP violations.

Your post is not promising in that you show no openness to understanding the problems here, as does this AfD !vote, this partial (?) removal of a PROD, this response to someone trying to point out relevant policies and guidelines... oy.

Please be aware that we do indefinitely block editors (and students and their instructors are editors like everybody else) who refuse to listen when people try to explain community norms (the policies and guidelines by which the editing community governs itself) and press on. The discretionary sanctions allow that blocking to happen swiftly when the problems are clear and there is no sign of them abating but only continuing. That would be ... awkward and I for one hope you can start hearing what people are saying to you in the several places across Wikipedia where people are responding to the class and to specific articles. I understand that your WP liaison is trying very hard to communicate with you, your TAs, and your students (diff) off-WP. I hope that bears fruit and this does not turn into more of a train wreck than it already is. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC) (added missing word Jytdog (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC))

Thanks for your input. I disagree with your characterization of our students' work (soapbox, not, npov, undue, crystalball). I've read those policies and don't find that the pages in question generically violate them. Could you perhaps show statements that do so? It would help us understand what you're speaking of. Your references to the few edits I've directly engaged in highlight the same problem. Sections and pages were deleted without any real evidence while the sections themselves were well supported by scientific journal and popular literature citations. No need to do this yourself, but if you could find a soapbox-y statement that would be great. There's a lot of contentious stuff going on right now in the US and it does feel like a lot of soapboxing is going on. But that doesn't mean that, for example, mountain-top removal coal mining isn't actually affecting poor people in Appalachia. How is it a violation to document that?

Thanks! --EJustice (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately, a response with WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:ARBCOM, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:CRYSTALBALL, etc. is a not uncommon intimidation tactic. The work of your students is far better on the whole than typical newby editors. Their work certainly should not evoke this knee-jerk response. I hope some admins with cooler heads step in and help resolve this.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I highlighted a few examples in my AfD comments, but I'm not sure ANI is the right place for this discussion. For example there is WP:CRYSTAL about Trump in Financial Accessibility of National Parks in the United States, I reviewed several of the the articles and I don't think the policies are being cited maliciously in this case Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Your AfD comments cited this as POV, not CRYSTALBALL, but I agree that at this point this entry is CRYSTALBALL "Accessibility to national parks can decrease during this administration because President Trump has threatened to defund the National Parks Service. This would cause the National Parks to become more expensive to visit, through increase in entrance or yearly fees, or in some cases even shutting down National Parks. Our national parks are becoming increasingly vulnerable to destruction as climate change will negatively impact the ecosystems of many of our National Parks."

Note however that my talk page feedback to this page a few weeks ago specifically suggested to them how to remedy this. Very easy to show how proposed cuts in Trump's budget will impact park accessibility as the subject of accessibility is a widely researched one. We know, from rigorous peer-reviewed research, how fees affect park attendance by various groups. The editors of that page need to bring those citations to bear or modify the page. I do not think this warrants the TNT you suggest.

Overall grateful for a good example so editors can remedy. Most of the AfD comments have been unsupported by actual analysis and, again, does the need for better citation warrant an AfD? Wiki's systemic biases do make it harder for certain groups' issues to be addressed and I'd urge those reacting so strongly to think about that.

--EJustice (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

note, fixed indenting Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH carefully. If the secondary source does not explicitly say "Trump's budget cuts have effected park accessibility..." etc. I don't think it will pass scrutiny from our editors. As for better citation, Indigenous rights to land along rivers cites to Wikipedia itself. The errors are such flagrant policy violations that I don't think there is much to debate at this stage in terms of application and systemic bias. They demonstrate a clear and persistent misunderstanding of the most basic Wikipedia policies. I think it your responsibility to better familiarize yourself and your students with Wikipedia's policies and their applications, before accusing us of making unsupported accusations. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with I am One of Many's comment. There is no need to threaten the instructor and the students with blocks. What an embarrassment to the Project. What happened to WP:AGF and WP:BITE?
  That said, I agree with Seraphim System that students are writing things that do not follow our rules, especially rules against original research, synthesis and citing to primary sources, all of which would be acceptable in academic writing. The solution is not to WP:BITE the newcomers but to teach them respectfully how to follow our rules and write good content using proper sourcing that will stick. Deleting all their new articles rather than improve them is incredibly insulting. Just imagine if you were in a class and your instructor did that with all of your work.

I have offered to help the instructor and the outreach has already begun. Why are the rest of the dedicated Wikipedians not doing more of the same? Why are we instead slinging mud, as the instructor correctly pointed out here? I think the students and instructor are learning quite a lot from this experience, especially about Wikipedia itself, and about how we treat new editors who come in good faith trying to improve the encyclopedia and provide well sourced content, and in particular how we treat the work of students from one of the U.S.'s top universities. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Without involvement, i observe there are new editors confronted with a wall of violations by Jytdog. Above I AM One of Many summed it up, intimidation tactic. Jytdog might as well be not even aware how he comes across to new editors. Wikipedia lacks new editors because of such harsh responses. Yet, editors with a history of conflicts are allowed to getting involved, over and over again. prokaryotes (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment This is why my suggestion would be to stay out of ArbCom subject areas (like Trump) as much as possible, at least until you are comfortable with the basics of WP:OR, because ArbCom is where editors will encounter truly esoteric applications of policy. It doesn't seem fair to allow pages to POV-fork out of ArbCom just because they are part of a school project. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, I don't regard our placing the entire area of American politics under discretionary sanctions, as a particular strange thing to do, especially in time. And we arbitrators do not make the decisions about enforcement for individual violations of discretionary sanctions--this is done by other administrators. The process is deliberately divided. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree. Two of our five core policies are "Wikipedia the Encyclopedia anyone can edit" and be bold. Eliminating political and controversial topics from student involvement would violate our core polices. The problem comes from our end of not following our own policies as I mentioned at here at WP:EN/I and not giving these students the core policy of respect they are entitled. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Sure, it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, as long as you're proficient enough in English, competent to understand our rules, and do not violate our policies. Then, there may come a time when the community will decide that you can't edit, regardless of "anyone can edit." And while WP:Boldness is encouraged, bold edits are just edits, there's nothing sacrosanct about them, they can be reverted and the discussed just like every other edits. Neither "Anyone can edit" or "Be bold" are "Get Out of Jail Free" cards, they do not protect editors who do not follow policies from criticism or, potentially, sanctioning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Update, over at ENI the Education folks have said that they had a video conference with EJustice and that they have moved some articles back into sandboxes, will allow AfDs to continue, noted that some articles are probably OK and will continue to be improved, and clarified that students are not going to be graded on final product but on their drafts. And User:Train2104 is keeping track of the articles at a userpage, here.Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think the solution of userfying was a good one that I advocated for at the WP:AfDs and I thank Ryan (Wiki Ed) for the hard work done. However, we must own up to our failings both to the instructor and to the students from not following our core policies WP:5P3, WP:5P4, WP:5P5. We need to reflect on our behavior and our failure to be more welcoming to these students and the instructor and to the student's hard work.[9]--David Tornheim (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• I have mixed views on this issue. I've been involved with two articles from this class Draft:Environmental impacts of the War on Drugs and Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. The former I had to move back to draftspace during NPP because it was a very biased essay and full of loaded words (Draconian cannot possibly be used in a current politics article without being a loaded word.) I've reached out to the students to try to help. The Trump article posed an entirely different issue because it was also very essay like, but it also contained 6 sentences of close paraphrase/copy and paste, that required 128 revisions to be deleted. That being said, I firmly believe many of these articles have a place in Wikipedia. The student just need to follow NPOV better, and we could react better by not sending them to AfD, but by draftifying and helping them. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, Professor. I apologize for the wall of accusations that you have been met with here. You were operating in good faith. You and your students just need to be educated on the difference between a Wikipedia article and a term paper. A Wikipedia article does not express opinions, does not reach a conclusion, does not have an introduction explaining what the writer is going to say - none of that. A Wikipedia article only reflects what is has been given significant coverage by independent reliable sources. No WP:synthesis, no WP:Original research, nothing from the writer at all. And of course no opinions. Having said that, let me say that my first reaction on looking at the article Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration was that as a Wikipedia article it was terrible. But then I looked again and realized that it was well researched, very well written, and provided a good framework on which to build a Wikipedia article. In fact, it was by far the best student-written submission I have ever seen here. It just needed work. So several of us, particular TonyBallioni and myself, have done a major rewrite on that article to remove the copyright violations (direct copying is an absolute no-no and your students should know that), and to eliminate the "student essay" character of it and convert it to a neutral encyclopedia article. Your students might want to compare the current article with the version before we started in on it; it would be instructive for them. Thanks for reaching out to the community here, and I hope future efforts from you and your class will be welcomed as fully encyclopedic material. If you want to discuss my comments further, you can talk to me at User talk: MelanieN. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again...the entire revision history has been deleted. The record seems to indicate 2 potential copyright violations in what was quite a long article. Hard for students to review their work under such circumstances. I've asked the editor involved to revert. If you can join that call, we'd all have a better record to learn from. --EJustice (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

EJustice: Sorry, I missed this comment earlier. The reason that (almost) the entire history got deleted is that the copyright violation was not discovered until a lot of time had passed and a lot of intermediate edits had been made. Wikipedia is very sensitive on this subject for legal reasons. They will not allow copyright violations to remain here, even in the revision history. That means that every version of the page that contained the copyright violation - every page between the addition of the copyright violation material and its removal - unfortunately had to be revision-deleted. I understand this causes problems for students or anyone else trying to figure out who said what; it makes the history almost worthless. But it won't do any good to ask for the rev-del to be reverted. It was applied per Wikimedia Foundation policy, which trumps anything we editors may wish to do. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this article. I'll make sure the student editors take a look. We are finding that material related to women, indigenous communities, people of color, and low-income people is being more heavily targeted for criticism than other material both at the full-article level as well as sub-sections. And the students are, by now, well-trained in sourcing strong material for points about these communities. So deletions rather than suggestions for additional sourcing seems unreasonable. As you run across insufficiently documented statements, please point them out since there's so much good stuff for people to bring to bear on issues that affect low-income communities and communities of color and are under-documented on Wikipedia. Thanks again! --EJustice (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the women's studies articles you are talking about? One of the areas I edit in is women's history. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There was an article on Organophosphates and Women's Health (the chemical is a teratogen, meaning one of its major modes of toxicity is to affect embryonic and fetal development in utero). Deleted for reasons of POV as I recall, namely that women seemed a peculiar issue to focus on to a reviewer. The women exposed to high levels of such chemicals tend to be farmworkers and non-white as well. EJustice (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@EJustice: You wrote, "Material related to women, ... people of color, and low-income people is being more heavily targeted for criticism than other material"; and, "There [are] more editorial complaints about the race and class issues than other issues". In the current article I find 3 passages on people of color -- but 0 on women and 0 on low-income people. This makes it look like you may be taking a needless risk of getting caught (1) making untruthful statements about our editorial conduct or (2) making statements that reflect your own systemic biases more than ours. I advise that you take prompt corrective action before Wikipedia does. [Resolved by information in EJustice's reply to Seraphim System.] --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC) 10:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC) 20:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I think one reason your comments here met with such a negative reaction was because of your expressed desire to create vital resources for people affected by pollution and injustice. That came across as wanting to push a particular viewpoint - in this case, that Trump's policies are bad, but we would have reacted just as negatively if you were here to push the viewpoint that Trump's policies are good. Please read this essay; the message is that Wikipedia is not a vehicle to "right great wrongs". We state what we find in neutral reliable sources - and we don't cherry-pick to make a point. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your comment. Every piece of content in the world, including the content on Wikipedia, is a resource for somebody and not a resource for everybody. The more clear you are about who your audience is, the better the content, even if it's neutral. And providing vital resources is quite different from righting a great wrong. Wikipedia is a vehicle for educational content, and it's gotta be alright for some of that neutral educational content to be of use to people affected by pollution and injustice. Does anyone here think that it's legitimate to have material on Wikipedia that serves such folks? --EJustice (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: To clarify the Righting Great Wrongs essay: It's OK for the class to help right a wrong if they do so by reporting information published in RS while upholding WP:NPOV. They could try searching diligently for reputable sources that say (1) what his policies are, (2) the ways in which they're bad or good, (3) the degree to which people "affected by pollution and [environmental] injustice" are more concerned about pollution or about jobs, and (4) what the trade-offs are authoritatively expected to be. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

break

EJustice: I would suggest showing your class the difference between some articles as they were initially written by your students, and those same articles after they were revised. For example, for Agua Prieta pipeline, compare the "before" version (replete with many problems), to the current version (after being edited by me and other editors to conform to our policies). I share in the comments made by others above (such as MelanieN) and add the following additional recommendations, which strongly encourage you to review:

(1) you should instruct your students not to revert articles to their preferred version when Wikipedians raise objections. On at least three separate occasions that I saw, two different students simply reverted without discussion when efforts were made to bring their articles in line with Wikipedia practices: here (where one student inexplicably reverted a page move, even though another Wikipedian had explained why the initial page title was improper) and here and here (when another one of your students simply reverted, when in fact some of the manifest problems with the article had been pointed out — including fairly obvious stuff like citing Wikipedia as a reference in a Wikipedia article. Take a moment to read, and share with your students, Wikipedia's policies on dispute resolution and consensus.

(2) You should expressly and clearly tell their students that they have a responsibility to explain edits, to become familiar with basic Wikipedia policies, and to never simply revert or edit-war when they encounter problems.

(3) You should explicitly tell your students that creating a new article is often not a good idea in situations when it's likely to be viewed as a essay or fork of an existing article. Rather, you should allow and encourage your students to add/revise existing articles, where more references and content are often sorely needed, and where experienced Wikipedians are more likely to monitor the page. For example, rather than adding an term-paper-style essay in Effects of air pollution on health in communities of color in America (as one of your students did), try adding content to air pollution in the United States or Health equity#Ethnic_and racial disparities, or both.

(4) You should tell your students that it is important in a Wikipedia article to actually explain the topic, starting with a basic core of facts that puts the event in context. For example, in the Agua Prieta pipeline, the article as initially written by the student talked about events 400 years in the past, but failed entirely to give basic expository facts, like the name of the company that owns the pipeline. Additionally, and perhaps more seriously, the article as written by the student cherry-picked basic facts: for example, it wrongly portrayed an indigenous tribe as monolithically opposed to the pipeline, when in fact the reliable sources show that the tribe is internally split on the subject.

(5) You should teach your students about the differences in source quality. For example, advocacy groups and their publications are often not reliable sources for statements of fact. Your students, when possible, should try to cite to respected academic/scholarly sources or high-quality journalistic sources. Many of your students, to their great credit, have done so — but several others have not. Neutrality^talk 02:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. WikiEdu provides great guidance to classes up front. I believe all these points were in fact covered by the trainings the students took. I've cross-referenced your points to the trainings they provided and not found them wanting, but if you could take a look and make additional suggestions I'll try to incorporate them as well as pass them on to WikiEdu. Here's the detailed syllabus and list of trainings as well as links to the training materials. And I am SUPER proud of them for not having responded less respectfully to the disrespect they've received here. Their constructiveness and meekness in the face of hostile editorial responses that seem at times to be motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class is admirable. They are as upper-division students fairly well trained researchers and certainly good at finding good supporting and citable materials. Your assistance in how to turn their considerable skill and expertise into great Wikipedia material is most appreciated. --EJustice (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe all these points were in fact covered by the trainings the students took. Then perhaps the training was too sketchy, or covered so much material that some of it wasn't absorbed. Because the cited examples (like reverting, or edit warring, or not explaining their edits) are things that your students actually did, despite their training and despite their syllabus. I would have preferred to see your response be "ok, thanks for pointing these issues out, I will call them to the students' attention so that they will not make this kind of mistake in the future." Rather than saying "We already told them that" and ignoring the fact that telling them wasn't effective. Look, we really do want your participation here, now and in the future. And we would like your next venture into Wikipedia to be a more pleasant and less confrontational experience for you and your students. But that depends on you learning what is important to Wikipedia, and transmitting it to your students. If you can't accept the strict neutrality required for Wikipedia, and the input and corrections and even rewriting that ALL Wikipedians are subject to, then maybe having them write a journal article or something would work out better for you. --MelanieN (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I take your point...so let me make it explicitly. I have thanked everybody I've responded to for their help. Which means we appreciate the help and are taking the legitimate advice seriously. The students spend about an hour a week in active, instructor-led review of their weekly work, in addition to the substantive course material. As of a couple of days ago, WikiEdu worked out explicit measures to de-escalate the conversations that have gotten a bit "hot" and to further improve quality. So editorial feedback is being taken seriously and reverting has specifically been flagged as unproductive. Out of 180 students, we've detected no more than 3 incidents of reverting. Not sure about how many have unexplained edits, and David Tornheim made the great suggestion that we quiz to some of these issues. But, let's say we ran a quiz in the form of what actually happened...3 Fs out of 180. Pat those kids on the back, no? So thanks to all for pointing issues out. Myself, the TAs, and the great folks at WikiEdu are training, coaching and monitoring the work being done using Wikipedia's standards and the feedback we're getting.

Some editors have also joined me in raising concerns about systemic bias which may be responsible for there being more editorial complaints about the race and class issues than other issues, as well as how the hostility appears to violate some of the community's principles of open-ness, assuming good intentions, and boldness in writing (WP:ANI and WP:BITE). I know we are learning a lot on our end about such issues, in addition to how to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia itself. Thanks again for all the input and help! --EJustice (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. When I say all Wikipedians are subject to being reverted and corrected, I mean it. You and your students are not being singled out. Take me: I have been here 10 years and am an administrator, but I am not immune. Just yesterday an edit of mine was reverted by another editor. So I went to the article talk page and we will work it out. That's how it works here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be wise if all of us who have concerns about the work of students, spend some time looking over the material provided by Wiki Ed here. I had asked about this a while back and got no response. It would be helpful for Wiki Ed to make sure experienced editors know what the students are being taught. Based on what I see there, I compare that to Neutrality's comment:

(3) You should explicitly tell your students that creating a new article is often not a good idea choice in situations when it's likely to be viewed as a essay or fork of an existing article. Rather, you should allow and encourage your students to add/revise existing articles,

This is not consistent with how the training modules by WikiEd are set up. The courses specifically encourage student to make new articles on a subject not covered by Wikipedia, which is exactly what those students did. The fact that some editors think these are POV forks does not mean that the students or the instructor would come to the same conclusion. I have disagreed with others about whether these articles were truly content forks and "already covered". In the training module for the instructor here it says:

Wikipedia writing assignment

In a Wikipedia writing assignment, students find topics that aren't covered well on Wikipedia. They research that topic with quality sources, and build up a well-referenced encyclopedia article.

This is exactly what the students did, which I believe is one of the reasons the instructor said s/he was following the program.

Also look at the next page and how similar it is to the subjects chosen. This leads me to my comment below about the instructor's comments about the cause of the problem here being related to the subject matter. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I read this guide and I think it would have been clearer with examples. Yes, it tells students to choose a topic that is not overly broad, though not too narrow, and the checklist at the end asks "Is the title short and simple? Make sure it doesn't look like an essay" - I think some clear Right/Wrong examples would go a long way. The very brief note on WP:OR might benefit from some examples/emphasis also. Bold font and CORRECT and NOT CORRECT is how I got through most of my assignments in college. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Yes, I had read that PDF guide too when I first saw some courses, but I do not believe that pamphlet is the main document they learn by. The link I provided has much more information and is more user friendly and interactive than the 16 page PDF. It also includes the instructions for how the instructor should design the courses. Familiarity with those documents should reduce some of the confusion about expectations, etc. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: If it wasn't for the wiki edu connection, User:EJustice would have already been warned, if not blocked, for POV pushing per WP:NOTHERE. The comment immediately above - accusing editors of being "motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class" - is a good example of this. StAnselm (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm active in I/P Collaboration and I don't consider myself "to be motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class" - I think blanket, unsupported statements like this narrowly escape being WP:PA by not being directed at any one editor. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Question: Are the marking criteria for this assignment publicly available? I see that one of them is the extent to which Environmental Justice is covered in the article. This creates a whole lot of WP:POV and WP:COATRACK problems, when every topic is seen in the light of Environmental justice. Perhaps instructors should be asked to submit marking criteria to Wiki Ed for feedback or approval. StAnselm (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I can see immediately that there will be an inherent clash between the way the encyclopaedia works and they way academia does. Clash 1; I would expect a university/college student (in a social sciences/humanities course) to learn to research a question/topic, to synthesize material on the question in order to draw (hopefully) well-reasoned conclusions about the question or topic. The reason for this is to help students develop their critical thinking and analysis faculties. This encyclopaedia works similarly in terms of research and writing, but, synthesizing and drawing conclusions is something Wikipedia has no wiggle room for. No original research. We are but mindless drones reporting only that which is explicitly stated in the sources we use. Compare college; Source A says that "Extra-terrestrial species A" populations declined over the course of the 19th century; Source B says that "Extra-terrestrial species A" spent the 19th century embroiled in constant war and famine. At college you might take these together to conclude that "Extra-terrestrial species A" populations declined because of "constant war and famine". On Wikipedia, you would not do this (even so far as to say "might") without a third source (source C) explicitly confirming this. Note that I am presenting as simple a case as I can for what I am saying. Clash 2; POV. Students are, again hopefully, encouraged to develop their own perspectives and ideas on issues and not just to mindlessly repeat what their college professors are teaching them. Full bias disclosure; 1) If I hear the word justice and it isn't in the context of Justice (law) then I become highly skeptical of whatever comes next, 2) Berkeley is renowned for the strong leftist POV ... it should be obvious that this will clash with NPOV and 3) Given the issues at Berkeley recently, I am ... let's say concerned about the institution. On the encyclopaedia, we have to pretend to have no point-of-view. We have one, but, it cannot be represented in our editing. If it becomes obvious that we're pushing a POV in our editing, then chances are our edits will be removed or de-POV-ed and possibly we'll be forcibly removed from the topic area. This is known as a TBAN. These two clashes specifically stick out to me, I am sure there are others. I honestly don't think this was a good exercise for your students as it won't allow them the freedom to think and develop their critical faculties, just repeat whatever is on the page in front of them in their own words. On the off-chance that the question arises as to why I isolated social sciences and humanities courses at the start, it's because different disciplines will have different requirements. I don't expect a Mathematician to go out and collect survey data from people like I would a business student, for example. At the same time, I am under no illusion to think that professors' will encourage their students to pursue ideas that fundamentally contradict their biases. I don't see an Environmental Justice student bringing a "climate skeptic" perspective to the table, in the same way I don't think it likely an Astrophysicist will bring a paper on "Why the Geocentric model supported in the Bible is correct" to Neil deGrasse Tyson and expect anything more than an F---. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Can I add, if this is going to be part of the curriculum for the next group of students, that I highly recommend your students go via WP:Articles for Creation and have their submissions checked over before they enter the mainspace. It will stop the issue of contributions being sent to AfD and also give the article a chance to be checked against Wiki policies including notability, source reliability and verifiability, NPOV and WP:NOT. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While it's a Sunday Truth (and look, it's not only Sunday, but Easter Sunday!) that Wiki allows no synthesis, were it enforced, a good deal of the articles would go away. A more accurate statement is that it tries to allow no synthesis except that which anyone, barring insanity, would agree on. There are plenty of unsourced conclusions, but only the ones that no one could question without feeling stupid should be left alone. Yeah, this is nit-picking, but it's very, very obvious from some of the words above that nits are about to be (selectively) picked. Anmccaff (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The last thing I'd want to be doing now is sending mixed signals when wikipolicy firmly states; don't synthesize. Even the material that the instructors and students are given says that. Does it happen? yeah course it does. One of our FA's is full of synthesis and OR - Using primary source Suetonius to draw conclusions about what Suetonius thought. That doesn't mean it's good. Now, if you tell me the sky is blue then no I do not expect a citation. I can't, however, think of an instance where synthesis would be expressly allowed. Especially not on a controversial topic; Some of the contributions fall directly under WP:ARBAPDS. Not an easy topic area to be editing. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't meant as, and needn't be taken, as a mixed signal: if people can draw two different conclusions from a set of facts, wiki articles should have a cite for any conclusions stated (and, of course, should have cites for all the possible conclusions, not just the ones a particular wikitor likes.) If there is no other conclusion to be drawn, though, leaving it uncited isn't uncommon. Finding examples of this does not invalidate the need to cite contentious conclusions. Anmccaff (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the materials from the WikiEd program tell them to do. They were following the guidance as I just explained above with this comment. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Understood will read. Thanks for taking the time to relink it to me. Serves me right for skimming through some of the later parts of the discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Have now read the Orientation for Instructors and "Designing a Wikipedia writing and research assignment". My first thought is... the guidance is generally accurate but doesn't give an instructor more than superficial insight into how Wikipedia works. I'll be honest, a 30 minute course to tackle the core policies of the encyclopaedia ... I've been here two years and I still regularly have to go back to policies. I only found out a week ago about WP:CCSI. Consensus is the toughest one to grasp, because, consensus dictates what falls under OR, NPOV, etc, etc. I'll have to think on this. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment re Issues of Race and Class:

The claim by the instructor that the negativity was likely "motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class" is not at all surprising for an instructor who likely is an expert in the study of civil rights and other similar justice movements. If you read the literature of this field--which I have--such negativity and dismissiveness is indeed the most common response when such issues are brought to the attention of those in power. Consider the civil rights movement and in particular Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous Letter from Birmingham Jail where he responded to the critics who had locked him up for being an "outside agitator". If you look at how these students and instructor have been treated, is the parallel not obvious? Aren't they being accused of being "outside agitators" with claims such as WP:NOTHERE, when all they were doing was following the WikiEd program? Yet for some reason--I can't imagine what that might be--they were treated differently than students and instructors from other classes that do not deal with issues of race and class? It does not seem like a big jump to conclude that inhouse editors' discomfort and dislike of the subject matter might be a leading cause of the negativity the students received (and continue to receive) to their articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment@David Tornheim: Reviewing the materials you linked to above, they seem to echo that "Prof. Rupel encouraged her students to avoid controversial topics" - I've also read literature in this field, in my undergraduate courses, and in law school. Everything you are saying is true, there is injustice in the world and every law student knows that injustice can prevail - there may be a double standard, and you may have to work harder then others to overcome bias, and part of what you can do about it is to make sure your work is policy-compliant. This is necessary, if not sufficient, for anyone who is serious about social justice work. In the real world, when lawyers don't file paperwork before the deadline, their clients are executed. Period, end of story. Obviously, we are more lenient here on Wikipedia. I have not said they are WP:NOTHERE, but I have pointed out that editors have personal responsibility to defend their edits against these complaints by applying policy, and this is true for all editors on Wikipedia. If you are instructing your students to edit in a controversial area, by posting anti-Trump POV in numerous articles, then the standard you have to meet to justify adding that content is going to be very high. There is no excuse for not doing that AND then speculating about the nefarious motives of Wikipedia's editors over and over again, without acknowledging the mistakes that have been made (even after numerous editors have courteously pointed them out.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Damned straight. Having some cryptofascist point out that "drought" is not always a type of honkonic "oppression" is exactly like being tossed in close quarters, with bad food, and roommates who have forgotten what the opposite sex looks like, but think you might be a reasonable simulacrum. Parallels seldom get much closer than that. Anmccaff (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• sigh* That depends entirely on how you treat the subjects of race and class, but, fuck me this is a pang if I ever saw one; ... and see tears welling up in her little eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well, no I don't think it has much, necessarily, to do with how you treat the subjects. Some people are uncomfortable with what's going on here because the whole subject makes them uneasy; some are squicked by sophomoric self-satisfied slacktivism about what is sometimes a very real problem. "We're against poverty, war and injustice, unlike the rest of you squares...", as the poet Lehrer put it. Same apparent behavior, radically (literally) different underlying base.

Yupp, treating people like dirt for no reason under their control stinks, and race relations in many parts of the deep South were a strong example of this. Some less dramatic examples -by both sides, left and right - are a big part of why the US just had an election in which the majority of the electorate decided on the basis of how much damage they were willing to do to their nostrils holding their nose while voting. We don't need that here.

I dunno if we need this here, either; this has gone a little far afield. The important points, I think, to the discussion are that we have left students and teachers with unclear guidance about what the limits of participation are; one hand of Wikipedia not knowing what the other is doing. I think we have also set up a situation almost guaranteed to mimic canvassed invasions of subjects, with all that entails. From a POV POV, there isn't that much difference here from a fratload of Frogboys showing up at Snopes. SS, Diferent Direction. Anmccaff (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Just FYI, see here which describes topics that instructors should avoid:

Not such a good choice

Articles that are "not such a good choice" for newcomers usually involve factors such as a lack of appropriate research material, highly controversial topics that may be well developed already, broad subjects or topics for which it is difficult to demonstrate notability.

• You probably shouldn't try to completely overhaul articles on very broad topics (e.g., Law).
• You should probably avoid trying to improve articles on topics that are highly controversial (e.g., Global Warming, Abortion, Scientology, etc.). You may be more successful starting a sub-article on the topic instead.
• Don't work on an article that is already of high quality on Wikipedia, unless you discuss a specific plan for improving it with other editors beforehand.
• Avoid working on something only sparsely covered by literature. Wikipedia articles cite secondary literature sources, so it is important that you have enough sources to provide a neutral point of view and be verifiable.
• Don't start articles with titles that imply an essay-like approach (e.g., The Effects That The Recent Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis has had on the US and Global Economics). These type of titles, and most likely the content too, may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia.

wise advice. -- Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

But "starting a sub-article on the topic instead" is exactly what they did (even though they breached the last point). Also, it might be worth a warning about WP:MEAT on the page about consensus. It's showing up at the AFD, and is probably a common instinct of students in such a situation. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• What a mess. I've done a spot check on some of these articles and edits. I think these students mean well, but they've really got to learn what neutrality means. I'm seeing problems from statements of fact referenced to blatant advocacy organizations and highly partisan sources, to plagiarism/copyvio, to flat out advocacy. Especially in a sensitive topic like politics, this cannot continue. I'd hate to start having to use discretionary sanctions, but if this continues (and especially given that, as above, I'm seeing EJustice completely fail to realize what the problem is, and blame it on everyone and everything else), that's where this story ends. I'd much prefer if the professor and students can realize that their editing is the primary cause for the problem, and understand how that can be fixed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• On the area of choosing suitable subjects to write about, there should be a way ahead for classes like this in the future. The WP:AFC process was suggested earlier. However that process results in much work being done before the subject matter is assessed as suitable. (\\\this is then followed up by a random delay and a real possibility of rejection). Instead of AFC, perhaps the proposed article titles could be discussed before students start to write about them. Class projects on environment often get a mention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, but there would be more focused projects that could contribute in assessing topic suitability. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment is a more suitable project, but may be less active. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk may also be a suitable place to ask about whether a topic is suitable to write about. I do have other comments that I could make, but they are discussed above already. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Pardon my responding out of order here -- hoping to respond to a few related things at once. @David Tornheim: I had asked about this a while back and got no response. - I'm not sure which group this refers to that did not respond, but apologies if it was on our end. Always happy to talk about the training and how it can be improved. Regarding The courses specifically encourage student to make new articles on a subject not covered by Wikipedia..., for many classes it's true that we do not explicitly recommend contributing to an existing article rather than create new ones. Most of the courses we work with do not edit in controversial areas, but rather articles on e.g. insect species, literature, women in science, etc. When we see that they may be treading into controversial areas, as in this case, we communicate concerns and make specific suggestions (including the recommendation that they expanding an existing article rather than create a new one) directly with the instructor/class. I don't think that the same advice quite applies to a class on, say, social insects or women in geology -- though, of course, that isn't to say that creating new articles is better, but that it's not as risky in the same sense that creating a new climate-related article is. It may be that it makes sense to include this advice somewhere more accessible than on a person-to-person off-wiki basis, but classes working in controversial areas do typically get this advice. For a sense of which activities are most common, I will add that so far this term, students have worked on more than 5700 existing articles, and created 391 new ones.

@Mr rnddude: highly recommend your students go via WP:Articles for Creation - This has come up a number of times regarding student editors over the past several years, but at least as frequently from the opposite direction, as far as I can remember (i.e. better not to have them go through AfC). Keep in mind there are a lot of students editing Wikipedia. We don't want to put a burden on a volunteer process like AfC. It's the same reason we don't recommend instructing students to go through, say, GAN. Some articles get to pretty high levels of quality (and some do get to GA), but incorporating it into assignment design would strain a process that could always use more volunteers. It's also difficult for an instructor to use a process like AfC because while AfC volunteers do a great job, instructors need to adhere to a strict review schedule, which isn't reasonable to expect out of AfC. Years ago when students did routinely go through AfC, it was not uncommon for articles to sit in a queue until after the class was over, meaning it became unlikely they would return to make revisions based on feedback. Instructors also need to ensure that student articles are all evaluated in roughly the same way, whereas the type and extent of feedback provided at AfC varies somewhat.

Regarding doesn't give an instructor more than superficial insight into how Wikipedia works, I'd recommend, if you haven't already, taking a look at the timeline (such as the one for this class). Training is just one part of the support students receive. There are also handouts, the structure/instructions of the assignment itself via the timeline, staff support, and various tools built into the Dashboard (the sort of tools accessible by anyone, just the instructor, or just staff Wikipedians, depending on what it does). Every class is assigned a Content Expert who can provide recommendations, advice, feedback, etc. to students, and several staff members typically advise the instructor before and during the assignment. But just as someone can decide not to go through AfC, there's no way to guarantee a student will request feedback when it's suggested they do so, or to follow other specific advice before posting something. As I mentioned, there are a lot of classes editing Wikipedia. For the most part, they are entirely uncontroversial and thus don't attract notice. Most of the time, when a problem comes up, it's addressed quite quickly. Sometimes a class runs into some big problems and we rally to try to address them. Aside from the Environmental Justice class, there are 350 others active just in this spring term. A few years ago the number was a fraction of that, and (though I don't have the statistics handy -- we do track them to evaluate how we're doing), I think there are actually fewer incidents now, despite the greater numbers (though that doesn't include courses Wiki Ed does not support -- if you see one of these, evident by the absence of Wiki Ed template on the student and/or article page, you can flag them at WP:ENB). Some of the reason for this is growing a little bit as an organization e.g. hiring Content Experts (though we're still quite small), but a lot of the reason more classes don't pop up on pages like this one is because the support is based on continuously updated best practices, informed in large part by community feedback.

So on that note (and as a sort of TL;DR) I'd like to invite anyone interested to open a discussion on my talk page (or WP:ENB if you prefer) to discuss ways to improve Wiki Ed's resources. Apologies for the length of this response. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've looked over the discussions here and on various users' talk pages, and I find myself agreeing in particular with Neutrality and Seraphimblade. It's simply a fact that when class projects come to Wikipedia, they will get the best outcomes when they accept the Wikipedia community's norms, rather than expect Wikipedia to adjust to them. If you don't like it, then don't use us for a class project. I encourage the instructor to read WP:ASSIGN, and both the instructor and some of the editors who have opined here to read WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: So, do you agree with Seraphimblade that students should be effectively prohibited from working in controversial areas by telling them in large, red, blinking, bolded, 72-point "DO NOT DO THAT"? [10] --David Tornheim (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think he should answer that before you tell us whether you've stopped beating your wife. Anmccaff (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL. I don't remember saying I was beating my wife. Please re-read the transcript.  ;) --David Tornheim (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, but you were asking a loaded question, of which the this is the classic example. No one is saying that students can't do this, merely warning them that they may catch hell, and see their contributions disposed of. No hand is going to reach out of the monitor and stop them. No one (else) is going to coddle them, though, and a good "Here Be Dragons" sign will let 'em know. Anmccaff (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I agree with me. But you elided crucial context to what I said. It is a bad idea for any new editor, student or otherwise, to jump feet first into highly controversial areas subject to discretionary sanctions, and they're very likely to get their fingers burned if they do. With students, where their experience of editing can be guided, it is far better for them to learn how Wikipedia works in less charged areas, and then go into the minefields once they have some idea how to navigate them. I do not want to set any editors up to fail, but especially not students who are required to edit for a class. I would much rather see them have a positive experience than get thrown in way over their heads. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

My response is the same as on User_talk:Ryan_(Wiki_Ed), that large, red, blinking, bolded, 72-point "DO NOT DO THAT" is not appropriate for the educational materials (or for new editors in general). It is my belief that doing so would directly violate two of our core pillar policies of "anyone can edit" and "be bold". Experienced editors do not WP:OWN controversial articles. Having a content expert oversee the addition of material on controversial subjects, such as class, race and inequality, is completely appropriate and we should welcome it. IMHO, this class's work is a very positive addition to Wikipedia, despite all the hand-wringing and misplaced ad hominem claims of WP:NOTHERE.

Additionally, I believe that having new editors and students work on controversial areas is an excellent way for these students to learn about how conflicts are resolved--something they would not encounter if they only edited and worked on articles on obscure topics, that perhaps no one else but the student has an interest in. Having students work on a controversial subject puts them right into the thick of it, as to how Wikipedia really functions and gives them a chance to work with other experienced editors who are also interested in the topic and familiar with the WP:RS. Students overseen by content experts and Wiki Ed support are likely to bring the most current and relevant high quality WP:RS into our articles and help alleviate systemic bias. The presence of students in controversial areas is a net positive and again, I welcome such work.--David Tornheim (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Much like Seraphimblade, I agree with myself, especially about my recommendation of WP:RGW. As for 72-point font, no, it should be 71-point. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• I had figured that AfC might create burdens on wiki. I just figured itd be less stressful than to have multiple editors pounding away at your work with comments. That and also the actually avoiding having your article taken to AfD. Or like this unfortunate instance where we're at AN/I. Other than that, my comment about the introductory course was specifically about the guidance for the instructor. Does the instructor receive additional material like the students, or just the 1 hour online course? The reason NPOV and essay are concerns in this case is the topic area and course; politicized (it seems to me and ARBPADS has been brought up as well) environmental studies for environmental justice students. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"Banned" from commenting on someone's talk page?

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

---

Can anyone theoretically "ban" someone from commenting on their talk page, all because several users and myself didn't agree with a controversial move that they made? (The move has since been reverted.) Apparently, this is not the first bit of conflict this editor has had on Wikipedia. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup. The vast majority of editors agree that if someone asks you to stop posting on their talk page, you need to stop posting on their talk page. It's not written down in policy, but it's generally always respected. Think of it this way; do you really want to keep communicating with someone who doesn't want to communicate with you? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I'll be more than glad to "ban" him from commenting on my talk page, since it's apparent that I own my user page. Great! —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you don't "own" your user space, WP simply permits you to use it for a broader variety of purposes than other namespaces. The fact that the community agrees that you have the right to expect people to stop posting there doesn't establish any sort of ownership over it. But I suggest you not do that unless the other editor is actively posting to your talk page. If they've asked you to stop posting on their talk page, and you respond by posting on their talk page that they're not allowed to post to yours, an admin is very likely to decide that you need to take a mandatory break from editing, as that is evidence of a battleground mentality. Remember; you're not here to "win" discussions, you're either here to improve the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

---

Sorry to post on this after it was closed, but I was looking through the case mentioned above. On one hand, we all tend to respect such requests not to post on someone's talk page. However reading through the history of interaction between these two ... well unless I'm really missing something, there isn't any history of interaction, other than the single post by User:LRG5784 on the talk page asking them not make to unilateral changes to article names diff. That's it. What's particularly odd, is that before "banning" User:LRG5784 they agreed with someone else that the original article name was correct - essentially agreeing with LRG5784.

So while you can "ban" someone from your talk page - if you do so, with absolutely no cause, justification, or rationale - isn't that a bit uncivil? I'd suggest the reason for the "ban", is simply retribution for pointing out that they were wrong. And something with that behaviour does seem wrong to me. Though I can't quite put my finger on the wrongness. It does however seem to be quite the violation of WP:5P4 - and I don't know how one is supposed to collaborate on a project, if one "bans" everyone who points out one's mistakes.

Perhaps the question is, at what point does "banning" go from a simple request, to crossing a line of civility.

Perhaps I have bias here - for I too have been "banned" by the same user - though at least I'd debated a bit with them about something. Nfitz (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Dude...That's exactly what I was trying to explain from the very beginning! I had initially wanted to post more details of the incident, but I feel like the conversation was closed prematurely before I had decided to do so. You however hit the nail on the head. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Closing reports after 10 minutes —allowing no chance for a proper investigation— is exactly what we're trying to avoid. El_C 08:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Closed 12 minutes after it was opened? Good grief, it took me longer than that just to go through what happened, and fruitlessly look for any other interaction between these two. I hadn't noticed that. Not sure where User:Floquenbeam got description of squabbling from. There was none that preceded the "ban" - that's what is so bizarre. And not even any after either. It's the casual nature of the whole thing that is odd. Nfitz (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, you people love your drama. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Doth protest, but nothing of substance. El_C 12:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'll throw another angle in here: if someone asks you to stop commenting on their talk page, you should respect their request. If your only reason for continuing to post there is to make a point about the request, you are probably hounding them, and that's blockable. (Parting shots are also not advised). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and doing anything with the apparent sole intent of causing distress to another editor (for example, pinging them for no good reason after they've asked you to stop) is definitely harassment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

What is alleged to have happened here is something else entirely. Did you read what Nfitz wrote, Ivanvector? El_C 13:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you? Nfitz admits (at the very end) that he's here because he has had a previous run-in with BMK, and is annoyed he can't get his free kick in if the thread is closed. Exactly what I was trying to prevent. LRG thanked me for the close, by the way, until he realized he could get more kicks in too, and changed his tune to "I had more to say but it was closed early". The talk page ban, by the way, was apparently in response to snarky comments LRG made about BMK's block log on BMK's own talk page [11], in support of someone making even snarkier comments on BMK's own talk page, not because LRG disagreed about a naming discussion. Which 2 minutes of research would have told you. What Ivanvector describes is, admittedly, not what Nfitz said happened, but it's what actually happened [12], which you would know if you looked into it instead of limiting your research to what you see on this page.

Look, I think these page bans are silly, but they're allowed, and aren't going to become un-allowed due to an ANI discussion. Keeping these types of threads open so all people that think BMK sucks get a chance to say so in public without getting in trouble is stupid. Once the question was answered, more discussion was not needed.

The purpose of an ANI thread is not to give everyone a chance to chime in on the drama of the day. It is not so that people can get their free kicks in when an enemy is reported. The purpose of an ANI thread is to solve a problem. Sometimes that requires discussion in order to gain consensus about something, or to brainstorm something, or to fact-find. At those times, the thread should stay open. Other times, it's to solve a specific problem, or answer a specific question. At those times, the thread should be closed to prevent shit stirring.

The proper response here was to close the thread. An even better response would have been to tell LRG to knock it off, and close the thread. An unhelpful response is to interpret a WT:ANI thread to mean no one should archive any threads quickly, and that people who do archive threads are doing a disservice. When what is really needed is that thread archival, or non-archival, should be done by clueful people. People who can tell the difference between when a thread should be closed, and when it should be left open. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The proper response is that it wouldn't hurt you to be more laid back, less aggressive, and not close a report in 10 minutes when others still wish to comment on it. The board won't break. Those who differ with you may also possess critical faculties. El_C 14:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)The exact nature of the content dispute at the heart of this is immaterial. If an editor asks you not to post on their talk page, and you continue to post on their talk page, especially if you post to tell them that they are also banned from posting to your talk page (possibly the most pointless thing to possibly say to someone), then it's pretty clear that you've got a battleground mentality, and need to step back for a bit. And while the close was premature, the objection to it was, as Floquenbeam described, a chance to knock Beyond My Ken.

The counter argument first presented, "Jesus, you people love your drama." contains a valid objection (contrary to El_C's response) once you unpack it. I doubt if anyone would argue with the statement that the less interpersonal drama that goes on here, the better. This thread is clearly not going to result in BMK being sanctioned, so what, exactly can it accomplish other than adding to the drama? I'm dead serious with that question. What purpose does this thread serve? Can anyone give me a good answer to that?

Furthermore, as I recall, admins don't have a legalistic system to go through to handle problems. I don't see why this thread needs to be open for an admin to investigate or take action if required. So come on, guys, can't we please just drop this? El_C, if you think BMK might have done something sanctionable, I fully support you looking into the matter, even while I fully support closing the ever loving crap out of this thread. I don't believe you will find anything, but hey, I've been wrong before. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I dislike how this report was closed and how quickly it was closed (10 minutes)—that's what at issue for me. El_C 14:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You made that clear. Can we reclose it now? Jonathunder (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

---

• Thanks User:Floquenbeam for clarifying the reason that might have lead to the "ban". I got the sequence of posts slightly out of order, so I thought those came after the block. I'd also missed the link to Ken's block log. However, could I ask you to tone down things a bit? I don't think comments like Jesus, you people love your drama. (you people?) help - if anything you are creating the drama, in an otherwise quite polite and dull thread. Similarly comments like Which 2 minutes of research would have told you are unnecessarily aggressive and condescending - particularly as I'd already clearly indicated that I spent longer than 12 minutes looking at it! Your comment that Nfitz admits (at the very end) that he's here because he has had a previous run-in with BMK both implies I tried to hide the past (I clearly disclosed it), and that I was here BECAUSE of that run in. Not only is that not the reason I'm here, I never admitted it; I merely noted that my view might be biased. I'd have commented on the situation no matter who the "banner" was.
• The right to "ban" people hasn't been questioned. Though the frequency that it seems to happen does seem to concern me a bit, and I don't think it helps to build the kind of community that is necessary here.
• Also, what's with all these quick closures of late? Democracy is messy, and a consensus democracy such as this particularly messy. There needs to be discussion to help bring around the consensus that we need to function efficiently. Speaking aggressively, making subtle insults, and trying to shut down the thread quickly doesn't let the necessary discussion necessary. Closure isn't just the act of putting some brackets around the thread, it is also the process of bring the resolution or conclusion of something. You need the discussion to reach it's natural closure, rather than imposing one. And with that, I think perhaps we are approaching closure. Nfitz (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I don't think the drama-comment not the "you guys" was directed at you. The idea of this notice board is to request administrator action. If no action is required, which it isn't, then this is the wrong venue. The WP:Village pump may be better suited for this discussion. Kleuske (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I knew who this thread was about from the title alone, and I think it's inappropriate to close it so soon. Yes, you can ask people to not post on your talk page. Making a habit of it, including "banning" people from pinging you, when coupled with reverting, is unwiki and disrupts the normal editing flow. If it's disrupting articles then that's a problem, which might well require administrative intervention. Floquenbeam, you need to take a step back and let people talk. Your entire approach is disruptive and unhelpful. Disclaimer: I, like dozens of people, have had some negative interactions with BMK. It's rather hard not to. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Dee.Butera causing havoc

Taken care of. nac, SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Dee.Butera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Moving user pages about. Jim1138 (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please block this account.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Jusdafax 05:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed by User:NinjaRobotPirate. Thanks. In my experience the fastest action is to report to that board. A bit slower here, usually. Jusdafax 05:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Edit at Emily Temple-Wood has been rev-del'd, I wonder if this edit to a BLP should be too? Also, I have tagged a redirect as g3 from fixing one of the vandalism page moves. As far as I can see, that is all that is left in clean-up of this vandalism spree. EdChem (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Getting tired of AIV being spammed

The following discussion is closed. 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 editor has been spamming AIV with an completely inappropriate amount of reports to AIV at once, for some time now. They continued to do so, despite being blocked numerous times by Coffee. They continue to evade their block by continually jumping between random IP ranges. I've seen static IP changes before, but the vast difference between the IPs that repeat the behavior described above leads me to think this evasion is deliberate. This editor disruptive AIV is what led Coffee to place a protection on AIV, while a abuse log could be made for the issue at hand. Am I the only one that is aghast at the fact that there continues to be nothing done about this? As I said before, the range between the IP ranges involved would cause way too much collateral damage for a simple SPI case to be a sufficient resolution. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 03:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Materialscientist, what do you think? Drmies (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You can't ping Materialscientist. He has pings turned off. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• It is my understanding an edit filter was put in place a couple weeks ago. It might need tweaking. Alternatively, any admin or experienced editor could simply remove the reports. Lastly, a few AIV patrollers do process the reports (like what is happening right now). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• Special:AbuseFilter/845 is the filter that was put in place (ping MusikAnimal) - this IP was out of the IP ranges flagged there. Sam Walton (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• AIV should be OK now, for the most part, favouring Special:AbuseFilter/768 over 845 — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• Ad Orientem The editor made an account[13], continuing the same exact disruptive behavior as the IP that caused the abuse filter to be created. MusikAnimal Is that an administrator-only abuse filter? It is hidden for me. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 01:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this has apparently been an ongoing problem. I have indeffed the new account. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem Thanks. I've unfortuately have been aware of the problem for about a week now. It may have been going on for longer. I'll continue to keep an eye out of any sock of this editor, as I have a feeling they are going to switch to using actual accounts, with the implementation of abuse filter 768/845. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 01:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Tim Zukas block evasion

Resolved

 – Select IP addresses blocked for one month. Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas, the guy has been ramping back up into the same old behavior since December 2016, with a couple of disruptive edits in the last few days. Here are the recent IPs he has used:

• 205.154.246.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) November 2016 – April 2017
• 205.154.244.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) June, December 2016, January–April 2017
• 205.154.244.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) January–February 2017
• 169.229.6.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) September 2014, January–February 2017
• 205.154.244.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) December 2016 – March 2017
• 169.229.6.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) January 2015, February 2017
• 130.65.109.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) October 2016, February 2017
• 169.229.202.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) November 2014, January–March 2015, February 2017
• 169.229.202.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) February–March 2015, February 2017
• 75.16.27.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) November 2014 – February 2015
• 128.32.104.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) July–October 2014, January–February 2017
• 70.90.163.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) October 2013 – February 2015, December 2016 – March 2017

Perhaps we can block these IPs individually for a good long time, rather than attempting a rangeblock, as there are neighboring IPs which are heavily used by library patrons. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

These are all definitely addresses used by LTA Tim Zukas as they all geolocate to Cal State University (Office of the Chancellor), University of California - Berkeley (Office of the President), the Berkeley Public Library, and a Comcast Commercial account in Walnut Creek, CA. These IPs all belong to registered owners that he used in his many earlier spates of disruptive editing and block evasion, and mirror the same pattern of mass unexplained deletions of content made to transportation related articles (aviation, airports, railroads, etc) is exactly the same disruptive behavior Zukas was permanently blocked for on January 25, 2016. Centpacrr (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Need some admin attention here

This thread seems to have been lost in the shuffle. It concerns an LTA -- could an admin look at it and figure out a course of action? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of the IP addresses are stale. I guess we could block them long-term, but they seem only sporadically reused. It might be best to report them to AIV individually. I'll block two that aren't too stale: 205.154.246.130 and 205.154.244.240/30. The /30 doesn't have any collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This LTA has a pattern of going back to "stale" IP's depending on where he is. The IP's he has used in the past two weeks are at Cal State (probably East Bay campus), all of the others (excepting one commercial Comcast account in Walnut Creek, CA and one at the Berkeley Public Library) are registered to the Office of the President at Univ. of California -- Berkeley of which Zukas is likely a graduate (c 1970). Centpacrr (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Unusual IP starting a war

The following discussion is closed. 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 seems that this IP address has been loitering about ever since I have restored a point-blanked edit on the Ángel Pagán article. I would request assistance to see if you guys can settle this debate. Thank you for your support. Slasher405 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Why did neither of you take it to the article's talk page? --Tarage (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's proof of it now. Slasher405 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Slasher405, go talk it out on the talk page. Stop edit warring. --Tarage (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What does "point-blanked" mean? Did you mean "blanked"? It looks like the IP editor didn't actually remove anything you added, they just moved it down (I don't know why you put a warning template for blanking on their talk page). According to their messages on your talk page, they believe that the content you added does not belong in the lead section, which is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, according to the guideline they linked you to. Your edit summaries ("Can't do that" and "Point-blanking") don't seem very helpful either. ~barakokula31 (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It was only a partial blank down, referring to WP:PAGEBLANKING, but I successfully restored it. Sometimes, editors have to be wary when removing content, even if they don't cite a reliable source. Slasher405 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not what that means. Stop edit warring and go to the talk page. --Tarage (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Inexplicably referring to an IP as an "unusual IP". Is this because it is an IPv6 address? What is unusual about that, and why is that significant to this complaint?
• Referring to a content dispute as the other editor "starting a war". If you are referring to edit warring, please read the first paragraph of WP:Edit warring.
• Bringing a content dispute to this page instead of following guidance at WP:Dispute resolution.
• Inventing terms like "point-blanking" and "partial blank down" and expecting others to know what you're talking about. How does that facilitate communication?
• Did you notice that the largest removal from the lead was simply moved to a section below the lead? Did you understand the other editor's rationale for doing that?

It seems to me that you are greatly over-estimating your own editing competence. For the foreseeable future I would suggest you focus more on learning and collaborating, and less on "correcting" of other editors. Do not bring content disputes to ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Per a previous comment on my talk page, we have reached an agreement. It seems that this case is pretty much resolved now. Slasher405 (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 that nearly crashed my browser

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

---

Resolved

 – User blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Luckily I was able to undo this: [14]. Can someone warn the user who was responsible for this for this extremely large edit? It could have crashed my browser! TheWizardof2017 (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: it consisted of the same image repeated constantly. TheWizardof2017 (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked by Deb....and I believe it was for this and not what is reported above. Concur with block.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how he even managed to do it as the logs show I blocked him a minute earlier. I suppose he must have already started editing it at the time of the block. Deb (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Andreinaepa93

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

---

So along come this user and makes Nacarid Portal, which was CSDG11 on the 12th of April by Jac16888. They then recreate it uder the name Nacarid Portal Arráez and the go and get a sock names User:Aepa0911 who rebuild the article, removes tags, and makes Nacarid Portal into a redirect. Can the article and redirect be deleted and salted? An SPI has been filed. Thanks. L3X1 (distant write) 17:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well the G11 was just declined by Dlohcierekim, so at this point, I'd take it to AfD. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a PROD tag on it from April 14th, so I'm not going to AfD it. CSD really needs to be reworked with more criteria and have G4 fixed to include recreates. L3X1 (distant write) 18:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as the author, and their sock have now been blocked, I'm going to CSD it. You're right on this, it's blatant adcopy and it's gone. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

TFA

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

---

Shouldn't Kona Lanes be protected? —ATS 🖖 talk 03:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

TFAs are generally not preemptively edit protected. It looks like there was a brief spat of rapid-fire vandalism, but nothing in the last half-hour, and nothing unmanageable. If vandalism rates become extreme and/or unproductive edits start to go unreverted for long periods, feel free to request protection at RFPP. Congrats on the feature! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Juliancolton!

In response, I would note only that this is hardly aberrant; while we certainly want to encourage constructive editing, what's the destructive/constructive ratio of TFA, historically? Ten to one? 20 to one? 200 to one? What would semiprotection (Autoconfirmed? Extended confirmed?) hurt, exactly? —ATS 🖖 talk 06:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@ATS: This is a perennial proposal; anyone can edit Wikipedia and they should be able to do so for the most prominently linked article on our home page, and no article is ever perfect so it's likely that constructive edits will occur. Sam Walton (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Raheja Developers

There have been long-term issues of COI editing at Raheja Developers and, apparently, a recent OTRS request. The latest TLDR screed from an account that is almost certainly connected to the company is at Talk:Raheja Developers#Raheja's Clarifications on Allegations with Proofs. I really don't know what to do and, since they seem to be accusing me (falsely) of trying to extort money from them, it is apparently getting serious. FWIW, I have barely edited the article in its current form - Leoaugust (talk · contribs), who has a declared COI, and Jytdog (talk · contribs) were the main drivers. My gut feeling has long been that the article is too slanted towards bad things connected to the company but, equally, the good things were mostly promotional in nature.

I would appreciate some eyes on this. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

zowie. screed is an understatement. I confirm that the article has been a COI nightmare. Jytdog (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have been actively involved in the editing, and I stand by every word. There are literally hundreds of cases against the builder, but so far Rahejas have largely been able to manage the news media. For example, the newspaper "Hindustan Times" that Raheja quotes, owns at least 3 apartments in Raheja projects https://twitter.com/gurgaonscoop/status/846963608173101059; so to expect any coverage of the major issues is out of question. The current Wikipage page mentions issues which are widely known, and despite all efforts of Raheja to prevent it, have found way into the media. And both "good" & "bad" things have found their way on the page, though not comprehensively as it could be.

Further, the arguments made by Raheja developer at Talk:Raheja Developers#Raheja's Clarifications on Allegations with Proofs have been submitted in various Gurgaon and Delhi Courts. They have not met any success for the last 2 years, and hence as a desperate measure have reached out to New York. They have been personally trying to twist arms of Wikipedia in Bengaluru, India since last 1.5 years (even filed cases against Wikipedia), but have so far had no success. I will try to provide a point by point rebuttal of the "clarification" issued by Raheja, if necessary in taking this issue further.

To me the lasting impression of their clarification is the Raheja claim " Hence, it is essential to provide the company either with the password or the edit rights as the page belongs to them." .... they actually said "as the page BELONGS to them (Raheja)." Their claim that the Wikipedia Page belongs to Raheja Developers in a notice to Wikipedia, hopefully vetted by Raheja's legal team, shows how they are making all these "clarifications" without the basic understanding of whom Wikipedia belongs to, and without application of their minds. For them, this is just an effort to censor and suppress information that might not align with their marketing messages to entrap more buyers. -Leoaugust (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just going out, but it's certainly clear that User:Zair.nik needs an indefinite block, and I've obliged. I don't imagine I've solved the problems thereby, though, as it's merely a flyby account (one edit). Bishonen | talk 10:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC).

• Bish blocked, someone else turned up in the place of the blocked account (I am past AGF on this thing, sorry). At least three admins have fiddled about with stuff on the talk page (technical term), and hopefully some may now have it on their watchlist. I remain rather unhappy with the article but that's for another day - perhaps things really are as bad as it suggests. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've semi'd the talkpage for a couple of days. I hesitate whether to block the new Raheja representative, considering their post on your page, Sitush. I'll sleep on it. What's your opinion? Bishonen | talk 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC).

• I didn't realise they had posted on my talk, sorry. I, too, will sleep on it - I'm fed up of sock chasing anyway. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:Winged Blades of Godric just gave the article a serious trim. Much more solid now. Kudos to them. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Reporting Mrollie

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

Mrwiki72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe there are people in the system who resort to what is well known as Wikihounding. When you look at user named "MrOllie", it is quite evident this is a case of Wikihounding. Multiple attempts to come to a dispute resolution are not being heeded to. I may be forced to stop contributing as a result.

Please see his recent history, and my attempt to communicate below; he has gone after unrelated edits and showed intent to be vindictive (even if he may be right). If this is not a case of wikihounding, what is ?

Wikihounding[edit] Please do not resort to Wikihounding, as you have clearly demonstrated going after multiple unrelated edits. If an edit war is in progress and consensus is unclear, forming a discussion, whether between two users or an entire group is strongly encouraged. Any discussions aimed at coming to a peaceful resolution or some other compromise are highly recommended. Wikihounding[edit source] Main page: WP:Wikihounding Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwiki72 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC) We allow everyone to look at contributions lists. One reason for that is to check if a similar mistake is being repeated on other articles - in this case yes. That is not 'Wikihounding'. Still, if you think I did something inappropriate the place to report that is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I strongly recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG before opening a discussion there, though. - MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC) I do not have time to continue an edit war, but you have clearly demonstrated your willingness. Your actions are fully known to you, and therefore you decide if you are doing the right thing. Introspect ! I am a subject matter expert, and an acknowledged one at that, and have demonstrated that through the links. Even if you have a problem with the links, I have ceded, and requested removal of the links (which is contrary to the idea of an encyclopedia where you substantiate through links). But the content edit was justified. But your actions have shown your true intent, which is to wear down new contributors until you win unfairly; so be it. I will report you as that is the right and fair thing to do. Upto Wikipedia what they want to do about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwiki72 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• You are required to properly inform the user you are reporting to AN/I.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry, this is confusing. More care should have been taken to draft more coherent report. El_C 17:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

He's editing the wikipage Open_Innovation and he's trying to add in something from a website that fails WP:RS the site shows no oversight at all and Mr.Ollie is correctly removing that addition. Looks like Mrwiki72 isn't happy with it. I also note that Mr.Ollie is advising him to declare his COI which is also proper. Mr. Ollie isn't wikihounding MrWiki72 at all.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  17:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• It does look like mrwiki72 is a single-purpose account whose only focus is adding content related to a particualr website, strongly suggesting a conflict of interest. Both parties need to disengage from edit warring as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

My intent with linking was to re-inforce the content with attribution / references; having said that, I have offered to remove links as well if that is causing this whole issue. Yet, it keeps getting deleted. Mrwiki72 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)mrwiki72

Repeated upload of fair use images without tags

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

---

ShineAries (talk · contribs)

I came across this person when patrolling the file maintenance categories and they have repeatedly uploaded fair use images without the proper tags. Uploading them under the {{Somewebsite}} tag and uploading them in a resolution that is far far far too big. I have asked them to stop on their talk page and have been ignored. As it sits, their uploads are copyright violations as they refuse to add the proper tags to them to signal that they are uploaded under fair use. I could continue to follow them around, fixing all of their mistakes, but that seems a little much. Seems like this is the next logical step to bring this here. --Majora (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Suicide in free verse on REDACTED

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

---

Not sure what current policy is, I've been away. For your consideration I bring this. My belief is this is free association rambling due to illness or drug use. Do not see it as a credible expression of suicidal intent. Have not notified user as I do not believe he is coherent. Dlohcierekim 23:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, user page previously contained rambling text regarding Donald Trump and child pornography until it was deleted. Home Lander (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I've applied a 12 hour block because he went on to rambling on a user's talk page. Dlohcierekim 23:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor notified me of this so I removed some material from the talk page and revision-deleted. The e-mailer has also notified the WMF as per emergency procedures. All such posts must be viewed as being credible please. The thing to do is to follow the instructions at WP:Emergency. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of this account's contributions are a little concerning as well. Home Lander (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

have taken steps per WP:Emergency. This is my first application. Someone might want to check my work. Dlohcierekim 01:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Apparent vandalism at Anioma people by IP address 194.74.238.137

Resolved

 – no administrative action needed at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be some random changes, including link changes. I'm not quite sure what user warning Template to use for this, so I'll pass this incident on for a more experience wiki-er. Also, this is an IP address... Link is here SnivyFan1995 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• They don't look random to me. Can you explain? Drmies (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm, the user replaced [[Isoko people|Isoko]] with [[Urhobo people|Isoko]]. This results in a case of linking to the same page twice (overlinking) within the same section. Anyway, after reviewing the rest of the article, I retract my concern about this user vandalising the page. My mistake. The user also changed the wording quite a bit as can be found here, so I got a little concerned. Sorry about that. I'll just remove the extra link, I s'pose. Gunnerfreak from Yohoho Puzzle Pirates 17:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Trolling talk pages

Resolved

 – Blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JOHNRJR88 has trolled 2 talk pages in addition to his own talk page and sandbox. I'm not sure how to handle disruptive edits only to talk pages and user spaces, but one has already been tagged by another user. RM2KX (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked as vandalism-only account--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

User repeating reposts of AfD-deleted biography

Resolved

 – Sock and master blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Rjsubrata (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rjsubrata9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• The editor's autobiography was deleted at AfD on 13 April. Since then, it has been reposted and deleted twice under the original title, leading to protection [15], reposted and deleted as Subrata (Bengali Writer), which gave rise to a warning to cease creating inappropriate pages [16]. It has also been reposted and deleted as Subrata(Writer), and then reposted onto a name Talk page and posted twice onto a File page, all indicating that the warning has not abated the attempts to avoid the AfD decision. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added another account above which is the master, blocked 72 hours for sockpuppetry and indeffed the sock.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I've salted the new titles. Now we can look forward to recreations with variations in the use of caps etc. (WP:BEANS? I don't really think so; anybody can figure out that possibility, and often does.) Bishonen | talk 15:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC).

Abusive image usage

Wondering if an administrator could possibly add File:Tronald Dump.svg to the Wikipedia:Image blacklist; edits like this, including it in templates, will cause it to appear on a large amount of articles. Home Lander (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This also appears at File:Tronald Dump.jpg; the only proper use is at Hanksy. Home Lander (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Bencherlite^Talk 07:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bencherlite: The JPG version above does not appear to be blacklisted. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: Correct, and a link to that version is present on the now blacklisted copy, so it probably should be included as well. Home Lander (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of interest to regulars

Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closing_-_is_it_really_always_necessary.3F --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've quit entirely until this is resolved, as I don't want to be a catalyst. L3X1 (distant write) 02:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) TLDR is make sure you wait at least 24 hours after last comment befor atop/abot and then another 24 before 1clickArchiving. Also, if it looks like more discussion will come, better to wait than deter people who don't know that closures can always be ignored/reversed. Short stuff that is  Done or

Resolved

can be closed before waiting 24 hours, but still wait for archive. Consider EthniKekistan up above, while there hasn't been any comment for some time, the off page discussion is continued, so it shouldn't be closed yet. I'm surprised Oshwah didn't comment, he had been making a lot of quick closures recently L3X1 (distant write) 15:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible NPP restriction on IExistToHelp

Hello when I was reviewing recent changes and article creation pages I noticed that IExistToHelp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has tagged an article as being vandalism despite the fact that Google easily verifies that such an event occurred. Afterwords I posted a message not knowing that they have done similar things in the past. Perhaps it might be wise to (temporarily) restrict them from tagging pages for deletion? Any thoughts on this? Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 02:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You didn't go through the talk page history enough. I gave them a final warning [17]. Schwede66 warned them [18] (I did point out to S66 on their talk page the previous history), and here's a permalink showing Kudpung, PamD, and myself all warning them when they started trying in February [19]. They also have clerked the PERM page in the past for NPR, which considering the issues, is a bit ironic. I'd support a topic ban from any deletion or maintenance tagging of articles. They've been given plenty of rope on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

On a side-note re: IExistToHelp, and as an uninvolved party: I noticed the editor has recently requested the following permissions at once: Account creator, Autopatrolled, AutoWikiBrowser, Mass message sender & New page reviewer. Could there be a competency issue at hand?--Cahk (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It could be hat collecting which is a CIR issue here. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The article mentioned in the first post was moved to draftspace and then redirected to an existing article, which means the history is still there. This is what it looked like when IETH had put A7 and G3 tags on it - both equally inapplicable. Then, they warned the creator, claiming that the page was an attack page(!) and that it was "pure vandalism because the article had no references"(!!). They need to stop deletion tagging for a while, I think. --bonadea contributions talk 07:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Sorry for that incident. Someone else had done the edits on my computer while I was using the restroom at an orchestra practice(at my teacher's house) during break. I will revert all the edits I have done on that page. The page was poorly written, but I agree, it does not fit with the reasons it was tagged with. I apologize to User:Jacktime34 for these actions and the warnings that followed. I have undone them already. I apologize sincerely and promise not to let this happen again. I will stop deletion tagging for a while and try to improve the articles instead. It's IExistToHelp talk 16:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This brings another, more serious concern up however. You admit that your account was compromised, which can result in an indefinite block of your account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I was logged in and he was editing on my laptop which I forgot to close. I have changed my password to my account also. There is no way that can happen now. Plus I have created another account in case this would happen. It's IExistToHelp talk 16:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: However, your warnings made no sense. You warned me about requesting deletion of Pelican Park High School because it may be notable, but a day later someone else tagged it with a notability tag. For Hetkhamar, you said that it wasn't a hoax. Yes, it is real, but the article does not cite the sources so we don't know where the info comes from. Google is the only search engine that brings results with the village. Bing and Yahoo! both don't bring up results for the village besides Wikipedia</ [20]. Most of the sites rely on Google Maps, so technically Google Maps is the only source and the others aren't reliable and don't have facts. Even the government website provides no info, so I have no clue how the author got the info from. By looking at Google Maps? It's IExistToHelp talk 22:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The warning was based on lack of understanding of policy and consensus. PROD should only be used for articles that are non-controversial. Regardless of where someone stands on the issue, I think everyone would agree that the inclusion of secondary schools is very much a contentious topic on Wikipedia, and AfD would have been a much more appropriate venue than PROD. On the G3: sure, but that's an argument about sourcing, which could be made via PROD or AfD. It is not a self-apparent hoax, which is what CSD G3 is for. . Neither of the mistakes alone would have been a huge deal, but it was part of a pattern of not understanding NPP, and lack of responding to people who reached out to try to help you. Edit: Looked again, and it was just the hoax tag and not G3, so I apologize for not looking at the article again, my memory failed me. The tagging was still bad because while the sources provided are not reliable, they are enough to show it exists. Bing actually brings up a government source confirming its existence on this PDF file. The hoax tagging was wrong here, and again shows a lack of the skills needed to patrol new pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: The hoax tag was a mistake sure, everyone makes them.It's IExistToHelp talk 15:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cahk and KGirlTrucker81: I am not the type of person that goes around showing off. There are also other people who did what I do and I am the only one who gets reported? NeilN also brought this up. For one, I requested Rollback and Pending Changes Reviewer two weeks before I did with AutoWikiBrowser and New Page Reviewer. For mass message sender, I wanted to survey people so that they could improve pages with the topics they are best at.It's IExistToHelp talk 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@IExistToHelp: I have not encountered your edits before, nor follow the conversation that has been going on here all that closely. My comment on the request for permission is simple - rarely is there a good reason for an editor to request all those permissions (be that 2 weeks apart, or a few months apart). It may demonstrate a lack of understanding, or just haven't read through all the pages re: permission. This is not against you, but just an observation and comment that is universally accepted in Wiki (and hence @KGirlTrucker81:'s link to hat collecting.--Cahk (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Cahk. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 23:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• IExistToHelp is obviously lying about someone else making the edits in question, and life is too short to try to help someone who is not competent when they're going to lie about thier competence. I've indef blocked the account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I support that block. I have a very low tolerance for blatant lies, and the community's tolerance for them is even lower. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• What? Block sure, they're obviously lying about their mistake, but Christ. How about a week and a courteous link to Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors? They've agreed to stop patrolling and unless you've got links to some otherwise disruptive activity, an indef is just plain bitey. TimothyJosephWood 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't really continue to participate in this conversation for logistical reasons, but for whatever it's worth Floquenbeam, I don't think we should indef folks for being immature. The user is motivated and obviously means well, and got caught in a bad spot and made up a bad lie. Seems like a very good candidate for mentoring, that is, if they actually ever come back after a very bitey block and a very bitey comment about it when (other than lying) they've actually been very civil in the whole discussion, and the conduct issue that was raised was very limited in scope and they've already agreed to fix the thing. If we don't want apparent teenagers editing Wikipedia, then we need to institute an age requirement. Otherwise we need to deal with apparent teenagers as teenagers, with appropriate expectations and responses. TimothyJosephWood 22:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. First, a fixed duration block makes zero sense in this situation. You are aware they can request an unblock. Second, being incompetent and lying about it is not evidence we have a potential useful collaborator in the making. Third, why are you valuing being polite over not lying? Fourth, we're quite happy to have teenagers editing here, but they need to be mature enough to do so. We are not required to take them as they come, and just accept their immaturity because they're young. And fifth, feel free to mentor this editor as much as you like; you know where their talk page is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(more) Just to emphasize that I'm not some idiot being mean to innocent newbies because I don't know what I'm doing: User talk:WangViolin. Apparently a history of sockpuppetry, and more transparent lying. But by all means let's mentor him for a couple months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Floquenbeam Whatever. I'm leaving for a while and I can't really take the high ground because I don't have the time to back up my morality. But we're not priests, we don't assign penitence, and we don't block people for lying, because lying does not itself constitute ongoing disruption to the project that needs prevented. If you have evidence that you're actually preventing something (when they've already agreed to stop the behavior that initiated the report) then block away. If you don't then do what you want, but you and I both know whether you're wrong. TimothyJosephWood 23:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So you don't have the time to look into it, but you're going to tell me I'm wrong anyway... congratulations, that's pretty much the Platonic ideal of an ANI comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have been looking into it, and I've been aware of this user and this thread for a while. It just so happens that life takes me places and compels me to do things that don't involve this, and occasionally I don't actually have a choice about the matter. I would otherwise be willing to take on the user as a mentor but I can't. Your petulant flippant attitude on the whole deal isn't particularly helpful besides. Unless you're indeffing them for something other than lying then you are wrong, because indeffing someone for lying isn't protecting the project from any imminent threat. And with that I'll leave it, because I have to go to bed so I can wake up and drive for eight hours to do a whole bunch of shit that I don't want to do. TimothyJosephWood 01:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually no, I would hasten to add some choice words that a particular editor said to me recently: The life of WP depends on continuing to attract contributors. It's actually the most important thing we need to do here--everything else needed will follow. TimothyJosephWood 01:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

All I can say is that I saw this coming a mile away. Anyone who was the least bit familiar with this user could see there were issues with over-reaching into areas the weren't ready for and getting in way over their head, and their immaturity made it more or ess ineitable that they would handle it badly when confronted about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

---

How about we give this kid another chance? Maybe find a mentor, since Timothyjosephwood is unavailable. El_C 23:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It's been suggested they appeal in six months. I think that's a really good idea. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You should know I've had to block two of his socks in the last two days, the last one 20 minutes before his latest unblock request on his own talk page. Both socks' unblock requests were really poorly executed continuations of his lying about who is making what edits. Am I that far outside the mainstream? How many people are there around here who share TJW's and ElC's opinion that continual lying, even after you know you've been caught, is not incompatible with working here, and worthy of trying to find a mentor? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ouch. This kid really wants to contribute to Wikipedia—let's re-think in six months. El_C 00:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know this place was a church where lying isn't allowed. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 00:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This, right here, is why ANI is so useless. People who have zero clue, been here a couple months, making stupid comments at ANI thinking they're being somehow useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rude and uncalled for. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 00:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rude, yes. But someone needs to tell you. For example, you screwed up Black Kite's post below, I had to fix that too. "I didn't know this place was a church where lying isn't allowed." is a completely useless, stupid comment. Why did you make it? Did you think it made sense? Or did you think you were funny? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that sometimes happens when I'm editing on my phone and you know what? I don't have to take this from you, I don't care whether you're an administrator or not you don't get to berate other editors. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 01:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Problem cases have to resolved here—cases which can cause good editors to leave if they receive no assistance dealing with disruption. Someone suggesting that a comment was stupid might have a reason and it would be best to reflect on that because derailing serious discussions is very unhelpful. The place to make comments where no one will be rude is WP:TEAHOUSE. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to help as a mentor for him. J947^(c) 21:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Aztec, New Mexico

Requesting assistance with this, and I've also asked for a block of the user. In the last few days the article has been subject to persistent promotional editing, including copyright violations and unsourced trivia. I don't think we need to know how many picnic tables and trash cans exist in each park, and spending my time reverting is, well, a waste of time. Perhaps someone could clean this up and protect the article. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User blocked for one week with the warning that any further disruption may result in an immediate indefblock. I don't think the page needs protecting, since it seems to have been just the one user doing all of the damage, but I've added it to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Juliancolton. I know that reporting here was a bit of overkill, but I felt exasperated. Much appreciated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Some people are trying to obstruct use of Talk page for discussion of edits to main 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.

---

The following is a copy of a paragraph I just posted to Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

"The editor johnuniq is trying to conceal my attempt to discuss an edit to the article, by means of reverting a large amount of discussion, above. This amounts to highly improper manipulation of the WP article-editing process. Some people apparently want to prevent the main article from being edited, and their line of defense includes protection of the article itself from valid edits. That left the Talk page, which I have attempted to use to discuss the issue. Then, they move the goalposts once again, claiming that there must be a proposal for an edit. However, such proposals don't necessary appear out of thin air; their contents can and should be discussed. So, I discuss those issues. At that point, the goalposts shift again, saying that there has to be a "specific proposal". Oh, really? This wild abuse of the WP system is outrageous and thoroughly disgusting. I will initiate a complaint to WP:ANI, since it is clearly warranted now.)" 97.120.54.196 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

(uninvolved editor) You must notify an editor if you are going to discuss their behaviour on here. Instructions are provided in the large orange box at the top of the page. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

97.120, please read the advice given to you here, under the heading "Purpose of Wikipedia", when you were editing as 97.120.31.14 (talk · contribs). Your involvement on the talk page is mostly building of your own original theories. Several editors have counseled you about this. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't control my changing IP. I'm on a system which can have a single IP for a day, or perhaps as much as a week. Then it changes; don't know why. 97.120.54.196 (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

While I think the IP is probably hedging on original research and likely cannot implement what is suggested, I do think that the claim made by johnuniq on the IP's talk page "An article talk page is for discussion concerning actionable proposals to add or remove text from the article, in accord with reliable sources." is rather extreme. A talk page is used to discuss improvements to an article, which may require discussion that does not immediately involved anything immediately actionable. I know that there have been a few exceptional places where talk pages have been highly restrictive and only "actionable proposals" and discussions related to them were permitted (Gamergate, for instance), but that's the exception and doesn't seem to be the case here. The IP's posts don't necessarily violate FORUM, were there no original research , there may be something to be added to the article, so the outright removal (rather than hatting) is a bit of a questionable action. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect Johnuniq removed the section as the IP was simply re-hashing the section they'd posted directly above that one, which had long been asked, answered and hatted. There is no point posting large screeds of exposition if it also doesn't include a precise explanation of what they want the article changed to (i.e. "Change X to Y", or "Add X to section Z". Otherwise it is completely pointless. Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

True, different IP but repeating same claims, but then were I in johnuniq's position, that should still just have been hatted with comment "Asked and answered immediately above". I'm a very bit wary when, for a talk page not under any protection, even one that is likely to draw anonymous editors with their personal theories, to try to claim that only "actionable proposals" can be suggested on a talk page. I'm sure that just judging by that history that watching admins don't want to put up with a bunch of IP coming with bogus arguments and frustration can set in, and this might have been a curt statement in that light. If the IP problem is that bad, then one can turn to 500/30-type protection on the talk page as per GG. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP's posts seemed in violation of WP:FORUM because it was essentially WP:OR, i.e., disassembling the cited reliable sources to "show" they actually stand for the opposite of their stated theses. User:Johnuniq hatted one such discussion, and the IP's very next post continued as if the hatting had never happened, so User:Johnuniq presumably escalated by deleting because the hatting had proven to be an ineffective deterrent. Weazie (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You said, "disassembling the cited reliable sources..." You don't seem to acknowledge that reliable sources can be misrepresented as to what they actually say. You are implying that if a source is reliable, anything the (former) editor said the source said somehow goes, and nobody else can challenge that assertion. Do you see the problem?

• Also, if I can address the elephant in the room: Birthers are morons, and we don't need to bend over backwards to let them spew their idiocy all over every talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: I certainly don't disagree that some "birthers" are morons. But your statement, "birthers are morons", implies that they all are, including each and every point that any one of them has ever made. Is that really your position? 97.120.54.196 (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• I watch several pages like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories because they have been raised as problems at noticeboards. Recently, I have been feeling guilty about leaving Weazie to do all the work of repeating and repeating and repeating standard advice. I think the first occurrence from this IP can be seen in Weazie's full and patient reply on 13 April 2017. It appears over 50KB of text has been added to the talk page since then, not counting where the IP restored text that I had removed after leaving an explanation at User talk:97.120.31.14. If anyone feels the IP should have a place to post their views, please add a link to your talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, the IP's first post on that page (that I can find) is as 71.222.50.217 (talk · contribs), here, on 21 Feb 2017. Antandrus (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oh Dear Someone should point out that the BLP policy applies to talk pages, not just the article itself. Those walls of text are disruptive and the IP editor is clearly an experienced editor who has logged out (which isn't allowed). The talk page should be given the same level of protection as the article, to allow a general cooling down of temperatures. From a thorough reading it appears that Johnuniq has been very patient and has assumed good faith. The IP editor has abused this, and unless someone can show me where WP:AGF means that talk pages can be flooded with BLP-violating nonsense, the page should be semi-protected. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Exemplo347: Could you explain why you believe that there is a violation of the BLP policy in the Talk page? Assuming you are referring to ex-President Barack Obama himself, this implies you believe that the content of the Talk page has some sort of libel against him. (Libel, I understand, is the primary issue that would lead to a BLP violation.) But it is not libelous to (hypothetically) assert that a person was born in Kenya, or was not born in Hawaii, for example. Barack Obama himself. like most people, has no personal recollection of where he was born; his knowledge where he was born comes from his recollection of statements of other people made as he grew up. The main issue I am currently addressing is the fact that Sarah Obama (Barack Obama's step-grandmother) was recorded twice in a 2008 interview claiming that she was present in Mombasa Kenya when Obama was born. Is that somehow really a BLP violation? I am pointing out that the source with this information was actually being misused to ignore this statement by Sarah Obama. I believe this study is no more Original Research than the study done by somebody previously who used that source, and asserted a fact in contradiction to that fact. 97.120.54.196 (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP applies to far more than libel. BLP requires that we write Wikipedia articles, and discuss topics related to living people, using only high-quality sources; that we avoid gossip, rumormongering and conspiracy theories; and that we treat living people with respect and sensitivity when writing about them.

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for conspiracy theories, and Wikipedia talk pages are not a platform for you or anyone else to "hypothetically assert" a factually-wrong claim about a living person. There are many, many wretched hives of scum and villainy on the Internet where you may do such things. This is not one of them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Well said, Exemplo347. I've semi'd the talkpage for a couple of weeks per WP:SOAP and WP:BLP. It's a bit of a pity to have to close it to all IPs, of course, but since the OP here jumps about, it's not possible to topic ban them from the page. I agree they're most likely an experienced editor logged out (which is indeed a neat way of avoiding topic bans and blocks). Sorry, but my AGF wears thin. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC).

Considering the fact that the IP editor continued the conversation after it was hatted by User:Johnuniq, I would be wary of the WP:BOOMERANG, if I were the IP editor. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 01:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand all of the terminology, but I assume you are suggesting that one user (in this case Johnuniq) can unilaterally cut off discussion on a subject, against the will of another user (me) without as much as a vote on the matter. Am I interpreting this correctly? This implies that johnuniq has some sort of special authority that I do not have. Who gave me that authority? May I read about it, to learn what he is entitled to do that I cannot? What if somebody disputes the assertion that a point was actually addressed and answered? 97.120.54.196 (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There isn't much that can be done, though. We could have the IP blocked, which might be an inconvenience, but I agree with Exemplo that this is sockpuppetry, and CU won't identify the master so we can indef. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)\

I read somewhere on one of WP's background (rules) pages that a person who can't avoid changing IP is NOT engaging in sockpuppetry. I wish I could find it again. Or does that make too much sense? Keep in mind that I still believe that there has been much abuse so far, and this WP:ANI thread has barely scratched the surface of it. I could easily make a list, but it's obvious. Statements like "birthers are morons", "Those walls of text are disruptive...", etc. Also, I challenge the idea that I was doing Original Research: I was simply addressing sources (alleged to be reliable) that appeared to me to be misrepresented in their use in the article. Editors are allowed to do that, right? Indeed, the fact that above, someone claims to have semi-protected the Talk page, but that happened based in large part on the abuse I've already experienced there. Until that abuse is actually addressed, here, I suggest that is highly premature. 97.120.54.196 (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

97.20, I believe the people talking about sockpuppetry aren't referring to the fact that your IP changes, but to the likelihood that you're an experienced editor logged out. I know I was. You're certainly very good with the Wikipedia jargon for a new user. When you say I "claim" to have semi'd the talkpage — no, no, I don't claim it, I have semi'd it. You can't edit it now unless you get an account/log in to your account. I took that action because WP:BLP applies on talkpages too, and because Wikipedia talkpages aren't intended for constructing your own theories based on primary sources, or for arguing with secondary sources. See WP:WPNOTRS: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The "abuse" you complain about has merely consisted of attempts to point these Wikipedia principles out to you, here and on Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Wikipedia isn't your soapbox, and this board isn't either. The page has been semi'd so I don't see what else there is to do here. Time to close? Bishonen | talk 08:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

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

AIV and UAA backlog, please

Not severe, but quite a few have piled up, if any adming is awake. I'll be getting off soon, so it's not likely to grow much bigger. Thanks. L3X1 (distant write) 02:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

GregJackP

Resolved

 – Discussion (here and at BLPN) has served its purpose—no administrative action needed. El_C 16:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

GregJackP said "Also, just to let you know, at 2:00 PM tomorrow (local time), I'll revert the last change back to the long-term version, and I'll continue to do so until you get consensus to remove the material."[21] It appears they will continue to revert. Past reverts.[22][23][24][25][26] I believe they will continue to revert. Something has got to change. I personally disagree with restoring all the sources. The current text uses more reliable sources. I don't want to wait until 2:00 PM tomorrow (Wikipedia time) for the next round of reverts. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hm - the history isn't very edifying there. I've fully protected the article for a week. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• This material was included by consensus following a series of discussions in 2015. It's not edifying because last time the discussion was held in about 5 different locations because JYTDog was forum shopping. I also find it curious that QuackGuru shows up to an article that he's never edited, nor has he shown a great deal of interest in legal articles, until JYTDog was reverted from his arbitrary changes from what the consensus had been. GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that an aspersion that someone is a sock of somebody else? L3X1 (distant write) 00:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. I do not think that QG is anyone's sock. GregJackP Boomer! 04:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

---

You know Black Kite, QuackGuru, I had this under control. El_C 00:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I know the feeling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

How so? El_C 01:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if you think I've stepped on your toes - feel free to unprotect it if you think it'll be OK. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There is more. Infowars and other sources were restored to another page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You still shouldn't be shopping for admins. El_C 01:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

El_C is to be commended for approaching this with dialog, as should be the norm. Once we have to protect page or block someone, things have gotten seriously screwed up. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

After being warned by an admin about using a problematic source they started a RfC using the problematic source. More than one editor opposed using Infowars, but GregJackP is not listening. QuackGuru (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The RfC is, mercifully, up. I suggest you approach it without prejudice. El_C 11:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rather than collaborate GregJackP has guaranteed the long-version will not be restored any time soon. Proposing to restore text that is not supported by the source was the last straw. It can be closed as a snow oppose within 24 hours. QuackGuru (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There are nine votes to remove and five votes to retain, as of now. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. El_C 14:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I was wrong. They claimed "There are no BLP issues."[27] It can be shut down now per this. A serious discussion requires a serious proposal. The current proposal is not it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The revised RfC is now up. El_C 00:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

After requesting verification for a part of the text more than one editor refused to provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

They are silent. They will not provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No, we've answered, you just don't like the answer, either because of IDHT or a competence issue in using the Bluebook citation style. GregJackP Boomer! 16:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• I propose the RfC be immediately closed per this and previous concerns. If an IP made the same edit as the proposal to the article they would probably be warned for unconstructive editing. QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• The vote count this time is 6 in support, 3 oppose—most editors seem to agree with those latest changes. El_C 14:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• According to the creator of Wikipedia the Wikipedia community is committed to amateurism.
• In November 2015, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger told Zach Schwartz in Vice: "I think Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn't lead to mob rule" and that since he left the project, "People that I would say are trolls sort of took over. The inmates started running the asylum."

• It is very clear part of the proposal contains original research. See Larry Sanger's WP:OR policy. Stating that most editors seem to agree with the latest changes does not mean there is no original research being proposed. See WP:CIR. QuackGuru (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Can we shut this down? We've got an ongoing RfC where progress is being made, with the exception of one editor. That editor is beginning to become disruptive, making baseless accusations about BLP at that notice board (without identifying a actual BLP issue), at the Bluebook article talk page, here, and at the RfC. Can someone advise him that forum shopping is inappropriate? GregJackP Boomer! 16:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Attributing Turkophobic and Islamophobic outlooks to citizens of certain countries

With this edit (diff) Resnjari wrote a comment which includes this part ...people in Serbia or Greece are more attuned too regarding their nationalism (the Ottomans were "oppressors" thing ignoring other facets of the period) and the whole Turkophobic and Islamophic outlooks they now have. With this edit Resnjari attributed Turkophobic and Islamophobic outlooks to population of Serba and Greece. I think it is wrong to do it and kindly explained to Resnjari with this edit (diff). Instead to acknowledge the issue with their editing and correct it, they removed my comment with explanation written in the edit line: LOL ! Spare me the bullshit. (diff).

I sincerely apologize if I am wrong and if it actually allowed to attribute certain bad outlooks to whole group of people, based on their nationality. But if I am right, I think it would be good that somebody with admin authorities warn editor in question about this. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The views expressed can be backed by multiple academic sources, some of which i came by you. He is one example you will be more than familiar with. Kopanski page.192 [28]: "They attempted to overcome the extremely biased trend in the modern Communist and Christian nationalist historiography of Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia and Greece related to the history of the Osmanli state and Islamic civilization in the Balkans. Such an effort seems well timed since the Christian, nationalist and Marxist historiographies of the last hundred years have generally portrayed the Osmanli centuries as some kind of 'Dark Ages' of the 'enslaved' Balkan nations. The sophisticated culture, literature and art of Islam were ignored by the generality of historians who hardly even tried to conceal their anti-Muslim bias. Their ferociously anti-Islamic and anti-Turkish attitude not only obscured and distorted the amazing process of mass conversion of entire Christian communities to Islam, but also provided an intellectual prop for the ultra nationalist policy of ethnic and religious cleansing in Bosnia, Hum (Herzegovina), Albania, Bulgaria and Greece. For against the backdrop of the history of the Balkans, as generally portrayed, what appeared as a kind of historical exoneration and an act of retaliation for the 'betrayal' of Christianity in the Middle Ages." Another by Isa Blumi notes the following p. 32 [29]. "As state policy, post- Ottoman “nations” continue to sever most of their cultural, socioeconomic, and institutional links to the Ottoman period. At times, this requires denying a multicultural history, inevitably leading to orgies of cultural destruction (Kiel 1990; Riedlmayer 2002). As a result of this strategic removal of the Ottoman past—the expulsion of the “Turks” (i.e., Muslims); the destruction of buildings; the changing of names of towns, families, and monuments; and the “purification” of languages—many in the region have accepted the conclusion that the Ottoman cultural, political, and economic infrastructure was indeed an “occupying,” and thus foreign, entity (Jazexhi 2009). Such logic has powerful intuitive consequences on the way we write about the region’s history: If Ottoman Muslims were “Turks” and thus “foreigners” by default, it becomes necessary to differentiate the indigenous from the alien, a deadly calculation made in the twentieth century with terrifying consequences for millions." On the matter of a "removal" of comments, it was at my talkpag, not the article talkpage. You have on occasion come to my talkpage to impart your advice [30]. On my talkpage i can delete whenever and whatever want. If admins want to follow this up, they know where i am. I can back up my views all of them through peer reviewed scholarship. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• The sophisticated culture, literature and art of Islam + ... the amazing process of mass conversion of entire Christian communities to Islam. Oh yeah, this is a critical work of academia. No bias at all. I wonder why that might be?. The other source, however; At times, this requires denying a multicultural history, inevitably leading to orgies of cultural destruction. Rings true. That said, you can back up a lot of things with peer reviewed sources. Now, I don't give a flying toss if you can justify "your views" about entire ethnic populations with peer reviewed academia. How bout you two stick to the topic "Skanderberg" at the article and article talk. It'd be one hell of an achievement if you two could demonstrate that Albanians and Serbians can work with one another. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I did stick to Skanderbeg. The editor in question referred to an Albanisation of that figure. How can someone be Albaninised when the very person identified himself as Lord of Albania. The editor was inferred things to prevent editing on something povish and without evidence. Skanderbeg's myth is based on a manipulated and distorted image in which his experience was taken out of historical and religious context, turned into a tool of nation building through secularisation and also to deconstruct and attack Islam in Albania, by claiming Ottoman heritage as bad (i.e Islam). On Kopanski, might not be your view, but you have nothing to discredit the source. In the end the academic has written in a journal that is peer reviewed. The editor came on my talkpage to lecture me as done on occasion and i responded in kind the way i did. On the article talkpage i made no remark that was out of order and that editor could have responded only there. Instead it was followed with the usual commentary on my talkpage. My talkpage, is my domain and i will delete whatever i like.Resnjari (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The sources you brought do not back up your attribution of Turkophobic and Islamophobic outlooks to contemporary people of Serbian and Greek nationality. They refer to the "state policy" or "historiography" of certain period, "the way we write about the region’s history", "generality of historians".... The issue here are not the sources. Its possible to find sources for every kind of speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of their nationality. That does not mean that such speech has its space on wikipedia. There is also no space for repeated inappropriateness like this (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I would appreciate if you could refrain from attributing any particular ethnicity to me and challenging my ability to work together with other people based on the nationality you attributed to me and them. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources i brought here are but a few. There are many more and contemporary. I brought Kopanski because you are familiar with piece of work when you contributed to the Albanian historiography article. We can go further into this I have all the time in the world. I stand by what i on the article talkpage. Skanderbeg and the construct around him resembles neighbouring nationalistic ideas about the Ottoman era. By the way i include Albanians in the too regarding mass Turkophobia and Islamophobia, as per Schmidt, p. 15 [31]. Oh, yeah i am Albanian by the way.Resnjari (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Should have known the more off-hand joking comment would backfire. It's common knowledge (within the region we are talking about) that Albanian-Serbian relations are strained due to Kosovo. That was more what my comment about Serbs and Albanians working together was about; not necessarily about the two of you specifically. Your name tells me you're against discrimination. In both English (c instead of k) and in SrpskoHrvatski/HrvatskoSrpski (whichever). My apologies if my more off-hand comment was not appreciated. I'll re-iterate the genuine point without generalization; stick to the article topic and don't make general accusations of bigotry at an entire ethnic group. The second point is directed at Resnjarvi; Also at myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well his name being about being against discrimination, much can be said there, anyway jokes aside, scholarship is scholarship.Resnjari (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll respond to both of your comments directed to me here, so as to simplify the threading and reduce the number of comments made. All things considered; both of our ethnic related comments created discomfort. I can't tell whether Antidiskriminator's "Albanization" comment had a similar effect on you. I've been re-reading both comments multiple times and ... I'm not sure that there's a big disagreement between the two of you on article content. Antidiskriminator holds the position that the last period of his life should not take the majority of the article and lede; your position (if I am following correctly) is that there is a mythos about Skanderberg designed to turn people against Islam. I think Antidiskriminator agrees with you on that point; Insisting on his anti-Muslim struggle and neglecting his pro-Muslim pre-1443 life, would be a violation of undue. On content you seem to be on about the same page. I get the point that your comparison isn't meant to be about all Serbs, or all Greeks. It's just that the implication could extend to mean anyone. Presume I'm Greek for a second and you said to me that people in Greece have Islamophobic views. Can you see why that might be offensive to me? The implication being that I am, or my family are, or my friends are, Islamophobes. How do you know, you've never met me, my family, or my friends. I think that's more what perturbed Antidiskriminator, than the historiography of Serbia and Greece. Also, your talkpage isn't actually your "domain" and you can't "delete whatever you like" - WP:UP#CMT. You have greater freedom on your talk page, but, there are restrictions with what you can do. On Kopanski, never heard of the guy, a quick skim told me he'd have biases for Islam. I tend to treat sources with POV's more skeptically than sources that are crafted more carefully and without obvious positions for or against a motion. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I have called my own mother a Islamophobe and Turkophobe to her face due to her disgusting views. So i have been in pricklier situations than this. Anyway the point i am making to him was Skanderbeg or the mythmaking around him is based on something else (communist period and the wackiness of the regime for other motives i.e social engineering which is clear) and not Albanisation. To claim Albanisation, especially Anti who wrote the article on the Myth of Skanderbeg is a little bit out there becuase it infers that Skanderbeg was not Albanian in anyway to begin with (these views still exist in some Serb and Greek circles) considering that Kastrioti called himself lord of Albania etc. He is aware. If he is going to say to other editors that certain bits info or alterations should not be done, at least when making a grandiose claim of Albanisation have some kind of backing. On sources, Anti came across Kopanski, i merely followed his actions in my use much later.Resnjari (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised, Resnjari? Back then, in the Talk:Expulsion of Cham Albanians, you have accused the editors of Wikipedia for being Islamophobe because they didn't share your Islamist views, where you demonize the Christians and victimize the Muslims. This was evident by your personal portrayal of a certain Muslim ethnic group as "victims of Christian Greeks" for being expelled after WWII due to their collaboration with the Nazis. This is what you implied when I opposed your personal portrayal of the Greeks as "ethnic cleansers of Muslim Cham Albanians":

** "My approach is objective unlike yours which is based on reasons of “traitorous actions”. Like I said show me peer reviewed scholarship that states that using the term ethnic cleansing is wrong. As for the comparison with the Armenian Genocide it does suffice. It does not matter about the numbers. Both populations where not liked by other peoples that they lived amongst, they had people who collaborated with incoming armies and that was used as justification for the populations demise. The only difference is that Armenians are Christians and Albanian Chams are Muslims. So when peer reviewed scholarship states that those events for Christian Armenians is ethnic cleansing its ok to cite, but when it’s for Muslim Albanian Chams it’s a different standard even though peer reviewed literature cites that too. If you want to report me, then please do so.Resnjari (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC) "  **

Just this is wrong of your part, Resnjari. To suggest that the Wikipedia's community is racist towards Muslims, so is to disparage their skills and contributions to the Wiki project. Very wrong approach, and not befitting you an editor as well. And certainly it is a not so objective approach as you might think. --SILENTRESIDENT 18:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not say that Wikipedia editors are Turkophobic or Islamophobic on Muslims. My comments which you have cut and paste were part of a larger discussion on sources. Those sentiments are however very common in the Balkans due to state nationalism in many countries starting with Albania poisoned by that thinking. I have been told at length, lectured by Albanian editors that i should not edit or contribute to Islam related articles on Albania because it is the wrong thing to do on my talkpage [32] ! Should i have reported them due to their colourful language? So you know i am very cynical. Also you said i have "Islamist" views ? Now isn't that pushing it. You are aware of what a Islamist is right ? There are many observant Muslims on Wikipedia, who some would even find discussing the faith critically very offensive, yet still that does not make them an Islamist. I don't observe Islam. My mother converted as a Jehovah's Witness when i was a little kid, forced me along for the ride, so i know a lot of bible and little Quran and she still is a Christian fanatic with crazy views of which i have encountered among many, many Balkan people about Islam and i don't share them. Knowledge and yes Western scholarship opened my eyes about Islam and i don't share those alternative views even if now they are the norm in many parts of the Balkans. Now the matter is with Anti. If you got some additional issue with me start a new topic in here.Resnjari (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am very aware of the difference between Muslim views and Islamist views. The Muslims and the Islamists are not even one and the same thing. Which you probably know already. Your cynical views unfortunately I can't say they do differ from Islamist ones which hold the belief that they are victims of a Christian hostility/discrimination towards them. --SILENTRESIDENT 19:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

So then your aware. If i were an Islamist i would already be trying to convert you to Islam. That has not happened and nor will it. Those that have heritage should keep it. In the Balkans the order of the day has been those with Muslim heritage should discard it. Albania is prime example number one in this regard and the myth of Skanderbeg is central to that campaign dating from the communist era. Muslims in the Balkans have experienced mass discrimination and violence from Christian states and peoples and vice versa and they experienced it because of their faith. It has not been a one way ticket or the sole experience of the latter by the former as nationalist literature and rhetoric often refers too.Resnjari (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please. I am not interested to listen to theories, nor I care about your opinions as they cannot justify editorial bias. Your edits are fundamentally biased in an anti-Serbian and anti-Greek direction, and, hiding yourself behind historical or religious reasons is to abrogate your own responsibility to be a neutral editor. Please stick to the discussion: your behavior is questioned here, not your opinions. Attributing Islamophobic, Albanophobic or Turcophobic outlooks to the editors in Wikipedia and the people in certain countries goes against the Wikipedia's editorial standards and is a form of disruption, which shows a lack of competence of your part and this behavior is unacceptable. I have warned you in the past about this, but the fact that more editors are now still reporting the same problem in their encounters with you, shows that you are failing to realize the extend of the problem. You are admitting your religious bias but at same time you are showing an unwillingness in remedying for this, which is not good. A topic-wide ban on Balkan articles is usually a preventative measure to protect these articles from incompetent editors who are failing to gasp the problem of religious bias in their edits. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not interested in your views about a "anti-Serbian and anti-Greek direction". Wikpedia is about facts, not what feels good about something and omitting the bad stuff. Its an encyclopedia, not a blogging forum. Also the same charge can be made (if one uses your criteria) on the opposite end such as in that citation of yours from a exchange in Cham Albanian related topics. For example your comment about the Chams "traitorous actions" [33] and wanting not to include peer reviewed scholarship. Anti-Albanian bias? Or were you admitting to an anti-Albanian bias ? A topic wide ban on Cham related articles or Balkan ones for that matter regarding you? As i have said on English Wikipedia and even on Albanian Wikipedia, if you don't like my editing, bad luck. Scholarship is scholarship, and all the ones i use i make sure they are wp:secondary, wp:reliable and from the Western World to for those claiming "biases". I am currently editing Islam related topics on Albania because one i have done background reading and two it is a core area in that Wikipedia project. The country is a majority identifying Muslim nation after all. Unless you can find some issue with a source or something i have edited within one of those articles (nothing presented), its more of the same wp:idontlikeit view on your part. By the way i have not said that editors on Wikipedia are Turkophobic or Islamophobic. Don't distort my words. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You are doing it again. You are attributing Albanophobia to me. Don't you see? You are presenting the Cham treason and siding with the Nazis against the Greek state as being "my anti-Albanian bias" and not a historical event of WWII. Prespari, as an editor, you have done very very little to remain neutral in your attribution of biased Peer viewed sources against Serbians and Greeks, which shows editorial bias of your part. And to justify this bias, you are hiding behind the argument of citing peer-viewed sources. Bias in sources does not mean you can be a biased editor, Prespari. It's your failure to present scholarly opinions (opinions are not facts) of Greeks committing Ethnic cleansing against Albanians as just that: opinions. You are refusing to present them in an unbiased manner and you are hiding yourself behind your argument "I am just quoting peer-viewed sources". This is not far from saying "I was just following orders." You chose to pick and use the most biased of the available peer-viewed sources and to present them as being facts, using the reliability of the sources as your flag against their paraphrasing or summarization in a neutral fashion and with neutral vocabulary. What do you expect from me to do with this form of disruption? To approve it? Wikipedia tried to warn you over citing and attributing sources: being reliable does not make that source neutral. Your insistence that the reliability = same as = neutrality and that the opinions = same as = facts, shows editorial bias. To insist on your bias despite our warnings, is to cause disruption. --SILENTRESIDENT 22:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No one said Albanophobia toward you. Using your line of argument. On ethnic cleansing, i.e Baltsiotis, a Greek scholar. Anyway on "neutral vocabulary", your one to talk, please. Once again the words "Cham treason" says it all. No even the scholarship goes there.Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not again!!! Weren't the 15 million who were killed when the Third Balkan War turned into World War One enough blood to satisfy any desire to shed more blood over the Balkans? Can't some administrator topic-ban these Balkan fighters?!?! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I agree on the war matter. Idiocy being a cause. Various propaganda of pursuing a "greater" this or a "greater" that with various state building ideologies of othering peoples among other things in the region led to Balkans Wars which morphed into World War One. Topic banning should be based on something substantive. Not a dislike of an editor. On "Balkan fighters", the issue was on Skanderbeg and a matter Silent was not involved in. Silent came here to make her own commentary here, i responded in kind. This is an ANI forum, and i have a right of reply. Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, do you mean Second Balkan War (1913). The third one is the Yugoslav Civil War of 1991/2-95 (1991-2001 as far as Wikipedia is concerned). To answer your question though, evidently not given that another million were killed in WW2 and then more than 100,000 is the Yugo Wars. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Mr rnddude - I was using an unconventional numbering, in counting a war, WWI, that isn't normally counted as a Balkan War. Was it only a million killed in the Balkans (out of a total of tens of millions) in WWII? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, don't jump immediately to topic ban. The Third Balkan War (according to your "unconventional numbers") belongs to the past and all editors should not confuse history with the actual discussion here. The region has a recent bloody history and for that reason editors from there and the disputes between them should be treated with patience. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Ah, okay, yes if you count WW1 as the Third Balkan War then yes that makes sense. I was thinking of Yugoslavia specifically which accounts for at least 1 million dead (conservative estimate), but, I've seen values up to 2 million. Add Greece, Romania (some call Romania a Balkan state, others dont), Bulgaria and Albania to it and you can easily add another 1 million in the balkans. So between 2-3 million. The greatest losses were in Russia and China with around 24 million and 18 million a piece and then that's followed by Poland who lost something around 20% of their population which I think is around 6-7 million. Germany also suffered heavy losses but mostly military deaths - maybe 4 million military and 1-2 million civilian. All in all that makes up 52-54 million losses in these four countries alone. World War II casualties has a table with approximate numbers totaling around 70-85 million. There's also this infographic on youtube which I really like (18 minutes). The thing with the Balkans is that they were easily overrun by the joint operations of the Wehrmacht and Italian army. Yugoslavia didn't even make it two weeks before being completely occupied - though the government went into exile and resistance movements were active throughout the duration of the war. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes that too, all of it. The rationale for conflicts in othering peoples based on faith ethnicity and others things is a common occurrence. State social engineering played a large role in this in mobilsing and making people ready to act. Historiography played a big part. Scholarship from the West notes that those histriographies are still mainly the same in most countries in the Balkans with no change after all that. Sentiments of othering need not be overt for them to exist among citizens for a state to use when it wants. The myth of Skanderbeg is a case in point, though the communist regime never got a chance to employ it in war. But they sure made life hell for its citizens using it from the 1960s onward in their social engineering campaigns.Resnjari (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon, frankly, I was not a witness of the incident between Resnjari and Antidiskriminator, but I wasn't surprised to find this report on ANI. I have seen Antidiskriminator's quality work in Wikipedia. He is a cooperative user with long history of positive edits in the Balkan topics, whose work is widely acknowledged by the editorial community and whose records show no disruption whatsover. Antidiskriminator's contributions resulted in Balkan articles being improved or even gaining a GA status, which shows this user's tireless efforts in promoting Wikipedia's quality. I do not think it is ever appropriate to ask for him to be topic-banned for reporting here another editor's problematic behavior. To do so, is to discourage the Wiki editors from ever reporting on ANI any similar incidents in the future. Which I am very certain is not in our interests, Robert. To ban Antidiskriminator for reporting an evident problem of religious or ethnic bias of Resnjari's part in certain Balkan articles, is to encourage certain editors do not heel to our warnings over their bias. The fact that Resnjari was involved in more incidents, is just an indicator of our failure. --SILENTRESIDENT 10:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Well that is not entirely right there. Antidiskrimintor has been banned before for problematic editing [34], [35], [36]. Another thing is Anti has had me in his sights way before i even interacted with him [37], that link can be found on his main page [38] under "Interesting coincedences:". Odd that.Resnjari (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Silentresident. You did not witness a incident. So then why are you here commenting ? On "bias", i never said that Anti had a bias. He referred to Albanianisation and in an attempt to prevent edits and i reminded him of what the figure of Skanderbeg had been refashioned by the Albanian state, and in a similar fashion to sentiments out there in the Balkans. He commented on my talkpage and i deleted him as its MY talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Realtalk: this guy is trying to defend calling every citizen of multiple countries a racist. I think it's time for him to, at the very least, be topic banned from any article related to the Balkans. Jtrainor (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari is not "trying to defend calling every citizen of multiple countries a racist". The discussion and decisions should be based on a full understanding of the situation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not say people are racist, i said those views are very common in the Balkans, and yes even among my people for multiple sociopoltical reasons which involve the state itself imparting upon the people those things through social engineering, i.e see Albanian nationalism, Albanian historiography, Serbian historiography etc etc. Otherwise the Balkans would be a very peaceful place which it has NOT been. And this is recent times too. Also the historiographries of a large number of places in the Balkans is very problematic. As for other editors here, Yyu may not have encountered views which ifered to in the Balkans as you might not be from there. My original reference in the article talkpage was to this as the editor himself referred to Albanisation in an attempt to prevent edits, when he himself who wrote the article on the Myth of Skanderbeg knows otherwise. Antidiskriminator here has made multiple past comments on my talkpage [39], [40] that he will take me i ANI on my talkpage when i noted to other editors (separate to him) the problems of using Serbian historiography due to nationalism and hence POV, of which he uses extensively. Apparently its ok for him to note issues with using Albanian historiography of which i acknowledge and support (i don't use the stuff) but the reverse is apparently not on for Serbian historiography. Also why a topic ban for me? What has been the problem with my editing ? Can someone please show something substantive here with my editing. Otherwise this is resembling more of along the lines of wp:witchhunt and wp:hounding.Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari,

• if I am responsible for your attacks on the people on the basis of their (wrong) nationality, I am deeply and most sincerely sorry.
• I am also sorry if I don't share your opinion that works are unreliable on the basis of the (wrong) nationality of their authors.
• I am also sorry because of the Albanisation of Skanderbeg which transformed medieval tribal chieftain (who is responsible for death of more than million Albanian civillians and soldiers in the Ottoman and rebel units) into Albanian nationalist hero. I can assure that I never participated in such absurd irrational manipulation.
• Let us not lie ourselves Resnjari. If after three days after the initial report you are allowed to blame the other editors for your attacks on the people on the basis of their (wrong) nationality, its obviuos that you will not be warned and that such attacks are allowed and tolerated. I am sorry for that, but thats life. I wish you all the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On "lies", thank you for pointing that part of the article out. All those sources used there do not use the word Albanianisation, so i am guessing that is a original research take on it. That POV subheading is in need of alteration. The National Awakening Rilindja period did not take a figure who himself used the title Lord of Albania and make him "Albanian". Like i said use a source that states the word Albanianisation here. Albanianisation, on its own carries very POVish connotations. I made my point on the Rilindja period and beyond. Skanderbeg was nationalised and secularised for state engineering processes. By nationalised his fight was interpreted to be one that dominated the country (which was wrong) and that his struggle was one of a "hero" that all Albanians backed (wrong again). As Kopanski noted he was a warlord at best fighting from a small area to restore his fathers lands and his own interests, not some national one. Many Albanians fought against this individual for the Ottomans. That is the part that takes this person out of his historical context and manipulated for others. It was not his Albanian identity that was utilised or invented (if we used the term "Albanianisation" which i take you mean here), but his fight against the Ottomans embellished with fabrications and transfixed by the communists to fight religion in particular Islam, viewed as the religion of the "invader". As for who dies and so on about the medaevil period, the numbers who knows. Its this obsession of the modern day period with Skanderbeg that is problematic and who did not shape the Albanian experience, but the Ottomans. Their arrival allowed Albanians to become Albanians as we know them today speaking Albanian and being of a religion different to their neighbours preventing assimilation. Its this experience in which the communists attempted to wipe out through nationalism and things like the myth of Skanderbeg. As for blame you have been at it on my talkpage many times now. Maybe i should have lodged ANI reports against you with those colourful comments but unlike you i cannot be bothered.Resnjari (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

To argue that these racist views are "very common", is an attempt to justify your editorial bias against these people and countries, Prespari. Which is no different from calling the commonsfolk "racists" and hiding your racism behind this argument. You are crossing some dangerous red lines here. This has no place in Wikipedia. --SILENTRESIDENT 06:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"Prespari", my user name is Resnjari, from the outset from 2008, never been changed. What are you on about ?Resnjari (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I shall note that Resnjari's disruptions are not limited to racist bias only, but also extend to 3RR breaches and POV Tag-abuses, this time in the balkan topic article Albania, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=773385589&oldid=773354922

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=773406406&oldid=773398621

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=773410810&oldid=773410545

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=773578486&oldid=773477463

In that incident, which happened earlier this month, at 2 April, Resnjari attempted to impose his POV on the article by using the POV tags as a trojan horse to achieve his goals. Despite not having any consensus (he tried to explain the necessity for POV Tags in Talk:Albania, but he failed to convince; several other editors, besides me, opposed him but he couldn't listen to us and he reverted them when he didn't get the things done the way he wanted). This disruption happened at a moment at which Resnjari fully acknowledges that the article falls under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. --SILENTRESIDENT 19:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The 3rr rule relates to undoing someones edits 3 times. In your "evidence" the first edit i made i added the tags. The next two which are dated April the 12th i undid 2 edits. The 4th edit relates to April the 13th, Your breach is where ? I also noted extensive issues with the map of which other editors admitted to and its all in the talkpage. Anyway you attempted one of these 3rr things with me a while back on my talk page, not realising the count [41]. You really must want me to get banned Silent.Resnjari (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to ban you, what I want is an end to this racist bias on Balkan articles, Resnjari. But like Jtrainor does, all I see here is you defending your actions as if there is nothing wrong about portraying the people of these countries as racist.--SILENTRESIDENT 06:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"racist bias"? How so ? If anything most of my editing has focused on the negative regarding Albanian issues as opposed to the positive, in articles that relate to the Islamization of Albania or recently the Albanian nationalism one, i go where the scholarship takes me. Are you saying then that i am racist toward Albanians, considering i am one of them? As for your evidence, make sure it actually breaks rules when you present it.Resnjari (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On this issue, Antidiskrimantor threw the term Albanianisation out there, though not offensive to you or maybe others it is to Albanians, due to how it has been used in the Balkans. As much as there is stuff concocted and fabricated about Skanderbeg, the Albanianised part is not it. Saying that without some kind of scholarly backing is very POVish and provocative, especially when it is used as a means to prevent possible editing in a article. If the perception is by some that i overacted, then i apologise, but there should be awareness both ways. Also my talkpage is my domain and not to be used as some editors having been doing to make intimidating attempts at this or that or even telling me (in problematic language and that is putting it nicely) not to edit because my editing violates some "national honour", especially which annoyed me even though i kept my cool. I have let a lot of things pass from many editors over the years, a lot and that shows with my clean record. I don't trash talk your talkpages and i expect the same standard for mine. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

For removal of comments, notices, and warnings from User Talk Pages, please see WP: User Pages (Removal of comments, notices, and warnings). --SILENTRESIDENT 09:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, ok fine about notices and stuff. Anti has posted on my talkpage in previous times regarding wanting to take me to ANI (big difference) because to paraphrase him i was "inhibiting his work" due to me discussing (not editing, but discussing) with another editor the problematic issues of Serbian sources. Should i interpret that type of past commentary as intimidation or a threat (for future reference) ? Its ok though when Albanian sources are discussed in that way however. Its stuff like that [42], [43]. On my talkpage, no thank you.Resnjari (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator has placed accuses on my talk too. I have deleted them and it is not wrong if others do the same when they think there is a good reason. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You too. Well not surprised.Resnjari (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Avoiding patrolling/reviewing by overwriting a redirect

The following discussion is closed. 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 short while back we had a (paid?) editor who under various names, hijacked a redirect by overwriting it with their new article and then moving it to the new title, thus avoiding scrutiny by newpage patrol and reviewers. The page Shelley Bridgman has been raised at WP:BLP/N and was created by exactly such a process by an editor who has edited nothing else. Question: Did we block the editor(s) doing this, and what was the outcome (I can't find the original discussion)? (Note: I haven't informed the relevant editor as they haven't edited since creating the article over seven months ago). Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I've fixed the history issues by splitting Bridgman's history and moving the relevant revisions back to Shih-t'ou. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• @Black Kite: I think I handled the majority of these cases as they popped up on ANI. My actions were always the same. Indef block the editor and delete the article as undisclosed paid editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this linked to this at VPP? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Yes. Thanks for providing the link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Nihlus Kryik improper consensus closure

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

---

User:Nihlus Kryik has improperly closed a discussion regarding a consensus for the table progress for the RuPaul's Drag Race individual season pages. As you can see from this discussion here [44] I mentioned multiple times that consensus is not reached based on the number of votes. User:Nihlus Kryik blantly ignored this and decided that a consensus was reached and went ahead to implement the proposed changes. I do not believe someone with 14 sporadically placed edits should be deciding whether or not a consensus has been reached, especially with basing the closure on votes. Brocicle (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

He hasn't closed it yet, and he shouldn't be trying to declare consensus since's he commented on this proposal.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hasn't been formally closed but the user has already implemented the proposed changes "per consensus" as shown in this diff [45] Brocicle (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This "notice" by Brocicle is wildly predictable based on his/her WP:BATTLEGROUND style of editing over this topic and his absolute refusal to accept any argument that does not align with his. It is precisely why I warned him about tendentious editing moving forward. Let's discuss why I did what I did.

First, I was going to go to WP:ANRFC to request a formal closure since I knew Brocicle would not accept anything but his point of view. However, when I was there, I saw this right at the top:

"Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion."

So, I decided to "declare" consensus without attempting to officially close anything. It was very clear where the consensus was heading, and per WP:SNOW, it was easy to decide on which way to go.

Second, Brocicle has done everything in his power to revert any changes made that go against his view on how the page should designed. He has been grandstanding for almost an entire month on this issue, constantly telling everyone what consensus is not, but not telling anyone what consensus is. At best, this type of behavior is disruptive.

Examples showing pattern of grandstanding: [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

Honestly, there are so many more that I just recommend you look at his edit history. The edits he is reverting show an attempt by the reading community to restore a previously obtained consensus of utilizing the HIGH/LOW method. Take this with the arguments made by the editors (including myself) on the talk page, and it is extremely easy to see how consensus was reached. Brocicle is the only one who has truly shown he is against it, and his arguments of been summarily dismissed based on policy. So, no, my "closure" was not improper. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It is standard practice that pages remain how they were PRIOR to discussion on change until the discussion is closed and consensus is reached. HIGH and LOW is against policy as stated numerous times by editors other than myself. I stated each time in my summary and posted on user talk pages to get them involved in the discussion. My arguments against the change is based on policy while yours is based on the current depiction being "trash and confusing to fans". I have linked multiple times to the WP:CONSENSUS page for you and other editors to read at your own discression, I cannot force you to read it and learn. I respect admin closure, not improper closure based on voting. Brocicle (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You have yet to tell anyone what consensus actually is. Your only argument thus far is that it is not a vote. I showed you how I reached consensus without a vote. We are here merely because you fail to accept it. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I linked to the consensus page for people to read and learn about what consensus is. Stating it isn't a vote isn't an argument when it's the policy. I'm here because of your improper closure, not because I "refuse to accept it". Brocicle (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

As I have clearly demonstrated, it is not improper. This is a waste of time. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It is improper which is why I brought it to admin attention, like you suggested I do if I felt further discussion was required which it clearly needs. Brocicle (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I suggested you reach out to an administrator if you felt someone should officially close it. One person brigading should not subvert consensus. nihlus kryik (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

reach out to an administrator if you feel further discussion is required your exact words. I'm not here to go round in a circle with you, I'm here because of your improper closure and for an admin comment/decision or whatever they choose. Brocicle (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Beatley and SvG articles salvation effort

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

---

As many of you know, Sander v. Ginkel created a lot of articles about sportspeople. The quality of these articles was substandard, and they were moved to the draft space, so that users can work on them and after cleaning this up move them back. A dedicated effort was set up; in particular, very clear guidelines were set, detailing what are typical problems with the articles and how they should be addressed. Unfortunately User:Beatley misused the effort by moving a large amount of articles back to the main space without fully addressing the issues. As a result, we have a lot of articles which are likely unnotable (example: Muna Muneer, fails WP:NSPORT and likely WP:GNG, at least the user did not make an effort to demonstrate WP:GNG), and article with unsourced statements (see this or this. We are talking about dozens, possibly hundreds articles. The user's attention was drawn to this fact at their talk page, see User talk:Beatley/Archive 2#SvG drafts and User talk:Beatley/Archive 2#SvG drafts (again) to which they responded [63] expressing the willingness to continue in the same manner. I believe that at the very least, the user must be topic-banned from SvG articles, and whatever they moved to the main space must be moved back to draft. Which is a pity, since it was massive waste of time for new page reviewers including myself, as well as for other users cleaning up after them. Note that all of these are BLP articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oh dear lord no - If I had more time I'd formally propose a Community Ban to prevent Beatley from "helping" with the SvG cleanup, as they are clearly not interested in the reasons behind it, they just want to fish all of those turds out of the toilet bowl for reasons best known to themselves. The comment on their talk page, words to the effect of "take them all to AfD if you don't like what I'm doing," should be taken at face value - we're going to be forced to sit through god knows how many AfDs just because this editor wants to prove some ridiculous point. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Note that the user's reaction at their talk page is dismissive and not really helpful. In addition, they likely do not understand our BLP and notability policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• And they're still going at it - Shibi Joseph. GoldenRing (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the terrible way they're doing it - for example, not even making the adjustments that experienced editors make to the categories before moving a draft to article space - suggests they have no idea what the hell they're doing. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked them indef; they will be unblocked after we decide here what to do with them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Good call - it was already getting slightly out of hand, and it's going to take quite a bit of fiddly work to undo the mess they've already made. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, so...

Proposal Community ban, preventing Beatley from moving any of SvG's drafts to Article space. All moves of these articles that Beatley has already performed should be reverted. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support reverting them all. Suggest we wait and see whether we've got through to the user before enacting a ban. and banning. Changed since the user has made no noises at all in the interim and the scale of disruption is larger than I imagined.GoldenRing (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Admittedly the signs are not good. GoldenRing (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support CB sticking your hands in the commode w/o proper equipment is bad for your health, as our friend is learning with his indef. I'm fine to AfD, I like those. L3X1 (distant write) 20:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Would it be disruptive if I started AfDing the ones I think are unnotable? L3X1 (distant write) 20:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned this will not be disruptive but try not to overload AfD please, either group many articles in one AfD with absolutely identical problems, or nominate several per day.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huang Szu-chi I'm going to be adding other female volleyball player SvG articles throughout the day. L3X1 (distant write) 21:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support His talk page comments show that he doesn't understand what he's doing wrong at all. Topic Ban , unfortunately.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support both the community ban and the reversion of all of these moves to article space. Enough is enough, already. David in DC (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban & moving these articles back to draftspace. This user isn't actually cleaning up the articles at all, and so isn't solving any of the SvG issues. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Note there are over 1000 drafts and talk pages that have been moved. I'm chatting with MusikAnimal about resurrecting the bot task to shift them all back to draft, since it would clearly be a waste of our time to do it manually. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

And L3X1, I think that answers your question about AFDing them ;) Primefac (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac so yes AfD them all? If the bot is resurrected, there will be 4000 junk articles that need to be sorted through, only they will be in the draft space. Or am I just confused by what Aymatth2 stated below? L3X1 (distant write) 00:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not clear. We will bulk delete all draft articles and all mainspace articles restored by Beadley and other rogue editors. AfD is not needed. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Don't panic!. See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes. When we started the clean-up we anticipated rogue editors blindly moving SvG stubs back to mainspace without checking or fixing them. As of 24 April 2017 the clean-up period will end, all remaining drafts will be deleted, and then an audit will check for rogue editors. All articles restored by rogue editors will be deleted. My guess is that of the 4,000+ articles restored at least 3,000 will be deleted. Don't rush to plug up the AfD queues. Most of the garbage will be cleared away en masse during the audit period. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• !vote change Reviewing Primefac's link has filled me with righteous anger, no just disbelief and that feeling when you see a mountain of work ahead of you. For the amount of disruption done, I think our friend the moving man should bestay blocked till every last S.v.G article is taken care of, either through AfD, or being moved back to draft space. This can be done per the difference between indefinite and infinite. And has anyone with CU powers ran SvG and Beatley? Just to make sure? Not casting aspersions, but I would think this would be SOP for the course. L3X1 (distant write) 00:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Beatley is blocked for now, but he is not the only one who has being doing bulk restores. There is no urgent need to move the articles restored by these editors back to draft. The audit result will be to just delete them all. Simpler. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks, now I understand. L3X1 (distant write) 01:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help with this. I've looked at a sample of the moves, and they all seem to be low-value articles with dubious notability, mainly volleyball players. If any of them fall into the scope of the cycling clean-up lists, let me know, and I'll take a closer look. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Lugnuts: A reminder that if the audit finds that Beatley has been restoring articles without checking and fixing them, all articles he restored will be deleted regardless of improvements made later by other editors. If you want to salvage one you should userfy it, then wait a few weeks for the dust to settle before restoring it. It might be easier to just let the mass deletion happen, then start a new article from scratch. Most of the SvG stubs are trivial. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• @Primefac: Sorry for the late reply. Do we still need help moving the drafts? If you instead decide to delete them, either now or with all the unreviewed drafts, I can generate a list for you (if you don't already have one) and you can use Twinkle's batch delete tool to nuke them. Alternatively MusikBot II would be happy to undergo a quick BRFA to automate deletion. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, no worries. It sounds like they'll be nuked regardless of their location (since the improper movement has been noted), so I think as far as the bot goes we're all set. Primefac (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Support TBAN, but... I'm not sure if that alone is going to suffice, long term; the user seems to have fundamental competency issues with multiple important policies (WP:RS and WP:BURDEN chief amongst them), and with basic process generally. are we just kicking the can down the road to another group of editors by protecting this one narrow content area but not addressing the underlying issues with this user? This seems like a scenario where either some mentoring or broader restrictions might be called for. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Summarizing and closing will be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, when is the mass nuking going to happen? My AfD bundle attempt has been met with resistance. L3X1 (distant write) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Extended reply

• See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes. The deadline to cut off the SvG article clean-up effort is 24 April 2017, five days from now. After that we create lists of who did what to help with audit of the clean-up, then delete all the remaining SvG drafts. The audit will find editors who did mass restores without checking the articles. All the articles they restored will also be mass deleted.
• AfD's are likely to be rejected because many of the subjects of the SvG stubs are technically notable and warrant articles. The problem is many of the stubs contain errors. some serious, which will linger even after improvements. It is simplest to wipe them out and start from scratch. But many are on notable subjects and can be recovered. That is what the clean-up was meant to do.
• Beatley saw a conspiracy to wipe out a huge number of articles on notable subjects, and set about trying to save as many as he could, a tedious and mechanical effort much like the effort made by Sander.v.Ginkel when creating them all. Beatley was not responsive to appeals to take more care, perhaps because he did not follow the logic, but I think had good intentions.

I see no bad intent. Beatley's energy and determination are impressive and he may become a valuable contributor. I would give the benefit of doubt and lift the block, either before or after the clean-up is complete. I hope I do not have to eat these words. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

agree with character judgement. A lot of the articles clearly flunk GNG, and just about any and every policy, but I will just wait for the nuking. L3X1 (distant write) 19:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I am going to unblock them now, but the discussion still needs to be formally closed--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Shouty all-caps angry stuff

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

---

Resolved

 – useer blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings all. Please can an admin review the editing history of THJNTYUHJNED? Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like he's asking for a block... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems to already have been handled. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That's Nate Speed (talk · contribs). I do range blocks occasionally, but they won't completely stop him. He often bounces around between open proxies. When you see anyone who writes edit summaries like, "PUNCHES YOU", followed by a string of exclamation points, that's him. Sro23 already requested a CU at SPI, so I'll just leave the original 48 hour alone. A CU will be around momentarily to indefinitely block, I'm sure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Promotion

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

---

Special:Contributions/Ahmed_A_S is an unresponsive editor who appears to be here to promote publications by one Altawyan, Ahmed A. Eperoton (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Now continuing as 65.126.195.28 (talk · contribs) Eperoton (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Both are blocked for repeated spam/advertising. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 stern warning

The following discussion is closed. 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 a year ago, I reported to this site the news that there was to be a MASSIVE attack by an association of renegade vandals using sophisticated software for large scale edit automation. Fortunately, this never came to pass, though unfortunately I was not taken seriously. However, I now have credible intelligence suggesting that such an attack is imminent. I urge you all to heed this warning and prepare yourselves to counter any widespread disruption and damage this will almost inevitably cause. Yours in GOOD FAITH. 78.40.158.50 (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Those same warnings that earned your a 3 month block from Ohnoitsjamie? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a 3 month block is definitely what I would give someone who is trying to help if I were an admin. 78.40.158.50 (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

... and also 2 blocks at at User talk:92.54.161.242. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by Nishidani at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing

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

---

E.M.Gregory, Nishidani, and I have both participated in the linked AfD discussion about 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing, with Greg and I voting to keep and Nishidani voting to delete. During the discussion, Nishidani has written responses to Greg's comments (like this, this, and this) and my comments (such as this), all of which indicate a strong failure to assume good faith and also seem borderline-personal attacks. It's one thing to respond to comments but it's another to fail in holding back aggressiveness in the process. What really gets me is that in the third diff, Nishidani immediately assumes Greg created the Jerusalem terrorist attack article, when in reality he did not.

Out of concern about these comments, I gave Nishidani a warning about PAs on his talk page (probably not the best warning, now that I think about it, but it certainly reflected my concerns at the time). Then, I noticed that the same aggressive comments on the AfD were continuing, so I gave Nishidani a couple more serious warnings. After I discussed with another user about why I did not include diffs, Nishidani gave me this rather condescending and aggressive response. In addition, Nishidani has shown failure to assume good faith in regards to what he calls IP editors (like this and this in his talk page). While I do understand the mistrust in IP users, I have seen a number that have contributed positively to Wikipedia and there was no need to rush to conclusions.

Now, the AfD discussion has quieted down at the moment. However, all of these interactions I have seen tell me that Nishidani needs, at the very least, a behavior check. Let it be known that this is my first rodeo at ANI, so forgive me if I did anything wrong. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyrus the Penner: You should strike your own assumption of bad faith in Example text "I/P", when Nishidani used it in that context, clearly referred to "Israel/Palestine" and not "Internet Protocol". The latter group (anons or IP editors -- no one calls them "I/P editors") are actually not allowed edit articles related to Israel/Palestine, so there isn't even any overlap. What you did above isn't really even a failure to actively assume good faith -- you went out of your way to interpret Nishidani's words in an unintuitive manner (the I/P area, which I would advise anyone not to get sucked into, is a good training ground; many passing editors have no knowledge of this practice in the I/P area. to make a point about how disruptive you want the community to think he is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I didn't know there was actually a difference between "IP" and "I/P". I've always been aware of "IP" and have never seen "I/P" being used before. So when I saw Nishidani use "I/P", I didn't take the / into account and immediately assumed he was talking about IP users and not Israeli/Palestine articles. One really shouldn't blame me, considering I'm still learning the ropes around here. Don't assume bad faith and think I'm doing this on purpose to bolster the image that Nishidani is a disruptive user who deserves to be banned. But anyway, I have recognized my error and struck that part out. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you are free to edit articles in the I/P area without prior awareness of abbreviations like that. But you are not allowed go out of your way to assume that someone is being disruptive just because you don't understand their terminology (WP:AGF), make accusations against them without providing evidence (WP:WIAPA) or request sanctions against them based on your own flawed assumptions and accusations (WP:BATTLEGROUND). You have now apparently refused to strike your accusation despite my correcting you -- it's therefore not unreasonable for me (and everyone else) to assume that at some point Nishidani had already corrected you and you chose to ignore him.Sorry -- for whatever reason I didn't notice that Cyrus had stricken the offending text. This thread should be closed without action. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

"Well, you are free to edit articles in the I/P area without prior awareness of abbreviations like that. But you are not allowed go out of your way to assume that someone is being disruptive just because you don't understand their terminology (WP:AGF)" I didn't initially report Nishidani for the "I/P" thing just because I couldn't understand the terminology, I reported him because I legitimately thought he meant something else when he used the terminology, so I reported what my concerns were at the time. Once again, you think I did that on purpose, but I didn't. It was a mistake based on a complete misunderstanding and I am owning up to it.

"make accusations against them without providing evidence (WP:WIAPA)" Even if it was all just a misunderstanding on my part in the end, I did provide these diffs as my "evidence". Faulty evidence based on an inherently faulty argument based on a misunderstanding, yes, but still, I did not exactly run in there blind.

"request sanctions against them based on your own flawed assumptions and accusations (WP:BATTLEGROUND)." Just because one assumption was flawed doesn't mean the rest were. Clearly I posted an adequate-enough argument if other users have pitched in and voiced similar concerns and remarks about Nishidani in this thread (Greg, for one; and Shrike, Sir Joseph, and Debresser).

"You have now apparently refused to strike your accusation despite my correcting you -- it's therefore not unreasonable for me (and everyone else) to assume that at some point Nishidani had already corrected you and you chose to ignore him." "Sorry -- for whatever reason I didn't notice that Cyrus had stricken the offending text." Now WHO'S the one assuming bad faith?!

"This thread should be closed without action." Tell that to Greg and Shrike and Sir Joseph and Debresser.

Cyrus the Penner (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't initially report Nishidani for the "I/P" thing just because I couldn't understand the terminology, I reported him because I legitimately thought he meant something else when he used the terminology, so I reported what my concerns were at the time. Once again, you think I did that on purpose, but I didn't. It was a mistake based on a complete misunderstanding and I am owning up to it. (1) Stop shouting. It really hurts your case that other people are "uncivil" when you can't help but try to shout down people who disagree with you. (2) I don't think you legitimately thought he meant that, as no careful reading of the comments you linked to would leave you with the impression that he was talking about IP editors. "the I/P area" looks like a topic area, not a group of editors, in those comments. Either you were deliberately misrepresenting his comments, and are now lying to cover your tracks, or (and this actually worse) you reported him on ANI for some comments he made that you had only skimmed without making the slightest effort to understand. (3) Even if you did legitimately believe it, once I corrected you you should have retracted your whole comment and agreed that this thread should be closed, as most editors who made a good-faith mistake would.

Example text As I demonstrated further down, those diffs do not remotely approach personal attacks, and it is clear that you took them out of context. And if you now agree that those too were "faulty evidence based on an inherently faulty argument based on a misunderstanding", you should retract everything and just move on with your life. There are articles to write.

Just because one assumption was flawed doesn't mean the rest were Wait, did you just admit that this whole ANI thread is based on your assumptions rather than an actual problem? "the rest" implies that they fall under the same category as the "assumption" mentioned in the previous clause. Clearly I posted an adequate-enough argument if other users have pitched in and voiced similar concerns and remarks about Nishidani in this thread Those editors all have their own bones to pick with Nish. They either have his page on their watchlist or, like E.M.Gregory, you pinged them in order to tip the scales in your favour. Greg, for one; and Shrike, Sir Joseph, and Debresser If you haven't read WP:CANVASS, you really need to.

Now WHO'S the one assuming bad faith?! Please stop shouting, and please refraining from attacking other editors for their own good-faith mistakes that they retracted and apologized for more than an hour earlier. You made (what you claim were) a series of flawed assumptions and attacked another editor based on said assumptions, and even when corrected by someone else have doubled down and only struck out part of the offending text and continue your attacks. I made a legitimate mistake, realized my own mistake almost immediately, retracted it, and apologized. These are not the same thing.

Tell that to Greg and Shrike and Sir Joseph and Debresser. Again, you are cherry-picking a group of editors who seem to have piled on to this thread because they have Nish's talk page on their watchlists (and one you canvassed yourself). None of them are ANI regulars: Shrike has only posted in four ANI threads since summer 2014, including this, one other about Nishidani, one about himself, and one started by himself about another editor in the I/P area; Debresser similarly only seems to post to ANI when his name is mentioned or something I/P-related shows up; the exception is Sir Joseph, who has chimed in on a bunch of random ANI threads (though only one in the last two weeks), but I am 99% certain the latter is a Nish talk-page-stalker anyway because of this. I, on the other hand, am a regular ANI-junkie and happened across this thread by accident; Nish is an old comrade of mine, but I actually don't have his talk page on my watchlist (I would have chimed in sooner if I did). And you left out AusLondonder and Sam Walton, who both agree with me that there's no administrative action required here. Actually, though, I am beginning to doubt whether "no action" is the proper result -- now that you have (repeatedly) refused to retract your opening statement, which you admit was based on flawed assumptions and your own failure to understand what constitutes a personal attack, I am beginning to think that a WP:BOOMERANG, or at least a very, very heavy WP:TROUT might be in order.

This thread should be closed with no action against anyone but the OP, and the OP should be issued a strong warning about making accusations without evidence, and going out of his way to assume the worst when someone writes something he doesn't understand.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

"Nish is an old comrade of mine": Ah, so no wonder you're so quick to jump to his defense! So I guess you two are coordinating to discredit me and Greg and all the others, huh?! But this witch hunt isn't going to work. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You are very clearly assuming bad faith, and going out of your way to do so. As I explained above, I don't have his talk page on my watchlist so I can "jump to his defense!" -- I don't have it on my watchlist at all. I'm a regular ANI contributor, and my sig (which includes the characters やや and so is easily identifiable and searchable) currently appears four times in the most recent ANI archive (951), 0 times in 950 (I was avoiding drahma for personal reasons), 70 times in the (uncollapsed) 949, 11 times in 948, 21 times in 947, twice in 946, 35 times in 945, 42 times in 944 (excluding the one, most recent, thread in which I was specifically involved, which is collapsed so excluding it from the search is quite easy), 20 times in 943, and 8 times in 942 (the first of 2017). I clearly don't have Nish's talk page on my watchlist so I can "jump to his defense!", as if I was into that I would have done so before you opened this discussion. This is not true for the other users who claim they agree with you -- the only one who regularly contributes to ANI threads that don't involve him is Sir Joseph, who hasn't done so recently, and I presented pretty clear evidence that he does have Nish's talk page on his watchlist. (I didn't check E.M.Gregory's edit history, but I didn't need to -- he could have shown up because he is stalking Nishidani, but there's no need to verify that because you directly notified him of this discussion.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I notified E.M.Gregory of the discussion because he was the target of Nishidani's accusations and I didn't like the way Nishidani was treating him. He didn't have to respond, but clearly he's been more than happy to pitch in. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No. For one thing, you're initial complaint was about how you claimed Nishidani was treating you and various unspecified IP editors much more than about E.M.Gregory, and you didn't notify any of those IP editors. But moreso, if he was the target of Nishidani's accusations and I didn't like the way Nishidani was treating him were the reason, you wouldn't be continually notifying him over and over again in your responses to me. I don't know E.M.Gregory from Adam. It's clear you are continually pinging him (and several other users further up) because you want him to chime in and start helping you attack everyone who disagrees with your assessment. The problem is, most of them are smarter than to do that. They saw an open ANI thread with Nishidani's name plastered all over it and decided it was safe to badmouth him, but they're not going to start going after me, Kingsindian, AusLondoner and Sam Walton as you have been doing. In future, if you really are acting in good faith and your constant pings to users on your "side" of this discussion are not deliberate canvassing, you should use Template:Noping (as I did just now) or just don't link their usernames at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"For one thing, you're initial complaint was about how you claimed Nishidani was treating you and various unspecified IP editors much more than about E.M.Gregory, and you didn't notify any of those IP editors." Nope. I have mentioned E.M.Gregory from the get-go. Read the first paragraph, he's prominently mentioned there. Also, I thought we were clear about this: there was no issue with IP editors in the first place because I misunderstood Nishidani's usage of "I/P". Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory, Nishidani, and I have both participated in the linked AfD discussion about 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing, with Greg and I voting to keep and Nishidani voting to delete. [...] What really gets me is that in the third diff, Nishidani immediately assumes Greg created the Jerusalem terrorist attack article, when in reality he did not. You kind of book-end the first paragraph with brief mentions of E.M.Gregory, but this clearly was not your primary motivation for opening this ANI thread, as if that were the case you would have done so when that happened. You were motivated to open this ANI thread because, after you templated his talk page, he responded annoyedly. You closed your OP comment with your actual reason for opening it: However, all of these interactions [including the fabricated "IP" nonsense] I have seen tell me that Nishidani needs, at the very least, a behavior check (emphasis added). If E.M.Gregory thought that Nishidani's "bad faith accusations" against him (for which you didn't provide any diffs, mind) were worth an ANI thread, he could have done it himself. (BTW, E.M.Gregory did write the article. Before his first edit, the page looked like this and had been live for less than six hours; after his first string of almost uninterrupted edits, it looked like this.) Essentially, you opened this ANI thread because you don't like Nishidani, and selectively pinged one of the contributors to the AFD who happened to be on your side. Everyone here except you, the editor you canvassed, and some other Nish-stalkers with a grudge against him, think this thread should be closed with no action, and yet you continue to insist that other editors have "agreed with you" in your baseless accusations that you made without evidence, and have been using their "agreement" as justification for your refusal to retract them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's ok to ask people to cool down, but your warnings may not be taken kindly; it's a good idea to leave people alone if they ask you to. Reduces irritation all around. All the people involved are very experienced editors with thousands of edits to their name. EMG can respond to Nishidani if they want to themselves (and they have). Discussion in this area tends to become heated sometimes, but overall, the discussion is focused on the facts of the matter. I have left a short comment on the AfD page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, judging by what's been said and done on the AfD, is that this isn't the first time something like this has happened. But it seems like, specifically for this incident, Greg has been the one to stay calm and collected during discussions (as best as he can, I can presume), while Nishidani's been the one to lose his cool and make all of these seemingly baseless accusations. Whatever the larger situation is, I think it should be addressed. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Why not try engaging with the issues raised? Sure, tell Nishidani that he is very rude if you like, but while doing that, why not think about what he wrote and, assuming you don't like it, try to argue against his view. The article is 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing which concerns a knife attack by a lone Palestinian on a train a week ago (one student killed, and two others "including a pregnant woman" injured). By the way, if you are going to assert that someone has made personal attacks, it would be best to provide a diff and a short explanation of the problem. The diffs in this report do not go anywhere near showing attacks. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have. Also, I understand that I gave Nishidani a couple of PA warnings. But at the time I posted this, I have decided to reconsider my stance on that, hence my current label of his "comments that indicate 'a strong failure to assume good faith and also seem borderline-personal attacks.'" Cyrus the Penner (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, the ARBPIA area is that bad? You think those two diffs show you engaging with the issues! OMG. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have also been following the AfD and reading what is being said closely. Otherwise I'd be saying some really outlandish stuff. I don't think I'm required to be fully committed to discussing things out. If I see a problem, I'm obligated to report it, right? Cyrus the Penner (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• And you are entitled to be treated with respect and courtesy by administrators and by fellow editors, who should always AGF, especially when dealing with new and new-ish editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Nishdani assumes a WP:BATTLEGROUND stance that makes him deaf. Here: [64], he appears not able to see that my argument is that the ongoing coverage generated by a trial produces/increases notability. Here [65] he accuses me of "specializ(ing) in these silly articles" by which I assume he refers to articles on such terrorist attacks as the Palm Sunday church bombings that I have created. Here [66] he states "E.M. Gregory starts these articles instantaneously using breaking news." as though that was a crime. I do, often, start articles on incidents such as the 2015 Abha mosque bombing and 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing when it is clear that a breaking news story is of a nature that will sustain an article. To me, this seem like routine action to take. But here here [67] he attacks me with the slur on my editing that I regularly created article on terrorist attacks that are rapidly deleted. This is simply untrue, and my request [68] that he check the facts was ignored, although he has returned to the page to comment on a separate issues since.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• I can't see that any administrator action is necessary here. That said, Nishidani, please consider how your messages will be received before you send them; bringing up editor's article creation history and otherwise belittling their contributions is not helpful at discussions unrelated to those concerns. And Cyrus the Penner, you'll have more luck explaining your concerns about this kind of behaviour in the future if you don't template the regulars. Let's all take deep breaths and move on; nothing here warrants administrator intervention in my eyes. Sam Walton (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Its not the fist time that Nishadani was warned for his personal attacks and casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors .Maybe enough with the warnings and take some action?--Shrike (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I've seen the interactions and cannot see any need for administrative actions here. E.M.Gregory, the target of some allegedly adverse comments, is an editor who themselves can often be rather spirited and curt in the course of passionate disagreements relating to terrorism and Israel/Palestine articles. Nevertheless both E.M.Gregory and Nishidani have important contributions to make and this isn't big enough for ANI. So time to move on I think. AusLondonder (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, may I ask why a deletion discussion was set to the 500-edit threshold? I looked in the history of the discussion but found no incidents of vandalism or abuse, so are all deletion discussions in this topic area protected by default? ValarianB (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 did it, I have no idea why. L3X1 (distant write) 15:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I asked on their talk page. ValarianB (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

ValarianB he was following the Arbcom agreement that no editor or IP with 500 edits or less can edit anything related to the Israel-Palestine conflict.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

So many labyrinths to navigate but I think i found the pertinent part at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 ? If so, is even posting in this discussion a transgression? If so, my apologies. ValarianB (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if IAR mixes well wil ArbCom, but I'm pretty sure posting on AN/I doesn't break the spirit of the rules. L3X1 (distant write) 17:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@ValarianB and L3X1: Per WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition, which I've alluded to in a couple of my earlier comments, I/P-related noticeboard discussions, including presumably AFD, are closed to non-extendedconfirmed editors. Even if IAR allowed exceptions to this, specifically unbanning new editors from an AFD discussion (when AFDs are historically prone to off-site canvassing and bad-faith actions by the COI editors who wrote the articles) seems really unlikely. @TheGracefulSlick: Technically, your use of "anything" is not entirely accurate. They are apparently allowed edit article talk pages, but not the articles themselves, or noticeboard discussions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously take with a grain of salt, but Nishidani has been warned many times that his behavior and comments can be unacceptable. As was pointed out earlier, there were a few AE actions where this was mentioned. If nothing comes of this, I would at the very least request a "Final warning" to Nishidani to stop being uncivil and condescending to other editors. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• I have complained many times to Nishidani about his denigrating language towards his opponents, me included. I have complained about it publicly several times as well on various forums uncluding WP:ARBPIA. Years ago there existed a procedure on Wikipedia called "User Review", and many times I have felt that this would have been the ideal procedure to put some checks on Nishidani. Putting down other editors, insulting their intelligence, and questioning their capabilities and qualifications, is not the way to win an argument, and makes for a very unpleasant atmosphere, which is not conductive for dispute resolving, productive editing or minimizing conflicts. Unfortunately, Nishidani engages in all of these habitually. Based on years of experience with Nishidani, I feel that even though his contributions are valuable, there is more value in banning this editor from the - already complicated and heated - area of WP:ARBPIA, than in allowing him to conduct his behavior unbridled. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Really? That's quite interesting. Would you mind providing diffs of your reports so I know what exactly you're referencing? Cyrus the Penner (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Nish has a sharp tongue at times, but in my interactions with him he has shown an almost superhuman amount of patience and tolerance toward what most others would consider the grossest of WP:IDHT and WP:GAME behaviour. So when someone comes along and says, essentially, "Nishidani was rude to me", I am inclined to assume good faith on Nishidani's part. So yeah, I'm inclined to agree that there's no admin action required here. Also (this is probably unrelated, but Cyrus should read and understand our policies on vandalism and edit-warring. Unambiguous vandalism can be reverted more than three times in one 24-hour period, but on 2017 shooting of Paris police officers he reverted IP edits that may or may not have been bad (they were unsourced and removed possibly unnecessary square-brackets from a quotation) four times in the space of 27 minutes. (I noticed this because Cyrus is a fairly new user, and Nishidani generally edits articles new editors are not allowed edit, so I checked what articles Cyrus was editing, and while he doesn't seem to have violated any ArbCom restrictions, I noticed that 83.6% of his edits are to the mainspace, which in my experience is a sign of an edit warrior, so I "Ctrl+F"ed his contribs for "undid".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I looked a bit more closely.

• This is not a personal attack by any stretch. It's a statement of fact that for every Palestinian=>Israeli attack there are multiple incidents that go the other way. To say that Nishidani was lying that editors on his side of the fence don't imitate the behaviour of "pro-Israeli" editors, one would need evidence of him (or other "pro-Palestinian" editors) creating such articles. There is no failure to assume good faith for the same reason -- if anything Cyrus is the one failing to assume good faith, and should provide some proper evidence.
• This is not a personal attack. If it were a strawman argument that would be one thing, but E.M.Gregory did literally say that because a newspaper article reports that the accused will face trial, that must make the crime notable enough to have a standalone Wikipedia article. There is also no failure to assume good faith, as he was just responding directly to the comment in question.
• Since Cyrus's accusation of "borderline personal attacks" is clearly baseless, the repeated templating of Nishidani's talk page was disruptive.
• Ditto this.
• "Condescending" or not, this was in response to a string of clearly disruptive edits Cyrus made on Nishidani's talk page. Telling someone to stop following you when they are clearly following you is the opposite of a bad-faith action, and it is not standard practice on Wikipedia to sanction editors for getting annoyed when someone harasses them just because the harasser wants us to. @Cyrus the Penner: If you have Nishidani's talk page on your watchlist, please respect his wishes and remove it.

I'll get to the rest in a bit.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That's the thing: I DON'T have his talk page on my watchlist, never did, never will. If it isn't personal attacks he's guilty of, then it's making these baseless accusations and assumptions. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, then you should read his comments (including this later one) as a somewhat gruff request to stay off his talk page, a request he is entitled to make and one which you are normally obliged to respect. See this thread further down this page. His gruffness can be easily explained by your having posted a string of "warnings" about "personal attacks" that weren't personal attacks on his page. WP:BITE is an essay you might want to cite when justifying your actions with I'm still learning the ropes around here, but WP:TEMPLAR is a just-as-widely-respected essay that you definitely should read. It's really annoying for experienced editors when new editors (who shouldn't even be editing those articles, honestly) show up and start haranguing them about policies they don't understand. And "don't understand" is me being generous and assuming your inexperience actually is responsible for your not knowing what a personal attack is. Now that I have told you that you are incorrect, inexperience is no longer a valid excuse, as even new editors are expected to listen when they are corrected. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

"Well, then you should read his comments as a somewhat gruff request to stay off his talk page, a request he is entitled to make and one which you are normally obliged to respect." Well, there's no harm in asking nicely. How do I, or anyone else, expect to collaborate with fellow editors like him if they're just going to lose their cool?

"See this thread further down this page" For your information, I did not write down all of that; I copy-and-pasted this template. So yeah, he just dissed the writing style of a Wikipedia template, not my own. I'm going to honor his request and stay off his talk page, but you (or someone else) should probably tell him that because that's just another example of him making a baseless accusation.

"His gruffness can be easily explained by your having posted a string of "warnings" about "personal attacks" that weren't personal attacks on his page." Well, he should've explained me that to me in the first place. Nicely too.

"It's really annoying for experienced editors when new editors (who shouldn't even be editing those articles, honestly) show up and start haranguing them about policies they don't understand." Most points taken, but...what the heck are you getting at with the bolded text? Last I checked, Wikipedia is edited collaboratively and nothing is hands-off for anyone (not at first, that is).

Cyrus the Penner (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's no harm in asking nicely. How do I, or anyone else, expect to collaborate with fellow editors like him if they're just going to lose their cool? Again, when I first posted in this thread I was working under the assumption that Nishidani had been provoked, since I know from experience that he has a frustratingly long temper. Further inspection revealed that you had provoked him (you posted a string of bogus "warnings" on his talk page based on your own flawed understanding of what constitutes a "personal attack"). You then revealed that actually you are much more likely to use your cool than Nishidani (the shouting above).

For your information, I did not write down all of that; I copy-and-pasted this template. So yeah, he just dissed the writing style of a Wikipedia template, not my own. No, he was almost certainly well aware that you used the template. He was joking about how ironic it is that you would use a template that so clearly reflected different sentiments to yours. I'm going to honor his request and stay off his talk page, but you (or someone else) should probably tell him that because that's just another example of him making a baseless accusation. You realize that by continuing to actively request sanctions for him based on nothing, you are likely to earn yourself a WP:BOOMERANG, right? Your claiming that you intend to honour his request to stay off his page is pretty pointless in light of this.

Well, he should've explained me that to me in the first place. Nicely too. No. You came onto his page and started lecturing him about what a bad widdle boy he is. Blame the wording of the templates (which are meant for new users anyway) if you like, but that excuse will not get you very far. He is under no obligation to continue to be "nice" to you on his own talk page when you treat him like that.

what the heck are you getting at with the bolded text? Last I checked, Wikipedia is edited collaboratively and nothing is hands-off for anyone (not at first, that is). New editors are not allowed edit articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, per this 2015 decision by the Arbitration Committee. We have had a bunch of instances of editors trying to game the system by quickly racking up 500 edits (self-reverting in their own user-space, for example) and then waiting a month before jumping into articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict. You don't seem to be one of those editors (my looking through your edit history indicates you like articles on recent crimes, particularly murders, and happened across this AFD by accident), but you are still a new user, and new users, even extended-confirmed ones, should be editing cautiously, and humbly, when in the I/P area. You clearly have not, or else this thread would never have started. In fact, you made thirteen edits in December and then disappeared for three months, so you really only meet the ARBPIA3GP cutoff due to a technicality -- if you had registered your account at the same time as you started actively editing, your account would still be only three weeks old.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a right to edit whatever I want. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No, you don't. You do not have a "right" to edit anything on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation grants you, at its own discretion, permission to edit a lot of pages on English Wikipedia. But even if we take your use of "right" figuratively, you are still wrong. There are a bunch of things on English Wikipedia (not going to go into other Wikimedia projects) that no editors are generally taken as being free to edit (other users' user pages, for example) and pages that it's generally seen as poor taste for any random editor to edit (talk pages of long-banned users, for example). Brand new accounts are generally banned from contributing to AFDs and the like because they were almost certainly canvassed off-site. There are also a hell of a lot of articles that new editors (IP editors and accounts with fewer than ten edits and four days since they were registered) are not allowed edit, and even some that there is a much higher bar (500 edits and at least a month since the account was registered) to pass before one is allowed edit them. The article in question (and the accompanying AFD) are in this latter group. You technically pass the bar, but only technically. You have more than 1,000 edits to your name and your account is over four months old, but of those 1,000+ edits, all but thirteen were made within the last three weeks. Editors who are only allowed contribute to an AFD because of a technicality should not be complaining about alleged violations of policy by other editors.

And by the way, I am now 100% certain your templating of Nish's talk page was done in bad faith and not merited, since you did the same thing to me for my participation in this ANI thread. "Welcome" messages from people who claim to be new users still learning the ropes are incredibly annoying for editors who have been here for more than a decade. Please stop doing this.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That's messed up, dude. I thought Wikipedia was a place for everyone to edit and share knowledge. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Nishdani has previously accused me of violating WP rules, here [69], at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Jerusalem shooting attack, he accuses me of "ongoing defiance of policy, E. M. Gregory's attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ethnic exclusive version of Yad Vashem." I honestly do not know what policy I was accused of violating. I had created an article about a terrorist shooting attack in which 6 people were wounded and 2 killed on the day the attack happened, as is usual in terrorist attacks with multiple deaths, and had returned to source and expand it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Here [70] is an administrator closing an AfD on an article I created about a 1936 anti-Jewish riot in Mandatory Palestine: "The result was keep. After discounting the "delete" opinions by Ijon Tichy and Nishidany because they are mostly personal attacks, nobody except the nominator supports deletion."E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

For Nishidani's PA that Greg mentioned, it's here. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is this still going on? There's absolutely nothing in the diffs presented in the original post. People are reduced to dredging up all sort of nonsense from months ago. Please either sanction Nishidani, or close this with no action. Also, please don't amend some vague closing statement in the latter case, otherwise people will use it to try to justify some nonsense complaint in the future, just as Shrike cited the AE report half a year ago. No action was taken, but a vague closing statement asking "all sides to chill" was appended in that case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I suggest closing with a general admonition based on the following advice at WP:NPOV?

'Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.'

I have always taken this practically to mean that in editing or writing articles on areas where conflict between two parties or states is described, editors are under an obligation to paraphrase sources in such a way that all due information regarding the respective POVs is reproduced. To take snippets from sources, while ignoring anything that makes the picture look more complex, is not acceptable, yet is repeatedly done. Editors whose record is one of making edits only in favour of one POV should be reminded that we are obliged to cover all sides. Bolter21, for the 'Israeli angle', consistently does this, and his example is generally ignored by many of the plaintiffs here.

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process.

There is far too much reverting on spurious grounds, without talk page justification, as opposed to waffle, and rarely do you see someone honouring the general rule to rephrase what you think tilted to bias.

A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia.

They're not permitted, but are endemic in this area. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Nishdani here makes a more formal version of his familiar demand that attacks: shootings, stabbings, car rammings, bombings - terrorism-related or merely criminal be forbidden. Instead, such attacks (he calls them "POV forks") should be covered only as part of a list. This would require deletion of yesterday's 2017 shooting of Paris police officers as a "POV fork... not permitted in Wikipedia."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No, Nishidani is arguing that people like you who create articles only on one side of the conflict should not be allowed to get away with it, because it a violation of NPOV. Here's a very simple example, taking the start of the 1936-39 Arab revolt in Palestine. You created articles on the 1936 Anabta shooting and The_Bloody_Day_in_Jaffa (where Jews were killed), but for some strange reason ignored the intervening incident when the Irgun killed two Arabs in retaliation. A more blatant example of POV forking can scarcely be imagined. There are dozens of such examples. I think Nishidani's hope is forlorn, myself. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, dear. In that case we must eliminate George Washington's tent, which I created as a POV fork of the Museum of the American Revolution; China: Through the Looking Glass, which I created as a POV fork of Metropolitan Museum of Art; The First Monday in May, which certainly is a POV fork of China: Through the Looking Glass (worse: I have never created an article about a Tibet or Uyghur exhibit at the Met. We will also need to delete Jacob and his twelve sons, a blatant POV fork of Francisco de Zurbarán, and George Washington, George Washington is a clear POV fork of American Revolution as evidenced by the fact that it was created by an editor who has never created an article on George III. We need to find that editor and ban him from editing any articles about the British Empire. sigh Now can return to rationally discussing whether Nishidani should be warned on his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude towards editors with whom he disagrees politically?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

To repeat, E.M.Gregory. I have never censored anything. I and Bolter21 from a different perspective have consistently added material regarding Palestinian attacks on Israelis for some years now. Check my record. I have written many articles on things that are of deep importance to Jewish settlers, like Joseph's Tomb, etc. I, like all editors here, do not create articles on Palestinian youths being gunned down for throwing stones, 17 cases in 2016 or of incidents of soldiers murdering a woman because she brandished a pair of scissors at them, as they stood protected by armour and a barrier some distance from her. It would be easy to ratchet up my 'article creation' figures by jumping at these weekly occurrences, to push a pro-Palestinian POV. I refrain from that temptation, as I think editors with the other POV should refrain from making articles on every single incident in which a Palestinian kills or injures a non-Palestinian. That is my reading of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS. And if editors rack up a record for creating article only on victims from one side, I am entitled to think that they are abusing wiki mainspace to promote an agenda. I'm quite sure, from the outset, that this practice will not stop, but I will continue to exercise a right to protest at what I believe is an abuse.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Please check you tendency to make grand, sweeping, patently false assertions of fact, such as the assertion that editors are "making articles on every single incident in which a Palestinian kills or injures a non-Palestinian." Nor have I accused you of "censoring" anything. And stop attempting to hijack this discussion by making up new rules. In response to your latest accusation, I write all kinds of articles, including articles about terrorist attacks in many countries. NPOV editing requires that editors stick to the facts and maintain a neutral tone, it does not require that any individual editor create or abstain from creating articles about any topic or category of topics, so long as the articles themselves are reliably sourced and written in a neutral tone.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Read closely. censor rephrases your inference from Kingsindian's point (while dodging its gravamen) that if the arguments he and I supplied are correct, 'In that case we must eliminate . .'. I did not make up new rules, I insisted the existing ones be correctly interpreted rather than wikilawyered. If, by analogy, we had an editor only writing instant articles on Black Americans involved in homicide, while ignoring incidents of homicidal whites, the deduction I make here, which is contested, would be considered fair. It's that simple. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory NPOV, in the broader sense of reducing systemic bias, also requires that the rules are applied evenly to everyone. If we interpret and apply the rules differently for editors who represent one perspective on a topic, then we would have interpreted Wikipedia's core policies in a way that is destructive to the goals of this project. In other words, if WP:NOTNEWS is interpreted as permitting articles about crimes against Jews in Israel, then articles about crimes committed against Muslims or Arabs in Israel are also allowed under the same reading of this policy. Would you support this? Sometimes if you have a bias, it is more constructive to think about what effect your reading of the rules would have on analogous cases. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory: Here's why the articles you created were POV forks. The section in the main article: origins of the 1936 Arab revolt has one sentence each, for the incident on 15 April (two Jews were killed), 16 April (two Arabs were killed), and 19th April (the disturbance spread and many Jews were killed by an Arab mob, a general strike was called and the Arab revolt began in full swing). The section also contains background from the early 1930s and gives explanations of what all sides (the Zionists, the British and the Arabs) were doing. A person who wants readers to understand the events of 1936-39, and not propagandize, needs all this information presented in context in one place. Now, you create articles on the incidents on 15 April and 19 April, strip all the context, and make the story a straightforward "Arabs killed Jews". This is so blatant that it is impossible to believe that it isn't intentional. You do this again and again, and pretend not to understand what you do.

I have concluded that it's a waste of time trying to stop you, because many of these AfDs end up "no consensus" based on a "party line vote"; and the articles are kept. Congratulations on finding a loophole and exploiting it to the max. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

regardless, the issue here is not about content. It's about Nishidani violating 5p. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how those would constitute POV forks. I think Greg's just trying his best to inform readers about the violence Arabs have committed against Jews. There's really nothing in there that would benefit the information. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

In 12 years of editing, I have made, as a last resort, 2 cases at AN/I or AE against abusive editors, despite the huge number of POV pushers there. At the same time, I have been brought to these boards dozens of times, mostly by editors who then later get banned, not least because they jump at frivolous stuff to try and get me off the I/P area, and engage in a lot of dubious behavior, like sockpuppetry. Many here pushing for my exclusion on these trivial grounds should ask themselves why they keep reporting me, and I don't retaliate. I believe it is because I don't think we're here to play games. Editing is a serious science, not a POV playground. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be asking yourself why people tend to report you. There's clearly a cause for that if not one, not two, but four or five different users agree that you're being unnecessarily aggressive. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyrus, the reason people report Nishidani is because they are belligerent. Nishidani's point is that he, by contrast, is extremely tolerant and patient. Sometimes frustratingly so. User:Curly Turkey and User:CurtisNaito can attest to that. The latter engaged in a war of attrition on numerous talk pages over several years that wore my patience thin fairly quickly to the point where I gave up and moved on, while Nish kept arguing, but it never occurred to him to open an ANI thread, while the former opened an ANI thread after only about a month of it, which is pretty standard. And in fact when Nish opposed Curly's ANI solution on one occasion based solely on the principle that, essentially, "banning editors sucks", which was extremely frustrating for the rest of us, but which also proves pretty conclusively that one cannot doubt Nishidani's patience, tolerance and willing to assume good faith to the bitterest end. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've had no previous interaction with any of the principals but it's hard to miss this discussion. There's no question that some of the comments made on that page are over the top. One I found offensive: someone said "stick a knife in this" (a reference to the article). But there's a lot of heat in this general area and I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. All involved and particularly Nishidani should be cautioned to assume good faith (no matter how much that principle is observed in the breach). Full disclosure: I just !voted to "merge" with the rail article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The knife comment was mine, and I got it after seeing someone else make an identical remark on an AfD discussion on 2017 Paris machete attack, which I thought would be appropriate to use in the Light Rail stabbing as well. But I apologize if you were offended. That was never my intention. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wait -- really? Black humour on Wikipedia is generally tolerated, but those commentsyour comment makes light of an incidents where peoplesomeone recently (!) lost their liveslife by being stabbed. That's pretty grotesque. Don't do that again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Will be sending a warning to the user who made the first comment. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop templating the regulars, as you have been told by several users multiple times in this discussion, and stop trying to blame other users for your own poor taste and lack of judgement. If you actually template @Lugnuts: as you are threatening to do, you should be blocked to prevent further disruption of this kind, as you are clearly trying to be antagonistic at this point. By the way -- I was being polite (and admitting my own ignorance of recent stabbings in Europe) by implying that my comment was not directly aimed at you and solely you. I had not looked at the article or AFD you mentioned, and didn't even no that there were no fatalities. It's still a black, and arguably poor-taste, joke, but not the kind that should necessarily be censured. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL?! He made the comment first and I followed because I thought it was funny and wanted to use it, but then you told me it was a very inappropriate comment to make. Shouldn't it be fair that he be informed of how inappropriate it was to say that too? I was not doing this just to be trolly, I was doing it to be fair because I shouldn't get flak for doing something that had already been done by someone else without any sort of admonition or other response. By the way, I did not template him; I wrote the entire warning myself.

"I had not looked at the article or AFD you mentioned, and didn't even no that there were no fatalities." Someone was injured by being stabbed, though, which does still make Lugnuts' comment inappropriate. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the only section of this thread that seems unresolved. Do editors want admins/the community to do anything? If so, what? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• It now appears that I was the target of User:Cyrus the Penner, an angry troll/sockpuppet who flung an accusation at Nishidani in an attempt to provoke me into saying something that would get me banned from the project. I suppose I am guilty of WP:AGF. My thanks to the editor who ran the user check and uncovered the nasty sockpuppet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyrus the Penner's behavior

The preceding was thread started because Cyrus the Penner jumped into the deep end of the pool before he knew how to swim. (Gee, I didn't understand the difference between I/P and an IP address.) Directly above, he congratulates himself for giving an experienced editor a warning for a comment made at an AfD more than two months ago.

Yesterday, I tagged a sentence at 2017 shooting of Paris police officers, asking for clarification because the sentence makes no sense: "[French President François Hollande] later released a statement saying French authorities were 'convinced' the shooting was a suspected terrorist attack." Either one is convinced, or one suspects terrorism, but one cannot be convinced of a suspected terrorist attack. Cyrus the Penner removed my tag, writing "That's what the source says." Doubly false. There were two sources at the end of the sentence, and neither one said that. When I asked him about it, he dissembled and finally removed my questions from his talk page without an explanation or an edit summary. He has zero credibility in my view.

I recommend other editors scrutinize his contributions to Wikipedia, as I intend to, to ensure that there are no other ridiculous instances of original research or just plain foolishness. I recommend an administrator close both the preceding thread and this one, or consider a boomerang against Cyrus the Penner for initiating and continuing a silly and baseless complaint out of his own foolishness. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting what Cyrus the Penner just wrote on E.M.Gregory's talk page: "The coordinated effort to discredit us over at ANI is astounding, mind-boggling really. I never knew people on Wikipedia are capable of going out of their way to shut us truthful users down just because we are disseminating information they don't want us to disseminate to the public." Here we have an explicit serious personal attack against everyone at ANI who disagrees with Cyrus or Gregory. Yet Cyrus came here to accuse others of personal attacks! As well as a personal attack, the statement has the "we are on a mission to spread the truth" aspect which marks Cyrus as exactly the sort of editor that Wikipedia doesn't need. A boomerang is strongly called for here. I propose an indef. Zero^talk 06:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, LOL. It's true, though; E.M.Gregory, me, and like-minded users get loads of trash and our voices are always silenced because we have differing views on how Wikipedia should present Islamic terrorism to an audience. They just banned a friend of mine all because he was trying to create an article about Islam-related terrorist attacks. Apparently, the mainstream thing to do in Wikipedia when it comes to Islamic terrorism is delay categorizing attacks as such, citing stuff like WP:BLPCRIME, even though MULTIPLE media reports have consistently mentioned the perpetrators' sympathies towards radical Islamism and Islamic terrorist organizations. You should see 2017 Stockholm attack; it's CRYSTAL-CLEAR it was an Islamic terrorist attack, yet no one is allowed to use the I-word in there. Certain editors have even gone as far as removing WP:RS like The New York Times, claiming that Swedish government sources are more reliable than that. Wikiwashing truly is a serious problem and it needs to be addressed ASAP. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you sincerely believe that's why User:LeoHsn was blocked? For creating that article? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, someone might like to check (I don't know how)the use of the unusual term 'wikiwashing', which I distinctly remember being used by a former banned I/P editor (I can't remember which, they are legion).Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hardly an unusual term, I'd think. Anmccaff (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: It's not a term I've ever seen before, and I had the same thought as Nishidani.

@Nishidani: I did a tiny bit of sleuthing, and the user you are thinking of is almost definitely either Bachcell (talk · contribs) (who used the term on the AFD that led to this discussion but does not appear to have been banned at any point) or Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs) (who was banned for a month, then later topic-banned and blocked indefinitely, before both restrictions were lifted by the same admin who imposed them, and used the term several times in the reports that led to his bans). However, it's also possible that rather than being malicious sockpuppetry, Cyrus saw the term being used by Bachcell in the AFD and decided to borrow it. Given the "knife" incident with Lugnuts, this actually seems like the more likely scenario to me at this point. I might do a bit more sleuthing though, as if either of these users exhibited other Cyrus characteristics or fitted the profile of a sockmaster, my opinion might change. All that said, the Kamel incident was fairly recent, and Bachcell used the term last week, so your not remembering it might imply that you were thinking of someone else from long ago.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That is extremely acute, and indeed a prop for this failing memory. Yes, it was Kamal Tebaast I was thinking of. The bumptious style is also similar. But these things are somewhat subjective. I must admit I go by a hunch for style and tone, and, from the outset of CtP's badgering me, I felt I was dealing with a sock. But I just asked him to stay off my page, since I, as usual, have no evidence but instinctive impressions. It may be a coincidence, as you say, in any case. Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

...and then I read Kamel's user page. While he was using the term on AE last summer, he posted a definition on his user page in Decembe, and explicitly claimed he had coined it on an AFD in July. He also complained, in the same edit, about POV-forks from the violent incidents list getting deleted and post that he was "semi-retiring". Except for two edits in March, the Kamel account has been inactive since then. The Cyrus account was created four days after Kamel's retirement.[71] This duck is quacking like crazy. I'm posting this to SPI to see if there are sleepers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that scholar Mayo Fuster Morell independently coined the term some years earlier, with a completely different definition.[72] This actually argues in favour of the accounts being related, as there is one term that is used in the real world, and one that was coined by Kamel on-wiki, and Bachcell and Cyrus have followed the latter. Not posting this to the SPI, as I suspect the SPI clerks and especially CUs might see it as off-topic rambling. Just putting it on the record that I am aware of it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Note also that the article that sparked this discussion was started by a SPA [73].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you implying that ThePagesWriter is also a sock of Bachcell/Kamel? That seems unlikely since, if Nish and I are right, he was extremely careful not to violate ARBPIA3 under the Cyrus account, so creating an account with the intention of immediately violating it seems like a stupid move. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyrus the Penner: I'd like an answer to EvergreenFir's question, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• So ... is the OP going to be blocked? He has now essentially admitted to being here to spread the "truth" about "Islamic terrorism", even admitting to discussing it with his off-wiki friend LeoHsn (talk · contribs) (They just banned a friend of mine all because he was trying to create [an article that was created by LeoHsn] per this tag dating from the days when the page was live, for those who like me can't see the deleted edit history -- I'm not sure if Cyrus thought this information would be hard to find). The fact that no one else is talking about "Islamic terrorism" (even Nishidani and Kingsindian are talking about false equivalence and POV forks) makes it pretty clear that this is really about Cyrus. Now, if Cyrus's accusations about E.M.Gregory, both here and on the latter's talk page, being similarly motivated by things other than the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia are accurate, I believe this thread should remain open until that is also investigated (Nish, do you have any evidence, like links to the previous POVFORK-production you appeared to allude to?), but blocking Cyrus seems like a no-brainer at this point. (Note that User:Curly Turkey expressed a similar sentiment on my talk page as I was typing this -- pinging him in case he wants to formalize that in the form of a !vote; I don't think anyone would say he was canvassed, given that his first involvement here was as my talk page stalker who saw Cyrus trolling me on my talk page.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Looked a bit deeper at the on-wiki relationship between the two. Cyrus has been complaining about "censorship" for at least the last several weeks.[74][75][76][77][78][79] He has also been making some pretty grotesque islamophobic comments.[80][81][82][83] He even got called out by a bunch of editors for using an article talk page as a soapbox for his anti-Muslim rhetoric. And I found out that he directly canvassed E.M.Gregory on the latter's talk page (not just a ping) and was almost certainly aware of what I/P meant since Gregory used it in converstation with him and he responded, meaning he was deliberately misrepresenting the facts above and only backtracked when I caught him out.[84][85][86] The deeper one goes down this rabbit hole, the worse it gets. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't feel right "formalizing" things without going thoroughly through the diffs, etc., but it should be clear at this point that Cyrus is WP:NOTHERE for anything but anti-Islamic POV pushing. And I think this is enough Israel—Palestine for me for 2017 ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, me too honestly. I just saw a familiar name show up on ANI for the first time in a while. I might be able to get some article editing in over GW, thankfully. Work's just been pretty hectic lately, so reading and contributing to the drahma boards -- which apparently includes RSN now (!?) so that I can't really be blamed for picking ANI -- is a lot easier than researching Chinese poetry at the moment. But yeah, Nish was probably right when he warned me away from I/P a few months back. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What on Earth is going on? Please don't block anyone. This complaint was silly (overreaction over a trivial or nonexistent matter) and a boomerang would be silly. The longer this ANI complaint runs, the sillier it becomes. Please just put this thing out of its misery. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Didn't you see the "religion of peace" diffs? And the censorship ones? Yes, this whole ANI thread was bogus, but the OP knew that before he opened it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I did; someone told Cyrus that Wikipedia is not a forum or soapbox, and the discussion was hatted. That advice can be repeated if necessary. There wasn't any disruption to the encyclopedia (unless one counts this ANI thread). An indef is too harsh. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri-san. I appreciate all that work - I never check backgrounds and the diffs are quite illuminating. However, the problem with the I/P area is that it sucks the life out of editors by drawing them into endless ANI/AE dueling, and the best way for admins to handle this is simply to suffocate nonsensical reports and tell people to desist from frivolous vexations. That's enough, though admittedly the repetition of these AfDs over what exactly WP:NOTNEWS allows and disallows points to a serious issue. Though I dislike the terms, 'Pro-Palestinian' editors don't make these articles, but simply list them in an incidents page (though the kill ratios are still around several Palestinians for any Israeli killed in either outright terrorism or IDF/police gunnings), in a few lines. 'Pro-Israeli' editors make endless attempts to get an independent page for any incident involving Palestinian violence. The whole issue requires some administrative oversight or clarification.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I am finding that myself just briefly scanning it (I did start looking through Gregory's article count). I also don't like the terms "pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Israeli", which is why I put them in scare-quotes further up. Setting aside that, when applied to Wikipedia editors, the terms are inappropriate, since everyone is supposed to be assuming that everyone else is here to build an NPOV encyclopedia, it's not even accurate in real-world discourse, since "pro-Israel" invariably means "pro keeping Israel in a state of unending war and instability", and also tends to include reprehensible antisemites with ... "interesting" views about Judaism and what will happen to Jews during the end-times. (Please note that I'm not talking about Martin Luther King. I don't know MLK's views on Judaism. I think that image is grossly out of place where it is. I really hate having to clarify this, but we're all treading on tiger's tails here so I assume I'll be forgiven for being cautious.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

By 'pro-Palestinian' of course I mean editors who are attentive to the WP:Systemic bias consequent on the fact that no Palestinians are active in this specific area, and in lieu, some folks have to make sure that NPOV balance is maintained. It's true that, merely doing this means one is endlessly accused of being anti-Semitic, or anti-Israel, but one gets used to (yawn) that kind of limp-brained smearing cliché, to the point of ignoring it as petty.Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

After going through a bunch of diffs and the editor's contribs, I don't think a block is warranted. The issue seems to be the user's strong POV on Islam and terrorism. But Cyrus seems to be constructive in other areas, and a block would remove a constructive editor. We can attempt to address the disruption with a t-ban, which will allow the editor to remain active and contribute positively in other ares. This seems like the most balanced solution given the editor's behaviors and tenure on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is a very sensible suggestion. While I've always felt that Kingsindian has an excellent record for providing us with very sensible advice, doing nothing would ignore the points raised by equally neutral editors like Malik Shabazz and Zero. This is not a place for crusading.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef block for Cyrus the Penner (WITHDRAWN)

Per all the nonsense above, it's clear that the OP is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and he's wasted a hell of a lot my energy and that of others already. He has been deliberately trolling, posting "warnings" on talk pages despite multiple user telling him to stop, using article talk pages as forums for general anti-Muslim babbling, canvassing, making very serious accusations of bad behaviour and repeatedly refusing to provide evidence, twisting peoples' words... There is clearly no good that can come of him continuing to edit here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, this is going nowhere, especially considering the overwhelming support for the alternative proposal below. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. See my comment above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, however the fellow needs a stern warning per WP:Boomerang. This trivial nonsense has caused a lot of editors to waste time.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not seeing sufficient reason for this. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

...but honestly, it looks like Coretheapple is posting these comments without looking at any of the diffs. Remember, their first comment placed particular blame on Nishidani, despite the fact that comment they found particularly disruptive was written by Cyrus. See also the post-withdrawal commentary in the subthread immediately below this one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I said "someone" had said "put a knife in it." I didn't say it was Nishidani. I didn't care to personalize the discussion further. I wish you guys would drop the ad hominems and get a grip in general. Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, but a ban from terrorism and Islam related topics would be palatable and appropriate imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I am with EvergreenFir on this one. A ban is quite justified. GAB^gab 17:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Some kind of BOOMERANG for E.M.Gregory (WITHDRAWN)

As the original proposer of this bogus ANI thread[87] and someone who has apparently been engaged in no shortage of disruptive POV-forking himself (I am trusting Nishidani's word on this, admittedly), I don't think it would be right for this thread to get closed with the one who opened this ANI thread on the direction getting indeffed and the one who egged him on not getting some kind of sanction. If no one else has, I might consider going through the 301 articles he boasts of on his user page, and see what percentage of them are POV-forks on random cherry-picked instances of anti-Israeli violence by Palestinians.

Gregory, though, has been here for a while and I am not comfortable saying unequivocally that he is NOTHERE, so I don't know if an indef would be appropriate. What does the floor think? TBAN from "terrorism and actions that have been described as terrorism, broadly construed"?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I can see this is going nowhere. Two opposes before there was even a concrete proposal to oppose, both from users without a vested interest in preemptively shooting down any proposal, must be some kind of record. I'm gonna let the other one run, though, since it got a bunch of direct and/or implied "support"s before I formally proposed it, and if it's still on the table I'm in the "support" camp (I think the NOTHERE evidence is too compelling, and I don't agree with Kingsindian's "the only serious disruption was this ANI thread" argument -- the unending "warnings" say otherwise, as does the "I'm not here!" shouting from the rooftops both here and on E.M.Gregory's talk page). If Malik, Zero and CT all U-turn and it turns out the proposal doesn't have a snowball's chance I'll accept that, but I don't want to unilaterally "withdraw" something that other users have already supported. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. See my comment above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. While E.M. Gregory, as the diffs show, and as this (Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis) ridiculous stub confirms, appears to be on a mission to write articles about every incident where Palestinians have killed people, while staying mum about any incident involving Israeli violence, his numerous articles consistently get some backing from other editors in AfDs, which means he is under the impression that long discussion has not set forth clear guidelines which would deny him the liberty to continue writing such things. As long as the rules allow the kind of equivocation over Notability he can't be punished for what he does.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• I hope editors will take a look at Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis, a solidly sourced article on a notable murder. Nishidani has a bad habit of making grand, sweeping, unsupported assertions. A couple of days ago he asserted that he remembered that "quite a few... of the of the articles you have written on this topic have been deleted after AfDs."[88] This is untrue. It is untrue because while I do start articles on terrorist killings of Israelis, I do this only when a particular killing appears seems notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Frankly I don't see the point of this entire discussion and suggest that it be closed. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The point of the entire discussion was to get me banned on zero evidence. While I oppose drastic sanctions, I think frivolous baiting, open bragging about running an Islam-as-violent agenda, and vexatious use of ANI merits some consideration by the closing admin. We do have warnings.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It kinda seems over the top to block someone over the fact that some articles he creates are unnotable. Blocking him may lead to another possible boomerang on the blocking admin. —JJBers 00:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Two month ban for Cyrus the Penner from Islam and terrorism-related topics

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

---

Proposal: Cyrus the Penner is banned from making edits related to the topics of Islam or terrorism, broadly construed, for two months.

Reason: Cyrus the Penner has

1. expressed a desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about Islam ([89], [90]) and casting any disagreement as "censorship" or "suppression" ([91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]),
2. demonstrated a strong POV to the point of apparent inability to edit neutrally (including comments demonstrating a disdain for Islam) ([98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103]),
3. an apparent lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policy against original research vis-a-vis Islam and terrorism ([104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]), and
4. has engaged in interpersonal disputes due to that POV ([110], [111], see discussion above)

Comments: Cyrus the Penner seems to have a general issue with immigrants ([112], [113]) but the majority of this disruption seems to stem from Islam-related topics. As Cyrus the Penner is an otherwise constructive editor on other topics, it seems to me to be in the best interest of the project to ban Cyrus the Penner from the topic of Islam while allowing them to continue their constructive contributions in other areas. The length of the ban is intentionally short, given the user's relative newness to the project. The hope is that the time will allow Cyrus the Penner to gain more experience editing on the project, demonstrate "hereness", and learn how to manage strong opinions and emotions on a contentious topic. This short topic ban will (1) prevent further disruption while (2) assuming good faith that the editor will improve and (3) allowing for further building of this encyclopedia by an otherwise constructive editor. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Definitely seems necessary given the above diffs and discussion, and a better option by far than an indef. GAB^gab 20:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I dont support an indef, but I am in serious doubt if Cyrus the Penner has the ... "temperament" (for lack of a better word) for editing in the I/P area. I would support a one year ban from the I/P area. If that is not on the table, then I would support this remedy...as an absolute minimum, Huldra (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support EvergreenFir's proposal. A mild suggestion, considering the disruption. But let's try it, and hope indeed, as EvergreenFir says, that Cyrus will use the two months to demonstrate "hereness" on other subjects. Mind you, if similar behaviour recurs after the two months are up, we should be looking at a lengthy block. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC).
• Support EvergreenFir's proposal, and, in addition, I would also support a two-month ban from the Israel/Palestine area. This will give Cyrus an opportunity to contribute productively to many other areas/ articles that need improvement while working collaboratively with other users with whom he may sometimes disagree on various issues, and let him gain greater and deeper familiarity not only with the letter, but more importantly the spirit and intent, of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ijon Tichy (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@IjonTichyIjonTichy: to me, the Israel-Palestine dispute would fall under the "Islam broadly construed" part of the tban as the dispute is rooted in issues of religion. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support A two month ban from Islam and terrorism related articles seems reasonable. As seen in the diffs I have previously noticed and challenged Cyrus the Penner's battleground behaviour relating to Islam. Their attitude to Wikipedia is wrong; hopefully they will learn from the ban to change that attitude. AusLondonder (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Bishonen. I hope that, if disruption continues after two months (or, indeed, continues immediately in an unrelated topic area), I don't have to be the one to open the ANI thread. Remember, Cyrus is also a serial canvasser, and has a bunch of editors who "like him" and showed up in this discussion to support him just because they don't like Nishidani, and refused to recognize that this complaint was bogus. I can definitely see Cyrus pinging a whole bunch of "anti-Palestinian" editors to request that they show up and ruin any further ANI complaints about him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't even know any so-called "anti-Palestinian editors" on here, so why the hell would I try and ping any over here. It's clear that even if I knew anyone who'd spring up to my defense, you and all the others would find a way to snuff them out, just like you've done with my friend and God knows how many others. I might as well rename myself as "Wikiwashing Warrior" because all of this is definite proof of coordinated suppression. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I should correct some things. Cyrus did not canvass anyone. Cyrus only talked with EMG before coming here, because the interaction in question was towards EMG, and Cyrus didn't know where to file a complaint. They did not canvass the other editors. EMG correctly told Cyrus that ANI is the venue for complaints. Unfortunately, Cyrus was not warned of what really goes on at ANI. Since this is Cyrus's first time, they should have been warned that ANI is a shark tank, and a WP:BOOMERANG is a possibility. If they had come to me for advice, I would have told them to drop the matter, or at least read the essay WP:ANI advice. This is why I am reluctant for any sanctions being applied, because I know how new-ish editors typically fare at ANI. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a fair point and is part of the reason I am proposing a rather short tban. Unfortunately, what's been said at, and as a result of, this ANI is already said. However, Cyrus's behavior was an issue before this ANI and given that past and present behavior, the tban seem the most reasonable option to me. The goal is to retain an otherwise constructive editor while addressing the root of the problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian and EvergreenFir: My earlier "canvassing" comments were before I saw the discussion on Gregory's talk page. If this report had been a spontaneous, unilateral action by Cyrus (as it appeared to be if taken on its face), the selective pinging of E.M.Gregory would have been canvassing. But even knowing that E.M.Gregory was the one who originally suggested coming to ANI, Cyrus's repeated pinging of Sir Joseph et al. in his responses to me was ... weird, if it wasn't meant to get them to show up and back him up. Ditto for the "Hey, they're trying to ban me" comments on E.M.Gregory's talk page -- even if not technically canvassing because the latter user was already aware of this thread, it was definitely inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And the root of the problem would be wikiwashing. Forever a warrior against wikiwashing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus the Penner (talk • contribs) 07:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support It should probably be longer, but this may act as a deterrent against future problems. – The Bounder (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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

I've gone ahead and blocked Cyrus the Penner for 24 hours for being in breach of the topic ban, noting that future blocks will be dramatically more lengthy. El_C 10:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyrus was indeffed by Bbb23 as a check user confirmed sock of DisuseKid. See this SPI EvergreenFir (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Woah. Didn't see that coming. I mean, I guess a joe-job designed to bring down E.M.Gregory makes a little sense, given the repeated attempts to drag "Greg" into a lost-cause ANI discussion and the refusal to formally withdraw it despite admitting that it was a lost cause, but the repeated pings of Sir Joseph et al. meant he was essentially canvassing users to !vote against a proposition he was secretly hoping would pass? I agree with Gregory that at times this discussion did look very much like a set-up, but it's still super-weird.

I'm not gonna lose any sleep trying to figure out what DK's long game was, mind you. This thread should be closed as resolved at this point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 remove talk page access

The following discussion is closed. 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 remove talk page access from Shyam Mehta (talk · contribs), who is continuing to threaten violence. I emailed "emergency" yesterday, so WMF are already aware. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Several legal threats

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

---

In Correct has made several legal threats, here, here, and in the edit summary here. --bonadea contributions talk 05:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Widr (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Sunuwar/Sunar

The following discussion is closed. 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 isn't a major editwar or incident but I'd like some input. Murder of Maina Sunuwar is an article about the death of a girl in Nepal. Most sources call her Sunuwar but Dskoich keeps changing/moving the article and Talk to Sunar, claiming that's the right spelling. I've made a redirect from Sunar to Sunuwar to solve that but he appears to insist on Sunar, even changing the name in URLs and reference titles (thus breaking links). I've tried to explain things to him on my Talk but it doesn't seem to do any good. Can somebody take a look at this, give an opinion, etcetera? I'm a bit at a loss. Yintan  08:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Move protected--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Binksternet

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

---

This user seems to be undermining several productive edits including my own edits. I first encountered this user when I was editing an article about music group Mary Jane Girls. When I edited the page on April 18, 2017‎, I updated it with new information.[114] However on April 22, he removed the information with the explanation of "The Mary Jane Girls ended in 1987. Any current assemblage is not officially the Mary Jane Girls, just one or more former members singing together."[115] I reversed the edit [116] and opened a discussion on the article's talk page to discuss the edits to prevent future edit war. I also went further to add back the information with addition sources (not the best, but still reliable) to support my constructive edits.[117] Once again, he removed this [118] and summed up the edit summary as "adding bits about trademark and touring groups", but that's not really true.

As of today (April 24, 2017), he has followed my contribution history and decided to spill over onto my recent edits on the article Kym Mazelle, removing her occupation as an actress even though it is well-source (secondary sources) about her acting career. Furthermore, he also broke 3-RR when he reverted 3 times (within 24 hours) on this page's history. At the very least, I think this user's edits should be looked in too because it contains a lot of revisions. Horizonlove (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You are in a content dispute. That is best addressed on the talk pages of the article(s). If you hadn't seen it before a good practice to follow is Bold, Revert, Discuss. In this case, you were bold, Binksternet reverted, then the discussion phase should have started instead of more reverting. He hasn't broken WP:3RR as that requires more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, though there is still the possibility that it is edit warring. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 17:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that corroborate your additions? If not, then you shouldn't add it. This is a content dispute and you should follow dispute resolution. It appears that you are both edit warring.--Darth Mike^(talk) 17:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Darth Mike: On the Kym Mazelle page, that is 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Horizonlove (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period."--Darth Mike^(talk) 18:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

In any case, the part about Kym Mazelle being an actress was well-sourced and he removed that. I also gathered a source about Mary Jane Girls as s/he requested but he removed that as well. This user seems to be content on doing things their way instead of talking about. Horizonlove (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a content dispute and you need to use the article talk page. There is nothing to do here. Discussion on the article talk page and all else failing dispute resolution. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 18:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Where is Kym Mazelle being an actress well sourced? I checked every reference on that page and came up with zero hits for the word "actress". Also, Facebook isn't a reliable source. I think you need to read WP:RS and WP:V, becuase it seems like you're having trouble with sources. I'll be happy to answer any questions elsewhere. This is a content dispute. --Darth Mike^(talk) 18:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Darth Mike: Kym Mazelle#Filmography

@GB fan: I'm fully aware of that, but I was trying to satisfy Binksternet. But there was another source that reviewed the group and had stated who the member were in that group. Horizonlove (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by an IP 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.

---

It's couched in pure foolishness, but even so, I got this message from User:86.178.66.231: [119]. Largoplazo (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a real legal threat, but IP blocked 72h for vandalism and harassment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Jayabalan.joseph

The following discussion is closed. 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 already been blocked for disruptive edits and being warned not to make personal attacks, Jayabalan.joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now compared Robert McClenon to a senior SS commander. The user is clearly not hear to do anything other than attempt to promote himself and his work, so can I suggest that his block is extended and talk page access is revoked to prevent further personal attacks? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that could just be a cultural misinterpretation. The discussion seems to be progressing quite nicely on their talk, Cordless Larry? Doesn't seem to be much to do here, that's all. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the discussion seems to be meeting with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. All the editor seems to want to do is publish and promote his PhD thesis here. Not sure how many ways we can explain that we don't publish original research. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how someone who has a PhD from a German university comparing editors to Nazis can be considered a "cultural misinterpretation". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

...and even if they were somehow unaware that comparisons with the SS are inappropriate, they had previously be warned that that was the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried to communicate with him about what needed to be done to his draft. He didn't listen, although perhaps his English is inadequate to support discussion. Their complaint against me appears to be that I told him to stop posting lengthy complaints to my talk page. After he continued posting to my talk page, I hatted the complaints and warned him. I didn't support the MFD to delete the draft, but I cannot condone the deletion of the MFD tag on the draft; they may not know much English, but they apparently know Wikipedia well enough to know that deleting a tag is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

NeilN has blocked this account for 72 for disruptive editing. I think that this is the appropriate action for now. If disruption continues, we can consider action from there. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not think Jayabalan.joseph is Getting It. When their block expires they're free to advocate against the draft's deletion but if they use the Tearoom or community noticeboards to essentially lobby for a "peer review" of their thesis again then I will look into blocking them once more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ban

My patience has been exhausted by this editor. I recommend a Site Ban for self-serving disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that considering a site ban is much too soon in this situation and for this user :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Editor has just indefinitely blocked by Someguy1221. Editor served his first block and was advised by NeilN to focus more on being WP:HERE than WP:NOTHERE. However, editor decided to continue to pursue the latter with posts like User talk:Jayabalan.joseph#It would be better for Wiki to merge with either Google or FB. and User talk:Jayabalan.joseph#FYI: I have requested for a Review and Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis#Request for Reviews (2nd)..... Although I think there's potential for this person to contribute positively in some way, even if its just copy editing type of stuff, I don't think will happen as long as they continue to not listen to what the community has been telling them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, I didn't even realize this was being discussed here. To me it's pretty clear Jayabalan is not interested in collaborating to build an encyclopedia, he's interested in promoting his thesis. One month and 600 edits later, that's literally all he has done. On top of that, anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, stupid, dangerous, a censor, or a Nazi. This is definitely the wrong website for him. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

The user KJFS, who states they are a US presidential candidate, has made what seems to me to be a legal threat [here, stating "It would probably be best that I not have to take this issue to the Article III branch and the FEC for them to address; it is my unsolicted advisory opinion to wikipedia, as someone who studied constitutional law under some of the best at Claremont, that you should probably let me have a page, to protect free elections and prevent electioneering." (article III being the judicial branch in the US) and "just trying to mitigate the potential for international incident and litigation in clear (yet opaque, as always) legal jargon." I've reported them to AIV (as they also only seem interested in promoting themselves) but I thought I should here as well. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:NLT. If/when he states in unambiguous terms that he's not going to take legal action, anyone can unblock. Katie^talk 12:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I would respectfully submit that any unblock request would need to address their desire to use Wikipedia to promote themselves as a presidential candidate as well; in the post I link to above they essentially state that they feel they have every right to use Wikipedia for their electioneering activities. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

"in order to protect the U.S. Constitution, I have to ask you to please allow me to keep this page". That's just about the silliest deletion contest I've ever read. I mean, come on, that's just nonsense. Yintan  12:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I blocked for the legal threats. If another admin believes the silliness will stop, that's on them. :-) Katie^talk 14:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, I've declined the WP:G11 speedy nomination at Draft:Kelan John Farrell-Smith, as it only applies to "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION" (emphasis in original), and I really don't see that at all - it's actually written in a straightforward encyclopedic tone, I'd say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Legal threats are not cool. User is correctly blocked. Have tagged the article with "COI". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

• At first I misread that last link as Daft:Kelan John Farrell-Smith. Does fit, though, when you read the article. EEng 21:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog

The following discussion is closed. 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:Jytdog is trying to own the discussion at Talk:Jews. The "votes" section is not for threaded discussion. In addition, I removed my own comment, and User:Jytdog is trying to restore it against my will. In the background is the fact that my opposition to his proposal is the only thing that can stop it from being accepted, so he is doing anything he can, including posting lies and misunderstandings, to detract from my vote. He has been doing so ever since the beginning of the discussion. In his latest edit he also removed a comment of mine in the discussion![120] Debresser (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not what you did. What you did, was this, deleting my reply and changing what you wrote. Your edit note even acknowledges what you were doing: "Some hothead just couldn't wait". Once you have saved your comment and someone has replied, you cannot delete the response and then change your comment without redaction. This is Wikipedia 101 stuff per WP:TPG. iIf you want to change what you wrote after someone has replied, you need to WP:REDACT. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect, because there should be no threaded discussion in the "votes" section. Simple as that. In addition, my comment was indeed not final and you should have waited more than 2 minutes![121][122] Especially since I changed my opinion considerably in your favor. No need to be a hothead and reply to everybody who disagrees with you. You don't WP:OWN that article or talkpage! You have been dragging us from one section to the other, to an Rfc, to other sections, and now a second Rfc after you yourself closed the first one. You are trying to own this talkpage and thereby stifle all opposition. It is about time somebody stop you. I recognize a WP:TE edit pattern when I see it. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Some RfCs have comments in the !votes, and some don't.

But you cannot change your own comments after I responded, nor remove mine.

You have just done it again. I will let that stand.

But this thread should produce a solid boomerang against you. So disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, whatever they say here. In any case, you also restored a comment of mine that was not replied to by anybody, and removed a comment of mine from the discussion section. Those two things are not connected to WP:REDACT and surely make my point of the WP:OWN and WP:TE issues with you here (and elsewhere). Debresser (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

He's right, Debresser. You need to use strikeout—you can't touch his comment, at all. *** Although I encouraged the listing of this RfC, I see the contested passage/notion remains outstanding. We may need to sharpen consensus with another RfC just for that, once this one is concluded. El_C 23:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict. Because that hothead just had to reply to my post within 2 minutes. That is how he makes people ignore all opposition, my turning it into endless walls of unending argument.

In any case, you are wrong. Once the Rfc is divided into a "votes" and "discussion" section, there can be no threaded discussion in the "votes" section. He can move his comment to the "discussion" section if he wants to. Also note that he restored a comment of mine that was not replied to by anybody, and removed a comment of mine from the discussion section. Why do you have nothing to say about that? Your behavior as a so-called "impartial" admin has been in Jytdog's favor for too long, and it stops here and now. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Rfc, I don't follow you. Why would we need a third (!) Rfc, if the issue can be discussed in this one? Debresser (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion is not prohibited in the vote section of an RfC, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. *** Yes, a third RfC. Because this 2nd RfC (1st one being premature) is about a lot more than just the contested passage/notion—and for clarity, I, for one, would like others to discuss and, hopefully, arrive at consensus about just the contested bit. El_C 23:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically, there ought to be three steps: 1. Find out what you both agree on. 2. Find out what you disagree on. 3. List an RfC on #2. El_C 23:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I came to that conclusion based on experience with Rfc's.

Completely agree. But that should be done in one Rfc. Just like I did in my reply. I simply voted to agree with all changes, but one. There is no way to first agree with this version, and then say "oh, you all agreed, but now let's discuss just this one sentence again". Nobody is going to take that serious. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't start discussing content here; we can discuss other RfCs on the article talk page.

Debresser's behavior here at the article talk page is disruptive. I am not going to fight to restore my comments and notes making sense of them in light of Debresser's subsequent changes, but Debresser cannot keep on deleting other people's comments and changing their own, after they have been replied to. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC) (redact to clarify. See how that is done? Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

How is a WP:ANI post disruptive? Apart from disrupting your plans to dominate the article, the talkpage and the Rfc, of course? :) Debresser (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this ANI report has served its purpose. If you both could take anything from it, let it be my three steps for DR. El_C 00:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, please remove that denigrating comment "See how that is done?" from your last post.[123] It is precisely this type of comment that makes you such a detested editor. El_C, didn't you promise to insist Jytdog follows decorum? Debresser (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was unnecessary. I think the stress of this dispute is getting to both of you and, perhaps, you should both take a breather for a few hours. Myself, I'm gonna watch Elementary, so will be unavailable for the next 45 minutes. El_C 00:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Two RfC I participated in recently Indicscript in infoboxes, which I authored, and Gender neutral language, both have threaded discussions in the vote section. El_C 00:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

And did those Rfc's also allow editors restoring a comment that the posting editor removed (even though it has not been commented on)? And did it allow an editor to remove another editor's comment completely? Why do you continue to pretend as though those things didn't happen here? Debresser (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It would have been better to indicate it with a diff, yes. You both should approach each other more gently, like gentlemen. El_C 00:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I've now seen diffs now of both Jytdog and Debresser each deleting each other's talk page comments in ways the other person expressed they didn't want. Please don't do this. If it continues I will be supporting an IBan. -Obsidi (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Again, what kicked this off, is that Debresser did this, deleting my reply pointing out that his !vote made no sense, and changing what he wrote so that it made sense. (this is really terrible behavior)

My initial response was only this, simply restoring my comment.

Debresser then again deleted my comment.

I acknowledge that I just then started reverting them; I should have come here then instead. That was wrong of me and i see how folks could shrug.

The talk page still does not include my comments and includes only their unredacted changes to their own comments. (which is fine, i gave up on that; it is fine that his vote makes sense now, after all)

But this is not a parity thing. Nobody can change other people's comments this way, and change their own comments after others have responded. This is not how WP works and not how things should end up. But whatever, this is dramah by now. Debresser should get a sharp rebuke, i should get a trout, and this should be closed. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog's ArbCom warning: further sanctions discussion

Given the issues involved here, it is worth noting that among other sanctions, Jytdog has been warned by ArbCom regarding his civility within the past 18 months. The quote: Jytdog warned 9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case. Since I notice Jytdog also deleted a warning from David Tornheim for disruptive editing from his (Jytdog's) talk page today, I suggest the community discuss, in spite of Jytdog's sudden desire to close with a trout for his self-admitted questionable editing, if in fact he is indeed disruptive and uncivil in spite of his formal ArbCom admonishment. Full disclosure: Jytdog named me as a party to the aforementioned ArbCom case in patent retaliation for my statement to ArbCom, an act that was never explained or mentioned further. Jusdafax 01:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Since when is deleting a warning from the other side in a content dispute uncivil? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, I was about to say that...huh. —JJBers 01:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to overstep, but is blanking a page twice a content dispute? (I don't want to get overly involved, because I created the page that was blanked.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It was not blanked. It was redirected pending the outcome of a discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OK Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The OP is nonsense. Did you look at the diffs presented by Jytdog at 01:19, 24 April 2017, just above your subsection? Jytdog is being extremely self-deprecating to suggest he deserves a trout—he actually deserves a barnstar for patiently trying to have the issues discussed at Talk:Jews while others are deflecting, ducking, and using abusive edit summaries (as shown in the diffs). Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree, the OP is nonsense. I don't know Debresser, but his repeated implications here and on his own page that it was really Jytdog's fault that he, Debresser, changed his comment after it was responded to because Jytdog had responded too quickly, show him in a poor light and a battlefield mode. (Edit summary: "Some hothead just couldn't wait", "You should wait a second to let people finish", "my comment was indeed not final and you should have waited more than 2 minutes!... "No need to be a hothead and reply to everybody who disagrees with you.".) The idea seems to be that Jytdog ought to have foreseen, or mind-read, that Debresser "hadn't finished" his own comment and would want to change it. Debresser's violent over-reaction to Jytdog's "See how that is done?" above is startling too: Jytdog has actually demonstrated strikeout, and is pointing out, perhaps a little superciliously, that it can be seen in the wikicode for his comment, and Debresser replies "It is precisely this type of comment that makes you such a detested editor". My italics — really nice. It makes Jusdafax's focus on Jytdog's civility look very one-eyed. Debresser, it would be better to cool down a little and consider the strength of your arguments before coming to ANI. In this case, I don't see the need to come here at all. Bishonen | talk 02:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC).

Debresser, now you know to never modify another editor's comment because threaded discussion in RfC vote section is allowed. And all submissions are final—use preview if you're unsure. The detested comment was not civil, speaking of decorum, even if the strikeout demonstration from Jytdog's was unnecessary (I already demonstrated that beforehand). This entire encounter is superfluous to the content. Debresser was wrong on the policy and on the edit warring—Jytdog was wrong on the edit warring. I suggest that you both just move on from this distraction. And let this be closed, with lessons learned. El_C 03:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Very nice to close this without allowing me the courtesy to reply to the many comments added after I went to sleep and to work the next morning. So here I go. 1. For unfathomable reasons, all admins completely ignore Jytdog's edit[124] which did two things that are completely not allowed. In view of that edit, I see no reason why I should be reprimanded more than Jytdog. 2. Bishonen ignores that as an 8-year editor (!), almost 9 now, I know how to use the strike tags, and have used them on many occasions, so Jytdog's comment as though he needs to show me how that is done was extremely rude. And extremely denigrating. But okay, I am used by now to WP:ANI ignoring facts like those, and the civility warnings Jytdog received. Debresser (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

After the detested comment, you ought to have left this report closed, Debresser. Choosing to reopen it was a mistake. El_C 22:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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

2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing: sourcing and edit warring

The following discussion is closed. 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 the third ANI discussion about this article (and related AfD and so on). I and some others have tried to keep the article neutral and factual, but some editors edit war to include clearly unreliable sources to slant the article in one direction. Attempts to discuss this (article talk page, user talk pages) seem fruitless.

The latest episode in all this is an edit war by User:E.M.Gregory to keep an opinion piece and some tabloid trash into the article as sources for factual statements. At first this included the Daily Mail, but referencing the Daily Mail RfC stopped this. Now it is The Sun, The Daily Express, and an opinion piece[125]. The opinion piece and the Daily Mail article were first added by E.M. Gregory (opinion piece here). I reverted[126], but Gregory reverted me claiming that the Daily Mail and an opinion piece made this reliably sourced material. The Daily Mail was then removed by E.M.Gregory, but the opinion piece was removed again by another editor, after which Gregory again reinserted it here while again claiming that it is a reliable source.

This follows earlier edit wars with Gregory (e.g. here) where he insisted on keeping rather incorrect links, categories and templates in the article (e.g. about "mass stabbings" and "attacks against Israelis", when it was a stabbing of one person who wasn't an Israeli). They were warned then that the page is under 1RR as an ARBPIA article, which they were probably aware already). They have now again reverted the article twice in less than an hour.

Some admin action, to enforce ARBPIA sanctions and to keep the article neutral and factual, with quality sourcing, is requested. Fram (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I would simply open an AE case. It seems a fairly straightforward case of violation of 1RR. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yup. But the likely result of an AE case is 'short block at which time editor goes back to same editing pattern'. There is clear evidence (if you look at the previous reports) of a deliberate and long-standing POV-issue with certain editors editing in the area. And that is not something AE really deals with well, except tangentally when they topic ban instead of block. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Until you consider that the essay was by Itamar Marcus and published in the Times of Israel, that it was written in NPOV voice and that it was deleted without discussion during a tense AfD process largely based on an assertion that this attack was a single-news cycle event with no ongoing coverage. Removing this material during an intensely controversial AfD process that has been framed as an argument that all terrorist attacks in Israel/Jerusalem/Palestinian Territories should be added to lists rather than kept as stand-alone articles (contrary to our treatment of similar attacks in other parts of the world) can be viewed as an attempt to conceal ongoing coverage from editors assessing notability at AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• That said, I admit that I lost my cool and reverted too hastily, forgetting to discuss the deletion first on the talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• AE Case filed: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#E.M.Gregory, but like Only in Death says, a more fundamental discussion (and more eyes on the article) may be needed. Fram (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This ANI incident can be closed, it is superseded by AE discussion opened by editor Fram. Offhand, this and that seem like shopping around and creating/expanding unnecessary drama, beyond AFD which goes on anyhow. There was disagreement about whether content was sourced or not, which needs not to be discussed anywhere besides Talk page of article. Enough already. --doncram 16:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Creuzbourg on User talk:Dapi89

The following discussion is closed. 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 non-admin added something to my talk page. I removed it as is my prerogative. This individual insists on re-adding it. Could someone please block him from my talk page. Dapi89 (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could just tell him that you're allowed to do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're sure that will work. Past dealings would disagree. In any case, I leave it to you. Dapi89 (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If that's the rules, I will not do it again.Creuzbourg (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I always forget where to actually find the rule, but after a little research, it appears this is at WP:OWNTALK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Creuzbourg on User talk:Dapi89

The following discussion is closed. 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 non-admin added something to my talk page. I removed it as is my prerogative. This individual insists on re-adding it. Could someone please block him from my talk page. Dapi89 (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could just tell him that you're allowed to do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're sure that will work. Past dealings would disagree. In any case, I leave it to you. Dapi89 (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If that's the rules, I will not do it again.Creuzbourg (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I always forget where to actually find the rule, but after a little research, it appears this is at WP:OWNTALK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Gianluigi02 - Persistent addition of unsourced/improperly sourced material

• Gianluigi02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 is a mess of WP:OR and failed WP:V. In 99% of cases, the source provides does not explicitly call the even terrorism.

One editor, Gianluigi02, has a history of adding incidents to terrorism related lists where the sources do not support inclusion. Examples: [127], [128], [129], [130]. This user has racked up multiple final warnings regarding this behavior, most recently on April 2. Given that it's not "obvious vandalism", ANI seemed to be the appropriate forum to bring up this disruptive behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how the first three aren't terrorist attacks. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources do not label them as terrorist attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Left a custom final warning [131] instead of a template. If they ignore, ping me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you EvergreenFir (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

GTVM92

GTVM92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been previously blocked for "persistent addition of unsourced content" three times, has recently started a new wave of his unconstructive edits:

1. In this edit, the user has fabricated the results of separate approval pollings for the candidates and presented them combined as an opinion poll for voting. He also brought 22% voting for "others", out of nowhere. I checked the source and added the genuine results in this edit.
2. Here he adds three sources for his own original research. This source does not mention any reason for disqualification of Ahmnadinejad, but is used as a reference for the reason "possibly for the opened legal file at the court". This source was used to verify disqualification of several candidates while they are not mentioned in the source at all, and the reason "due to age".
3. This edit is a total hoax. The sources cited do not mention any party conventions held. This one is for example an interview with Hossein Marashi. You can ask a Persian language native editor to verify what I'm saying.

   When you remove all the section, said "What's this? Fictional party convention held in your own fantasy?", but you know that Popular Front of Islamic Revolution Forces and Islamic Coalition Party are held conventions for selecting candidates, as you add to their article. Reformists are also do soo, just not helding congress but selecting candidates with votes. This is one of the examples that you are removing many things that are correct and occured in Iran, just not a good source I found for them because many news in Iran are said just in telegram and other apps. GTVM92 (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

   @GTVM92: It's kinda hard to prove something, at least on Wikipedia, without source. If you can find reliable sources for the information, that's fine. —JJBers 16:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

   @GTVM92: Why don't you confess that you made up the Council for Coordinating the Reforms Front party convention? I assume you can easily read Persian and see that ICP did not held any convention, per the source you gave. I can't also figure out the difference between "Not nominated", "Failed" or "Eliminated" in the "rainbow of colour table" you made for a plurality-at-large voting of an umbrella organization (The real results are here). Pahlevun (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

1. In this edit, the source provided does not even mention radio programs. It does not mention time dedicated to each candidate, airing dates or channels airing programms. And yes, this is also a hoax because I cannot find any source citing such information, even in native Persian!

—Pahlevun (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a disruptive account from looking at the contributions. User is most likely WP:NOTHERE, and hasn't bothered to respond to the talkpage, or the ANI. —JJBers 14:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Updated at 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

copyright problems?

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – issue is at commons.Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/010-XXXX-XXXX

I hate to do this, because the content the user is uploading is quite useful buuuuut... I really doubt they own the copyrights to these images, or at least not most of them. It might just be a case of a user not knowing how to use the site. I know this is linking to Wikimedia, but the user is hosting there and then putting on Wikipedia. I just thought I should bring it up with admins. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This absolutely should be brought up with admins.... at Commons, where the uploads are occurring. Correct page is here. User has no edits to en.wp in nearly a year. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Damaging behavior (edit summaries/article content) at euphoria

Hello administrators and fellow editors. The following concerns actions by user:Seppi333 at euphoria.

Reading these edit summaries [132] I ask, why should I be involved with Wikipedia?

• please use refs that don't suck ass to rewrite this section. otherwise, delete it
• is probably the dumbest statement I have ever read in my life. ... stop citing 'shit refs'
• this is what happens when you don't use a drug monograph like https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search2/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@rn+58-08-2 - you get retarded contradictions

This language is hurtful in itself and humiliating to me when seen by other editors. Technically focusing on content, it is a clever way of being obnoxiously insulting. Now Seppi333 is an asset to Wikipedia; he is a learned first rate editor and I, a very human one; but regardless of the validity of his contentions no one should be treated this way. I resist urges to be provoked or become resigned. Because I have been on the receiving end of f***ing (his wording) comments from Seppi333 before, I appeal to you. I don't want to interact with him.

But this isn't just about me. While this was happening he actually modified the article to read [133]: "The widely consumed stimulant caffeine is a euphoriant at higher (than typical) dosages,^{[contradictory][37][38][39]} which does not produce euphoria.^{[contradictory][40][41][42]}" Seppi333 created this intentionally absurd sentence, then made another edit, adding the dual contradictory tags in a single sentence, to make his point, without concern for confusing readers or damaging the reputation of Wikipedia. That needlessly hurts everybody.

Thank you my friends for your consideration. — βox73 (৳alk) 01:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• NPA and civil, as usual being ignored by established users who aren't afraid of boomerang. L3X1 (distant write) 02:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Box73: None of these are ad hominem (personal attacks); they're comments on the references that were cited. They're crude because I'm expressing my exasperation and annoyance at constantly having to enforce WP:MEDRS given the countless times I've pointed this policy out to you since we first started collaborating on the amphetamine article around one or two years ago. I acknowledge that my decision to write an apparently contradictory statement into the article wasn't in accordance with content policies; this was a poor decision on my part and I apologize for that. I'm not perfect, and like all humans, when I'm irritated I'm subject to petty emotional responses which I may sometimes be unable to inhibit.
I'm frankly getting fed up with constantly having to delete content and/or references in that article when you know very well what sources are and are not acceptable for citing medical claims. If you simply used reliable medical sources in the first place, disputes like this would not occur. If you continue to ignore that policy going forward, it's pretty likely that another dispute will arise in the future. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They may not be personal attacks, but the comments are highly uncivil and not appropriate on a collaborative project. There are other ways to point out sources are not adequate. Kleuske (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree on both points. I have tried other ways; they don't seem to work. In the future, I'll likely just seek assistance from other edits at WT:MED in order to deal with content/reference issues introduced by Box73 instead of engage with him directly. Subsequent to my last edit on that page, I was already planning on doing this prior to this discussion because I feel that I'm at an impasse in regard to getting him to cite reliable sources for medical statements. This course of action hopefully will reduce or prevent the potential for any issues with his or my behavior in our future interactions. This is the best solution that I can think of at the moment in regard to addressing his concerns.
All Box73 really needs to do to address my concerns is acknowledge that he will cite better references and follow through on that. As of now, he has not done so. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I've followed through on what I've stated I will do here: WT:MED#Euphoria needs more eyes. Should any future problems arise with Box73's medical content contributions, I will explain to other medical editors the issues that I see with new content on that talk page, then let those editors engage with Box73 and edit his work as they deem appropriate. If anyone has a better idea about how I should deal with Box73 in the future in order to avoid behavioral problems like this while attempting to address issues with his contributions, please let me know. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious advice that if you find yourself this worked up about something on the internet, you should step away from the keyboard before using offensive edit summaries, I'd say that if an editor is chronically incapable of or unwilling to follow MEDRS, they should be topic banned from editing medical articles. Box73, telling other editors to tag your poorly cited additions instead of removing them isn't acceptable. Poorly cited medical edits will be removed on sight. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This is outrageous. I am using MEDRS refs.

Typically Seppi333 simply deletes what he disagrees with. WP:BOLD excuses him from discussion. Challenged, he resorts to wikilawyering and threatens that reverts will be deleted. And he does. Seppi333 deleted and redeleted material I added in December. An RfC supported my addition. I didn't see one comment against.

The "suck ass" / "shit refs" edit summaries refer to the UV section I added. I used five MEDRS refs, all reviews from medical journals, the oldest from 2011. A sixth was a peer reviewed article from an industrial science journal. A seventh was published on the Skin Cancer Foundation website. While considered lesser quality sources, these were well written, well cited articles written by published medical researchers. They were used with MEDRS refs but could have been omitted without effect on the material. But Seppi333 didn't do that, he radically edited the copy and added the nasty comments, now claiming I used bad refs.

Bad refs? I didn't write the June 2014 review in Cell but his edit summary response was "Skin β-endorphin mediates addiction to ultraviolet light" is probably the dumbest statement I have ever read in my life. beta-endorphin can barely penetrate the BBB. stop citing shit refs". What part of MEDRS did I violate?

My caffeine ref was old but otherwise MEDRS. The caffeine material was added by a new editor, well intentioned but poorly cited. I found support for his edit but also let one ref stay temporarily, maybe a week. When reasonable and harmless I want to encourage new editors.

Seppi333's response is outrageous. I'm responsible for his behavior and I need to be policed? I've never had any problems with any editor except him. All I ask is for him to loosen up, use common sense, try to collaborate, look at the spirit of the law.

@Spike Wilbury: Thank you. I agree: the flags aren't a license for lousy citations. But the existence of {{medrs}} and {{medcn}} demands some intended use. What I'm saying is that Seppi333 is overstating issues and may react inappropriately. Again, thanks for commenting! — βox73 (৳alk) 10:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I addressed Seppi333's edit summaries in my comment as a separate matter. You are not responsible for their behavior. But, there's nothing wrong with noticing your own role in the conflict. The fact is that readers (stupidly) look to Wikipedia for medical advice and that's the primary reason for stringent adherence to MEDRS, same as why we are so strict about BLPs. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The references I deleted from that article are:

• – this textbook was published in 1999. This was 18 years ago. WP:MEDDATE indicates that refs that are older than 5 years are outdated (In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones). Most medical editors will allow for references to be at most 10 years old due to the fact that some topics are not as actively researched as others and to allow grandfathered references (i.e., ones that were added while still within the 5 year limit) to remain in the article; 18 years is almost double that limit. That 10 year limit is not specified in that policy, it's simply a widely adopted norm among medical editors. It is standard practice to delete medical references that are older than that, especially if they have just been added to an article (as opposed to having been added years ago).

@Seppi333:I'm sorry about that. I admitted above it is dated; I planned to fix both refs within days. (I was being sensitive to a new editor.)

• – this article is a cosmetics industry publication (see the last page); moreover, the article is not pubmed-indexed [134], so there's no indication that this article is a medical source.

Published by Tekno Scienze Publisher, Household and Personal Care Today is a peer reviewed industrial scientific journal which was a supplement to Chimica Oggi - Chemistry Today. Dr. Heckman is a [researcher] and an associate professor at Temple University working in this field. The article was well written, well cited, and the content not controversial. This ref was also posted with an MEDRS ref. The real reason I used it was that it used the term euphoria, where others simply described euphoria.

The bigger problem—and I thank you for bringing it to my attention—is β-endorphin and the BBB. Some other mechanism is required.

• – From the information page for this article on pubmed: Publication types - Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. This is not a medical review; it's a primary source.

You're right. An artifact occurred. When review is already checked and I enter [[135]] that article is listed.

• – From the information page for this article on pubmed: Publication type - Editorial. This is not a medical review; it's a low-quality primary source (the lowest quality primary sources are editorials, case report, and opinion articles).

I undertand—an editorial introduces bias. I weighed this as a position of the American Academy of Dermatology.

• – this is a website. WP:MEDRS#Other sources indicates that virtually all websites with biomedical information, with exception for only a handful listed there (e.g., WebMD, UpToDate, and eMedicine), are considered low quality sources. Even the exceptions listed in that section are stated as being sub-par sources relative to medical reviews.

I should have pulled this. Unlike Heckman it was not peer reviewed or published in any type of scientific journal. Of course MEDRS also gives credibility to some NPOs like the American Heart Association, for example.

@Box73: If you want to find high-quality medical reviews, search pubmed for them, not google. If a pubmed-indexed article is a medical review, it will list "Review" under the "Publication types" tab on the article's pubmed information page. If you didn't know this, I probably should've recognized that and informed you sooner. If you did know this, then you should know better than to cite sources like the ones above.

Thank you Seppi. I do review searches and it's certainly easy to recognize primary research (though I tripped up with the artifact above). I have to be careful distinguishing articles which survey material from reviews proper. The other problem is shifting between medical and non-medical articles.

If you have questions about how certain parts of WP:MEDRS are interpreted or applied in practice, I'd advise you to ask about it at WT:MEDRS or WT:MED.
Going forward, I'm going to ask other medical editors to enforce MEDRS in the euphoria article instead of doing it myself, particularly since I've had to delete sources you've added that were similar to these on many previous occasions for the same reasons.

If he or she keeps an eye on the article and acts on their own initiative, that's cool. If you practice wikilawyering and meatpuppetry, that's not cool.

It's not clear that euphoria is simply a medical topic/article. Some types of euphoria are little studied or reviewed, and wrongly not mentioned by the article. (What scientist has reviewed crowd or political euphoria, or the euphoria of winning a valuable or esteemed prize?) Non-MEDRS must be considered. On the other hand authors of MEDRS reviews make statements about euphoria that are based on their opinion and not the review, particularly when the review isn't about euphoria. And indirect statements using the term may be taken out of context. There are cases where euphoria is clearly present from descriptions but the term not used, such as partial epileptic states (ecstatic seizures). (Likely because in clinical neurology "euphoria" traditionally represents superficially carefree negative states as observed in dementia, lobectomies, etc.) Insistence on actually seeing "euphoria" in print might require references to primary or non-MEDRS sources. But clear descriptions of euphoria and understanding that euphoria is an element of ecstasy should suffice. Common sense is sometimes needed. I suppose some issues may require RfC.

I'm getting annoyed with having to justify my deletions every time this happens; I should not have to do this.

Maybe you shouldn't be editing presently if you're so easily annoyed. I took a break last year when things got tense. Look, I'm not vandalizing content but attempting to be constructive. If you see a problem ref, why not see if you can improve it? That's what I do.

If you edit medical articles, you have to learn what is and is not OK to cite when adding medical content.

Well, I think I'll do much better after this with the medical content copy. The talk pages might be useful too. I will be adding a stimulant-euphoriant to euphoria but will post it on the talk page first. This discussion caused me to change two refs, and new refs caused me to change the statement. How about you look it over for the refs and otherwise. Very short. Then I'll post it.

Thank you.::::— βox73 (৳alk) 23:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Section reflist

Reflist
References

Spam/Blacklist

There seems to be rash of new accounts mostly starting with "Mah" (and now "Man") that were spamming Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) (now protected) and have now moved onto Smurfs: The Lost Village. Can anyone take a look at the contribs and set up a black list, if it's possible? I don't know how to go about it. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added a report for the spam additions to WT:WPSPAM#netai.net and netne.net. The sites involved appear to have some other uses existing on Wikipedia; so the question will be if the other uses are legitimate or not (I haven't reviewed them yet myself). A review and possible discussion may help to determine if a blacklist or edit filter are the better solution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Harassment and personal attacks

Resolved

 – No administrative action taken—but everyone is sentenced to binge re-watch The Wire. El_C 00:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it harassment to say that someone is adding a "stupidly unreliable source" when the source is produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, as VQuaker did here? Is it harrasment to repeatedly posting annoying comments like I ""play dumb", that I "adds a stupidly unreliable source", and make "dumb decisions"? Is it a personal attack to accused me of "cherry-picking quotes" when I quote the most relevant part of a policy? Is it a personal attack to accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for the accusation? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, to all of the above.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes he is. If you don't believe it from him, then no to all the above. (If you think it's harassment to point out that "Moon of Alabama" is a stupidly unreliable source for an article about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, I really don't know what to say to you.) ‑ Iridescent 21:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The source is not moonofalabama. It's produced by an established expert. Theodore Postol. It's added per WP:SPS. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And also. The policy says WP:AVOIDYOU Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. Isn't it valid? Something I am missing here? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Postol is an expert in ballistic nuclear missiles, and were he to self-publish on those it might be considered an acceptable exception under WP:SPS. This is not a self-published paper on ballistic nuclear missiles, and Postol's views have no more weight than do Linus Pauling's claims that vitamin C cures cancer. As I suspect you already know perfectly well. Before you post here again, as has already been explained to you you may want to actually read WP:HARASS, as I don't believe it says what you think it says. You may also want to read WP:BOOMERANG. ‑ Iridescent 21:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should read a bit more. Postol is not just an expert in ballistic nuclear missiles, ref. MIT and he has been used as an established expert on this subject before, even on this incident, ref. Deutsche Welle, TheNation among others. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack for users to question the intelligence of an action, but it doesn't help foster a civil environment, either. I'd hate for Erlbaeko to be treated differently just because he promotes a minority position (against the mainstream view of US interventionism ^{(Postol is mentioned as an expert in this The Wire piece, too)}). El_C 22:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: may not be the same The Wire I had in mind. El_C 22:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm an expert on The Wire, does that count? RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hah! It is your town, after all, so it counts! That show (and Battlestar Galactica) brings me back. El_C 23:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect it might even be nonsense. Do you think a MIT professor would misspell the word "occur" on the title page of every page of his report? [136]. I suspect this report has had Postol's name attached to it based on his previous work on Syrian attacks. I note that not a single RS appears to feature what would be a significant development (A Google for "Theodore Postol Syria 2017" reveals blogs, political sites and Russia Today).Or maybe not. You'd think it would be presented better, though. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Take a look here, and here: With Error Fixed, Evidence Against ‘Sarin Attack’ Remains Convincing. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough - but in that case, why on earth didn't you use that source in the first place, rather than the completely unreliable one you used? Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of it. Another user posted the PDF-version first, I re-added it. And please, don't mix up mis-spelling with stupidity. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

We're actually discussing behavioral issues. You have basically asked if these things are attacks and the answer is no, they aren't. The veracity of the cited source would be discussed at RSN. No foul committed that I can see...play on.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The question is mostly about harrasment, but if it ok to repeatedly post annoying comments like you "play dumb", that you "adds a stupidly unreliable source", and make "dumb decisions", then I guess the working environment will be quite nice onwards. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I've already addressed that. There isn't any administrative thing to do here, but next time you are spoken to in this manner, remind that editor that characterising your edits as lacking in intelligence works against fostering an environment of civil collaboration. El_C 23:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Have a good one. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat made by User:Butterfly0fjune

The following discussion is closed. 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 a legal threat made by User:Butterfly0fjune at Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)#Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2017, the correct protocol per WP:LEGAL. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed for making legal threats.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So... would saying Alex Jones is fake news is fake news... is fake news?--WaltCip (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that's fake news. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Issue with User:Calvin999 at There's Got to Be a Way

The following discussion is closed. 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 April 20th, I discovered that the cited information I previously added to Wikipedia on July 5, 2010 in the article of Mariah Carey's recording, There's Got to Be a Way, had been mysteriously removed.

This was based on an interview in retrospect with Carey, who had commented that she had met Trey Lorenz in February 1990, while she was in the studio recording the song in question.

I corrected it back to "February 1990" after 18 months of "1989-1990", only to see it reverted instantly. I then discovered after studying the edit history, that this entry of mine from 2010 was actually first removed surreptitiously by Calvin in October 2015 and again in April 2017.

He provided this reason. I then explained that a deadlink does not warrant such action on his part, based on this article on [137] and perhaps he should review WP:OWN in what I see are attempts to micromanage the article and similar content on Wikipedia.

I am not sure how to approach this anymore, as there are secondary links [138][139](see page 5)(see pg.4)that somewhat confirm what I provided in 2010. Recording information is very hard to come across, unless the artist feels it is of concern to disclose or a third-party is given access to such information, especially regarding 25+ year old information.

There are eons of articles that have deadlinks for some cited information, yet out of respect for the contributing editor and maintaining the content of the article, I do not take it upon myself to remove paragraphs of text solely based on an old link. Vandals also remove citations from time to time, which resulted in verified entries occasionally getting removed.

My entry would not have been accepted by fellow editors in the first place, if proven to be unverifiable back in 2010. I would like to have a neutral party mediate this, so as not to let things get out of hand.––Carmaker1 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The link you have provided doesn't go anywhere, it redirects to Virgin's search engine. The links you are providing are not even reliable sources. A dead link cannot be accessed for verification thus it cannot be used. I'm really interested to hear why you think this is OWN; you're adding something which cannot be verified. If anything, it's the other way around. If you could supply a reliable source, there's no need to replace section of information, but you're not supplying that info. This is such a waste of ANI space and time.  — Calvin999 18:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not see the need for a condescending attitude and demeanor, as it is supposed to be a collaborative effort. OWN is based on the edit history of the article and how you respond to the intervention of other users. Where are your verified citations supporting that it was recorded between 1989 and 1990? Your own information is equally vague, if not more vague considering Carey was signed in 1988 and could've easily recorded tracks in late 1988, 1989, and 1990. Outside of my provided links, the song in question could've been recorded anytime between 1988 and 1990. Please provide sources for "1989-1990" so that we can verify that recording period. To dismiss another user's concerns as a "waste of time", is highly disrespectful and shows aggression.Carmaker1 (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't think you're being condescending or demeaning? If it's supposed to be collaborative, as you say, then why not take your issue to the talk page of the song or my talk page instead of here? My point is proven. She worked with Ric Wake after she signed, so it was between 1989-1990, between signing and releasing the album. Your saying February 1990 is unsourced. I said opening a thread here about such a tiny thing is a waste of time, as I just highlighted, don't play words in my mouth. And if you think that's aggression then you need to look in the Oxford.  — Calvin999 19:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The manner in which you continue to address me, highlights this once again. If it was such a "tiny thing", you would not be reverting a cited addition because of a deadlink and creating an edit war. I have found my ideal sources, but will wait for an administrator to conclude this first before taking any action. You are making quite an extrapolation in regards to Ric Wake. Do you have conclusive proof Carey started working with Wake in 1989 for that matter? You haven't proven that. Could easily be 1988, as Carey signed in December 1988. If Carey signed in early December, she easily could've recorded material that month and met Wake as well. Billboard supports my date of February 1990, but I will not act on that yet.--Carmaker1 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I said to add it below, and now you're not going to? What is the point of this. You didn't cite anything the other day when you changed it. I can supply the diffs of you changing the date without a source to back it up. It's there in black and white on the revision history. I made the article a GA last year, hence the clean up of dead links and unsourced info. I never said Carey worked with Wake in December 1989 so I don't need to prove it, you're making stuff up now, which doesn't reflect good on you. I included 1989-90 because that's when the album was written and recorded, so it was clearly in that time span. Not even you could dispute that.  — Calvin999 19:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You can add the American Radio History source as that does say February 1990. That is the first time you've produced a reliable source. The first time two reverts you made, you added no source. The second two reverts, you added an unreliable source. Why didn't you add this one in the first place? This could have all been avoided, yet you persisted in your "I made an edit in 2010 and some idiot has removed it so I'll add it back without a source until someone notices" attitude. Let this be a lesson to you. This is thread is finished as far as I'm concerned.  — Calvin999 19:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Dawn Fitsgerald

Can someone check whether the above is a hoax? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

7'1" and 99 lbs? To be blunt, that's a bunch of bull and I'm deleting the page as a hoax. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Good deletion, Rick. Thanks @Bosley John Bosley:. Depressing that it's been up for a 9 months. More depressing that the author created other hoax articles a few days before this one - which were caught - but no one blocked the hoaxer, so he was free to create this one. :/ --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion by IP editor 2601:805:4201:1737:4D44:AA6:5620:61B7 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

IP editor 2601:805:4201:1737:4D44:AA6:5620:61B7 (talk · contribs) is evading a block by editing as 2601:805:4201:1737:8518:A7EE:AA10:73B5 (talk · contribs) to insert unsourced controversial material about a living person. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

31 hours of time by Widr L3X1 (distant write) 21:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed for long-term Pink Floyd 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.

---

As may be observed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iloveartrock, the blocked sockmaster who once registered as Iloveartrock has recently been using IPs from Peru in the range 179.7.99.0 to 179.7.122.0. Can we get a rangeblock to stop this avenue of disruption? Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Outlook not so good. These are all over the place without much consistency and rangeblocking looks to cause collateral damage. I looked to see if setting protections, an edit filter or finding a link to blacklist might work but I'm not finding a solution.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It's true that the IP addresses are pretty scattershot, but 179.7.96.0/19 would catch many of the recent ones and have little-to-no collateral damage. I don't see a problem with doing it, as long as people think it will actually accomplish something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That would block 8,192 numbers, most of which are being used by Iloveartrock. I think blocking that group will help. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, did you ever make this block? Don't take my response above as an objection...feel free.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I was waiting to see if anyone had further comments. Since Binksternet thinks it will help, I'll do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's see how well that works. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Remove Personal Attack (Humiliation/Bullying) in the Summary Line

The following discussion is closed. 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 an unacceptable humiliating (bullying) comment in the summary line. Please remove. Btw.: the information provided in the contribution in the article is correct and approved by Microsoft! The personal attack is an obvious revenge from other edits at Talk:Windows Mail (Vista) and Talk:Mail (Windows). --ProloSozz (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't personally think it's really much of a personal attack. It's more like basic disruption or vandalism. It may be a little harmful to the public, but not all that harmful. Slasher405 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not vandalism either. The edits made by Prolo were entirely unnecessary and made it so it appeared unsourced.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Дагиров Умар

Дагиров Умар was warned for "Edit War" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladikavkaz , but he continues to edit the page as User:46.125.250.124. --Edmundo Vargas —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for reporting, Edmundo Vargas. You must tell a user you have reported them here, see the top of this page. For another time, WP:AN3 is the noticeboard dedicated to edit warring. I have blocked the user for 24 hours for edit warring and avoiding scrutiny. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

• Update: and I have unblocked per WP:AGF, as they deny being the IP. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

This member removes information from sources. Please explain to him that Wikipedia is not a Russian site. I gave authoritative sources where there is a title. Ingush are also citizens of this republic. Most of the Ingush population from the republic was expelled in 1992. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A request had been made for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but I declined it because each party had made only one statement on the article talk page, not a real attempt to discuss on the talk page, and one of the statements was in Russian anyway, and this is the English Wikipedia and discussion should be in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that I've fully protected the page for four days per Robert McClenon's request at RFPP. El_C 10:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:The discussion is over. "And what you say does not matter"(C)Дагиров Умар https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vladikavkaz --Edmundo Vargas (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations, disruptive editing

Some unacceptable stuff going on around British TV programmes. Under the Hammer was deleted this morning as an unambiguous copyvio (my nomination), and re-created within hours by Swiftsave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), little different from what I remember of the earlier version, and riddled with copyright violations. I blanked it and listed it at WP:CP. When IP 86.161.175.64 removed the copyvio template I restored it; another IP, 86.175.66.99, has removed it again. I've asked for semi-protection, but on looking a little further I'm pretty sure we are dealing with a single editor –with an idiosyncratic and laconic taste in edit summaries – who shows little sign of being here to improve the encyclopaedia. Similar behaviour at Full Stretch, foundational copyvio by Swiftsave, G12 tag removed by 86.161.175.64. Advice or help appreciated, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed for copyvios, "Under the Hammer" redeleted. His other articles need to be carefully examined and G12/RD1ed. Further IP edits (it's a WP:DUCK) can be blocked for block evasion. BethNaught (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of articles by this user needing review. Time to open a CCI? BethNaught (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh Lord – I'm looking at To Be the Best right now, and it's saying it premiered on "WCBS" in the U.S., but that's nonsense as there's no such thing as "local affiliate miniseries" on anything other than PBS in the U.S. – it must have aired on CBS... (Yep.) If this is the kind of thing this user has done consistently, his articles are likely to be problematic, quite aside from the Copyvio stuff. [sigh...] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A number (though not all) of the TV series articles look to be effectively unsourced (and so are possibly not notable TV series), and thus are probably good WP:PROD candidates. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to those who've dealt with some of this, particularly BethNaught. I've looked at some more of them myself. They're not only riddled with copyvio – parts are assembled out of quite short passages copied from elsewhere – but, as IJBall notes, there are serious problems with both sourcing and accuracy. A couple of examples: in A History of British Art, the text "takes a walk through the newly re-hung galleries of London’s Tate Britain – and wonders what makes a national style of art" is copy-pasted from this BBC page – but that page is not about A History of British Art, and the person taking the walk is Alastair Sooke, not Andrew Graham-Dixon. In The Polar Bear Family & Me, the text "follows wildlife cameraman Gordon Buchanan as he spends a year with a family of wild …" is apparently copied from this BBC page about a different programme, The Bear Family and Me (it may or may not still be right, I don't know). BethNaught, rather than add yet more to the CCI backlog (somewhere around 80,000 articles waiting to be checked) and indeed to the CCI request backlog (about 40 requests waiting to be evaluated – admins, you can help!), I'd like to propose a more immediate solution: the nuclear option. Please see below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: that all articles created by Swiftsave be summarily deleted, without prejudice to re-creation by bona-fide editors; and that all edits by him and his team of IPs be summarily reverted unless they are only to add reliable references or verified factual information (not running text). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Contribs for Swiftsave are here. This would affect 14 articles created, and up to 15 where he made at least one edit over 150 characters while logged in. Oh, and I support it as proposer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Partial support – I would basically support WP:NUKEing them all, with two exceptions: To Be the Best where I've added a Variety source and which seems to be clearly notable, and Red Fox (TV series) which seems to have two bona fide sources (though I can't really check them – it might take a British editor to check to make sure those sources aren't "made up") – as long as those two don't contain any WP:COPYVIOs, I think they should be kept. The rest can go though. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, partly in response to the comment by BethNaught but also relevant to this proposal - it does indeed sound like a WP:CCI would be appropriate. However, do CCI requests still get dealt with? The backlog even for requests to be assessed now seems to be at years -- the next request due to be considered seems to be nearly two years old! -- and I think I saw a comment that most copyright work does not take place at CCI now. Should dealing with copyright issues now be done elsewhere by default, and should all of the pages be updated to reflect this. Anyway if that is the case, then adding this case to a backlog that will never be cleared, may not be appropriate. MPS1992 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There's very little work going on at WP:CCI any more, unfortunately. As an alternative to creating a new case there, I have gone through and cleaned up the edits of the named account and as many of the related IPs as I could find. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Partial support as per IJBall. I was originally going to suggest a nuke on copyright grounds, but it turned out mere RD1 could be applied to most instead. I was too busy looking for copyvios to see the sourcing issues, however, which are concerning. Certainly I think any of their articles without independent reliable sources should just go at this point to save time on the clean-up job. Thanks to people working on this, particularly Diannaa and Justlettersandnumbers. BethNaught (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Repeated harassment by editor Iamiyouareyou

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

---

Iamiyouareyou (talk · contribs) has posted nonsense on my talk page repeatedly, notably in response to edits at Batman Theme -- the related discussion at Talk:Batman_Theme#Common.2F_mistaken_name, following edits starting at [140] and through the following week. This editor left nonsense messages on my talk page at section #35 User_talk:HalJor#BATMAN_THEME, then a BarnStar (#36, immediately below), and more nonsense today in #37 below that. At one point, this editor reported me through AIV, yielding the response "please explain yourself" at User_talk:Iamiyouareyou#AIV_report_of_User:HalJor, with no further action. Outside of our personal interaction (largely one-sided towards me), this editor has also recently vandalized other articles, including [141], and openly declared an edit war at [142]. While some of this editor's contributions have been constructive, it is clear that not all of their contributions are serious. They have received several warnings, including harassment targeting me, over the last 9 months. HalJor (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

responses

late response to batman theme discussion does not a need a moderator nor deserve action. This is due to the fact a simple message such as "leave me alone" was never written. Iamiyouareyou (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"Leave me alone" posted at [143], in response to [144]. "Late response" or not, the history is clear. HalJor (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The user is WP:NOTHERE. You would expect this kind of vandalism/harassment from a newly created vandal, not someone who's been editing for 7 years. Sro23 (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm too jet-lagged to trust myself with the block button today, but I'm finding it hard to disagree. GoldenRing (talk)

I did not know the second batman theme discusstion was finnished. I did not know adding Bunnunununu bat man could anger someone so much. I have no understanding of people whom like comicbooks. I'm sorry everyone I did not mean to cause a disruption. As for the random act of vandalism: this is a shared ip adress and one day I forgot to log out! Iamiyouareyou (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And what about the "formally declared" edit waring? Was that someone else using your account too? There are certainly more disruptive accounts out there, but I'm struggling to see much positive, either. I'd get out there and do some things that help build the encyclopaedia, or your career is not going to be a lot longer, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Admitting your account is compromised is a fast way to get an indef block. --Tarage (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• CIR. Indeffed.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

New user appears to be substituting Unicode characters to avoid copyvio detection

The following discussion is closed. 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:RickeyMansour2 created the article Hundreds more join Mosul exodus as Iraqi forces retake two more..., which looked as much as possible like a copy-paste from one or more news sources, particularly because a Reuters dateline appeared right in the middle of it. But Google couldn't find a match. I was pretty confident about my assessment, though, and submitted the article for G12 speedy deletion.

Then I noticed that a letter that should have been a "w" in the word "աants" looked like an International Phonetic Alphabet "ա". So I typed from scratch a few passages from the article using Latin letters and immediately found matches. I updated the G12 tag with a couple of the URLs.

This mass substitution is certainly intentional, and I'm imagining the intention might be to deceive in exactly the manner in which I was deceived. Does someone want to have a talk with this user? Largoplazo (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I was working on figuring out what was going on too. I don't see any point in engaging with an editor who is obviously going out of his way to knowingly make and hide copyright violations. Meters (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Bencherlite^Talk 22:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I put their user page up for G5 and G6, because it has (false?) personal info on it. L3X1 (distant write) 03:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Clarification request on 1RR

Could an admin or two weigh in on what is meant by the 1RR on the Donald Trump article? The page notice is here. I understand that if an editor has several edits in a row, that can be 1 revert. But what about when an editor gets reverted and then comes back and revises the same content in less than 24 hours? Or is it that you are limited to just one revert or revision that completely wipes what was there before and that's it for 24 hours? I've read comments from some editors where they ask another editor to do copyedits for them because they can't go back now they've made that one edit, while other editors seem to make multiple edits, even coming back after their serial edits are interrupted and continuing to make copyedits, deletions, additions, etc. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If you ask different admins, you're going to get slightly different answers. Keeping in mind I take a dim view of anyone trying to game 1RR to get someone blocked, here's mine: The addition of significantly new material is obviously not a revert. Re-adding the same or similar material after removal is a revert. In the case of multiple interrupted edits I'm looking if the editor is trying to stick in similar content/viewpoints in different ways after a revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

By contrast, a removal only counts as a revert if it can be connected to a recent addition. I noticed a lot of editors having trouble with that one. Removing something that was added months & years before, or possibly through multiple edits, is exempted from 1RR. With days & weeks it gets more complicated. El_C 05:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I don't get the "game 1RR to get someone blocked." I've seen experienced editors bait newbies into a block because the newbie doesn't understand how they're breaking the rule. I do understand the rest of your comment. That's what I'm curious about. You add somerthing, it gets reverted, you come back and say it in a different way, that seems to me like violating the rule, and maybe that's a gaming the system thing, too. Thanks, that's very helpful.

@El C: I had no idea about that and I don't think anybody else does either. But there are so many changes on that page, I don't think there is any material there that one could say are old enough to qualify for that. It would be nice to standardize these things. I will link to these answers.

Thank you both. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

When you are an admin and are asked to rule on whether a removal of text counts as 1RR violation, these are the factors and considerations one has to weigh. In revertland, removing something that was added is the dialectical flipside to adding something that was removed. But just like not all additions are reverts, not all removals are, either—even if you are removing some editor/s text, by definition. El_C 05:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. Also, looking at the content focused on and a pattern of editing would be helpful there, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well said. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Example: I've had editors ask for sanctions because another editor removed content (a revert), got reverted, and then proceeded to do some uncontentious copy editing in a different section which technically "undoes other editors' actions". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: It always seemed silly to me that editors would ask others to do a copyedit after they'd revised something for fear of doing it themselves. Copyedits, real copyedits that is, and not just slipping in content that essentially is the same as before but with a different spin, should not count. But editors who add content, are reverted, and then come back to the very same section, same sentence and put in a modified version, that seems like a 1RR violation. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that was me User:NeilN. I actually sympathize with User:SW3 5DL about this. If the written rules would simply say what you admins have said in this section, then editors like me and SW3 would not have to go through this painstaking process of trying to figure out how things work. We could just read the rules. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: It's happened a few times - I don't keep track of the requesters unless there's a reason to. And you can't write down each admin's thought processes. In the example I just gave, if the editor removed content from the lead pertaining to a embezzlement scandal, got reverted, and then their copy editing "just happened" to soften the wording about the scandal in the article body, I would be looking to block for 1RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC}

Complaint and responses

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

---

@NeilN: Well, since Anythingyouwant has brought himself here, I will also mention that he has been making multiple edits for some time now that do just that. I just yesterday questioned this because I wanted to sort if this was a violation just for my own edification as well as others on the page, and to stop him doing it if it is a violation. I brought these edits to @Ad Orientem:'s talk page. He's been editing on DT and doing a great job. He sorted a problem with his own edit which settled the matter, but that now means he can't act as an admin. But I thought he could at least give his opinion. Here are the edits I questioned and Ad Orientem's reply:

• This edit substantially revised content here at 02:38, 21 April 2017

• I reverted here at 02:46, 21 April 2017

• Then Anythingyouwant revised it again here at 14:54, 21 April 2017

• Ad Orientem comment [145]

I think I put him between a rock and a hard place since he has edited there, and I probably should have brought it here. But this type of edit seems to me to be a violation and from what I'm reading in your comments, they do seem to be. Now, in regards to what El_C has said, if there is old material that is being revised, especially if there's discussion on the talk page, that could be seen as not a 1RR violation. But when the material has been recently revised, as this had been, and then he comes in a makes an edit that is then reverted, and he comes back and as you say, 'softens' things a bit, that seems a violation. The clarification here is wanted because if so, this behavior must stop as he's done this before, and it needs to be made clear for all editors what precisely is 1RR as applies to that page. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's kind of remarkable that even after these patient explanations from uninvolved Admins about what a "revert" means, you yet again bring forth this bogus 1RR accusation that has already been dismissed by an involved admin. I have banned SW3 from my user talk page, by the way. This is just bizarre. Happy Sunday! Incidentally, I already responded to the accusation here, and also in multiple threads at this page. Should I repeat it all now? Should I present a detailed explanation of why this user is the most unsuitable and unhelpful editor I've come across in ages? Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL and Anythingyouwant: This is why WP:AE exists. Ask one admin and you are relying on a single opinion. AE is designed so that multiple admins can chime in if needed. In this particular case, I would have issued a clear warning or blocked if there were recent DS blocks in history. Unfortunately Anythingyouwant, on that article the restrictions have got you either coming or going. Calling it a 1RR violation is debatable but if that's the case, there's also the "Consensus required" restriction which seems to have been broken. Yes, the editing seems to be somewhat trivial to uninvolved eyes but that restriction still needs to be followed if you're going to "play it safe". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Neil. And knowing that I will bring any future issues here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Not here please. WP:AE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. AE. I would not have thought of that first. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it does appear necessary to play it extremely safe, which I did not. I attempted to follow WP:BRD after being reverted with an extremely vague edit summary. I did that quickly, going to the talk page within ten minutes of the revert. Instead, the reverter took off for well over 12 hours. No one objected during that period to me restoring part of the removed material, and --- thinking that that part of the removed material could not have been what motivated the revert ---- I restored it. I was mistaken, either because of a sincere disagreement, or because of a set-up, take your pick. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A set up is when you make the edits yourself after putting an artificial clock on how long you will tolerate having your edit reverted before you restore it. 24 hours, not 12 is the rule on 1RR on that page. Talk page discussion does not have a clock on it. As I've mentioned to you before, other than BLP violations, there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. It could have kept. None of us here is on your clock. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There was no 1RR violation, and I agree with Ad Orientem about that. As for your behavior, I commend to you the essay WP:Revert which says: "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting." I didn't pick a "half-day" out of thin air. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that essay is valid advice User:SW3 5DL? Also, please STOP editing your talk page comments after they've already been responded to, without indicating the changes. Per WP:TPG, "But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes." Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope you'll reply SW3. You seem to be available.[146] Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps his pinger is broken. I have left a note at his user talk.[147] Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The OP has now accused me of harassment for asking him to reply here. If the OP, who started this thread and accused me here of violating discretionary sanctions, will not respond, I hope that an admin will respond about whether the questions I have posed to the OP are valid questions. I want to be collegial and resolve this matter. A user who reverts with hardly any explanation, makes himself unavailable for the BRD process, edits his comments without indication they've been edited (after they've already been responded to), and makes wild accusations of harassment is not a helpful editor, and I cannot keep editing this BLP if an editor has carte blanche to do that sort of thing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: No one can force another editor to answer questions (yes, with the standard exception for admin actions). If they don't reply, just move on. The other issues aren't going to be addressed here unless you open a new thread or go to AE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN, since when does someone accused at ANI have to open a separate thread to get feedback about whether the accuser has behaved properly (and regarding this same matter)? Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Since anyone who is interested has probably chalked this up as a spat between the two of you by now. Fresh accusations of ongoing misbehavior (without diffs) aren't going to be paid much attention to when they're made in the middle of a thread started about something else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I obviously provided diffs above, and it is all regarding the exact same BLP, and mostly even about the exact same 1RR accusation made against me. If serious misbehavior against me, aimed perhaps at affecting a high-profile BLP, is always going to be chalked up to a "spat" then I have no interest in editing this BLP further. Which I'm sure will greatly please anyone who may have desired that outcome all along, but surprises me not at all. If you prefer stale accusations of past misbehavior, instead of fresh accusations of recent and ongoing stuff, just let me know and I'd be glad to oblige. And, to see what a statement without diffs looks like, please see the one you endorsed here. Or the one left at my user talk. The writing is on the wall here, and I plan to stop editing this BLP to protect myself from this all-too-typical behavior at Wikipedia which emphasizes easily-abused "discretion" instead of plain "rules" that apply to everyone equally. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Anythingyouwant may be relying on the WP:SILENCE essay, which lets the editor assume consensus if no one voices disagreement to his restoring some particular part of the removed material. "Most of the time, you will find that it's fine to assume consensus, even if just for now, as it's more important to keep editing and cooperating smoothly in good faith as much as possible." It looks (to me) like Anythingyouwant's edits have all been made in good faith. He does make a lot of them, however, so based on statistics, some that appeared to accord well with assumed consensus at the time will ultimately be found to have contradicted "actual" consensus -- as ultimately revealed. No matter. As I see it, the editor cannot be sanctioned unless you somehow prove that a particular edit did not accord well with reasonably assumed consensus or was not made in good faith. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Would someone please close this miserable section? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 free time for me. If circumstances change and I want to edit the BLP again, I'll discuss it with User:NeilN. In the discussion above, I said "going to the talk page within ten minutes of the revert". On both my iphone and laptop, this link goes where I intended, but then jumps forward for reasons I do not understand. Here is a diff in case anyone else encounters the same problem. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Amber Heard

The following discussion is closed. 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 these two edits. Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Revdel'd. Bishonen | talk 10:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC).

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

Genre warring

@Jjbrown5: is genre warring on Pink Floyd related articles, Mainly here - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that Jjbrown5 is suddenly active after the recent administrator actions related to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iloveartrock and WP:ANI#Rangeblock needed for long-term Pink Floyd vandal. I am suspicious of this new activity in a dormant account, especially when many of the targeted articles have been protected against the rash of disruptive IPs, and a rangeblock is soon to be applied. Jjbrown5 has been doing the same genre warring activity as the disruptive IPs.[148][149] Conveniently, the Jjbrown5 account will be able to edit through protection. I would not be suprised to find that this account was a sock. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeking an IBAN

The following discussion is closed. 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 seeking an IBAN with regard to user:GregJackP with whom I acknowledge that I have a history of very bad blood.

I would prefer it be one-way but I will accept two-way.

What prompts this, is this and this, in light of this and this (the last two are GregJackP's history at that article).

We are just coming off a very ugly discussion at Talk:Plummer v. State and I cannot see this as anything other than BATTLEGROUND and HOUNDING on their part. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is just harassment on Jytdog's part. @Seraphim System: is on my watchlist after an interaction at Talk:Bluebook where another editor was raising a question on the use of Bluebook short form citations and verifiability of references. Seraphim System answered that question [150], so I put his talk page on my watchlist. So when Jytdog puts a edit-warring warning on Seraphim's talk page, I went to the article and looked. In the last 24-hours, Jytdog has reverted in several bursts: First set ([151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159]), Second revert ([160]), Third ([161]), Fourth ([162]), Fifth ([163]). During the same time, Seraphim made one addition of material, and then two reverts when Jytdog deleted the sourced material. I think that it is disingenuous for Jytdog to warn Seraphim for two reverts when he has five.

Second, the discussion at Talk:Plummer v. State has not been "ugly," and considering that Jytdog followed me to Plummer several years ago when he was hounding @PraeceptorIP: on several intellectual property law articles (PraeceptorIP is a SME in that field), I find the claim of harassment to be BS too. As an additional factor, Seraphim's addition was a law journal from University of Missouri Law, and Jytdog inferred that it was a) not a WP:RS and b) not WP:NPOV. Both claims are ludicrous, which is probably why he seeking an IBAN, which is also ludicrous. He's already the subject of two IBANs due to his conduct, I've not been subject to a single IBAN. I would suggest that if someone needs an IBAN, it is not I. GregJackP Boomer! 06:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

IBANs are typically bi-directional--also, very frequently counter-intuitive, but that's a matter for discussion if the community moves in that direction; I don't see it happening on the basis of the interaction so far. That said, I have to tell you that I find your approach here highly problematic. I take you at face value when you say that you came across this dispute by way of Seraphim's user talk, but that doesn't change the fact that you followed a user with whom you have recently been in dispute with back to an unrelated page, reverted their edit and joined a discussion against their position. That action is, if not per se WP:Disruptive, still at the very least more than a little WP:Battleground.

Also, having reviewed the original Plummer discussion, I'd like to add that you exhibit some behaviours there that I would classify as redflags for a potentially disruptive editorial outlook. Disrespectful, chiding comments like "why don't you run along, maybe create some simple articles about schools or something. Thanks for your input though." are WP:Incivil and inappropriate for this site in and of themselves, and when combined with other comments on that page and your repeated suggestion that the perspectives of lawyers should be given more weight over those of your other fellow editors suggests an WP:OWN attitude and a lack of proper understanding of how consensus is formed on this project--that is, not by arguments from authority or the flashing of credentials--despite the fact that you have a few years here.

My strong recommendation to you here is that you pull away from the Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia article, which you admit followed Seraphim and Jytdog to, and that you keep a wide berth between you and Jytdog altogether for the immediate future. It's the simplest way to de-escalate this situation. Further, I'd recommend you re-evaluate your approach in discussions where you feel you are an expert (and with regard to civility in general); specifically, you very much need to understand the principle of keeping your talk page comments focused on content and policy, without any opining on the perceived editorial/professional shortcomings of your fellow editors. If you don't, I rather suspect that eventually the sanction we will be discussing here will not be an IBAN, but rather a TBAN and/or blocks. Just a feeling.

Lastly, this is not really the place to be discussing content matters, but insofar as interfaces with the dispute here, law review articles are almost always WP:Primary sources for claims (as Wikipedia defines the term), so while they can be used in some niche contexts, they very often are not WP:RS, depending on the claim they are meant to support. That said, I have not reviewed the particulars of the source in question, and its only incidental to the conduct discussion here anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You're incorrect on law review / journal articles being primary sources. With the exception of a law review article involving a case where the author was one of the attorneys involved, I can not conceive of a case where the article would be a primary source. They are almost always secondary sources, although under MOS:LAW we would be able to use them even if they were primary sources. GregJackP Boomer! 12:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You may want to re-read MOS:LAW, because I see no provision within it which remotely supports your assertion that law review articles are almost always secondary sources or that, regardless, they are allowed to bend our usual rules for WP:verification, and WP:reliable sources. And it would be really weird if they did, because our Manual Style never provides substantive guidance on how to verify claims; it only provides guidance on how they should be formatted and presented; it's a style guide, not a policy, and it doesn't overrule those policies (especially pillar policies) which enshrine longstanding and broad community consensus on these issues. To the best of my knowledge, there is no specific policy or guideline on legal sourcing, so you have to work within the guidance you can get from WP:RS and WP:V, and withing their constraints. But again, this is really not the place for that discussion. The matter should be broached at the relevant article talk space, at WP:RSN or (occasionally) on the talk page for the relevant guidelines. You can also propose the alteration of an existing guideline or the creation of a new one, though that is an involved process. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And FYI, I do appreciate that Jytdog can be a little...shall we say "1,000% devoted to his perspective" sometimes. None of my comments above should be taken as blanket endorsement of his approach to the original discussion. It's just that following him to another discussion takes things to another level, while the implication (to him and others) that their editorial opinions are worth less by virtue of their not being legal professionals is counter to every bit of policy and overwhelming, long-established community consensus on such matters. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you mean this to be belittling, but it is. I have studied law and it is countless hours of hard work. Countless. I don't think my editorial opinion on an article about Python programming language is worth as much as someone who knows what a tuple is. I am often asked to RTFM. Respect for your fellow editors is extremely important, and part of that is not being disruptive to the editing process on a topic that requires a level knowledge to edit competently that you do not possess. That is what has happened in this article. Environmental Justice is not a "perspective", x does not equal y. I can't say that I support a topic ban, or any attempts to intimidate competent law editors away from law articles with threats of blocks or TBANS. I think I have said more then enough about this now. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with non-lawyers editing legal articles, on the contrary, I welcome them. @Guy Macon: comes to mind, from Plummer, non-lawyer who does a very good job in the field. @Hamiltonstone: and @Cjmclark: comes to mind from Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, ditto, and I'm sure I could go on and on. What is required is competence. It's one of the main reasons that I don't edit articles on chemical compounds or physics, because I'm not competent enough to know the difference between Benzine and Benzene. When I bring up professional status, it has normally been when there is one or two editors who have taken a position against what the law and the sources state, and where there is a significant number of attorneys who have weighed in on the other side. In the couple of cases where this has occurred, it has almost always been because of a lack of competence on the part of the lay editor, combined with a dose of WP:IDHT. When we discuss the law, we have a responsibility not to get the information wrong. Non-lawyers can get the information right and we need to get more of them involved in Wikiprojects Law and SCOTUS. GregJackP Boomer! 13:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You can always provide pushback when you feel that another editor (expert or not) has the content issue completely wrong. Nobody is suggesting you should do otherwise. However, as a matter of policy and the consensus building process this community endorses, you need to keep your comments solely focused on the issues, sourcing, and policy. Dismissing another editor's perspective because they do not have the right degree is not permitted, is counterproductive and, if it becomes a habit, quickly becomes WP:disruptive and is something that admins will step in on. It's a really simple standard here: comment on the content, not the editor (nor where they come from, or what you suspect their educational level is or where you think their shortcomings are). If they are truly out of their depth, then you should be able to prevail on the strength of your arguments on the sourcing and the policy issues, without reference to your opposition's supposed shortcomings or arguments from authority.

Or let me try to put it to you in terms that might resonate with you as a lawyer: Suppose you are presenting oral arguments on some criminal matter. And while justifying your legal argument you throw in liberal references like "And by the way, your honors, just a point that I want to draw attention to here: I did a post-graduate fellowship at the DOJ, and I clerked for (reputable state judge), followed by sixteen years of trial practice in criminal law as both prosecutor and defense counsel, and now three more years of appellate work. Opposing counsel, on the other hand, has had none of this experience or perspective. In fact, this is only her third criminal case." You'd be laughed right out of court, right? Every justice on that panel would chastise you that such assertions are irrelevant to the process and that your legal and factual arguments need to stand on their own merit. It's not that some of those justices might not be well aware of your reputation in the legal community and that it might influence them (consciously or otherwise) but it's not supposed to be a part of the formal legal process, not in most contexts anyway. It's just the same here: your policy/content arguments are meant to stand on their own, and fixating on the background of other editors is really not helpful, and is outright precluded where a party does not want to discuss their background; they still get to comment wherever they want and participate as fully equal members of the community working in that area. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, on the contrary, believe me that I do not underappreciate the amount of work implicit in legal education and work. The benefits these experts bring to the project are needed and valued. But the point I am trying to stress here is that credentials, professional standing and reputation do not figure into our process on this project. We're here to summarize the entirety of human knowledge, and that monumental undertaking requires us to routinely rely upon volunteers with expertize in everything from molecular phylogenetics to photovoltaic engineering to the nuances of 8th century Chinese funerary rights. The highly particular and refined knowledge of those experts is an invaluable asset to us, but no matter how important your field, you just are not allowed to argue from authroity here. It shouldn't be any substantial part of a talk page discussion--especially at the level of what was going on at the Plummer article. I know you say below that you haven't seen this behaviour in Gregjack, but having reviewed that TP, the issue is pretty self-evident to me, and I would have been doing GregJack a disservice in not pointing out that this approach is problematic in this work environment. If your expertise gives you unique insight into a topic issue, you are allowed and encouraged to bring your knowledge to bear on the content issue. You can even occasionally mention your professional status (though you will find that most experienced editors here will probably not give it much weight in their evaluation of the policy issue. What you cannot do is attempt to tear down another editor's argument on the basis of your presumptions about (or outright knowledge of) their credentials. That's against our editorial culture and guidelines and eventually gets WP:Disruptive.

But for further context, I will add that these kind of growing pains are entirely typical for an expert who tries to leverage their expertise for the benefit of this project. we have a very particular way of a) generating consensus, and b) presenting topics in an encyclopedic context. Both issues can be initially hard for a highly experienced expert to work within, at first. Having a professional expertise is just the first part of the equation; one also has to become a bit of an expert in Wikipedia before they can really integrate their primary professional experience into the project. Believe me, every expert on this project struggles in this regard, and the more niche and demanding their field, the harder it can be. Sometimes its best to work more as a generalist for a few years before tacklign areas you are particularly knowledgeable in and/or passionate about. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Law review articles are secondary sources, you can check with Bluebook to confirm this. Cases are primary sources and for MOS:LAW the rules for primary sources are different - obviously, or we could not have any legal content or Supreme Court case pages on Wikipedia. Law review articles, which I read regularly, are usually secondary sources. I have only ever found one exception to this, when a lawyer was discussing a case he practiced on, but even that should not be thrown out unless there is also WP:OR - it does not effect its status as WP:RS. Different fields, like medicine have different rules for primary sources - medicine, for example is extremely strict that no primary sources should be used. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Law review articles are secondary sources in the nomenclature of legal practice, but as Wikipedias sourcing policies define WP:Primary and WP:Secondary sourcing, I'm afraid you are incorrect; law review articles can technically be either primary or secondary (in Wikipedia's terms) depending on whether the claim being sourced is the primary assertion of the author or secondary discussion of work that is independent of their assertions. More often than not, it is the former. I think your confusion here lays in the (incorrect) assumption that the way Bluebook uses "secondary source" is the same as how we use it on this project (or that such terms are universal in meaning amongst anyone who might want to make a citation, for whatever purpose). In fact, while the term is identical, the concepts are quite different, as regards legal citation and Wikipedia's sourcing standards. Anyway, again, this is not the place for this discussion; this venue is exclusively for discussing behavioural issues and the content arguments should be reserved for the appropriate talk page(s). Snow ^{let's rap} 10:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact remains that you are asking a competent editor to step away from an article that I am glad he is helping on, even though I did not ask for that help. If this is not the place for it, then don't raise the issue here. MOS:LAW, like other specialized fields, has its own sourcing and citation guidelines - and we do use Bluebook for law articles. I hope you do understand that law is a specialized field that requires competence to edit. For exmaple, if you don't have competence with math, you should probably not edit articles about math (I know I don't.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think you are understanding my points or the advice I am trying to give GregJack here to try to keep this from blowing up further. It's fine to concentrate your efforts on areas where you are experienced or credentialed, but that background doesn't get you any special status in consensus discussions on this project. Nor is such an editor allowed to dismiss the perspectives of their fellow contributors because they do not meet their idiosyncratic standards on expertise. Greg needs to keep talk page discussions focused solely on the proposed content, the sources, and the policy issues. Throwing about one's professional status is less than useless here, it's counter-productive; far from getting experienced editors to take your argument more seriously, it will only convince them of such an editor's lack of experience with our process, which (in content disputes) ignores the identity of the speaker and focuses on the substance of their argument.

This is a basic and more-or-less universally accepted principle of work on this project, and we've adopted it for a number of reasons. First, we routinely rely on editors contributing to areas where they are not skilled professionals, including even the most complex areas, as a practical reality. Second, you'll find quite a bit of resistance here to the argument that a practicing expert is, per se, the best person to write well about a topic in an encyclopedic and neutral fashion; point in fact, often such "experts" can be too close to a topic or otherwis be highly problematic editors in that area for other reasons (such as WP:OWN), especially if they don't fully internalize our process for arriving at consensus. Additionally, there are a lot of experts who chose not to disclose their credentials here, for any of a number of reasons, and we'll never know their exact expertise--they are, nevertheless, often highly valued contributors. Lastly, we don't want to go around checking eachother's degrees before we get down to settling content matters using our own processes. For these and many other reasons/conclusions arrived at by this community, we don't allow arguments from authority here. If GregJack wishes to contribute within his sphere of expertise, more power to him, but he has to learn to do it without attempting to downgrade the opinions of other editors just because they have not declared themselves lawyers--and without talking down to other editors generally.

On the separate matter of how he came to be involved in that discussion, I can appreciate that you are glad of his involvement there, but the advice I gave him was for his own interests; following another editor one was recently in a dispute with to a discussion on another article one had previously never edited is exactly the kind of behaviour WP:Hounding is meant to forestall. It would be best for Gregjack if he backs out of that situation voluntarily before a serious discussion get underway here as to that particular activity. It's the easiest and smartest way to de-escalate this situation before it develops towards sanctions (IBAN or otherwise). Snow ^{let's rap} 11:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You know, I have watched Jytdog follow other editors around, including me, without any comments being made about his behavior. I didn't follow Jytdog - I went to the support of an editor who he falsely accused of edit-warring, which is egregious when you consider that he already had up to five reverts himself. Is there a reason that you didn't make a comment on that? Second, I create content, and I support editors who are here to create content. Seraphim is a fairly new user, but he appears to be focused on contributing material to articles. I'll not hesitate to jump in and support them when they are doing so. So thanks for the advice, but unless you are going to be even-handed about it and address his problems too, I'll pass on following it. GregJackP Boomer! 13:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you have evidence to submit that Jytdog has stalked you, I encourage you to provide diffs to support that assertion and we can review his behaviour as well (FYI, making such a claim without providing evidence is considered a kind of WP:Personal attack on this project, so something to mindful of there if you are going to make such a claim. Again, I've seen some borderline tendentious behaviour from Jytdog before, so I can well imagine that this is not a one-sided affair. Indeed, running here seeking an IBAN was excessive in my opinion, when a request for an admin warning would have done. That said, nothing Jytdog has done or may do relieves you from following our behavioural policies, regardless of the conduct of others. So, it's your prerogative to ignore the conduct guidelines I've tried to raise to your attention here, but I can promise you that it will eventually catch up with you (probably sooner rather than later) if you don't alter your approach a little. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I am interested in competence, not credentials. Credentials are not required. Competence is required. I can say that User talk:GregJackP has never asked for my credentials or questioned my competence to edit legal articles. I am now expressing, as an editor who was entirely uninvolved with Plummer, that I have also experienced similar problems with User:Jytdog not demonstrating basic competence to edit in this subject area. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And I don't think its incidental to the discussion here. The suggestion that law review is not WP:RS for law content is bizarre, and part of the reason why this complaint was filed in the first place. I would prefer to work on a law-related article with an editor who is competent to edit on that topic, rather then editors who repeatedly refer to practice areas of law (in this case Environmental Justice) as "perspectives" - why would WikiLibrary offer access to HeinOnline if it is not WP:RS - this is pure fiction. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Although I don't think that is entirely what Snow Rise meant. If a law review article proposes a novel approach to a legal issue, that would be WP:PRIMARY. But the bulk of the law review articles I have read would be secondary (under Wiki standards) not primary, because even those that propose a novel approach document in great detail the current status of the law as it exists in the area they are proposing a change or noting a new direction. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Questions of primary and secondary do not necessarily impact on reliability. A primary source (wikipedia definition) can be perfectly reliable. Depending on the context in which it is used. Likewise law reviews, like any other review can be primary or secondary (wikipedia's definition) as Snow has pointed out. Depending on context, author etc etc. If you have any questions, the place to discuss this is WP:RSN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. We can all disagree on our impressionistic perceptions of what the statistics look like here, but the analysis for each individual source/claim is hardly rocket science; if a law review article makes a statement and cites to another source (law review, primary law, or otherwise) in support, then it is a secondary source for that claim. If it makes a statement that is an expression of original thought or research, it is a primary source for that claim. Anyway, I agree WP:RSN is the ideal forum for further discussion of the particular sources. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Arbitrary break

GregJackP, you should not have followed Jytdog to an article, knowing your history. And Seraphim System, your SPI on Jytdog and StAnselm was ill-thought. El_C 13:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You know, this is ridiculous. Y'all tolerate Jytdog's behavior, but come down on someone who creates content. You've got it backwards here—there is a new user who is trying to create content, and Jytdog warns him for 2RR after Jytdog has hit 5RR on the same article. But no one's concerned about his conduct. Do what you want to do, I don't have to stick around for this type of BS, I can retire again. GregJackP Boomer! 13:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I just think you two should be keeping a wide berth from one another, because you don't seem to get along well. Anyway, I protected the page for 4 days. El_C 13:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. I work on legal articles and little else. Why don't you ask him to stay away from those? That way there won't be any conflict. GregJackP Boomer! 13:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Second. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it works both ways. Under the term of the interaction ban, which I am inclined to ratify... now (and which both editors seem to be calling for), indeed, Jytdog will also, in turn, not be allowed to engage pages GregJackP has been much more involved in. Aiming at clear boundaries. El_C 14:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually an interaction ban doesnt prevent either editor 'engaging pages' the other editor has been involved in. It just prevents them from *reverting* each other on those pages or talking to each other etc. It doesnt stop them actually working in the same topic areas or on the same article. Obviously in this case where one editor has clearly followed another and reverted them, it would entirely prevent that. But it does need to be clarified that merely editing the same article is not prohibited. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I had in mind, and it doesn't seem practical, even if the policy is written otherwise. El_C 14:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I think the issue is the capacity for misuse. Consider the hypothetical; If Greg happens to go to an article that Jytdog has edited extensively in the past and is still on Jyt's watchlist and makes a change, there's a very good chance that change will "revert" something Jytdog did years ago, giving Jytdog an excuse (as opposed to a legitimate reason) to request sanctions. Sometimes, it would obviously be an excuse, but not always. I think that, if you're inclined to use an expanded scope for this sanction, that there should be a qualitative or quantitative limit on edits to articles the other has extensively edited or is actively editing. I think something like "Only spelling, grammatical and technical changes" might be a good condition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, common sense ought to prevail. Basically, they should just stay away from one another. El_C 15:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It *should* however what prompted this request was an editor going to an article Jytdog was involved in, despite having no history there, and reverting him. This sort of behaviour can be stopped by (in order of rising severity) warning them to stay away from each other (not terribly effective if their paths cross due to an intersection of interests), interaction bans between the editors, topic bans, blocks/ban from editing. An interaction ban is actually a relatively mild resolution in that it does not prevent either editor editing articles anywhere. It just forcibly prevents them directly interacting with someone they clearly cannot get on with. A 2 way interaction ban is almost always successful in ending disruption because either a)the editors respect it and learn to get along, b)one of them violates it and ends up blocked. Either way it quietens down quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

(EC) I have not called for an IBAN at all, nor have I ratified his call for one. There is a significant difference between keeping a wide berth and a formal IBAN. What I suggested was that you ask him to stay away from legal articles and I'll stay away from GMOs or whatever area he focuses on. There's no need for a formalized ban. GregJackP Boomer! 14:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have had a bit of difficulty working on this article once Jytdog decided to edit war to revert a consensus that had held for several years. It has been a frustrating experience for me. I think the problem before us would be solved if Jytdog would informally agree to avoid legal articles. I don't think this rises to the point where any sort of formal interaction ban or a topic ban is needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon was about the only editor who didn't join the edit warring. As the admin who responded to this on AN3, I note that Jytdog called my administrative decisionmaking to question when he didn't get the result he wanted. (This also ended at ANI, eventually). El_C 21:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support I-ban. No question on a one-way at a minimum, though two-way might get a little tricky (no prejudice against it though if there's sufficient evidence Jytdog has also been a cause of problems rather than responding to problems from GregJackP recently). There's a long history of GregJackP following around editors, accusing others of harassment for calling this out as above, and "retiring" when the water starts getting hot at admin boards:

• They have been blocked for harassment.[164]
• I personally dealt with it when they purposely derailed my GA nomination in a topic they'd never been involved in as well as a lot of WP:ASPERSIONS violations and battleground behavior.[165]
• A similar incident happened where they were warned at ANI, but the discussion was closed because they "retired".
• There was also another ANI (in addition to the main warning to the other editor) a few months ago where GregJackP was warned yet again for attacking editors (i.e., mention that their retirement would become permanent if it continues).

I didn't look more than superficially for more cases, but it should be clear that GregJackP was already at the end of their WP:ROPE for this kind of behavior.

I'm always a little hesitant on going for two-way interaction bans when we have one especially problem editor like this that another is responding to even though one-ways are tricky to enforce. While Jytdog has their own issues (mostly in a tendency to occasionally get short with problematic editors), I've never seen them go to the level that GregJackP does by attacking editors. The battleground behavior from GregJackP at law articles (and towards Jytdog) does give the appearance of a WP:OWN mentality, so my main concern is that GregJackP's historical behavior problems across multiple editors aren't forgotten each time a new incident occurs. The comments here of trying to keep Jytdog out of law related articles seem to reflect that battleground mentality. A two-way seems to reward that behavior in a way, but I don't have any solutions that are less messy either. Regardless of I-ban details, it should be clear to GregJackP that the next step after this is a topic ban or community ban given all the warnings they've been given about this behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not list everything involved? Let's address them one by one, and add the information that you conveniently forgot to include:

• Blocked for harassment - yes, after I responded to personal attacks, and I'll note that it was lifted in just days after the other party was indef'd their on- and off-wiki harassment of me. It took over three years for him to convince Arbcom to lift his block. I've had no problem with him since and don't anticipate any problems.
• Your involvement - started when you vandalized an article that was nominated for Good Article, even though you had never edited on that article before, or, for that matter on legal articles in general, you followed Jytdog over to the article, removed a photo that is standard on SCOTUS articles [166], and outlined on the talk page here.
• JordanGero was indef'd after continuing his harassment of others beside myself. The linked ANI closed with him being warned about harassment, and what he was doing is seeking an apology for something from almost 2 years ago - sort of like what you are doing here. Then he got blocked [167], and then indef'd [168] when he continued on after his first block was over. That didn't slow him down, so his talk page access was revoked too.

If you want I could pull all of the diffs of your harassment of me, along with false accusations of "aspersions" that you seem to repeat without justification. BTW, you're an involved party in the past, so closing admins should take everything you say with a large grain of salt. GregJackP Boomer! 16:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

along with false accusations of "aspersions" that you seem to repeat without justification You just called one of his edits (which you admitted he discussed on the talk page after the fact) "vandalism". You've just proven that the accusation of you casting aspersions is true. I suggest you strike the accusation of vandalism, and go through your other posts to determine whether you have previously made such accusations without merit, to strike those, as well. It's also worth noting that you took an extraordinarily combative tone in that discussion you linked to, which proved that Kingofaces43 was not engaging in vandalism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you explain why he showed up on an article that he had never edited to remove a photo immediately after it was nominated for GA? GregJackP Boomer! 20:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we're getting distracted with old grievances—best to stick to the matter at hand. El_C 21:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I support a one-way I-ban, because this most recent exchange has convinced me that this is a one-sided problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This is definitely not a one-sided problem, as Guy Macon would attest. And the interaction ban I implemented is not going to be 1-way. El_C 21:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

There's simply no way Greg is getting booted from legal articles whenever Jytdog shows up to one—that's just not going to happen. El_C 21:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Normally if someone is found to be abusing a one-way interaction ban by doing that frequently, it gets bumped up to a two-way interaction ban (i.e., stalking the editor rather than normal editing). From what I've seen, Jytdog only has a tangential intersection with law topics, so there shouldn't be much overlap between the two even if it was a one-way.

That being said, I think one could decently argue that GregJackP is moving towards a topic ban in legal articles if this behavior continues (if not already). The argument for a one-way here would be similar saying GregJackP has lost the privilege to edit completely freely in topics where the two editors overlap (if other editors see it that way we'll see). The problem with a two-way is that it also rewards GregJackP's ownership behavior by removing someone they've treated as an "opponent" from the topic too. That's why I just bolded the interaction ban part of my first post here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

There's the entire encounter at Plummer v. State I link to above. I'm inclined to place a lot of weight on what Guy Macon says. El_C 00:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

See this edit where Guy Macon add unreliable sources including Rayservers and Infowars which caused much of the problem for that section. Further problems include refusing to provide verification for text that has been challenged.

You claimed it was resolved. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive952#GregJackP. I place little weight into what El_C says per this. The original research problems was not resolved. QuackGuru (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Your insinuations notwithstanding, closing your report was the right thing to do at the time. You'd have kept it open, really? El_C 01:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You were not directly addressing the original research concerns and claimed it was resolved. Do you still think it is resolved? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive952#GregJackP. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was resolved then, and I think it's resolved now. El_C 01:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I initially wasn't going to respond further due to that, but just some abbreviated clarity since it plays into the history of these issues. I edit in agricultural topics, which was primarily at the time GMO and pesticide related topics. Awhile before the incident I listed where I was involved, I created the Monsanto legal cases article and watchlisted quite a few related articles in the process (including Bowman v. Monsanto Co. in question). I gave it a read through while it was under GA nomination, and only thought a picture of a justice wasn't needed. This talk section followed for my first interaction with GregJackP (anyone considering GregJackP's history really should read this), followed by them coming to an article I had under GA nomination.

To the topic at hand, my main reason for bringing up the previous cases is that there's a systemic problem here with GregJackP that keeps coming up and goes well beyond interactions with a single editor. Interaction bans are not likely to fix that. It's up to others commenting here to weigh in on that and decide on sanctions at this point. When I look at this case at least, I do see Jytdog getting short again, but there is an order of magnitude difference in how Jytdog gets frustrated in response to GregJackP (even if such reactions are inappropriate) and what GregJackP continually does. How to weigh that is up to others commenting at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You wanted to remove an image, GregJackP was aggressive and not too civil in advancing his point ("it is chickenshit to start a dispute on an article while it has a GA nomination pending"), then you pull back after two other editors disagree with you. Is that a fair account? El_C 23:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Add the facts that he had never edited the article before, had shown no interest in legal articles at all, and only showed up after Jytdog was unable to do away with Bluebook as a citation style [169]. This was consistent with the pattern that had been established—Jytdog would not prevail in an argument on citation style, accusation of WP:OR or WP:COI or WP:SYNTH, and either he or some other editor would pop up on another article I was involved in, such as here or here, and where one of the first things he did was try to implement a GAR, because that's his pattern. So when Kingofaces43 showed up to remove a needed photo right after a GAN was submitted, I twisted off (and admitted that later). BTW, Kingofaces43 statement that he "created" the Monsanto legal cases article, while technically correct (it is one of the three articles he has created), is somewhat misleading. The creation of the article was basically a cut and paste move from Monsanto. GregJackP Boomer! 00:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To some degree, though refusing to even answer my initial question on the talk page (and especially their edit summary) goes beyond just uncivil for a first interaction at the page, and what followed goes beyond being just a bit aggressive. It's fair to say I made a single edit, got reverted, and tried to talk about on the talk page for the context of what GregJackP thought justified what followed.

This was the only edit (no reverts that would jeopardize the GA process, especially before review was even initiated) I made and prior to or after the talk section I linked where everything immediately the hit fan with Greg, but I never went beyond trying to get policy based answers at the talk page at that point. The diff you quoted from also had "When it is someone that hasn't edited bug articles, but starts a dispute over the three photos of the same bug? I'm not going to do that, because I'm not an asshole, but I'm not going to look favorably on answering BS questions about a photo. . ."[170] Not much later, they actually did exactly that by following me to my GA nominee article I'd been responding to suggested GA review edits on.[171]. That in turn led to my GA failing in large part due to instability and inability to address GA suggested edits[172], at which point I gave up on the Bowman v. Monsanto Co article discussion after dealing with that harassment. Again, I'm not looking to air old grievances as this point, just clarify for the context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh please spare us. at which point I gave up on the Bowman v. Monsanto Co article discussion after dealing with that harassment. Again, I'm not looking to air old grievances as this point, just clarify for the context. That's exactly what you are doing. I edit primarily in one area, legal articles, and you ask that I be topic banned? That's BS, you just want me to go away. You've tried this over and over again, with one constant - a lack of success on your part.

Back in 2015, you never answered the following: You never edited the article before, but you show up now, while it is a GA nom, right after Jytdog is making a lone stand against non-existent OR and Synth. You showed up with a harassing warning once before right after Jytdog had an issue on making a lone stand on a talk page. You showed up to argue with Praeceptor right after Jytdog had an issue with him. Why is that? Here are the diffs/links that weren't included above: harassing warning (Kingofaces43 misrepresented 2 reverts as 4) and (showed up to harass PraeceptorIP). How about you answer those questions now? GregJackP Boomer! 01:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Admittedly, GregJackP needs to work both on his civility and his decorum. And to avoid hounding. That account is not glowing. El_C 01:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll agree that I can be blunt. I'm not here to make snowflakes feel better about themselves, I'm here to create content. And I do a good job of that. Five FAs, about 20 GAs. Four Award. Valiant Return Triple Crown. So yeah, I'm not going to be nominated for any positions requiring diplomacy. But it comes down to something I said back in August 2, 2015, here. The purpose of admins should be to keep the riff-raff away from the content creators. I stand by that statement (and apparently some others liked it too, [173]). It's why content creators tend to get snippy. We want to write, and we'll work with people who are reasonable. All I want to do is create more content and help other content creators. GregJackP Boomer! 01:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Jytdog's behavior may not have been ideal, but he'd be the first to admit it, and the first to try to make it right. I'm not seeing any indication of a willingness to admit to any wrongdoing on Greg's part. Jytdog offered to accept a two way IBAN, while Greg refused to. Sanctions are -unless I'm mistaken- intended to be preventative, not punishment. If I'm wrong about that, then the IBAN should probably be both ways. But if I'm right, then sanctions placed on Jytdog won't accomplish much (if anything), while sanctions placed on Greg would. While I noticed Jytdog's behavior in the OP and agreed that it was subpar, I've also seen a very subpar handling of this thread by the OP, complete with casting aspersions and apparently either lying through his teeth or being so wrapped up in his own POV that he can't see the massive contrast between his accusations against others in this thread and reality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So it is OK for you to be uncivil, e.g. (lying through his teeth), but it is not OK for me to be blunt? Thank you for your input, but I'm not seeing any indication that you understand content creation, so I'll pass. GregJackP Boomer! 02:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, you can't invoke casting aspersions and at the same breath speak about GregJackP "lying through his teeth"—that doesn't work for me, either. El_C 02:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a little odd considering that saying that GregJackP is casting blatant aspersions even when told multiple times they are essentially making stuff up is basically another way of saying they are lying, slander, etc. That's basically the definition of the word. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This is starting to become heated, so if I can remind all participants—blunt and sharp—to be civil and exercise restraint; and assume good faith and stay focused. I have already implemented the 2-way interaction ban (although both participants are still permitted to comment on this report—so as not to exclude any one editor). And unless there are other pressing matters, I, however, am inclined for this report to be closed sooner rather than later. Thanks. El_C 03:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Would I be correct in assuming that you'll post the WP:IBAN (versus WP:TBAN, which you linked above) information on both of our talk pages, and at WP:EDR? GregJackP Boomer! 03:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You are not correct. I'm forgoing the formalities. If someone wants to try using that nightmare page at WP:EDR, they are welcome to have at it. El_C 05:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. But don't expect a talk page notice as well—you both already know what's up. Just try to keep out of each other's way. El_C 05:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. GregJackP Boomer! 07:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused as I thought we were looking at a community-based sanction to this since it's at ANI instead of AE. Are you utilizing specific discretionary sanctions instead El_C? The environmental justice stuff doesn't really fit into Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms since these specific cases didn't stray in pesticides, but that's the closest one I can think of right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: While we're at it, can we add a two-way IBAN between Kingofaces43 and me? As long as we're doing one, we might as well do both. GregJackP Boomer! 04:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

One interaction ban at a time, please! El_C 05:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That said, is that something you'd be interested in, Kingofaces43? El_C 05:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll pass considering there's no justification for a two-way (I intend to keep my block/sanction record clean). The only time I currently cross paths occasionally with GregJackP is when their past behavior is relevant at ANI, etc. and potentially in crop patent related articles in my editing area. If new problems pop up in articles again or they re-engage in the aspersions, hounding etc. related to me, I'll just deal with it through discretionary sanctions at AE at this point since they've been given more than adequate final warning here to knock off the overall continued behavior problems. I'm fine seeing if this current interaction ban gets GregJackP to shape up a bit before considering the need for additional sanctions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, right. You know, for someone who talks about aspersions, you sure cast a lot of them yourself. It's a very passive-aggressive type behavior, especially considering your past actions. GregJackP Boomer! 07:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Implemented

• Thanks El_C. I accept the two-way IBAN. Please be aware that there are articles about patent law where I have a long history preceding any involvement by GregJackP in those articles, where I will keep editing. I am currently restricted from a subset of those, but that may be lifted if/when I decide to appeal my TBAN from them. There are also articles about pharmaceutical and other medical litigation, articles about regulatory law, and other articles related to law that I have edited and will continue to edit. I agree to not interact with GregJackP; Plummer was our only authentic intersection and I will step away from that. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Glad I could help. El_C 05:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:History of India - protection required

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

---

Can someone protect this template? See diff; third fourth time today. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: See WP:RPP. —JJBers 15:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

What JJBers said. Semied two days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Concerns about User:Oshwah

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

---

Take a look at: the last 500 timestamps of this user's action logs. So far I've checked the last 48 hours, and the maximum break between edits is 3 hours and 1 minute. Either this guy is not getting anywhere near enough sleep as to be healthy, or there is some undeclared automation going on here. Either way there should be concerns! 82.132.234.75 (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 automated filter

The automated filter keeps on blocking me from making many types of edits and identifies them as disruptive even when they aren't. This happened while filing a complaint at edit warring noticeboard which was disallowed. I am unable to even make a warning for 3 reverts or more as well as report a false positive made by the filter. I'd like to create an account as I have wanted to for some time, but this has happened many times and I doubt I'm the only one. This must be solved. Please fix the filter. 117.215.226.154 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a nasty long-term abuser on your IP range, which is why your edits were blocked. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I have temporarily disabled the filter so you can post your report, but I would encourage you to register an account. Your post would not then be blocked. I will investigate changing the filter to mitigate the situation. BethNaught (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That is why it kept on disallowing even reports about the filter. Thanks for the help and disabling it, I'll make my edit-warring report. 117.215.226.154 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

For observers concerned about these proceedings, I will note that I have now removed the relevant IP range from the filter, because of excessive false positives on the range. BethNaught (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk page points to an unrelated article

Resolved

 – All sorted. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This is regarding this article: Alejandro Ordóñez.
It turns out that when you click on its Talk tab it takes you to the wrong page, it takes you to this "Talk:Alejandro Ordóñez Maldonado", when it should take you to Talk:Alejandro Ordóñez. That is, it should take you to a page about the Puerto Rican Alejandro Ordóñez, not about Colombian Alejandro Ordóñez Maldonado. That is, it should take you to a page that looks like this: Talk:Alejandro Ordóñez (Puerto Rico). As clean up, the article Alejandro Ordóñez (Puerto Rico) should be deleted (because it's redundant with Alejandro Ordóñez). Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mercy11: I've done the following:

1. Removed the redirect from Talk:Alejandro Ordóñez.
2. Redirected Talk:Alejandro Ordóñez (Puerto Rico) to Talk:Alejandro Ordóñez.

I believe this resolves everything. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Issue between User:Walter Sobchak0 and Asqueladd

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

---

Says Asqueladd: User:Walter Sobchak0 is proving to be highly unconstructive and disruptive with comments and edit-warring.

• [174] Edit summary: Don't touch my balls (in the original Catalan)
• [175] Keep that in mind while you go back to your night shift at the "taller de recambios" (repair workshop in Spanish), and leave this to the grownups directed at me
• [176] People like you are to the Wikipedia what the aids virus is to the human immune system. Know your place, and leave this for the grown ups directed at User:TheOldJacobite

These comments, edit summaries and personal attacks are highly uncivil and not suitable for a collaborative project. He has been warned and blocked due to gross incivility before.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

To which I reply: this is obviously a malicious notification.

• I've never been blocked due to uncivil behavior. Temporary blocks due to edit conflicts are dime a dozen and most of us have been through this.
• One of the incidents mentioned by Asqueladd corresponds to an older discussion that has nothing to do with this, and was finally solved peacefully by all parts. The talk page itself proves it and can be checked by anyone. Proof of it is that nobody in that discussion came here to pull anyone's skirt or call attention on me.
• His own talk page is full of colloquialisms similar to the one I used in Catalan, as well as signs of a rather quarrelsome demeanor. If anything, Asqueladd should be the topic of this discussion.
• and most importantly, today's discussion was prompted by his profoundly elitist sweeping statement [177] by which he summarized all left-wing voters into a lumpen category of fans of a popular sleazy forum. Not all voters of left-wing parties read "forocoches", wear tattoos or drive taxicabs. When someone writes something like this, they pervert the entire discussion and sink it to its lowest level. Bigotry is infinitely worse than rudeness, and I'm going to tolerate none of it as long as I'm a Wiki user.

My personal opinion is that Asqueladd urgently needs to make a point by neutralizing perspectives of reality (not viewpoints, it's not the same) different from his own. The way to do this is by discussing it in the talk page rather than picking fights or maliciously cherry-picking other users' past history. I don't think this behavior should be condoned. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your assertion that you have never been blocked for incivility is contradicted by [178] and your block log. The above linked diffs show remarks that are completely unacceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, I forgot about that incident. That being said, the rest of my arguments prevail. I don't think the Wikipedia should be a vehicle for reactionary politics or manifestations of bigotry such as the one blatantly displayed by Asqueladd. My edits to the page were pertinent, and Asqueladd edited them out on invalid grounds (Jordi Borràs may be a photo-journalist but he's still an expert in far-right politics). Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I am of course open to discuss anything in talk page. In this case how WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, and WP:UNDUE apply to [179]. But WP:BRD has a mechanism, I think. too. Walter Sobchak0 just were warned in his talk page, instead of here. And he has misunderstood my comment in his talk page, too.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

No you're not, proof of it is the way you handled our discussion from the very beginning by creating a whole umbrella of sleaze for half the population of Spain--if any English speaker is reading this, calling someone a "forocoches" fan is akin to calling them a "chav" in England or a "redneck" in North America. Your comment in my talk page leaves little room to misunderstanding and speaks for itself. WP:RS the source is an investigative journalism website, containing an interview with an expert on the topic, so it is reliable. WP:SYNTH the content was duly summarized. WP:NOR if references were given then it's not original, and WP:UNDUE is out of place since the section itself is titled "Alternative views". I didn't write this in the main ideology section. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's not get bogged down in the content dispute. ANI doesn't really "do" content disputes, so let's stick to the behavioral issues. I'm not familiar witht he term "forocoches" but I'm willing to take your word on it's meaning. So that's not ok, but it by no means excuses you from responsibility for the belittling remarks you have been making. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow wow wow, for the belittling remarks we BOTH have made. And the context is important. At the end of the day this is the situation:

• Half of my contribution to the article was stating that Cs was being groomed as a partial substitute for the currently ruling PP (which is rigorously true based on their own electoral pact history as well as on the press I mentioned, e.g. [180]
• and the other half was a relevant comment that was already properly referenced, by an expert on the subject.

Asqueladd's civil contribution to the debate, then was simply shoehorning an entire landmass of voters into a truckers' forum. Talk about belittling. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Jordi Borràs is not an expert on the topic of "Cs" (which it is not a "far right group" but an ALDE party). The above user used an interview (not a secondary source) to a photo-journalist and illustrator locally known for taking pics of far right groups giving an interview to another local media. Forocoches is a Spanish nationalist forum not a left wing one and the comments is just a (probably unnecessary remark) on the party being voted by right wing voters, but still needing quality and reliable sources (studies of sociological and political analysts) to back that up, not interviews to photo-journalists.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, ANI is not going to help you resolve your content dispute. This is a place for dealing wth behavioral issues, and there obviously is one here. There is no context, none, in which the "leave this to the adults" remarks are even remotely acceptable. (and on that note, I have to go and probably won't be back today, hopefully another admin will step in here.) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Jordi Borràs is routinely invited to speak about the groups he "takes pics at", according to your flippant statement. Routinely means a lot of times.
• " I get you don't like the party, and I also suspect the forococheriles masses don't vote Cs because of their socio-liberal programme", Asqueladd dixit. You were either preemptively labeling me "forococheril" (hence the ensuing interchange) or you were trying to imply that the right-wing that you believe belongs to forocoches (which is debatable) doesn't vote Cs (even more debatable, and equally elitist). Either way, I don't think you and I will reach a common ground. On a side note, Beeblebrox, there has to be some form of admonishment policy against what Asqueladd just did, rescuing past conversations out of oblivion and lumping them all together to attack a user's character in order to make a (political) point. There is a reason why those past conversations didn't end up in this board, please look at them in their context and look at how the conflict was resolved. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hence, exactly what my remark means is: a right wing community may be voting Cs not because of their social-liberal programme but because of their Spanish nationalism while defending statements about voting bases and the likes need to be back-up by quality sources showing due weight. Unappropiate? Probably. Elitist? Maybe, although surely no more than [181]. I opened this thread for the administrators to deal with the pattern of gross personal attacks by you. The first diffs, which you consider just "rudeness".--Asqueladd (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, you felt protective of "your" wiki article and came here pulling the headmaster's skirt: "señorita, me ha insultado!". Big deal. The worst that can happen to me is being banned from a place that I only visit sporadically--and rather whimsically, I must say. You, on the other hand, cannot log yourself out of your own limitations. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Temporary blocks due to edit conflicts are dime a dozen and most of us have been through this Well obviously there aren't enough of them being dished out if receiving one is considered a good thing, like how in youth gangs getting nicked by the coppers shows you're a man. The worst that can happen to me is being banned from a place that I only visit sporadically--and rather whimsically, I must say. You, on the other hand, cannot log yourself out of your own limitations. Suicide by admin? L3X1 (distant write) 21:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

that expression would only make sense if I had anything to lose in account of my actions, which is not the case. I'm not earning a salary from wikipedia and my life doesn't revolve around it. Every minute invested here adds to zero input for me. More reason not to cave in under an imaginary non-existing pressure. Pinpointing someone's stupidity is not an insult, it is a fact, and I lose nothing from saying this here; and Asqueladd is an idiot. I'm sure there are more idiotic people in L'Hospitalet or Ullan Bator or Boise, Idaho, but right now he epitomizes idiocy like nobody. He was an idiot before he started editing the page on Cs, he's been an idiot while he was editing and he'll be an idiot after the page (and the party) disappear, and the only thing that's going to change is that he's going to be a bigger and flabbier idiot, and maybe have some idiot kids or kickstart an idiot project in some futile direction, or practice an idiot face 20 minutes every morning in front of the mirror, or establish an idiot NGO or maybe an idiot political party if Cs no longer exists. He's the stereotypical mouth-breathing Cs voter--such an idiot that you he excites even biological curiosity, and you have to wonder how much idiocy can fit in a single person, with the classical effete affectation and the delusions of lumpenized middle class, "no pidas a quien pidió", the kind of people who came out greeting Franco in 1939 in the streets of Barcelona while barely knowing who he was. The impertinent reactionarism that comes from a rudimentary mind. Too nihilistic to vote PP, too cowardly to vote Falange and too stupid to realize they shouldn't vote in the first place. The kind of people who voted Alessandra Mussolini in Naples back in the 90s just because she was pretty and green-eyed. There's the banality of evil and there's the banality of idiocy and we're speaking of the latter here. I walk the streets of Barcelona, past a traffic argument, someone shouts "idiot" and the thought of Asqueladd comes up, like a form of nostalgia. How are you, Asqueladd, by the way? Idiot! Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The above rant is not acceptable on any level. I have blocked User:Walter Sobchak0 for 1 month for their continued incivility and personal attacks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Good block - and Walter Sobchak0 should consider himself lucky you are so lenient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

24 hours for each of the 21 insults, and an extra 10 days for gall. CIR? L3X1 (distant write) 02:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Antiquities Act

Resolved

 – Page protected by Lectonar. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This relatively-obscure article about a federal public lands law is a suddenly-hot topic because of an executive order; there's a flurry of IP vandalism, OR/POV insertions, etc. going on. I've requested semi-protection but the article could use more eyes in general right now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Lectonar has just protected the page it appears, and thanks for it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

As an added update, if you want to report articles or pages that require protection, you may want to report them to the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ANI doesn't always handle things initiatively like this here. Slasher405 (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slasher405: Well, I took it from WP:RFP actually :). I was doing my evening run of it.... and listing it here sometimes reaps better results if you need quick help. Lectonar (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If you just want protection, then yes WP:RFP is the place to go but if you want more eyes then there are few better places than here in my experience. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Changes to several sections caused by odd 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.

---

this edit appears to have replaced a fair amount of characters, and inserted a few others. Anmccaff (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting... could have been due to a lot of things. My gut is that something in his browser interpreted the text differently, which the save would have flagged MediaWiki as modified. I know that when I copy and paste text out from Wikipedia and edit it using a word processor, I have to be careful when moving it back, as this sort of text easily gets "lost in translation"... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Working on it. Primefac (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Mhhossein edit-warring and making disruptive controversial edits while discussion ongoing

The following discussion is closed. 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 User:Mhhossein has consistently edit-warred and imposed his own edits at Wahhabi sack of Karbala regarding the motives, despite the discussion about it ongoing at Talk:Wahhabi sack of Karbala#Motive. He has been edit-warring for long over this thing. The whys matter little, but still he seems to think his edits are sourced while I don't think the sources are actually saying what he thinks they are.

I have tried multiple times to adress concerns by discussing the issues and leaving the edits be after them being reverted. The reverts by Mhhossein are multiple where he reverted and made disruptive controversial edits of his own will instead of waiting for discussion to reach an understanding of sorts, in addition to his misrepresentation of sources.:

• No 1 revert

• He adds back fundamentalism even though the source he used nowhere says that fundamentalism was the cause of the whole attack. Only that Wahhabis were fundamentalists and their ideology was based on it. This may have played a part in their destruction of shrines, but not necessarily the attack itself but it is OR to wonder about this old attack.

• No 2 revert

• No 3 revert

• No 4 revert where he removed the template added by himself claiming "it will be added if other users think so" even though the issue of unbalanced nature of his edits was already raised.

• Another controversial edit where the source simply says the attack is an "example of fanaticsm" of Wahhabis, though it doesn't cite fantasticm as a motive. This will make "cruelty" a motive if someone called it an "example of cruelty". Mhhossein however seems to do what he wishes to.

• Another revert, No 5 where he unilaterally removed the templates of POV and OR and not in source without waiting to finish discussion and completely prove himself correct without a doubt, just because he thinks it does.

• Revert no 6

3 of the reverts were made in less than a day. I have made reverts myself as well as controversial edits though I later dropped them to avoid edit-warring. Reverts:

• Revert No 1 as I thought it was self-interpertation (which seems to be correct) and also was unduly biased and POV as anti-Islamic or atleast anti-Wahhabist, though I seem to have less proof for that, but POV does seem to be an issue here.

• Revert No 2 which I reverted myself to avoid undue multiple controversies and edit-warring.

• Revert No 3 where I removed Islamic fundamentalism however allowed Mhhossein to revert. I Instead I just added a "not in source" and "original research" template so there wasn't any unnecessary controversy. However, both of them Mhhossein removed without waiting to reach an understanding through discussion.

• [182], [183] In both these one after the other revert I went on to add back the templates Mhhossein unilaterally removed.

• After Mhhossein again removed the templates, I undid him and also removed both his motives in these edits [184], [185] as I didn't think they are mentioned in sources and asked him to discuss first.

• Mhhossein reverted again and so did I. But I cancelled my revert, instead restoring both the motives only maintaining the issues templates of OR and POV which he kept on unilaterally removing.

He has made no attempt at cooperation in addition to making little attempts to discuss first and try to avoid edit-warring and controversial edits in the meanwhile. He has made no attempt at cooperation in addition to making little attempts to discuss first and try to avoid edit-warring and controversial edits in the meanwhile. I have warned him multiple times: here, and here. However he reverted, in the first revert he unnecessarily removed my signature which I added. In the second revert he completely removed it, Reason - "OMG!" per him.

Also Talk:Wahhabi sack of Karbala#Motive has been open since 19 April but regardless, instead of waiting for discussion to reach a conclusion, Mhhossein is doing what he wants. He also asked for a consensus and told me to stop making any edits, even though the problem was verification and the sources not saying what he claimed, also he himself kept on editing. It didn't turn out in his express favor with one user User:HyperGaruda staying out and another User:Emir of Wikipedia not completely agreeing with him. But still kept on doing what he wanted to. He also recently demanded to start an RfC but himself keeps on edit-warring and never bothers to verify his edits properly without a doubt and solving any dispute about them which is a basic requirement.

Also instead of focusing on the topic, he keeps on lecturing me about my comments as you can see from some of his already mentioned comments this and this, this is not what we are here for. As can be seen in the edit history and the talk page, this isn't his first conflict either. I suggest that he be warned for his behaviour and if needed blocked. 117.215.226.154 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

First, you need to communicate more succinctly if you want any action. Second, this appears to be a content dispute and needs to be handled via dispute resolution processes, one of which, RfC, has been suggested to you by the person you are reporting. If you believe there is edit warring, take it to WP:AN3. If not, just reasonably attempt to work out your differences or seek dispute resolution assistance. John from Idegon (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

John from Idgeon This isn't a content dispute. I don't know why you are thinking that as the complaint was about something else and I never complained for any content dispute or factored it. I only provided the content dispute as backstory for why he keeps edit-warring and disrupting. This is more than just edit-war, it also includes disruptive edits. This is why I thought it was better to complain here. If you still think it is better to take it AN3, then I'll shift it. 117.215.226.154 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is not the correct board to report edit-warring. The correct board is WP:ANEW. Please report there. Softlavender (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, I tried to complain at AN3 but the filter doesn't let me no matter how much I shorten it. I tried reporting a false positive, but the filter didn't even allow that. I cannot shift it unless I am able to. 117.215.226.154 (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I have shifted my comment to AN3 after help from a user disabling the filter. Please close this one now. Thank you. 117.215.226.154 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Account dating to 2006 with never a talk page comment

So far as I can see Tobibln (talk · contribs) with 34115 edits since: 2006-07-03 has never replied to complaints etc on their talk page or used an article talk page, although I haven't checked all 65 pages of contribution. And there is a long list of queries, complaints, etc. dating back to 2006. Any suggestions? Doug Weller talk 12:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a note that this has been brought up before. The user appears to have made a grand total of 4 communications with other editors: [186], [187], [188], [189] with the latest being 8 years ago. Sam Walton (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

[190]. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Tob blanked his userpage yesterday, and he seems to be doing better, only 7 edits in 2014, 11 edits in 2015 and 3 warnings in 2016. Half of this year's warnings are simple bot notices. I think we ought to do him a favor and archive his page for him, the first 75K bytes is up to 2011, so it would leave enough warning to show that perhaps not all is well. L3X1 (distant write) 13:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, his last 500 contribs date back 18 months to Dec 15, and 224 of them are still current. So he seem to be an ok editor, even if he doesn't respond on his talk page. The next thousand edits of his takes us back to dec 14, and seem to be improvments on aerospace related pages. L3X1 (distant write) 13:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, not a big deal, but my warning about linking dates was the 3rd. And User:HighInBC suggested linking to the old thread, so they should be told about this. Although they haven't been around for 3 weeks. Pinging User:Jetstreamer also who brought the complaint. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP

On my talk page: here by 80.195.114.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In regards this revert sourced by this article: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/19/uk-mail-driver-unable-to-work-car-accident-charged-800-pounds. Jim1138 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is the diff you intended, right? If so, it looks like an implied legal threat to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes DanielRigal's diff is correct.

I reworded the entry on [[UK Mail] and added an additional The Guardian ref. Jim1138 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP does resolve to Business Post so it's from inside the organization in question, however it's very well and reliably referenced so the information being included is reasonable. Canterbury Tail talk 18:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism campaign at List of tallest buildings in Adelaide and Grenfell Centre

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

---

There is an ongoing campaign to add an inside joke from a podcast to List of tallest buildings in Adelaide and Grenfell Centre. The first article has been semi-protected (the second has been sitting at WP:RFPP for hours but hasn't been dealt with yet), but now autoconfirmed user User:PortugueseBacon has started participating in the disruption. I'm not an administrator and I've already made three reverts to both pages in the past 24 hours, so help would be appreciated. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've semi'd the other article, and blocked User:PortugueseBacon for 31 hours for simple disruption. If they start again after the block please let me or any other admin know. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks! —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Request for semi-protection

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – per SoWhy's comment below. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Moustache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is attracting vandals. --Edelseider (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Declined. Only one vandal which can be warned and (if necessary) blocked. Next time, please place such requests at WP:RFPP, the correct venue. Regards SoWhy 12:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

blocking or warning editor 107.142.203.188

The following discussion is closed. 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 noticed this severely disrupting edit: of 20 April 2017 on page 'History of France'. I suggest you give this person a final warning or a block immediately. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

User has been warned. Seems isolated, so that should be enough. — Richard BB 12:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Telenovelafan215

Hi. I come because I have been seeing some behavior a little destructive with respect to the user in question. The user insult to Alex824 days ago. It even creates the Alex824 user page repeatedly. Now revert the Alex editions in this article. But now he tells him to shut up. It is a bit complicated to communicate with this user because they simply ignore the messages, as you can see here, I have previously left messages about other problems.--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 23:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The first link [191] was a clear PA insult that should have resulted in a block at that time, but it has been 13 days sense he wrote this. Blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive so I doubt anyone is going to act on that now. But it was very nasty, so who knows. It does appear that he isn't responding to talk page requests and mostly "going silent." He does tell another editor to "shut up" when he is reverting him, that is clearly not WP:CIVIL -Obsidi (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Left a final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Lugnuts

I request that an independent admin and or the community review the recent behavior of User:Lugnuts and consider issuing a reminder about civility. I have sporadically interacted with that user in AfDs where we sometimes disagreed. I didn't think much of that and I made a friendly suggestion on his talk page, asking if he could improve an article in an area he seems interested in: [192] which he reverted with an unfriendly and offensive edit summary beat it. I asked him to cool down in a friendly fashion [193] to which he responded by reverting me with a much more inflammatory edit summary why don't you **** off my talkpage and don't come back?. He also posted to my talk page [194] where he accused me of bad-faith at AfD ("go away and make some more bad-faith AfD noms"). I have requested that he refactors or removes his comment accusing me of bad faith, a request he has ignored in the past hour or so, while being active making edits elsewhere, including in my just-started AfD [195] where he accused me again of bad faith, and out-of-blue threatened me with a topic ban. I have asked him to remove the unfriendly bad faith/topic ban comments from his post at the AfD, which he clearly ignored, having posted in said AfD without refactoring his comments ([196]). He has then proceeded to post the accusation of bad faith in yet another AfD discussion ([197]) - this was clearly after he must have become aware of my comments asking him to avoid accusing others of bad faith (a clear WP:NPA), and it is also the reason I decided to report his behavior here (because clearly asking him not to post such accusations is ineffective, or worse, encourages him to post more of them). Further, his behavior in the recent AfD where is clearly trying to derail the discussion by ignoring my question and reposting his comments verbatim is highly suggestive he is not interested in discussion anymore (consider: [198], [199], [200]). This kind of combative behavior is problematic, since it leads to WP:BATTLEGROUND problem, hence I believe we should collectively remind Lugnuts that we are supposed to edit this project in a friendly and collegial manner, and keep in mind our policies such as WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. PS. I originally intended this to be only a request for a civility reminder, but given his recent AfD edits, and since he did raise the issue of topic ban himself (WP:BOOMERANG), perhaps a week or two of imposed rest from AfDs, where he clearly cannot contribute constructively, may be worth considering. PS. I am not notifying Lugnuts on his talk page that I posted about him here, since he explicitly said he does not want me to do post there; I trust he will see the notification ping and/or someone else will leave him a courtesy notification. PPS. To avoid escalating this, I would note I am strongly against any stronger measures than civility warning / short-term AfD topic ban - the editor is making a lot of constructive edits elsewhere in the project, there is no need for any stronger remedies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You still have to notify people of ANI reports about them, even if they have requested that you stay off their talkpage. The only way you would still not be responsible for that would be if you had an IBAN with the person. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Since you say so: done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Actually, IBANs also don't except one from notifying of ANI discussions.[201] The only way an IBAN affects it is that one is not allowed open a discussion of the other user unless it is covered under BANEX. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Given your position on WP:NSPORTS ([202]), it seems to me that you are the editor making pointy comments and pointy AfDs. Perhaps it is you who should stop nominating sportspersons for AfD, and stay off of Lugnuts' talk page. I think refraining from both of those for the foreseeable future would solve this issue immediately. I recommend that this thread be closed with no action and that the OP take my advice. Softlavender (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

How does nominating two sportspeople article in that many weeks, and starting a VP discussion, makes anything here my fault? I don't post on his talk page and I have no intention on doing so - my last post there was at your insistence. If I have made any "pointy" edit or comment, please cite the diff, or otherwise please do not attempt to make the victim (me) into a villain, or turn this into "it takes two to tango" discussion. I have been civil and respectful throughout this entire incident, and I only reported the situation here after several personal attacks and a ban threat aimed at me. I have not responded in kind, but asked the community to step in to avoid any escalation. I most certainly do not indent to stop my regular (I've routinely been nominating various articles for AfDs for years), civil, and policy-respectful behavior because another editor has started to personally attack me. I hope that the community input will be more helpful than your "let another editor's personal attacks make you stop editing, and be sorry that you have provoked him" suggestion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If by posting this at VPP, then a few days later nominating the very example in the first line of your proposal for deletion isn't pointy, I don't know what is. And other users in that AfD have also said the nomination was pointy too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Na that seems perfectly reasonable. I was tempted to AFD a few of those myself. If an article seems indicative of a wider problem, enough to open a discussion on a noticeboard about the wider issue, the basic reason for the wider problem (in relation to that article) does not go away. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Care to cite diffs for those plural editors who think those AfDs are pointy? The only plurality I see is people repeatedly telling you to stop staying that NCYCC superceeds GNG, because it clearly states itself is doesn't do that: [203], [204]. The only POINTed behavior I see is here: [205], [206]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing what's so disruptive about anything Piotrus has done. They seem reasonable AfDs to me. Reyk _YO! 10:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

What is pointy about starting a general discussion, including a specific example, getting a lot of positive feedback, and then sending that example to AfD based on your own position and on much of the feedback you received from other editors? If the vast majority of people at that VPP discussion had disagreed with him and they had AfD'ed it anyway, one could argue that this was a pointy AFD. In this case, it seems like a perfectly legitimate AfD with opinions nearly evenly split at the moment. The second AfD seems more likely to end in a straight keep, but claiming that the first AfD is bad faith and that he should receive a topic ban from such AfDs is much more disruptive than starting a discussion about a topic that clearly divides the community and needs revisiting in an RfC, and starting two AfDs. Fram (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You can't see the issue of doing that within a few days of an active discussion? Really? Fine if it was after AND there was a clear consensus, but certainty not during the conversation. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I can't see the issue. If the discussion was only about that article, maybe. But here? In what way is the AfD trying to disrupt enwiki, and not simply trying to get an article deleted which he, and a fair number of others, believe doesn't meet our general standards of notability? Fram (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"A fair number of others" Four. Including your token delete vote. Based on that, considerably more than a "fair number" believe it does meet the general standards of notability. It's disruptive as Piotrus has tried to use that as a deletion tool, seen that the proposal wasn't going as smooth as he'd hoped, so went to plan B, in an attempt to delete said example, trying to make his case look a little more robust. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you stop with your accusations that others are acting in bad faith? This is what this entire discussion is about: your behavior, where instead of discussing the merits of keeping or changing NSPORT policy or such, or discussing the notability of specific articles in light of our policies and arguments, you engage in personal attacks against others (in particular, myself), speculating about their (mine) motives, in clear violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I can disagree with you and still be civil and respectful towards you and assume good faith. Why you cannot return the same civilized attitude towards myself? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The evidence I've already posted here shows me that, in my opinion, you acted in bad faith/made a pointy AfD. That opinion isn't about to change. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

What evidence? That I started two AfDs and one VP discussion? Sure, I am very guilty of that. I hope the community will comment on whether this gives you the right to be incivil to me and make a series of personal attacks (as evidenced by a number of diffs above), because let me remind you - this discussion is about YOUR behavior. If you want to discuss mine, you are welcome to start your own section or subsection, title it "behavior of User:Piotrus", and post your "evidence" of my misbehavior there.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Of other users also calling your AfD pointy and disruptive. Such as Softlavender in this very thread - ("it seems to me that you are the editor making pointy comments and pointy AfDs"). Funny how both you and Fram chose to ignore that. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec)My "token delete vote"? Right, not much point in discussing this further with you if that is how you see dissenting opinions. Doing things you don't like is not the same as disruption. Accusing people of "bad faith" and "pointy" actions and threatening them with topic bans for no good reason is disruptive though. Fram (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a good reason, as I've already listed. Please take time to read the post. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not agreeing with you is not the same as not having read your post. Your "evidence" simply isn't convincing at all. Your "token" dismissal of all opinions not agreeing with yours is the worrying part, not the nomination of a few AfDs or the start of a long-needed discussion about NSPORTS. Fram (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought you said "bye" in your last "reply". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Genre warring

@Jjbrown5: is genre warring on Pink Floyd related articles, Mainly here - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that Jjbrown5 is suddenly active after the recent administrator actions related to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iloveartrock and WP:ANI#Rangeblock needed for long-term Pink Floyd vandal. I am suspicious of this new activity in a dormant account, especially when many of the targeted articles have been protected against the rash of disruptive IPs, and a rangeblock is soon to be applied. Jjbrown5 has been doing the same genre warring activity as the disruptive IPs.[207][208] Conveniently, the Jjbrown5 account will be able to edit through protection. I would not be suprised to find that this account was a sock. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Warned by Ritchie333. L3X1 (distant write) 17:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jvm21

This user systematically violates WP:NMOTORSPORT, creating the articles about drivers who have only competed in the F4 Championship or even karting drivers. Now he recreates an article about a driver who is not notable and was deleted two weeks before. Please somebody reason him, if it is possible. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've deleted the article per G4. Can it be made clearer in NMOTORSPORT which series of racing are relevant, and which not? F4 clearly isn't, but is F3, for example? Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:MOTOR consensus, the driver who have contested only in national F3 (British, Japanese) is not notable. European F3/Formula 3 Euro Series level driver is notable. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well there's been no improvement with this editor since their last mention here. Careful @Corvus tristis:, you may get a reply like this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts:, I think that after this, I'm ready for anything from the user. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

He def. doesn't like interacting with anyone, as this last comment shows. Clear cut case of WP:NOTHERE if there ever was one. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

So what's the outcome of this? Will an admin at least drop a note on their talkpage about the multiple concerns raised about this user's conduct and editing? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Doing it now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Filter IP by location? Lots of Montevideo disruption at Carlos Gardel

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

---

Is it possible to filter IPs by location? For more than seven years, the biography Carlos Gardel has been the target of many disruptive accounts and IPs from Montevideo, Uruguay. They can't accept that their favored story about Gardel being born in Uruguay has been solidly disproved. Here's a list of the Montevideo IPs from the last four months:

• 167.57.118.153 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 167.61.209.252 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.54.44.89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 167.56.46.70 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 167.57.66.173 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 167.57.50.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 167.57.52.189 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 167.56.168.118 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 167.57.232.207 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.51.178.248 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

If there is a way to filter Montevideo IPs who are trying to edit the article I would be happy to hear about it. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

No, there isn't a feature of the mediawiki software that allows for that, at least not anything that mere admins have access to. —DoRD (talk)? 12:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It might be possible to do this with an edit filter. If you add a request at WP:EF/R someone with the relevant technical knowledge (which is not a set that includes me) should be able to say one way or the other at least. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, that might be an option I hadn't considered. —DoRD (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the different approach taken by this filter is superior to my suggestion, and will probably be very effective. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 revoke talk page access.

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

---

See User talk:Clackinalibi. Some deletion of edit summaries may also be desirable. Since the user is already blocked and cannot respond, I will not notify. Kleuske (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Multiple personal attacks against disagreeing editors on talk page, constant baseless accusations, and POV pushing without providing sources

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

---

Steeletrap is being heavily disruptive on this talk page, and his constant ad hominems and false accusations are completely disrupting the discussion for everyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

List of Personal attacks and baseless accusations by Steeletrap :

"Your preferred version is trash"

Finally, they are engaged in moronic OR, such as the attempt to prove HItler's Christianity through the fact that "Nazi belt buckles" (that is to say, Wehrmacht belt buckles) had the insignia "God is with us" on them.

"more ridiculous bias, bordering on lies and falsification"

A bunch of editors who have never read a serious book about Hitler are trying to distort this page to make it look like he was a Christian.

"But I am irritated with people distorting history to try to prevent Hitler's views from aligning with their own. Hitler was anti-Christian, irreligious, pantheistic, and a vegetarian. Get over it."

"People need to stop feigning knowledge of this subject matter--a time-honored TFD tactic, incidentally--to support their POV that Hitler was somehow a Christian."

"The bias here--from the crowd who, based on a predetermined opinion, want to depict Hitler as Christian--is so extreme and persistent that I think it's about time to take this to a noticeboard."

"I have the impression taht the field might be rapidly changing." To be honest, I think you just made that up.

"Please cut out the tendentious editing. Ironically, you resemble Christian fundamentalists in your commitment to a predetermined conclusion--that Hitler was a Christian--in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

"The most persuasive explanation of this--and the explanation adopted by everyone who has looked at this seriously and objectively--is that it was done out of political necessity, in an overwhelmingly Christian society."

This revision : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler&type=revision&diff=777615036&oldid=777597875 , where he edited "he took no actions against atheists or atheism when he came to power", while there are clear sources that contradict him such as the sentence in the article : "In that same year the regime banned most atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany—other than those that supported the Nazis" is in the bulk of the article and is well sourced.

"The view that he was a Christian deserves short thrift in the lede."

"Get over the fact that he wasn't a Christian; it doesn't have any impact on what is true or false, right or wrong about religion today."

Note that these attacks were directed at everyone in the camp that disagrees with him, not one person in particular.

For these reasons, I formally accuse Steeletrap of breaking WP:NPA multiple times, both for the insults and the "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" which is specifically mentioned in WP:NPA. I have called him out TWICE on this, and he still keeps doing it, and his actions keep disrupting the talk page. that's why I'm reporting it now.

Also his constant POV pushing is never based on sources, so it's turning the page into WP:NOTAFORUM, which is disruptive on its own.

Thank you for your attention. Hamstergamer (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hamstergamer: Can you provide links to differences (edits) with the personal attacks, it'll make it more convenient. —JJBers 13:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

For the list :

https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Steeletrap&page=Talk%3AReligious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler&server=enwiki&max=500

Individual posts :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=777598140

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=777088321

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=775282438

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=777088112

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=777088008

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=773013037

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=773012278

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=772705428

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=776535881

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=777088264

I insist on the fact that the user is very committed to pushing his POV (without sources!) so this succession of ad hominems and baseless accusations will not stop unless action is taken. Thanks. Hamstergamer (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking through a good number of the edits mentioned above, they seem justified. Most sources (rightly, IMO) see AH as fundamentally opposed to Xtianity, at least from the '20s on, and that references by him to more conventional religious ideas are either hypocrisy, or, well, convention. There is certainly some POV pushing here, but I'd say it isn't in the direction complained about. Steeletrap's edits appear to be in support of the current scholarly consensus. Anmccaff (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether he's right or not on Hitler is irrelevant. He's insulting the 3 editors that disagree with him and he's accusing them of deliberately distorting the truth simply because he has a different position. He's breaking WP:AGF (he assumes bad faith out of the blue) and WP:NPA (insults + accusations without evidence) even if he's 100% right on Hitler. And even if he's right, he's still disrupting the discussion page by using it as a forum since he's just making baseless claims not discussing sources. Also there's no consensus, just a majority view and a minority view. Historian Richard Steigman-Gall depicts Hitler as a Christian until WW2. The big disagreement is whether we should use primary sources in the lede or not - after all there are several quotes from primary sources that directly describe Hitler's religious views. Hamstergamer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well,no. If ST 's right, that is is, if you agree that their edits are in line with scholarly consensus represented in the article, then they aren't POV pushing without providing sources by definition, since they are tacitly alluding to the many, many sources already present.

Again, if you agree that he's right, then constant baseless accusations seems a little weak. There are a good many sources already in the article essentially supporting ST's position, with -one- against it -Richard Steigmann-Gall, who is given, frankly, an inordinate amount of space on the article for a minority, perhaps fringe, position.

Finally, AGF isn't a suicide pact; the same edit coming from an established editor might be seen differently from one from a new SPA. That's not personal, that's situational. Anmccaff (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Where did I ever agree that he's right? I think he's dead wrong. ST's side is the one misrepresenting their own sources, I've been calling them out for this on the talk page for months! The point was that even IF he were right, his accusations WOULD still be completely baseless. He's accusing 3 other editors of *deliberately distorting the truth* without provinding a single argument to defend his allegations. What source did I distort exactly? All I see is blanket accusations based on nothing. WP:NPA specifically calls out accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.

Steigman-Gall's view has only one line in the lede. However it does have "an inordinate amount of space" in the bulk of the article, and that's because of the fact that the bulk of the article is about primary sources, and primary sources support it! That's why there's a controversy : should we include primary sources in the lede or not. After all, since religious beliefs are such a personal thing, quoting Hitler or his confidants directly on it seems pretty relevant. Hamstergamer (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. If the secondary and tertiary sources in the article almost all agree with him(?), then that changes entirely what is "POV pushing." The scholarly consensus, slightly lagging, is what is supposed to determine that on Wiki, although not every article is sourced well enough to show what that is, of course. This one ain't bad, though.

No, primary sources do not support it, except in some self-referential way. Khrushchev may not have been a doctrinaire soviet atheist, but he wasn't too far from it most of his life, yet he invoked the deity so often he had to explain it more than once. It's trivial to get primary sources that contradict valid generalization.

This is why primary sources are tricky, and arguing by them against accepted scholarship is seen as a bad thing here. Anmccaff (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

For the second time, secondary sources DO NOT agree with him, and HE is the one deliberately misrepresenting these sources. Look at the citation group [1], supposed to support the assertion "In light of evidence such as his rejection of the tenets of Christianity as a teenager" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-Bundle5-1. It's supposed to support the claim that Hitler rejected Christianity as a teenager yet all the quotes from the sources date from Hitler's adulthood if not the post 1937 period! Look at the beginning of the lede. "Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was an opponent of Christianity, and did not believe in any particular religion". ZERO citation to support that claim. The deliberate removal of the persecutions of atheists which are well sourced in the bulk. The deliberate removal of the dates of each statement in the lede which show that the anti-Christian beliefs date from after 1937/1939. And so on. Hamstergamer (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Repeating yourself won't make your argument any stronger, and ADDING CAPS prolly ain't the game-changer you seem to TAKE it for, EITHER. Now, that may (or may not, gotta dig a little there) be a case for weakening the "as a teenager", certainly, but there's a whole raft of relevant citation for the general point. Look at the cite you just provided: (Excuse the volume, readers, but there does seem to be an issue with my interlocutor actually reading the article here.)

Alan Bullock; Hitler: a Study in Tyranny; Harper Perennial Edition 1991; p219: "Hitler had been brought up a Catholic and was impressed by the organisation and power of the Church... [but] to its teachings he showed only the sharpest hostility... he detested [Christianity]'s ethics in particular". Ian Kershaw; Hitler: a Biography; Norton; 2008 ed; pp. 295–297: "In early 1937 [Hitler] was declaring that 'Christianity was ripe for destruction', and that the Churches must yield to the 'primacy of the state', railing against any compromise with 'the most horrible institution imaginable'" Richard J. Evans; The Third Reich at War; Penguin Press; New York 2009, p. 547: Evans wrote that Hitler believed Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs', 'abortions in black cassocks'". Evans noted that Hitler saw Christianity as "indelibly Jewish in origin and character" and a "prototype of Bolshevism", which "violated the law of natural selection". Richard Overy: The Dictators Hitler's Germany Stalin's Russia; Allen Lane/Penguin; 2004.p 281: "[Hitler's] few private remarks on Christianity betray a profound contempt and indifference". A. N. Wilson; Hitler a Short Biography; Harper Press; 2012, p. 71.: "Much is sometimes made of the Catholic upbringing of Hitler... it was something to which Hitler himself often made allusion, and he was nearly always violently hostile. 'The biretta! The mere sight of these abortions in cassocks makes me wild!'" Laurence Rees; The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler; Ebury Press; 2012; p135.; "There is no evidence that Hitler himself, in his personal life, ever expressed any individual belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church" Derek Hastings (2010). Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 181 : Hastings considers it plausible that Hitler was a Catholic as late as his trial in 1924, but writes that "there is little doubt that Hitler was a staunch opponent of Christianity throughout the duration of the Third Reich." Joseph Goebbels (Fred Taylor Translation); The Goebbels Diaries 1939–41; Hamish Hamilton Ltd; London; 1982; ISBN 0-241-10893-4 : In his entry for 29 April 1941, Goebbels noted long discussions about the Vatican and Christianity, and wrote: "The Fuhrer is a fierce opponent of all that humbug". Albert Speer; Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs; Translation by Richard & Clara Winston; Macmillan; New York; 1970; p.123: "Once I have settled my other problem," [Hitler] occasionally declared, "I'll have my reckoning with the church. I'll have it reeling on the ropes." But Bormann did not want this reckoning postponed [...] he would take out a document from his pocket and begin reading passages from a defiant sermon or pastoral letter. Frequently Hitler would become so worked up... and vowed to punish the offending clergyman eventually... That he could not immediately retaliate raised him to a white heat..."

Hitler's Table Talk: Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

Now, that doesn't all address the time AH adopted these views, but it does accurately, i think, show he had 'em. The burden is on you to disprove that, not on ST to recite it with every post.

Finally, ideally a lead will have no cites at all, remember. Complaining that there ain't enough of them seems anomalous. Anmccaff (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, this doesn't address the time where Hitler became anti-Christian. Steigman-Gall believes that Hitler was a Christian until about 1937 and then was an anti-Christian during WW2. While the article claims Hitler was an anti-Christian as a teenager, which is supported by literally nothing in your list. The date where Hitler abandoned Christianity is the only subject of the controversy on this article. They're trying to push the POV that Hitler was anti-Christian his entire life and not just after 1939 while 1) this is not the consensus of secondary sources at all and 2) they're deliberately misrepresenting the sources to push that POV. Thanks for proving my point. Hamstergamer (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

First, use the indenting convention; I think we'd both hate to see anyone else confuse our words.

Next, you posted 10, count 'em 10 diffs up there, only one of which concerned the time of Hitler's apostasy. It's not "my" list; others wrote and you posted it here. Quit moving the target to where the arrow hit.

Next, I do not see Steigman-Gall as a particularly strong source, and by that I don't just mean in my own judgement. Some amazingly tepid reviews for his work.

Finally, nothing yet has "proven your assertion," at least to others, as far as I can see.Anmccaff (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You guys are arguing content. Perhaps you should take this to the talk page? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I see no point further arguing with you Anmccaff, since you're just not neutral on this issue. I came on this board to seek a neutral point of view. Hamstergamer (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

,

• Those don't look like personal attacks to me. The only diff provided that strikes me as unjustified is the one with the claim about the Nazi regime taking no action against atheists (they did, from everything I've ever read, including our own well sourced section about it in the article Discrimination against atheists). The rest look acceptable, if stretching the bounds of civility quite a bit (something which most of us have done at one time or another). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I'm completely uninvolved in this dispute or with this page. The second sentence at WP:NPA has long stated: Comment on content, not on the contributor. I've never understood why comments about contributors, such as those linked above and under discussion here, are tolerated and not seen as violations of NPA. Clearly they are, and they are detrimental to resolving conflicts and improving articles. The first link starts with "a couple users" and continues with multiple references to "they". It's all about those contributors, not the content. The second link starts with, "Your preferred version is trash". If someone said that to me, I would take it personally, as it's obviously intended to be. Again, to my reading of NPA, this type of statement is exactly what is to be avoided. The same for all the other examples. There is a tone of disrespect for the editors mentioned, even contempt. Of course these are personal attacks - they are attacks on persons. I advise all those participating to comment about what they believe should and should not be said in the article, and why, period. Just stop entirely writing about each other or even each others' views. --В²C ☎ 20:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

In your above diff, I am totally fine until Finally, they are engaged in moronic OR. That is a violation of NPA and civility. And BTW, Hitler was as Christian as my yard. L3X1 (distant write) 20:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether you or anyone else is fine with anything of it is not what is at issue here. The issue is whether any of it constitutes a personal attack per NPA. They are comments about those involved in the discussion, rather than about the content. I don't see how that's not a violation. --В²C ☎ 21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"Moronic OR" != "Morons engaged in OR". It was a comment on the content (even if it was incorrect and uncivil). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Steeletrap is behaving with any decorum at all. I'm saying that she's not going after the other editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, what Steeletrap said to open the said exchange was "A couple users are engaging in OR and tendentious editing." This statement was focused on editor behavior, not content. Our article Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing says Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page...

I'd be in favor of letting Steeletrap off with a warning (this time) but I do feel he's been going after me and other editors personally. JerryRussell (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

what Steeletrap said to open the said exchange was... On that one, it is a personal attack, since she's not bothering to bring her complaints here or to the user's talk page. But there is a mitigating factor here in that the sources, as best as I can see agree with her position (for the most part, except for those entirely unsourced claims about atheists in the Nazi party and Hitler not doing anything about atheists) and do not support the position that Hitler was a Christian. I'm a huge Hitch fan (and an atheist), but Hitchens can be wrong, and historians seem to believe he was wrong about this. I understand that it's still a policy violation, but in the interest of preventing further disruption, I feel like a block is not going to help. And a TBAN would be entirely inappropriate. I agree that a (stern) warning is the way to go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, you're still missing a crucial point. The debate isn't on whether Hitler was a Christian or not, the debate is on *when* Hitler abandoned Christianity. Nobody on the talk page is claiming that Hitler was a Christian all his life ; everybody agrees that he abandoned Christianity at some point. The disagreement is on when. There's two positions. Position 1 : Hitler was a Christian for most of his life but but rejected Christianity around 1937, and Position 2 : Hitler was an anti-Christian all his life since his youth. Steeletrap is defending Position 2. A position which is unsupported by the secondary sources, and which is being pushed on the article by misusing the sources. You can see this misuse of the sources in the first sentence of the article : "In light of evidence such as his rejection of the tenets of Christianity as a teenager,[1]" says explicitly that Hitler rejected Christianity as a teenager, and the sources used as evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-Bundle5-1 don't show any quotations before 1937! The POV pushing issue is about hiding the dates to make it seem like Hitler's rejection of Christianity after 1939 applies to the entirety of his earlier life as well. Hamstergamer (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You're still arguing content. Seriously, I've watchlisted the paged and commented there already. That's the place for discussing content. I really don't care if Steeletrap's position is that Hitler was a pretty good guy, this is not the place to discuss that (unless she was going around telling Jewish editors she thought Hitler was a pretty good guy). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Nahh, this isn't about content, it's about tendentious editing. You got a couple people trying to magnify a minor/fringe position, and someone who actually knows the subject trying to fight that. Anmccaff (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing content for the sake of it. I'm arguing that there is WP:DE going on and showing you why. I think that's completely relevant to this page. Hamstergamer (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Antonioatrylia on Talk:Asia Kate Dillon

I have a feeling that I should be posting here, but I should probably say up-front that I'm very bad at judging when someone's behaviour is harmful towards me and I might miss details that others would notice. I'm tagging User:Funcrunch here because they've seen the discussion between me and User:Antonioatrylia and feel like they could add helpful commentary while remaining neutral.

The start of this can be found here. I made a draft of Asia Kate Dillon on 2nd March 2017, it was rejected due to lack of notability but then accepted around 8th April, now being considered notable. But a mainspace article had been made in between my creating the draft and the draft being approved and considered notable. It was decided that the mainspace article contained less information and should be overwritten with the draft, which Antonioatrylia rolled back and disputed, arguing with me and another user until an admin stepped in and backed up the original decision.

They are clearly very upset about the final decision, judging by User_talk:Antonioatrylia#Seriously?: "No trace of the history of all the editors who contributed to the originally created mainspace article for Asia Kate Dillon remain. Everyone's contributions to the original mainspace article were for nothing, because a failed AFC draft was used to overwrite the original mainspace article. It is no wonder that so many editors are leaving wikipedia.". (Two people involved in that exchange are User:Anthony Appleyard and User:Anne Delong.) Anthony Appleyard notes that Antonioatrylia did most of the work on the mainspace article that was overwritten, so I can understand their upset, but they're certainly not remaining neutral or prioritising the quality of the article over their own feelings.

Antonioatrylia's behaviour since then feels to me like they are holding a grudge.

After the draft was moved to mainspace, Antonioatrylia tagged it with a Not Notable tag - something that they never did to their original mainspace article, which was much smaller and less detailed. They were upset when it was removed.

Some of my edits were removed by Antonioatrylia due to having primary sources as references. These include Dillon's birthday (which Dillon mentioned in a tweet) and Dillon's role in a movie (that is available to watch online courtesy of the director, with Dillon mentioned in the credits). When I questioned this decision, Antonioatrylia told me that primary sources are not considered reliable. I did a little research and found that primary sources are appropriate "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person ... will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." I also found in the section about film specifically, "[t]he film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters." Dillon's tweet tells us their birthday very directly, and the film itself has Dillon in the credits at the end, so it seemed to me that both of these would be acceptable cases for primary sources to be included. I explained my motives and re-added the sources, expecting that my edits would be accepted since I had shown that Wikipedia policy was very clearly on my side, but Antonioatrylia rolled back the edits and put an edit war warning on my talk page. (It is not my intent to edit-war at all, and I don't want to take part in that.) They told me, "Do not edit war to try to get your incorrect preferred version into the article." I assume the incorrect preferred version they are talking about is the one that includes Dillon's self-professed birthday and the primary source of their appearance in a movie?

They also tagged the article with WP:UNDUE, and described their reasons in a way that didn't make sense to me - that Dillon's gender and career are given undue weight in the article, implying that more weight should be given to their personal life in the article, I assume? (I may be wrong there.) Me and Funcrunch both felt that WP:UNDUE didn't apply here, and discussed it openly in the talk page, so I went ahead and removed it from the article. Antonioatrylia rolled that edit back, saying "I will be restoring the undue template because the issue has not been fully addressed." This to me reads like an intent to edit-war by Antonioatrylia. I do not want to be threatened again with being blocked for participating in an edit war. (Relatedly, the main reason there is such weight on Dillon's career and being nonbinary is because their notability is centred around them being an openly nonbinary person campaigning for visibility, inclusion and acceptance of nonbinary people, and they're using their career as a nonbinary actor playing the first ever nonbinary US TV character to do it. My edits to expand on their personal life and career aside from being nonbinary have been rolled back by Antonioatrylia.)

Overall, Antonioatrylia has been aggressive, pushy, superior. "Consider your self warned for not showing good faith. I won't bother to template your page with a notice for failure to good faith." (Here.) My interactions with this user have been very unpleasant, and left me feeling reluctant to edit because I suspect that Antonioatrylia will roll back my edits and accuse me of edit warfare if I argue with them. I'm very much a casual editor and I just want to make a good article with as much complete information as possible, but I feel like every time I do a little work on the article the edits are rolled back. And I feel that this is because "my" draft was chosen over "their" mainspace article.

Because I am not very good at judging these things, there may be important information that I've omitted. I hope that others can visit the links I've put here and post about the things I've missed, and perhaps Funcrunch, Anthony Appleyard and Anne Delong can add details too.

Thank you for reading, and I welcome your thoughts! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• The long discussion is at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Asia Kate Dillon problem with merger/redirect - please help to give proper atribution to mainspace article creator. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• My take is similar to Cassolotl's. I feel that Antonioatrylia's templating was motivated by his resentment of how the article merge was handled. When I noted this at the article talk page, specifically pointing out Antonioatrylia's own talk page comment on the merger, they accused me of not assuming good faith. My reading of WP:AGF is that editors should assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary. I believe evidence has been provided that Antonioatrylia's templating and subsequent reactions were motivated more by his feelings about the merger than by genuine concerns about WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Funcrunch (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A request was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard for dispute resolution about Asia Kate Dillon, but I had to close it because the dispute is also pending here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment After the draft was moved to mainspace, I added some elements from the original very short article, crediting the appropriate editors. Articles aren't notable or non-notable according to size and detail, but according the existence of reliable independent sources, even if they aren't yet in the article or aren't properly formatted. There was no way to solve this to everyone's satisfaction, because both drafts were worked on in good faith. This a a bi-product of Draft space. I understand Antonioatrylia's frustration because at one point it seemed that it would be resolved the other way, so he/she kept working on it. That's not a reason to make inappropriate edits, though.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment As Anne Delong has stated above, I was frustrated about how the merge turned out. But that was it. I let out my frustration in a statement on my own talk page and went about my business. I frequently remove references from many articles when they are from unreliable websites such as myspace, twitter, imdb, blogs, and many other such places. I also apply tags or notices to articles after I have worked on them and tried to find good, appropriate, and reliable references. The original poster above tries to make some point aboint me putting a tag on one version but not the other of the article. I would not put a tag on until after I am done working on an article.

The merge happened. I started working on the article until I reached a point after my work where I felt that article subject was not truly notable. At that point I placed a notability tag. This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board. The OP is trying to blow out of proportion that I tagged the article and edited it because of a grudge, me being upset and other very colorful adjectives, none of which are true, nor non of which can be substantiated by any evidence or proof.

On the talk page of Asia Kate Dillon the OP freely admits that they are not acting in good faith. I informally warned them there instead of placing a template on their own talk page. The OP, who by the way is a SPA editor who looks to have only edited this and one other subjects biography, who both identify as non-binary or genderqueer. I mention this becase on the OP's talk page they also identify via a user box that they are agender and prefer the usage of certain pronouns such as they and their just like the article subject.Perhaps, it could be a possibility the OP is a little to close to the subject and their lifestyle to remain neutral while editing the article. They (OP) has shown WP:OWNERSHIP issues of not wanting anyone else editing the article other than themself and one other editor, Funcrunch who also self identifies on their user page as agender via a user box and uses preferred pronouns. I believe all editors from any walks of life should be able to edit the Dillon and all articles freely on wilipedia with out being tag teamed by a pair of editors that could possibly have an agenda to make the Dillon article have a slant toward agender and non-binary issues. I pointed out on the talk page article that there was too much of that going on to the point of undue, and I finally decided to mark the article as undue so other editors could see that and help fix the article to have a neutral tone as is tthe requirement at wikipedia.

One last obsevation is that the OP has been forum shopping by posting their issue at the DRN board first, and then very shortly afterward here at this incident board. There they had two points: that I removed a reference to an archive of a twitter post that was being used as a reference for the birthday of the subject. In my edit summary there I put it was unreliable as from twitter, and was considered self published. If that is not correct anyone may freely put it back. The other item the OP complained about was my removal of a reference to a vimeo video clip of film that you supposedly have to watch until the end to be able to see the credits to verify the subject as having appeared in the film. That is really way too convoluted to expect our readers to do all that. I group vimeo in with youtube and consider both unreliable in any respect, and I frequently remove other such references for being unreliable. Again, if any editors think that is a fabulous reference, go ahead and put it back if you have a consensus on that.

This entire filing is frivolous in that this is actually a content dispute. The OP admitted that they were acting in bad faith towards me on the talk page of Asia Kate Dillon. This OP SPA editor is trying to make a big blow up kerfuffle about how the article was merged in the past as a reason to object to another editors opinion in a simple content dispute. None of their schlock is true. I was frustrated by the outcome of the merge, but I let my frustration out on my own talk page, and then went back to editing as per usual. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am more than happy for others to make edits to the article, and I definitely don't feel territorial. Honestly, help would be very much appreciated; I don't have a lot of energy, and I love when people improve pages I've created or edited. So I'm not really sure where you've got this idea that I am only happy for me and Funcrunch to make edits to this article, Antonioatrylia. :/ If people have things they'd like to add to the article that are not about Dillon's gender I'm very happy about that; I've not removed anything from the article that anyone else has added. If there were facts without citations I've added "citation needed" or researched and found a source myself.

When you say that you removed the Twitter reference because it was a primary source, and if anyone feels this is not correct they are free to put it back - I did this. I posted explaining that your removing the primary source was incorrect in this case, and I put it back. I provided links to Wikipedia policy and quoted them, on the article's talk page. When I edited the primary sources back in, you rolled my edits back and threatened me with punishments associated with edit warfare.

You mention that I am editing articles in a particular subject area as though this makes me in some way biased, but I think it is pretty normal for editors to edit things that appeal to them based on interest, no? Yes, I am excited that Dillon is the first actor to play a nonbinary character in US TV, but I don't feel that I am being territorial. I am not upset that people are editing "my" article, I don't feel any ownership of it because it is a subject close to my heart or something. My problem is that you undo my edits, and when I show you that Wikipedia policy backs up my edits you ignore me and roll the edits back and state an intention to keep undoing my edits and threaten me with punitive actions if I continue to act in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

Overall I feel bullied and pushed around, and like you are rolling back my edits that are perfectly valid. I would expect most people to say, "oh yes, it looks like Wikipedia allows primary sources in this case, cool beans" but instead I am having things thrown at me like that I have only edited a few pages - as if this is somehow evidence of poor behaviour? I made a new account sometime recently because I lost my login information and figured a fresh start might be nice. In fact I have been a casual editor of Wikipedia for many years, mostly fixing grammar and spelling, and tidying up badly formatted citations. I even run my own wiki on another site, so I know how it is to have something you have created get rewritten and replaced and honestly, I think you have to be comfortable with that when you are a wiki editor. I feel pretty comfortable with it. It seems unfair that this being the first article I've created is held against me.

"One last obsevation is that the OP has been forum shopping by posting their issue at the DRN board first, and then very shortly afterward here at this incident board." I will be the first to admit that I'm not familiar with how this all works. I've never had to deal with this kind of behaviour from another editor before, so I am learning how this system works as I go. I didn't know that it wasn't allowed to post in two places at once, and when I opened this complaint here I added a link to the dispute topic to let people know, hoping that someone more experienced would take the appropriate action. I note that a volunteer kindly closed the dispute topic pending the closure of this one, which I'm grateful for!

"This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board." With respect, that's not something for you to decide. I still feel like you have been aggressive and mean to me, and I'm hoping that some support here can help resolve this matter. I would just like to improve the article in peace, without someone rolling back my edits and then threatening me with punishment even when I supply evidence that my edits are in line with Wikipedia policy.

The Not Notable tag is probably not that big of a deal - the draft that was moved to mainspace was moved there because someone decided it was notable, so I don't feel that removing the Not Notable tag was in error. But I note that Antonioatrylia is focusing on this particular template, when I am more focused on other things they did. One of them being that they kept putting the Undue template on the page when other editors of the page were in agreement that it didn't apply even after Antonioatrylia had explained their reasoning. And then warning me for "edit war" behaviour, which I don't feel I've done - and when they say that they will keep putting the template back even though no one agrees with them, edit warfare is something that would describe their intended actions. If other experienced and knowledgable parties back up the decision to tag the page with UNDUE, I would be fine with that - but the opposite has happened.

I'm grateful to User:Funcrunch for backing me up here. I agree with them when they say "My reading of WP:AGF is that editors should assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary." I would like to assume good faith, but after repeated aggressive moves I was sort of forced to the conclusion that Antonioatrylia is taking things personally, ignoring me when it suits them, and being mean. Whether or not they're doing it deliberately or they're unaware I don't know, but I don't think I'm misinterpreting this situation. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior here Cassolot has been quite poor, in that you on miltiple times throughout your report have mistated that I removed the twitter reference because it was a primary reference. Please provide a diff of me saying that. What I did say in my edit summary was that I was removing a reference to an unreliable website, and it was an archive of a twitter post that would be considered as self published. You call a removal of a reference to an unreliable website agressive and mean? You need to not take things so personal. I put the undue template back one time, not plural times and only after a talk page discussion. The two editors dicussing it besides me were you and Funcrunch, who I explained in the posting above are both possibly putting forward an agenda that keeps both of them from editing neutrally. They both possibly have a bias. Other editors need to assess the article who have no bias, so the article may be fixed and put to a neutral point of view as is required at Wikipedia. Antonioatrylia (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the diff where you said the Twitter source was unacceptable because it's self-published. But to be clear, it's not the individual details of the dispute that I'm picking over here. It's the way that I'm feeling picked on, like you're trying to push me around, you're being rude and threatening, etc. You've threatened me with punishment over an edit war that hasn't happened while insisting that you will keep undoing an edit that only you object to, you've berated me and another editor over not having good faith, and you're continuing to chide me like I'm a child even now. It's really unpleasant. I would probably just give up and leave Wikipedia, but I'm passionate about the site and interested in the subjects of the articles I edit so I'm trying to go through the proper channels to resolve this optimally, you know? Anyway, I will pause now and await input from an admin. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 20:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment You have provided a diff that does not show that I said Twitter is a primary source. Look back in the thread. When challenged you could not provide it. So you have repeatedly misrepresented what I said, most probably to try and make me look bad. Then also you change the words in your last paragraph to self published insteasd of primary sources. That right there is you being deceptive. Why would you change the sentence, because there is no diff where I said that a twitter reference is a primary source. The diff you provide says exactly what I said that I had said. That seems to be a fail on your part and very deceptive to say the least. You, Cassotol are unpleasent to deal with. Your actions of possibly pushing an agenda and being biased makes it difficult to edit the article effectively to maintain a neutral tone. I have cut back on editing because you haveruined my enjoyment on editing wikipedia. You continuosly misrepresent what I say to try to accuse me of for instance. We had a talk page discussion where I said I was putting the undue tag back on the article. You surely, right away put the disputed references back in the article. I reverted back to the discussed version, and sent you a message warning you against edit warring. I or no one else threatened you. You should really strike that. And btw, your co- editor Funcrunch who is also possibly biased and working to put forth an agenda, reverted my change to make the section header neutral. I hope that you are aware that since you opened this thread that your behavior and actions are put under the same scrutiny as mine. It is possible that you could receive sanctions for your deceptive practice here. When you were unable to provide the diff where I said twitter was a primary source, you changed the language of your statement to match what I had actually said. I also feel like I am ready to leave wikipedia after this unpleasant incident with you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that an administrator or similar hasn't responded. So I guess I am posting to make sure this section doesn't get archived! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, editing to make sure this section isn't archived. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

No one will engage that level of text walling. You should have really done a better job summarising. I suggest this be archived and you both take it to DRN where you can, hopefully, find a way to combine the best of both versions. I will be tagging this extremely lengthy report as (for our purposes) resolved soon. El_C 00:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I didn't realise! I thought it was important to include all the details so that an admin could make a good decision. I'll save the contents of this discussion elsewhere and try to submit a summary. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 10:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no word limit to ANI like there is to AE, but basically, you can see how lengthy textwalls tend to simply get ignored. The only reason I'm even here, answering this report, is because Antonioatrylia randomly picked me, soliciting my help on my user talk page. Sure, feel free to summarize, but intuitively, it feels like a content dispute, which would make this the wrong venue. I still think you two should try to find a way to combine both versions. El_C 10:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Just weighing in briefly: As I posted upthread, from my perspective conduct is more at issue than content here. Please don't be too hard on Cassolotl; while not new to Wikipedia, they are new to dispute resolution, and when asking for advice on the article talk page, I suggested DRN to them initially. But I then said that conduct issues would not be handled there, so ANI might be a better venue. Funcrunch (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Though taking this to ANI may have been worth a try, it now appears that no admin is likely to take any action on what seems to be a content dispute. This thread ought to be closed. My suggestion is that particular questions about primary sources could be taken to WP:RSN. In particular, drawing any conclusions from anything posted on Vimeo risks being discouraged at RSN. The most practical direction to take this is to improve the sourcing up to the standards of similar articles and then see if we have the appropriate amount of coverage for this person, given what the sources say about them. It seems to me they are notable enough to have an article but that if weak or self-published sources are dropped (especially about upcoming projects that don't satisfy WP:CRYSTAL) than a somewhat shorter article might result. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I feel like my intention here is being missed so I just want to make it very clear - my dispute is not over content and what should and should not be included, but about Antonioatrylia's conduct. They have been rude, aggressive and threatening towards me. But I can't describe how without mentioning the content disputes, which are a separate issue! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 11:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, this report has too much text and not enough diffs. Unless you're able to demonstrate misconduct briefly, I am not that inclined to involve myself, sorry. El_C 12:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute which I said in my first response to this thread. Cassolotl has called my removal of references to unreliable websites rude and agressive. I call it improving the encyclopedia. I do it every day on many different articles. After they put back disputed references into the article despite a talk page discussion going on, I warned them with an approved template against edit warring. For that I have repeatedly throughout this thread been wrongly accused of threatening Cassolotl. As I said before in this thread those accusations of me threatening them need to be struck. They take things way too personal. The next time they accuse me of threatening them by placing a template on their user talk page, I will be reporting that as a personal attack. Antonioatrylia (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Tag-team enforcement of MYWAY

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

---

... by Harout72 and Chrishonduras at David Bowie. Discussion here. Collusion here. —ATS 🖖 talk 07:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, violating 3RR was the wrong move. El_C 07:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This was the correct move per WP:BLP, El_C. The tag-team reintroduction of a manufactured "however" situation intentionally used original research in a direct effort to cast aspersions on a reliable source. By policy, such an edit cannot stand. —ATS 🖖 talk 07:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User:ATS is objecting the addition of the 100 million in sales alongside the 140 million without providing any reasonable explanation. The sales figure comes from a reliable source. I and another user do not wish to remove the 140 million, we simply believe that the article should include both figures stating that Bowie has sold between 100-140 million records. Not allowing this insertion without any grounds, indicates Ownership of content--Harout72 (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a false statement. I objected to the users' self-identified mandate to supplant the data, and the later effort—properly removed under BLP—to undermine the cited source with a manufactured, nonexistent "however".

During the discussion, the editors decided among themselves that they were just going to change it anyway. —ATS 🖖 talk 07:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing a content dispute—what I'm not seeing is a pressing BLP issue. El_C 07:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This was textbook "I don't believe it" that devolved into one of the worst examples of WP:POINT I've ever seen. —ATS 🖖 talk 07:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think all of you should have taken kept it to the talk page instead of engaging in an edit war. El_C 08:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

So did I. —ATS 🖖 talk 08:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Chrishonduras:

Hi, I hope that the administrator can takes note about this incident. I don't know how to start with this. First, I will apologize for my English, I'm not native but I hope that gonna be understandable :).

• All start with this edition that I made with a summary edit. I was later reverted by user ATS. I followed the recommendation in his edit summary and I started the discussion in the talk page. So, later I opened a consensus and asked in music Wikiprojects that are related with the David Bowie's article. At the moment, I asked an "opinion" of two users, including Harout because I always thinks that he is neutral with any artist and he can add an opinion, like he does.

• Unfortunately, with the opinion of the users involving in the talk page, everything was wrong for the user ATS and a basically a violation of the Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and essays. He just support one "truth" about the sales of sir. David Bowie, and the other one, even, if has reliable sources, are unacceptable.

• One of the solutions was presented by Harout (his first intervention), that is keep both sales figures. Was denied by ATS and Harout edited in the article but ATS reverted him. Some contradictions, that I personally see, came from the user ATS. Harout added on the lead with the properly evidence that both figures have references and was later reverted. Later, was added by ATS and just in one section. Even, current article status is irregular (the last edition by ATS). For me it's important point out in the lead: both figures. And also, he puts the "150 million records" estimated by "additional sources". However, this sales don't have reference and can be a primary source.

• Also I wanna report the edit war that this user virtually made/started by himself. He reverted Harout and me. And the pretendious break of Ownership of content. The true is gonna be the same and wanna remind why we have to hide a fact that has have reliable sources as well. I don't understand what is the probem to be neutral. Is not just 1 or 2 references, are several. Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 08:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

In a content dispute, it's always better to go through dispute resolution options like 3rd opinion than to solicit someone directly, as it may be construed as canvassing. El_C 08:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Chris, I have every confidence that the admins can read and parse the facts for themselves, including fuck-him-we're-just-going-to-do-it-anyway. —ATS 🖖 talk 08:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 and personal attacks

User User:KazekageTR has made radical changes on Turkish War of Independence without sources or gaining any support from the talk page. Naturally, I reverted his/her edits, yet he/she was constant without even providing any edit summaries. This user even insulted me and made personal attacks here on my personal talk page. I think this user will continue doing this and not sure what to make of this. (N0n3up (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC))

That is not a personal attack... --Tarage (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@N0n3up: Well, you really did the exact same to him.... —JJBers 00:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers and Tarage, considering you guys haven't made as much contributions to Wikipedia nor have been around long enough as I have, not to mention neither of you are even admins, I'll make it clear to first look at the edits in the talk page and article in topic before jumping to conclusions. KazekageTR made long and very extreme changes without even providing a single source nor gaining consensus for his changes. Since I opposed, he/she comes to my talk page and drops F-bomb on my talk page. That's not what I call a productive behavior and something I would never dream of doing. If someone makes radical changes like he/she did, you first discuss and or present sources to back your claim, until then, the article should stay the way it was in its original form. (N0n3up (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: this is why... —JJBers 01:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers The only thing I see is a concerned Wikipedian telling the editor stop making crazy arbitrary edits and to gain consensus. with capital letters to make the post more noticeable since KazekageTR didn't notice my first post, nothing wrong with that. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm waiting for a more authoritative figure whose made as much contributions to Wikipedia and have been around long enough or longer than I have. (N0n3up (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: That's still uncivil to just go to someone's talkpage and "scream" at them, and calling them a vandal. —JJBers 01:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers and Tarage. Well, he/she DID vandalize the article since he/she kept adding unsourced content without consensus after been told not to, while cursing at other's talk page. You seem to not know what you're even talking about. In case you didn't notice, this is ANI, "A" as in Admin, something you're not. I think I'm wasting precious time with two interloper who didn't contribute nor has been in Wikipedia for as long as I have, bye. (N0n3up (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: Please read WP:AGF before commenting anything else on this. —JJBers 01:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@N0n3up: This is vandalism. This might have problems but it is not vandalism. Don't misuse Wikipedia behavior policy. Further, all-caps comments and edit summaries are strongly discouraged at WP:SHOUT. Also see WP:BATTLEGROUND. Before you open an ANI complaint, be sure your own hands are quite a bit cleaner than they are in this situation. And make sure you have followed dispute resolution guidance at WP:DR. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Although not vandalism, this user did constantly put radical unsourced info without consensus, not to mention that this user used the F-word on my talk page. I simply restored the page to its original form, I tried to do the right thing. As for mines, I just knew about the all-caps rule and other once you told me, my bad for the misdemeanor. (N0n3up (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

Do not tell me what to do based on edit count. You can make millions of edits and still be wrong. And you are wrong N0n3up. It was not a personal attack. --Tarage (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Tarage What are you still doing here? You and JJBers straight up walked into this discussion for Admins, not new editors who feel like posting on ANI reserved for admins. And yes, it was personal attack, this user used the F-bomb in my page and was inconsiderate and brash. And the fact that you tried to ping my name but got JJBers name instead really makes me wonder your purpose here, so it's best if you get lost, I'm waiting for Admins, not randomers. (N0n3up (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: There was no personal attack, you and the other editor acted uncivil, you violated SHOUT, and he was uncivil about it. And this isn't only for admins, and your OP is just a waste of administrator resources at best. —JJBers 15:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) N0n3up, this page is not "reserved for admins". Non-admins and "randomers" can and will weigh in as well (and before you go through the trouble of checking: I've been editing here almost thrice as long as you have, making over six times as many edits to mainspace as you have, but such comparisons are really neither here nor there, and certainly shouldn't be used as an argument to dismiss feedback from others). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do right now is warn both KazekageTR and N0n3up to stop being uncivil, and try to let them talk it out in the talk page of the article the edit warring happened. And then just simply close this. —JJBers 15:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked at the pages history? Every other edit seems to be N0n3up reverting someone else. I count ten reverts in the past two weeks, with two WP:3RR violations on April 8th. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed that, I'll just warn him not to edit war anymore. —JJBers 16:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: One thing is posting a message on my talk page, another is adding unsourced content without consensus after a day that the 3RR rules apply. (N0n3up (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: You seem to reverting at random, and citing consensuses that the edit repairs, if this continues, I'll be reporting at AN3. —JJBers 16:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: Neither KazeKageTR nor you made your case on the talk page. I'm simply restoring the page back to it's original version. And now you because you feel vaguely offended are doing exactly that. In that case, I will as well post and ANI here against you. (N0n3up (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@JJBers: You were saying? (N0n3up (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: And what? —JJBers 16:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @N0n3up: '...this discussion for Admins, not new editors who feel like posting on ANI reserved for admins; it is not, twice over. It's for 'administrators and experienced editors,' as it says at the top. Incidentally, Tarage has been here over twelve years, so they could possibly call your insinuation of lack of tenure as an WP:ASPERSION. And since you have been involved in an edit war with the other editor (amongst others!), you can hardly blame them for joining the discussion. You should take these points as, perhaps just an encouragement to focus on any actual adminstrative issues that are required and not personalize the discussion. Many thanks, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Now this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:N0n3up reported by User:JJBers Public .28Result: .29. 17:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Honestly, at this point, I originally posted about KazekageTR adding arbitrary edits without source or talk-page argument/consensus, unwittingly making some minor mistakes along the way, but again, I'm only trying to do the right thing. (N0n3up (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

Can we just close this at this point, this is going almost nowhere. —JJBers 17:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we talk about how JJBers is arbitrarily adding unsourced unsupported content on Turkish War of Independence without providing a single argument not even taking it to the talk page? As said "here" for a trouble editor. (N0n3up (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

JJBers didn't add anything, they reverted you. At this point, one wonders if you have a particular fondness for cyclically aerodynamic fibrous cellulose. Take my advice and let it go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants No, KazekageTR added new unsupported contents, so I reverted to longstanding original. Now JJBers is reverting me to the same version of KazekageTR's unsupported content. Get your facts straight. (N0n3up (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

One wonders no more. One is quite sure of it, at this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a fine thing to say. (N0n3up (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

On the same point, I'm waiting for an apology from you for your personal attack against me. --Tarage (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a mature thing to say. (N0n3up (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Yes, it is actually. I've been completely mature this entire time. I explained to you that what you thought was a personal attack was not one, and then you proceeded to attack me. Heck, you've attacked every single person who responded. Now, it appears you have completely run out of arguments all together and are now just saying statements. I hope someone closes this section before you get a block for personal attacks. Ironic. --Tarage (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You have done nothing but concentrate on editors and not the topic in hand as a matter of fact. So if I were you I wouldn't be too confident. And considering you have taken this much time to write that post, seems you got nothing to do at the moment. I think I've wasted my time. (N0n3up (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Tell me, does ANY editor agree with you? I'm having trouble finding one. --Tarage (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to tell you once again, since you seem to have problems with processing or understanding certain matters. KazekageTR added new unsupported contents without , so I reverted to "longstanding original", as in the "neutral version" that the article was "before the conflict". And if you're referring to JJBers wanting KazekageTR because whatever reason, he still didn't add sources, argumentation nor consensus to why KazekageTR's edit is on the right, he's acting on guts alone. Until then, the neutral version needs to be in place. WP:BOLD, get it? Goodnight. (N0n3up (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Last warning. Stop with the personal attacks. --Tarage (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang block

N0n3up has responded to all criticism with falsehoods and personal attacks, as seen above. All of this evinces a battleground mentality. I believe a short block may be in order until they can calm down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support I was going to give them one more chance to be civil before going this route, but yeah. Enough is enough. --Tarage (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I have never made any personal attacks. Don't mix "not getting along" with "personal attacks". I originally came here to ANI for a problem regarding a user who constantly adds unsourced contents without taking it to talk page. I think User:EdJohnston said something similar regarding the edits on Turkish War of Independence. Nevertheless this ANI discussion has gotten out of proportions to the point that it seems we're diverting from the original reason for this ANI. (N0n3up (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Question. Do you know what casting aspirations means? --Tarage (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

May you grow up to be a successful attorney!!! Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone got your joke... M151 Jeep (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Since reading the discussion, I see that WP:BATTLEGROUNDMENTALITY is fully happening with this user, and a short cool down block is needed. —JJBers 12:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Because I have more edits than all 3 of them combined and I am the newest guy. considering you guys haven't made as much contributions to Wikipedia nor have been around long enough as I have, not to mention neither of you are even admins, AN/I is not for raising middle fingers ot your fellow editors! And here is where ancient weapons break down, whats gonna happen to Kazekage? Ok, he got shouted at, its not justification to go dropping uncivil F bombs on other's talk pages. He should at least get a template. L3X1 (distant write) 13:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems fine, I was thinking of just a simple warning for civility —JJBers 16:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think blocking N0n3up would achieve anything useful at this point, and might only achieve upsetting N0n3up for whom I have sympathy. I suggest N0n3up take some of the advice and feedback included in this entire thread to heart in order to avoid future instances of shooting themselves in the foot. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Carry on: N0n3up sure has been using capital letters on most replies quite a lot, and using all caps is not polite, as this could be equivalent to screaming or shouting in anger. I would recommend to calm both sides down and part ways with all. If anything else happens, a new discussion could open up anytime in the future. Slasher405 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like so called "cool down" blocks, as per WP:COOLDOWN: Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. If he is actually engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior then we should topic ban him from that area. -Obsidi (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. If blocking a user is going to result in more aggressive behavior, then perhaps a topic block would be better. Bmbaker88 (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban for N0n3up

Seeing the fact that a cool down block may not be appropriate, I propose that N0n3up be TBAN'd from any major conflict related pages. This is the fact the their block log shows that the most recent block on them is in relation to the American Revolutionary War. While the most recent edit war happened on another conflict related page. —JJBers 14:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC) (Withdrawing)

• Support in lieu of a cooldown block per Obsidi. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Interesting thing about this is that the American Revolution incident involved between me and editor User:JuanRiley (now blocked forever). I usually don't stay in the same types of articles and usually before reverting, I take it to talk page. The reason for Reverting KazekageTR is because, again, he/she added massive unsourced information in the article without even taking it to talk page even after I told them to take it to talk. And now, some people here wanted to first block me, now ban me because per them, I wasn't nice enough for them, pretty much sums up this entire ANI. (N0n3up (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC))

I'm pretty sure that's a personal attack right there. —JJBers 20:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see your allegation (N0n3up (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC))

• Support Something needs to happen to let him know this behavior is not acceptable. I'll take what I can get. That he's still arguing is proof that something needs to be done. --Tarage (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Me stating what exactly happened being a reason to be banned is not really a concrete reason, besides, I think it's fair to discuss before implementing such actions, Btw, the block mentioned is more than a year ago. (N0n3up (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC))

Help me out here N0n3up. Do you admit that your initial report was wrong? Do you admit that it wasn't a personal attack? Do you admit that you have made personal attacks on this page? To me? Any recognition that you have behaved poorly would help. Otherwise I can't help but think you just aren't getting it. --Tarage (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Tarage I'll be blunt. I am not a perfect user, no one is. I make mistakes from time to time. Originally I came here to deal with a problem with the best intentions but not the best form of method. I wanted to deal with one problem while you and the other one wanted to deal with my behavior, and I don't blame you, I would've done the same. Although I would do it after dealing with the problem article separately. Again, not my best ANI, at this point, I think it's best to shut it down since it's going nowhere. (N0n3up (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC))

I have yet to see any form of apology from you, or recognition that you have personally attacked me and other users. Saying "I am not perfect" is FAR from admitting fault, which is what you need to do to put this to bed. --Tarage (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I did say it. My behavior did not help with this ANI which I am to blame and should've acted differently. Matter of fact, this ANI was wrong to begin with. (N0n3up (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC))

Striking then, so long as you understand that this should not happen again. --Tarage (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

So what now? (N0n3up (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC))

Let it die. The longer you reply to it, the more it sticks around. Count your blessings it didn't go any further than it did. --Tarage (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Since the user has fully admitted it, I think a custom warning should be it. Any admins want to do this? —JJBers 13:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Repeated replacement of un-cited, and often incorrect, information at Weapons of the Vietnam War

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

---

An IP, [[209]] has repeatedly added unsourced, and often completely inaccurate information, at Weapons of the Vietnam War. This has been discussed on the IP's user talk page.

dif

dif

While this is a shared IP, the articles from it all share a theme - military weapons- and look like a single writer.

Anmccaff (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of the most recent additions after @Anmccaff:'s most recent reverts include adding ludicrous aircraft, such as the F-35 Lightning II which isn't even in operation yet. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes they are, but I get your drift. L3X1 (distant write) 01:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, barely entered into operation, is that acceptable? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It's on the other end, too, of course, with stuff that never made it past WWII; my favorite is this diff, which lists most of the oddball US tanks of WWII, including the M6 heavy tank, that was, for all practical purposes, experimental, and never saw combat, or even left the US; only 40 were made, and they are all accounted for; and this which is also vanishingly rare, and was also always jeezly expensive. Neither the Russians nor the Viets were stupid; passing these to a guerilla was like giving a strad to a busker. Anmccaff (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC).

I have requested page protection to assist with this issue.

Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Note, though, that the fellow is "editing" other related pages, with the same standard of accuracy. PP will help, but it ain't gonna fix it. Anmccaff (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn and Anmccaff: The IP hasn't edited a a couple days. If they resume please report to AIV or ping me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As a passing comment, these kinds of articles are magnets for vandals, with the vandalism generally being along the lines of what's occurred here. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:170.254.144.84 and repeatedly changing IPs

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

---

Here is the IP user that's been repeatedly changing the IP address (only 170.254.144 remain the same):

• 170.254.144.88
• 170.254.144.57
• 170.254.144.61
• 170.254.144.35
• 170.254.144.84 (Current one, though the user is likely to change IP address again)

Basically the result of calling the edit in Manaus as irrelevant even with viable source, which is one thing, but because this user has been repeatedly changing IP address, it obviously violates ToS (which is obviously known as ban evasion from changing IP addresses, also includes backseat moderating) as a result of changing a number of IP addresses in order to continue deleting sources. Do please deal with the current situation. Thanks. VGN34D (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

A viable source does not mean that content must be included. Changing IP address is not a violation of anything, and probably not even under the user's control. The subject is under discussion on the article's talk page, where it belongs, and the article is currently semi-protected, so it's not clear what exactly you'd want done. As far as I can tell this user is not banned. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose. I've seen banned users evading them by intentionally changing IP address before, but you're right. You are free to close it, apologies for the inconvenience. VGN34D (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

LibStar abruptly closing AFD

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

---

Could some administrators please consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luerhmen History and Culture Museum, where editor User:LibStar has twice improperly closed the AFD. It is improper for a non-admin or an admin to close the AFD while it is new and there are votes which disagree. LibStar, the deletion nominator, "withdrew" the AFD. I [reverted that with "Not cool. Nominator should update their view, but this is an open discussion. BTW improper closure also failed to note AFD info at article Talk page" and advised them at their Talk. This is wp:BADNAC. After they were notified, they re-implememted it, in what becomes edit-warring.

Then I saw they already reverted it. I considered maybe they didn't understand they were breaking a rule, maybe there was a misunderstanding. I assumed that and re-reverted them with clear notice: "READ the AFD rules. There are votes both ways. This is not your personal game-space." They doubled down and they threaten me!

It seems like this high-handed treatment of the AFD system for impression management. The editor has been putting forth multiple AFDs on museums in various countries in recent weeks, which have sometimes succeeded and more often have not. They responded poorly to criticism of their failing to notify article creators of AFDs. Now this smacks of managing the portfolio of AFDs out there, so that ones where their views are doing poorly are swept away, and their views where they are not severely challenged are left open for AFD editors to see. It also dismisses the good work done by other AFD editors, including good work done to develop the article while the AFD is going on.

I voted "Keep" in the AFD and want the article saved, so it is weird for me to ask for the AFD to be re-opened, but that is the correct process. The bigger problem is the editor's behavior. --doncram 02:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

doncram is hardly an innocent party in this. he has also been following me around for weeks in AfDs that is bordering on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I closed the AfD because as I said in my nomination if sources in Chinese were found I would reconsider. sources were subsquently found. secondly it would have headed to a WP:SNOW keep on the basis. so in the interests of good faith I closed it. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

may I refer to what's on top on AfD close The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page LibStar (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• What are you trying to achieve with this ANI thread? Nominators can withdraw nominations, and this was likely headed for a WP:SNOW close anyway. Reyk _YO! 03:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

precisely. if it was a disputed AfD I would not have withdrawn it. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It IS a disputed AFD. The deletion nominator is not allowed, by the rules, to withdraw it. --doncram 03:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• It is disputed (there was one delete), so withdraw was not appropriate. Given what appears to be a good faith change of the nominators mind due to new sources, and all but 1 editor saying keep (for what appears to be good reasons), I think a WP:SNOW close is appropriate. -Obsidi (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

agreed, it was withdrawn on the basis of new sources found by a Chinese speaking editor. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The deletion nominator was advised they could update their views. They should have acted politely and done so, which happens all the time. What they did instead was NOT LISTEN to what they were being told, and re-implemented a disputed action and make threats and accusations (including accusations here, above). --doncram 03:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) First, to address the specific AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luerhmen History and Culture Museum. Technically, Doncram is correct. Per WP:CLOSEAFD, a nominator may withdraw, but may not close an AfD if there are outstanding delete !votes by other editors. Therefore, this AfD should have been left to run its course. On the other hand, I don't believe that withdrawing AfDs trending keep constitutes "impression management." LibStar and I have disagreed on many museum AfDs, and we disagree on whether the page author should be notified. I try to provide additional sources, and most of the time it isn't enough to convince them to strike their !vote. I do appreciate it when LibStar was convinced by the new sources, and responded by withdrawing their AfD. I've always seen an AfD withdrawal as a gesture of good faith, as it saves time for all the discussion participants. Altamel (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you. yes I wanted to save community time . I've always seen an AfD withdrawal as a gesture of good faith, as it saves time for all the discussion participants. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

so far 3 uninvolved editors have said it's an ok close yet doncram continues to argue and argue. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

All in "good faith", huh? Get in some more bashing while you can. This gives rise to bad taste, along with their badgering at many of the AFDs. --doncram 03:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

hopefully an admin can come along and see if this discussion is worth continuing. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you then arguing in favor of WP:Ignore All Rules? -Obsidi (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

perhaps, this is an instance where I tried to save the community the time and effort of going through an AfD that was clearly heading to keep. all uninvolved editors can see it was heading that way. I refer to article improvement since nominaiton. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Reading what they write here, i think they still have not acknowledged a) that it is a disputed AFD and b) they cannot withdraw in that case. They should leave it to an uninvolved other to close by any "ignore all rules" or SNOW-type closure (and I don't think SNOW was yet justified). They are reading this as approval of their actions. --doncram 03:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

still arguing... LibStar (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Obsidi, were you asking me? Perhaps I did not make myself clear: LibStar should not have closed this AfD. Doing so deprived the one other editor who voted delete of the chance to have their concerns heard out. My point is that it's counterproductive to accuse LibStar of closing AfDs early in bad faith. The best outcome now, along the lines of Doncram's proposal, would be for an uninvolved editor to reopen the AfD for a few days, and reclose it later on. Altamel (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Normally, yes, unless it's unanimous keep, a nominator can't unilaterally shut down a deletion discussion they started. So, technically it was an improper closure. However in an open and shut case such as this, WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY come into play. The rationale for the deletion discussion was lack of coverage, and this was seconded by another editor, but after that existence of coverage was demonstrated so as to render the "delete" rationale moot. If the nominator was mistaken (and by extension the other user who endorsed that point of view and did not raise any other concerns), there's no reason to keep an unnecessary discussion open as a matter of procedure. This is not a big deal. There's really no reason to turn it into one. If any new concerns come to light it is a simple matter to make a new AfD. Swarm ? 03:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The one delete !vote was made before the article was expanded and more sources added, addressing concerns. There's no point re-opening an AFD just so that it can be closed by someone else with the same result. WP:IAR tells us to use common sense - very applicable in this situation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you Neil and Swarm. you explain it well. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't even get a chance to look at the new sources because I was at work. Nice to know my opinion isn't needed. SL93 (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It's now been closed by an administrator. This ANI has achieved nothing. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like it was a big issue this time, but it's a very good rule that if there's disagreement you can't just close as withdrawn. Basically it's about whether SL93 changed his/her mind as well. The IAR approach assumes he/she probably would have given the new evidence, and the comment above indicates that's the case, but the awful situation is when someone hasn't changed their mind but the discussion was closed improperly. If it were me, I'd take a real issue with the close, especially if it were followed by edit warring to reinstate it, and I think that you would, too. FWIW. That said, I understand how it could be messier given what sounds like extenuating circumstances (outside of this particular AfD). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

yes the extenuating circumstances is that doncram has essentially been appearing at almost every AfD I nominate usually as the first commenter... not a coincidence. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• LibStar and Shirt58, please read WP:WDAFD: AfD nominations can only be withdrawn "[i]f no-one else has supported the deletion proposal". Moreover, LibStar, you cannot ever close your own AfD, no matter what. Please refrain from trying to do that in the future. Just let the process play itself out. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

nominators can withdraw their nomination in certain circumstances. what is being disputed in this case is whether the one keep and the substantial new evidence was enough to keep it going. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

To repeat, since apparently you still have neither read nor understood: LibStar, please read WP:WDAFD: AfD nominations can be withdrawn only "[i]f no-one else has supported the deletion proposal". You cannot withdraw a nomination that has a Delete !vote, which yours did. Moreover, you cannot ever close your own AfD, no matter what. You were triply in the wrong -- by erroneously attempting to withdraw your nomination, closing your own AfD, and edit-warring to preserve both of those errors. If you didn't know the rules, now you do; so don't do those things in the future. Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not true, Softlavender. While Libstar shouldn't have withdrawn it when another editor had voted delete (or edit warred over it), it is perfectly acceptable for someone to close their own AfD after they have (correctly) withdrawn it. From your link: "If no-one has supported deletion of the article you may close the discussion yourself as a WP:Speedy keep, or you may leave it for someone else to close the discussion." Libstar was wrong here, but not "triply in the wrong" as you erroneously claim here. A withdrawn AfD may be closed by the original filer. Fram (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fram. Softlavender needs to WP:CHILL. LibStar (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Fram, LibStar: Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luerhmen History and Culture Museum. The VERY FIRST !VOTE is "Delete". Therefore, someone had "supported deletion of the article". Therefore, Libstar was acting against policy in (1) withdrawing the nomination, (2) closing the AfD, and (3) edit-warring to retain that unauthorized close. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, you claimed "Moreover, you cannot ever close your own AfD, no matter what." This is clearly wrong. If one does a correct withdraw, one can then also legitimately close the AfD. The problem here was that the withdrawing was done at a time when it wasn't allowed (and then edit warred over), but you don't make this any clearer by making incorrect statements about what is or isn't allowed in our policy. Fram (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree Fram. Softlavender's stubborn persistence that no nominator can evet withdraw is clearly wrong. LibStar (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Why is this here? This seems like something for WP:Deletion review. In any case, it looks like a straight-forward WP:NOTBURO/WP:IAR/WP:SNOW decision where common sense should prevail over the rules. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

LibStar's original close comes under straightforward NOTBURO/IAR, but conduct issues were also raised (Doncram complained about LibStar's uncooperative attitude; LibStar accused Doncram of following them around; both Doncram and LibStar edit warred over the close); and while those issues may not (indeed, likely won't) lead to any admin action here, they clearly belonged here rather than at WP:DELREV. In any case, since Doncram fully agreed with the keep result, that would have been a fairly silly deletion review. Sideways713 (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

yes doncram's motivation is clearly not this AfD. He has a recent history of following me around so saw this as a a golden opportunity to jump on me. At the end of the day it has zero impact on the deletion result. Instead the community's time has been wasted here. LibStar (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Categories vandal - range block request

Requesting a range block for 2001:48f8:3037:129d:*. Over the past 10 days (see previous link) this user has added categories like Category:Fictional_victims_of_child_abuse to numerous articles whose text does not remotely support the inclusion of that category. See [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215]

EvergreenFir (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Follow up: one of these IPs was tagged in an edit summary by Wikipedia:Cyphoidbomb as "ipv6 North Dakota". EvergreenFir (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Range blocked for a week. I was going to start off with a shorter duration, but, yeah, it looks like Cyphoidbomb already blocked at least one of the IPs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks from XIIIfromTOKYO

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

---

- XIIIfromTOKYO stated that I wrote racist and antisemitic statements several times [216][217]

- Mr rnddude asked him to strike its claim of "homophobic slurs" against me otherwise he would be sanctioned but XIIIfromTOKYO has never done so

- He is very aggressive against me in his way of talking with me, deforming what I say. For example, he is accusing me of accusing Sciences Po of nazism and freemasonery (even though I was only quoting about the WW2 for nazism, and freemasonery is a quote but the author is only talking from a matter of speaking, nothing to do with the actual freemasonry of course), Kautilya3 had to strike its attacks and the answer I had to give. And now he writing the exact same kind of things in a new section

- He is constantly changing the talk page to a place of attacks against me. Sometimes putting the same attacks in several pages. [218] [219]

- Today a new personal attack. I was saying that he was confusing the discussion on ranking and the one on reputation, so that his answer was off-topic, and he answered : "You are lying to an other contributor just to try to gain some time. It's relevant because it shows that you know that you are lying when you write this article."

These attacks are constant, MSGJ and Kudpung are aware of the attacks I have been the subject of. It has been going on for a very long time.

When will that stop?

--Launebee (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

For information, I put an ANI notice on the user’s talk page. Secondly, there is an edit warring going on, where he is oddly deleting sources. Launebee (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice that if a Administrator could actualy read the issues raised for months on the Panthéon-Assas University and Sciences Po talk pages. Launebee has already caused the departure of contributors here.

Launebee has alreay been at work on the French Wikipédia, and it took us months to fix the issue. I hope that someone here will see the problem, and help us fix it.

I already had to face legal threat from this contributor, so any administrator has to be aware that it could accur to him or her as well.

I have been an active contributor on the French Wikipedia for more than 10 years, and I have 100,000+ edits on all projects[220]. There is a disruptive work done, it is and targeting different projet. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the fact that a user left as a issue. —JJBers 16:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@XIIIfromTOKYO and Launebee: Is there a reason why both of you shouldn't be blocked for edit warring on Panthéon-Assas University? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I opened the discussion in the talk page, I am talking and not him. If I may add, this request is not related to the edit-warring, but to the personal attacks against me. My request for protection was not related to the PA, even if it is linked so I mentionned it rapidely. Launebee (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Launebee: So no reason why you shouldn't be blocked? XIIIfromTOKYO has been responding on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Both editors blocked by CambridgeBayWeather for violating WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

NeilN. I just blocked both of them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Leprof 7272 and tag bombing

TOPIC BANNED:

Leprof 7272 is banned from adding, removing, or editing any cleanup banner within any article. The anonymous IP the user has been recently using to continue tagging articles after being warned to stop has been blocked for 72 hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

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

---

• Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 73.210.155.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not a happy thing. LeProf can bring a lot of value and improves articles, but keeps tag-bombing articles like this:

• diff series April 13
• dif series April 7
• diff series April 3 - 6
• diff series April 4
• diff series April 4
• diff series April 3
• diff series March 31
• diff series March 31
• dif March 29
• diff series Feb 11
• diff series in April 2016 including many all caps editing comments

I get it (I do!) that there are parts of WP that are really bad, but tag-bombing this way is not OK.

Leprof has been asked to stop doing this many, many times (Leprof selectively removes or overwrites stuff from their talk page, as you can see in its history). The list below is just some of the discussions people have tried to have with Leprof over this. The list starts with recent and goes backward in time -- start from bottom if you want chron order.

• January 2017: Noted here at ANI
• Dec 2016: asked to back off tagging here at their talk page
• Nov 2016: warned on their talk page here
• Nov 2016 complaint about overtagging at Peptide synthesis and generally tagbombing at their talk page here edited other editors' comment and replied here, then removed here
• May 2016 complaint about overtagging Sophie's Choice at their talk page here, removed here
• April 2016: noted here at ANI; extensive related discussion at their Talk page here, a great deal of that about LeProf edit warring over his edits to the archived ANI discussion (oy)
• April 2016, complaint about overtagging at Chromosome conformation capture at their talk [age here, removed here
• April 2016: complaint about overtagging generally at their talk page that had been removed, re-added here, defiant replies added inline here, overwritten by LeProf here, request to stop overtagging in response, here
• April 2016: complaint at their talk page here about Merlin Mann tagging, removed by LeProf here
• April 2016: complaints at their talk page about tagging/editing of Scum of the Earth Church here, removed by LeProf here
• March 2016 complaints about tagging of Intrinsic factor at their talk page here, overwritten w response by LeProf here;
• March 2016: complaint at their talk page here on March 25 about Acetone peroxide, with follow up here about Villa Baviera; other editor's comments edited, section header changed, and response by LeProf here then later completely overwritten here
• March 2016: complaint about inline all caps tagging here, removed here
• Feb 2016: response to editing tagging at Chirality by 2 editors here; responded to by LeProf here in mid-March, with justification of his tagging practices yet noting I am routinely reverted and accused of bombing
• January 2016: overtagging at Abbvie noted here, removed by LeProf here in March
• October 2015: two editors warn about over-tagging here. removed by leprof here during March 2016 discussions above
• July 2015: complaint about overtagging at their talk page here
• was part of the problem in this ANI thread from 2014

For several reasons, I posted the stuff above on their Talk page here on 16 April asking them to stop.

They did not reply there but did do this series of diffs, tagging the heck out another article.

I waited longer for them to log back in and reply. Today they were back and did this tagging, so it is clear that they do not intend to reply or to stop.

A prior discussion about this here at ANI last April was abandoned because LeProf didn't respond (see thread). We can probably count on them not replying here as well, and they may not log in at all while this runs. They have had plenty of notice that this would happen.

I think a TBAN from tagging articles would be appropriate here. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support TBAN - I first encountered LeProf at A Prairie Home Companion (see history around Dec 2016), and it ended up at ANI (I think I started one of the threads linked above?) and AFC and... well, everywhere. I eventually threw in the towel because it was like talking to a brick wall. As mentioned by Jytdog, LeProf does do good work, but the excessive tagging is, well, excessive (and disruptive). Primefac (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and it also really bothers me the way this user always has to attack articles as both an account and IP, but apparently this is allowed. Sro23 (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing the same articles both logged in and logged out is not allowed, and is sanctionable. Softlavender (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, if you want to throw in an alternate proposal to ensure they're (usually) logged in, be my guest. They have been asked by admin and non-admin alike to stay logged in, and we have yet to receive a straight answer as to why they keep doing it. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I propose a final warning about editing logged in and logged out on the same articles, and if he does it again, blocks of increasing length. Softlavender (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from tagging. This has gone on long enough and is extremely disruptive and aggravating, not to mention unnecessary, heedless, legalistic, and over-the-top. It is disruptive editing, plain and simple. Softlavender (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Block till he explains his behavior. Else he's going to get that TBAN. L3X1 (distant write) 01:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from tagging - An attention-getting block wouldn;t be a bad idea, either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from tagging Seems fairly egregious to me despite long term warnings that got ignored. -Obsidi (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support the above. Or at least restrict them to a max of one tag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBAN because of the long-term tag bombing by the user and editing logged out (that might be considered sock puppetry). Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 05:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• comment - just want to note that the editing while logged out which was already problematic (not really policy-violating as it is always pretty clear it is him and I have never seen him deny an IP was him when asked) but it will become probably unacceptable once this TBAN is in place. Nobody wants to take time guessing if an IP was him in this context. Too bad as he takes some odd pleasure in editing while logged out but upsetting people like he has for so long leads to ... unpleasant restrictions. Which I know will chafe, and will probably lead him to act yet worse. This is unhappy. But there it is. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOCKING policy reads: Sock puppetry can take on several different forms [including]: Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. ... Editors ... who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse. (emphasis mine) See also: Template:Uw-login. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep am aware of that. :) It is definitely annoying but as I noted it doesn't appear to be malicious and they have never (that I have seen) actually pretended like an IP was not them. Just some weird quirk. But our tolerance of that annoying quirk will no longer make sense once there is a TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not "an annoying quirk". It is against WP:SOCK. Please re-read what I typed out. Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, in checking WP:EWLO, the statement must not actively try to deceive other editors is not being broken here. LeProf is very clearly announcing on the IP's page that it's their IP. In other words, it's annoying as hell, but it's not (technically) forbidden. Primefac (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: you're right in the general sense but I disagree with you here. It seems reasonably clear that Leprof deliberately logs out to edit as an IP when they start getting in hot water over their logged-in edits, and whether they own up to it after the fact or not, editing logged out to avoid scrutiny in this way is expressly forbidden. They've been warned many times not to repeat this behaviour while logged out; as such I have blocked the IP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector, you're right. I think I was letting semantics get in the way of reason. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - this has been a long time coming, I've had numerous dis-tasteful experiences with LeProf, usually with the editor hounding my TP - I'd support either the above TBAN proposal or a general block. XyZAn (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support – I and others have tried to reason with this editor that redundant use of attention banners is contrary to long standing conventions. Yes, Leprof is highly skilled and could make a significant contribution to this project. However their strident defense of tag bombing in contravention of consensus is disruptive. A topic ban is long over due.Boghog (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment just for the record, I added the IP which they're currently editing (and tag-bombing) under. They've all but stopped editing with their actual account. Primefac (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Topic Ban. And if the disruption continues, then a long, preventative block without any further discussion. This has gone on long enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

---

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

• There has been some follow-up to this discussion in a number of places, which I have attempted to consolidate at User talk:Leprof 7272. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Since (I'm sorry to say) I have the feeling this issue is going to resurface someday, I note for the record LeProf's statement here [221] (uncollapse "Opportunity costs"):

If the editing situation at an article becomes hopeless, and I depart, I will annotate the article in Talk as to its not being reliable/verifiable from this contributor's perspective...

...plus this at [222]:

So, from the time-stamp and signature here, I will comply with the ban/block for its duration. Because articles at WP cannot, to any honest academic, be edited without noting their clear violations of WP policies and guidelines, I will enjoy this vacation from WP.

It appears that this compulsive tagging is an expression of LeProf's idea that once he edits an article, if he can't mold it to his personal idea of adequacy he must "disown" it by posting a warning to readers. EEng 20:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Iran or Persia

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

---

HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) recently removed Category:6th-century BC Persian people in favor of Category:6th-century BC Iranian people on a lot of articles, while making that category a soft-redirect. I reverted part of them (tried to catch as many as I could), and then the editor posted on my talkpage,[223] to which I replied,[224] and at the same time started an edit war at Category:6th-century BC Iranian people,[225][226], ignoring my call to discuss first and claiming that this is "basically 3rd grade stuff". Please explain to this editor that he must discuss such mass edits before implementing them, or at least after he has been called to discuss. User notified on talkapge,[227] but notification removed[228] with claim "Making an issue out of nothing, absolutely silly. I am not going to take part in that.", so not responsive. Instead he prefers to remind me of my "recent" block for edit warring.[229] Debresser (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically Debresser here is making an huge issue out of nothing. I already said my stuff here [230]. I am honestly not interested to take part in something that shouldn't be a problem - also, I find it funny how he simply started mass-revert crusade and now is basically avoiding to discuss with me about his actions. With all due respect, he should talk to me about it, not hide behind the users here. And yes, it is important to note that he has been recently blocked due to edit-warring.

"but notification removed with claim "Making an issue out of nothing, absolutely silly. I am not going to take part in that.", so not responsive. Instead he prefers to remind me of my "recent" block for edit warring."

Well that's clearly wrong, since I wrote other stuff to you as well actually regarding the issue, which you simply chose to ignore. If you're gonna mass-revert several articles, then you should also take the responsibilty and discuss with the user about it. Every normal person would get frustrated by that, obviously. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not avoiding discussion. To the contrary, I called on you to start a discussion instead of edit warring, and you have not done so. you even started to edit war. Please understand that posting on my talkpage is not "discussing". Discussions should be posted at the appropriate places, like WP:IRAN, WP:HISTORY, not on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty, that's not really a good excuse. You still had time to respond to me, which you chose not to. Take responsibility for something you have done, that's all I am going to say. Also, if you're that of a constructive user, you wouldn't have started a mass-revert crusade, but would have written to me first, and asked why I did those edits. Not to mention I even gave a proper, non-biased justification for my edits. Also, you might wanna take a look here [231]. You brought this issue up to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents way too early, and should have sit down and talked with me first. Furthermore, regarding me 'starting a edit-war' [232], I only corrected a huge error, it was a no-brainer to me tbh - you might wanna take a look here [233] [234]; This is why you write to the talk page of the user about a topic he is widely more knowledgeable about before making 11 reverts. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I left you an explanation in an edit summary, which was reason for you to undo it. I responded to your message on my talkpage, and still you reverted. So I had no choice but to take you here, which - wonder, oh wonder - instantly had the desired effect of stopping you. Now, please discuss this somewhere, post a link to the discussion here, and I am sure admins will close this soon enough as "requiring no action". Debresser (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I am sorry I didn't look at every edit summary of your 11 reverts which made my notification box explode. That's what talk pages are for mate. Also, you may have responded on your talk page, but you still avoided my justification for doing those edits, and is still doing so. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You really don't seem to get it. This is not the place for a content dispute. For that, please open a proper discussion, either on one of those WikiProjects or at WP:CFD. This page is for the behavioral issue. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't care less, I just am explaining my actions. Nope, not going to post on WikiProjects or at WP.CFD, but in the talk page of the category itself (WP:DISCUSSFAIL). --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

HistoryofIran's contributions don't look to encouraging. His conduct with other users isn't too encouraging either, in case your'e wondering what that text is, he's saying :

"LouisAragon Aleykum Salam! I write my own history with the culture of other nations? You're donkeys, you Persians, no time to write history! I am writing to you to in order to stop stealing the history of the Turks, you bastards. !!" struck out as incorrect, this was done by another user,not History of Iran

This recent comment to Debresser wasn't all that great either. He looks to have recieved a block (admittedly back in 2016 (May 2016) ) for edit warning in a Persian topic, and there are a few more besides this one, further back, and he looks like he's heading back into that territory again. I'm thinking possibly a TBAN for him might be forthcoming.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

KoshVorlon: You're completely right, my contributions [235] [236][237] don't look encouraging at all :). Besides, that text wasn't written by me, but by this guy, [238] who has a history of insulting people in another language, hence why he got banned [239]. You're basically falsely accusing me of saying something I literally didn't say. Why would I insult my own ethnicity? Also, where do you see that I am 'heading back into that territory' by looking at my contributions besides the issue with Debresser [240]? Since when did expanding articles become disruptive? I will admit that I could have been more gentle when writing to Debresser, but I wasn't outright hostile towards him, nor did I insult him or anything like that. It's quite normal to get frustrated when a person makes 11 reverts and then refuses to discuss about it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: that "comment", which you highlighted here, was made by an indeffed user named "Rufet Turkmen",[241] not user HistoryofIran. What you just did, was copying the translation I added on admin Ymblanter's talk page (2 April 2017), word for word verbatim,[242] and presenting it right here as if they are HistoryofIran's words. Please strike your accussation once you read this. Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And what's more interesing about this whole "case", is that user "Debresser" never had an actual dialogue about the matter on his talk page, nor on the talk page of any of the articles in question (not counting the accusation of vandalism straight off the bat). Sure, "HistoryofIran" ignored BRD (which isn't even a guideline/policy), but its "Debresser" who found his way to this drama board pretty much right away. That much said about "proper editing". - LouisAragon (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, FYI, all these 5th/6th-centuries BC Persian people categories were made by an user who has a long history of tendentious editing, and who was forcefully placed under a mentor until the recent past.[243][244] I don't blame HistoryofIran, who has single handedly done most work on Iranian-related aticles for years, for challenging them. Yet user Debresser, who, as far as I can see, has barely ever made any content edits to Iranian-related articles, was there swiftly to report HistoryofIran, to a drama board. Go figure. Overhasty attempt to get rid of someone, thats what this is all about IMHO. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not a "drama board", but is the place where editors go when they have to deal with edit warriors who are not willing to discuss. The fact that I don't edit Iranian-related articles that much (just a few), has nothing to do with this. Nobody owns any section of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well you're making it like a drama board, this shouldn't have been an issue from the start. Hmmm, who is the edit warrior, me, or the person who did over 11 reverts? Who is not willing to discuss, me, or the person who has time to revert/edit and write here, whilst still not responding to my justifcation (most likely because you don't have anything proper to say tbh). It was me who wanted to discuss from the start, whilst you ignored me and then brought this issue to this board. Also, did I ever accuse you randomly of vandalism? No? Did you do that to me? Yes? Well I think we've found out who the disruptive editor is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

HoI is a good editor and he does good contributions to Iranian-related articles. However, I don't understand why he removed that category from several Achaemenid articles like Cyrus the Great[245]? Weren't Cyrus and Achaemenids Persian? Is that category unnecessary? Why? --Wario-Man (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I did that because that category gives limited options compared to the Category:6th-century BC Iranian people. A lot of Iranians weren't Persians (but according to Debresser, it seems that all Iranians are Persian [246], which is heavily incorrect ofc). A good example is Mandane of Media, who was of Iranian Median descent, but yet Debresser reverted my edit on that article as well, which clearly shows that he didn't even take a proper look at the articles he reverted, but reverted for the sake of reverting, imho. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In view of the fact that HistoryofIran still tries to make the point that I am the problematic editor, which he explains with various accusations that have no leg to stand on, despite the fact that he is the editor who unilaterally decided to make tens of undiscussed changes related to categorization of a group of articles, refused to discuss them when he was reverted and asked to discuss, and still has not opened a discussion about them, I propose that this editor be temporarily (blocked or) topic banned, till such time as he shows he understands the error of his ways as well as his willingness to discuss these edits and similar edits in the future. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure I was the one that wanted to discuss in the first place [247] - it was your own choice to not reply to me, hence you are the one that refused to discuss, not me. Of course I haven't opened a discussion about it when there's an ongoing issue here, which shouldn't have been an issue in the first place if you chose to reply to me instead avoiding my argument for those edits. Obviously you still have time to answer back, so don't make it look like I am the one refusing to talk. Also, pretty sure my 'accusations' are pretty solid, especially the Mandane of Media part. Heck, my reason for those edits are literally up above, you're welcome to answer back. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this sounds more like a content dispute with the categories. —JJBers 17:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with JJBers. This is more of a content dispute concerning categories and should be discussed on article talk pages. Instead of Debresser making a demand for discussion on the talk page, why have they not started a discussion? This discussion should be closed and both Debresser and HistoryofIran should be expected to discuss this out on the appropriate article talk page(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agree - I'll create a section on the talk page of Category:6th-century BC Persian people right after this discussion has been closed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Why only "after" this discussion is closed? I'd say that is additional proof of your bad faith. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How is that proof somehow? I just think it would be more suitable that way, you might want to calm down. Fine, I'll create a discussion when I am home, where I'll be eagerly waiting for your response.

• This looks like a WP:CfD issue to me. Pinging BrownHairedGirl for assistance. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I too think that the category talkpage is not the optimal place for such a discussion. There exists WP:CFD and Template:Cfm for proposing category merges. One of the reasons is that category talkpages are usually not visited by many editors. Unfortunately, HistoryofIran is not inclined to take any good advice from me. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"Good advice" that's subjective. Sounds more like a way for you to avoid taking part in this issue further imho.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofIran (talk • contribs)

You really don't get it. Poor you. I came here to report a behavioral issue. I do not have to discuss any content issue with you. In addition, you refuse for the third day now to open a discussion about it, insisting without any basis in policy or custom, that you want this discussion closed first. Debresser (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Poor you (speaking in your language now), you should have thought about that before making 11 swift reverts without any form for discussion, you're no saint yourself. Don't assume you're the boss of Wikipedia. I haven't 'refused' anything, don't put false words in my mouth, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I started a thread on Category talk:6th-century BC Persian people about this. —JJBers 15:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks JJBers, I'll get to it right away. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Debresser, you are the one that started this ANI thread, and you should be the one that takes it (and should have taken it in the first place) to WP:CFD. Please do that, so this unnecessary and ill-placed content dispute thread can be closed here. Softlavender (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender Huh? These edits weren't my idea! Why should I take it to Cfd? Debresser (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You are making the complaint. You filed the complaint in the wrong venue. This is not the venue for a content dispute. So nothing is going to happen here. If you want something to happen, file your complaint or suggestion or request in the correct venue, which would be WP:CfD -- Categories for Discussion. Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to re-read my first post, and you'll see I came here only because of the behavioral issue. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Smart-ass's

The following discussion is closed. 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 can someone lose this account, it is an unsuitable username and going on a spree of disruption.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Mass rollback requested

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

---

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive952#Copyright violations, disruptive editing

This user is back at Special:Contributions/81.152.80.46 making ducky edits. I blocked for block evasion, can someone please do a mass rollback? I don't have time to do it, or review the edits. Seeing the discussion in the archive, none of these edits are to be trusted. Thank you, BethNaught (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I've got the time, and am on it. Scr★pIron^IV 17:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Done! Scr★pIron^IV 17:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Range block request 2600:8801:118b:dd00:*

The following discussion is closed. 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 requesting a range block on 2600:8801:118b:dd00:*. This user has been disruptive on cartoon-related pages, specifically by changing dates and adding apparently false info into broadcast lists (e.g., [248], [249], [250],[251]). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, as always EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

MightyDinoPower15

The following discussion is closed. 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 latest problem is repeatedly adding Mary-Kate Olsen to the redirect page Mk.[252][253][254][255]

Reverts by Sundayclose and BilCat.[256][257][258][259]

Unproductive attempts to resolve this particular issue:[260][261] (Editor has been repeatedly warned for edit warring, generally reverting any changes to their edits and ownership issues. This has included editing while logged out and socking to restore their preferred version. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MightyDinoPower15/Archive.)

OK, so that's a 3RR. However, I believe this is part of a significant a CIR issue.

The editor has an extensive history of ownership issues related to Olsen twin and Star Trek articles.[262][263][264][265][266][267][268]

Edits to their writing are routinely reverted, even for trivial grammatical/punctuation issues.[269][270][271][272][273][274][275]

Warnings/request to discuss the issue are usually blanked, with a note saying the editor does not respond to threats. The user has resorted to legal threats and personal attacks.[276][277][278][279][280][281][282][283][284][285][286][287][288][289][290][291][292][293][294]

Another recurring issue was attempts to keep the new timeline Star Trek films separate from the rest of the Star Trek universe,[295][296][297][298][299][300][301][302][303][304][305][306][307][308][309][310][311][312][313][314][315][316] apparently based on not liking the idea that a character is those films is openly gay.[317]

In short, I think the editor is unable to understand and accept the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for a second violation of WP:NLT [318] (as well as a host of other reasons). caknuck _° needs to be running more often 07:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

They have requested an unblock on their talk page. As I'm involved now, I'm going to defer response to another admin. Thanks, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 08:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Kinda peripheral. And ere's a significant possibility that Summer was correct in implying homophobic motives on MDP's part. If this is the case, I don't want to be seen as defending a bigot. OR is bad. Conflating different fictional characters, and adaptations of fictional characters to different media, and alternate versions of said characters, is generally a bsd idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Commenting on the last part of the Star Trek bit just for the hell of it. Just to play devil's advocate, conflating the original timeline's Sulu with the alternate universe version is inappropriate. It's not clear exactly what the linked comment was in reference to, but since it's on the talk page of the article on the fictional character, I'm guessing it's in reference to the article's inclusion in Category:Fictional gay males. It's a grey area as to whether an article discussing several separate characters should be included in categories that only cover one, from what I can tell. The argument that main universe Sulu can't be gay because he has a daughter is clearly flawed, but the implication of User:SummerPhDv2's comment is that MightyDinoPower has a homophobic motivation, and that isn't necessarily borne out by the linked diff. No comment on whether the rest of what Summer says is accurate, but if I am reading the comment in question as it was intended, this is a black remark and should probably be stricken pending clearer evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• The lawsuit was retracted so unblock me IMO he can chill a few more days/hours until he learns to not go around gaming the system with legal threats. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't an actual unblock request (he deleted the block notice), so he's not going to get unblocked. Softlavender (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Active Long-term Abuser - Best known for IP 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.

---

• 71.89.214.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Behavior matches long term abuse case Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Originally reported to AIV, but report was removed without action by Materialscientist. Edits where the user removes "best" from the phrase "best known for" here: [319] [320] [321] [322] [323] [324] [325] (too​ tedious to link every relevant edit while on my phone, these are just most recent ones).

I am admittedly rather unfamiliar with this LTA case, but the behavior matches from what I can tell. Also see editing on Jim Ward (voice actor)

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess it's possible, but it doesn't look like it to me. The "best known for" IP is disruptive mostly because of personal attacks and edit warring. This IP editor seems to be more of a crapflooder. I warned the IP for spamming pointless reverts at Jim Ward (voice actor). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

2.28.152.0/21 is more likely to be the "best known for" IP's latest IP range. IPs on that range have tripped the filter a few times recently, and at least one of the IP addresses seems to have been blocked already as a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you both. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Request a tempory block for user 'Lugnuts' and 'Ponyo'

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

---

Lugnuts made a page called 'Walter Handschumacher'. It contained very little content and did not seem to fit the guideline so for a suitable article. I recommended the article be referred for deletion under section A1 of the speedy deletion guideline she due to a lack of content. Lugnuts removed the recommendation without giving a valid reason why. I then posted on Lugnut's talk page why I had said the article would be deleted. However, he deleted my comment and called me an 'idiot with a grudge' in the description for his edit. I then decided to add a speedy deletion tag seeing as my normal tag had been removed. Ponyo then deleted the tag, describing me as a 'bad faith nom'. I then reinstated it but Ponyo again repeatedly removed it without saying why.

Walter Handshumacher https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Handschuhmacher

Page history *Evidence* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Walter_Handschuhmacher

Lugnuts talk page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lugnuts

Lugnuts talk page history *Evidence* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/User_talk:Lugnuts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.72.59 (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That's odd; your thread title implies you want Lugnuts and Ponyo blocked, but then everything underneath it implies you want your own IP blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*No, unless we're also going to block you for the incivility for edit summaries such as [326]. A1 was inapplicable to the article you nominated because A1 "applies to articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." The subject of that article is obviously Walter Handschuhmacher, a German Olympic swimmer. Stop edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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