Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive892

Edit warring at high-profile BLP that's subject to discretionary sanctions

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

---

Today, User:MrX has twice deleted the image at the top of the Jeb Bush article (first deletion, second deletion) which had been stable since June 22 23. MrX replaced that image with one that he had previously inserted on June 22. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions,[1] as MrX has been well aware.[2] MrX has been involved in image disputes and inappropriate editing at other articles of Republican presidential candidates (also subject to discretionary sanctions). For example, last month, he inserted a top photo into the Mike Huckabee article [3], only a day after explicitly saying at another talk page that that image will “convey anger”. [4] But getting back to the edit warring today over the top image at Jeb Bush, MrX has not bothered to use the article talk page since June 23, and his second revert today ignored my objections at the article talk page to his first revert. I will repeat that comment of mine right now, because MrX has not yet acknowledged it in any way:

The image that has been atop this article since 22 June (called "jebcropped") was removed today.[5] I will restore it because no one at this talk page has disagreed (with my assessment above on 27 June) that the poll above has been overtaken by additional images. Indeed, only two editors were involved in the poll above, between addition of the "jebcropped" image to the poll on June 23 and my assessment on June 27. Instead, people have continued commenting in the subsections below.

Instead of responding, MrX decided to edit war, and I think this ought to be unacceptable at such a high profile article that is subject to discretionary sanctions, even if the BLP subject happens to be a Republican.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "decide to edit war". My first edit implemented the clear consensus in which five editors supported the edit by a wide margin. This can be readily seen here: talk: Jeb Bush#Infobox photo. My reasoning was articulated in my edit summary. I made a total of six comments in the talk page discussion. I was not aware that I had a quota.

I did not see Anythingyouwant's objection on the talk page before I reverted, else I would have responded that consensus supports my edit. Does anyone see any other interpretation? The only reason that Anythingyouwant's preferred version has been stable since June 22 is because that's when he first forced it in against consensus. He did this during the poll, and brushed off my objection.

As to my editing on Mike Huckabee, my edit was based on the technical qualities of the photo. Note also that I did concede that I had overlooked the expression of the subject's face.- MrX 17:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, when MrX reverted a second time, he could see my edit summary explicitly referencing the article talk page three times.[6] In addition, he must have the article and its talk page watchlisted. MrX has sought to make his edit-warring stick today by templating my user talk page after his second revert to the BLP.[7] MrX is a pretty savvy guy, and I do not believe he could have overlooked the article talk page since June 23 without doing so deliberately. I'll leave the rest of his comments above for others to sort through if they are of interest, and will be glad to answer any questions from third parties. I don't see that MrX's diffs and links show any error on my part.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This really seems like a matter that should be hashed out on the article talk page. The next step should be an RFC, not an ANI discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I will revert to the stable image and start an RFC if people don't see anything actionable in this ANI section. It looked actionable to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't restore your personal favorite image when five editors favor another image in the current RfC. Why would you post another RfC when there's already one in progress? The correct action is to request that an uninvolved editor formally close the current RfC and abide by its consensus.- MrX 18:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there was an open RFC when you last visited the article talk page on June 23, but there is none now, as you know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have linked to it. Here it is → Talk:Jeb_Bush#Infobox_photo. The poll started by Hammersoft has been running for 23 days. Image 2 has five supporting !votes; images 3 and 7 each have two supporting !votes; all of the other choices have one or fewer supporting !votes. - MrX 18:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As you know, that's a straw poll, and I addressed it in the big blockquote in my first comment above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus seeking can take many forms. As I mentioned on the talk page, straw polls can be very useful where the dispute is based on subjective factors rather than policy interpretation. Perhaps you should consult with the other editors who already took the time to make their preferences known.- MrX 18:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, straw polls can be very useful. As can RFCs. As can article talk pages more generally. In this instance, I would support an RFC to consider only the two images in question, while restoring the stable image. Whether you are blocked or not is up to others.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Relatedly to non-neutral editing at GOP presidential candidate BLPs, I also want to flag the comment that MrX just made at Talk:Marco_Rubio. The BLP currently attributes to a specific opinion piece that Rubio used to be the "crown prince" of the Tea Party. MrX contorts WP:Weasel to assert that attributing such stuff as "opinion" is improper. In other words, we have a broad problem here with an editor of certain candidate BLPs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, what I said was "the addition of "opinion piece" is awkward and unnecessary bordering on WP:WEASEL". I never said it was "improper". Of course it should be attributed, but the phrasing "opinion piece" casts doubt on the source. It would be more appropriate to simply say that "James M. Lindsay in Newsweek said...". Anyway, I'm not sure how my article talk page comment rises to the level of an ANI complaint.- MrX 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If the source itself says "OPINION" then that should be the end of the matter for us, and WP:Weasel does not in any way discourage us from saying that it is opinion. Merely saying "James M. Lindsay" is ambiguous about whether he's a reporter, and such weaseliness is inappropriate, and is obviously not supported by WP:Weasel, as you ought to know. I'm bring this up here because I've already described substantial problems at two similar articles (Bush and Huckabee), and all three articles are high profile BLPs under discretionary sanctions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Curse of Fenric

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

---

Hello, my fellow Wikipedians. I bring before you the user named Curse of Fenric (talk · contribs), currently indef blocked by Nick (talk · contribs) for being disruptive and clearly not being here to be productive. I bring him before you even though he is indef'd to make the indef block officially in to a ban so the user in question must go through a ban appeal to return. Curse's presence on Wikipedia since his return from a seven year self-imposed absence for not getting his way before has been marred by name calling, uncooperation, complaining, ignoring of consensus, ego, and ignoring behavioral guidelines. He has edited/removed other people's comments on talk pages, even to the point he was even called out by an IP user. He has told me personally to "butt out", while trying to excuse it by saying he said "kindly", as if that somehow makes it okay in relation to WP:CIVIL. He called his blocking admin "pathetic". He has been rude while trying to excuse it by saying he was "provoked", again, as if that makes it okay in relation to WP:CIVIL. He's labeled any comments that challenged his position and/or actions as "baiting". He even "banned" three users, including myself, from leaving him messages on his talk page. And when Mareklug removed it, he re-added it. When Nick removed it again, he re-added it again, though he hid it. In his departure, he left a "self-block" message on his user page. I ask that the community impose an indefinite ban that the user must appeal to return so he can prove that he intend to return to be productive and not waste the community's time. Thank you. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 00:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It's far too early to be thinking about a ban given the indefinite block today is their first block and there's not an enormous amount of discussion about the user previously. I'm happy for anybody to review and lift the block if/when Curse of Fenric makes suitable assurance about their future behaviour, editing patterns and interactions with their fellow editors. The onus is now on Curse of Fenric to illustrate how they intend to become a productive and trouble free contributor. Nick (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Nick definitely deserves a lot of credit for taking the initiative and blocking Curse, typically you have to jump through hoops to get unproductive editors who don't specialize in outright vandalism blocked. While my only experience with Curse was at Professional wrestling in Australia, and we never had any particularly heated arguments, his arguments with seemingly everybody else in the Professional Wrestling Wikiproject were really uncalled for. I hope that Curse sees the error of their ways and make those suitable assurances but that would be a complete change of character for them. If his block is to be overturned I would suggest a topic ban in the area of Pro Wrestling as that seems to be the source of most (all?) of his contention.LM2000 (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling his block log is clean and there's been little discussion about him because of the aforementioned seven year absence. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 00:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me add fuel to the fire - Not sure exactly what COF was blocked for exactly, but I've recently had a run-in with that editor over at Talk:Incidents at Disneyland Resort. First he accused me of anti vaccine conduct TBH and trying to hide the truth of why California now has a new law. Then went on to basically Call me an activist. When I tried to explain why I objected to the information he basically said straight out that I was a liar. And he even went so far as to admit that he was assuming bad faith. Finally today he said If you can't see that then there is clearly something wrong with you. These links were not mentioned above so I thought I would add them for consideration. COF clearly does not understand how to assume good faith and does not understand how to not attack other editors motives.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't read that discussion, or I probably would have linked a few difs. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 02:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, I was planning on opening a case here just after I read the last attack on me by FOC. But I was just going to put it off for a few hours because I was watching The Blob with the wife. When I came here I noticed that one was already opened and FOC had already been indef blocked, and for something completely unrelated to what I was going to report him for. Just goes to show that when it rains, it pours.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If at this point he is indeffed and it's only his talk page that is disruptive, might revoke Talk page access for at least a while. Agree with Nick that there is probably not enough history for a policy-based ban. I think this ANI filing served a purpose by creating a record of some problems if someone needs to check on these things in the future. However at present, under the indef, there's not much point in doing anything more other than possibly a revocation of talk-page access (and adding a link to this ANI on his Talk page) for whatever period seems appropriate, if that is the only disruption he is creating. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The !voting hasn't started yet but I Oppose a ban for 2 reasons. First, as a personal principle I will oppose ban/sanction proposals by one party in a dispute. Second, COF was just blocked and has not engaged in any sort of the typical behaviour one expects. No socking (IP or otherwise), vandalism, trolling, harassment etc. They're obviously upset that things didn't go their way and that others don't see things the way they do. This happens regularly and should not be something that is held over their head like the Sword of Damocles. I suggest leaving the block as it is now and move on. Blackmane (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose a ban as well at this time. It's too premature to even consider. TrueCRaysball should maybe remember that he got away with a lot more misbehavior before he was banned himself, before proposing to ban other people.--Atlan (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, consulting the OP's block log does put a rather new light on things. Suggest closing this thread as a waste of everyone's time. Softlavender (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I realize the OP isn't exempt from scrutiny, but for pete's sake that was over four years ago. But Atlan's point is well take. Though I don't get Softlavender's point of how that "put things in a new light". TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 04:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose ban; no justification has even been given for a ban because it doesn't exist. The notion that this editor has committed some exceptional misconduct that demands nothing short of a community consensus to ever return to editing is excessive and draconian. They are blocked indefinitely; this is a perfectly ample preventative measure for the protection of the project, and there's no reason the standard block appeals process is not applicable. Basically it just looks like OP has beef with COF and wants to see them punished with a ban. Nope. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  I honestly don't have a beef with the user in question, I just thought (incorrectly, apparently) that his actions justified a ban. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 05:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BMB: "Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors." I suggest you withdraw/close/archive this thread as in error before it starts to boomerang on you. And don't repeat the error (i.e., don't come to a noticeboard requesting that an editor be banned less than an hour after they've been indef blocked. Or, preferably, at all.) Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• In fact, it appears that, per Atlan, that I jumped the gun and as such I withdraw this proposal and apologize for wasting everyone's time. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 05:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Calibrador again

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

---

• (I should point out Calibrador wasn't brought here a month, Calibrador infact brought another editor here so I apologize for that mistake. –Davey2010^Talk 14:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC))
  

About a month ago Calibrador was brought here[8] because he basically adds his name to the end of his images and I and others thought it was SELFPROMOTION, He's returned and has reinserted his images everywhere, I did revert but obviously he's reverted back and well edit warring isn't going to solve anything.... Anyway can anything be done in regards to the image title-naming and or mass image adding as there were proposals in the ANI discussion but nothing was done, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 03:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Before anyone comments on this, I suggest taking a closer look. One, Davey2010 reverted my addition of my photos to articles that previously did not have any free image available (at least 5 or more instances of this). Two, no edit summary was given by Davey2010, aside from this one, "Stop spamming your fucking images." Three, in each instance when I added an image, I made sure to include an edit summary for changing the image if one was already available, moved the previous image further down in the article if it helped to better illustrate the article subject, and did not add an image of someone I may have a free photo for, but the previous image was better. His objection involves naming policy, which none of the previous ANI discussion yielded any sort of result from, as there is no policy, that I am aware of, regarding the author name in the title of the image. If there is a specific policy against this, then I am all ears. Calibrador (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit I should've looked closely instead of blindly reverting and so I apologize for that, Anyway I know for a fact someone is going to end up reverting Calibrador which is why I want this resolved instead of everyone going in one big circle reverting each other and ending up at various noticeboards, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 03:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone could propose an edit filter that disallows "gage skidmore" in filenames. That would solve the issue rather quickly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Genuine question: Is there a policy against wiki editors who live-post a lot of their own photos from having their name in the file name? I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious. Not going to name users yet but one fairly high-profile noticeboard case of late concerned an editor who does exactly that. Is it against policy? Or not? Rightly or wrongly, I agree that editors need to establish consensus before replacing existing photos with ones they themselves have taken unless they receive talk-page consensus first -- especially if they are reverted -- per WP:BRD. And no, I don't like it when people spam their own work onto Wikipedia, especially in large quantities and especially if it has become problematic and people request them to stop. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

So to clarify he is adding his name to the file names of the images in question. His name is neither within Wikipedia nor within the displaced image.

This is sort of borderline. Not the typical Wikipedia way but not against policy either as far as I am aware. Someone can create a bot to change the names if they so cared. We should thank User:Calibrador for his images though. Good images are hard to create. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: to Doc James: My understanding is the images he is posting already have his name in the file name, and he is replacing perfectly acceptable (and often superior) existing images with his own images (whose files include his real name), without consensus or reason other than seemingly to spam or promote himself. See the previous lengthy ANI linked in the OP. Davey2010, kindly provide a lot of diffs for the behaviors you are talking about ... don't make us search or wonder. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

In a sane world we might think that placing the creator's name in the filename would be a useful way to reinforce attribution. In all of the recent cases reverted by Davey where there was a previous image in the article, the images Calibrador added were more recent and of equivalent or higher quality. (I guess there's a handful where I'd call the previous image more flattering, but that's subjective.) IMO this needs to stop coming back to ANI and anyone who objects to this style of file naming needs to start an RfC on the subject that is not about any one specific individual's contributions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would gently suggest that if anyone creates an edit filter to enforce a "policy" that doesn't exist and is being actively discussed, that person might very well have the ability to create edit filters taken from him. We already have a case at Arbcom that involves an admin using an edit filter to create a permanent block of an IP address with no record of the action in the block log. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this is definitely an unacceptable use of the edit filter. I do think the name-in-file issue is worth a discussion somewhere (not here) though. Sam Walton (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree that username in file, if it is the uploading wiki editor's, is a questionable and self-promotional practice. If it's a one-off photo from outside wiki (a non-wiki photographer) that had to be OTRSed for copyright release, that's one thing. But mass uploads of photos by a wiki editor who puts their name in the file itself is in my mind like spamming numerous article ELs with links to one site. There has definitely been controversy about this issue recently in other wiki venues; I lost the trail of the outcome but I recall some of the parties involved. In any case, regarding the editor in question, if the OP is not going to give us any actual evidence in the form of recent diffs (preferably a good deal of them), I don't think they've sufficiently made their case here. Softlavender (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I apologize for not explaining better yesterday - Stupidly I assumed everyone would've known - If only we were mind readers eh :), Anyway basically Gage Skidmore (Now Calibrador) has been adding his name to the end of the file names of his own images[9] for quite a long time despite all of the Metadata stuff, I and others thought this was self promotion and had reverted him, I and others went to his talkpage but to no avail, Realizing he (and others) weren't going to stop I took him to ANEW [10] but he was only warned[11], A month later Calibrador took another editor to ANI and it all backfired and was turned to Calibador and his images/behaviour - There was proposals in the report [12]for interaction banfor a ban on Calibrador/Gage Skidmore to add his name as author/photographer to articles on en-WP but the entire discussion was archived with no action being taken, A day later he was blocked for 24 hours [13] for edit warring and wanting to add his own images to an article[14][15][16],

I hope I've explained a bit more better, I agree with the above he does upload some great images and I personally have no issues with the bloke but the "Gage Skidmore" part at the end is problematic - That's my only issue, As I said on his TP this morning[17] if he removed his name from the file names I honestly would have no problems with him adding all his images here but too me it does seem like selfpromotion, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, so what policy or consensus is that violating? If none, then you have no business reverting him, and there's surely no admin action needed here? Mr Potto (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's my point I and others believe he is violating WP:SELFPROMOTION by adding his name, There's been a divided discussion above but no one has said "yes it's fine" or "no it's not fine" and since nothing's been done so far I would like someone to either take action against him (either telling him to stop or to block him) or say "Nope he's allowed to do it" otherwise he's going to keep being reverted by everyone. –Davey2010^Talk 17:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:SELFPROMOTION is clearly about "Writing about yourself and your work" and he has not been doing that. It says absolutely nothing about using your name in a file name (or anything other than writing about yourself or citing yourself in a reference), so I don't see how you can possibly think you have a mandate for reverting or for asking for admin action. If you want to modify policy to prohibit this file naming approach then you need to go get a consensus and make the modification, and stop trying to enforce a policy that clearly does not exist. Mr Potto (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No but it's plainly obvious it is Selfpromotion and an RFC won't accomplish nothing as even if there is a consensus to ban names he'd carry on anyway, But anyway as I said I'm simply looking for an admin to take some sort of action or to say it's fine ... That's it. –Davey2010^Talk 17:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It's fine. There's nothing in the relevant project standard about including your name in the filename, which isn't officially a guideline or policy anyway. A prolific image contributor, User:Shankbone, has done this in the past, and as far as I know, he didn't get complaints; he's never been blocked, for example. Finally, we don't have jurisdiction over the names given to these files: decisions made here at en:wp aren't binding on Commons, and you need to go to COM:AN/U if you want to seek sanctions for doing something that's permitted by policy. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah I wasn't aware of that at all, Well if others have done it no problems then really it should be fine here, Anyway Thank you Nyttend for your reply - Much appreciated, Can someone close this please? –Davey2010^Talk 18:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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

LooneyTunerIan

The following discussion is closed. 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 has been discussed previously, when he was adding repeated copyright violations and acting uncivilly. See the past discussion.

Since then, this user deleted all articles he contributed to the wiki as he said he would in the past discussion. He also edited multiple articles about specific cartoons and removed information about their availability on VHS or laserdisc. It appears that he intended to remove all references regarding Looney Tunes VHS/laserdisc from the wiki, as he feels "wronged" due to the previous warnings regarding copyright infringement and unsourced content. As he stated in the previous discussion (linked above), "It doesn't matter anymore. I have requested the articles that I have created to be deleted. That way, no one will ever know what Looney Tunes VHS/Laserdisc Collections there were or have been released ever again. For now on, the only Looney Tunes Home Video collection articles anyone will be looking for are either Blu-rays or DVDs." Examples of removal of content: [18], [19]

He's also continued to be combative towards other editors. See examples: [20], [21].

Unfortunately, this editor is simply not here to build an encyclopedia. Even after several attempts by multiple users to reach out to him and interact in a constructive manner, he continues to snap at anyone who disagrees with him and has acted in bad faith by attempting to remove all references to Looney Tunes VHS/laserdisc from the wiki after not being allowed to continue adding unsourced articles with major copyright infringements. At this point, he's making exclusively disruptive edits. ~ Rob^Talk 12:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• LooneyTunerIan (talk · contribs · logs) userlinks for convenience. Blackmane (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If this sort of thing is bothering everyone, someone should issue a warning watermark stamp/template on my talk page. It's the only way I'll back off. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

LooneyTunerIan – please review WP:POINT. At this point, one of us could add a {{Uw-point}} warning message to your Talk page, but is it really still necessary?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

IJBall If it's the only way to refrain myself from editing all those articles, SO BE IT. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No, there's another way. An admin could take a look at your edits, take a look at the copyvios, take a look at all the deleted artcles, amd finally take a look at your deliberately pointy behavior, and simply decide that you are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, and block you from editing. Is that what you're looking for, or would you rather moderate your behavior on your own and continue editing? BMK (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Per user request, I placed a level4/disruption warning on his talkpage. Please don't consider this prejudicial against any blocking others might be considering. DMacks (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Recommending 6 month block. It may be possible that there are some constructive edits among their 328 mainspace edits but the overall persistent unconstructive edits and infringements of policy and the refusal to 'backoff' unfortunately conclude that LooneyTunerIan's presence on Wikipedia is a net negative at least for the time being until they can demonstrate some level of maturity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung - I've already gotten my warning. I've learned my lesson. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's why I didn't block you yet myself and am asking for input from other admins, LooneyTunerIan. However, other admins may suggest that it's time for you to go per WP:NOTHERE. Only time will tell and a six month prevention of disruption would also give you time to think how you would prefer to edit the encyclopedia in the future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung - Well, then how about a perma-block or a foreva-block? If you think I'm causing trouble on Wikipedia, maybe you should recommend that I should be banished forever. And you can even add a message for me, just to make sure I stay gone. Maybe it can say something like: "LooneyTunerIan, you are hereby blocked and banned from Wikipedia, forever. As such you will not have permission to edit any articles. Now go find your own wiki to edit as much as you please and never come back. Ever." Honestly, Kudpung, why can't we just leave me with a warning and leave it like that? --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see Law of holes and WP:Wikipedia does not need you. BMK (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Support permanent block, good suggestion. Flat Out (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Flat Out - If you're going to support it, don't forget the message I've included in the previous reply above. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

LooneyTunerIan your proposal of a total ban, and the manner in which you raised it, shows that you have learnt nothing. Flat Out (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

LooneyTunerIan is obviously quite upset, and a short block is in order given the disruptive behavior. It is not clear to me why anyone thinks long blocks (6 months or more) are appropriate -- it seems extremely likely that LooneyTunerIan will cool down and not return to disruption after a short break, and if I'm wrong then we can deal with that later easily. --JBL (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

He;s lucky I'm recommending only 6 months. I was originally tempted to unilaterally indef him per WP:NOTHERE without the tralala of this ANI thread.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support 3-6 month block, LooneyTunerIan may cool down, his facetious comments here, don't suggest that he has yet 'learnt his lesson'.Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block; standard offer if s/he wishes: WP:NOTHERE. Six months plus several hundred good-faith edits on Wikibooks or Wikivoyage is enough to think again before demanding allegiance. Esquivalience ^t 14:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support 6-month to indef block. The kicker is their (repeated) statement "It's the only way I'll back off". If any editor says that about anything, regarding anything, they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support(uninvolved non admin) Simply WP:NOTHERE and is disruptive. I question if 6 months is long enough, but its a good starting point. AlbinoFerret 00:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• I've unarchived this, as it seems clear that "do nothing" was not the consensus. ~ Rob^Talk 02:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Concerns about the behavior of User:HughD

I am opening this thread to seek guidance on how to handle the increasingly un-civil behavior of another editor, HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), towards me and others (including DaltonCastle, Comatmebro, Capitalismojo, Arthur Rubin, and One15969). This editor, myself, and a number of other editors have been involved in a series of content disputes at Americans for Prosperity. HughD has been blocked several times in the past few months for edit warring on that article. He has recently escalated a campaign of personal attacks against me and others. Without providing diffs, he has accused me of "whitewashing" and "section blanking." His behavior is contributing to an increasingly toxic editing environment. His extraordinarily condescending talk page comments are not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Last time he was blocked for edit warring, the blocking admin wrote: "This is getting out of hand; if you continue editing in this manner, you may face a topic ban or indefinite block. Please reconsider your behavior before that becomes necessary" [22]. I have asked HughD a number of times (most recently, here [23]) to discuss content over contributors to no avail. Some recent examples of uncivil remarks/personal attacks include:

• "You refuse to discuss and egg on our colleagues to refuse to discuss...I think you think you know better than our pillars." (No examples of my alleged refusal to discuss, or egging on of other editors are given. I find the accusation of refusing to discuss odd given the dozens of talk page edits I've made on the article in question) [24]

• "It is quite telling to me that you comment on an article talk page in an attempt to stave off productive talk page discussion." [25]

• "We are still struggling on this talk page against your stubborn insistence, in the face of ample patient explications of policy, that you be allowed to serve as gate-keeper for what reliable sources have to say about the subject of this article. Please stop using consensus as your cudgel, it is long overdue for you to embrace our neutrality pillar." [26]

• "I agree this edit is a good representative of the attempted whitewash by a small group of editors, generously, deficient in their understanding of our neutrality pillar, less generously, pointed...Where is the discussion, oh brave consensus champion? Fully understanding his preference is not supported by policy, this editor hid behind bold, deleting content and references without discussion, flying under the banner of consensus but declining to walk the walk." [27]

• "In arguing against an editor instead of content, my colleague demonstrates an embarrassing lack of self-awareness of the paucity of his position...a small group of editors decided an incomplete article is preferred to a good article, and an entirely uninteresting attempt by a local consensus to triumph over our neutrality pillar, aimed at excluding neutral content and reliable sources deemed unflattering, a sad, completely avoidable debate, and absolutely nothing our encyclopedia has not seen over and over, as less experienced editors struggle with a full comprehension of due weight as relative to reliable sources. Please join us in the editor education effort, as uninteresting as it is, it is the heavy lifting of collaborative writing. " [28]

• "Any competent editor would anticipate some of these edits might be considered controversial." [29]

• "Are you pretending you do not understand NPOV, or are you pretending RS does not say what it says?" [30]

• "This comment very clearly demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of our pillar of neutrality. This is a rookie misconception of WP:DUE not usually associated with experienced editors such as yourself. We sometimes find this type of misapplication of WP:DUE advanced by pointy editors." [31]

• "You have taken your first, small step to understanding NPOV!" [32]

• "I'm sorry I perceive your editorial collaboration as cowardly in that I thought mistakenly that you support undiscussed section blanking whilst preaching the gospel of consensus, I see now that this perception could not be more wrong." [33]

• "It is cowardly. It is getting your way while avoiding the heavy lifting of collaborating within policy and guideline. Own it." [34]

• "Mr. Courageous Wrapped in the Flag of Consensus Hero." [35]

• "Of course any editor with a strong commitment to consensus would seek consensus on section blanking. It should be a simple matter to direct readers of this talk page to the talk page discussion of section blanking... because you are not hypocrites." [36]

I would like guidance on how to handle this user's increasingly hostile and unproductive comments. I want to ensure this user is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia and not to continue posting snarky, incendiary talk page comments. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang

• Support boomerang on Champaign Supernova and DaltonCastle for deliberately targeting HughD and turning a content dispute into a behavioral dispute by misrepresenting the actual dispute under discussion, portraying HughD as the problem (when in fact the problem is biased editing by the above editors), and taking Hugh's quotes from talk pages out of context to misrepresent his position and attitude. The above editors seem to be working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles. This is a violation of basic policies regarding content, and their railroading of HughD is an attempt to distract from the actual problem at hand. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind providing diffs of me engaging in "biased editing" and "working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles"? There have undoubtedly been a number of content disputes on the article's talk page, but perhaps you are mistaking me with another editor(s)? Earlier today I made this edit to the talk page [37] "This article has ebbed and flowed between 'washes,' both black and white. Obviously this article should include some discussion of the Kochs. However, the current article serves as a WP:COATRACK with too many intricate funding details per WP:DUE. There must be a middle ground..." Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

And speaking of boomerangs, Viriditas, maybe don't call other editors "trolls"? [38] Your entirely unprovoked rage-spiral at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour looks a lot like Wikipedia:WikiBullying to me. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ive made zero changes on the page since I was told to avoid edit-warring. I havent edited it in weeks. I have only noticed the changes made by Hugh. Viriditas is rather new to the page. I can assure you that Hugh was not improving the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

After all the chest thumping and bluster, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff showing a problem with HughD that requires admin intervention. Instead, the diffs show HughD calling out other editors on their policy violations, quite the opposite of what you intended to portray. If this isn't a classic case for a boomerang, then I don't know what is. This is an attempt to silence the other side in a content dispute, and what we have here are trumped up charges with no basis in reality. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me for jumping in, however, I feel that I have also been affected by HughD's actions in regards to the AFP talk page, as well as DaltonCastle and Champaign Supernova have been. I'm sure you are aware, Viriditas, of the simple distinction between "calling out other editors on their policy violations" and personally attacking them as being "rookies" and "cowards." There are polite and professional ways to discuss policy violations without offending users, and HughD has simply not been successful at this. Thank you. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the diffs showing my apparent "biased editing" and "working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles" that you accused me of. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Perhaps you missed the diffs I placed above?

DaltonCastle (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff indicating a need for admin intervention. No matter how many times you spam the same diffs over and over again, you cannot expect reasonable people to be fooled by this transparent attempt to fling mud, hoping something will stick to Hugh. Again, no evidence of wrongdoing by HughD, but loads upon loads of evidence against his accusers, who appear to be violating in NPOV in articles about the role of the Koch brothers. You are clearly abusing the administrative reporting process to try and get your critics disciplined in the hopes that nobody will actually notice that you've misrepresented the evidence against HughD. Sorry to disappoint you, but there are still a few of us left who are aware of your shenanigans and know exactly what is going on here. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Reject this claim. I took a few weeks off, and I return to this article to find that HughD has unfortunately been baited into making some unfortunate personal remarks about two or three editors that have been sniping at him for quite some time. In my early interaction with HughD, before I took a slight absence from this project, I found him extremely polite (sometimes obsequiously so), and I believe any fallback from his previous often-unctuous persona was due entirely to the hammering he received from those opposed to his rather perceptive edits. There is just no reason for this editor to be raked over the coals as this "incident" is doing right now. I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary. (In other words, never use the word "you": On a Talk Page a good editor should just forget that the second-person singular exists.) Any administrator reading this might just wrap up the discussion with an admonition to all concerned to WP:Assume good faith and get on with improving the article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That is an excellent suggestion ("I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary.") That is the type of remedy I'm looking for. Quite simply, I'm tired of being on the receiving end of condescending, snarky unconstructive comments, and I'm tired of being looped in with other editors with whom Hugh has a problem, and of being accused of things I had no part in, like "section blanking." Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable start. It would be helpful if Viriditas took the same pledge. It might be adequate to allow the article to attain some semblance of WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of making this incredibly long post readable, remotely. I have no comment on the matter at hand, just making it easier for admins and editors. DaltonCastle would be well reminded that excessive lists of diffs may not actually serve the purpose intended. Blackmane (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for the jumble. I had hoped to get my points across but totally understand I failed to meet TLDR. I'll be better about this in the future. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked at a few of the supposed POV diffs and didn't see obvious problems (stuff seemed to be sourced and matter-of-factly written). I did notice a couple looked very similar to each other, i.e. at least one was a revert. No opinion at all about surrounding conduct allegations that I haven't tried at all to examine--it's late here. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, DaltonCastle's homework assignment today is to read WP:TLDR. I see good faith disagreements, not any incivility. Reading the talk page, it is clear that HughD disagrees with the consensus on most issues, and is right on a few issues. The correct way to proceed when you think the local consensus is wrong, is to open an RfC. And at some point, you need to accept the consensus and drop the WP:STICK. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

understood. I do apologize for that jumble. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute

There is a political faction on Wikipedia that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible, while we make no mention on our Rockefeller Foundation page of the Rockefeller Brothers bankrolling Obama's nuclear deal with Iran,[39] just to pick an obvious example.

Take a look at our pages for the top political donors listed by opensecrets.org, and see how many of them contain the kind of criticism that is being pushed into anything Koch-related:

 Top Organization Contributors

 RANK _____________ Name _________________________ Total _____ %Dem. _ %Rep.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

 1 Service Employees International Union ----- $222,434,657 -- 99% --- 1%

 2 ActBlue ----------------------------------- $160,395,135 - 100% --- 0%

 3 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees -- $93,830,657 --- 99% --- 1%

 4 National Education Assn ------------------- $92,972,656 --- 97% --- 4%

 5 Fahr LLC ---------------------------------- $75,289,659 -- 100% --- 0%

 6 American Federation of Teachers ----------- $69,757,113 -- 100% --- 1%

 7 Las Vegas Sands --------------------------- $69,440,942 ---- 0% - 100%

 8 National Assn of Realtors ----------------- $68,683,359 --- 49% -- 52%

 9 Carpenters & Joiners Union ---------------- $67,778,534 --- 94% --- 7%

 10 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers --- $63,572,836 --- 99% --- 2%

 11 United Food & Commercial Workers Union --- $63,229,927 -- 100% --- 1%

 12 AT&T Inc --------------------------------- $61,004,110 --- 42% -- 58%

 13 Laborers Union --------------------------- $57,644,241 --- 94% --- 6%

 14 Perry Homes ------------------------------ $55,482,749 ---- 0% - 100%

 15 Goldman Sachs ---------------------------- $52,230,718 --- 54% -- 47%

 Source: [ https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php ]

It simply isn't very notable that billionaires spend millions of dollars supporting political causes that they like -- unless the billionaires' last name is Koch, then suddenly it becomes the most important fact about them.

BTW, if you are wondering where the Koch Brothers are on this list, At $28,572,742, they are Number 48.

Just to be complete, here are some figures for dark money:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/liberal-dark-money-dominating-2014-elections/

Wikipedia should give the same WP:WEIGHT to donations and criticisms of same no matter which side they support.

This is a content dispute, and those involved should go to WP:DRR if they cannot resolve the dispute on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

While I am not up to speed on the issues listed above, this comment caught my eye - mainly because it seems to be totally and completely irrelevant. If this were AFD, I'd link WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other organizations/individuals give more money doesn't mean that the donations of the individuals in question are not relevant to their articles. Especially if there are proportionally more sources discussing their donations than the ones you list. I don't edit in this area much, but it seems to be that $28 Million is a pretty significant number, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There are content disputes on this article, but that's not why I opened this thread. I came here to seek help with negative user conduct directed toward me. I'm focused on the behavior issue. Does anyone have recommendations on how to handle that aspect? Thanks you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely this is a content dispute and shouldn't be at this board. Civility is not obsequious politeness. HughD has indeed been blocked once or twice but this noticeboard should be used if he returns to edit warring. I think he is way too snarky when calling out logical errors to make rapid progress in disputes, but I will settle for slower progress. But it is not reasonable to infer from the diffs in context that he has erred so far from civility as to be routinely making personal attacks (or other incivilities) and thus requiring administrator intervention. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a content dispute here; however, HughD has never accepted consensus except when it can be interpreted to agree with his POV. When it cannot be, he finds another noticeboard to seek "consensus". Few of his proposed edits are unrepresentative of the source, which is often reliable; but he includes only statements from a particular viewpoint, and adds more of them than are warranted. I cannot give a specific example of "cherry-picking" except his removal of third-party approval of "secrecy" of donor lists, but the entire funding and transparency sections are much too long with respect to the weight given in reliable sources. Even that would be a content dispute, except for the edit warring and his refusal to understand that his stated interpretation of guidelines can be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a single diff supporting any or all of your allegations. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

My previous comment seems to have been misplaced. I do much of my editing on a smartphone, and cannot easily copy diffs into my text. However, I might be more easily convinced that Hugh is not being intentionally disruptive if someone could point out a single edit which could be considered "pro-Koch". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be interesting. He has posted here [40] that he views AFP as "a key player in the organized, corporate-funded suppression of unions in the US" and here [41] that "I would say AFP has done more to raise the avg temp of our planet than Watts ever will" [42] The attempts (here's another [43]) to convince members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour to adopt the article seem like an attempt to recruit like-minded editors to edit the page in a certain way, AKA Wikipedia:Canvassing. Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Out of context, those quotes look like canvassing. In context, they emerged in longer, more neutral, discussions, to increase awareness among editors interested in a topic. One sentence at the climate change task force talk page displays HughD's unfortunate tendency toward polemic in talk pages. Collaboration is always going to be difficult on articles about political 501(c)(4) organizations (Dark money), but I don't see a pattern, or an individual diff, from any of the 3 named editors (HughD, Champaign Supernova, Dalton Castle) that crosses any line that requires administrator involvement. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

My personal interactions with Hugh are pretty limited, but I can say that between not assuming good faith and repeating the same canned, dismissive answers thinly veiled behind a facade of niceties, his behavior makes working out the content disputes we're discussing unnecessarily difficult. I do give Hugh credit for bringing in uninvolved editors to the page, however - even if I don't agree with them, their takes on the situation have been refreshing to hear from the perspective of someone not so entrenched and unwilling to have genuine discussion. Hugh is clearly a dedicated, highly motivated editor, who could probably benefit from taking a bit of a break from the topic. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

HughD's behavior

I was "pinged" about this discussion when it was first opened, and have given some thought to responding here in the intervening days, not least of which was due to HughD's seeming targeting of those who disagree with him. While HughD's behavior is based on a content dispute, it has led to inappropriate behavior by HughD. I'll try to keep it brief; while the length and breadth of HughD's behavior makes that difficult, I'll try to summarize below.

Here are the actions which HughD has directed at me:

On 6/15 this notice. The DS notice on the talkpage was put there by HughD, not an admin. This was done so that Hugh could then post the DS warnings on the talkpages of editors who were in disagreement with him. This is a course of action I've actually never seen attempted before.

On 6/18, he posted this incorrect notice, in violation of ANI requirements. The result of that ANI discussion was no action against me.

On 6/29, he posted this (unsigned). The result of that posting was no action against me.

Not satisfied with that result, HughD then posted this notice on 6/30, which again resulted in no action against me. However, while it was still on-going, Hugh posted this notice on 7/1.

During the last week or so of June, Hugh filed the following:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969 repeated removal of WikiProject talk page banner
2. a link to HughD's previous ANI report filing
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Onel5969 reported by User:HughD .28Result: Page restriction applied.29
4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Koch Industries brief, in-text description in Americans for Prosperity

In addition, he has opened numerous discussions regarding his viewpoint on the article talkpage in the last two months (a very nice recap can be found Talk:Americans for Prosperity#NPOV issue HERE on the talkpage - the response by Champaigne Supernova. Every one of which consensus has been against, e.g. over inclusion of Koch Brothers, too much detail on funding, and most specifically, NPOV. Even after consensus has been reached on the NPOV issue, he then tagged the article for an NPOV issue. After consensus. I think Hugh confuses consensus with unanimity.

His disruptive behavior goes back to at least 2012, when this occurred:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive195#User:HughD reported by --Demiurge1000 (talk) (Result: Final warning issued) 09/12 - where he vowed to "never edit war again"

I didn't do a search on the intervening years. But in the last 3 months, he's been involved in numerous actions, and been blocked 4 times:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278#User:HughD reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked) April 2015

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive282#User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Blocked) May 2015 - Even here, EdJohnston wrote, "HughD doesn't come out of this dispute looking good. Articles on American politics can be extremely divisive and they have used up a lot of Arbcom's time. Try to be part of the solution rather than the problem."

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive284#User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive285#User:HughD reported by User:Comatmebro (Result: Blocked 4 days)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive274#User:HughD reported by User:Champaign Supernova (Result: No action) The only reason he was not blocked was he apologized, and the admin accepted that.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive271#User:Safehaven86 reported by User:HughD (Result: Referred to ANI) see the end of that thread.

I think HughD has displayed a pattern of behavior which is not conducive to the health of Wikipedia. Over the last two-three months, he has consistently failed to adhere to consensus reached on talk pages, he's been involved in WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:COATRACK and WP:FORUMSHOP (I think he's up to posting on 8-9 different venues in an attempt to get someone to agree with him: Edit Warring noticeboard; ANI; NPOV board; Reliable sources; 2 project talk pages; the AfP talkpage; and the Wikiproject talkpage). This forum shopping is beginning to bear fruit, since several of the editors now active on the talk page have been recruited from those other forums. Each of those actions, in and of itself is fine. But combined they show a pattern. And it's not a pattern of consensus-building and compromise. During one of HughD's attacks on me, an admin, Monty845, suggested I might take it up at WP:AE, but that did not seem to be an appropriate forum, or at least I couldn't see how it applied, but Monty is more experienced than I am. Not sure what, if anything can be done, but this is getting tiresome at this point. I would suggest at least a WP:TOPICBAN for HughD on this article and all Koch-related articles. Thanks for your time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and participation, Onel5969. This supposed "content dispute" has brought up multiple issues regarding HughD's behavior. When it comes to consensus, he ignores it. He is not helpful nor friendly when it comes to understanding differences. I have only received negative comments from HughD, some of which have attacked me personally as a user. There are ways to discuss content in a friendly manner -- and honestly I am not sure if HughD is capable of this at this point in time. I would have to agree with everything the above user has stated, as well as the statement "I would suggest at least a WP:TOPICBAN for HughD on this article and all Koch-related articles." Cheers. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

All of the evidence and discussion in this thread indicates a content dispute between involved parties who have been editing in this area. There is no good evidence supporting a topic ban of any kind, at least one that would impact HughD's editing. When asked to provide a single diff supporting their contention, not a single editor can do so. Instead, we are subject to long, off-topic screeds by editors who have been involved on the other side of the content dispute, links to ancient disputes, requests to prove negatives and other fallacious arguments. In conclusion, no diffs supporting a topic ban, just mud flinging. On the other hand, I would certainly support a topic ban on the editors listed above who have been repeatedly caught whitewashing and violating NPOV in the Koch-related area, and who have devoted an enormous amount of time and energy into railroading one of their few critics who has pointed to their problematic edits. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

He seems to refuse to accept consensus and uses boards and relentless RfC's and tags to assert his views. The current dispute centers on building a COATRACK into . The AE request against Arthur Ruben appears retaliatory and forum shopping. AR doesn't appear to have contributed here but one forum wasn't enough. We how have a dubious assertion about the TeaParty case at AE (which is only plausible if that article becomes a COATRACK). And the 4th version of an attempt to add material that has been rejected multiple times. When new edits are rejected, we call the articles version "consensus" and HughD appears to ignore this. --DHeyward (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait, are you suggesting that the Americans for Prosperity article is not within the scope of the Tea Party case? That's clearly incorrect, as anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at reliable sources on the subject can clearly see. I can cite a lot of high-quality evidence to back that up, but it might be simpler and easier if we just agree to call a spade a spade here. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice: On Arbitration Enforcement board as well

A filing by HughD against Arthur Rubin on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard is running in parallel with this discussion. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arthur Rubin.

This does somewhat complicate ANI responses but admins and editors should feel free to review or participate in both. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see much participation here by Arthur Rubin. The material that HughD argues should be included is outlined extensively here and in the other forum and an RfC on the talk page (4th time to be discussed). Three fora seeking help with a minority viewpoint seems a bit much. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There is an issue here (it's NPOV, not HughD)

Cross-posting my analysis of the situation from AE:

I know we're supposed to be focusing on conduct rather than content here, but I think it's very important to note that the preponderance of reliable sources very clearly support Hugh's "side" in the content dispute that prompted both this post and the one at AE.

The dispute is over the extent to which the article should discuss the financial and other connections between the Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity (AFP), and, to a lesser extent, the extent to which AFP should be portrayed as a "Tea Party" group. (DHeyward, for example, has denied that this connection can be made at all, and would be COATRACK:[44][45]). To illustrate that the sources are clearly and unquestionably on HughD's side here, take a look at the version of the page that Arthur Rubin appears to have been happy with (ie, that he removed the NPOV tag on:[46]) Note that the name "Koch" appears in the article text exactly once - simply to note that David Koch chairs the AFP Foundation - but appears twenty-five times just in the titles of the references. Compare that to how the preponderance of reliable sources listed by Aquillion here place the relationship between AFP and the Koch's front-and-center in their coverage. Also compare it to how reliable, academic sources treat the subject. (those are just some examples, I could cite a lot more if needed).

HughD has been the most vocal voice on the article's talk page asserting that the article needs to acknowledge and discuss AFP's connection to the Koch brothers in depth. He has often been outnumbered, and he has quite understandably gotten frustrated at times. Just as understandably, the people arguing with him have gotten frustrated with his persistence. There have been regretable statements made on both sides, but honestly, I don't think anyone's behavior or the article rises to the level of requiring admin or AE sanction -- although a warning to some about battleground behavior [47][48][49] and a reminder of what NPOV entails [50][51][52][53][54]) might be in order for some of those involved.

Bottom line: HughD should not be sanctioned for being a lone dissenting voice against a (claimed) local consensus which was incorrect and inconsistent with NPOV. I also hardly think Arthur deserves sanction for adding or removing a NPOV tag (after all, the NPOV of the article was, and is, in dispute). Everyone involved just needs to take a few deep breaths, relax, and refocus on what RS actually say. More generally, the article desperately needs more eyes/input to ensure that NPOV is maintained. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

References
References

Box-office bomb guy, block evasion from Cambridge, Ontario, Canada

A person from Cambridge, Ontario, was blocked for one month for persistent disruptive editing: Special:Contributions/99.236.110.158. One of the stand-out traits of this person is the labelling of films as "box-office bombs" regardless of whether they have been called that by sources. Starting in December 2014, this person kept being reverted. User:CoolRaceDude picked up the flag for a little while in February 2015. Abandoning the registered account, this guy also edited articles related to the Canadian band, Gob (band), and he was active at List of films considered the worst.

Other IPs from the same area have been doing the same stuff:

• 173.32.90.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 216.75.167.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Here's an older (almost stale) IP doing the same stuff:

• 99.254.160.115 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

For instance, the article Reign Over Me is a particular target, the goal being to label the film as a bomb, a flop, a financial failure (even though it made a couple of million dollars). User:Willondon's been doing a great job of keeping down this kind of disruption:

• 99.236.110.158: [55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73]
• CoolRaceDude: [74][75]
• 173.32.90.15: [76]

The article Muertos Vivos shows both of these IPs being interested in a Gob album:

• 99.236.110.158: "...not to feature bassist Craig Wood"... replacing Craig Wood...
• 173.32.90.158: ...without longtime bassist Craig Wood...

Can we get a similar block on the related IPs? Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

173.32.90.158 shares unrestrained film POV and an unusual recurring rounding "error"[77] with 98.213.0.205[78] and Ohad200180.[79] - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked 173.32.90.158 for one month and protected the main target (Reign Over Me) for one month. (If a few people could add Reign Over Me to their watch-lists that would be awesome, the number of watchers is shockingly low.) While 99.254.160.115 and 99.236.110.158 look similar, they are not on the same range and therefore no range block, unfortunately. I don't see how 216.75.167.197 is connected, other than geographically. 98.213.0.205 geolocates to Danville, Illinois (8 hr away by car), and is likely unrelated. You might consider creating a LTA page if the problem persists. This will have to be my last post here for a while, as the page is getting to be too big to load -- Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. I agree that 98.213.0.205 is not the same person as box-office bomb dude. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Indian actors vs Pakistani actors

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

---

Fawad Khan is more beautiful than nana Patekar thumbnail|Gajnikanth

Atif Aslam is hotter than rajnikanth

thumbnail|Fawad — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKUO65 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Scientus

The following discussion is closed. 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 here to discuss the behavior of Scientus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Scientus has been edit-warring in recent weeks on four articles that I'm aware of:

• Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Islam and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Since May, Scientus has been pushing the POV that the word "antisemitism" discriminates against Arabs and any other non-Jewish Semites. In its place, Scientus has been promoting the obscure term "Judeophobia" despite an overwhelming consensus against it (see both articles' Talk pages, including recent archives,[80][81] especially the failed Requested move initiated by Scientus at Talk:Islam and antisemitism).
• Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Last week, Scientus deleted the assertion that Israel has universal suffrage. When the assertion was restored, Scientus rightly started a Talk page discussion on the subject. When every editor in the discussion disagreed with Scientus, the editor started changing the article against consensus and edit-warring to preserve her/his changes. Israel is subject to a 1RR restriction, which Scientus has (barely) respected, making reversions 24 hours apart.[82][83]
• Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • On June 20, Scientus rewrote the lead of Libya. The changes made by Scientus were reverted by three editors (one of whom was me), each of whom asked Scientus to use the Talk page to discuss the changes. No discussion at Talk:Libya. On June 28, Scientus started making the same changes to the lead and, not surprisingly, was reverted. Scientus started a Talk page discussion. On June 30, after nobody had replied on the Talk page in 29 hours, Scientus restored her/his favored version of the lead. When that change was reverted (by an IP editor), Scientus went ahead and deleted part of the lead, saying "please find a source for this i couldnt find one".

I brought this complaint here, as opposed to WP:ANEW, because this is a broader issue than violating 1RR or 3RR. Scientus evidently has a hard time listening to others and that is becoming a growing problem. I would appreciate other editors' thoughts on the matter. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Given the number of warnings by reputable users on the user's talk page since June 19 (some of which have been deleted by the user), I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked already. I can however understand that Malik Shabazz has refrained from doing so, as an involved admin. It seems at present the user is here to push an agenda and edit war rather than to build an encyclopedia or edit collaboratively and learn and abide by Wikipedia policies. It seems clear to me that he has had enough cumulative warnings and that the next step is probably a block, the only question being how long. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC); edited 06:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: As per my experience Scientus is nice editor and he can be useful for Wikipedia, but he should learn policies of Wikipedia, I have already given my advice to him on his talk page. And Softlavender please don't use word "reputable users" here, Wikipedia is not about reputation and senior-junior like in colleges. Sometimes even IPs can act more sensible than admins. Read article WP:IPs are human too for more detail. We have to go by wikipedia policies and if Scientus is breaking the rules then we should advice him instead of playing game of senior-junior or reputation. Today's IP can be tomorrows admin if he opens account. Or every admin was once a un-confirmed user. --Human3015 knock knock • 18:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source for that removed sentence of Libya? If not, I do not see what the problem is. That sentence was my real issue, but I was changing other things at the same time, which apparently irritated people.

There was no debate on the basic facts regarding "universal suffrage" for Israel. If the admin Milik Shabazz insists getting me banned because there are no facts backing up his dislike of removing or clarifying the term "universal suffrage" when he clearly knows better then Wikipedia is not a website I want to contribute to. My current suggestion would be to clarify to "universal suffrage except for citizens of the West Bank, Gaza, and other Arab countries.",or "universal suffrage within the non-disputed territories" (which isn't strictly true as is discussed at Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law), or simply removing "universal suffrage".To claim that a country where 1/3rd of the population (irrespective of age) is excluding from voting rights "universal suffrage" is preposterous.Scientus (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Scientus is not an IP, nor is he a new user, so I don't see the relevance of User:Human3015's comments. He's been editing since 2009, but seems to have become somewhat, shall we say idiosyncratic, recently. Though his primary interest is Jewish/Israeli-related content. He has also edit warred on other unrelated articles. For some reason he decided that there should be a picture by El Greco on the Angels in art article. Fine, but he chose to include a portrait of a Pope Cardinal Don Fernando Niño in which no angels are to be seen, on the basis that Robert Prisig said that it was in some metaphorical sense a portrayal of an angel. At least that had some rationale, but it was then replaced by a picture of Jesus, for no apparent reason other than the fact that Jesus has a halo [84]. He edit warred, admittedly in a minor way, to keep this image. He seems to be fascinated by a fairly obscure spelling project called Unspell, and repeatedly tried to insert it into English alphabet [85] against consensus. He has waged a war across several articles to replace the term "anti-Semitism" with "Judeophobia" because he thinks it is more accurate, despite a mass of evidence that the former is overwhelmingly the most common term per WP:NAME. The main problem with this editor is that he acts as though his pet likes and dislikes should override all relevant policies and guidelines. Paul B (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Halo painting added to Halo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halo_(religious_iconography)&diff=669523300&oldid=668640603 .Scientus (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course we need another halo at "Halo (religious iconography", just in case readers haven't already twigged what they look like from the 32 other illustrations of halos that article already had. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I put it in its own section Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. Appears I was wrong and the book did not talk about angels at all. Scientus (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what's wrong with Scientus. He seems to like El Greco. Well, great. So do I. But we don't want to smear an article on halos that already has over thirty illustrations, with a bunch of El Grecos that don't depict halos. He's added El Greco's portrait of Cardinal Don Fernando Niño again. Cardinal Don has no halo. He's added another El Greco of the holy family, in which they have no visible halos (the light is coming from the glow of a cloth around Jesus - not a halo). See the additions at Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. This is madness. We also have some utter drivel added from Robert Prisig, an author with no expertise in religious iconography whatever. Paul B (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• In making the following personal attack, "...FUCK YOU for calling me racist you insensitive piece of shit. Go fuck yourself!", Scientus blanked the warning and then rebuffed the admin that warned him about the attack. This isn't promising.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Especially as the editor in question never once called him a racist. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Is "anti-Semitism" racism, or is it not racism? You are going in circles. And BTW, my great-gradfather fled the Jewish programs in Ukraine/Russia. Scientus (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, I was acting as an editor, not an admin, as I have been heavily involved in Scientus' latest disputes. But yes, the attack was uncalled for and the reasoning behind some of his edits is very idiosyncratic. [86] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clear Scientus has gone off the rails at this point and the only question is what to do about it, since numerous cumulative warnings and even this ANI haven't gotten through to him. If no admin wants to take action quite yet without a community consensus, perhaps someone should start a proposal/poll below with a suggestion and then allow !voting. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My recommendation is that an administrator craft a carefully worded topic ban that prevents this editor from participating in editing pertaining to anti-Semitism, halos, angels, El Greco, or any other darned topic where their input has been disruptive. I support such a topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

While it's clear that Scientus's edits in particular subject areas are problematic, it's not clear to me that this actually has anything to do with the subject areas, as opposed to a general competency/noncollaborativity issue. --JBL (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with that -- there is no topic-ban wide enough to contain the issues. There needs to be a block of some sort -- it only remains to be determined how long. The blockable issues are many, recurring, and widespread. For the number of issues and their intransigency, my personal view would be a six-month block, but it could start as little as one week. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly support a 1-week block. --JBL (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And he's back! Today Scientus once again edited Israel concerning the issue of universal suffrage (which doesn't mean what Scientus would like it to mean). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

What is your definition of "universal suffrage"? Cause those words quite literally means everyone (universal) votes (suffrage).Scientus (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again, Scientus, you mistake the literal meaning of words for their meaning. See Talk:Israel#No Universal Sufferage (sic), where I addressed that question nearly two weeks ago. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

And once again, with no discussion (except the idiocy directly above), Scientus has deleted "universal suffrage" from Israel. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Of German, Spanish, French, Hebrew and Arabic only the Spanish claims "universal suffrage", and it is clearly a translation of the English article. The Arabic article is discusses how the 1948 borders impact eligibility to vote. As was said above, if the admin Mike Shabazz wants me banned in order to push the preposterous claim that Israel has "universal suffrage" without clarifying how *universal* it is then it is hard to feel welcome on Wikipedia. I asked above for clarification on what *universal suffrage* means in this context, and the discussion has dried up. Again, the discussion on the talk page there basic facts were agreed on. Since this ANI was opened I worked on the Barefruit page for example which was nominated for deletion.Scientus (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Scientus, stop arguing at this ANI filing and read the discussion in the thread on the article's talk page, where consensus must be determined. "Universal suffrage" means voting by all adult citizens. It does not mean voting by children or non-citizens. Stop this nonsense before you get yourself permanently banned from Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

All adult citizens within the 1948 borders. Israel has domination over the West Bank but there is no universal suffrage there, either of the State of Palestine or Israel. One of my edits said "universal suffrage in the undisputed territories", and even this was reverted.Scientus (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And today Scientus decided 1RR doesn't apply to him, and he's going to edit-war at Israel. Is anybody going to step up to the plate and block Scientus, or should I go to WP:ANEW? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Scientus keeps violating 1RR on Israel, perhaps some admin could put a temporary block for a few days until a decision is made regarding a longer term one ? “WarKosign” 07:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Block

Scientus has had 16 user-page warnings since May 25, yet has continued his disruptive editing, edit-warring, defiance of Wikipedia policy and/or consensus, vile unprovoked and completely erroneous personal attacks, inability to hear, and general incompetence. Whatever may have been his past contributions prior to May 2015, he is clearly no longer here to build an encyclopedia. I propose that he be blocked, for at least one week or as long as six months -- the length at the discretion of an uninvolved admin or community consensus. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer, a block of at least one month an indefinite block, for the continued cumulative number and types of disruptions/violations (ETA: which have continued even now per Malik Shabazz's recent comment above [87]). Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC); edited 04:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support, support, support. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. --JBL (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. at least one month.Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support -- Yeah, at least a month. If he has a number of warnings then he should be blocked for at least a month --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support, from what I've read seems long overdue, I'd actually recommend longer than a month, a quick check of their block log shows this behavior has been apparently going on since 2009. Azealia911 _talk 09:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support, length of block to be determined by closer upon evaluation of the scope and quality of the disruption. BMK (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support for a moderate block I am entirely uninvolved in this situation, but I've read the comments here, reviewed the user's edits, and read the talk pages in question. There were definitely personal attacks and uncivil behavior that warrant a block. However, I do not think that a six-month block is called for. For example, consider the discussion at Talk:Israel#No_Universal_Sufferage. On the one hand, Scientus obviously shouldn't have been violating revert rules. On the other hand, the responses to Scientus's arguments here show a decent amount of hostility, and they don't present the well-reasoned arguments that are implied above. I think a moderate block (perhaps a month) will serve to remind Scientus that personal attacks and edit warring aren't OK, while avoiding punishing them for having unorthodox views. agtx 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for close

NOTE: This report was filed 12 days ago and the problem is accelerating. Could an admin please deal with this and resolve this issue? Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This opener of the issue is an admin.Scientus (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

We know that. We are seeking uninvolved admins. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Paging an uninvolved admin for closure! BMK (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Lachlan Foley, genre warring again

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

---

Lachlan Foley has resumed genre warring after his week-long block a few weeks ago, received as a result of this ANI post. They are edit-warring at the article Marquee Moon, attempting to rearrange the order of the genres listed in the infobox. I suspect they have some prejudice against "post-punk" as a genre since they tagged it for needing a citation at Pornography (album) but not the other genre listed there ([88]). This editor is becoming a disruptive annoyance. My warnings to their talk page have been useless as they have not responded or taken accountability for the genre changes they've made. Block them, warn them effectively... do something, seriously *sigh* Dan56 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This Incident nomination should be about @Dan56, not me.

Dan56 reverted my completely harmless, inconsequential edit which can be seen in the Marquee Moon article history, and had the temerity to call it "genre warring". He also has failed to realise – and has since been corrected by another user – that post-punk was not cited at the Pornography (album) page, and gothic rock, indeed, is. I think he is grasping at straws looking for things I am doing to complain about and is reverting my changes on the Marquee Moon article out of spite. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Where was "gothic rock" cited at the time you edited Pornography (album)? And where was the consensus or discussion you created to support rearranging and revising the genres at Marquee Moon? Nowhere is where, because you are nothing but a genre warrior, an editor who spends 99% of their time making revisions to the genre parameter of the infobox. I do not know enough to want to "spite" you for something because I don't know anything about you, except for your pattern of behavior as an editor, and your edit history doesn't lie. If your edit is "completely harmless, inconsequential", then stop restoring it, and refrain from revising the genre parameter of the infobox at album articles because you clearly have a disruptive obsession for it. Again, your edit history is made up almost entirely of those kind of edits. Dan56 (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as these articles are either GA or FA, then the minimum LF should do is raise the issue on the talkpage(s), instead of going back to exactly the same behaviour that got him blocked only last month. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lachan is even completely removing the genre from some albums, so many of them do not even have a single genre to accomandate the article. What is there to gain from this?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

So this on-going edit-warring and WP:DE is OK by the admins? Good, glad that's clear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

They will not stop. Just a few from today: [89], [90] Dan56 (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are admins ignoring this? All the damage he is causing will take so much time to fix. You can't just simply remove genres with no excuse. Many of the genres are sourced, but in the article itself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Smalljim, You have to make something. Now he makes the genre disappear from the infoboxes like here and obviously he drowns his edit by making a few domestic changes regarding the visual aspect of the infobox. This is wp:POINTy and disruptive. I'm tired of spending hours to revert his edits instead of adding historical content like I used to make on Siouxsie and the Banshees related articles; today out of the blue user:Freshacconci has the guts to say that it was my edits that were genre warring whereas he obviously doesn't know anything on Lachlan's history. Why after being blocked for Genre warring, does LF have the right to keep on acting exactly the same way without being blocked once again. Carliertwo (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment My only involvement here is at the Dear Prudence article. From what I saw, User:Lachlan Foley added a hidden message to the infobox stating that only sourced genres should be added, while removing unsourced content. User:Carliertwo reverted back to the unsourced content and incorrectly stated in the edit summary that references are not permitted in infoboxes. According to WP:INFOBOXREF, references certainly are permitted if necessary. This is the standard for all Beatle song articles as they have a history of genre warriors adding their own idea of genres to the infoboxes. Keeping in mind that the issue here involves the infobox for the Siouxsie and the Banshees' version of the song, most Beatle song articles include a reference in the infobox for genre(s) listed. I have no opinion on what the correct genre of the Siouxsie and the Banshees cover is, but it should be referenced in the text and if not, in the infobox. As for the battle between Carliertwo and Lachlan Foley, I am uninvolved (although coming "out of the blue" is somewhat WP:OWNish, as if I have no right to make an edit or state an opinion -- I won't bother with my the "[having] the guts" comment as that statement is puerile). What I saw was one editor reverting what appeared to be a useful edit in favour of a version that included unsourced content, with an incorrect edit summary. freshacconci talk to me 17:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

For Dear Prudence, what it is saying here is that LF's edit erasing the genre from the infobox of Siouxsie's version was "useful" because it was unsourced content. Well, so why didn't the 2 genres (present in the infobox of the Beatles's version) erase too? Those are also unsourced content, as it is not documented by a source in the body of the article. There are multiple issues with LF's edits, GWAR, Edit war, Spamming etc... and of course, Freshacconcci doesn't have anything to say about these issues because that it would be admitting that edit was wrong.

Concerning the comment for ownership on SATB-related articles, one has to look at the history of this article here to see that this doesn't stand. Indeed, three users have already rejected LF's edits for edit war, Gwar (User:Greg Fasolino also shares this opinion), etc. What LF is doing is wp:PUSH and wp:DISRUPT. This doesn't have to be encouraged. Carliertwo (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This is my exact response to you from our conversation on my talk page. As you've added this after my response, I can only assume you did not read it there: "You are free to remove those two genres as unsupported. I don't even agree with them. I don't do a great deal of editing these days, so I'm not going through every Beatle song article to make sure the genres are sourced. I only mentioned the Beatles as I'm familiar with the issue of genre warring and I find it silly when people add absurd genres to them based solely on their own opinions. My only concern was with the Dear Prudence article because that is the one I saw. I'm not aware of nor interested in the battle between you and Lachlan Foley. That will be resolved at ANI. Since I was mentioned at ANI, I responded, explaining my edits, as I saw them, to maintain WP:V/WP:RS. If you were concerned about Lachlan Foley's edits, I don't think re-adding unsourced content is the answer. And please use the preview button before saving on my talk page. It's annoying to have repeated new message tags for the same comment." That's all. I think I've said all I can based on my involvement. freshacconci talk to me 20:31, 8 July 2015.

• I don't see a problem so huge that it needs a topic ban to solve it. Lachlan Foley is trying to get a project-wide handle on genre warring by others, which is commendable, but it appears he is taking part in some genre warring himself, at some of the music articles. I think the effort is net positive. For the negative bits, perhaps it's enough to slow him down, to set a one revert per day (1RR) limit with substantial talk page discussion required from Lachlan Foley before any further revert. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

What is going to happen if that Dan56 and many other users including me are going to check out LF's contributions and as soon as he does wp:disruptive editing which is always what he does, one will undo his work. This is going to become our new hobby and yours. Carliertwo (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Call me cynical, but I've seen in the past when other genre warriors mask the edits they genuinely care about (POV-based genre revisions) with a multitude of maintenance and generic revisions. I'm sure there's a term for that also... Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Foley has been a real problem and refuses to listen to other points of view other than his very personal one. He adds little to any articles we work on other than to toy with the genres and infobox style. These are NOT cases where he is removing unusual, extraneous, unique genres from the infobox, that would require specific reference (and yes, refs should stay out of the infobox whenever humanly possible....all it takes is some care in writing the article to include this, to keep the infobox uncluttered, as Wiki prefers...but I digress). What he is doing is insisting that basic genre of the BAND cannot be used, so as others noted, is leaving dozens and dozens of articles on releases, without any genre noted at all. For example, since someone above mentioned the Beatles, simply calling it "rock" is general enough, since the band WAS a rock band, that every song, single and album by them doesn't have to be exhaustively described and reffed as "rock." Does it? I've been editing here for many years and have never seen this until Lachlan got it into his head to do this. Siouxsie and the Banshees are a post-punk band. They were a founder of the genre. Its enough to call them a post-punk band in the article and ref that if need be, but that's not good enough for him. It's very, VERY disruptive and he's been doing stuff liek this over and over, no matter how many times he is banned. Greg Fasolino (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope this is taken seriously and the block proposal below is enacted quickly. Foley's genre warring spree is continuing with no signs of stopping and it is exhausting to try and fix it all. Greg Fasolino (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What say you @Malmsimp: to the proposal below? Dan56 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Two-week block

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

---

It seems clear from his edit history and from most of the reports of those above and at the previous ANI that Lachlan Foley is continuing what he was previously blocked for one week (his second block in three months) for: making unilateral changes to, and edit-warring over, infobox genres rather than seeking consensus. I propose an escalation to at least a two-week block, until he learns and understands how to appropriately collaborate on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk)

• Support, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - It will take hours of manpower to revise these edits, which is why at the very least, two-weeks is appropriate. Considering these type of edits are 90% of the editor's activity, I wonder if this will have any affect. If it were to continue afterwards, then the block may need to go months or a possible indef.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per above Dan56 (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per above. Foley is incredibly disruptive and persistent and as noted above, causes an enormous amount of wasted time trying to fix his constant idiosyncratic edit-warring. Greg Fasolino (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per the above. Dan arndt (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Cause of death vandal returns home

The following discussion is closed. 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/86.174.160.174 ... The Cause of Death vandal showed up in the UK again, after a brief time of disruption from Greek IPs. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal. Needs a block. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest IP.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Gjhtru

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

---

Gjhtru (talk · contribs) has recently engaged in clear vandalism of the article Monster Musume. However, looking at the previous edits by this user, they have engaged in edit warring on Nagi-Asu: A Lull in the Sea over the name of the series as well as blanking the latter article several times before. This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, though not all their edits are clear vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 01:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Had a look at the article history for diffs.

• Broke a source link
• Broke another source link
• Introduced a load of what look like hebrew characters into the article. Probable vandalism
• Broke the volume table
• Blanked the article and replaced with more hebrew-like characters. Basically vandalism as the word doesn't translate into anything
• Vandalism
• Messing about with their own vandalism
• Some more vandalism

Blackmane (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Harassment - user 173.10.19.46

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

---

Dear administrator I would ask if someone could please look into an incident.

On 15 July I had the following message posted on my talk page: "Hello Contaldo, I am a Christian, and desire to speak with you privately. Is there a way this can be done?" The editor was unregistered but has the name 173.10.19.46

I did not reply. However, I received an email earlier today to my work account (an address which I had not given to anyone and which would have required some searching on the internet to make links.) This said, "Hello Mr. Contaldo, I hope your life is going well at the moment, and desire to ask you these two questions: 1. What is your belief on sibling marriage? and 2. What think ye of Christ? Thanks for your answers. I look forward to have some dialogue."

This constitutes a breach of privacy and serious harassment. Please could someone examine. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's not very likely that someone will get blocked for sending you an (off-wiki) e-mail. This would call for moderator action if (and only if) the mails are sent through Wikipedias e-mail function. Quod non, as the Romans said. Treat it as spam and ignore it, would be the best advice I can come up with. As an alternative, write them back and tell them you've become a Hare-Krishna and try to convert them. Worked for me, back in the day... Kleuske (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Religious fanatic from Orem, Utah, with a behaviourtal problem. Spammed several accounts. Blocked for 60 hours. If it starts again when the block expires let us know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys for dealing so promptly. Sending me this stuff via a work account was very embarrassing and uncomfortable. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

How is it your fault what some Moron Mormon e-mails to you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Strike that, and apologize, or you will find a new posting on this page, Baseball Bugs Scr★pIron^IV 15:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I will, after 173.10.19.46 (talk · contribs) apologizes to the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to insult an entire people group because of the actions of one anonymous user. You know that full well. So, I would strongly recommend that you strike it and apologize to the community you have insulted. Scr★pIron^IV 17:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I already did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The initial striking IS the insult; I generally respect most of your contributions, but you seriously need to reconsider this. You called every Mormon in the the world a moron, and you know that is completely unacceptable. Scr★pIron^IV 19:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Were you named for Clint Courtney? No, I only labeled that particular one that way. You would do well to redirect your wrath to the gross outrage of that IP breaching privacy and sending e-mails to the complainant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Taking down a photo editor claims could have been taken "anywhere"

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

---

Hi, an aggressive editor, MarnetteD, took down a photo for Incheon Women Artists' Biennale that had previously been taken down for other reasons but cleared claiming the photo could be of "a party anywhere." When the next editor undid the edit, jokingly adding that the photo, mostly of people of Asian descent couldn't have been taken in "Arkansas, Alaska, or Tennessee", MarnetteD simply undid that edit, repeating what he had said in his summary and not clarifying it. I tried to engage with him on his Talk page, but all I got was alot of smoke and the continued insistence that the image could be taken in any of those southern states, which is of course laughable. It's beyond calling him out on WP:EDITWAR. Could someone here help resolve this? I don't want to engage with the guy anymore. thanks--A21sauce (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

First, this is purely a content dispute and has no business on this board. Next, here is a direct link to the thread on my talk page so readers do not have to search for it User talk:MarnetteD#Incheon Women Artists Biennale. Please note the insults in every post there by A21sauce. Also note that there are several objections to the use of the photo besides the fact that it is just a random pic in a building somewhere. Another item to note is that I recommended that A21sauce take this to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images for other editors input. A21sauce said they would do that but chose to come here instead. This thread should be closed ASAP. One last item. Alaska is not a southern state. MarnetteD|Talk 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The photo in question, which could've been taken in my home town. Really, it could have been taken any town where ~17 Asians might end up standing near each other, where the weather ranges from between 60 to 100 F (15 to 37 C). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Sc30002001 ignoring warnings and guidelines

The following discussion is closed. 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 has agreed to cite proper sources that establishes notability for articles about albums. Erick (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sc30002001 (talk · contribs) has been on Wikipedia for over a few years and has been constantly been told what not to do on Wikipedia yet continues to do them anyway. For instance, last year, the user was constantly adding non-free images of Los Mismos, an active group with living people and even after I told him to stop and explained why non-free images of living persons are not generally accepted on Wikipedia. The user ignored my message and reverted my edits. Another issue, and the biggest one, is that the user has been deliberately ignoring WP:NALBUMS by creating articles for albums that do not meet the notability for them. The user was told by Starcheernewspeakswars that albums need to have significant coverage, but the user is still creating albums with just a track listing. Which brings us to now. When he created the article for Por Amor a Morelia Michoacán a few months ago, I tagged the article for not meeting the notability requirement for albums, yet he reverted my edit with under the IP 96.254.48.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) under the assumption that the album is notable because the artist despite the fact he was told by Starcheernewspeakswars a year earlier. Another instance was on Gracias Por Estar Aqui when the album was not released and had no confirmed track listing or release date. Under this IP 96.254.48.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), he reverted my edits when I pointed out that albums need to have a confirmed title, release date, and track listing. Kww and I informed on him on his IP talk page about the album not meeting WP:NALBUMS at the time. Now, I PROD'd Los Grandes because I could not find any sources indicating that it ranked on any music chart or received a music award or nomination. Once again, he reverted my edit and said: "I am sick and tired of you messing with my articles you need to stop and you are a big pain in my ass". This is where I draw the line. He's been constantly ignoring a guideline on Wikipedia and his refusal to listen is not helping anyone. The user needs to understand why policies and guidelines are put there in the first place. One solution I'm thinking is a topic ban where the user cannot create any music album articles until the user understand how WP:NALBUMS works. EDIT: And now the user is still reverting my edits at Los Grandes by the IP 96.254.48.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and is still ignoring WP:NALBUMS. At this point, I'm leaning towards a block not only for disruptive editing, but the insult the user made earlier. Erick (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC) EDIT2; No, I believe that a topic ban that prohibits the user to create articles for albums should be imposed until the user demonstrates understanding WP:NALBUMS. Erick (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Magicicandude has a habit of deleting and flagging articles without letting people know he also redirects them. I have switched my music source as allmusic from amazon because he deems amazon is not an acceptable source. he did the same thing to me when I first Made Gracias Por Estar Gracias Por Estar Aquí. he is currently disputing a compilation album I made years ago and proposed for it to be deleted. I got sick of his meddling he has also done this on Los Bukis as well. if he wants to add charts to help out then he's more then welcome to do so but he doesn't. I just make album that are part of the artist I don't do it all the time as I am selective. my favorite artist is Marco Antonio Solis so I contribute to his article the most. Los Grandes Ranked 9 on Mexican regional charts and 14 on top latin albums. the pain in my ass comment was a figure of speech not an insult.

A lot of figures of speech can be used as insults. But figure of speech or not, it's still uncivil. I suggest you check out WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that all the stuff he mentioned was when I was barley new to Wikipedia I did not revert his edits on Por Amor a Morelia Michaocan a live album by Marco Antonio Solis I have yet to see it in stores since Marco is now an independent artist and has no label distribution. Source say it was released on May 4, 2015. and Marco mentioned that it would be released in May his contract with Universal Music Latino then expired.

(edit conflict) It's not my job to inform people that I redirect an article they created on their talk page. I leave an edit summary explaining my reason for redirecting an article. Perhaps if you had bothered reading them, you would've known that. But it appears you choose to ignore them anyway. You were already told by Starcheernewspeakwar last year that merely citing a website that only contains a track listing is not sufficient to warrant its own article. If you had WP:NALBUMS, you would've known that too, but it's apparent you didn't either. Also I don't "delete" articles, I'm not an administrator. I can only tag them or direct them. I always check to see if an album has ranked on a music chart, received a recording certification, or won a music award before I tag an article. The fact that I did for Los Grandes means I couldn't any of them. You were also warned by Deb that references are not solely meant to show that the subject of the article exists. Amazon is only an online retail store and Allmusic is just a music database that also happens to provide reviews for some albums. Then there's issue of your etiquette which Deb also pointed. You telling me that I'm "a big pain on your ass" violates WP:NPA and it just shows you have no desire whatsoever to get it. Erick (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I was a rookie when Starcheernewsspeak wars was involved with me. and Deb let me keep La Mafia's page Deb just re-woreded it different. I used Amazon all the time before I was told that I couldn't use it as a source, so I switched to allmusic.com as a reference. Los Grandes ranked 9 and 14 on the regional Mexican and top latin albums. as for my comment don't take it so hard as I mentioned you have a habit of flagging. I did not revert Por Amor a Morelia when you told me the artists does not make it notable.

But you still continued to repeat your behavior in spite of their warnings which is my point. Yes I will flag an article if I see no notability established, but I usually check any music charts or certifications first. That said, you are the one who is suppose to establish an album's notability when you create an article. A good portion of the articles you created (only referring to the ones still doesn't any music charts or certifications) does not satisfy WP:NALBUMS Erick (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Your comment on Fundude99's talk page clearly demonstrates that you still do not understand how WP:NALBUMS work. Just because an album gets released doesn't mean it's automatically notable. Erick (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay Sc30002001, I'm willing to make a deal. I will withdraw my topic ban proposal, but in exchange, you must establish an album's notability by using music charts, certifications, or music awards upon the creation of the article. Do we have an understanding? Erick (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

as I mentioned I do not know how to add the charts someone else did them after my articles were created I told you many times you are welcome to contribute but you don't Fundude is charting Los Grandes for me. I will chart them from now on when I get the hang of using the chart establishment it doesn't end well when I try to do it. just look at Marco Antonio Solis' premio lo nuestro award he won in 2004. doesn't hurt to help.--Sc30002001 (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Not getting it does not excuse you from your actions. I'm usually one of those people who adds charts if it's not already there. The chart table I added for Los Grandes was done with the least amount of effort, so you can use it as a template for future reference. However, I will not call off the topic ban proposal until you agree that you will properly establish an album's notability by using either either charts, certifications, or awards when you create an article for an album. Erick (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I will try and add the charts when creating the articles they don't come out well thanks for the help. --Sc30002001 (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As long as you add in the music charts, I do not mind. With that said, I'm will withdraw from the topic ban proposal per our agreement now that we have an understanding. Erick (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Troll at Reference Desk 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.

---

An IP-shifting troll has been disrupting the Reference Desk talk page with anti-LGBT posts wanting to start a discussion of which of the Reference Desk regulars are LGBT. The troll has been reverted every time.

The only available diffs that I have are the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&type=revision&diff=671240035&oldid=671169112

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&type=revision&diff=671259731&oldid=671253422

The remainder of the troll posts have been redacted, and so are only available to administrators. The Reference Desk talk page has been semi-protected, which is a necessary evil. The IPs include 118.151.84.89, 49.48.186.106, 83.251.24.242, 201.221.132.69, 179.252.79.108, 95.21.5.210, 78.84.73.220, and 182.74.40.46. (That’s quite a range of IPs.) What I am asking is: First, can the IPs be blocked or range-blocked temporarily for when the talk page comes off semi-protection? (Also, the IPs, if not blocked, can still troll elsewhere in Wikipedia.) Second, would a carefully constructed edit filter be able to block this sort of nonsense from other IPs?

This doesn’t appear to be the same as the blanking of the Reference Desks yesterday, which was a different sort of disruptive editing (simple vandalism), and was done using throw-away accounts rather than shifting IPs.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:RBI is best here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't have a block button. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The user is hopping to different IP ranges geolocating to Japan, Spain, Latvia etc so simple IP block or even rangeblocks won't help. Short-term semi-protection seems to be the only accessible remedy until they get bored (and WP:RBI/WP:DFTT) are the best strategies to get there sooner). I rev-delled their most recent edits (except for the two I missed), so at least they can't simply revert war, and will keep an eye out for them once the protection expires.

Don't see what else we can do, but leaving this thread open for the moment in case someone has an explanation of how the user is IP hopping so widely, and a better way to address it. Abecedare (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I had someone write an edit filter to deal with this, but he disappeared last time we tried to implement it, so it never got out of the testing phase. Maybe it's time to revisit it? here is the original request and let me ping @Samwalton9: since he worked on it for us. --Jayron32 23:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I've re-enabled the filter (Special:AbuseFilter/683, originally created by Od Mishehu) - we'll see what it picks up. Sam Walton (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC) I didn't read the post or investigate properly; the filter was for a different issue (removal of sections), but I could probably draft a new one up for this vandal. Sam Walton (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As to how the IP is hopping around, could it be open proxies of some sort? The IP is back, and I have requested another semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that he's hopping to disparate countries it almost certainly is open proxies. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attack and vandalism at Referential Integrity

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

---

119.111.33.59 vandalized the page twice: [91][92] I then reverted the IP: [93] They responded with a gross personal attack, then proceeded to vandalize the page further: [94][95][96][97] I have contacted them and warned them, and it seems that they've been warned and blocked in the past for vandalism. GAB (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I would have suggested semi protection but there are some IPs that contribute constructively so WP:RBI is basically the best option here .Blackmane (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

user:Wikipediaw

The following discussion is closed. 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:Wikipediaw (contributions) has been editing a large number of articles, but based on a fast check all is vandalism. The typical moderatum includes randomly changing numbers in lists, orders of entries, or countries, making entire lists wrong and useless. He has been warned several times (see User talk:Wikipediaw), but simply moves on to a new list when the heat rises in one article. Here are the 5 most recent articles he edited:

• Random country switch: [98] (see "wdr_2011" citation in article; page 210 under East Europe)
• Random country switch [99] (Sofya Zhuk from Belgium?!)
• Changing to wrong country: [100] (Nazi Germany was a period and rule; see Weimar Republic)
• Random country switch [101] (Mikael Ymer from Finland?!)
• Random country switch [102] (Martina Hingis from Slovenia?!)

This is the pattern throughout. Indeed, his very first edit ([103]) involved the exact same. Although these changes may seem minor and some are reverted fast, in other articles things have been so messed up that it will take a lot of time to correct it. For example, in Global Peace Index (a featured article!), the list is now completely wrong because of a large number of edits by him (50+ edits!) and a few earlier by IP user:2602:306:BC57:480:9227:E4FF:FEED:D0B1 (contributions; he was also blocked twice). You can compare the current heavily vandalized list with the correct from before the vandalism started here (this is also noted the article's talk page). Interestingly, these two users also follow the same editing pattern, often even in the same articles, and both seem to have an interest in East European countries. When the mistakes introduced by user:Wikipediaw are reverted, he often reverts back as a review of his edits show. So, how do you deal with this? Is there an automated process than can mass revert all the mistakes he introduced (I did comment on this on talk page of Global Peace Index)? Regards, 62.107.216.149 (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be at ANI, WP:AIV should be able to cope. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm not too familiar with these processes. Should I just copy-and-paste the above and move it over there (modified to fit their format)? Thanks, 62.107.216.149 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, given the scope of the damage it won't hurt to have more eyeballs watching out. I'll raise it at AIV anyway, I think this is an immediate indef block until they reply and give some explanation.

GPI is a problem this is a sledgehammer version, to go all the way back to May. I've re-added some text changes since then that looked OK. If anyone is more familiar with the figures, please check them. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My point (a very minor one) is that there's just not much to discuss here, it's "everyday" problem editing. Even if they're well intentioned (the Berlin olympics changes could be an honest mistake), then they're not changes we want to keep. AIV can usually cope with that OK. Thanks for raising it though. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

AIV is not reliable, as too often the random admin will cop the "user not sufficiently warned" excuse, even when it's obviously a bad-faith user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I guess the "sledgehammer" version is good for now. At least that list appears correct now, which I assume is of high importance in a featured list. The GPI numbers are available online at least back to 2010 (I'll have to look for 2009/08), and I'll go through everything and add the citations. This will take some time and I may not be finished checking everything today. 62.107.216.149 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Max Semenik (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

FrozenFan2 (talk · contribs) just violated the WP:NLT policy with this edit. MarnetteD|Talk 03:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

While FrozenFan2 has been walking a very thin line in regard to personal attacks and troublesome editing, the edit referenced here is not a legal threat. It's a wish for something legal to happen to other editors and is a very immature personal attack. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The user's comments do qualify as a legal threat under Wikipedia's definition, and he's also posting unsourced BLP stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The statement is "I need to know what you name is because your going to get sued pretty soon!" That's a legal threat. Softlavender (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

They said they wanted my name so they could sue me. It isn't a wish it is a demand. For the record FF2 was notified of this thread and then removed the post here MarnetteD|Talk 04:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Demanding the identity of an editor and threatening legal action - that's an indef. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) That is indisputably a legal threat, not a particle of doubt about it, and combined with their history of disruptive editing -- primarily adding unsourced or very badly sourced information to BLP articles even after having been warned about it, but also including several recent WP:DIVA "retirements" during which he continued editing ("one last edit", "just one more edit", "my last edit on Wikipedia" etc.) -- this editor is overdue for a sancttion. Check out the history of his talk page (which is a bit difficult because he deletes everything immediately after it is posted) abd you'll find warning after warning, as well as some well-intentioned advice from a number of editors, which has been entirely ignored. BMK (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You know what? My mistake. I was looking only at the edit summary and not the talk page comments. Yep, that was definitely a legal threat. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

I think their talk page access should be revoked per this edit summary and this edit. A very frustrating user now going bonkers. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 04:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• As a side, no one bothered to give FF2 {{Ds/alert}}, so I have done so in case FF2 returns to editing (and unblocked), but the alert was promptly removed in the second diff Callmemirela linked. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

His English is so bad, he could have been blocked on grounds of incompetence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Is that even remotely possible to block someone based on their competence? I can stand typos but not every-day mistakes, such as not capitalizing I's when talking about yourself and so on. His English is better from what I have encountered in the past. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 04:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Fauzan - Islamic Golden Age

User:Fauzan is maintaining a biased narrative on the Islamic Golden Age wiki that gives entirely too much credit to Islam itself and dismisses the foreign contributions to this historical period. He maintains a source of scientific aspiration on material that is dubious at best (ex. "Ink of a scribe being more valuable than the blood of a martyr" - which is not sourced to Islam nor was it a virtue for the caliphates) and does not use neutral explanations which include "could have," "may," etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.252.148 (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You should provide related diffs. --Zyma (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

(as a general note I think that there may well be editor bias at times in Islam related topics as per examples here and here. GregKaye 18:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC))

Multiple copyvios

• The19trier (talk · contribs)

I've encountered copyright violations in numerous recent edits by this account, in articles they've created and those they've contributed to. May be more widespread than I've found thus far, so I think their edit history merits overview, and may require copious reverting. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for a week and given them a stern warning that if they do this again once the block is up, they'll be indeff'd. I've also warned them that if copyvio makes up the bulk of their edits, the block will become permanent without the possibility of a second chance. I don't have a lot of sympathy for copyright violations because most of us should already be familiar with having to re-write sources (ie, re-write without it being a close paraphrase), as the majority of schools impress the importance of avoiding plagiarism in their schoolwork. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Hmm... I'd like to keep this ANI thread open a little longer. I'm now worried that there might be some self-promotion here since a lot of their edits tend to center around material from one specific person, a Stephen Zhang. A look for their username gives off the strong impression that they are this person, which means that they're essentially here to put their work in Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I hadn't made the connection to a specific person--woe if it turns out the copyright issues go back the length of their history here. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah... they've been doing this since 2010 (as that is a partial copyvio of this, both with their own work and with other people's work. I think that I'm going to turn that block into an indef. If they are Zhang (who is apparently a professor) then they should know the importance of copyright violations and plagiarism. There's no excuse for this to have happened at all, let alone since 2010. They haven't made a ton of edits, but this is probably one of the most basic foundations of education and research: do not steal other people's work verbatim. (Copyvio is essentially stealing in my eyes.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've indeff'd them and gave them a pretty big speech on their page. Bluntly put, researchers and professors have no reason to not be aware of plagiarism/copyvio to some extent. I'm aware that research does involve borrowing other people's work, but the emphasis there is on borrow because that implies that they're still attributing the original work and that the idea would be that whatever they created would essentially be a new work written in their own words. Any material taken verbatim from other places would be quoted and sourced. This editor did not do that, so indef. (Sorry for the speech, but I really, really feel strongly about copyvio.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Consider your rationale useful for the broader readership--I'm a published writer who doesn't need to be convinced of the gravity of the matter. I don't like the preponderance of plagiarism and copyright violations, and have no patience for it. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC1F:A6:FD78:C358 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A new report needs to be placed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and if the editor shows interest in actually assisting us there, then that's something we can consider. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:61.239.157.9

I'm reporting the disruptive editing of 61.239.157.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I suspect also uses the ff sockpuppets/alternate IP:

• Colelockdvger (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Chaptislerbe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 203.210.5.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 203.210.5.22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 203.210.5.0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki))

For several days now, he/she has been changing the cast billing on Korean film/TV series articles with no edit summaries/explanations, despite his/her edits (re billing order) being inaccurate according to those film/TV series' official websites and Korean Movie Database/IMDb/Hancinema profiles. I posted on the user's talk page and the talk page of Scholar Who Walks the Night to open discussion (alongside links to support my edits), but the user refuses to respond in any way except reverting my edits with no explanation.

As for the Nam Joo-hyuk and Who Are You: School 2015 pages, there is currently edit warring going on with those articles on whether Nam is the series' first or second male lead, and again my edits (which in Nam's case, aimed for a compromise instead of a definitive conclusion) were reverted by the same user.

• Scholar Who Walks the Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Royal Tailor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Who Are You: School 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Plus Nine Boys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• High Society (2015 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nam Joo-hyuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure if the user is some fan who'd rather have his/her favorites come first in the cast billing, or simply a troll, but I thought this warrants a closer look (or even page protection for Scholar and Who Are You). 125.212.121.249 (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion / PROD / redirect of mall articles under the guise of WP:COI

• Joseph2302 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two editors have been redirecting articles without discussion and PRODing several articles in mass. Its too many articles for me to create individual links for here, but the links can be found by looking through their contributions.

I was initially tipped off to what was happening when Jytdog first added a COI tag to Westfield Plaza Bonita. Then the same user went ahead and deleted most of what was in the article and then added a Speedy Deletion PROD before just going ahead and redirecting the article without discussion. I mean who wants tot wait a whole week for a PROD to mature, right? So I reinstated the article, but then I was Reverted by Joseph2302. So much for having a discussion.

This is not an isolated incident. There are several articles that have been redirected or have had PRODs added to them by these two.

I did remove a PROD at another article titled, Westfield Santa Anita, but it was immediately reinstated with a message telling ME to discuss, which is supposed to be against the guidelines.

Also, at Westfield Mission Valley, Joseph2302 nominated the article for deletion, while Jytdog came along and pretty much deleted most of the content, without discussion. Now I realize that articles need citations, but they should have requested the cisterns before deciding to remove content. I tried to put the information back per BRD, but Jytdog would rather edit war,

In addition at Talk:Westfield Mission Valley, Jytdog begins a discussion and then 3 minutes later leaves a message wondering why I haven't responded as a way to make it look as if I'm not discussing. Seriously, 3 minutes? Give me a break.

This is far more than one editor, myself, can handle. This may be a larger problem as these two may have been doing this for a far greater amount of time than just today. Please help.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong here, if you read the thread at WP:COIN#User:MallExpert, you'll see this was a massive COI issue. And it's perfectly acceptable to remove completely unsourced content, per WP:VERIFY. As for the redirects, I thought it was beneficial to have a redirect rather than a promotional article with no sourcing and no verifiability, and so was bold in trying to cleanup the COI mess. Fact is that it's a COI mess and we are trying to clear it up. There's enough admins that frequent WP:COIN that if we were doing something wrong, it would be noticed very quickly. This is standard COI cleanup, and it's only you that appears to have a problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

These articles have been around far longer than when that single editor decided to edit the articles. And everything that that single editor added has been deleted or reverted. How is there still a COI problem then?--JOJ ^Hutton 01:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

COI stuff needed removing, plus basically everything in those article was unsourced, and so per WP:VERIFY should be removed. If you actually read my discussion on the redirects I created, I wanted to remove the unsourced, promotional articles, and then if they were notable then someone could replace it with a sources-based, neutral tone article. Everything I did was in good faith and for the benefit of the encyclopedia, to clearup the COI mess and remove unsourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• we are dealing with a widespread case at COIN, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:MallExpert and Jojhutton is freaking instead of talking. They have used Talk twice - here asking what is going on (apparently didn't read connected contributor tags) which I responded to right away and explained and asked what the concern was here, to which they never responded.

I've asked them to talk many times (here, here, here and specifically why they were restoring unsourced content here and again here, to which they responded here at 00:14, which is almost a full hour after they first got upset. (that note just says, "Seriously? It's been 3 minutes?") I replied to that here and again no reply.

And now they filed this. I don't know why they are not talking. What is going on, is easy to explain. And I do not understand restoring unsourced content. Why are you doing that, Jo? And why, instead of talking to me at your talk page or an article Talk page, do you come here to ANI? Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, you aren't going to pull this BS about me not talking. You starter a thread on one page and then 3 minutes later you "call me out" for not discussing? I don't think so. Plus pick a page. I can't follow you around to every single talk page you happen to decide to start a thread on.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's his typical practice, to ignore conversations that he doesn't like and to spread comments all over. If I get time, I'll pull some diffs, but he tends to forum shop as well. The other thing that he will do is comment about others and then complain when his conduct is criticized. His editing is very disruptive to the project. GregJackP Boomer! 01:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I think he opened discussions at least 3 separate article talk pages. Then he complained in his reply above that he left me three messages on my talk page. I've replied on my talk page, several times. I do not know why he is making the accusation that I am not discussing.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Jo, you first objected at 23:20 here asking what was going on. I replied to you four minutes later here. Instead of responding, you did all this edit warring and fighting, and never talked back. Why did you never talk back? Real question. I tried very hard to get you to talk back to me. I am still trying now. Please talk with me. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with Jytdog and Joesph's behavior, this is general standard COI editing examination and cleanup and I'm not sure why Jojhutton is trying to impede it. Spam and paid editing are serious problems on Wikipedia which need editors like Jytdog and Joesph to fix them. I see nothing wrong with opening additional threads on talk pages when an editor refuses to engage on the already open thread at WP:COIN. Meanwhile, Jojhutton's behavior could be considered both edit warring and hounding of the above editors as well as assuming bad faith. Additionally, as seen above, they have deliberately misrepresented the behavior of Jytdog and Joesph. Admins should consider a possible WP:BOOMERANG for Joj's conduct. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Winner 42. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I also concur - it looks like an obvious case of advertising, marketing, and promotion - all 3 of which are prohibited by WP:NOT. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The so-called COI account, had only a single edit to that and to any page. That edit was reverted, but is now being used as justification to delete every article that the editor edited, even though there is no longer a COI issue Thats not what is supposed to happen on Wikipedia. If the editors want the articles to be deleted they should request a deletion. They do not continue to redirect the articles. Plus, if there was a question over the lack of citations, then they should have made requests for those citations rather than simply deleting everything. Imagine how bad Wikipedia would be if we deleted everything that didn't have a citation. Request one first, then if one is not provided in a fair amount of time, then perhaps the information could be deleted.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with what JOJ has done here, which is trying to save content. We don't delete articles without good reason, and we don't have that here. First, the articles that are being deleted or redirected have clear notability, apparently WP:BEFORE was not done. I'm a deletionist, and even I see that this is wrong. Second, you don't move the conversation to a bunch of different venues, which is a habit of Jytdog--you pick one and discuss it there. Third, when a question comes up about deleting articles, you stop and discuss it, not continue to mass-PROD articles. GregJackP Boomer! 02:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there most certainly is "something wrong" with what Jojhutton has been doing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Jojhutton, you can contest a non-discussed blanking and redirect simply by reverting. A contested blanking and redirect then must go through the other channels of deletion -- either PROD/Speedy/AfD. You can contest removal of content by reverting wth an edit summary and opening a discussion on Talk, per WP:BRD. If the content was unsourced, you can request a placement of a "refimprove" or "unreferenced" tag at the top of the article, and agree with other editors how long the article can remain largely or completely unreferenced before removal of the unsourced content. An article should ideally not be gutted without discussion while an AfD is in progress -- there should be one process at a time. Per WP:PROD, you can contest and remove a PROD simply by a talk-page or edit-summary statement and a removal of the prod tag -- you should however ideally provide reasoning somewhere, not simply remove the tag; that said, a removed PROD must not be replaced, per the statement on the template "If this template is removed, do not replace it." After that, Speedy or AfD would be the other editor's next options, and you can contest those through the normal channels (there's a button to contest on the Speedy template, and !voting on the AfD). That said, I'm not sure this needed to come to ANI. You've only mentioned two articles, and the procedures I've outlined are straightforward. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC) ETA: Discussions about article content or fate should be on the article's talk page, not elsewhere, as per usual Wikipedia guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did only mention two of the articles here. But in fact there are probably 30 or more. The user contributions should reveal most of them.JOJ ^Hutton 02:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's another tip: Do not force ANI readers to do your research for you. Present adequate evidence, or don't file on ANI. Softlavender (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Soft that the evidence presented is disrespectful of peoples time. Do not say "there is evidence trust me, now go find it" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• On first look these are high-volume, low quality edits, combined with edit warring that is destructive to the articles in question. This looks like one of those waves of strident deletion that occasionally washes up in the project. Simply deleting every piece of content for all of the shopping malls of one of America's largest developers, nominating clearly notable articles for deletion after gutting them of content, etc. because one of the editors — not the one who added all the content — has a COI, also appears to be a WP:POINT violation. I would suggest that these all be rolled back to their stable versions so that more cautious editors may discuss the matter if need be. There are also more appropriate procedures for dealing with COI. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy of all kinds is a huge issue in WP, and using Wikipedia for promotion violates WP:NOT. COI is one slice of it, and I work on all those issues across WP. The more I am digging into the Westfield articles, the more it is clear they have been peppered by editors promoting the individual malls and Westfield. It does come down to content. That is what the COI tag is for - to alert readers that the article itself might be biased, and to get people looking at them for NPOV and sourcing. There is so, so much unsourced, promotional content in these articles. Also hitting a nest of COi editing like this calls for multiple passes. That is what was happening and still is. Also, please note that Joseph2302 and I have different styles. He works his butt off on COI issues and I respect that a lot, but the torrent of stuff he deals with by reviewing articles at AfC makes him more quick on the trigger finger. Everything here is workable - the dramah of this ANI is not called for. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"He works his butt off on COI issues"- I'd question this, I've been doing a lot less COI stuff recently, only had 4 posts there in the last week. But I also believed that what I was doing here was perfectly fine, Wikipedia is not a business directory for these stores, like most of those 30 pages are. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Joseph your work at AfC is amazing and so, so needed, and I know you encounter mountains of promotional editing there, that you prevent from entering WP. I for one am very grateful for that work you do. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What are the notability rules regarding shopping malls? Is there a minimum size, or is it more about news coverage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There is an old failed proposal at Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers). Although the proposal had a long way to go before it could be workable, particularly by today's standards, some of the discussion on the talk page is useful in seeing the issues around shopping centers. Failing that I think we default to WP:CORP, and just conventions on how mall articles seem to be written. I would think that most any still-extant prominent regional mall would meet the general notability guideline, as malls are the sort of enterprises that business press loves to cover: their owners, history, construction, financing, economic success, etc. Lists and links of tenants may or may not be useful, that becomes a stylistic convention (as it does with prominent buildings), freeway intersections, etc. That sort of information can be hard to fact check and maintain, though. Mall articles can be magnets for all kinds of cruft: promotions, concerts that happen there, minor crime incidents, somebody's favorite store. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Seeing Softlavender's comments below, it looks like the standards for malls are not very firm, and maybe it's time they were pinned down. As you say, big malls which get a lot of press certainly seem notable, and their histories are easier to cover; even if their histories are primary sources, their bare bones facts (e.g. time line) could be expected to be reliable. The pictures from the two initial examples at the start of this discussion appear to be a standard sized mall and something smaller. Unless a given standard or small mall is special for some reason, it's hard to justify its inclusion. One thing for sure to be avoided is lists of stores at a mall (except maybe anchor stores), as the retail business is notoriously fluid and would require frequent updating. Linking to a given mall's directory should provide a recent list. Likewise, linking to a given corporate mall owner's site should provide a list of their malls, so having separate articles for each of their properties regardless of size, seems excessive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As there wasn't a shopping-mall specific guideline, I was applying WP:CORP, but also I was also suggesting that the current business directory-like articles be removed, and when someone writes a proper, neutral tone, well-sourced article, then I'd have no problems with that. The fact is that multiple editors over many years have been spamming over 30 Westfield Group articles, and this is enough IMO to TNT these articles. Also, after I got reverted, I stopped trying to redirect articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There's an underlying content issue with business-related articles that sometimes becomes a behavior / process problem when people act on it too stridently, and that is this. Neutral, factual information about business matters — things like reporting revenue, company history, funding, a list of people and companies and products — sounds like advertising or promotion to some people, perhaps because if they're not familiar with that world they don't see it done. So if they see a list of stores, or some information about which developers got together with which investors, they reflexively delete it, assume there is COI, and lord over articles deleting sections, doing mass deletion nominations and section blanking, applying unrealistic sourcing standards, etc. When the methods become battle-ish, drama ensues. I can't say if this is going to happen here, but I do think that if any established, sensible editors oppose the deletion of a bunch of content across multiple articles it needs to be approached cautiously and incrementally, not with a "nuke it without mercy because we're right about policy" approach. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

while, in some circumstances, "revenue, company history, funding, a list of people and companies and products " may be "neutral and factual" - in real life and in most Wikipedia articles they almost always are presented in manner that is promotional and non-neutral.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I rest my case! I say that humorously, but one person's spam is truly another person's business news. Real advertising and promotion done by actual PR operatives (or copied by fans or overenthusiastic editors) is a lot easier to spot[104][105][106][107] and more black and white than articles that simply seem to pro-business, product-review, or business listing-like to some.[108][109][110][111]. Accusing real editors of engaging in advertising and promotion (even indirectly, by describing their content as such), like accusing them of being "paid shills", frames the discussion in an unhelpful way that does lead to battlegrounds. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether shills are being paid or doing it for free, whether they are good at it or bad at it, whether they like being identified as shills or bristle at being called out, doesnt matter. WP:NOTADVERT and WP:NPOV are policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the hostile approach I was cautioning against! From experience I would say the majority of advert tags and complaints on business articles are inapt, many placed by editors who consider a neutral account of business facts that does not include negative stuff to be inherently promotional — too pro-business, perhaps? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikidemon responding to your comment above and the one above that... which I am taking as relevant to this thread, and what you think may have been motivating me and/or Joseph. I agree that there is lot of inapt editing related to businesses that I think derives from the kinds of things that are generally important to people who volunteer their time here. (I am pretty... respectful of "business" in general - it is just about getting things done in the real world - getting resources together and making plans and executing on them, to make products available, provide jobs, and yes, make money. None of those are bad things to me - they are good things. ~Part~ of why some editors are suspicious of me is that I often write about that kind of stuff.) When policies and guidelines are applied according to their spirit (and of course letter) one can write about noteworthy business matters in a non-promotional manner. It is rare but possible. My point, is that my COI work is not coming from an anti-business perspective.

There is loads of abuse of Wikipedia by people who come here to try to make money - or raise money through donations - by promoting their organization/service/product. And tons of people who abuse WP for other kinds of advocacy, of which COI is just a subset. Which is what led me to working on COI/advocacy issues broadly across WP, outside the areas I like to edit. Like I said, just replying about where I actually am coming from, in case that is what you were discussing. If you weren't, sorry for the intrusion. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog is no stranger to abusing COIN because of his overzealous behavior and haranguing of others. It's an issue that must be dealt with because as we've seen, he pursues COI to the point he becomes lord over WP, bullying and intimidating editors, determining what articles stay, who will or won't be exposed and there are no limits to how deep he will probe into your personal life, all the while acting with impunity while the spotlight is turned away from his own controversial editing and suite of articles claiming no COI. As others are suggesting here and at ARBCOM where the diffs will support my claims here, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Abuse_of_COIN, it's time for Jytdog to back away for a while, if not voluntarily then with a determination by consensus. Atsme^📞📧 16:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Look at the evidence: Jyt tags the article [112] and explains the COI issues on the talk page [113]. One of the account with the COI has been blocked [114]

Looking at the article before this event took place. It was mostly unreffed [115]. Often those involved with paid editing use a large number of socks. When one sees one paid editor it is not unusual to find a lot more probable paid accounts that have also worked on the same article.

We are not an unreferenced business directory. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There is something wrong here, but it is on Jytdog. Note that in the current WP:RFAR#Abuse of COIN that Risker poined out However, I do wish to draw to the attention of the Committee this report at ANI involving Jytdog. Many of the articles involved have been present on Wikipedia for several years before there were any COI edits to them, and shopping mall articles are, often as not, considered to meet the GNG. There is a pattern of behaviour here, not simply isolated to this case. at [116], noting that the COI editor made one edit on a factual matter, and not at all on the material that Jytdog was deleting wholesale [117], and sitting ArbCom member Thryduulf commented that he would recommend that Jytdog take a break from COI or he would not be surprised to see a topic ban [118] in that area.

I don't have a problem if an article needs to be gutted and rewritten. I just did it to one that was longer than all of my featured articles. The difference is that if you are going to look at an article for problems, determine that there is first a real problem (see Risker's comment above about one COI edit), then do something to fix it. That means more than merely hanging a tag on the article if you are going to gut it outside of wikipolicy. Or tag it with citation needed, or something. You don't just wholesale delete articles. GregJackP Boomer! 18:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There was no "wholesale deleting of articles". Only admins can delete articles. And you have clearly not looked at these mall articles closely, which have been subject to a bunch of conflicted editing and most importantly, are full of unsourced content - they have content problems, which is what matters. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe I've already addressed that a number of people have told you that you are going too far with this, including a former Arb and a current Arb. GregJackP Boomer! 20:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I remember the original MallExpert account, and he wrote a lot of directory entries. Seems this has become dramatically worse when the account was handed over to a new flack. Bad idea. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about process

Responding in part of Risker's comment at the bottom of the subsection below.. The suite of Westfield shopping center articles is/was full of unsourced, promotional, and I'll add here - clearly outdated - content that often violated WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

What unfolded at COIN, is what often happens there. The initial posting was made by an editor I haven't seen at COIN before, calling the community's attention to a problem (Malleditor), and was bare bones, citing just one article. When the paid editor posted at COIN and made it clear that this was a truly "corporate account" that he/she had taken over from another employee, it was clear to that there was probably a long-term problem that called for further looking-into. I started looking at their contribs, and in the meantime, an admin blocked the account, taking care of that account - the editor. Shortly thereafter I fleshed out the list of articles that editor had worked on so the folks who work at COIN would have an easy way to look at them. We do that at COIN - we follow up and look at content after COI issues with the editor have been addressed - we look at the content for compliance with content policy. Content is what matters. As I built the list of articles at COIN, I made a first pass over each article, tagging the article with the template:COI so that editors there would be alerted to possible NPOV/sourcing problems, and also added the template:connected contributor and template:COI editnotice tags to the Talk page, along with a brief section explaining the tag on the article. Right away Joseph started doing his thing, working off the list I had just built at COIN, and I started doing mine, which are different, on the articles one by one.

For me, it was a second pass. In each article, I looked at the history and checked contribs of some of the editors, and listed editors I found who were SPAs or otherwise likely editors with a COI on the Talk page as connected contributors, and in the articles removed unsourced content per WP:VERIFY and/or WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which I acknowledge did effectively gut most of them. A few of them were actually pretty decent and I barely did anything to them. Each article gets its own look. I added some content and sourcing to a few. I nominated a couple for speedy and PRODed a couple of others; I tracked what I was doing at COIN, as you can see there. I noted some that seemed apt for a group AfD and that I would have looked at, on yet a third pass.

That is the general process we have been doing at COIN for a while now for articles affected by disclosed paid editing or disclosed COI like this. (The process is quite different when there is a concern about possible COI, based on editing behavior - that is an entirely different situation)

I would be interested in feedback on that process. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts, since I got pinged above:

• Generally speaking, these situations are never "emergencies". The encyclopedia does not fall apart because someone who is (or might be) related to the subject of a specific article might have made some edits to the article. There is almost always time to actually look at the article, identify the edits by the COI editor, and determine the severity of the situation. Older articles with lots of subsequent edits may already have eradicated any problematic edits, and factual information/typo fixing/grammar does not warrant a COI tag. While we don't encourage COI editors to do even minor housekeeping, they're not contravening policy or ToU by doing so.
• The COI tag you are using is inappropriate if you do not review the article beforehand: it says that whoever had the COI is a "major contributor" to the article. Without reviewing the article history, you don't know that, so you shouldn't be using that tag.
• Editing 101 applies. Many of the articles that were involved in your recent sweep you gutted instead of marking as needing additional references, having information that needed to be updated, etc. The redirects are probably better sent to AfD instead of being redirected. (As I've noted elsewhere, malls seem to have had some weird cachet around here since even before I started editing.)
• I'm going to say this again. This is not an emergency. Take the time to review the article and the potential COI edits before doing any tagging.
• If there is a relevant and active Wikiproject for the topic area, consider asking the members to review for COI problems and let them handle the situation.
• There are at least a half-dozen situations I'm aware of where subject matter experts were accused of COI and the articles they had edited were negatively affected. Don't do that. That's what led to the uprising on the legal articles. The majority of editors in the Medicine wikiproject are medical professionals. A significant percentage of editors in the Law wikiprojects are lawyers. Most of the Mathematics project are mathematicians. They do not have an inherent COI.
• If you're bringing someone to COIN, make your statement and then let others determine the appropriate course. The line between collaboration and tag teaming can be pretty fine sometimes.
• It is absolutely going to break my heart to have to write this...but sometimes articles that have been written by people with a COI (including the biggie, undisclosed paid advocacy editing) are about notable subjects. Given our abnormally low bar for notability, even good and experienced editors operating in a topic area with which they have limited familiarity may well be unable to accurately assess the significance of the COI issues in the article.
• The Number 1 reason that we have so much COI editing is the fact that the community has avoided raising the bar for notability for years. The effect is to open the doors wide to anyone who can make decent edits and fly under the radar while creating articles about companies that don't mention revenue, employees, market share, etc.; BLPs on businesspeople and artists and non-European/North American performers that *might* meet the bottom rung of the notability ladder; and products that sound impressive - particularly technology products - again without market share, sales, significant clients, etc. We have created this cottage industry ourselves by refusing to raise the bar and then actually doing the work to keep it in place. The people who create these articles are really hard to track down (trust me on this - some investigations take weeks if not months), and their accounts aren't particularly obvious unless one has a very questioning mind. The folks at COIN are well-intentioned, but they're never going to get past what we consider to be obvious situations (e.g., the people who do actually acknowledge a COI). Even then, most of those issues don't look problematic from the view of the reader.

End of the day, COIN like many other areas of the project is wanting for a large enough group of active participants to address the requests that come in without it becoming dependent on just a few people. It needs more eyes, which will directly change some of the less-than-optimal habits that have developed. And we really, really need to raise the bar on notability so that we can cut off a lot of the COI/paid advocacy editing at the knees. Risker (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to write this. I really do. I agree that raising the bar on notability would benefit the project and eliminate a bunch of bad editing - including COI and other advocacy editing. (At WP:MED we apply the MEDRS standard for health content, which is a pretty high sourcing standard, and that does wonders for keeping bad content, including COI and other advocacy content, out.) Thanks for your thoughts on the COI template... I need to think about using that template differently. And I will consider the Project suggestion - that is a great idea - although that would have done no good here since the shopping center project is pretty dead, as you noted. Thank you for the advice about posting at COIN and getting out of the way. And I agree that even paid editors sometimes create articles about notable topics. (Not sure why you are mentioning that.) I agree that more folks working at COIN - sane and experienced folks - would be very helpful.

That said.... I didn't redirect any articles and I generally don't do that working on COI issues. And I don't understand why you state twice that there was no emergency. I never thought there was one. That is just strange to me, for you to emphasize. Maybe you could explain that a bit?

Most importantly, about the bullet starting with "There are at least a half-dozen situations I'm aware of where subject matter experts were accused of COI and the articles they had edited were negatively affected. Don't do that." There is some "does your mom know you beat your wife" in that. I never "accuse" anyone of a COI. I inform editors who have disclosed a relationship that creates a COI, that they have a COI and what WP:COI says they should do, and try and have a discussion with them about that - a real one, or I ask them if they have a relevant relationship, again in the context of having an authentic discussion. I always start that one-one-one with people on their talk pages, and only if that breaks down do I bring it to COIN (or if there is some big multi-article article issue that needs more help). The way you write it makes it sounds like I "pronounce" on people and I don't do that. I really ask you to hear me. I am very aware that COI is just a guideline and one that is fairly detested by a chunk of the community. I am very aware that getting people to comply with the COI guideline cannot be done with a bludgeon - by pounding on them - it takes persuasion. I am very aware of that. And I want to retain editors. I want conflicted editors to learn to comply with policies and guidelines. And almost all - literally - almost all - of the one-on-one discussions go very well. Many times editors have thanked me for treating them with respect, teaching them how to edit with a COI, and welcoming them. Sometimes those discussions explode or otherwise go south, but those are (surprisingly, depending on your view of humanity) rare. So to a certain extent you seem to talking to or about someone else - not to or about me. (there is WP:BLPCOI which is a policy handle, but that does come up a lot at COIN)

With regard to the subject matter experts you reference.... if you are talking about subject matter experts who write about themselves and their work - that is a section of the COI guideline - people who do that, have a COI per the guideline. (Based on what you have written to me before, I understand that you might define COI pretty narrowly - almost limited to people who are literally paid to edit WP - and this may be one of the things you are disagreeing with the most) If you are talking about subject matter experts who run idea-based businesses and write about the ideas that underlie their business, from my perspective they have a clear COI. But you seemed to disagree with me about that at some point as well. So - I think we might disagree especially on what constitutes a COI in WP. This part, I imagine will be an interesting discussion, and is much bigger than you or me. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Why make another tag? The purpose of the COI tag at the top of the article is to warn readers that there is actually a problem with the article. If, on review, there are no COI edits that negatively affect the article (they've either been eradicated or they're minor housekeeping things within policy) or they are less than 1% of the existing article at the time you first encounter it, then you're not helping the reader - the actual target of the tag. We do not use article space to shame editors; I realise that you don't understand this, but as a reader, if the only COI you can point to is "well, this guy wrote something in 2006 which is no longer here, and that guy added the date of birth with a link"... I'd think you were exaggerating by suggesting there was a problem with the article. There are times where a good chunk of the article (if not the whole thing) is written by someone with a COI; that's when the article needs to be tagged.
• The COI tag I removed was placed by you, and based on what you have said above, you hadn't even read the article sufficiently to figure out out how much of its current content was COI. That is the kind of action I would expect to see someone to take if they felt there was a genuinely urgent or very important situation that needed to be immediately drawn to the attention of the 20 readers a day who stumbled onto the article (an "emergency"). It turns out that none of the three hypothetically COI editors had much to do with the article as it existed when you first tagged the article. The tag wasn't necessary at all, in fact, but you rushed to apply it before even having sufficient facts to justify it. This is the sort of automatic action that I refer to when I say "take your time". If it takes a few days to sort things out, it's fine. There's no crisis here.
• Ironically, I actually have a far more expansive opinion on what constitutes a COI, but it is one that neither the WMF nor a significant portion of the editing population want to consider. I've already had those discussions, and I'm not going to waste my breath having them again.
• On the other hand, I worry a great deal about the really shoddy way we treat the subjects of our biographical material. A shockingly large number of these articles are unbalanced and negative, and any attempt on the part of the subject to raise concerns is beaten back, often using COI as a stick. Just as it is far too easy to get some articles into Wikipedia (COI or not), it is also far too easy to turn those articles into weapons, to load lightly-watched articles with tabloid material, and to allow editors who have too much vested in certain articles (or, as I sometimes say, to have a COI that doesn't involve money) to run roughshod over anyone who tries to improve the situation. Most of our editors are conflict-averse and just stay away. These are big picture issues.
• It is often difficult for people to "hear" how they come across. There is an element to the tone of at least some of what you write that comes across as "the sky is falling". There's also an element of doggedness (Atsme as an obvious example) where your insistence on "proving" the COI and demanding that others (including the person with COI) share your assessment of the nature and extent of the COI becomes harmful - to the other party, to you, to the impression that people have of how COI is being addressed, and in the long run to the encyclopedia. In fairness, I'm certain most people have a hard time really understanding how others perceive them; it's not just you. Risker (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. I am hearing the last thing from several quarters and I need to take that on board. Thanks for that. I do realize that I became shrill in the Atsme matter and the other matter that ended up at your Talk page. I know it probably sounds ludicrous but those were each exceptions to how things usually go. I also know that people end up getting defined in WP by their worst moments. And that there is validity to that.

I cannot figure out your view on COI. I understand not wanting to take the time to yet-again explain but could you ballpark point me to some places where you laid it out (board or article, time frame, subject matter) so I can go find it? I would like to understand you, and you have been here a long time and written a lot.

Thanks for explaining about the "emergency" thing and the issues with the tag. I hear that and am taking the "COI" tag objection on board. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

fwiw [Special:Contributions/1066media this editor] is working on Westfield, is a SPA, and is someone I would generally approach and ask about their relationship with Westfield. I will do that, if you all want to watch. Jytdog (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC) (strike, too weird. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC))

• Questions: I have two questions: (1) If it is there, is there a way of leaving in the history of the mall in the article? (That won't get outdated; historical facts are historical facts -- it may lack updating but the history will not change; plus it is useful info for the reader.) That is, if the article details some history, even if currently inadequately referenced or unreferenced? Likewise for any other neutral putative facts that are not now definitely incorrect. (2) Is there a way of differentiating COI SPA mall-editors from non-COI SPA mall editors? It's possible that some editors may simply have a specific interest in malls -- either the malls in their area, or malls in general, or malls of a specific corporation (obviously the latter is a bit of a red flag, and DUCK should probably apply). I personally think malls are boring and non-notable, but I think the same about a lot of food articles that are on WP, so I'm probably more inclined to let information stay unless it is clear promotionalism and/or against Wikipedia policy, or unless at AfD the specific subject proves not to meet notability guidelines. Anyway, just thinking aloud.

(Also: I think the unfortunate issue at hand is that when met with such a large subject area, Jytdog feels the weight of so much overwhelming COI to address on WP that he's doing what he perceives to be the best he can by overly rapidly 'cleaning up' the large swaths that very few people are looking at or helping with. Is it an emergency? No. Is anyone else looking at or helping with these very large but under-the-radar low-profile subjects? Rarely, but there needs to be some kind of way to alert people that he needs help in the area. It seems to me he is attempting to close out one large subject arena so he can move on to others. So much COI, so little time .... which is understandable.) Softlavender (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi softlavender. not sure what you are asking about on the first one. On the second, for current editors, I would first look at their contribs and see if they disclose a relationship - people often do in edit notes or in talk or question boards off the article and its talk page. if there is no definitive (and I mean definitive self-disclosure), i just ask them if they have a relationship with the subject at their talk page. If they clearly say they have none, i warn them about SPA and advocacy (since it was SPA promotion that called my attention to them) and let it go. For no-longer-active editors, the same process, except you can't ask them.... And thanks for the understanding in your last remarks. Jytdog (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to emphasize what Risker has said:

• There are at least a half-dozen situations I'm aware of where subject matter experts were accused of COI and the articles they had edited were negatively affected. Don't do that. I can't say it any better, and can point to In re Alappat as an example, where you followed an editor who you initially came into contact with on an alleged COI issue.
• That's what led to the uprising on the legal articles. Exactly. You need to slow down when you have multiple experienced editors in a distinct field tell you that you are wrong. I don't edit in the MEDRS field because I don't have the background to do so. I tried that once, in the Climate Change area, doing everything wrong. I did WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:STICK; WP:DICK. I ended up being sanctioned by ArbCom and indef'ed (by Risker), and later had a chance to come back, then later to get my restrictions removed. I now stay away from areas that I don't have expertise and I listen when others talk. No one is asking you to stay away from legal articles, but you do need to listen more.
• The majority of editors in the Medicine wikiproject are medical professionals. A significant percentage of editors in the Law wikiprojects are lawyers. Most of the Mathematics project are mathematicians. They do not have an inherent COI. I don't try and correct someone like Doc James on medical issues or sources. He is a subject-matter expert (SME) and I don't have the needed expertise to dispute his point of view. PraeceptorIP is a SME on intellectual property law. You do not have the needed expertise to determine if something is OR or an accurate summary of the opinion/literature. Ask, don't tag and demand. And don't follow him around tagging every article he edits.
• Please listen to what Risker and Softlavender are saying, they are giving you good advice. GregJackP Boomer! 17:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sidebar: Shopping mall notability

[edit conflict] (Hi, I wrote and attempted to post this before or while Wikidemon posted the above on the same topic; I'll leave it as I wrote it.)

I think a lot of clarity needs to be hammered out here in terms of what constitutes notability for a shopping mall(s) on Wikipedia, and what sources qualify as references, and what constitutes puffery or promotionalism. This seems a fairly insular topic (it doesn't have the scrutiny or referencing that individual companies, businesses, or corporations have), and obviously there is some disagreement about all of these issues by several editors here -- whether they have expertise in the topic or not. At some point, for instance, the various individual malls owned by Westfield in the United States were deemed notable enough for Njbob to create a navbox of them in 2009: Template:Westfield United States. I'm not sure the discovery of one minimally active declared COI editor, or even two or three, constitutes a rationale for gutting and/or AfDing all of the articles just because they currently lack the standard of referencing that most WP articles would benefit from. The relevant Wikiproject is apparently (the fairly inactive) Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers, so I am going to post a notification of this discussion on the talk page there to see if any project members wish to opine. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender attention of the community gets called to articles in any number of ways - the activities of the declared account (shared by more than one editor) has led us to look at these articles carefully. What has turned up so far is that many of them were created by a SPA and have been subject to promotional editing by IP and some named editors. But what matters is that they are (now "were" for some of them) full of unsourced, promotional content much of which violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The point of the COI tag is to call attention to content - to NPOV and sourcing issues in the tagged article; almost all of the articles had problems with both. Content is what matters at the end of the day. Absolutely. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender you are absolutely correct. The real puffery and promotionalism goes unnoticed more often than not while basic information is targeted because of the notability of the subject. For example Red_Bull, and Red_Bull_GmbH. Are we seeing puffery? Promotionalism? Undoubtedly. It looks like one big advertisement for the company and its product yet editors will strip credentials and certifications from an internationally renowned doctor as puffery. It doesn't make any sense. Until we get those issues resolved, we will continue to see issues here, at AN and at COIN. Perhaps it's time to update GNG? Atsme^📞📧 17:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:CORP says ... please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, .... Some people argue (on this page and on AfD pages referenced above) that malls are inherently notable because they replace traditional town squares, which have been important as cultural and economic centers throughout history. I think that's a very good reason why the abstract concept of a mall, the development of mall architecture, and the prevalence (rise and fall) of malls are notable, but not necessarily any individual mall. Malls are pieces of managed real estate, like apartment buildings. Unfortunately the current level of emotion here would probably hinder the creation of a good standard for mall notability at this time. The WikiProject should have been a good place to develop such a standard, but that seems unlikely to happen given the dearth of activity there. Nevertheless, we could try. Would that actually resolve this incident, though? --Unready (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Personally speaking, I believe that there are huge swaths of the encyclopedia where we ought to be significantly increasing our baseline for notability; it's a considered opinion based on years of dealing with conflicted editors, horrible and unbalanced BLPs where the subject (if they dare to complain) is trampled on, school articles whose main purpose seems to be giving students a place to troll their peers, seeing experienced editors fight to keep articles about barely notable subjects for what are obviously personal reasons, and just plain a whole pile of dreck. On the other hand, the community has repeatedly shown itself to be very inclusive in certain topic areas that I'd wipe out in a heartbeat. Personally, I don't think there are very many malls that are notable. The community has repeatedly said that most of them are. I've gotten over it, and I suggest that others get over it, or take that argument to the notability guidelines or to the AfDs that have been started. This discussion doesn't belong on this noticeboard, though; I'm also pretty sure it doesn't belong on the COI noticeboard either. Conflict of interest and notability are two separate concepts, even when a conflict of interest involves a borderline notable article subject. Indeed, that's one of my biggest concerns with the actions that were taken over the last few days with respect to malls: the opinion of one or two editors has supplanted the longstanding opinion of the community about this particular topic area, without seeking to actually change that opinion. I suggest that this subsection be closed and the discussion redirected to where it belongs, which is clearly not here. Risker (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Malls are the new schools?> Seriously? I can see why people fight to include schools, but shopping malls? I have travelled pretty extensively and can say with some confidence that in most malls it is not possible to tell what city you're in - and sometimes even what continent. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What he said. BMK (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Malls aren't the new schools. They've been around and being considered more or less notable since at least 2005. It's just you've never noticed them. I can think of at least 15 malls within an hour's drive that would easily pass GNG. (That probably says more about the ridiculously low bar that GNG sets than it does about the malls, though.) In some places, they're amongst the location's major employers and highest-revenue businesses. Again, that doesn't mean *I* think they're notable. But to reiterate, articles about a lot of malls have passed AFD since at least 2005. Risker (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Back in 2006-2007 I spent many hours tracking AFDs on shopping malls and posted a table of results at the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers), a proposed (but ultimately failed) notability guideline. There were then hundreds of "superregional " malls, over 800,000 square feet of gross leasable area, in the US, and tens of thousands of regional and smaller malls, right down to the strip mall 4 blocks from my house. The superregional standard was one used by the industry, and not some arbitrary term or size picked by a Wikipedia editor. The superregional malls include some which receive national coverage. They were rarely if ever found not to be notable in AFDs. Some editors in discussions at AFDs and at the talk page I mentioned felt that large malls were not eqvilane to corporations, since they had a definite geographic location, while corporations were basically a cloud. They also functioned like a downtown business district in that they were a venue for other corporations to make money and for people to shop or congregate. Then as now, many editors just like to create articles about some particular subject,(God bless all the trainspotters and those who like roads, hamlets, long-dead nobles, insect species,actors, musicians, generals, Congressmen, warships or sports figures) and it is unreasonable to assert that all mall article creators must have a conflict of interest, or that any article which says how big a mall is, where it is what company owns it, and what its anchor stores are is "advertising." That is setting a higher standard for one type of subject than for others.It boils down to the existence of independent reliable sources with significant coverage (and each of those words gets quibbled and sophistry by those with a grudge against or a liking for a particular subject area). Major malls can have significant economic and even cultural impacts on their regions. Tagging poorly referenced or unreferenced articlae about malls is the proper course, and a large-scale campaign of gutting the content,then PRODing it, or sending it to AFD in its gutted form is disruptive and should lead to a topic ban. Edison (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Two hidden sections (this added for ease of editing only)

Seeking boomerang for GregJackP for BATTLEGROUND: Hidden by consensus below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
GregJackP is apparently a well-liked editor and does good work elsewhere, but he has taken a disliking to me, has lost his sense, and is turning WP Into a WP:BATTLEGROUND pursuing whatever bee he has gotten in his bonnet. I am asking for a warning to him to stop this battleground/NPA-violating behavior. He and I got off to a bad start at the Bad Elk v. United States but worked through the issues there; I forgot all about it but he's apparently still upset about it. What happened there was there was poor content in the article that he was defending to the death; I opened a GAR and a case at ORN at the same time to break that OWN behavior, but that just inflamed things; I withdrew both shortly thereafter and we worked through the issues at Talk here and via exchanges of edits. That was in mid-May/ He is apparently still angry, as ever since then he doesn't miss a chance to attack me, and in pretty ugly ways. He has this notion that I am incompetent in legal matters, and constantly says to me (to paraphrase) "I am a lawyer and you are not so shut up and go away". I am the first to acknowledge WP:CIR and while I am not a lawyer, I am plenty competent to edit articles related to intellectual property law. For example instead of working out content in a dispute at Bowman v. Monsanto Co. he just attacked me personally here and here and here and here and here. There is new and very expert editor, User:PraeceptorIP who has been making many of the mistakes that new, expert editors make - namely falling astray of WP:SELFCITE and giving UNDUE weight to his own ideas (both of which get into advocacy/COI issues), as well as adding WP:OR, unsourced content to articles. I deal with editors like this all the time in my work at COIN. That behavior is generally fixable with time and attention, but GregJackP carried his battleground there and interjected himself. That is some of what the diffs above were about, but he carried his private war with me to PraeceptorIP's Talk page, and attacked me and told Praceptor to ignore me here and here and here and here. Just ugly, and arguably setting PraceptorIP on a bad path here in WP. He did the same sort of thing at my Talk page, interjecting himself into a discussion with another editor and making personal attacks here. He did the same thing out of nowhere at the Beepi article here and here (where he was wrong, and the paid editor with whom I was talking gladly worked with me) There are more, but this is already almost tl/dr. I have asked him several times to stop this behavior - here and here and here and several other places, which he ignores and just presses on with this behavior. I told him I would eventually bring this to ANI, so am doing it now. As i mentioned, his participation in this ANI is just more of the same. Please warn him to not use Wikipedia as a battleground and lay off the personal attacks. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC) To respond briefly: I'm not angry, never was, about Bad Elk v. United States (and a related article, Plummer v. State), although I had concerns about his conduct, as did others. At Bad Elk there had been consensus on the content and Jytdog had a case of WP:IDHT. His response to our asking for consensus to remove sourced material was to start a Good Article review, here. He starts a discussion at WP:ORN here]. Then he threatens DR here. Only after I filed an ANI on his conduct and forum shopping did he calm down, stop forum shopping, and actually listen to what other editors were saying, such at Minor4th (at the Bad Elk talk page); Guy Macon (at WP:RSN) and (at WP:ORN). Opening up discussions in multiple location is WP:FORUMSHOPPING and indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I have never told him to "shut up and go away," if he is going to claim that, he should provide a diff. As to his claims of personal attacks? [119] Stating that my position has consensus is not a WP:PA. [120] Responding to his repeated comments about me may be testy, but it was not a personal attack. [121] Pointing out that he misquoted another editor is not a personal attack. [122] Pointing out that four lawyers disagreed with his position on a legal article is not a personal attack, especially where he was the only one taking his position. [123], ditto. For some reason, Jytdog has the idea that PraeceptorIP is a new editor, although it has been repeatedly pointed out that Praeceptor has been here as long as Jytdog (and at the end of the first year both were here, Praeceptor had over 400 edits and Jytdog had only a single edit). He needs to quit denigrating Praeceptor, who is an acknowledge expert in the intellectual property law field. I did tell Praeceptor to ignore Jytdog, who was harassing and WP:WIKIHOUNDING him. On Jytdog's talk page, I advised Bloodofox to let the matter drop after Jytdog had falsely accused him of being involved in socking (and being exonerated by checkuser) and after Jytdog would not initially strike his false accusations. That's also not a personal attack. On the Beepi article, Jytdog appeared to be trying to WP:OUT another editor who had already disclosed a WP:COI. He has a tendency to try and out others and has been warned by Risker to stop harassing people and trying to obtain this level of personal information about anybody on Wikipedia, conflict of interest or no., [124]. I don't know why, but Jytdog seems to believe that anything that is pointed out to him is a personal attack. It's not. For example, he got upset when it was pointed out that an article that Praeceptor (correctly) labelled as using the Bluebook style, did in fact use that style [125], [126]. I'm not following him around, I work on legal articles. Always have. He doesn't get that for some reason. GregJackP Boomer! 17:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC) GregJackP, almost everything you wrote above is inaccurate. All I am after is two things - for you to stop following me and interjecting yourself into discussions with others, and to discuss content with me, and lay off discussing your views on me. Please change your behavior. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC) OK, let me see if I understand you correctly (on the "two things" that I counted as three). It's OK for you to claim that I have made personal attacks when I have not done so, and remain quiet about it. Not going to happen. It's OK for you to call someone with the same amount of time as you on Wikipedia a new editor, and I'm to remain quiet about it. Not going to happen. It's OK for you to harass editors and attempt to out them to the point that a former ArbCom member warns you about it, and I'm to remain quiet about it. Not going to happen. It's OK for you to forumshop and generally be disruptive about legal articles, and I'm to remain quiet about it. Not going to happen. For the most part I don't go to GMO articles and work on those, nor to Biotech articles, nor to Medrs articles. I work on legal articles, and when you show up I'm not going to leave, especially when you are alone against the consensus of a group of other editors. GregJackP Boomer! 19:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC) None of those things was on point with regard to your behavior. Beepi is not a legal article. The discussion on my talk page you jumped into was not about a legal article. This thread has nothing to do with law. You are just hounding me. And i see that once i mentioned three articles below, you immediately went to each of them and marked each one like a dog pissing. It is just ugly behavior, GregJackP. Really, you seem like an otherwise sane editor. You heard BDD say that I am too. So wtf? Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC) OK, two of the articles were moved to their proper names per MOS:LAW#Article titles. And let's look at In re Alappat, which you linked as an example of PraeceptorIP's editing problems. First, you labelled as an essay, which it is not. The article generally follows the style guide for SCOTUS articles, with a background section, procedural history, the case opinion (including dissent), and a subsequent developments section. It is clearly not an essay. Second, you tag it as original research, which again, it is clearly not. Competence is required, and while I am sure that you have competence in GMO and Biotech articles, it is clear that you do not have it in legal articles. I'm sorry, but on one of his edits where he was labeling an article as using the Bluebook citation style, you could not recognize this and got upset when several lawyers told you that it was Bluebook. The same thing happened on Bowman v. Monsanto Co. where four lawyers, two of them in that specialty, told you that material was not WP:UNDUE and that it belonged in the article. I understand that this is not your area of expertise. I have offered to help, and stand by that offer, but to be honest your approach towards others who disagree with you leaves something to be desired. I have gone to legal articles that you have brought up here because I'm concerned about the quality of the articles. Nothing more. GregJackP Boomer! 22:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive879#Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Jytdog, persistent harassment and disruption --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, Guy Macon was part of that original dispute at Black Elk and seems to also have kept a grudge, disappointingly. The first case you link to Guy, I did wrong and acknowledged it and was warned. The one ANI case of the many crappy ones that have brought against me where I did wrong - I actually lost my sense there for a while, and like I said, acknowledged it. But dead horse and just ick for you to bring it. The second one is about the Black Elk case, which was closed with no action as pure dramah and we worked things out at the article, as I described above. I am disappointed with you Guy. GregJackP's behavior is not OK and you should not be defending it. Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC) You are assuming without evidence that I "have kept a grudge". I regularly post links to related archived ANI discussions when someone posts to ANI. I made no comment one way or the other concerning the merits of your ANI posting. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Since you took the time to post at all, I would appreciate it if you would comment on the merits. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC) He did post on the merits. He linked to prior occasions where you have harassed others and it was taken to ANI. Please read what a personal attack is and is not. I have not personally attacked you. GregJackP Boomer! 17:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC) No, he said he did not comment. Specifically said that. I know you think you have done nothing wrong GregJackP, but I believe the community will support me on this, and I hope you will be open to hearing it, as I was when I lost my head. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC) To be specific, I linked to all relevant archived ANI discussions that I found. If I had found a related case naming GregJackP, I would have posted a link to it. I don't post "related" links on ANI to support one side or the other. I do so because I researched the past ANI history of the dispute and could save others reading the case a bit of time. GregJackP's "He did post on the merits" claim is factually incorrect. I am leaving it to the reader to interpret the prior ANI discussions along with and diffs posted as evidence and make their own conclusions as needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC) I misunderstood then (and have struck my comment). I thought you were commenting on the pattern of behavior that Jytdog appears to have in the WP:COI area. GregJackP Boomer! 17:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC) It is rather remarkable how often Jytdog brings others to AN/I for battleground behaviour and disruptive editing. The Banner talk 17:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose. We have landed in Bizarro World. Jytdog is one of the most battleground editors I have come across on WP. Note that a Ctrl + F search of this page reveals that his name appears 40+ times. He is the subject of multiple ANI's and now an Arb request. I have been involved tangentially in a few of Jytog's disputes with other editors, in an attempt to mediate a compromise or resolution. In each instance, it is Jytdog (alone) pushing a point against a consensus, refusing to consider all other editor's explanations. As a lawyer, I have been disappointed with many of Jytdog's edits and discussions on legal articles - I'm not saying he's incompetent, but he does have difficulty comprehending and utilizing legal citation and also has trouble interpreting legal opinions as well as a stubborn/ownership style when it comes to his opinion about sources. I will look for diffs in a while, if requested. Minor4th 17:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Minor4th I invite you to actually look at my edits to say Mayo v Prometheus here or Myriad here. And what I have said about Praeceptor's editing is accurate. He was giving his own POV UNDUE weight at Bowman when I encountered him and he is adding loads of OR to articles based on his own authority (which is considerable in the RW, but that is not how WP works) - and check out this. That is very typical expert newbie editing. Most importantly, you have not commented on GregJackP's behavior - his following me and around, interjecting himself into discussions I am having with third parties, and denigrating me, is BATTLEGROUND behavior that is not appropriate. I am not out to "win" here and I have had great collaborations with other attorneys in WP like Edcollins; I just want GregJackP to fly true and stop acting in such an ugly way. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Minor4th By the way, I've read patently-o every day for years. GregJackP had apparently never heard of it. (and note that I didn't argue from authority at RSN, as we don't do that in WP. I argued from sources, which is what we do here) None of us know everything. It is not a big deal. But having a law degree doesn't mean you know much about IP law per se. Not having a law degree doesn't mean you don't know a lot about IP law. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Jytdog - your two replies to my !vote are making my point exactly. Minor4th 22:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC) That is surprising to me. And that is still not commenting on GregJackP's behavior. But thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose. I'll begin by saying there actually are many instances where Jytdog is an asset to the encyclopedia but the negatives are beginning to overshadow the positives. If we were to block or iBan every editor who has/had an issue with Jytdog, we'd be left with only a handful of editors. As demonstrated in this case and at the ongoing case at ARBCOM, there is clear cause for concern. He blames everyone else and refuses to analyze his own behavior. I think he is finally running out of strikes. I don't follow ANI that closely but I can't recall one instance where Jytdog hasn't triggered the Boomerang after being brought here for behavioral issues. It's an excellent tactic to draw attention away from one's own transgressions. Atsme📞📧 18:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC) I didn't ask for a block or iBan. Point missed,Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose. This enormous and completely unrelated thread seems like a clear attempt by Jytdog to hijack this thread and misdirect attention away from his actions that are being questioned by the OP, by throwing someone under the bus who neither started the thread nor said anything untoward or battleground-y in it (so why it's called a "boomerang" thread is doubly odd). I would like to request Jytdog to collapse this thread and also the reactive/responsive one by GregJackP below. Having people that regularly comment on our behaviors, positively or negatively, is part of Wikipedia. If you want to request an IBan, do that, and do that elsewhere. If there's anything boomerang-worthy on this entire thread, I think it's this thread. Therefore I would suggest that you withdraw, move, or collapse it. I attempted to collapse it just now, but that was reverted by BMK. Softlavender (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC) @Softlavender: The behavior of all participants is traditionally subject to scrutiny on AN/I threads when it's closely and clearly related to the initial report. That is the case here, and that is why I reverted your collapsing. (BTW, when you collapse something, you need to sign it, so that other editors know who did the deed.) BMK (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC) May I ask you how to sign a hatting? I have rarely if ever seen one signed, nor recalled how they did it. Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Sure, when you make the collapsing comment, just end it with the regular 4 tildes, that's all. BMK (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose I'll say that I don't have a particularly good opinion of GregJackP, and I believe that he feels the same about me (he recently tentatively supported an RfA candidate simply because I had opposed the candidate [127], and said so in his initial "Neutral" statement). I can't speak for why he's not my A#1 fan, but for my part it seems to me that GregJackP is more interested in stirring up drama than he is in actually improving the encyclopedia. Be that as it may, I don't think that his behavior is such as to warrant a sanction, although if he keeps on in the way he is heading, it may well come at some time in the future. For me, that time is not yet. I can fully understand that Jytdog may feel differently about it, but that's how I see it right now. BMK (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC) example happening right now Some time ago, i tagged In re Alappat as essay like and OR. (it looked like this when I tagged it and looks much the same now). And left a note on the Talk page. In response to my linking that above, GregJackP scooted right on over to that article, removed the tags, and when I reverted and asked him to respond on Talk, he came to talk and wrote this: Removed, and noted that initial editor is following the general style used by WP:SCOTUS for case articles, not written as an essay as claimed. WP:CIR and note that the editor accused of being "new" by Jytdog had over 400 edits in 2008 before Jytdog made his second edit, and that he has created 10 times more articles than Jytdog has. That statement is 100% ad hominem, and does deal with the substance of the tags at all. This is Wikipedia, not a law journal or blog, and this is exactly what I was complaining about above. This is not a way to behave in Wikipedia. I am asking folks here to give GregJackP a warning that this behavior is not OK here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose topic ban from COI and legal articles for Jytdog: Hidden by consensus below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is clear that Jytdog does not understand or doesn't hear statements experienced editors and admins tell him to back off. I propose that the community topic ban him from the WP:COIN board, from acting on WP:COI actions, and from articles on legal cases, broadly construed for six months in order to give him a chance to evaluate his own actions. In many cases, editing in a different area can lead an editor to be productive without constantly being in conflict. GregJackP Boomer! 22:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Support as proposer. GregJackP Boomer! 22:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Support. Jytdog's behavior in this very ANI thread is a pretty good illustration of his manner of dealing with other editors and his failure to consider his own behavior at all. I support a topic ban from legal articles and a ban from taking COI-actions and engaging in COI-related discussions. Minor4th 22:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Support When I originally created this thread I had no idea how wide spread the problem really was. This behavior seems to go beyond just deleting information and a misunderstanding of COI. It appears that Jytdog has a problem with the Wikipedia process as well. This is a clear indication that Jytdog should be topic banned from these issues. Not doing so will only create more ANI reports and more drama. JOJ Hutton 23:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose This is clearly a WP:BATTLEFIELD tactic, which should not be rewarded. I don't know what will happen below, but the supports above this are all from editors who have been on the opposite side of disputes with Jytdog, and are therefore strongly involved. I am not in any way involved in this. BMK (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose per BMK and per WP:Boomerang. This is very wrong-headed indeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose I believe the cleanup work of Jytdog on these articles was correct (as other editors have suggested above), and all the rest of the evidence about other things seems like a battleground mentality over content disputes. From what I've seen, Jytdog's work in COI is invaluable, helping many new conflicted editors understand their COI, and how to contribute within it. Let arbitration rule on the arbitration case, but I believe that in general, Jytdog's contributions to COI are positive, and the main objections have come from users who've had issues with them elsewhere. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC) (reinstated after being removed, I assume accidentally, by @Wikidemon:.)Joseph2302 (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Please take this elsewhere — this was a discussion about a specific incident involving content removal from a bunch of articles, and some amount of edit warring, under a claim of COI. Now we're getting off track talking about legal articles, the COI notice board, etc, which really sidetracks things. An editor, however much you disagree with his actions, defending himself against something on AN/I, would rarely be a good reason to uphold a topic ban on an unrelated subject. I see nothing about the current incident that would support a topic ban or any other sanction. What is happening elsewhere really belongs elsewhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Comment It was suggested in a recent ArbCom request that Jytdog's behaviour be addressed at AN/I. The case was denied because it hasn't been through the normal course. Perhaps this section should be reopened in a fresh thread. petrarchan47คุก 00:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Comment Jytdog has said they're taking a break from COI things for "a bit" [128]. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Yep, as suggested at Arbcom, til that is closed and this too. i can listen, ya know. :P But please continue. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose This is an extreme sanction for an editor who has already said he was backing off on COI, the very reason this had been proposed. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose - per BMK. This thread is already out of control. Boomerang the boomerang of the boomerang? Also attempting to prevent strong COI work doesn't help resolve anything. --Unready (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to Jytdog and GregJackP

Before this discussion goes any further off the rails, how about the two of you, informally and voluntarily, just agree to try to steer clear of one another for a while? There is too much mutual battlefielding here, and you would both be best served by just dropping it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Atsme, Jytdog, and then GregJackP in defense against Jytdog's unwarranted boomerang proposal, have hijacked this thread with their own unrelated agendas and grievances. I suggest we hat their obvious digressions (they can take them elsewhere and start their own threads apart from this one) and return this discussion to what it is about: the fate of this large group of mall articles, and the appropriateness of two editors apparently tag-teaming to gut and/or AfD them, for reasons that may or may not follow WP guidelines. The way to settle the matter is not to boomerang someone who neither started the thread nor said anything untoward or battleground-y in it. I don't believe Jytdog should be removed from the COIN board (he does good work there), but nor should he blatantly misdirect a thread questioning his actions by throwing an uninvolved person under the bus. Softlavender (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have taken the liberty of doing so, at least on the J-G threads. If someone wants to move those two threads to their own thread outside of this, that's fine, but they are completely unrelated to this thread. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm fine with going back to the original reason for the discussion, the various malls. As long as he's not making false accusations against me that I have to respond to, I'm good with just continuing to work on legal articles. GregJackP Boomer! 02:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, BMK reverted my hatting. Do people think the two interminable and unrelated "proposal" threads should be hatted or moved elsewhere, or not? I don't really have a dog in this fight, but the threads are hijacks and completely obscure the point of the OP's thread. Softlavender (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to have several threads ongoing simultaneously dealing with, essentially, the same issue. We're here, let's try to get things settled here.BMK (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not the same issue at all, or even anything related to the same issue, and in fact has nothing to do with the OP issue -- Jytdog does not even mention GregJackP's behavior or points in this thread, which have been very mild and prudent. It's an absurd attempt to hijack this thread about mall articles by attacking an editor who neither opened the thread nor did anything whatsoever actionable or even questionable in it. I understand from your !vote comment that there is antipathy between you and GregJackP, but don't let that blind you to that fact that the boomerang sub-thread is a completely trumped-up and irrelevant side-show that belongs in its own separate thread (if anywhere), because it does not even reference this thread or anything in it. If you look at the time stamps, GregJackP had made exactly two brief comments to the OP's thread [129], [130] before Jytdog posted his lengthy and unrelated "boomerang" sub-thread [131]. Softlavender (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree they should be hatted or closed or moved. Both sanction proposals have roughly zero chance of approval unless one of their subjects flies off the handle here, would not stand if anyone declared them approved, are irrelevant to and distract from the discussion, and do no good for the editors proposing them. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I was willing to walk away from it, but I have a problem that I make two minor comments on the original topic when Jtydog posts a wall of text alleging all sorts of BS. Beyond My Ken, exactly how are any of the links he included in this statement "he just attacked me personally here and here and here and here and here" a personal attack? Since when is stating that I have consensus a personal attack? Or responding to his repeated passive-aggressive behavior - now that's a personal attack? How is pointing out that he misquoted another editor a personal attack? Or explaining that when 4 editors are in agreement and you're the only one that isn't - how is that a personal attack? Or explaining consensus yet again - is somehow a personal attack? I was just as happy when Softlavender hatted it off, but I'll be happy to let the community look at all of the material. Should we notify everyone that has been in a conflict with Jytdog? Or should we hat this off, again? GregJackP Boomer! 04:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As per your usual behavior, you can do whatever will create the most drama, if that's what you wish to do. But if you WP:CANVASS -- that is, notify editors only on one side of the issue -- you will be called on it, and will risk facing sanctions for doing so. On the other hand, if you hat these discussions again, I will unhat them, for the same reason that I unhatted Softlavender's hatting, because the behavior of all parties is subject to scrutiny once an AN/I report has been open. I know you didn't open this one, but you certainly entered it like gangbusters, blasting Jytdog immediately, making your position crystal clear, and making it quite obvious that you are a strongly involved editor, not in any way an univolved commentator. If you think that you now can back away with a discussion about consequences, you're mistaken. BMK (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay people, enough. The encyclopedia will benefit from *everyone* taking this down a couple of notches. Risker (talk) 05:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. BMK, we've got three out of four people so far here who think they should be hatted or moved, (plus Tryptofish at the top who agrees the sub-threads are de-railing the discussion, and the two people in the proposal !votes themselves that agree they should not be there); that's a consensus so far, and Wikipedia operates by consensus. Perhaps the two of you (GJP and BMK -- and that goes equally for you GJP; you are the one who began stirring the pot just now above) could take the advice offered by Tryptofish to GJP and Jytdog above. Both of the silly proposals have been roundly opposed, and they are both clogging up the thread and distracting from the issue at hand. They can be moved elsewhere if they are that useful (but they probably aren't as evidenced by the snowing opposes). Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm completely willing to walk away, just as I stated earlier. I don't know (or care) what BMK has against me, but I'm not the one that created the additional drama here by unhatting this. I'm perfectly fine with doing other things instead of responding to bogus accusations against me. GregJackP Boomer! 06:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Propose hatting the two un-called-for proposal sub-threads (which hatting already has consensus), plus also this good-faith "Suggestion" subthread, so we can all get back to resolving the issue at hand. Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  I did the first one. I'm involved in the second one. Makes sense to me not to hide the third until the second is done. --Unready (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  OK, I did the same on the second one; I was not involved in that one. Softlavender (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm late to the party, but I would be happy to steer clear of GregJackP and am OK with the hatting of both threads. Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Internet 7000

POV editing, soapboxing, likely sockpuppetry, censorship, subjective terminologies, manufacturing of "controversy" related to singer/actor Tina Barrett.

First encountered Internet 7000 at Tina Barrett where they created a "Controversy" section and populated it with the following insufficiently sourced statements, which are also not even close to appropriate encyclopedic tone. (We are not a gossip rag, and statements like "wisp of chiffon", "prize assets" and "protected her modesty" are completely worthless to an encyclopedic article as vague. Does "modesty" mean "genitals", for instance?)

• "On 8 April 2003 at their Seeing Double (film) UK premiere, Barett wore a revealing red Grecian gown designed and created by Scott Henshall which consisted of only a wisp of chiffon held together with gold clasps and her prize assets kept in place with sticky tape which just about protected her modesty as she attended."
• "On 8 April 2003 at their Seeing Double (film) UK premiere, Barett wore a revealing red Grecian gown designed and created by Scott Henshall dress which consisted of only a wisp of chiffon held together with gold clasps and her prize assets kept in place with sticky tape which just about protected her modesty as she attended."

I warned the editor that their submission was inappropriate, and then opened a perfunctory discussion on the article's talk page, which the editor never responded to.

Similar edits were made in related articles, Seeing Double (film) and S Club 7:

• "There was a little controversy at the UK premiere when Tina Barett wore a revealing red Grecian gown designed and created by Scott Henshall which consisted of only a wisp of chiffon held together with gold clasps and her prize assets kept in place with sticky tape which just about protected her modesty as she attended."
• "On 8 April 2003 at their [[Seeing Double (film) premiere Barett wore a revealing red Grecian gown designed and created by Scott Henshall dress which consisted of only a wisp of chiffon held together with gold clasps and her prize assets kept in place with sticky tape and it just about protected her modesty as she attended ."

User has resubmitted this basic content again here via 31.185.158.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (UK-based, ISP: PlusNet Technologies), which was then "refined" by Internet 7000 here. Normally we would call this sockpuppetry.

Most recently we see new soapboxing amid sloppy editing "on 8 April 2003 at the UK Premiere of their Seeing Double (film) , Barrett wore a kinky red Grecian Dress designed by Scott Henshall." along with undiscussed and unsourced resubmissions at some of the articles, like here at Seeing Double.

I don't know exactly what the user's mission is, but it's clearly POV, edit-warring, soapboxing, etc, which is underscored by earlier edits like these where they remove references about Geri Halliwell's nude modeling and explain it away with comments like, "Their were pornographic pictures of Geri as a glamour model which was inappropriate and I deleted the link because of it." Surely we do not practice censorship at Wikipedia. Their motives are unclear since they do also seem interested in detailing things like nude swimming. Anyhow, disruptive, they don't discuss, etc.

There are other issues as well, for example in Dec 2014 Binksternet warns the user to stop adding excessive plot details at A Perfect Getaway per WP:FILMPLOT. The user waits, then expands the plot again to over 700 words with more content about the "naked"ness of the characters. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User is definitely behaving disruptively. I agree with this Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 23:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Whenever you see prose like "wisps of chiffon" etc, you can be pretty sure it's copy vio. In this instance, copied from here. I have rev-deleted the copy vio from S Club 7, Tina Barrett, and Seeing Double (film). Sorry folks, this means the above diffs don't work any more -- Diannaa (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

More than copyvio, this person is sharing his leering view of the world via Wikipedia. It's distasteful and trivial, the things that are important to him. It would be a better encyclopedia without his contributions. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dianna has already warned him/her; let's see if s/he takes the hint. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Frivolous AFD nomination, disruptive edit warring and removal of sourced content by User:Vrac

Request speedy close of disruptive and meritless nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn by Vrac (talk · contribs), opened less than a full day after Vrac's previous AFD on the same page was closed as "keep". It is also clear that Vrac has not been editing the article constructively but has been removing content only to support his position that it should be deleted, which strikes me as an inappropriate and WP:POINTy attempt to WP:GAME the system, and I think at least a warning is in order regarding that editing as well.

After the first AFD was closed, I moved it to the standard List of artists from Brooklyn and Vrac immediately set to removing content from the list, regardless of whether the linked articles contained sources.[132],[133] Worse, he continued to remove entries even after sources were added within the list showing that they were based as artists in Brooklyn,[134],[135],[136] consequently edit warring with myself and Northamerica1000. This is all on Vrac's claim (as best as I can figure it out) that someone cannot be listed "from" somewhere if they were born elsewhere or subsequently relocated (all different and not mutually exclusive meanings of "from"). This is contrary to standard practice with "people from FOO" categories and lists, but more important Vrac has shown no inclination to even discuss that he has a different interpretation or to comment on the sources offered despite explanation of the disagreement and invitation to explain himself,[137] instead insisting he and he alone is correct with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tendentiousness.[138],[139] Certain entries Vrac has now removed five times within the past day without even commenting on the sources presented.[140],[141],[142],[143],[144]

After Northamerica retitled the list to List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn to try and avoid Vrac's insistence on what "from" can only mean,[145] Vrac then nominated it for deletion a second time on the frivolous ground that the title change means it's somehow a different article,[146] and that it now violates NOTDIR.[147] Again, this was less than a day after the previous AFD was closed. Thanks for your time in looking into this. postdlf (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't find it unreasonable to expect that an article with the title: "List of artists from Brooklyn" contain a list of people who are actually from Brooklyn. I've repeatedly suggested that users find reliable sources that say the individual is from Brooklyn before they add a source, which in some cases they have not done. For each of those cases I removed, I provided a source saying that the individual was not from Brooklyn. All of this is documented in the edit history of the article.

As for the article "List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn", having an article of people "residing in" a particular place, in my opinion, goes against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As such I created an AFD for it. The article had fundamentally changed, I don't see why a new AFD would be prohibited. I won't comment on Postdlf's behavior, it's all there to see in the AFD's, article history, and article talk page. Vrac (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I will say one thing about edit warring. WP:UNSOURCED and WP:V are clear about sourcing, the WP:BURDEN is on the user adding the content, right? None of the sources Postdlf added said the individuals were from Brooklyn. Doesn't that mean that Postdlf is edit warring? Vrac (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I would normally !vote "weak delete" because Vrac does have a point that there are no other "list of artists who have resided in [foo]" articles (sounds like WP:OL). However...the fact that the same nominator re-nominated the article not even twenty-four hours after the previous discussion was closed as "keep" smells of WP:IDHT; which, IMO, overshadows everything else (for that reason alone, I would !vote "speedy keep"). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that it's not the same article. What is more fundamental to a list article than its criteria for inclusion? I could also argue that renaming the article was a bad-faith attempt to circumvent the issue of adding content that fails WP:V, and thus keep the members of the list as they were. Vrac (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: I have a question about renaming, having never been in this situation, is it ok to rename an article, in this case fundamentally changing it, less than 24 hours after an AFD? There was no consensus at the AFD to rename it to the name it currently holds. Vrac (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note This is a matter of standard list-title style plus first-sentence clarification. The standard Wikipedia titling style and naming convention for Lists of people [associated with] Place X is: List of people from Place X. The first sentence then clarifies that as "This is a list of people born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Place X." The title (and usually Category as well) uses "from" because that is the most felicitous and easiest way to put it. The first sentence clarifies what the parameters of the article actually are. Of course the article is not going to include someone that was neither born in nor lived in Place X for more than 6 months, but likewise nor is it going to exclude someone born in Peoria who then moved to Place X and resided there for a long long time. We can't uproot and change all of Wikipedia because one editor objects to article and category naming conventions. If this editor keeps disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT, he needs to be stopped, either with a T-ban or a block. Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? I can create an article called "Foo", then write a first sentence description that says "this article is sort of about foo, but not really, and since I put it in the first sentence, I can put whatever I want in the article, even if reliable sources disagree"?

Here's the problem: to name this article to reflect its contents, it would have to be called "List of artists that Postdlf associates with Brooklyn". It's a form of original research. Here's an example: Postdlf wants the name Andrea Zittel on this list. This individual is not from Brooklyn, she's from California according to the NY Times, and according to Andrea Zittel herself, and here is a NY times article about her studio in CA. I'm guessing many would associate her with California, many with New York. Who's right? They both are. But where is she actually from? Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not Postdlf's opinion or someone from Joshua Tree, CA. And reliable sources say that Andrea Zittel is from California. From WP:V: Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. @Softlavender: Is that an ambiguous statement? And I'm not trying to uproot Wikipedia, I'm trying to have a "List of people from Brooklyn" contain a list of people who are actually from Brooklyn. Is that really so unreasonable? Vrac (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Vrac, you can argue the point all you want, but you do not get to set Wikipedia article naming conventions or article content conventions, and you do not get to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. This seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We get that. It doesn't matter; you don't get to disrupt Wikipedia just because you don't like something. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Your right, I don't get to set article content conventions. The policy was already decided by consensus: WP:V. Do you get to ignore policy by tossing out WP:IDONTLIKEIT?Vrac (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You've illustrated well my complaints about your conduct here. You are unable (or unwilling) to distinguish your interpretations from policy requirements and so consider yourself entitled to revert anything you disagree with, and you've left your explanations so opaque that your responses don't actually respond to what has been said to you. You're just insisting. Which makes me wonder if it's a WP:COMPETENCE issue, that perhaps you think unless a source uses the exact phrase "X is from Brooklyn" we are unable to verify that they are eligible for a list of artists from Brooklyn, no matter what those sources might otherwise say is their connection to Brooklyn. That you are also insisting that List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn is "fundamentally different" than List of artists from Brooklyn then makes sense, if you are so tripped up over the precise words used as to fail to be aware that the underlying meaning is the same. Despite at least three editors now trying to explain that to you. postdlf (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Let the AFD run it's course Vrac's right, Wikipedia's not a list of things , so this list has to go. If the artists are notable on their own, give them their own article. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for close of AFD

We still need an uninvolved admin to close the AFD. It qualifies for WP:SK because it was started by the same nominator less than a day after the previous AFD was closed as "keep", even regardless of their otherwise disruptive editing. postdlf (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

To summarize This case hasn't attracted much comment, not a word about the edit warring accusation, so I'm going to respond to each charge for the record then I'm moving on to other things.

• edit warring: Postdlf reverted 1 2 times before going to the talk page, by then the article had already been changed into to “have resided in Brooklyn”. (An incarnation which I have not edited). I provided reliable sources that justified each removal, the WP:BURDEN was on Postdlf to engage and justify. I reminded Postdlf of that here (not that I should have to remind an admin what WP:BURDEN is). So WP:BOOMERANG on this one.
• disruptive editing: Renaming and fundamentally changing an article during a content dispute, in a cynical attempt to avoid the content issue and make the square peg fit into the round hole, is the very definition of disruptive behavior. It's easy to throw around disruptive editing accusations when you disagree with someone. I was expecting some kind of discussion, and I would hope that admins know the next steps are discuss, RFC, or at most dispute resolution before unilaterally doing what you want. Not exactly a BOOMERANG because user:Northamerica1000 renamed the article, but you get the point.
• spurious AFD: The original article I AFD'd was called “Brooklyn Artists”. After it closed as keep Postdlf renamed it to “List of artists from Brooklyn”. Then NorthAmerica1000 renamed it to “List of artists having resided in Brooklyn”. Note that I did not AFD the “from Brooklyn” article, nor would I have. “have resided in Brooklyn” is just plain silly and clearly runs afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Excluding involved parties, there are 3 delete !votes and 2 keep !votes at the AFD (one of whom would have voted weak delete if not for what they see as a re-nomination), so I'm not the only one who thinks this “have resided in” article is problematic. Should I have opened an RFC myself instead of AFD? Yes, but the burden was on them and I don't appreciate getting railroaded. Slap me with a fish, but a block is more than excessive.

There are other instances of false accusations and dubious behavior by Postdlf in this drama, but I'm not going to stoop to their level by crying “mommy” at the playground because someone stepped on their shiny new toy. Someone wanted to edit war rather than discuss, someone else changed the article so they could get what they want, and now they've coming whining to ANI because someone called them on their b.s. It's all very WP:LAME. I'm not naive enough as to expect I would get a lot of support in an admin forum over a dispute with admins, but threatening me with blocks and topic bans instead of addressing the underlying policy issue is not cool. It could all have been easily solved with an RFC, the result of which I would have been more than happy to abide by. Vrac (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Problem editing on alphabet pages

One user, editing now from two different IP addresses, 2404:E800:E61A:6F8:C8C4:5996:BE48:C3FB (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 132.188.112.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is repeatedly adding/reverting the same type of poorly sourced claim to about 20 different articles on south and southeast Asian alphabets. The user has not engaged on talk pages (despite efforts), and in this third round of edits, the user claims to have already discussed the edits in the edit summary. They have been warned for edit warring, and although they have not technically violated the 3RR yet, the number of articles that this user changes at one time makes cleanup tedious. I've reported this here because although it's not a clear-cut case of 3RR/edit warring, it's problematic and could slip by if we're not paying attention. agtx 13:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I also have attempted to engage this editor on one of his talk pages, notifying him of the location where previous discussions of his chosen issue have taken place (discussions which, btw, indicate that current consensus is overwhelmingly against him), yet he refuses to discuss and continues to just revert.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 17:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The editor also is using a third IP 2404:E800:E61A:6F8:4564:582C:C04C:9D53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to do his damage, inserting the same edits and using the same edit summaries. There may be even more socks we haven't caught yet.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 17:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If there is no response to these complaints I recommend a block of all three IPs (the IPv4 and the two IPv6s) of at least a week. If they branch out to more IPs then we would want to semiprotect the alphabet articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I've just blocked the latest one (2404:E800:E61A:6F8:4564:582C:C04C:9D53) for 24 hours, but no objection to wider sanctions if needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Again started the same activity

A person with the IP address 77.102.106.5 has again stated his activity of restoring Talaash (Colors TV series) article, and than redirecting it within 1 minute. I had complained it before also, and the result was no action against that person. Now it's the second time. I request to block that user. ЖunalForYou ^☎️📝 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

IP didn't appear to have been notified so I placed the standard notice on their talk. Zarcusian (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• The IP has been edit-warring with itself (using the same account), recreating and then redirecting the same article, over and over (13 times so far): [148]. Has done the same thing with other articles, including various seasons of Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa, and Code Red (Indian TV series) -- see Special:Contributions/77.102.106.5. Appears to have become more or less a Vandalism-only account, and probably needs as long a block as possible, in my view. Softlavender (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sumit naithani SD - trip #2

The following discussion is closed. 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 previously brought Sumit naithani SD to ANI [149] in December 2014 for persistently ignoring guidelines on image uploading. The user probably has at least 100 warnings on his talk page related to this. I am not so much requesting sanctions as just close scrutiny and guidance by admins, in the hope that sanctions could be avoided. I also note that many of the images he's uploading are watermarked with "SD", the last two letters in his username. [150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158] This seems self-promotional and it contravenes WP:WATERMARK. He's also causing more work for the folks who haunt the image realm of Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Sumit naithani SD was ever told about watermarks so I've placed a note on their page. However at a quick glance there are over 100 of these watermarked images in use. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Complicating the issue is that these are not free images, but fair-use images ostensibly meeting WP:NFCC. Adding personal watermarks to copyrighted images seems to be extremely questionable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, NeilN, and for your notice on the editor's talk page. I will point out additionally that the user has never edited in talk space, has created a number of articles on films of of questionable notability, and I'm not even sure he has ever remedied any of the problems he has been notified about. On May 4, he was notified by DPL bot that there was a disambiguation problem at Ek Thi Reeta that still hasn't been resolved. So, there are a few questions about this user. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually given how long this seems to have been going on, I'd be inclined to indef and wait if they communicate after that. Watermarking fair use images is unacceptable and those need to be deleted, unless someone objects. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I was leaning toward deletion myself but posted here to attract some knowledgeable opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Watermarks amounts to derivative works based on unfree images, which is not on. I have blocked the account for now at least until he starts engaging with others. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks one and all for the assist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog and JzG: Doing a spot check, it seems that all images from December 10, 2014 onwards have watermarks. I don't see any objections to deletion here but am unsure what deletion process should take place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I just mass-deleted all the images and unlinked them from the articles. Let's not do this again any time soon! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Smirtovic

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

---

Hi, I would like User:Smirtovic to get a topic ban from creating new articles.

I noticed that this editor has articles now at AfD and looked at his talkpage with several PRODs and AfD notices (which has been removed) and when looking at his contributions he does not have many articles that has "survived" and those that is there no are mostly at AfD in progress. I dont think this editor has insight in notability guidelines.

To show some examples in [159] this diff from 2013 he says he created Tom Siwe that was put up for deletion here yet he has created same article again, now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Siwe (2nd nomination). Other articles created and now deleted includes FC Aesch (CSD A7 after he tried removing the speedy tag), Eldro Diacoşki (first PROD, then removal of BLPPROD without adding source and then deleted after CSD G7). Current AfDs are Matt Carter (footballer born 1997) (this AfD) and Tom Siwe as mentioned earlier (after he removed speedy again and he has also removed the AfD notice on the article).

Also the article for Matt Carter was created with copy-n-paste content (see [warning diff).

Editor has previously been at ANI here under a different username.

Not sure if this enough for a topic ban, but I thought it was best to inform administrators about the situation and let some one else decide. Qed237 (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - indefinite, until such time as the editor can show they fully understand our article notability requirements. GiantSnowman 17:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I have re-notified the user about this discussion after he removed the last one, hopefully he will respond. However a quick glance at their talk page history shows they unfortunately just blank any comments. GiantSnowman 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• We generally consider the removal of a notification as evidence of it being seen. Chillum 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I know, but I thought a notification from an admin might have a bit more weight and encourage them to join the discussion... GiantSnowman 17:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have not looked deep enough to endorse a ban at this point, possibly later. I will point out though that I have just closed this AfD as a speedy delete: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Danish_football_transfers_summer_2015. One of Smirtovic's recent creations. Chillum 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Given that this user seems to only have one form of communication which is page blanking I support a topic ban from new article creation. This user is clearly doing it wrong and refusing any sort of help. Chillum 17:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• My mistake, there was in fact a single occasion this person spoke to someone on their talk page: "fuck you, - mikrul". Chillum 17:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Support topic ban - Clearly lacking the knowledge to create new articles. A waste of time for everybody cleaning up after them. JMHamo (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, and this timesink may indicate that the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Miniapolis 22:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CIR. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support an IAR competence indef block instead. I doubt there would be any point in a topic ban. They'd just ignore and continue sown this path they were to be blocked anyway. Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, Chillum, JMHamo, Miniapolis, and Blackmane: How are the views of an indefinate block instead? User:Smirtovic has refused to discuss and has removed two ANI notices on has talkpage. He has also continued with poor article creation, now Marijan Ćorić at this AfD. A topic ban would probably not keep editor from creating articles. Qed237 (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And just as I wrote that he removed an other AfD message from an article (not his first). Qed237 (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I handed him a 24h block solely for that. No prejudice against making it longer including indef for the larger longer-term problem. DMacks (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@DMacks: Thanks, do you mind revoking talkpage access as well for attacks like this? Qed237 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTHERE is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I had already sided with an indef block over a topic ban. So I endorse Chillum's action. Blackmane (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Enough

Given the abuse the user has given since being blocked I have extended the block to indefinite. The duration is indefinite, meaning once the user decides to communicate in a reasonable fashion it can be reconsidered. As always I welcome feedback. Chillum 01:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User: Louis Belasco

The following discussion is closed. 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 User:Louis Belasco starting an inappropriate edit war on Zola Budd removing her married name from the article. His only response, via edit notes, is he doesn't like it. On my second revert edit notes I urged him to check out WP:3RR but apparently that didn't work. I'm now going to try to find the template to warn him more directly. Trackinfo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User notified of ANI discussion. Blackmane (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I have started a conversation on the talk page, which is where both of you should have gone. If I see one more revert from either of you on the article until a definitive consensus arises, the page might need to be protected. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

So no admin is going to any action against Louis Belasco for reverting this section multiple times and removing section headers in another report here, after this was filed? Sorry, an order sending the kiddies back to the talk page is not enough. John from Idegon (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I generally don't block without giving a final warning of exactly what will get them blocked. Zzuuzz has done the deed. As for the article, experience has shown that if you go to WP:AN3 without any talk page discussion, at best you get no action and at worst you get a boomerang. Hopefully consensus will now form on talk and this will all blow over. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Ritchie333, but in this case, what you usually do is not effective. This dude gets called here, right or wrong, and his reaction is to repeatedly blank the report at ANI, and when that is not disruptive enough, starts blanking things in other places on this board? The thing complained about by Blackmane is only the tip of the iceberg. Check out this guys short history. Looks pretty much WP:NOTHERE to me. "Married names are stupid". "Fuck you, John. Your not the boss of me". Two gem edit summaries. "He was racist against people who didn't speak French." on the bio of a Quebec politician. Behavior mimics a 10 year old. Someone needs to be warned they cannot behave the way this guy does? No wonder we cannot keep decent editors. John from Idegon (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia, not dish punishments out to people. If he carries on, he'll get indeffed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps this qualifies for the indef. agtx 19:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 60 hours (before seeing this - came via a request at WP:RFPP). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Constant deleting without reaching a consensus or using talk

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

---

2605:a000:ffc0:44:6c8e:eda2:be46:e2c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has constantly been deleting edits without going to talk first. One such edit was reaching consensus via talk and but (s)he deleted it nonetheless. I've reached on through the article's talk page, the user's talk page, and the edit summary but have yet to receive comment. Also, the user consistently belittles my edits as "fanboy" material in the edit summary, something I feel is unfair and unnecessary. Doing this publicly, undermines my ability to contribute meaning material as it causes my motivation to be called into question. Lastly, I believe this user has at least one other profile as his/her history only reflects reverts of my edits (with the exception of one). Because I am making good faith edits and/or reaching out to editors through the talk feature for help or consensus, I believe at least an interaction block would be helpful. I don't mind being edited or corrected as I am a newcomer still getting the grasp of things. However, I'm sure that the way this user is going about conflict does not entirely fit within the principles of Wikipedia.TJC-tennis-geek 13:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've put pending changes on Serena Williams for a week. As not too many IPs are editing the article right now, that seems the best option that will force them to discuss things, while allowing other editors' unrelated changes to filter through. In the future, WP:RFPP is thataway.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ritche333 that sounds like a positive swing in the right direction. Thank you. Just for my clarification, are my complaints invalid? As I stated earlier, I'm new so I just want to understand. Thanks again.--TJC-tennis-geek 13:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs)

In terms of the content I have to assume good faith they believed they were improving the article by removing what they thought was extraneous detail in a biography of living person. In terms of the attitude, they should have gone to talk as soon as somebody disagreed and discussed it there. I don't think an interaction ban is necessary, there's no real evidence this editor is going specifically after you and is simply angry (albeit unnecessarily so) over the content. While we're here, don't forget to sign your posts using four tilda (~) characters or the pencil button in the toolbar above the edit window. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks @Ritche333. Btw, I'm consistently using the pencil to sign but I'm obviously missing something. I'll check the help section to see what I'm doing wrong.--TJC-tennis-geek 14:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC) TJC-tennis-geek 14:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs)

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

Harrassment by 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.

---

User talk:Joseph2302 has continually harassed my talk page page breaking numerous member rules [160] and not allowing me to make any changes too wikipedia by using threats user has other allegations of harassment on their talk page for editing pages without user talk pages and not following wiki procedures Bretthuk72 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bretthuk72 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not harassing them, they keep trying to use Wikipedia to promote their company. Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies clearly says "Be sure the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria", which Acorn Mobility doesn't, since it was deleted at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acorn Mobility- I and other users remove promotion and non-notability from this page frequently. At the AfD, it was also suggested that this user used multiple accounts and IP addresses- note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bretthuk72/Archive wasn't even started by me. They then added incorrect cleanup tags at Acorn Mobility (now deleted), even after I explained why they were wrong at Talk:Acorn Mobility.

I see no evidence of any harassment by me, only applications of Wikipedia policy, and a conflicted editor suspected of using multiple accounts/IPs who doesn't like that the article about their company was deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, in case it wasn't clear, their conflict of interest was obvious, as they were originally User:Acorn Publications, who was blocked for spamming and username, but then got unblocked, despite the SPI above. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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

DE from Andrew.tisler

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

---

Andrew.tisler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently added unsourced additions despite warnings on talk page. Edits such as [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167] and so on. Their contributions list is full of unsourced edits, ultimately resulting to disruptive editing. Thank you, Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 04:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Up to Level 4 warnings in just 2 weeks. [sigh...] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely needs a block for disruptive editing and WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

198.86.235.123

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

---

This IP user's contributions speak for themselves. Bluebird207 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

They're also from two and a half years ago. What do you want us to do about it now? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Shoot, sorry. In the heat of the moment, I ended up reporting the wrong user.

I meant to report this IP user: 188.31.7.154. And I see that he/she has now been blocked for his/her actions.

Once again, apologies. Bluebird207 (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Theories of Muhammad in the Bible

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

---

Hi, an anonymous editor keeps creating Theories of Muhammad in the Bible as a direct copy of http://anticross.vomu.org/muhammad-and-messianic-prophecy. First as Special:Contributions/5.107.135.248 now as Special:Contributions/86.99.251.225 (both from United Arab Emirates so suspected MP or SP. Article has been deleted once by DES and I have warned on there talk page. However they have just recreated yet again appearing to not understand the copyright issue at all. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have re-deleted and salted to prevent a further recreation. DES ^(talk) 16:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks again. KylieTastic (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

What I am facing here is a "persistent vandalism" by a "cabal of editors and admins" who practiced an act of "obvious vandalism" on the article Muhammad in the Bible, since they disruptively replaced a well-sourced, well-written and well-organized version of the article, which is consistent with the sourcebooks in the bibliography of the article, with a poorly written and poorly organized version. Then, they launched a series of false accusations against me in order to block me from reverting them.

There is no copyright violation at all, since the author of the article on the website of the "Anti Cross" states here on the website that all the content is free & not-copyright protected.--86.99.251.225 (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Why does that page have © 2015 Anti Cross at the bottom of it? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The website is not a reliable source, anyways. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, we're the famous "cabal of editors and admins" for having reverted a copyright violation. And as NeilN just, "anti cross" isn't a reliable source by any stretch of imagination. I will hand it to the IP that the other article we currently link to is beyond bad, though.Jeppiz (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5, It doesn't matter. The clear note here from the author of the article "Anti Cross" is the one that matters.--86.99.251.225 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to doubt that is a sufficient release. But had I seen it, I wouldn't have deleted it as a copy vio, but I would have blanked it as completely unsourced. And even if that was a proper release, you can't copy large chunks of text without proper attribution, doing so is plagiarism. For your information, I don't think i have interacted with KylieTastic before, i responded to a request for help on the Teahouse in this edit. DES ^(talk) 16:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

A page with a copyright notice on it will be presumed to be protected by copyright, even if there is a release on a different page of the same site, at least until someone draws attention to the release. DES ^(talk) 16:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The members of the cabal are now showing up.. Of course! "Speak of the Devil and he shall appear" ;)

That version of the article is actually is consistent with the sourcebooks in the bibliography. It is doubtlessly a well-sourced version. Every paragraph in it is well-sourced. Even the lead of it is well-sourced. Those who are saying that the version is not sourced are obviously not telling the truth (i.e. lying).. See the version yourself here and judge yourself.--86.99.251.225 (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@86.99.251.225 Maybe if you had addressed the issue and conversed with us instead of just ignoring all reasons given then you may not feel everyone is against you. Instead of making up secret cabals in your head, you could have just mentioned that release at any time. You just chose to ignore myself, and the other editors completely claiming vandalism and now cabals. I have not read the other article and you could be 100% correct that it is in error and needs fixing, but you made no effort to fix or discuss that. There is no cabal or any form or organisation against you here, and as DES said I don't think we have crossed paths before - nor do I know any of the other editor(s) that reverted you. The actions were taken because of Wikipedias policies that you choose to ignore. As such you have two options, try to help improve any errors and add any missing information while working within the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines or you can go 'publish' on oter websites. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Quoting or using reliable sources does not make a random page on the web a reliable source itself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Um, NOTHERE?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. I'm a member of the cabal

For the record, I am a card carrying member (there is no handshake, but there is a tune you need to hum) of the secret cabal of editors and admins that you ascribe malice. With that out of the way; there is no way this text you attempt to put here on Wikipedia would ever be allowed, even if we had iron-clad proof that it was released under a free license. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of someone else's writings/thoughts on a subject matter. Your overt attempts to force this content here is unacceptable. You are wasting your time attempting to get it here on this project. If you object to something in the Muhammad in the Bible article, then bring discussion to Talk:Muhammad in the Bible. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I glanced at this matter earlier today, and that disclaimer of copyright was not in the 12 April 2015 welcome post on the Anti Cross site at that time. Perhaps the IP here is the author of the Anti Cross site, but User:KylieTastic's copyvio concerns were certainly valid, given the information available; and overwriting a redirect with a completely unsourced article on a contentious topic is certainly not to be recommended. Deor (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Stating that other editors are acting as a cabal and that respected editors are engaging in vandalism is not a useful way to get changes that you want made to Wikipedia made. Persistently making such claims can be viewed as personal attacks, which can be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Closing before the claims of a cbal get any sillier. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

IP-hopping Paul Morphy fan

The following discussion is closed. 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-hopping editor from Chennai, India has repeatedly introduced biased edits into the article of the 19th century American chess champion Paul Morphy. He has also disparaged the achievements of Indian chess grandmaster Viswanathan Anand. He has demonstrated a lack of understanding of wikipedia policies and has repeatedly introduced biased edits into these articles and others. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• The IP is actually quite right that the phrase "one of the greatest players of all time" should be removed. It's unsourced, opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and the facts in the rest of the paragraph explain quite adequately Anand's status in the game. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Multiple accounts, multiple articles

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

---

• Jack J. Yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aimee Cheng-Bradshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jack.J.Yang (talk · contribs)
• WikipedianOrlando (talk · contribs)
• NathanOrlando (talk · contribs)

Persistent addition of unsourced and promotional content, removal of maintenance templates. WP:COI and WP:OWNERSHIP issues. 2601:188:0:ABE6:3CF7:E4A2:6CC5:354F (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: A SPI was filed related to this. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 09:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Anonymous user has been attempting self promo using disambiguation 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.

---

This user has been repeatedly attempting self promotion using a disambiguation page, ignoring guidelines and ignoring all talk page messages and multiple people (and bots) reverting their changes, to the point of it becoming annoying.

All the diffs look like this one (and there have been several): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agata&diff=669729028&oldid=669702557

Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agata&diff=614854332&oldid=614852537

Most recent IP address:

107.184.81.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Some of the previous IP addresses used for similar edits:

75.84.221.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

75.84.209.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

172.248.34.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The page edited: Agata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Here's the edits from the current IP address:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/107.184.81.157

Here's more edits from previous IP addresses, the same change has been attempted over and over and over:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agata&action=history

It's been going on for over a year now. Is it possible at all to block an IP address from contributing?

Agaace (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It is possible, but IP blocks are rarely indefinitely blocked, except for open proxies. In those rare cases, long IP blocks are sometimes for schools where IP vandalism is particularly rife or libraries where banned users are known to edit from. The reason is that IPs are often rotated among an ISP's users, so while they may be on the same range the specific address for any given user will change upon disconnect / reconnect of the modem. Given the spread in IP's being used for this promotional spam a range block is not likely to be levied because of the collateral damage involved. A specially targeted edit filter may be the better option. Blackmane (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Agata for one year since it would be impractical to block a lot of IPs. If you see other articles being targeted, consider reporting at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User is following me and reverting for no reason

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

---

Winkelvi (talk · contribs) is the offender. Please make him stop. Zoey Homes (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user is likely sock of banned User:DC. Have been getting numerous harassing emails from DC today as well at talk page harassment from an IP that geolocates to Bronx, NY - this is one of two places the same IP vandal/harasser geolocates to. The other location is Boston, MA. Zoey Homes has been vandalizing articles today that I have recently edited. Vandal report filed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalizing? I started a merge discussion and removed an errant comma. Zoey Homes (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoey Homes, Winkelvi. Please provide WP:DIFFS so that others are in a better position to assist and review what may have occurred. —Sladen (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Along with the possible harassment the OP is not following up the placement of the merge tags with any conversation on the talk pages (in spite of what they have just posted here) of the Golden Gate Bridge articles. Add to that the fact that the two articles are too big for a merger to be of benefit and this makes the edits look like violations of WP:POINT as well. MarnetteD|Talk 20:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Amendment to my post. This discussion was started while I was posting here. MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Regardless of any other circumstances, Winkelvi has been edit-warring with Zoey Holmes at this article to undo her removal of an incorrect comma. WP:BANREVERT says this is allowed, but how pointy is it? Supposing Zoey is a banned user, to WP:DENY it would be more effective to ignore such an edit. BethNaught (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: Winklevi reverted my own removal of the offending comma. This is getting ridiculous. BethNaught (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is your inability to understand the reason for WP:DENY. I'll give you a clue: it has to do with encouraging socks and other disruptive users by allowing their reverts and changes to articles to stand. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Here you reverted to the stable version to undo the supposed banned user. Here you removed the comma yourself. You yourslelf have gone against what you just said. By your hand or not, the edit stands. This is a very twisted interpretation of denying banned users and really just makes you look silly. BethNaught (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a shit what you think about me or how you think it all makes me look. Maybe if you had been harassed as much as I have for months by this same vandal and sock master, you would feel the same. Not just in Wikipedia, but by email, as well. Try looking beyond what you think is right and try to look at it from my perspective. Hopefully, you will have a better grasp on what's really going on here and understand why WP:DENY is the right response. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I must agree with User:BethNaught, and encourage User:Winkelvi to drop the stick immediately. I would also encourage Winkelvi to mind their language and act in a civil manner. This does not look good. Jeppiz (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a shit about your opinion of me, either. If you want to be helpful, how about doing something to get the vandal-only/harassment-only account that filed this bogus report blocked? Everything else just encourages the pointy disruption to continue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)×3 [168][169][170][171][172][173][174]. Seven(!) revisions of the same comma removal against multiple editors in under 30 minutes?! Winkelvi, I'm minded to suggest some voluntary WP:WIKIBREAK/heavily enforced cooling off time for WP:3RR/WP:CIVIL et al. Unless this can be demonstrated unequivocally to be a banned user (if so, please take to sockpuppet investigations). It is—at this point in time—an editor using the Winkelvi username that appears to be the disruptive one. —Sladen (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Please, get a clue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing the account has done appears vandalistic or explicitly harassing. The appropriate course of action, if you believe it to be a sock, is surely for you to file an SPI. BethNaught (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Wow. The inability to see what's actually happening here is staggering. Really. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) this seems to be a pretty good case of WP:NOTHERE. —Sladen (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Winkelvi, you've been here long enough to know how to handle sockpuppets. You report them at SPI so users with the technical ability can actually verify your claims one way or the other. Reverting them over and over again is not helpful if you're not going to take it to the proper channels. You're suggesting that DC is actively editing and harassing you and you have not reported this anywhere? Why?? And furthermore, your accusations of sockpuppetry are questionable at best because your accusations of vandalism are utterly baseless. Quit acting like there's some obvious misconduct going on because you have not provided any evidence against the user in question. Not sure what you're doing but I'm going to block you for the edit warring—you're relying on 3RR exemptions based on claims that are unsubstantiated. Iff we verify a connection between this user and the indef blocked user, we will unblock you. I will file an SPI on your behalf as a courtesy. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 21:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Three out of the first four edits the new editor makes just happen to be to random articles Winkelvi has just edited and his accusations are questionable? Come on. I agree that Winkelvi should have opened an SPI but realize that something fishy is going on here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Uh, yeah...I filed an SPI myself and unblocked him immediately upon actual evidence coming out. However that doesn't change the facts available to me acting as an uninvolved administrator in response to a false vandalism report at the time. There was a 3RR vio with no obvious exemption existing, and the editor explicitly and in writing refused to provide evidence. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Block

I just blocked User:Zoey Homes for 24 hours for a bright-line 3RR violation (without having seen this thread) and was about to block User:Winkelvi for the same when I noticed the claims of Zoey being a sockpuppet. I'm not sure what the best course of action is from here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Jackmcbarn: I considered blocking but opted to give that user a warning for 3RR rather than a block as they're brand new, had never received a warning and were being reverted disruptively and based on unsubstantiated accusations. Regardless, that's a legitimate judgment call on your part. I have blocked WV but will file the SPI on their behalf and hopefully we'll settle this situation. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 21:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

My suspicions were proven to be completely correct. Obviously, since I'm able to write this here, I have also been unblocked. One more note: the account User:New England (an interesting as well as revealing user name) has also been blocked as a sock of the same accounts previously blocked for socking. At this point, looking at all of them, it's hard to say which one came first and who the actual sockmaster is. In any case, this has been resolved and my suspicions validated. My thanks to NeilN, Bbb23, and Writ Keeper for their wisdom and ability to see past the b.s. and get to the heart of what was really going on. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether your accusations were correct, you really need to remain calm and watch your language, even when you feel you are being harassed or attacked. To do otherwise distracts people from the message you're trying to convey (as you saw in this thread) and makes them focus on your behavior instead. —Darkwind (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia rule #1: Being polite is more important than being right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

As WV has cleared his talk page after this ordeal, I'll leave my closing thoughts in the ANI archives for posterity. A) I'm sorry WV feels that this was some sort of arbitrary, personal punishment. I hope he will at some point be able to look at this objectively and realize that administrators happen to work according to a specific process, and no editor can expect to be exempted from our normal processes. B) 3RR is a brightline rule, and, to directly quote policy, "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption." Beyond a reference to WP:DENY, no credible explanation to speak of was given until after WV himself was reported for disruptive reverting in this discussion. The sockpuppetry accusation was not confirmed until after WP:WV was blocked for multiple 3RR violations, and a sockpuppet investigation was filed by myself, the blocking administrator. C) WV's conduct throughout this ordeal was improper in various ways. He violated 3RR multiple times. He reverted a multitude of times without providing any explanation.[175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187] He reported the sockpuppet as a vandal, despite the fact that the sock had committed no vandalism.[188] WV did not file an SPI. When reported for stalking the editor in question, WV provided no evidence that the user they were reverting was a sock, despite making the accusation.[189] WV continued to improperly edit war with an established editor who was acting in good faith.[190][191] WV was blatantly uncivil throughout the above discussion. When uninvolved editors questioned WV's account of the situation, he responded by cursing and demanded they do something about the unsubstantiated "problem,"[192][193] and with condescending accusations of cluelessness or ignorance,[194][195] Still, no presentation of evidence or attempt so substantiate their accusation had even been attempted. It was only after this point that WV was blocked, by myself, for the 3RR violations. I explained the reasoning to them.[196] WV responded by saying that the editor appeared after they had received harassing emails. However, their response included the following statements: "If none of you can see this, I can't help you see it. I won't provide diffs." ... "I don't need to provide diffs." Only then did they attempt to summon administrative assistance to look into the problem, despite providing no evidence still. Their response also included an accusation of bad faith on my part: "Obviously, Swarm isn't interested in taking the time to do the right thing or looking into what's going on, just handing out blocks first."[197] I filed an SPI which resulted in WV's accusations being confirmed by a checkuser, and I unblocked them. WV only modified the the "What. The. Fuck???" section header to "WTF" after the involved checkuser suggested making it less aggressive.[198] When I attempted to explain the block's legitimacy to WV,[199] they selectively and singularly deleted my comment from the thread without explanation.[200] After two other uninvolved editors pointed out substandard conduct on the part of WV,[201][202] they cleared their talk page. In conclusion, WV exhibited extensively substandard behavior throughout this ordeal and has clearly dismissed any editor who attempted to bring this to their attention in good faith. While I remained true to my word that I would unblock WV if their accusations checked out, WV should not presume to be fully vindicated, as the disruptiveness in their actions all-around, in my opinion, outweighed the disruption caused to the project by the sockpuppet itself. WV is warned again that due to their behavior the block was still reasonable and they were given a break by being unblocked. I will again remind them that this incident may weigh into future behavioral issues on their part that require administrator intervention and they might not recieve such a generous unblock so easily next time. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

(EC) The thing is, regardless of the socking, WP:BANREVERT is clear that people are allowed to make edits, which are the same as edits a banned edit made if "they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". There was surely an independent reason for making this edit namely that from what I can tell, no one disagrees that at least one comma was clearly misplaced. (Not sure if there are some style guidelines which justify the John, Jr, but I'm fairly sure there are none which justify the one between the two names and as far as I can tell even you agree.)

I'm normally fairly supportive of reverting edits of banned editors. However even if you feel that the edit had to be reverted despite being clearly necessary, once another editor in good standing had taken responsibility for the edit which every agrees was necessary, there was no justification to revert it. And the editor who tried to take responsibility for this edit made this clear.

BTW, I'm not sure your reverting even the initial edit was really justified under BANREVERT. "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." But if you just bulk reverted all edits without checking, I'm somewhat willing to accept that at least initially. (If they started edit warring with you over this edit, and only this edit it would IMO be ideal to check that the edit is truly unnecessary or even harmful.)

I don't think anyone let alone me denies any harassment suffered by you is completely unacceptable. And can understand why it might make you respond in a less than ideal fashion. And I personally don't think the lack of an SPI by you is quite such a big deal since it's sometimes not necessary when the socking is clearcut and there's no likelihood of sleepers.

The problem is once you started reverting an editor reinstating an edit everyone agrees was necessary, by your own actions you helped push the problematic socking to the sideline.

Note that you yourself eventually reinstated the edit albeit after reverting the sock. This seems excessively WP:POINTy to me, and there's a very good chance behaviour like this will encourage rather than discourage more socking. But if you'd done that at the beginning I think me and others would have just let it slide or made a minor comment on it. Heck even if you'd done this with BethNaught it wouldn't be so bad since at least the edit warring would have hopefully stopped and we'd have the good version.

But instead we ended up with a pointless edit war between editors in good standing acting in good faith who both agreed on what the article should have looked like but one was trying to revert to a bad version because a sock originally made the edits. It's completely expected that the legitimate complain you had about socking was lost in the unnecessary distraction started by your attempt to preserve a bad version of the article and the fault isn't with other editors. So sadly by your own actions you've probably given the sock was they see as a victory.

TL;DR: Again let my repeat I have great sympathy for your plight being targetted by harassing socks. Unfortunately since we only have limited ability to control the socking barring major chances to wikipedia policy, we have to deal with the socking as best we can, which includes not damaging wikipedia even in a minor way (which preserving a comma which everyone agrees is misplaced is) just to try and teach the sock a lesson (particularly since there's a fair chance they'll be happy if we intentionally damage wikipedia to do so). From your POV and the primary reason I wrote this message, it's important you understand why this went so wrong for you. It isn't primarily because editors are missing the point as your comment seem to imply. Instead it's mostly because by your own actions you changed this from a case of simple socking which should have been dealt with, in to a case of edit warring to try and preserve a bad version.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a persistent and potentially fatal flaw of Wikipedia, that being polite is considered to be more important than being right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Removing a good edit made in good faith by an editor in good standing simply because it was originally made by a sock, when you agree it's a good edit, is neither polite nor right. Being a harassing sock is neither right nor polite even if certain of your edits are. BethNaught was resonably polite, and also right in that the comma edit should have been at least partially preserved. I don't really see any editor who was very polite but wrong, nor any editor who was right but very rude. So while being more polite may have helped WV a bit, it ultimately wasn't IMO a significant factor. No matter how polite they were, once they started reinstating a comma which everyone including them agreed didn't belong, there was always a good chance any legitimate socking concern they had would get loss in the controversy generated by their poor editing. Nil Einne (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I should mention I made some clarifications to my initial reply after you replied. I don't think these are a big deal since I didn't mention politeness in my initial reply even before I modified it, but I apologise if you feel my changes affected what you were replying to. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem there. Answer me this: Was WV right about the socks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's important to note here that Winkelvi was not the reporting editor in this case. The complaint was opened by the sockpuppet who was, in fact, following WV around. Coming here was clearly just another step in the harassment - and that needs to be taken into consideration. BMK (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi while I currently know of no reason to either deny or support your "Maybe if you had been harassed as much as I have for months ..." comment, I still see no justification for your, I think, hostile comments here: "I don't give a shit what you think about me ..." and "I don't give a shit about your opinion of me, either. ...". I appreciate that their may be a bigger picture which, if it exists, may need to be exposed and, while no judgement is made regarding a potential validity of your claims, some action at some level should be taken in regard to your incivility. You edit most days and I would support perhaps a two day ban so as to facilitate a time to cool and reflect on civility issues. Editors in locations such as AN/I and SPI work together with a view to finding constructive solutions to issues and I do not see a reason to belittle the views of other editors in the offensive way that you have done. At the very least it is a distraction from any actual issues which may still need to be considered. GregKaye 07:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Although WV and I have clashed in the past over an editor who edit warred, was pretty disruptive and ultimately blocked but who I felt deserved a modicum of AGF, I disagree with a cool down block. Cool down blocks, particularly against editors who have a known history with temperament is likely to cause a shift to worse rather than to the better. Blackmane (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Block evading IP

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

---

Earlier this week, Materialscientist an editor from the 85.211.x.x range for repeated insertion of unsourced future air dates into ongoing anime episode lists and articles. I had previously |brought this user to AN's attention before, (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Sourcing, WP:CRYSTALBALLs, WP:IDHT and a British IP) (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#Uncooperative IP adding unsourced future air dates to anime articles and lists) but no action was taken at the time. Currently, this user is serving out a block under the IP 85.211.136.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but they are not at 85.211.205.28 (talk) and continue to insert unsourced future air dates despite being under a block. I've already alerted Materialscientist to this new IP, but he may be away at the time. This IP editor has had a long history of switching IPs and inserting unsourced information into anime articles for several months. Some articles had to be semi-protected for the duration of their seasons. However, despite all the complains about this user's activities, the user has never responded, and in fact double down on their problematic edits. —Farix (t | c) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Now operating under the ip 85.211.142.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —Farix (t | c) 02:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• New IP is 85.211.128.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Perhaps semi-protecting the affected pages until their season runs are over as this editor is very persistent? —Farix (t | c) 18:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a note to TheFarix: Your opnening sentence is missing the word "blocked". It doesn't make sense. Would you mind fixing it? If you did so, people would be more likely to respond to this thread. Softlavender (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• 85.211.142.203 and 85.211.128.39 temorariy blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Report on FkpCascais personal attacks

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

---

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

Hello, the user FkpCascais (talk) had been POV pushing for quite some time now and since he went from POV pushing to personal attacks I'm making this report.

It all started with this edit [203]. The edit is very simple. The RS listed on the article page states the following: "For Military Frontier, the king decided that it will remain within its present territory. However, it will with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation.". I wanted to include that in the article since the article is written in a simplistic way and it neglects the formal and the administrative aspect of the Military Froniter. The user FkpCascais reverted me without stating the reason([204]). In the second revert he stated the reason:"Removing controversial claim. Also, can we know to what exact period (year) the source is refering to?" ([205]). First of all the claim is not controversial but a direct quote from the reliable source listed in the article. This is already a sign of POV pushing. Another claim is that we can't know the exact period the source is referring to. This just proves the user did not even read the source as the year 1850 is clearly stated at the beginning of the passage, so yet another made up claim and another revert with no valid reason. My edit was initially supported by user Zoupan, who participated the editing that article for quite some time. He made several corrections to my edit and left it in the article. After FkpCascais objected he stated we need to discuss it on the talk page, so I turned to that discussion with my source.

FkpCascais kept objecting. He stated this "Now regarding your source (page 157), are you aware that it is not really a source for what you pretend here, but it is just Rudolf Horvat citing verbatim a decision from the Sabor? Was that decision acepted by the Austrians? Did that decision came into effect? You need a secondary source confirming that. We already saw secondary sources which told us how Croatian Sabor claimed Military Frontier, but Austrians rejected that.". This is a serious objection since he states I'm misinterpreting the source and that the subject of my quote isn't the king, but the Sabor. This is of course false and my quote clearly states the king as the subject. He further went to claim that I need a secondary source when in fact I provided a secondary source (another user will later provide the primary source).

To show that he is wrong in his claim that the Sabor is the subject and not the king, I asked him to provide a quote from the source, and provided a quote from the same passage that states the subject who makes the claim from the initial quote: "kings decision from 7th of April 1850. which was signed by all 8 Austrian ministers". Also the initial quote clearly states the subject: "For Military Frontier, the king decided...".

The user did not accept the argument and refused to provide a quote(1) for his claim that the Sabor is the subject. He went on with his claims that "You don't even understand what your source is... That is just a proposal from the Sabor, not a fact." He went on providing sources that speak of the administrative aspect , while the discussion is regarding the formal aspect. He is deliberately deluding those two aspects is a single vague word "control".

I again asked for the quote to sustain the claim that the Sabor is the subject and not the king. He refused to provide the quote(2) and kept repeating the claim: "Regarding your source, simple grammar knolledge is enough to see that Rudolf Horvat in that entire chapter is just putting in everything that was ageed in the Sabor, that is why your "sourced citation" is in quotation marks. That is why it is primary source, and all you can do with it is just say Croatian Sabor claimed that."

Not to go to too much details he kept repeating the claim and refused to provide any quote to sustain it, although the passage we are discussing is only 2 pages long and although I already provided the quotes that are speaking of the subject. I stopped with the discussion with him and asked another editors to join so we can resolve that.

Tzowu had joined the discussion, found the primary source, agreed that the subject is the king and he made the edit. However, that isn't enough for FkpCascais since he made the following personal accusation "Even in a comment he is unable not to push the POV that MF was Croatia...". No I'm not he one POV pushing, the source clearly spoke of the formal and administrative aspect and Tzowu had already introduced that in the article. FkpCascais is the one who is POV pushing and now when he made this personal accusation, I'm making this report.

The second thing. FkpCascais had made an edit in the article in such a way that he manipulated the original quote from the source by adding vague terms, unsupported by any source. I reverted that and he went to edit warring over that. Again, his claims are false and the other user participating the discussion is agreeing with that.

Third thing. After Tzowu made the edit by entering the claim from the source, I restructured the text without adding any claims. FkpCascais went on reverting me by repeating the claims about the Sabor being the subject. He reverted me although I haven't introduced that claim to the article, but Tzowu.

He is reverting everything that doesn't fit his point of view, although it is supported by sources. He keep misinterpreting the sources and when asked to provide a quote to sustain his interpretation he refuses. He keeps edit warring with that kind of behavior and the final straw was the personal attack against me. I had to made this report.

The article Military_Frontier and the talk page [206], discussions start from "Austrian vs local control". Detoner (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Does the phrase TL;DR ring a bell? I actually read it and I can't seem to find the actual personal attack(s), just a content dispute gone haywire. That may just be me, though. Kleuske (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the long post. I'm aware I could have written it more clearly. The personal attack is at the bottom of the talk page. To repeat it:"Even in a comment he is unable not to push the POV that MF was Croatia...". This has already entered the article and I'm being accused for POV pushing although the other editor had introduced that to the article. So this is a clear personal attack. I didn't made the edit and I'm being accused of POV pushing because I agree with the edit. I haven't really bothered to make a case of POV pushing because it would be to hard, and because other editors had already agreed and introduced the source to the article, however I made one now along with the case of personal attack. I will also note that this is not the first time for this user to behave in this way. On Nikola Tesla article he also behaved in this way by using unreliable sources and rejecting everything that doesn't agree with his personal opinion. I really do not have the time to deal with him so I left that discussion, but he appeared on Military Frontier as well. Also I invite Michael_Cambridge to this discussion since he had been participating the Tesla discussions for a longer time than me and he had also warm about the behavior of this user. Also, may I ask you something. How did you managed to read this report and make your own post in just 5 minutes, not to mention the discussions. Detoner (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No personal attack took place. I note that in your very long post you accuse Fkpcascais of POV pushing. By your own logic, you appear Ito have made a personal attack. Work it out on the talk page, because if everyone who edited in the Balkans area was blocked for accusing someone of POV pushing, I doubt there would be any editors left to edit. AniMate 19:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I made a report which is different from stating personal accusations on talk pages. And yes, I reported POV pushing which had escalated to personal attacks. I already stated I didn't make a case of POV pushing because it would be to hard. I agree with you, but the thing is that this POV pushing had escalated to personal attacks, and this is not the first time this had happened to the discussions this user is participating. I did not accuse the user of POV pushing on the talk page not even once even though I plead at least 5 times for him to provide the quote which he had refused. Instead he kept repeating that the source says something without providing any quote. I think any reasonable person would lost their nerves with this kind of attitude. This is an experienced user and he obviously knows he can get along with this kind of behavior on that talk pages. How else would you describe the behavior where someone claims that the source says something but refuses to provide any quote and ignores all quotes that disprove him. Well if you think that kind of POV pushing is allowed, then ok, but I made a case of the POV pushing that escalated to personal attacks and I ask of the admins to protect me from those attacks. I already left one article because of the behavior of this user, and I'm on the verge to leave this one as well. Finally, yes I made a report about the POV pushing, and not an accusation on talk page. Let's not accuse everyone who makes a report of POV pushing that he is making a personal attack. How else is someone to make a report of POV pushing? And lastly, this is not a report of POV pushing, but the report about personal attack, and the POV pushing is the context. And let me see if I got it right. The other editor makes the edit. I repeat it on the talk page, and I'm being accused of POV pushing. That is not a personal accusation to you?Detoner (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This user should be blocked. He is unable to drop the stick and accept that reliable scholar sources do not agree to any of his ideas. He was among the group that caused immense troubles and drove people to exhaustion at Nikola Tesla talk-page... As he couldn't make Tesla more Croatian, he is now trying to alter borders and history, but tough luck for him, this is an encyclopedia. FkpCascais (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the perfect example of personal attacks by this user. His accusations are totally false, and like he refused to provide a quote for his earlier claims he is now doing the same thing. He makes accusations without a single edit of mine to sustain them. Please protect me from this kind of behavior. The case is pretty simple. Another editor had made an edit (supported by RS) and I had repeated it on talk page. Then this user accused me of POV pushing. Now he is calling for a block. I'm thinking of returning to editing via IP, because I can't handle this any more. I haven't yet seen a case where a certain editor is deliberately lying the source says a certain thing and when confronted by a request to provide a quote, he refuses it and goes to personal attacks. Detoner (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Lets end up this charade OK? For anyone interested in seing what is going on, everthing is explained here: Talk:Military_Frontier#Proposal_1. This user claims Military Frontier was part of Croatia and all he has is ONE source in Croatian which doesnt even say what he wants it to say, while I provided 5 English-language reliable sources CLEARLY saying Habsburgs ruled directly Military Frontier till 1881 and only then part of MF was incorporated in Croatia. For God sake, it is widely documented historical period with plenty of English-language sources and this user is unable to find even one confirming his claims, and how many more I need to find? BTW, all other participants agree with me, and no one agrees with him, so what he wants besides a boomerang? FkpCascais (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please, the other long time editor of that page had agreed and the source itself is reliable and listed in the article page. The edit had already entered the article and not by me. Why are you making personal attack towards me, when I haven't entered that to the article? Detoner (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

After knowing all we know from English-language reliable sources presented in discussions regarding Habsburg control of MF, your controversial edit is extremely disruptive and clearly POV-pushing. Also, anyone can read your discussion with Tzowu on your talk-page (section Reply) and see how he is not agreeing with you at all, and he is actually opening your eyes, but you keep ignoring everything and everyone. I am out. FkpCascais (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Again false and again without any reference to any edit to sustain that. He agreed with me by stating that "Certainly the Croatian Military Frontier formally belonged to Croatia, or the Croatian-Slavonian Military Frontier (as it was called) to Croatia-Slavonia." and by entering that in the article: "and despite the Emperor's address in 1850 that the Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia constituted a single land with separate administration,[15] there was no merger of the Croatian-Slavonian Frontier with Croatia, but further separation of them.". The second quote is directly the quote I pointed to. Please stop accusing me of POV pushing because I haven't made the edit to the article. Detoner (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yet another big spam from a well-known troll called Asdisis, Michael Cambridge, now Detoner.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if we should jump to that conclusion yet. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 22:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Weegeerunner , the ip is himself a puppet and a disruptive editor that is already blocked from Serbian Wikipedia. I counted 4 editors that already complained about his behavior (including me). I made a puppet case and you can see it here. He is a puppet of FkpCascais and that much is obvious since they both had the same particular misspell in their posts. I made a much more extensive case so you can see on the link. Also, people who are participating the discussion now are summoned by the same user and they all together had already managed to block another user. I hope the quantity of them won't count, but the quality (or the lack of) of their arguments. Detoner (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not even going to comment this. I always proudly use my account, and that IP talks mostly about books in German, a language I have absolutely no knolledge, so nice try, but no. FkpCascais (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This user Detoner is WP:NOTHERE and his only purpose here is to add Croatia to Nikola Tesla article. Since his attempts didn't went well there, now he is tring to mess up the article about the administrative unit of the Austrian Empire Tesla was born in, the Military Frontier. His edits and his behavior at discussions are clear and pure WP:TE. He even now continues to battle at Tesla talk page pushing the same POV it was Croatian land he was born in (see diff) despite numerous editors having reached consensus there after tons of reliable sources were analised that he is not right. He just continues his crusade here and will not stop despite all evidence against. Senior editors User:MrX and User:Chetvorno can say the painfull reality that has been dealing with this disruptive user. Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indef blocked just because of the same attitude this user is having, I see that Detoner is even worste because knowing it all he just continues on and on with same arguments and no sources, it has been ludocris. We really shouldn't allow such nationalistic single-purpose accounts here on our project. FkpCascais (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

He is so obsessed with it, that even in comments he cant avoid not to continue to push it again and again despite tons of sources and consensus already established that MF was not Croatian, besides that diff I pointed out, another clear case of that is this one as well (diff). He says " it is hard to believe that the Croats were a minority in Croatia" despite knowing perfectly well it is not Croatia but MF we are talking about there, but he ssimply cant resist not to spread the POV that MF is Croatian. I am not good in reporting at ANI, but this seems clear WP:TE of the worste kind, every single intervention here, every single comment he insists on it, despite having been presented with numerous reliable sources clearly saying otherwise, consensus having been reached, having no sources, and absolutely no one supporting him. How to stop such a nationalistic warrior? Please help. FkpCascais (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The report made against FkpCascais by Detoner is accurate in every detail. In my dealings with FkpCascais, he seems to discredit any Croatian source. A reliable source is a reliable source regardless of the language it is written in. A section of the Military Frontier was indeed a part of Croatia and it was known as the Croatian Military Frontier, as evidenced by the following maps- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Kingdom_of_Croatia_(1848).png and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Kingdom_of_Croatia_(1868).png. Nikola Tesla was born in the Croatian Military Frontier. In the face of all the strong evidence to support the fact that Nikola Tesla was born in Croatia FkpCascais still refuses to believe it. FkpCascais' POV pushing, personal attacks and discrediting of reliable sources is way out of line. Appropriate disciplinary measures need to be taken immediately.Michael Cambridge 04:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

<self-confessed block evasion by User:Asdisis (using IP 82.214.103.10) removed> Mr Potto (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

All this new single purpose accounts (Detoner, Michael Cambridge) should be blocked just same as Asdisis was. These users have a clear agenda, and no matter you present them 20 scholar sources saying the opposite they will just keep on and on. Just read the comment from this user Michael Cambridge, who was present at Nikola Tesla talk page where all sources were analised and all senior participants clearly agreed it was not Croatia Tesla was born in but it was Military Frontier, and here he comes saying it is me refusing to believe??? Of course I refuse to believe since tons of RS say otherwise for God sake! (Anyone can just read the discussions at Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity and see the consensus established there). They will never accept consensus or reliable sources, they are simply here with a purpose and that is extremely disruptive for us here dealing with them. Always turning everything around and even lying in order to get what they want, enough of this. Talking with them is like talking to coo-coos... but bad nasty ones with clear intention of misleading and getting what they want. FkpCascais (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There he goes again with his personal attacks, comparing us with bad, nasty, "coo-coos". It would be a good idea to block FkpCascais indefinitely.Michael Cambridge 14:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

• (just a sometime commenter on this subject) I agree with the sentiment this should stay back at the talk pages in question but seeing how the group of (pro-Croatian?) editors edit from a single POV, push, and other WP:NOTHERE behavior and jump into other threads to keep this going diff and even take those occasions as a chance to attack editors they don't likediff I really think its time for some blocks and bans, they are getting very disruptive. Just my two cents being on the receiving end of this stuff. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• I pretty much agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Without wanting to get sucked into the minutiae of who said what slightly rude thing to who, a great deal of angst could be avoided if we simply blocked users who fixate only on promoting a nationalistic point of view with respect to Croatia, per WP:NOTHERE. Most of us are here to build an encyclopedia; the whole thing, not just the Croatian military frontier parts. My instinct tells me that Detoner has much more experience than his three weeks of contributions would suggest. I believe that it's already been established that he has used a proxy to edit. I think it's likely that he is sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user. I also note that Michael Cambridge sometimes forgets to sign his posts, much like blocked user Asdisis did.- MrX 17:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have much more experience on Wikipedia as I have stated that I'm a long time ip editor and that I will be returning to ip editing if this kind of behavior against me is allowed. It has not been established that I have used a proxy, but I have clearly stated it as sometimes I do not have other means to connect to internet. Also, the last assertion is a direct lie. Michael Cambridge as he has some kind of problem (see his talk page), while Asdisis always signed his posts. You are linking an ages old post from 2 July 2014 asserting that it is related to the events right now, when in fact Asdisis had signed every of his posts as anyone can see from his contributions. Detoner (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I could not agree more with MrX, even if these users are not the same person their behaviour is near identical. The behaviour of several users and IPs editing at Talk:Nikola Tesla, Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity and other articles related to the the borders of Croatia at the time of Tesla's birth has been nothing short of filibustering. They have long ago had consensus find against the idea that Tesla was born in Croatia and now they appear to be engaging in a campaign of exhaustion. I am personally involved in the content of the page so I would ask that uninvolved administrators keep an eye on the page. I also ask that contributions be looked at and that singe purpose accounts are warned or otherwise addressed. I get the strong sense that we are dealing with less people than we have accounts.

• The Tesla article has been pretty much hijacked for years with this one already settled dispute. The talk page archives show hundreds of pages of the same arguments being made, now I am seeing the same thing happening on less watched pages where there the talk pages are not active. It is as though they think they can change history through being stubborn. Chillum 17:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess user Asdisis was right that FkpCascais had friends who will help his cause. I see now that the very same people participated in the blocking of Asdisis started by FkpCascais. I call for diffs if they are about to accuse me of something. I won't answer to made up accusations. If someone is POV pushing then that is FkpCascais and I made the case unlike these pure accusations. Please protect me from that kind of accusations, and if someone wants to make a case against me then they are free to do so. So far I only see accusations,and not a case against me. I made a case of personal accusation and I hope I will be protected against that. Detoner (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything from the nature of your "friends" accusation, your long paragraphs, the arguments you make, the tactics you use to your writing style reminds me of Asdisis. Funny how Asdisis was blocked on June 10th and you first edited on June 28th, yet you recognize that the same people are involved.

Even if you are not the sock puppet of a user blocked for being a single purpose account, can you please explain how this contribution history can be seen as anything but a single purpose account? Day 1 here you jumped into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis and have done nothing outside pushing this one idea since you got here. On your very first day here you make accusations against FkpCascais which still continues today right here and now. Chillum 17:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I have observed the conflict at Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity; these are just my opinions. Both groups, FkpCascais and Detoner and Michael Cambridge have clearly engaged in povpushing, personal attacks and BATTLEGROUND behavior. Although FkpCascais has been blocked several times for POV pushing, he also has a long history of general interest in Balkan articles that goes beyond politics; in particular he has done a lot of work on football (soccer) articles. On the other hand, Detoner and Michael Cambridge appear to be single-issue accounts, here only to fight for the Croatian cause. The open Asdisis sockpuppet case accuses them of being sockpuppets of Asdisis an extremely combative editor now blocked. It seems likely that they are either his sockpuppets or recruits, as they popped up soon after he was blocked. I'm sorry but I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr and MrX above that blocks or bans are in order, it is clear that these editors are not going to stop otherwise. In particular I think perhaps Detoner and Michael Cambridge should be blocked per WP:NOT HERE. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are some diffs: BATTLEGROUND:[207]. Edit warring:[208]. WP:NOTHERE:[209]. Comments in the same style as Asdisis: [210].- MrX 18:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a case and it is hardly better than personal attacks by other friends of the reported user. I plea to be protected from this editors who are clearly summoned by the reported editor to help his cause. They haven't participated in Military Frontier discussions and they appeared just now when the reported user needs help. I hope these personal attacks won't be considered as a valid case against me. Detoner (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that all this accusations against me are about the edit done by other editor and not me. I suggested it and the other editor accepted the source and introduced the edit in the article and now I'm being accused of POV pushing without a single case against me, just personal attacks. Once again, I haven't done the edit to the article and I'm the one being accused of pushing it to the article. Please protect me from that and from the continuation of the same accusations exhibited here in this report. I made a case with arguments and diffs and FkpCascais had concentrated to extend his accusations and called his friends which already participated in his cause earlier to extend those accusations. If someone says something and doesn't provide diffs, or just provides diffs and calls it POV pushing or something else without a singe argument then that is not a case, but a personal accusation. I'm extending this report to those personal accusations as well. It is incredible that the reported user is exhibiting the same behavior in this discussion as well. He is still accusing me of the edit that I haven't done, although I said asserted that several times. I really had enough of this and I will leave discussions if that kind of behavior is allowed. I guess that they think my report will be rejected if they put a lot of accusations so I'm discredited, as if that will erase misconduct of the reported user. Detoner (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You constantly excuse yourself by attacking me, and you constantly try to present as if it is just me opposing you, but as you can see no one agrees with you, not because it is you, but because you are not able to provide reliable sources for the extremely controversial and tendentious edits you pretend. You and Michael Cambridge are making huge problems and enormous discussions in several article for months now, always using the same POV and same arguments and you are simply not able to disengage. Both of ou are a single purpose account and both of you think you know the WP:TRUTH better than world-wide recognized historians. We all presented you tons of sources but you simply ignore and continue your battle by all means, so it is time to end this. FkpCascais (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that any ban is needed for anyone. The disputes on the Military Frontier article are now just about some irrelevant things like the exact wording in the lead (about one word with two letters and a year), which in either case doesn't change the context of the article. For most of the content there is a sort of consensus, and on the Tesla ethnicity talk page there is nothing going on right now. Tzowu (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Tzowu thank you for the comment. Could you please state that you had entered the Horvat source to the article as the user FkpCascais had accused me of pushing it to the article. I said that several times, but he continues with the accusations even in this own report against him for stating such accusations on the talk page.Detoner (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

User_talk:Tzowu#Personal_attack can you guarantee they will stop pushing the POV? How can you say there is nothing going on when the user is announcing he will be bringing back the same telegram which is the basis for the claim about alleged Tesla Croatiasness? He claims secondary sources talk about the telegraph, I asked him to provide those sources, he does not provide them (cause they don't exist). So definitel more trouble coming from them. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Chetvorno, I did not just pop up soon after Asdisis was blocked, I was involved in the discussions long before he was blocked. FkpCascais and his friends behave like a gang, and love to use bullying and intimidation tactics to get their way which has no place on Wikipedia. I find this behaviour to be utterly deplorable and fully support a ban placed on FkpCascais. This gang-like activity appears evident especially on the Nikola Tesla talk pages regarding his ethnicity/nationality and country of birth. I suspect that most of the editors involved in gang-like activity are of Serbian origin and seem to claim ownership of the Nikola Tesla article simply because Tesla was an ethnic Serb. FkpCascais and his supporters are hell bent on suppressing information about Nikola Tesla's involvement with Croatia by withholding encyclopedic facts. I urge administrators to go through the discussions on the Nikola Tesla talk pages and pay close attention to the way they behave. They are very good at getting their own way and it wouldn't surprise me if they convinced administrators to not go ahead with the block on FkpCascais. Administrators need to be aware of what's going on and bring this deplorable behaviour to an end.Michael Cambridge 23:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

Do you understand how disruptive and ridiculous is what you are saying since no one who expressed their will for your ban here is Serbian neither has anything to do with the region? You know that well, it not nice at all to try to misinform admins here. FkpCascais (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Again with the accusations. I'm not suggesting any edit to Tesla's article as Tzowu had stated. FkpCascais is directly lying here. I don't have all days to answer every one of this personal attacks and I'm afraid that it will be taken for granted if I don't deny it. Detoner (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You make an edit-request at Nikola Tesla article and then you say you are not suggesting any edit? Is that a joke? FkpCascais (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Some in Croatia say that the telegraph is a forgery made to prove that he is a Serb, while in Serbia they say that it was made in order to prove his connections with Croatia. In any case, I would be against the adition of it in the article as there is much controversy about it (I also think that it might be a forgery, but for other reasons). And yes, I made that change with Horvat as a source for one sentence, but I don't see anyone opposing it right now. You two are actually agreeing on like 99% of the current content in the Military Frontier article. Tzowu (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Detoner (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang

By now we have plenty of senior editors that agree blocking this two single purpose accounts, Detoner and Michael Cambridge, would be beneficial for our project here. And yes, I also agree, not because they reported me, but because we are all tired of listening to their same old arguments which were proven wrong long time ago now. Reliable sources were analised, consensus was made with participation of numerous senior editors, so if the are not able to respect relable sources and senior editors, this is not the right place for them. FkpCascais (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone filed an SPI request? BMK (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The Asdisis SPI in which Michael Cambridge and Detoner are accused is here. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what are you talking about. The case is that another user had made the edit and you are accusing me of POV pushing and not him. Detoner (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

BMK we are all pretty sure those accounts are all related, either same person, or a group of friends, but I am not sure if anyone has made a SPI report. Same style, long comments, apparent politeness, victimization, all very similar to Asdisis. Unfortunately most of us are senior editors but not much of experienced in reporting and filling SPI. FkpCascais (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You know very well there is a SPI report since I made a case of your puppet accounts and pinged you several times. The link was also posted here 2 times. Here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detoner (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It is so ridiculous I ignored it totally (I didn't even commented it). And it is a SPI report regarding you, Cambridge and Asdisis BMK is referring to I think. FkpCascais (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

At least I made a case there, and did not went accusing you across the talk pages. The same goes for your personal attack for some edit done by other user, and not me. Detoner (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a reason why an entire group of neutral senior editors support a ban towards you, ad that reason has nothing to do with me. FkpCascais (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting how the same editors that already helped your cause had appeared all of the sudden here, and I don't see on their talk pages that you invited them publicly. Anyways they had not made any case, but only more of personal attacks and I had reported that. The case here is that you are being accused of personal attacks and you can't defend yourself by accusing me of POV pushing and socking. You are just proving my case about personal attacks and you are not stopping with them even in this very own report against you. I don't have time to deal with you. Detoner (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes we are all a very interesting mafia here on Wikipedia. FkpCascais (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The case is simple. You made personal attacks against me for something I did not do, and you still haven't apologized and have continued with the attacks although I said several times that I haven't done the edit. For the mutual POV pushing allegations, I made a case, and you invited other people to repeat more of the accusations without arguments. Please make a case like, is you feel so or stop with the accusations. I can't defend myself when there isn't a case, and I have provided you a case so you are free to defend yourself. As for mutual puppet allegations I also made a case and did not go over talk pages stating accusations. You can also make a case (well you already did). So please stop with the accusations and let the admins resolve the cases. I just hope they won't take your and your friends' accusations as valid cases. That is why I haven't really answered those false accusations. Detoner (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I just found the report on Asdisis, Here. He wrote a post in this report claiming the same people managed to block him. He was right. If you see the discussion, the very same people had participated in his block, and it was done in the very same manner, personal accusations without any diffs or any case at all. There is a stunning resemblance and I urge everyone to look for themselves. The very same users had participated in both discussions: FkpCascais, Chetvorno, Chillum, MrX, and Special:Contributions/65.220.39.79 <-> Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17 which is without doubt the same person as stated in my case and by other users dealing with him, like Shokatz who said "Any other IP address you can post from? You know, changing IP address or posting from a different computer does not make you immune to Wikipedia policies." (speaking that there is the same person behind those two ips) I think it's obvious that FkpCascais invited them to help his cause ("boomerang") as they were not present in the discussions related to this report, they appeared just now and they weren't asked to join trough their talk pages. How could they all have known about the report? Please protect me from this. Detoner (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would you think that taking such a strong interest in the history of Asdisis, and who participated in the discussion which led to their block, would help convince other editors that you are not Asdisis? BMK (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no interest but on opened SPI which involves me, Asdisis and Michael Cambridge on one side and FkpCascais and 2 ip persons on other side, so I've done investigation on all of them, for the SPI case. The user Asdisis himself came here and claimed the same persons have blocked him so I investigated a bit and found the report and confirmed the claim that the very same users are present in both reports, although they do not have anything to do with this report (they are not involved in Military Frontier article at all, so it is obvious that they were invited here, yet there are no invitations on their talk pages). They just appeared here. Also there is a stunning resemblance between that and this report. So to conclude, I have no strong interest in the history of Asdisis, but I have a strong interest in the history of Asdisis, FkpCascais , 2 ip persons, Michael Cambridge and now Chetvorno, MrX,Chillum since Asdisis came here and claimed the same people have banned him, which I have confirmed. I have strong interest in all of them and I have done investigation on all of them, as can be seen from the 2 cases I constructed. Detoner (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Your response is a distinction without a difference. Your "investigation" goes far beyond what would be expected of an innocent editor in your position, since the evidence you're reporting back does not, in fact, serve in any way to show that you are not related to Asdisis. In fact, by throwing mud at the people involved in these discussions, you simply reinforce the impression that you are Asdisis, and that you carry a grudge against the people you feel were responsible for getting you blocking.

If you are not Asdisis, I suggest that you stop "investigating" and commenting here, because to my eye all you're doing is digging yourself in deeper and deeper. If you are Asdisis, then, by all means, carry on, it will only help get you blocked again. BMK (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think anyone reasonable would investigate the claim of another user that the very same editors blocked him, the editors I haven'e been dealing with and that just appeared here, God know how the found about this report. Yes,I agree I should stop now, there isn't any case against me. When there will be a case then I can answer it. Just a reminder that this isn't the SPI, but a report against the other user for personal attack against me. The SPI is already half finished. The CU was declined and the clerk participating said that his suspicion is that all should be rejected. The puppet allegations here just serve to discredit me so the report is rejected. That is why they are calling upon that here and not in the SPI report. Thank you for your participation. Detoner (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

SPI Case

In order to curb this spammer I've opened the Sockpuppet Investigations/Asdidis case. Please, provide (or allow me the comments you posted here to copy/paste there) your comments there.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal conflict between two editors

I think that this has apparently degenerated into an endless personal conflict between two editors: FkpCascais and Detoner. I would suggest that the two editors be prohibited from referring to each other in any way, i.e. not by name, not by "that editor", etc. Breaking that prohibition would result in a block, first for a day, then longer for any additional infractions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed way the spammer Asdisis=Michael Cambridge=Detoner will be just encouraged to proceed his/her way of spamming and avoiding the current block imposed on Asdisis. Therefore, I oppose reducing this issue to the personal conflict.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There were no personal conflict of the Military Frontier talk page, just personal attacks by the reported user. I followed your advice that it is hard to took sides when 2 editors are participating in the mutual accusations so I have not done that on the talk pages. So there is no personal conflict on the talk pages. There is here since the reported user is not defending itself but continues with the accusations exhibited on the talk pages. Detoner (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Bob K31416 the problem is not our interaction, but them using me as excuse for their lack of sources for their desired edits. You came late to those discussions. FkpCascais (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that the suggestion is merely enforcing a fundamental principle of WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it's all about the comment on content. Handling a bad content/comment and bad intentions which were and are produced and demonstrated in abundance, must be stopped. The only viable way is to block the spammer.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

--72.66.12.17 don't worry, I am not Asdisis. I don't know how you can't see that. Do you think that only Serbians and Croatians have an interest in Nikola Tesla's ethnicity/country of birth? It seems that FkpCascais and his followers think they own the Nikola Tesla article. They seem to work together like a gang. The administrators need to investigate what has been happening and administer appropriate disciplinary measures against FkpCascais.Michael Cambridge 12:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

That would be helpful, but there is also the disruptive editing on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity and Talk:Military Frontier. It is pretty clear they will continue, even without referring to each other, especially the single-issue editors. There needs to be a topic ban in addition. --Chetvorno^TALK 12:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose FkpCascais should take more effort in not being baited, however this is a problem that goes beyond the interaction of two editors. While it may be the first instinct to iban two bickering people it would be a lot more helpful if the situation was looked into more deeply. An IBAN at this point would have a negative effect on the encyclopedia right now. Chillum 13:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - FkpCascais could help by not engaging in lengthy arguments with pop up nationalistic editors, but that is not at the root of the problem. The problem is that we don't have a process for quickly stopping the type for behaviour that we have seen from Asdisis, Detoner, and the long list of other throw away accounts, SPAs and IPs that want to do nothing more than wave their flag.- MrX 14:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note that my suggestion of prohibiting FkpCascais and Detoner from referring to each other in any way does not preclude their commenting on each other's messages nor does it preclude any further action against either editor for other reasons. It simply enforces the WP:NPA principle of commenting on content, not on the contributor. I think it could only help the situation, while leaving open the possibility of any further administrator action if needed. So please don't oppose it, but implement it and continue with any discussion that you think is needed to further improve the situation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. Only the arguments and sources are important and not the mutual allegations. That's why I took your advice and did not write them on the talk page but instead I made a report. I would like to ask you one more thing. I provide a source that states a certain claim and provide the quotes. The reported user stated that the source does not say that. I ask for the quote for at least 5 times and he keeps repeating that the source says something and refuses to provide a quote. I see that us 2 can't reach a consensus so I ask other editors who are involved with the article to participate. Another long time user joins, finds the primary source to my secondary source. Enters the edit to the article, and I end up being accused of pushing it to the article. Is that a clear personal attack? Here is the discussion. Also could you state your opinion about the below section that calls upon unilateral ban? Have I really the only one to blame here although I haven't stated any personal accusations? Detoner (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Comment on edits, not editors" is a general talk page rule. It does not apply on AN/I, the entire purpose of which is to examine the behavior of editors. BMK (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think he was talking about the general discussions. Detoner (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Diffs proving Detoner disruption

I will provide diffs to prove that this is a nationalistic single-purpose account that only cares about defending the Croatian cause at Nikola Tesla article and some others. His contributions are clear WP:TE, WP:NOTHERE and he is unable to drop it when consensus is established but just keeps on the WP:BATTLEGROUND. He has done edit-warring as well.

• After consensus was established in Nikola Tesla talk-page, Detoner is unable to disengage and continues to claim same claims which were proven wrong always with this "I know the truth" tone and acusing me of "that kind of people": diff
• He creates a user page where he expresses anger because most senior editors opposed him: User:Detoner
• Ever since the beginning he often went to other users talk-pages asking to help him in his crusade.
• He makes a totally disruptive edit ([211]) despite having been presented just earlier a set of reliable sources saying otherwise, clear WP:TE and knowing it is controversial, challenged and... wrong. But this edit is all what he is here for but with lack of sources he tries to add it by force.
• Then he goes trying to convince an editor his countryman to help him diff. In the meantime he continually claims I am having a sockpuppet despite clear evidence against it: I allways use my account, and that IP he claims it is me always bring sources in German, a language I have zero skills in. I didn't even bothered to answer at his SPI report.
• Then he edit-wars to reinsert his edit despite all.
• Edit-wars again claiming it is just a better elaboration of the already existing text... yes, right...
• Reverts me.
• Diff continues asking for help in his edit-warring.
• Edit-wars (diff) Despite having been presented with 6 reliable sources mentioning 1881, he wants to use 1870s (indeed wording found in one source) just to make it look that Croatian control over Military Frontier started in 1870s and not in 1881 as clearly indicated by majority of RS.
• Edit-wars and edit-wars
• Asks for more help from other Croatian editor: diff
• Since all that edit-warring at Military Frontier didn't went well for him, he returns to Nikola Tesla article and makes an edit-request. He makes a totally nationalistical request to replace Serbian Orthodox baptismal record of Tesla with Tesla high-school diploma (because in the diploma it says in big letters "Kroatian militargrentze". Looks much nicer for a Croatian, doesn't it?
• Also, in that same edit-request, he reopens the question of the Tesla-Maček telegram. What is it all about? Well, it is the main argument for proponents of Croatian Tesla, cause in that telegram Tesla allegedly wrote he was equally proud of his Serbian origins and Croatian homeland. However, that telegram has long time been discussed and it is considered a forgery. But of course, if we want to make Tesla more Croatian, we need the telegram.
• Then he returns to Military Frontier talk-page and makes his typical alegations ([212]) like the ones that Austrian military being in charge of MF was not the same as saying Austrians are helding MF, but lets say the military is helding it, then he claims the word "Austrians" is vague (?). The entire issue is about not making it clear for the reader that Croatian lost control of MF to Austria, so lets mention Croatian in all cases, but lets avoid mentioning Austria and we will leave it with ambiguous wording such as "military ruled it" and similar. Typical nationalistic POV-pushing.
• Then I face ridiculous questions like this one.
• Returning to his edit-request at Nikola Tesla, he claimed that "I saw telegram mentioned in several secondary sources...", I asked him for those sources he refuses to bring them. Why would that be?
• User:Chetvorno, clearly aware that the edit-request deals with ethnicity and nationality issues, moves the discussion to the corresponding talk-page, but he is reverted by Detoner who plays this game that it is not related to it.
• Then he openly expresses his desire to make the telegram reliable ([213]) despite not bringing any sources to support that, and I asked him 3 times to bring sources.
• And even now, he makes edits such as this one. Lets remove the mention that it was Illyrian coat of arms (despite the description in the picture itself) lets just say it is oldest Croatian CoA.

Not sure how visible for an outsider is, but absolutely all his interventions are just about nationalistic POV-pushing. He didn't provided a single English-language source in all this period! He is unable to back his edits with sources, and refuses to consider the reliable sources presented to him saying otherwise. Of course, he knows better than world historians! We should believe him, how dare we to question him? Btw, yes, I kind of loose my patience towards them, but whoever remembers discussions at Nikola Tesla, he remembers how they attacked me posts after post. And they just use me as excuse, like if it is only me opposing, and calls other senior editors "my gang", ridiculous. We are really tired and had enough of this. FkpCascais (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Just look at this: Talk:Nikola_Tesla#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_13_July_2015. He just talks and POV-pushes and presents ZERO reliable sources. This has been going on ever since, and he will not change. All he has is eloquency and hope he will convince someone, but zero Wikipedia:Verifiability for his edits. How long we have to cope with this? FkpCascais (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Finally a case after all accusations.

I agree with the present state of Nikola Tesla article and with the general consensus that he was born in Military Frontier. I do not purpose a single change as it is suggested.

There is nothing wrong to call upon an objective discussion.

Yes, I invited people who are long time participators in Military Frontier article to join the discussion. Nothing wrong with that. I haven't invited totally unrelated people to help my cause, like the reported user did in this report.

The "totally" disruptive edit is no such thing as the other user had entered the source to the article. I just restructured the passage so the formal and the administrative aspect is more elaborated. I haven't entered it to the article, but other user, did. This is the claim "and despite the Emperor's address in 1850 that the Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia constituted a single land with separate administration...". This was entered by other editor and I have just made more elaborate description about the formal and administrative aspect. So I'm not he one who should being accused of the totally disruptive edit since I have just restructured the already present state. The edit is most certainly not wrong since the claim is already present in the text (see the quote).

The diff you mentioned about the disruptive editor is about the ip person about who's behavior I already counted 4 editors complaining. He was deleting a RS from the article. I never mentioned the allegation of you having a sock in any talk page and it is understandable that you omitted that diff since it doesn't exist.

The mentioned edit warring was done by the reported user. He had changed the original quote from the source and when I reverted it to the original quote he went on edit warring. There was no consensus for his manipulation with the original quote and he went on pushing it to the article. How could I be edit warring when I just want to leave the quote from the source in the article and he keeps adding his text to the original source and changing it without the consensus. I reported that and in the later discussions his edit was rejected by other user who agrees it is vague and that it should not enter the article.

The dispute about the 1881 and 1870s is made up by this user. Those are not 2 distinct years and it is not the case that one group of sources is wrong by stating one year instead of the other. Both should be mentioned in the article and he is pushing to mention just one. Those years are not regarding the same event and he is pushing his opinion that they are. I think that the other long time user is disagreeing with this editor to neglect the sources that speak of 1870s.

The request on Tesla page I just that, a request. I haven't touched the article, I just put an interesting document and left it for the editors there to decide about including it. Also you are not repeating the false claim that the baptismal record is from Serbian Orthodox Church, although there was a RfC about that. Now who is pushing a nationalistic attitude here? I put his diploma to the request because I think it is interesting to see his grades and you instantly went of accusing me of "nationalistic agenda".

Yes, I asked for help about the telegram because this user had been claiming it is false with totally unreliable sources, so that got me interested in that. I found the telegram mentioned in RS and nowhere it is stated that it is a forgery. This user is pushing that stand with no sources at all.

Yes the term "Austrians" is vague and you have been pushing it without any source. The other editor agrees it is vague, so it is you who have been pushing it and went to edit warring over it.

Yes I refused to participate in a digress and talk about the telegram in unrelated discussion.

Tesla's diploma does not have anything to do with his nationality or ethnicity. I think that is obvious.

Lastly, this user goes on every edit of mine and reverts me. The last diff is the perfect example. I made a minor correction to the article which had called a certain crest to be Illirian , when in fact it is centuries older that the Ilirian movement itself. Also it is included in the Croatian coat of arms as the oldest Croatian crest. I asked a long time editor of that page to help to resolve that.

I suggested only one edit and it was entered to the article by other user. That makes the allegation that I want to edit something without the sources false. Detoner (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Only diff needed

I think all of this talk page sock puppetry is a distraction. Either Detoner is the same person as an editor we blocked for being a single purpose account or not, it does not matter. This is the only diff needed to show the Detoner is a single purpose account: Special:Contributions/Detoner. Their contribution history shows they are only here for a single purpose which is not to write an encyclopedia. This thread is evidence of the disruption they have caused.

While the waters have been muddied by excessive back and forth and this whole thread screams TOO LONG DID NOT READ I hope that this short message clears things up. Chillum 13:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

So the tactics would be to engage me in a pointless discussions so I have a lot of posts on a single page so this can be claimed? No I've edited other articles where I don't have so much posts because I haven't came across someone like the reported user. I'm not concentrated on a single page and that is hard to notice because there is a lot of posts to that page since I'm being dragged in the pointless discussion whereas the posts on other pages are not so visible because I make them fewer. Detoner (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me which edit you have ever made that is not somehow related to the topic at hand? You were not dragged into anything, you showed up on your first day and jumped right in. You are playing the victim but from the first day of editing here you went on the offensive by accusing and attacking others who disagree with you. It is disingenuous and unconvincing. Chillum 14:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

All is shown in my contributions page. I just note that the lengthy discussions produced more posts while I made contributions to other pages and there is just one edit to that, so other editors don't buy your allegation. I'm not being concentrated on one place, but on all articles that cover Croatian history. Detoner (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at them all, they are all related to the topic area the ban is covering. Not one is outside of this area. Chillum 14:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Detoner topic banned from Balkans articles

There is sufficient evidence that Detoner has engaged in edit warring, tendentious editing, filibustering, and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour in their brief time here (which coincidentally started 10 days after Asdisis was blocked). I propose that Detoner be indefinitely topic banned from all article, talk page, and project page editing (including discussions) related to the Balkans, broadly construed. This would include, but not be limited to, articles and discussions concerning the geography, history, people, military, politics, organizations, ethnology, and sociology of the region. This will allow Detoner to contribute to any to the millions of other articles not related to this region.

• Support as proposer, with no prejudice against an outright en.wiki ban.- MrX 14:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support The evidence provided, specifically this users contribution history shows they are a single purpose account. The filibustering in particular about an issue long settled by consensus has been particularly disruptive. A topic ban from the are they are POV pushing in will force them to either work on the encyclopedia or just move on. Chillum 14:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Would also support full WP ban. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You continued the personal accusations that the reported user had started without making the case. Admins, please protect me from this group of people and read the linked discussions yourself: Military_Frontier , [214], [215], [216], [217], [218]. There is too much POV pushing even in this very own report so please, rather read the discussions yourself. There's probably less text there than here. Apart from this 3 users (and ip puppet) summoned by the reported user, there isn't anyone who purposes the one sided ban. I wouldn't even object if he had invited the over their talk pages, and not so secretly. They haven't been involved in Military Frontier article and there is no way they could have known about this report. Their unilateral support in this complex matter says everything. Detoner (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

When we have a big RFC on something and there is a clear consensus, it is not POV pushing to enforce that result. Don't characterize this as a content dispute, the content dispute is long settled. This is about you refusing to accept consensus in a disruptive fashion. Chillum 14:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Indefinitely block. Since Detoner has already declared he will be evading the ban as an IP when it comes to that, I don't see much point in letting them edit at all.--Atlan (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I'm not expecting a ban. I will return to edit via IP if the reported user is allowed in disruptive behavior. Even if I'm banned that for sure wouldn't be indefinitely since this would be my first sanction.Detoner (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That is still sock puppetry, and still makes clear your intent to act in bad faith. The fact that you openly admit that you will use an IP to edit an area your user is already involved in a content dispute tells me that sock puppetry is not a new idea to you. Chillum 14:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, then I won't be doing it. I'm glad we got that clear. I thought I'm allowed to close my account since I saw other people had done that. Well I haven't got an account so I'm not exactly familiar with how it goes with accounts. The fact that I mentioned it openly proves exactly the opposite, that sock puppetry is something completely unfamiliar to me. I apologize for my remark and I take it back. Detoner (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Given this users insistence that they will sock puppet if they don't get their way then I cannot assume any good faith any longer, nor can I think the ban will be effective. It also makes me think this is not the first time this user has come back after a block/ban. I support an indefinite block. Chillum 14:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block per Atlan, WP:TE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:EW, etc. no sources, unable to accept consensus and disengage... FkpCascais (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block/ban - Obviously NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.- MrX 16:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to note that if I have been involved into edit warring, tendentious editing, filibustering, and WP:BATTLEGROUND , then the reported user had also been doing exactly the same+ personal attacks. I think that the unilateral support of this 3 users that were summoned here is not valid since they haven't touched on the behavior of FkpCascais. They were summoned here and from the start the have continued to repeat FkpCascais's personal attacks here and they haven't even touched on the behavior of FkpCascais, who had been stating personal attack towards me for the edit of another user. Please protect me from that and don't take their opinion as more valid because there are more of them. I do not have any friends to call to help me push my stand. Detoner (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You have just escalated from general implications about how the editors involved in this discussion came to be here to a very specific charge that they were "summoned" here, which would be a violation of WP:CANVASS. Please provide the specific evidence you have to back up the charge that the participants here were "summoned".

Also, the behavior of all participants is examined in an AN/I discussion, including the editor who filed the report. It is also not true that the three editors you refer to "haven't touched on the behavior of FkpCascais." Anyone reading through this report will see clear criticism of FC's behavior. BMK (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

May I just say that:

• a) I brought over 20 English-language reliable surces/he has brought 2 Croatian sources in all this time;
• b) All my edits are supported by those RS and I defend what has been established by consensus at discussions/he defends the opposite, exactly what has been proven wrong;
• c) yes, it ma seem notorious by now that I lost patience and AGF towards them, but other editors remember hw much I was attacked post after post in the early discussions;
• d) I am not defending any particular POV but the one pointed out in the majority of RS/he is defending a POV he is unable to provide a single English-language source for; For instance, in all this period I haven't brought any other but English-language sources.
• e) I don't intent to make any major changes/they announce further "interesting researches" basically more of the same tendentious controversial editing coming up;
• f) I am not being opposed by any established editor/he is only supported by Michael Cambridge and pretty much opposed by all other editors, which end up accused of being my gang because the oppose him.

Also a question: what about Michael Cambridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? He has provided no reliable sources and has been pushing even harder the POV at discussions at talk-pages. Just look at their contributions. FkpCascais (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

But still, you made personal accusations on the talk page against me for the edit of another user. We discussed all sources and the edit was done by a long time editor of that article. And you are repeating this as if there is something else I wanted to introduce in the article. No, my suggestion was accepted by a long time editor of that article and he had made the edit. There is no other suggestion I would like to introduce in the article. The report is about your personal accusation for that edit Not done by me. I have no idea who supports you. The only editor who participates in the discussion accepted by suggestion and made the edit to the article and he agreed with me that your manipulation with the quote from one source introduced a vague term. Michael Cambridge had not been participating in Military Frontier article.Detoner (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Here. I mean, after all my allegations that they were summoned here, they could have answered and admitted and posted this here. I found it only when I went to see their contributions to see the connection between them. Well here is the connection. The users that were summoned call for unilateral indefinite ban. POV pushing are hard cases, and the admins would really need to go to discussions and get familiarized with the topic to determine who is POV pushing. The only user that is familiarized with the discussions is [User:Tzowu|Tzowu] and he gave his opinion. That is way I haven't made a case of POV pushing but a case of personal attack. To unfamiliarized editors it is hard to determine who is POV pushing and who is following the sources. Both me and the reported user claim we are following the sources. Well I think there is one advantage to my case since my edit was accepted and entered the article. The reported user had been claiming that the source doesn't say what I'm alleging but something else. I did not accuse him of lying but I confronted with with a request to provide a quote. He had refused at least 5 times, and later the other editor had found the primary source and made the edit. After all that he had made the personal accusation that I'm POV pushing. After the edit has already been done. After the other editor spend time to find a primary source because of his constant lies that the source says something and the refusal to provide the quote to sustain that. This is the case and the POV pushing is hard to crack. The only involved user in that article already stated his opinion on that. Detoner (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block for Detoner. This editor, with their endless filibustering and wikilawyering and their SPA-focus is clearly WP:NOTHERE to help build a neutral POV encyclopedia. Per nom, except that I think an indef block is more appropriate than a topic ban. However, if consensus supports a topic ban, I can support that as well. BMK (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block for Detoner. As per FkpCascais, Atlan, MrX, BMK , Chetvorno--72.66.12.17 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Detoner, Whether rightly or wrongly, consensus can go against an editor and it can be rigid and unchangeable. This can happen anywhere on Wikipedia. I would suggest that you use your judgement to recognize when such a situation occurs and not continue advocating a particular edit or position. I think that would satisfy the other editors here and would be a more productive behavior for improving Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Which consensus Bob K31416? Detoner (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This one: Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity/Archive 3. FkpCascais (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been contesting that consensus. I've been participated in some discussions and I left from there on 28 June. This report is regarding completely different article, Military_Froniter, and event from few days ago. I haven't introduced or suggested any edit that goes over any consensus. Of course if you feel otherwise, you can provide diffs. Detoner (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who takes even a superficial look at your editing at Military Frontier will see that you are just continuing the same POV on another less watched page. Chillum 20:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't figure out, how it is normal for you people to state such things without a single diff? Detoner (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, Could you explain in more detail what you mean? (And please, no one else, just Chillum respond to my question.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I was wrong about the "superficial look" part. It would take a fairly in depth understanding now that I think about it. The stem of the dispute(and please others correct me if I am wrong) is if the Military Frontier was part of Croatia at the time of Tesla's Birth or if it was in fact part of The Austrian Empire. The clear consensus of a near month long rfc[219] was that "Nikola Tesla was born on 10 July (O.S. 28 June) 1856 to Serbian parents in the village of Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia)." The edits to the Military Frontier article by Detoner are attempting to remove mention of Austria being in control of that region. Chillum 21:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, Could you give an example of an edit by Detoner that attempted to remove mention of Austria being in control of that region at the time of Tesla's birth? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Same date? I never suggested that the POV of Detoner was so narrow. Same country, same territorial dispute, different time. Same behavioural problem. Chillum 22:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, Could you review your above message of 21:47, 18 July 2015? It looks like you are suggesting that. After all, you essentially seem to have said that Detoner's edits at Military Frontier are for the purpose of showing that Tesla was born in Croatia, not Austria. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I said the edits to the Military Frontier article by Detoner are attempting to remove mention of Austria being in control of that region. I said Detoner was just continuing the same POV on another less watched page.[220] I did not say the his POV was limited to Tesla's birth place, rather I suspect it is far more nationalistic in nature. I think you have read too much between the lines. Chillum 22:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, OK. So you're not saying that Detoner's Military Frontier edits are for the purpose of showing that Tesla was born in Croatia. Could you give an example of one of Detoner's Military Frontier edits that is problematic and explain why? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I should not have to explain to an experienced editor such as yourself how single purpose accounts are damaging to our goal of a neutral encyclopedia. It is not about single edits, it is about a bias that just won't quit. Chillum 23:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bob K31416, now I can defend myself from the obviously false accusations. Here are some of my comments: "My source already states that Military Frontier is not under the "control" of Croatian authorities but that it has disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation. " , "Although in the formal aspect Military Frontier was a part of Croatia , the administration was not under Croatian "control"." , "Military zone in administrative sense did not belong to Croatia neither Hungary, nor Austria, but was regarded as a separate entity which was under the direct control of the emperor and military command in Vienna". No, I'm not suggesting Military Frontier was under Croatian control, but just the otherwise, that it wasn't. This editor haven't participated in the discussions and he was summoned here with only one goal, clearly stated by themselves in the plotting discussion.Detoner (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
(Detoner, Could you save that comment for later? I'd like to continue some more with Chillum before discussing with you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC))

OK, I'm ready to discuss. Re "No, I'm not suggesting Military Frontier was under Croatian control, but just the otherwise, that it wasn't." – Could you give me the diffs for your work in that regard? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block This is a drastic punishment for a user that had 0 blocks before, even if he is asdisis who was also drastically punished. Since most here support a ban he'll probably be getting one, but then block him for a week or two and then see how things will go on. Tzowu (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• (ec)I have seen mentioned a couple of times by Detoner that an edit was made by another user for him from a request. I can't figure out what that has to do with the concerns about his behaviour. Based on this message from Detoner to you on your talk page[221] I am guessing you are said editor. Could you perhaps elaborate what Detoner means? Chillum 21:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"an edit was made by another user for him from a request" I don't understand this, my involvement here is that I made an edit on the Military Frontier page as a sort of consensus between his and FkpCascais's disputes regarding one particular period of it. Tzowu (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess I am trying to figure out what "Hello. I'm being accused of POV pushing for the edit that you entered in the article (Horvat). Could you please share your opinion here. Thank you."[222] means. I can't figure what what the message has to do with this discussion which is linked. I don't get why he thinks we are accusing him of POV pushing based on an edit you made. Chillum 22:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess because he added some more content to it shortly after, then FkpCascais reverted him and Detoner reverted FkpCascais, another round of talks started on the talk page, but then the dispute shifted to the lead section. I suppose both agree now on keeping the "Horvat" edit in its current state. Tzowu (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is a drastic measure purposed by the group of editors that have been plotting (see down there). You were the only one participating in those discussions and I think you are the only one familiar with the topic. I doubt those summoned editors have read it all, and I can just hope the admins will be careful with this discussion where 4 long time editors (some admins) are participating in the plotting to have some means to ban people. I'm sure they are much more familiar into how to push their opinion and how to "win" these kind of reports. God knows how many people those 4 editors know, and who else is summoned. For instance BMK had asked me to provide evidence for my allegation of summoning with the attitude to accuse me of making such allegation and when I provided it he had not commented at it, but instead went with a support to indefinite ban. I think that it is pretty amazing that I've discovered the plotting of those 4 editors but even I can't discover everything. I think the admins who will review this report should be very careful with this report. I will always be against senior users imposing their opinion and participating in plotting to ban other people instead to participate in the discussions in good faith, by providing sources and arguments. Admins, please don't count the editors, but arguments. Detoner (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Tzowu: An apparent WP:CANVASS type of Wikipedia rules violation for Tzowu's comment is solicited by Detoner. Now even if he is asdisis who was also drastically punished means what? The block violation to be allowed? The same behavior tolerated?--72.66.12.17 (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Plotting

I can't believe what I'm seeing here. This is outrages. I will just post this quote from the discussion (by FkpCascais) : "As MrX pointed out, we should indeed have a quick and efficient mechanism for dealing with these kind of situations.", said to Chillum and Chetvorno. I urge the admins to give a full look to that discussion. And after that all 4 editors are calling for an indefinite ban of me? They all should be sanctioned for plotting and ganging up to have a "quick and efficient mechanism for dealing with these kind of situations.". Please protect me from that. I have no more strength to deal with this. Well the user Asdisis went of claiming the same users had blocked him. I found the corresponding ANI and was amazed that I see the same 4 editors (+ the ip person) there as well, now we have a statement that they all should "have a quick and efficient mechanism for dealing with these kind of situations. I'm amazed that was said publicly (although buried deep in an unrelated discussion). Detoner (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is really incredible that there isn't any mechanism on Wikipedia not to allow you to drive endless challenging of consensus without any sources and allow you to make us loose time for months. This is a very important issue for Wikipedia as a community, and a clear exemple of what needs to be improved. All this time you loose it would better be spent for you if you searched for RS. FkpCascais (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Again the example of false accusations. I suggested the edit on Military Frontier article and the edit was accepted and done by other long term editor. I guess that much proves I provided RS. This user on the other hand continued with personal accusations that I'm POV pushing even after my suggestion was accepted and introduced in the article by other long time editor on that article. Not even by me. Why is he accusing me of POV pushing? Detoner (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

We are plotting to write a neutral encyclopedia based on what reliable sources say. Chillum 20:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

We can see the result of that plotting in this report. Encyclopedia is written with sources and arguments, and not indefinite bans. You and the other 2 editors weren't involved in Military Frontier article at all, and you could have "plotted" to come over there and share your sources and contribute. And the case is that the reported user is stating personal attacks against me for the edit of another user. He is stating that I'm pushing an edit, that wasn't even done by me. The case is pretty much clear. Detoner (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have seen how you respond to sources. FkpCascais nearly drowned you in reliable sources contradicting your point of view, you responded with filibustering. Nothing more than an attempt to win by exhaustion. Please do not pretend that nobody has done their due diligence in regards to your point of view. Chillum 22:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an example of engaging me in a pointless repeating that I haven't done the edit I'm being accused I'm pushing. The only intent is for me to answer to appear pushy. He had not provided any diffs. Detoner (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Engaging an user so he appears pushy

In the plotting discussion editors discussed how to "win" in the reports. User Chetvorno gave advice to the reported user :"I agree with Chillum. You are an experienced editor. The important thing is not to get sucked into disruptive editing yourself, which will destroy your credibility, and eventually result in sanctions". They further discussed how the reported user should restrain himself from posting too much comments so he does not appear pushy, while they will give him support: "State your case, but don't get drawn in. Chillum, I, and others defended you on the ANI, but I couldn't say you were innocent yourself because of statements like this: [33]. Y If you would refrain from violating WP rules yourself, flagrant POVpushing by other editors will be obvious. Have you ever heard the saying, Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves". I'm having a feeling that they are doing the exact same thing to me. I'm being drawn into discussions with such pointless and false accusations made by those editors, with a goal I answer them as much as possible, so I appear pushy by answering every comment and "hang myself". Please protect me from that kind of behavior by experienced editors who know exactly what they are doing. Detoner (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this was said in the open on the Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity page, was not "plotting" and did not refer to how to "win in the reports" but how to deal with your disruptive editing on the Talk page. In Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#They just cant drop it FkpCascais asked other editors for advice on how to deal with your WP:POVPUSHing and WP:disruptive editing. Chillum and I advised him not to get sucked into disruptive editing himself. I would have given the same advice to you, had you asked. But it is pretty clear that, unlike FkpCascais who has a history of constructive editing in other areas, your only purpose on Wikipedia is to push your political POV. You are WP:NOT HERE to build an encyclopedia. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

SPI update

I've indefinitely blocked Detoner as a sock. Michael Cambridge is  Unrelated. The precise results may be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis, which is now closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

IP "Robb Auber"

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

---

125.63.73.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 125.63.73.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (seems to be the same user) keeps adding a red link (Robb Auber) to the list of people surnamed Robb see here although there is no article on this person and the person is not surnamed Robb. Now they also vandalize pages that refer somehow to Robb or to Auber, see their contributions. Kraxler (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked both for 31 hrs because these IPs are probably shared. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Report on StanTheMan87 personal attacks

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

---

• StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The user recently behaved in an impolite manner toward me. I opposed a name change and when he saw my reasoning did not persuade him, he charged me with 'Pushing POV'. I told him that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" was regarded as personal attack. He had already said that Any attempt to counter this proposal will obviously be meant with the constant regurgitation of WP:POVTITLE" which was weird to me, because one may have a different opinion and it does not necessarily a sign of POV pushing. However, I tried to explain how I think about the issue and presented my own reasoning but he replied that he still could tell me that I had POV to push because of 1- My reasoning and 2- Because of the details on my user page. The second one seems like a racist accusation (refer to my user page please). I took another step and tried to further explain why I opposed the change, but he did not pay attention to my last warning on taking WP:PA seriously and said:"the current title is not precise. You are foolish to think otherwise." As, I had already asked him to avoid PA, I'm sending the report here.

Comment: Two other editors had discussed him about personal attacks and throwing insults (I'm not judging these two cases as I don't have enough materials to judge and just am commenting to let the admins know about the possible background of him). Mhhossein (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Commenting to point out this edit summary: Info-box is fucked. I cannot be bothered manually editing all the shit I added. Congratulations to user Anasaitis for fucking around with it, you absolute hero. [223]. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see enough here to warrant action. Uncivil a few times recently? Sure. But I don't see this rising to the level where an Admin is going to act on anything... And EvergreenFir already previously warned StanTheMan87 about one of the instances of incivility. Unless StanTheMan87 keeps at it, I don't think anything is going to happen here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me clear up one thing, the comment "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence was regarded as personal attack" is factually incorrect. It might be ad hominem, but not a personal attack. See Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, the gold standard around here. Single instances are generally overlooked, it takes a little heat sometimes. Ongoing ad hominem is disruptive, however, so action generally requires demonstrating a longer term pattern. I'm not saying he is right or should get off scot free, I'm just making sure you understand the standards here. The worst of it, [224] isn't technically a personal attack, although it borders on it and is uncivil. He is being more than rude, but I think your bar is set a bit too high here, EvergreenFir. StanTheMan87 does need to back off, however, or he will be looking some kind of sanction, sooner rather than later. I'm about to call it a night, but wanted to get those points across. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Not the filer, but I agree Dennis Brown. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, adjusting to new glasses and just flubbed that up. Hard to read now that they letters are crisp ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment:@Dennis Brown and IJBall: As I mentioned above, he keeps accusing for pushing my own POV while I'm trying to present my own reasoning using the sources. For instance, he accused me by saying "No, of course "Islamic State (IS)" is not a valid search keyword. Of course. Because it doesn't fit your with your POV, so of course it is invalid.". His tone is really bothering and I'm trying to handle the case. That's why I asked him in that thread to take PA cautions seriously. I'll be thankful to be cautioned if my discussion seems like pushing POVs. Mhhossein (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • He's only made a couple of edits since this report was filed, mainly image. These are difficult areas to judge POV on to people who aren't specialists in the areas. The diff you provided here, he is giving rational arguments for his position. Not saying they are right or wrong, but he isn't attacking and is providing a specific basis, which is something that editors decide, not admin. As for the rudeness, he does need to dial it back but I don't see anything in the last several days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis Brown. May be I have to be more patient. The problem is that he, like many other editors, don't focus on the subject and instead try to address the editors, which is not the goal of the discussion. His rudeness is not tolerated. Mhhossein (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If "many other editors" find your person and inclinations to be the problem, could it be because there is something to it? Note that you are yourself "trying to address the editors" rather than the subject by bringing your dispute to this board.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's define those "many other editors"! Mhhossein (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: @Dennis Brown: I don't know what is regarded as personal attack if calling an editor a potato is not considered an attack. There he said:"Arguing with an an inanimate object like a potato could result in a better conclusion than arguing with you". How many times should he throw insults so that an action is made? Mhhossein (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment insult and the tendentious presentation of opinion as fact should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. GregKaye 05:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Potatoes? Why not rhubarb? And come back to this board when there is some real PA to report - there's worse stuff than this that even Arbcom wont ssue sanctions for. Closing, to beat the archive bot.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User's continued ignorance of warnings and website policies

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

---

Felipeedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to ignore warnings given by myself, Widr, Mburrell and KrakatoaKatie concerning their disruptive editing time and time again. They've continued to remove reliable sources for those of blog-like websites and continued addition of original research to several music-related articles. User has a long-standing history of disruptive editing, and is also a sock-puppet account. It seems to me that the user is not here to edit in a cohesive, collaborative way, and instead is editing for their own personal beliefs. User also refuses to talk with other editors, instead deciding to continue on with their pattern of disruptive edits. The latest string of disruptiveness is happening at List of 2015 albums where (s)he continues to remove valid sources (ex: Billboard, Herald Sun) and replaces them with blog-like websites which have been deemed unreliable (ex: Ultimate Music). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livelikemusic (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 July 2015(UTC)

Definitely time for another block per WP:IDHT. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban might be a better solution than blocking, which seems to escape because of backlogs at AIV. I'd really like to hear what he has to say, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to say anything to anyone anywhere. Regardless, this disruption needs to stop. KrakatoaKatie 02:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that the user would abide by a topic ban based on previous history. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Something must be done, as the user is continuing to add blog-like websites as "sources" on the page and others. It's clear they're unable to handle editing on Wikipedia is proper ways. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

IF user is sockpuppet, of whom? (please ping reply)Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The most disruptive thing is that the editor doesn't communicate. Their edits are not AIV material, since they are not vandalism (they do make valid edits too) and I can't see the user acting in bad faith. I get the feeling that they either don't understand RS policies or simply don't care. Probably latter, considering how many "final warnings" they have received. If it is a competence issue, I doubt that bans would make any difference. Widr (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I find Felipeedit's most recent edit disturbing. I dunno if it's "bad faith" or "good faith", but it's the unexplained removal of sourced content with zero edit summary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: FWIW, Felipeedit has now contacted several editors on their Talk pages about this, and I've left them a note on their own Talk page. So this is moving closer to a potential resolution... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's leading to resolution; they've failed to communicate with any editor, until days following the opening of this report. And even following your note, they still do not add edit summaries, and their past behaviors lead me to believe that no resolution may come. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging Widr, Mburrell and KrakatoaKatie, since the OP attempted pings but did not sign their OP, hence the pings didn't work. (Pings only work when the user types four tildes when posted.) BTW, I am uninvolved in this matter.Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I have never found Felipeedit to be editing in bad faith. Felipeedit poorly uses citation conventions as laid out by Wikipedia, and shows an unwillingness to improve his/their citation skill set, but the information that is posted is always with the intent to improve the article. By using blogs Felipeedit shows a lack of understanding about what constitutes reliable information. However, many editors do the same thing. I have assigned myself the task of cleaning up a particular series of articles, the most active currently being List of 2015 albums, which means I try to clean up on hyperlinks, citations and notability. I welcome any editor who makes an attempt to improve the articles, even those who overwrite headers instead of using the appropriate format, because those editors are all trying to improve the articles. I have less patience with those who write in the Talk page asking for someone else to do the work.

With Felipeedit, sometimes I have to reject the changes due to lack of an appropriate citation, or move the addition to a new date, but I have never seen a malicious or vanity edit by the user. If the administration board wishes to censor the user until they learn to follow the wiki-rules, I cannot object, but so many users don't understand how to edit that this seems more like frustration that a regular user won't learn how to play by the rules. Mburrell (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think this discussion should be closed, with no action taken. We are dealing with good faith editor who is still learning the ropes. There is no need to punish anyone here. Widr (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Scytsari

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

---

Scytsari (talk · contribs) is POV-pushing on the article Tajiks in blatant disregard of Wikipedia's WP:V policy. The issue is that is he is clearly intent on adding several medieval Persian people to the article's ethnicity gallery who are not ethnically Tajik and which do not have any references on their pages which claim so. Most of these peoples' articles do not make any mention of 'Tajik' in any context. He has reverted my removal of this OR three times, each time alleging it was 'vandalism': [225], [226], [227]. In addition, he reverted User:Khestwol's removal once: [228]. In one of the aforementioned edit summaries, he also accused me of having a personal agenda ([229]).

I explained many times on Talk:Tajiks that references would be required (on the subjects' pages) for such claims and that my removal was in accordance with WP:V. His first comment on the article talk page does not address WP:V, instead addressing a different point, and goes on to question my education before calling my removal vandalism [230]. I again reiterate that references would be required on the subjects' talk page and he goes on a rant in which he tells me to go educate myself (he advises me to read a source which I had posted earlier in the discussion, nonetheless) [231]. In between his four reverts and uncivil behavior, he has not once bothered to provide a single reference on either the talk page or any of the subjects' articles in support of his claims. This is getting ridiculous; two other users have already told him to stop adding unreferenced original research: [232] and [233]. Yet he refuses to get the point. Elspamo4 (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposals – sanctions against Scytsari

• I propose a ban against adding images to Tajiks, unless he comes here and states that he understands now and that if he desires more images he will ensure beforehand on Talk:Tajiks that he has consensus and that the nationality/ethinicity is properly sourced with community-accepted reliable sources. Also, I propose a site-wide ban on using the word "vandalism" in edit summaries. Also, I propose a strict adherence to WP:BRD. I propose also that violation of any of these proposals will result in a block. Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC) UPDATE: problem is too extensive. Propose block instead. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• These are all thoughtful suggestions, but I would suggest an outright ban from editing the page Tajiks rather than a simple images ban. He has re-added completely unsourced material four times within a span of three days, including thrice in a single day. He has done so while being fully aware that he is in contempt of Wikipedia policy. His disruptive editing has unfortunately resulted in the page being fully protected. He's shown this same battleground behavior on the page previously, as well, when he reverted another user who tried to remove the pictures two months ago. Elspamo4 (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. Can you also look at the few other articles he's edited? At a cursory glance, he seems to be exhibiting a battleground behavior on those as well; in fact Callenecc had to hat one particular PA/rant of his three weeks ago. This seems to be a battleground new editor with a very small degree of clue and a very large intent to disrupt, who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Perhaps a block, and possibly a lengthy one, is what is needed. Softlavender (talk)

Good find. Judging from Talk:Kandahar, he has previously edited under 99.240.250.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and has made some very battleground-like edits. On the article you mentioned, he removed mentions of 'Afghan' and 'Dari', which was promptly reverted. Also on the page Iranian peoples, he twice edited the page to insert his POV fringe claim that Iranian and Tajiks are synonyms. He was reverted both times [234] and [235]. Ironically, this is the same view he is perpetuating on the Tajiks page as well. He also removed information about Afghans from Herat twice: [236] and [237]. His first removal summary was "Learn to read, it's poorly edited and misinformation".

I took his nationalist edits on Tajiks with a grain of salt, but judging from his other edits its clear that he is WP:NOTHERE. All of his edits reflect on an agenda to 'erase' the Afghan identity and create falsities to promote his ideas about Tajiks in order to right great wrongs. This is just scratching the surface of his edits. There is also a good possibility that he is editing under different accounts or IPs. It's very unfortunate that his behavior has gone unnoticed for so long and is still going unnoticed. In light of this, I endorse a block, though I'm not sure what the appropriate length would be. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block of both this account and the IP account, and a CheckUser check to check for socks or sleeper socks. Per Elspamo4's evidence above, Scytsari has been editing under 99.240.250.20, which is already a suspected sock of two other sockmasters, listed at: User talk:99.240.250.20 -- Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block Looking at Beh-nam's sockpuppet investigation, the findings are conclusive and in-line with my comments on his nationalist agenda. Most of the socks' edits are virtually identical to Scytsari's (e.g NassirAkram1440's edits on Tajiks). It seems he has been disruptively editing Tajik and Afghan-related articles for some time now. A CU and indef block is certainly in order. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC) (P.S. I was too absent minded to check his talk page in my earlier post; thanks for bringing it to my attention.) Elspamo4 (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Taking the lazy way out by calling in my go-to anti-sockpuppet guru, if he will take the case: Bbb23, could you do a quick check and indef block these accounts and any sleepers? If so, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I opened an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam. Elspamo4 (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK, Could you please request CheckUser, so that all other socks and sleepers can be caught in the net? If you do, I will chime in. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to request checkuser. I just attempted, but I'm not sure if I did it right. Elspamo4 (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a code to change from checkuser=no to checkuser=yes when filing new reports. Maybe when it's a re-opened investigation, CU is automatic. Anyway, I chimed in. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is very bad behavior. Regardless of the SPI outcome, if we see User:Scytsari making any more edits like those he has made at Tajiks an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE would be justified. The SPI should be continued because it may show how far the problem extends. In the unlikely event that Scytsari responds here we should listen to whatever he has to say. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I just saw this. I've had this account on my WP:Watchlist because he appears to me to be a problematic editor and a WP:Sock. Any new account that appears to be a WP:Sock to me, I put on my WP:Watchlist and/or mark it down in my online notepad; they usually eventually turn out to be WP:Socks (even if it's a year or more later). So I support whatever ban on this editor is needed, or an indefinite block for this editor. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• UPDATE: An SPI clerk has just declined CheckUser and hatted a relevant discussion on Talk:Tajiks which mentions Scytsari [238], and has inserted himself into the discussion [239]. I've asked the clerk to unhat the posts: [240]. Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I hadn't noticed this previously but Scytsari was reported by another user for edit warring on Bacha bazi. His first 19 of 20 posts were on that page and almost all of them were disruptive. 4 of them were to remove mention of the Afghan ethnicity. It seems that almost all of Scytari's edits have been made to spread his POV and fringe theories. In the report filed by User:CompliantDrone, he stated "myself and other editors are beginning to suspect sock puppetry based on patterns of behavior". Anyway, I know we don't ban people based on suspected sockpuppetry and I'll leave the SPI on Scytsari to take course. Though, like Softlavender, I'm disappointed that the checkuser was rejected because I think the problem is widespread in Central Asian articles. Elspamo4 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (The pot calling the kettle black) It is probably true that Scytsari (talk · contribs) is editing pages with a pro-Tajik WP:POV. However, it would also seem that Elspamo4 (who started this discussion) is editing pages with an anti-Tajik WP:POV (frequently removing references to Tajiks) which is hardly any better. In the edit reporting Scytsari for edit warring, Elspamo4 conveniently neglects to mention that the whole edit war started by their own removal [241] of long-standing material, a removal which Elspamo4 has repeated several times in the edit war [242], [243]. If any block or ban is introduced, I suggest it is handed out to both users. Jeppiz (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to start with this. Firstly, do not accuse of me of having a POV when all of my edits are based on Wikipedia policies (namely WP:V). I have no connection to Tajikistan or Tajiks, or anything related to Central Asia. I have never edited on a Central Asian topic prior to Tajiks, which had come to my attention after finding historical Persians in Category:Tajiks with no references justifying their inclusion.

Secondly, I did not start any edit war. I removed unreferenced content which had been deemed problematic by myself and Akmal54 on the talkpage. I fully explained my rationale on the talk page. You reverted my removal and re-added the unreferenced content with a very patronizing and clueless edit summary: "No consensus to delete, and kindly stop the edit warring or you risk being blocked." You proceeded to use the talkpage as a soapbox and never provided a single reliable source to back up your or Scytsari's claims. Five editors (myself, Akmal54, Vanjagenije, Khestwol, Zyma) have constantly reiterated the requirement for reliable sources. I don't know if you have literacy issues or simply ignore anything which you don't agree with, but you seriously need to drop the stick. Heed our advice on the talk page and try finding reliable sources to justify these subjects' inclusion.

Your accusation that I am removing 'referenced information' for my own satisfaction is both troubling and misleading. You are referring to Hammasa Kohistani, where I removed false information which was not in the reference provided. I even explained this in my edit summary. You tried reverting my edit, claiming it was a 'false edit summary' before realizing your mistake and self-reverting. Please do not make any more baseless accusations in this thread, thanks. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jeppiz also accused me of being a nationalist sockpuppet on the Tajiks talk page. This is getting tiresome. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not accuse you. I merely point out we had a serious issue with several socks of a banned user; I have absolutely no idea whether you're a sock of that user or not but I've never believed you to be.Jeppiz (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know if it's worth beating a dead horse, but Scytsari recently came back and his first order of business was to revert User:Vanjagenije four times on Tajiks (5 reverts in total by Scytsari): [244], [245], [246], [247], [248]. His edit summaries are telling. He accuses me of 'vandalism' and sockpuppetry, and accuses Vanjagenije of having a nationalistic agenda and of using an automated bot. He says 'take it to the talkpage' despite the fact that discussion has been going on in the talk page ever since page protection has been applied, and Scytsari has not attempted to take part in the discussion. He hasn't even defended himself here or on the edit warring report filed by Vanjagenije (his response to that on his talk page). Like I said, I don't know if it's worth beating a dead horse when an SPI is already underway, but he has singlehandedly resulted in the page Tajiks being fully protected once again. Elspamo4 (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Singlehandedly is a bit strong when Elspamo4 is the one who "promised" to continue the edit warring as soon as the page protection was lifted [249] and then also did continue [250]. Scytsari definitely has been edit warring on the page, but so has Elspamo4 [251], [252], [253], [254].Jeppiz (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

lol, removing unreferenced information four times within exactly 2 weeks isn't edit warring. It's called clean-up. My first removal wasn't 'edit warring', as I've reiterated time and time again, it was removal of contentious unreferenced material which was challenged by myself and User:Akmal54. By the time of my second, third, and fourth removal (exactly 2 weeks later) the information was still unreferenced and there had been no attempts at finding references by either you or Scytsari. Nor have either of you indicated you would search for references. I even asked User:NeilN whether it would be 'edit warring' if I removed the information after page protection expired and he suggested I remove it and, if reverted, to call on the reverter to provide references - which I have done. So drop the stick. Elspamo4 (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're largely right on the content matter, the problem is that you have one of the strongest battlefield mentalities I've seen on Wikipedia. My comments here are on conduct, not content. One can be "right" regarding a content issue and still behave inappropriately. Across multiple pages, you have shown time and time again that for you, being "right" (ie sharing your opinion) is a blanket excuse for all kinds of conduct. I find that rather troubling and that is what I'm commenting on, not whether some persons should or shouldn't be removed from an article.Jeppiz (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

How else do you expect me to handle this problematic situation? Argue back and forth on the talk page for 2 months over whether or not to keep unreferenced content before giving up out of frustration? If it were a dispute over referenced content, or if someone said "Wait, give me time to find references", I would not have removed the material. But in this case there has been no indication that Scytsari is planning on adding references despite having been allowed 2 weeks to do so. Elspamo4 (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Note I have blocked Scytsari for one week for deliberately logging out and editing as an IP, after they were warned about further reversions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to block both Scytsari and Elspamo4

Having read Elspamo4's reply above, filled with violations of WP:NPA and refusal to WP:HEAR, I've come to the conclusion that both of these users Scytsari and Elspamo4 aren't here for the right reasons, and I believe Elspamo4's reply show it.

• Insisting that one is "right" and thus cannot be guilt of WP:POV is a classic warning. We all have WP:POVs, the point is that we should still respect policies.
• Second, Elspamo4's insistence that they weren't edit warring because you were right is another misunderstanding; being right is no excuse for edit warring, nor does it become less of edit warring because it's "right". I've pointed this out to the user before, their failure to WP:HEAR is worrying.
• Third, it's a bit rich trying to turn my use of the talk page (instead of edit warring) into a problem. Yes, I used the talk page of Tajiks when I saw Scytsari and Elspamo4 edit warring. When Elspamo4 argues that they are not only above rules about edit warring because they are right, but even ridicule users trying to take the issue to the talk page, it's very clear they are not hear for the right purpose.
• Fourth, completely needless insults such as "I don't know if you have literacy issues" above violate WP:NPA, bring nothing to the discussion, and are only intended to turn discussions into a WP:BATTLEFIELD.

I think Elspamo4 has made a convincing case for why Scytsari should be blocked from editing any article related to Tajiks. I also think Elspamo4, through their edit warring, refusal to hear, battlefield mentality and needless personal attacks, has made a convincing case for why they should not edit articles related to Tajiks either. I support a topic ban for both users.Jeppiz (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Further on the same time, Elspamo4 makes it perfectly clear that they will continue to edit war as soon as the page protection expires [255]. In several years at Wikipedia, I've never come across a user who has been so convinced that being right gives them the right to ignore discussions, consensus, rules about edit wars and other details that stop them from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Jeppiz (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And true to form, Elspamo4 did continue the edit warring as soon as the page protection expired [256]. The user obviously is WP:NOTHERE to cooperate with other users.Jeppiz (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Please consider this suggestion withdrawn. Although Elspamo4 may have been a bit trigger happy, I can understand their frustration at making a reasonable request and not getting anywhere. While I think a bit of patience might have been advisable, I'm an impatient guy myself and cannot hold that against them. Having taken the time to look into the whole matter and the behavior of all involved, I strike my suggestion that any action be taken against Elspamo4 who, by the looks of it, is a good faith contributor to the project. As far as I'm concerned, this part of the discussion can be closed by an admin.Jeppiz (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment I've provided my opinion on Talk:Tajiks.[257], [258]. We can't interpret the definition of "Tajik" by Wikipedians' personal analysis (who is Tajik who is not). We should consider how expert sources define it. The best solution is to start by reading related articles/entries at sources like Iranica. Both involved sides have some points. So it's better to request third opinion or dispute resolution. If involved editors don't reach consensus, or ignore valid concerns on talk page, and start edit warring after 2nd protection (current protection), topic-ban or block is necessary for all of them. They can easily solve this dispute on recent related section on talk page. I'm sure if we don't solve it, the next targets of such ethnic wars will be other related articles. --Zyma (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Violation of the article Utigurs

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

---

• 78.159.147.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Utigurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 18:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I want to bring to your attention the behavior of user 78.159.147.70 toward the article "Utigurs". He has been deleting almost the entire article (including parts supported by academic sources) several times after 11/07/2015 without any real explanation.

Thank you. 93.152.143.113 (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Winner 42: any comments on your end about this IP? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @IJBall: Not particularly, just came across them while Huggling a few weeks ago. It looked like drive-by vandalism at the time, mass changes from one term to another with the removal of sourced content are almost always vandalism, but now I am not entirely sure. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Violation of the article Huns

Hello,

The user 78.159.147.70 has deleted newly added information on the article "Huns" supported by academic sources. He didn't really explain why.

Thank you 93.152.143.113 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Diff. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Note that IP 78.159 has done it again, though I really can't tell if there's anything "untoward" going on here. It's removing sourced content, but I don't know if it's questionable content being removed or not. I suspect the bigger issue here is the lack of communication about said edits. I suggest one of the regular editors at these two articles try to discuss with the IP on their Talk page, to see if that gets anywhere... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "sources" without actually providing the sources or an explanation is helpful editing. Anyone who wanders into Balkans and has a edit summary that a source is is not reliable, while changing what a source allegedly says (namely the century of a map and the earliest mention of the name) raises red flags. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

disruption is spreading

The same editors have taken the dispute to a third article, Kubrat, which was brought to RFPP. I've fully protected the page for a week to stop the insanity. I don't claim to know what's going on with Eastern European history, but we're getting into serious disruption territory and there's obviously a larger issue here. KrakatoaKatie 22:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the editor for a week. First, next time WP:AIV is faster than this is, especially when you don't make simple diffs here. Edits like this are unnecessarily aggressive and borderline uncivil for fairly benign editing to me. This edit largely is removing a source under the false edit summary of "Per sources". There is no "source" that justifies removing a source. Let's see if we get a response or is this another of the line of line of editors in that space. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Obstinate reversions by User:JesseRafe at Jahlil Okafor

(moving discussion from WP:AN) User:JesseRafe has been paring down the Jahlil Okafor, which may have been overly detailed. As the primary editor, I am aware that I may have written more details than might have been optimal so I have not argued much about his edits. However, at the conclusion of his edits, I felt his reduction of the images from his high school career from 15 to 6 was not necessarily optimal and have attempted to restore the article to a total of 8 such images. We have been warring about whether a 6-image version or 8-image version is correct. Since that there was only one other discussion this year on Talk:Jahlil Okafor by July 2, I posted a centralized discussion on the issue at WT:NBA at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Removal of dunking and frontal face pictures from Jahlil Okafor except the main image, where I felt many interested parties would be watching. I also left notifications at a few other talk pages that a centralized discussion would be held at this location. Since then, several discussants have contributed thoughts on the images at issue. Epeefleche, Rikster2, DangerousJXD, Handpolk, Editorofthewiki and BU Rob13 have all contributed to the discussion. JesseRafe has not participated in the centralized discussion, but seems to feel that a comment at Talk:Jahlil Okafor in the section where I pointed out the centralized discussion was an adequate response. Currently, two images (File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG and File:20140221 Cliff Alexander and Jahlil Okafor.JPG) remain at issue. I have summarized what I believe to be the opinion on these images in this edit. I have repeatedly notified User:JesseRafe via edit summaries that it seems that these two images are supported by something resembling a consensus. After weeks of debate, he has still not participated in the centralized discussion, but continues to revert my edits. Furthermore, it is my opinion that File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG is about the best picture we have of the subject and his insistence upon its removal is not helpful to the reader. I have warned him not to keep reverting to his version at User_talk:JesseRafe#Warring_warning. Having warned him not to keep reverting, I am now asking for assistance here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Tony's claims in the edit summaries that he has consensus to keep the images are also not fully accurate. That discussion does not have a very clear consensus, and probably needs closure from an uninvolved editor or admin. Either way, the warring behavior in that article is inappropriate. As a side note, this belongs at WP:ANI or WP:AN3. ~ Rob^Talk 00:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Rob, at the time I posted this edit, there was a reasonable consensus regarding File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG, which JesseRafe keeps trying to remove, but I welcome a neutral closure regarding the two images at issue, which is why I have brought the issue to the attention of the admins.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you about the consensus, but I also don't think it's clear-cut enough for someone close to the issue to be able to claim a clear consensus in their favor without a neutral closure, personally. That comment was meant to encourage a neutral closure, not claim any wrongdoing on your part. ~ Rob^Talk 00:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The above was moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Obstinate_reversions_by_User:JesseRafe_at_Jahlil_Okafor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like JesseRafe acted against consensus, at least from my perspective. BU Rob hit the nail on the head. I thought that we should keep the image of the face but remove one of the images from the high school section. An image of Okafor in a Duke uniform would be helpful. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's likely a subjective issue to determine how many and which images are needed, and perhaps can only be decided by a pure count of !votes, but quick glance seems to indicate it's a weak consensus at best. The edit warring by TonyTheTiger and JesseRafe needs to stop. Take the high road, and let another editor make the changes, if any are needed.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Update The discussion referenced above, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Removal of dunking and frontal face pictures from Jahlil Okafor except the main image, has been closed by Ricky81682, who also update the article based on the outcome.—Bagumba (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I closed the WT:NBA discussion, closed the related Talk:Jahlil Okafor discussion and changed the page back to the June version that was being discussed at the talk page. There's a number of changes that need to be done to update the page but hopefully those will not involve arguments about the images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If the only warring that is going on is between the new version with 6 or 8 images, why did the page get reverted to an old 15 image version that no one was arguing for? That seems to be a step backward and the current debate is really over whether we should include 2 specific images in the new version. There is not really a debate about most other changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• It appears that Ricky81682 has revisited the editing of the article and left both of the contentious images (File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG and File:20140221 Cliff Alexander and Jahlil Okafor.JPG) out of the version that he has "restored". It seems that almost all respondents feel that File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG should be in the article whether it be a 6-image or an 8-image version. It seemed that Epeefleche, Rikster2, Handpolk, Editorofthewiki and myself have supported the image being in the article (here or in the previous centralized discussion). Meanwhile, DangerousJXD, JesseRafe and BU Rob13 seemed to oppose that specific image or versions of the article including it. Ricky81682, can you explain why you have restored the 6-image version and not included this particular image, which is probably our best representation of what he looks like. The image seems like it would fit in the upper right of the junior year (where I had it in the 8-image version). Can you comment on this particular image, since these were the two contentious images and you have made no attempt to clarify the omission of this image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Feel free to clarify if I have misinterpreted you, Ricky, but I believe his closing statement made clear that he's reverted to the version that most closely represents the consensus on image density and expects talk page discussion regarding specific image choice. ~ Rob^Talk 23:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Correct. I originally went back to the exact JesseRafe version proposed before but it seems like significant text was edited out which wasn't reflected there. The discussion was not, in retrospect, formatted ideally in my mind. On the basis that the two final reverting versions were similar in their text lengths, I presumed that the one I finally reverted it to was the one that reflects the consensus supporting the text cuts and the consensus from the WT:NBA on the images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I got no issue with File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG being in the article. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• (ec)O.K. I have started a discussion on the images that were at issue there. DangerousJXD can you respond there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've commented there. Obviously, I'm involved now so I wouldn't be the closing admin down the line. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

user:Suastiastu

Hello, I'm here to report the behavior of user:Suastiastu on pushing POV in the article Joko Widodo and pushed the article into the brink of edit-warring. His/her edits more or less violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Most of his/her edits are negative and sounds like a smear campaign. The evidences are (here and here and here). He/she seems to ignore his/her talkpage and the article talk page after my attempts to invite him/her to address and discuss the editing disagreements. I would like to ask for a third-person/editor opinion and senior editor arbitration about this problem. What should we do to solve this...? Thank you. Gunkarta  talk  10:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

LGBT right in Croatia

Hello everyone!

Almost a year ago LGBT rights in Croatia article was a victim of homophobic campaign, and I am sad to see it happening again. Almost a year ago, a particular user got banned as he was making numerous changes not just to this article, but to many other articles concerning LGBT rights. Few days ago I have noticed identical problems happening again, but with a different user called user:sdino, who funilly enough has received warnings for the same things as the user in the past. It might be a coincidence, but it is interesting how both users are from Poland, and declare themselves to be anti gay marriage, very religious, and obviously homophobic. Now, I am not interested in their personal views, but Wikipedia is not a place for this sort of political campaign. This user has made numerous changes to this article in the past days, had removed big portions of it, and has inserted a pie chart, translating Croatian into English wrongly, just to make a point. He claims 45% of people in Croatia are "extremely" against same-sex marriage, but this survey states they are "strongly" against it. This is exactly how the problem started the last time. I argued that we don't need a pie chart for this as there are numerous surveys, and will be in the future so I cannot see the point of having just one pie chart for one survey, and ignore all the others, Which brings us to my argument that we shouldn't really have pie charts for surveys anyway, as it would just create a mess. This might not seem like a big problem, but few days from now we will see this user changing terms, using different words, trying to present LGBT movement as "promotion of homosexuality" etc.

He will make more changes just to create an illusion how people in Croatia hate LGBT individuals, and I would appreciate some help so we can stop this right now. Many people contribute to LGBT right in Croatia article, and have done a fantastic job, so why let anybody spoil it for their homophobia? Thank you very much for reading this. 11raccoon1 (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)11raccoon111raccoon1 (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:11raccoon1 has obviously chosen to go to this board instead of discussing itthe problem that has arisen. I am open to discussion and have put a substantial amount of effort into discussing the matter with User:11raccoon1. I would also like to be informed of this, because I was not, even though the header on this article states: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." – Sdino (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have protected the article for a week. Sdino broke 3RR and was up to seven reverts over three days. If they restore the pie chart again without gaining consensus on the talk page, they will receive a block. Number 57 16:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have reopened this thread. Sdino appears for all intents and purposes to be a single-purpose account whose only role on Wikipedia is to promote opposition to same-sex marriage. I would appreciate it if a few editors would review his contributions to see that they meet NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  hmmmmm. i wouldn't say they're single-purpose. they've edited a decent amount on other things relating to european politics. they definitely do have a lot of edits there, though, and i can definitely see some POV-pushing. poli 23:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Bad edit summary

The following discussion is closed. 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 exactly what this person did to the edit summary here, but it's disruptive, so it would be great if it could get redacted. agtx 20:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Keegan (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

They did the same at the Talk page, and it makes the history look all weird. Mr Potto (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

RevDeled the relevant diffs there as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. 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:Black Yodel No.1 has made a legal threat on his talk page here. I closed the AFD as keep earlier today on the article for which that user created and is the subject of, so could be considered involved, so am reporting this here. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for the obvious legal threat. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would the subject of the article want that article deleted? There's nothing negative in it, so the impression I get is that Black Yodel No.1 isn't the subject of the article but someone who created it and then didn't get the money they wanted, and now want the article deleted because of that. As in a number of recent cases of "article blackmail". Thomas.W ^talk 19:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not the exact version he wanted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh. That's not an article, that's a sales flyer or something. 19:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Materialscientist auto-deleting every new unreferenced statement on Silver 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.

---

Materialscientist is autodeleting any new unreferenced statement on the Silver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. Regardless if it is common scientific knowledge or not. This is very disruptive and is a lockdown on wikipedia saying that every single statement needs to be referenced which, if true, would mean that half of all wiki articles would have to be deleted. Please stop this user from automatically controlling wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.109.195 (talk) 16:46, July 19, 2015‎ (UTC)

• It's not just Materialscientist – MarnetteD also reverted you. And you've made zero attempt to discuss this on the article Talk page first, before running to ANI to report an Admin. Nor did you notify Materialscientist with the {{ANI-notice}} tag on their Talk page as is required. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. I just posted the ANI notice and warnings to both parties about edit warring. This looks like a content dispute/borderline edit war that needs to be settled on the Silver talk page. I suggest we close this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Please discuss this on the article talk page, you can attract outside opinions there. Also please read our verifiability policy, particularly the part about the responsibility for providing citations when challenged. This noticeboard is not for solving content disputes which this is. Chillum 16:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• If I knew how to close a discussion I would close this one. First, it's factually incorrect. "Autodelete"? "...any new unreferenced statement"? And the reverts are hardly on things which are "common scientific knowledge". Add to that IJBall's observation that no discussion was attempted on the talk page, and this is a pretty absurd thread. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Move to close

Clearly a content dispute and thus not something that ANI handles. 68.230.109.195 should discuss the issue on the article talk page and then go to WP:DRR if further assistance is b=needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing to RfC statement.

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

---

Talk page: Talk:Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager#RfC: Is a list of contents in an article about a book unnecessary?

User:STSC and User: Binksternet repeatedly modified my RfC statement, because I just added a description to the statement which virtually invalidates their comments. I request an admin to warn them not to do again.

• 1st STSC strike out my comment
• 2nd STSC moved my RfC statement under the discussion section
• 3rd Binksternet moved my RfC statement under the discussion section

Warning issued: yes

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC statements are supposed to be brief and neutral. [259] Yours is neither. As to whether this legitimises edit-warring over it, I'll not comment - but it certainly doesn't improve your case. I suspect that the only appropriate course here may be for an admin to close the RfC as invalid, and start another. Possibly along with warnings and/or trouts all round. AndyTheGrump (talk)

(edit conflict) In addition, Phoenix, you warned STSC about modifying the RfC, but didn't you do that first? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Invalidate it and make them start over with a neutrally-worded question. We don't know which verson anyone commented on, given that some editors read an RfC and comment much later without checking to see if the question changed. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC invalidated and closed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

COI editor should probably be blocked

I happened to come across Donnie777 (talk · contribs) today. The account has existed since 2010, does not have a large number of edits, but all of the edits appear to be either to Serial Killers Ink, or to spam the latter in other articles, such as [260], [261]. In some cases, the editor has edit warred to force links that cover this website's sales activities [262]. I suspect a conflict of interest and/or outright spamming to promote this site's artwork sales. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Kindzmarauli:, have you talked to him about this? I can't see anywhere that he has had the WP:COI or spamming policies explained. The Taboo edits were from 2012, that's a little stale, and the rest of the edits seem scattered out over the years too. The COI and spamming policies that we have today do not allow us to punish someone for edits that were not violations of policy when they were made. GregJackP Boomer! 01:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The spamming policy has been in place since well before that account was created. You really want the spamming policy explained to someone who (to me, clearly) seems affiliated with SKI and is spamming links to Wikipedia to advertise their store? This is a slam dunk. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there are Wikipedia editors who break all sorts of rules but stop when those rules are explained to them. I am one of them. I cringe at some of the edits I made when I first started editing as an IP nine years ago. Warnings are almost always better than blocking without warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just AfD the article (zero notability), remove the site-wide spam, and report the user at WP:COIN. There's probably no need to block the user unless he persists after that or starts socking. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the site was covered in an episode of a show on the National Geographic Channel so it may be debateable, but I will have a look and consider. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think the subject has notability, I see no problem here -- just remove the links added to other articles that appear too spammy, warn the user, and report him to COIN. In five years he's only edited five articles besides SKI, so it's not really an endless spree. If he keeps edit-warring, then WP:AN3 is the appropriate venue for reporting. Softlavender (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr.

User:InfoLeak, who has only edited the article in question, obviously has a WP:COI and refuses to recognize that Wikipedia is not a memorial. InfoLeak has persisted in restoring unsuitable material, so I have no choice but to request a block. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

WP "Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr."

Wikipedia Administrator

The Wikipedia page "Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr" was Originated and Created by Username: Infoleak who is Oscar's Son (Family)!

Username: Clarityfiend has repeatedly Vandalized and Deleted entire sections of commentary without any authorization or knowledge of the subject.

Therefore, I have to Request WP Administrator Block of Username: Clarityfiend from further editing of content to WP "Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr."

InfoLeak (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF. This poorly attributed paragraph length quote potentially goes against WP:COPYVIO. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

So InfoLeak is reporting himself as the son of the article topic. And the article history shows a WP:3RR violation. And InfoLeak has started an RfM. And I'm just gonna stop there. --Unready (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Five bucks says we get a legal threat from him before talk page access is revoked. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm blocking him. He's pretty much been doing this for years and from what I can see, he's been basically asserting WP:OWNERSHIP over the article since he signed up. I don't see any specific warnings, but he's been making edits similar to this since 2013. The question here is whether it should be permanently or just temporarily. Clarityfiend, offhand I don't see where you tried to explain the reason for your removals in the past, but neither do I see where InfoLeak has asked for any explanation- and his tendency to treat the article like it was "his" genuinely bothers me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• The one thing that does give me pause is that he knew enough about policy to post to the edit warring noticeboard, which gives off the impression that he does have some limited awareness of policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Actually no, I do see where you made some edit summary comments in 2013, so there is some explanation on your part, Clarity. It'd have been better if it was a talk page but it is enough to where Info would have been made aware that this did not fit policy for some reason and the onus would somewhat be on his part to contact you to ask why these changes were done. At no point has he actually done that before seeking punitive action against you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• I posted a link to Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for the editor. I'd suggest giving a chance for them to actually review the ideas there and see if they will acknowledge it. They can still watch the page and interact via posts to the talk page like most COI situations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• I've also posted a longer warning, telling them that if they revert to the prior version they face at least a temporary block. (And a permanent one if they continue after that.) I've also asked them to refrain from directly editing their father's page and to go through a training program as a sign of good faith. So now it's up to them. I have to admit that their ownership/COI overtones aren't exactly promising. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  I would suggest replacing "permanent" with "indefinite". Mr Potto (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  Oh, and there appears to be a spurious "If someone is" phrase in there. Mr Potto (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'd started typing out a longer explanation, then checked here and saw Ricky's post, and then started writing something else partway through and forgot to remove the last part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• I've just noticed that the title of his book is "OSCAR RANDOLPH FLADMARK, JR. Biography By Gary L. Fladmark," so InfoLeak clearly feels some exclusive authorship of the article. The article is also an orphan, which makes notability questionable, even with all the local paper references. I'm kind of wondering if the purpose of the recent edits is to be able to generate and print pdfs for the 60th anniversary of his father's death, which kind of addresses WP:MEMORIAL even more. --Unready (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The original poster has filed a badly formed Request for Mediation, asking the MedCom to block User:Clarityfiend from edits toOscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr.. The fact that that isn't what mediation is for raises competency concerns. Since he has also requested this WP:ANI action, the original poster is also forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Competence? Really? You expect contributors with less than 300 edits to know all the complex ins and outs of Wikipedia dispute resolution policies? I think not. It seems to me that InfoLeak's problems are mostly due to an almost complete failure of anyone to actually explain to him how Wikipedia works - though I note that Tokyogirl79 has at last began that process. [263] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The subject looks notable from the current contents, and the user is trying to provide free knowledge. How about talking him through WP:COI and being neighbourly instead of this drama? Guy (Help!) 23:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Strike that. My bad. The article has referenciness, but the sources are crap. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of suggesting sending this one to AfD – if it's notable, AfD will probably figure it out, and if's not AfD will figure that out too! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

D'oh. You're right. This guy doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Is it permissible to Afd this during an ANI, or is it better to wait for this to wrap up? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just pointing that out that if you indelicately AfD the article on the 60th anniversary of the subject's death, you're probably going to amplify the reaction. This is an editor who has devoted his entire experience on Wikipedia to writing and maintaining his father's page. --Unready (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say under these circumstances it'd be best to wait a couple of weeks and try to look for sources. Unready is right - nominating it right now wouldn't be the most tactful way to go about this. If the COI here wasn't so strong (meaning that I don't really want the guy directly editing his dad's page) and it hadn't been in the mainspace for so long, I'd suggest sending it to the draftspace. However considering that non-involved editors are pretty much the only people left to edit the article are people that might stumble upon the page (something that is far more unlikely to occur in the draftspace), it'd be more beneficial to keep it in the mainspace during the waiting period. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• It'd also be good to have a little cool down period to look for sources since that way it wouldn't be seen as a knee jerk reaction. In any case, I am finding some profile listings in some museums. However I almost never edit articles on soldiers that aren't notable for some other reason, so I'm not entirely sure that this would really be something that would give a ton of notability. It might be a sign of notability but then it could also be a routine database listing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Tokyogirl79, I have posted a few additional comments to your posting on the InfoLeak talk page which should help you in your search for additional information regarding Wikipedia page.2602:306:CC4B:B989:2C1C:8F30:AAD8:2DE4 (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that InfoLeaks's purpose in creating the article was to create a book about his father, because that's the first thing he did after completing the article. Hence he doesn't want anyone messing with it. OK, so that's one problem. The second problem is his attitude, which is going to get him in some form of hot water if it doesn't radically change. The third problem is the notability of the article subject itself. Does anyone know the notability guidelines for soldiers? Is this article an AfD candidate? If so, who is going to do the honors? Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine and all but I think WP:THERAPY is relevant in that whether or not the editor will take this personal is not really our concern. Does the article pass Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People? If you think so, improve it. If not, list it for deletion. Either InfoLeaks will pay attention and be helpful or the editor won't be but that's not for us to solve today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted every point I made. I said that InfoLeak's purpose in creating the article, and his attitude, are the problems. I also asked for someone else (not me) to decide whether the subject meets the relevant guidelines, and if not to nominate if for AfD (as noted, I'm not going to make that call). In any case, InfoLeak has disappeared from here, which is not really appropriate after filing an AfD. If we don't hear from him one way or another, perhaps this thread should be closed before it boomerangs on him. He's making far too many missteps for his own good and needs to calm down and learn (perhaps at the Teahouse) before he shoots himself in the foot. Softlavender (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I understood. I just disagreed that someone else had to nominate it for AFD. Whether or not he'll calm down, that's not our job to figure out past explaining the policies here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

AfD

An AfD has been opened. BMK (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Copyright violation templates by User:Megane1523

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

---

• Megane1523 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Megane1523 kept deleting the copyright violation notices from an article called Soundtruck even after I warned her to stop. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Stalking by User:138.86.176.123

The following discussion is closed. 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 quite obviously being stalked by the above IP. His contributions today consist only of blind revisions of edits I have made. It is my belief that this may relate to my recent edits on Bear Creek High School (Denver, Colorado). Please block the IP forthwith and proceed with any sock investigation you deem appropriate. Thanks. Since there is a question of socking I am not notifying per WP:SOCK. John from Idegon (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:DUCK. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Removing Rights

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

---

Would an administrator please remove my rollback and reviewer rights? Thanks in advance. Ж ^{(Cncmaster) T/C/AVA/RfA-C} 20:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Rezart Taci

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

---

Hi, I am here to report Rezart Taçi (talk · contribs) as an admin at AIV said that AIV was not correct place.

This user keeps adding logos on kits for football teams, the latest yesterday despite a final warning just three days ago. The editor has been notified not to do this here (with level 1 warning), here (separate message), here (reminder), here (new message from another user). He has a total of three final warnings, for different reasons and has not said a word to anyone and keeps editing kits everywwhere.

I was hoping for a block at AIV, but when they said AIV was not the right place for these issues as it was not clear vandalism, I report here.

As I side note, I just remembered User:Rizky Iconia who is a blocked sockmaster. All he did also was to go around changing kits on football articles. Have not had the time to investigate, but it could be same user? Qed237 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be surprised if they are User:Rizky Iconia. Meanwhile, since they persist in disruptive editing despite multiple warnings, and have not engaged at all on talk pages, I have blocked them for a week. If they return and continue as before, I suspect the next step is an indef block whether they are a sock or not. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Block evasion / disruptive editing

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

---

Hi, 5.107.141.101 continuing on from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/92.96.206.60/Archive has now moved onto dumping their version of the article into Messianic prophecies. It was suggested to me that this was a better place to report than adding SPIs. Also related to this previous ANI "Theories of Muhammad in the Bible" Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Kolomiychuk

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

---

The user is on a crusade. They are changing raions of Ukraine into districts (breaking markup), even though there was consensus to call them raions. Basically, all of their contribution are maklup breaking and reverts. My attempts to explain WP:CONSENSUS to them at their talk page ended up in their statements that "districts is correct" and suggestion that I should not touch the topic since I am not Unkrainian. I am afraid at this point administrative intervention would be required.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ymblanter removes Ukraine from countries list (Article District). Guess, he thinks it's not a country or something etc. There are a lot of articles called district of Russia, he doesn't remove or revert it. I asked him not to remove Ukraine or remove Russia as well. It's just not fair! I started consensus about Districts, I even didn't know I have to. I'm a new here. This article is wrong and I'm trying to fix it to improve Wikipedia. There are a lot of incorrect articles about Ukraine on Wikipedia. It's weird for me. You can block me if you want. Now I know that's no sense to look for something on Wikipedia, cause no one cares about its content at all. I'm disappointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolomiychuk (talk • contribs) 06:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Which perfectly illustrates my point.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 31h, if he agree to edit constructively, please unblock him or her Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Vanished user 6251

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

---

Vanished user 6251 has returned to editing and appears to be involved in an editing ring under discussion at WP:COIN. Since this has the earmarks of some kind of bad-faith evasion of scrutiny against policy/guidelines spelled out at WP:VANISH, and could be hindering full investigation of the COI case (especially lack of access to prior talkpage), I request that the vanishing be rescinded. — Brianhe (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Technically, this should be handled at WP:BN I have recently found. It can be handled here, but generally speaking, if there is clear and convincing evidence, there isn't a need for a debate and the Crats have the authority to simply reverse a vanishing. And if the evidence is clear and convincing, it is faster there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, unless I've missed something I don't believe that this is a vanished account. Rather, an account that was created with the name "Vanished user 6251". Mike V • Talk 02:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, it is a direct violation of Wikipedia:Username policy: "Inappropriate usernames... Usernames that appear similar to naming conventions used by community administrative processes, such as those starting with Vanished user". AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It is the case. Per the log: "12:51, 23 June 2015 User account Vanished user 6251 (talk | contribs | block) was created". Feel free to handle it the same as any other username violation. No bureaucrats need be involved in this one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by Forty.4

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

---

Could an admin kindly take a look at the series of personal attacks from Forty.4 (talk · contribs) please? I understand the standard of civility is pretty low these days, but "oh 'waaah, boo hoo' ... please fuck off" laced with other profanities seems like a personal attack after a uw-npa4 warning. Previous incidents: "stop blowing your wad on my talk page. maybe see about getting a life." and "Maybe breathe and think". All warnings and/or discussions have been blanked from his/her talk page. Thanks. The Dissident Aggressor 21:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily count "Fuck off" as a personal attack. "Fuck you", yes. Regardless, their edit summaries are very uncivil. This edit summary really pushes my boundaries as well. However, despite the verbal abuse, if you will, this edit summary is the one that pisses me off the most. "Maybe see about getting a life."? Woah, woah, woah. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 22:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

LMFAO. This is pathetic beyond belief. I'm under no obligation to be nice to you, and Wikipedia is not censored. It's not my concern if 'profanity' upsets you (sorry for the naughty F in LMFAO!). And if you'll consult WP:NPA, you'll notice that making serious allegations (like, oh, I don't know... of sockpuppetry) is considered a personal attack if you don't have serious evidence to back it up. Oops. / To anyone else responding here, understand that this editor has taken to 'litigating' against me simply because he lost an editing dispute at Talk:Ceschi, after impulsively slapping me with a 'three revert' warning that he then deleted when he realised it had never actually happened. Maybe if he wasn't engaging in that kind of tendentious shit people would be more inclined to be polite to him. Instead he's making unsubstatiated accusations of sockpuppetry against me out of spite. So he can absolutely thoroughly fuck decidedly off. - Forty.4 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for article content. Talking like a low-life doesn't qualify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying Wikipedia is censored in that case, ie: 'profanity' is prohibited. I doubt it. Please point me to the policy. - Forty.4 (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The rule of the day is civility, and both Baseball_Bugs and Forty.4 are lacking in it right now. Directing four-letter words at people is not civil. Implying that someone is a "low-life" is not civil. Let's not do either. agtx 23:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talking like a low-life does not necessarily equate to being a low-life. But when someone talks like a low-life, it does not serve them well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Look, this isn't the first time I've seen you on this board making thinly veiled disparaging remarks about people or groups of people. I would submit to you that when such comments occur to you, you would be better served to keep them to yourself. agtx 23:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I would submit that refraining from talking like a low-life is good and useful advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Forty.4, how about reading what WP:NOTCENSORED actually says - it solely concerns article content, and has nothing whatsoever to do with communication between individuals. We can and do block people for incivility. I should know, having been blocked for it myself in the past... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, I can tell him to 'go away', but not to 'fuck off'. 'Piss off'? 'Get lost'? These all more or less emphatic ways of saying the same thing. How civil do I have to be to someone who is tendentiously posting cease-and-desists on my talk page for things I haven't done and making spurious accusations of sockpuppetry against me out of spite? If 'fuck off' isn't a personal attack, and 'talking like a low-life' is permitted even if it makes some people's monocles fall out, I don't see what the issue is here. - Forty.4 (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Tell me how your gross profanities are not "talking like a low-life." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

BB please stop. Just because your wording is not a personal attack does not mean that saying this over and over is not uncivil. You are creating a distraction from the issue at hand. Chillum 01:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha, I think we might have different standards as to what constitutes "gross profanity" (and maybe different attitudes to social class on top of that). But I'm not interested in your opinion. So if there's a policy I'm violating in using the word 'fuck' on Wikipedia talk pages, point me to it, otherwise feel free to... move along. - Forty.4 (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A word of advice. Wikilawyering about what you can or cannot do as regards to profanities is seldom productive - it tends to be seen (like most Wikilawyering) as evidence that you aren't actually here to contribute towards the project. Ultimately, we don't need rules to give people who aren't contributing the boot. We can just do it - because nobody has any right to contribute. You would be well advised to shut the something-or-other up, and instead demonstrate that you are worth having around. Before we come to the conclusion that you aren't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

How you present yourself is important. When you get older, you may discover that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

OMG personal attack! NPA! NPA! Call the Wikipolice! ◔_◔ - Forty.4 (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Focus on content and you'll be fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The policy you're completely missing - even after it was pointed out numerous times - is Wikipedia:Civility. It's not about "bad words" but how you use them. Stating that someone is ejaculating semen on your talk page is pretty far out there by anyone's definition. The Dissident Aggressor 00:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, right. You mean incivility like "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" and the failure to "assume good faith". Telling you to 'go away' in response to these actions (albeit in more emphatic or *gasp* 'profane' terms) is the real issue though. (And apparently the phrase "blowing your wad" when used figuratively to suggest that someone has acted without due consideration, is a deeply offensive personal attack for some reason, even when it's an accurate assessment of what happened - who knew!). You're absolutely blameless, of course. How about you go back to Talk:Ceschi and make an actual argument in support of your edits instead of indulging in all this trumped up [expletive deleted to protect the delicate]? I'm more than happy to continue that discussion. It's you that derailed any constructive work on the article with this petty histrionic nonsense the second you started losing the argument. - Forty.4 (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

My opinions have prevailed and not prevailed in discussions many times. No big deal. Filing an SPI with evidence is neither failing to assume good faith, nor is it a personal attack.

However, your continued insistence that your uncivil behavior is justified is the problem and an indication that it is likely to continue, which is why we're here. The Dissident Aggressor 01:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support a short block - Since the subject editor is showing a case of I didn't hear that with regard to the advice to be civil, and is wikilawyering incorrectly about WP:NOTCENSORED, a block may be necessary to get their attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support short(24-48hr) block It is hard enough to resolve content issues between good faith editors without having to put up with abuse ones. All of the wikilawyering in the world about what is and is not a personal attack does not change the fact that this user is being very uncivil. Short block to start, longer if this keeps up. I would not consider this necessary if the user gave any indication they realized it was not acceptable. Chillum 01:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I honestly find it kind of amazing that DissidentAggressor's behaviour is not being considered a factor here. There's only so far that someone can be provoked and be reasonably expected to remain civil. - Forty.4 (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, you didn't answer/comment on Chillum's remark re you indicating you now realise your behaviour was not acceptable. Say yes, and I guess the short block threat will cease. The SPI Case is a different matter which will doubtless take its course. Moriori (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Nah. I mean, I realise I'm being uncivil, but it's ridiculous to expect unconditional civility. Context is important. The SPI is too much, and so clearly in bad faith. - Forty.4 (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support short block. If only to show that we can and do block for incivility, and that arguing the contrary doesn't get far... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support short block One of the basic rules I have tried (not always perfectly) to adopt, is that if almost everyone in a discussion is telling me I'm wrong; then I probably am wrong. I don't think Forty.4 gets it. Hopefully a short time out will help. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support short block I typically don't pay any mind to uncivil comments, but Forty's conduct has been far too abrasive to let him off without any sort of repurcussions. Elspamo4 (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support short block. Either that or just be done with it and announce that ANI does not enforce civility. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Help with unsalting a 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.

---

Need Misty Edwards unsalted as a substantially better article has been created via AfC Draft:Misty Edwards that I believe to be ready for mainspace. Also, could you please tell me if this is the appropriate place to post such requests, as I was unable to find a solid place to post for help on issues like this. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I checked the state of the article which was deleted in 2010, and this one seems to meet all of the notability issues which were missing in 2010, largely because there's 5 more years worth of refs. But the draft looks to me to meet the minimum notability standards at WP:GNG so I unsalted it. In the future, WP:AN is probably a more appropriate board, FWIW. --Jayron32 05:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User FifthAve101 (report to be blocked from editing)

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

---

• FifthAve101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@FifthAve101: User has consistently added unsourced material in WP:BLP, as well as other pages. He was given numerous warnings on his talk page and he elected to ignore them. His most recent disruptive edit was on Danilo Anđušić's article were he added P.A.O.K. BC as the player's current team ([264]), when there is only transfer speculation and not an official announcement on the club's website. Additionally, no reference was provided for his edits. This is typical of the user's editing and since he was given numerous warnings and hasn't complied he should be blocked from editing. A notice has been left on his talk page, concerning this report. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 09:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Many Talk page warnings, has themselves never touched a Talk page, several controversial page moves... Yeah, something probably should be done about FifthAve101 here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked for a week. This isn't WP:AIV. Use that next time rather than here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Greece national football team - God help us

The following discussion is closed. 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 totally unbelievable but unfortunately I have to spend my time on an "issue" like this. User:IM-yb is trying to drive us all crazy. He replaces the crest of the Greek national team which is this (as everyone in the world knows): [265] (I hereby provide you with some links (!!!) [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273] etc) with the logo of the Hellenic Football Federation. As you know, in every national football team article in wikipedia we use the official jersey crest and not the logo of each country's football federation:

• France national football team - French Football Federation
• Germany national football team - German Football Association
• Spain national football team - Royal Spanish Football Federation

In some cases the team's jersey crest is the same with the federation's logo. But in any case, in wikipedia national football team articles we use the jersey crest. This is something self-evident and we shouldn't even argue about this. Being completely unable to engage in a dialogue with this user (he is headstrong, I don't understand his English, I can't communicate with him, and ultimately, I don't want to spend my time on such obvious matters), I am urging the admins to give their ruling on that "issue" and decide what's right and what's wrong. When I reverted his edit, he posted this answer on my talk page: [274]: "I believe the crest of the national team is better about beauty, but is wrong, because the official sources has the Hellenic Football Federation logo as the official emblem. Because i am interested about logos of the national teams, many teams has the federation logo as official, regardless if they has another in the shirt. The others showing another logo in official sources (electronic bulletin boards, official banners and in the official websites of the federations) only for the national team. In another same articles, the logo of the shirt put in the text, not in the infobox, if it isn't official".

I am really looking forward to your intervention. Thank you so much for your attention, Gtrbolivar (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This is obviously a content issue that needs resolving on the article's talkpage. User:IM-yb has only made a few edits on the article (I was expecting the article history to be a wave of back-and-forth edit wars), and you've not notified them of this discussion either. Quick, before a boomerang hits you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just thought I would point out that, no, not "everyone in the world knows" as many people (including myself) care little about soccer. What you've got here is a content dispute that admins cannot rule on. Your best bet is the dispute resolution noticeboard or raising an RFC. As a final point, I find your tone highly condescending and arrogant to a degree. You might consider that this editor may find it as difficult to discuss with you as you do with them because of this. Blackmane (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It does not receive the same coverage or interest in the United States that it does in the rest of the world, so I advise you to take a less arrogant tone. American admins simply aren't exposed to it unless we make a specific effort, and I for one would really appreciate it if requests for action on the subject contained some kind of brief explanation so we can sort of know what we're doing. When I hear about football, I don't know what the X national federation does or doesn't do for the X national team. I do know that I want my people to knock the holy snot out of those people and shove 'em into the middle of next year. KrakatoaKatie 16:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I like Linus on kernel management style and try to remember it for things having nothing to do with Linux. --Unready (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

notified IM-yb. Blackmane (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello to all. I believe the crest of the national team is better about beauty, but is wrong, because the official sources has the Hellenic Football Federation logo as the official emblem. Because i am interested about logos of the national teams, many teams has the federation logo as official, regardless if they has another in the shirt. The others showing another logo in official sources (electronic bulletin boards, official banners and in the official websites of the federations) only for the national team.

• onsports.gr
• epo.gr Greece vs Latvia, electronic bulletin board
• epo.gr Greece vs Latvia
• epo.gr Romania vs Greece

In the same cases, quote examples:

1. Official logo of federation and official logo of national team used in wikipedia infoboxes:

• Royal Spanish Football Federation in contrast to Spain national football team, official source ([275])
• Scottish Football Association ([276]) in contrast to Scotland national football team ([277]), in the same official source

1. Official logo of federation used and unofficial logo of national team not used in wikipedia infoboxes:

• Liechtenstein Football Association official logo ([278]), Liechtenstein national football team unofficial logo in official shirt ([279]), like Greece
• Polish Football Association official logo ([280]), Poland national football team unofficial logo in official shirt ([281])), like Greece

And many other quotes, who the logo of the shirt don't used in official case by the official football governing bodies. Wikipedia follow that sources. --IM-yb (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This is no doubt the biggest problem the people of Greece will face in 2015. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So it's not their resistance to doing the sensible thing, and bringing back the Drachma?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that now. The links of the sources and my text deleted in the article [282]. I don't know what should I do in this case. --IM-yb (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I explain the logic that we follow in the same articles in en:wiki. I used the official sources of the official football governing bodies. I want the protection of my text and logo changes from Wikipedia:Vandalism, without edit wars. --IM-yb (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall, IM-yb, Blackmane, Unready, Lugnuts, and Gtrbolivar:Comment: I think that the best place to reach consensus on this issue would be the talk page of WikiProject Football. It would attract a sufficient number of users that, additionaly, are engaged in the writing of football related articles. I don't think that the article's talk page is the right place for this, since this could be recurring in every national team article. It would be time saving to make this discussion once and for all. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 15:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, though as I suggested, a formal RfC would be best. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

IJBall you could start the RfC and I'll provide a link to your RfC on the talk page of WikiProject Football in order to attract users in the discussion. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 16:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer not to be the one to start the RfC – I don't really have a dog in this hunt. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree Hansi667. It is a good idea. --IM-yb (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Now found the official page in facebook, of the Greece national team ([283]). In this page the Hellenic Football Federation presents the crest of the kit as the official logo of the national team. I put the source in the logo summary. Therefore, I accept this logo and I do not change it again. Hansi667 and IJBall the RfC is no longer necessary. --IM-yb (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Course of action?

Without a shred of arrogance, I don't understand what he is suggesting here. If there's someone here who did understand please let us know. The crest of the Greek national football team has been there for years, it is our official jersey crest. This user is trying to replace it with the logo of the Hellenic Football Federation, which is utterly wrong and (excuse my tone) ridiculous. How can I open a public discussion about this? I mean, seriously, this cannot stand. Unfortunately, we'll end up arguing the most obvious and self-evident facts here in wikipedia. Wikipedia simply cannot become a shelter for any headstrong user who wants to impose his own erroneous and distorted point of view on everybody else, just because he has all the time in the world available.

On every other dispute I had with this user, he simply imposed his point of view (which was completely wrong and against every wikipedia rule) firstly because he has enormous amounts of time available and secondly because there is nobody else to stop him and put an end to his arbitrary actions. So I am looking forward to your advice admins: What is the proper course of action from here? I want a public discussion and a consensus from a vast majority of users. We cannot let IM-yb to do whatever he wants just because nobody cares. If we have to prove and argue about the most obvious and self-evident facts, if that's what it takes, we'll do it. Gtrbolivar (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Worst case scenario: you can hold an WP:RfC about this – I am certain the overwhelming opinion will be to use the Greek national football team crest. And, to answer your question, no, I have no idea what IM-yb is trying to say... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input IJBall. What should I do to start a WP:RfC, could somebody help me with the procedure? My ultimate goal is to involve as many people as possible. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority will go for the obvious, for the self-evident. The fact alone that we're losing our time to discuss such an "issue" really sends me over the edge. Anyway, I'd really appreciate any help. Gtrbolivar (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

IJBall the logo of the shirt of the Greece national football team dont't used officialy by the Hellenic Football Federation (epo.gr), who is the only responsible for the national team. In en:wiki, logos who doesn't used officialy by the football federations of the countries, dont't used in the infoboxes. Gtrbolivar overtake that and make copyright violation with this action. Gtrbolivar has three reverts in 24 hours ([284], [285], [286], Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule). Knowledge received and you (admins) are responsible to comply that user. --IM-yb (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content

• Policy
  • 4. Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia :by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor.

Βased on the above this is copyright violation. --IM-yb (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

In the national teams infoboxes (like Poland national football team), we don't use the kit crest ([287]), if it is not published by the national federation (Polish Football Association) who is responsible. --IM-yb (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Responsibility

I respect the official symbols of organizations, companies, clubs and other frames. I don't play with that and some times my edits was guide for other editors, who respect that work (some examples: I use sources in talk page of Council of Europe and make the necessary edits in the article me and after other editor, also a third editor added additional source in talk page. I informed the other editors in the article 2015 Copa America about the unofficial fair use logo and other editors acted to correct the problem). I use sources about logos, flags and other emblems and not make or use fake or unofficial symbols in articles of Wikipedia.

I believe in your responsibility and your will to the preservation of reliability of Wikipedia. Unsourced or fake data who they are liable to cause confusion, has not place in Wikipedia articles infoboxes. The policies (Verifiability) and guidelines (MOSLOGO) are clear in that issue. I want to follow the example of other same articles, which harmonized with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. What can I do to implement the policy and guideline and don't have edit war? I want the permission from administrators to implement the policy and guideline. --IM-yb (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ι apologize about my level in English language. I kindly ask for your understanding about that. Thank you. --IM-yb (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Because the issue is complicated, the consensus of the editors in the talk page of WikiProject Football, is a good road to solution. --IM-yb (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Splashyelephant2003

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

---

• Splashyelephant2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Splashyelephant2003 is a new contributor, who's sole edits [288] have been to repeatedly edit the infobox for an article on Liberland - an entirely unpopulated plot of land on the disputed Croatia/Serbia border which has been declared as a 'micronation' by a Czech libertarian politician. Needless to say, the 'micronation' has received no recognition whatsoever. Despite having no recognition, and a population of zero, the individual behind this is apparently issuing 'citizenships', and Splashyelephant2003 has chosen to add these as either 'population' or 'members' to the infobox - sourced solely to a 'Liberland' website. [289] I have repeatedly asked Splashyelephant2003 to stop doing this, as it is a clear violation of NPOV to imply that such numbers have any legal meaning, and that we would require third-party sourcing (though of course 'members' is an inappropriate field to use anyway - it is intended for another purpose entirely - e.g. as used in our Hanseatic League article). Splashyelephant2003 however refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion - though s/he did decide to ask whether I was 'croation' in an edit summary, suggesting that this was evidence of bias [290]. Since it seems apparent that Splashyelephant2003 will continue adding this promotional nonsense to the article indefinitely unless obliged not to do so, I request that s/he be blocked from editing until he agrees to discuss the matter properly, to comply with Wikipedia NPOV policies, and not to engage in further promotion based on nothing but the imaginary nation's own website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk about SPA. Looks like they may have stopped, though. I've issued a final final warning and added the article to my watchlist. Bishonen | talk 18:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC).

Splashyelephant2003 is once again edit-warring rather than discussing content issues: [291] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Thank you, Andy. Bishonen | talk 11:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC).

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

Wynn vale

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

---

Recently I had cause to look up a neibouring suburb ie Wynn Vale in South Australia listed as part of its attractions is Football and other sporting clubs your failure to mention the biggest junior soccer club in Australia is my concern. Regards Scott Baird — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.137.110 (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If you would like to suggest an article, please visit WP:AFC for help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 13#KartRocket and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 14#Patty Walters

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

---

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 13#KartRocket and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 14#Patty Walters? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Procedural question: For future reference, shouldn't requests like this more correctly go to WP:AN? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Genaro García Luna

There appears to be a slow revert war going on in this article, with User:DenialTon and User:Random mesh removing a section about his involvement with organized crime and other users (including unregistered ones) re-adding it. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Definitely something weird going on here at Genaro García Luna with DenialTon (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and Random mesh (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (who in at least one place seem to be editing towards a common goal). This most recent edit by User:DenialTon is definietly concerning (removal of sourced content), but it looks like both DenialTon and Random mesh have been trying to remove this sourced content for a while (note this edit summary for Random mesh). It would probably be a good idea if an Admin looked at this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I have restored the content that was removed in June. We'll see what happens with the two editors above now. Meanwhile, more eyes on the Genaro García Luna article might be a good idea – it looks to me like the article could probably use some work, regardless... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Yoshi123Yoshi

• Yoshi123Yoshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This editor appears to be an single purpose account pushing a fringe point of view about Standard penetration tests in that article and in Boring (earth). He seems to be here to right great wrongs and is not here to help write a neutral point of view encyclopedia. A number of editors have reverted his edits and posted on his talk page, but he continues as if he he didn't hear what they said. If he doesn't start to contribute in a more productive and less biased way, I believe he should be blocked from editing indefinitely. BMK (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This definitely looks like someone attempting to take us away from a neutral point of view: the SPT page presents a single perspective, someone brings in a source that offers a different perspective, and others do their best to get it suppressed. Unless you have a very solid reason for what you're doing, your edit-warring will produce a WP:BOOMERANG situation. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I think you had best get your facts straight, since I, Beyond My Ken, who filed this report, have made a only single edit to Standard penetration test and none at all to Boring (earth). I have not been involved in any edit warring, and can't imagine why I would be eligible for a boomerang. I suggest you read Yoshi123yoshi's talk page, and his statement just below, and check his contribution list. The article's talk pages would be useful as well - but the content dispute is obviously not relevant here, just the behavior of the editors, which was the basis for my report. BMK (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear, about boring(earth) and SPT

I believe I was very willing to talk about technical matter on SPT. I wrote in talk section, mailed User:Argyriou prvoded him enough links written in English.

I did not want people to misunderstand that I am only babbling with my fantasy so what I did was to privide the source from PWRI and NARO ,both the National Research and Development Agency of Japan. My writing is only a brief explanation/summarization about the source articles. Even though I mentioned Argyriou about PWRI and its legitimacy, he kept deleting so I had to mention about PWRI on SPT log/history. He stopped deleting a couple of weeks. And then he deletes again and this time he referenced the PWRI link for his writing. This can be confirmed from SPT history.

Anyone who has actually read the PWRI article would know Argyriou has never read it. His overly generalized explanation about the defects of SPT is not what the PWRI article says at all. It is not something one can summarize in one sentence.

If one demands the neutral point of view, it has to be the neutral point of view and fairness in technology.

Although User:Beyond My Ken says great many reverted my writing, it was only Argyriou. Now User:Beyond My Ken reverts my NARO part so it adds up to two i believe. Of course BMK has the right to criticize me, but at least could BMK provide enough reason why he deleted the NARO part in SPT before trying to shut me out? NARO is like IEEE in the US. NARO gave an endorsement to some machine that has overcome SPT problems.

To me it is far more strange why Argyriou kept deleting my explaining and made the source reference I found as his and again deleting my summarization. I have no intention to start another edit-war, but I want BMK to un-revert what he deleted in SPT.

Thank you.

Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Although Argyriou was the only other editor besides myself to revert your edit on Standard penetration test, Jim.henderson also reverted your edit on Boring (earth), so the situation is not as straightforward you vs. him as you present it, and my statement that "A number of editors have reverted [your] edits" is correct. BMK (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Argyriou and Jim.henderson have been mentioned by name, I have informed them both of this discussion. BMK (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Q to BMK: Is there a way to get experts or people knowledgeable in the field to comment at this ANI (e.g., post notes on the article Talk page and on the talk page of the relevant WikiProjects)? I tried looking at this when the ANI was posted but found it slightly too obscure for me to want to try to fathom. Softlavender (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have posted neutral pointers to this discussion on the talk pages of WikiProject Civil Engineering and WikiProject Geology. Let's see if that accomplishes anything. BMK (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against Mr. User:jim.henderson's editing in Boring(earth); all he did was deleting Boring comment I did but left the title and redirected to SPT. I actually mailed him thank you note a couple of days ago. You can ask him that. So that leaves just Argyriou and BMK. You, BMK, started jumping in just a couple days ago deleting NARO part in SPT. I really want you to stop using "great many," and provoke others to shut me out and at the same time secretly deleting NARO part in SPT. To my point of view, it is really BMK, you, the one who has not been true to others. Has anyone actually tried to read the PWRI article although it is in Japanese???? If you have, you will know what I mean. PWRI and NARO are the National Research and Development Agency of Japan like I said, not some civil-engineer-wannbes-lunatics!! All I did was summarization. Like I said, I want BMK to un-revert what he deleted in SPT. I've worked in this industry, worked with some notable professors. I know pros and cons. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop exaggerating, please. I didn't "jump in and start deleting", I reverted the article to its stable version with a single edit. I never said "a great many editors", I said "a number of editors," which is accurate. You're not going to get anywhere by levellling charges that are easily disproved by any editor interested in taking a look, and you're not going to bully me into reverting by invoking authority I have no way of checking on.

If you want your information to be accepted into the article, you need to reach a WP:consensus with the other editors on the article's talk page, not continue to try to force the edit into the article for months at a time. (See Yoshi123Yoish's article contributions, which indicates that this campaign began back in mid-April.) If you cannot reach a consensus, there are methods of WP:dispute resolution which you can pursue, but trying to bulldoze the article is not one of them. BMK (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I said "start jumping in and delete," not "jump in and start deleting." What I meant by "start jumping in and delete" is that you, BMK, reverted my work once a couple of days ago all the sudden. I had impression that you were trying to wage an edit-war on　be half of Argyriou. You had not taken a part in this editing problem with me and Argyriou. You are right about "a number of people." English is not my native tongue. Besides, Mr. User:jim.henderson's editing is very reasonable and I have nothing against his editing. His editing was nothing like Argyriou's. I fully accept his change. You cannot make his editing comparable to Argyriou's. Practically, User:Argyriou was the only one who has been deleting my writing. Have you googled NARO and PWRI?? For NARO: http://www.naro.affrc.go.jp/english/index.html, for PWRI: https://www.pwri.go.jp/eindex.html It provides info about NARO and PWRI in English. Can you ask for help on Japanese? If it makes you happy, I can translate, but NARO article has 26 pages of technical writing comparing the boring machine and NSWS talking about the necessity of NSWS. And like I said I provided Argyriou other source in English, mailed him. If you want to read an English academic paper, this is the link: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/120003726151. The author is Associate Ph.D Shinya Inazumi from National Institute of Technology, Akashi Colldge, teaching civil engineering. You can contact him for more info. Anyway, Argyriou did not listen at all. And he made the PWRI link as his reference and kept deleting my writing. Whose act is more strange? Do you know anything about SPT and civil engineering? NARO and PWRI are as legitimate as they can be and careful about what they write. And one more thing I never deleted Argyriou's writing. He is the one who kept deleting my writings without productive talk. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

As I've said above, the content dispute should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. It looks very much like the point of view you're attempting to add to the article may be a WP:FRINGE POV, which is not generally accepted within the field, and needs to be evaluated for the WP:WEIGHT it should be given in the article. Those, too, are content issues and can only be decided on the article talk pages, or on the talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects. Please do not continue to argue the content issues here - go to the article's talk page and argue it there, or pursue dispute resolution.

Here, the issues I raised are that you are a WP:SPA, a single-purpose account whose only reason for editing is to make the changes you want in those two articles. This is verified by your article contributions. You exhibit I didn't hear that behavior, where you're told something repeatedly by other editors and yet ignore it and continue on the same pathway. All this appears to add up to your not being here to help create a neutral encyclopeda. You can respond to those issues here, not the content issues, please. BMK (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Prasenjitmouri

User:Prasenjitmouri has all the telltale signs of a spamming sockpuppet. Start with some token edits. Wait until auto-confirmed. Create a token user page so it's not redlinked. Create a redirect where an article will be placed [292] (redirect to avoid NPPs from seeing the article). Upload a fully formed promotional article with lots of references [293] (quality of the refs are not important so long as there is lots). Do other random stuff so you don't look like a single purpose account. Problem is (besides the spamming and socking) their busy work involved dumping in Fictitious references. [294] Reference talks about a person, Bianca Nickleberry, not the place Nickleberry, Texas. [295] Article talks about a current turntable, not the 1980s Mister Disc. [296] are not about Audio Visual Warning Systems. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, these are indeed classic signs of what yiu describe, Duffbeerforme, but it's cicumstantial evidence. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung. The fake references are not circumstantial evidence. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've witnessed similar behavior. User:Prasenjitmouri added a blank "Bloomberg" reference to SearchLock (see diff: Special:Diff/668136021/667376998) after it was nominated for deletion, and has not cooperated in helping me track down the issue number (since there is no mention of Searchlock in any online bloomberg publication), yet has had plenty of time to go on a "oneref" and "citation needed" spree on other articles. The Morningstar reference does not technically exist either, as it's from their automatic archive of Marketwired, a standard anything-goes press release website. Misleading. Wieldthespade (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed this behavior from this user as well and have found it to be extremely suspicious. As I noted on their talkpage, they randomly italicized titles of articles a few times before creating their spam page (that still got speedy deleted). I think it's safe to say that this user is WP:NOTHERE. agtx 22:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Help from Russian speaking admin needed

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

---

A very persistent IP-hopping individual claiming to represent the Diocese of Smolensk and Vyazma has for some time now been regularly spamming a link to the Russian Orthodox Church (http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/) on a large number of articles relating to Russia and Russian history, brushing off all objections to the links with edit summaries and user talk page comments like "The ROC is higher of any rules of Wikipedia (absolutelly). God wishes be everywhere and without limitations" (ROC = Russian Orthodox Church), "The ROC is higher of any rules of Wikipedia", "Rules of Bible are higher than any rules of Wikipedia (God higher of Jimmy Wales in the same time). God wants be everywhere!" and "Undid revision 669952272 (be against God is very bad thing). Their English seems to be rudimentary to say the least, so could a Russian speaking admin please tell them what Wikipedia is and isn't, in as firm a way as possible, without hurting their feelings too much? The only result of my attempts to communicate with them is that they no longer link to a page that is only in Russian, but to an English translation of it. The IPs they've used so far (or at least the ones that I'm aware of) are 95.29.79.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.27.125.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 95.27.106.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Thomas.W ^talk 18:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ymblanter is an Admin who speaks Russian. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK there are others too, so I hope one of them sees this. Thomas.W ^talk 19:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I responded at their talk page, let us see whether it helps.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Need1521 may well have some bearing on this. Smolensk and Russian Orthodox Church are recurring themes. Favonian (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Favonian: Judging by the evidence presented in that SPI there's a definite link between the IPs I mentioned above and the SPI. Thomas.W ^talk 21:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks. I copied your message to the IP they used today (User talk:95.29.79.7) to increase the chance that they'll see it. Thomas.W ^talk 20:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I was not sure which Ip they are currently using. The SPI might also be a good avenue to follow. Do not hesitate to ping me if my help is needed, the coming week I should be reasonably available.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This is sockmaster Need1521. One of the ips claims to be a "representative of the Diocese of Smolensk and Vyazma" and checkuser confirmed Need1521 sock Crown218821 claimed to be a "Priest in the Diocese of Smolensk and Vyazma" so the link looks fairly obvious. The disruption by this person on this occasion has been going on for nearly 2 months now, but the likely parent account, User:Crazy1980 was community banned back in 2011, also for spamming external links and there's been periodic disruption since then. Attempts at communicating with this user are totally futile and usually result in threats and insults. Another Russian speaking admin who tried to reason with them received this message, which reads "Bitch, you're almost a corpse. You touch one other user with an ip address and I think I'll come to you and I will hurt you very painfully. I still do not know your address. But authorities have a lot of friends. Sit down and do not rock the boat, schmuck." If they haven't got the message after 4 years, they never will and can only be reverted and blocked on sight. Valenciano (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Now after you posted the link I see this is the same asshole who was following me here and on Commons (I even had to protect my talk page multiple times earlier this year). They are mentally unstable. All IPs must be blocked on sight, all edits must be immediately reverted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs) 06.11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• They also could use Remote desktop software or Virtual private network. I recommend to check these details. - Local Bear55 (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC).
• Is this the same kook who's been infesting Jimbo's talk page? Guy (Help!) 08:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Judging by the SPI, yes. Thomas.W ^talk 08:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I certainly meant that one.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems like an appropriate time to remind all concerned that if you spot a threat of harm to yourself or another editor (such as the "you're almost a corpse" note above), you should feel free to send a link to emergency@wikimedia.org. That email address is staffed 24/7 by my team (and attorneys, and mental health experts, etc.) who can evaluate the threat and determine what action is appropriate to take next. We work closely with local aid organizations and law enforcement, and have a process set up that works anywhere in the world. You don't have to be subject to that type of threatening to contribute to Wikipedia! <end of announcement, hiss, screech, drops mic.> Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Philippe.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

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

History of the WWE - Long-running edit war that is still going on

The following discussion is closed. 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 filed a case about this two months ago here, and a consensus for a topic ban was clear - yet nothing happened, which was utterly bizarre. Well, we're back at square one - since May, there have been ten reverts by User:Rebelrick123 where they directly reverted User:RealDealBillMcNeal, and RDBMN has eight reverts against RR123 by my last count, and they've also been edit-warring at a rapid rate elsewhere with other users - List of WWE personnel being one example. My request is this; could an admin please put into place the clear consensus for a topic ban from that thread (as an absolute minimum)? This situation clearly isn't slowing down, and in fact, today it has picked right back up again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I previously supported a topic ban for these two, but if this still going on, I think a block as well as a topic ban, is in order. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Via both the users' talk page and via the talk page of the page itself, I have requested the user provide valid sources, to no avail. Am I just to let factually incorrect edits stand? Great. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The best course of action would be to either consult with other editors about the edits, or to go to a noticeboard about it. It absolutely isn't worth getting lured into an edit war, no. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I was also of the same thought as IJBall and Lukeno94 that a topic ban should be levied against the two. Since that discussion was not closed, perhaps this should be considered a continuation of that discussion with a formal close enforcing that sanction. Blackmane (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Marking all edits as minor

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

---

JRRobinson (talk · contribs) marks all their edits as minor despite me warning them twice. What's usually done in a situation like this? JMHamo (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

All minor, no edit summaries (there's been multiple warnings about the edit summaries going back to 2007) and very few talk page discussions. Any particularly concerning edits? Otherwise people have been blocked because it is considered disruptive but no comment about editor yet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Help:Minor_edit#When_not_to_mark is clear enough - "Adding or removing content in an article". All their recent edits to 2015 Distal & ITR Group Tennis Cup – Singles and 2015–16 Huddersfield Town A.F.C. season are flagged as minor, but are clearly adding content. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

All minor, no edit summaries isn't by itself a huge problem, but his unwillingness to listen to advice, requests, etc. is: if he gets into doing something else problematic, we can't expect him to stop. I've blocked him for a week, simply as an attention-getting measure (if he were editing every day, I would have used a 24-hour block) to ensure that he sees my block message and reads the pages on edit summaries and minor edits before his block expires. I've directed him to request unblock as soon as he reads those pages. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, seriously bad block.

• Given the absence of any warnings of any kind that the user might be blocked should they continue this behavior, the blocking administrator at most should have issued a final warning. We give blatant vandals this much leeway, and block requests for vandals are frequently denied if there is no final warning. See {{AIV}} with 'ns' flag; "User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned." Yet we can't seem to do so with this long established editor? What?
• This editor has been here for nine years, with a spotless block record prior to this bad block. He has made more than 21,000 edits. He has created 701 articles. So, we apply a week long block?
• I've looked at the last 25,000 blocks given on this project, dating back three weeks. Not one block was given for not using edit summaries (other than this bad block).
• User:JMHamo notifies User:JRRobinson about this thread at 11:10, 21 July 2015‎. At 13:52, 21 July 2015 User:Nyttend blocks, less than three hours later...before User:JRRobinson has even had a chance to see the notification of this thread, much less respond to it.
• The editor is, of late, averaging 3 edits a day. 3. Certainly seems like a major, ongoing crisis that we have to stop in its tracks with a week long block. <cough>
• You don't use a block as an "attention-getting measure". You use a final warning with a nice big stop sign for that.

The actions taken against this editor are wrong, and could readily be construed by this editor has deeply insulting of their work here. This block needs to be undone, posthaste, with an apology written into the summary of the block removal so the record is clear. An apology needs to be issued by User:Nyttend to User:JRRobinson and a manually written final warning given (at worst) regarding the lack of use of edit summaries and minor edit tagging. Further, User:JMHamo should be lightly admonished for not signing his comments on JRRobinson's talk page [297], a pattern he has kept kept up for years. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hammersoft, have you read this talk page? He's been ignoring years of warnings and demonstrated his unwillingness to cooperate with project standards. Let me also enlighten you: we routinely block people without warnings of any sort, including blatant vandals, and after years of warnings there's no reason to believe that he'll listen to another one. There's no requirement to use final-warning templates in any policy, either. Go read WP:BURO and don't waste everyone else's time with frivolous complaints. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Responding to your additions after my note of 16:51 — in case you haven't noticed, there's no requirement that the subject of an ANI request have a chance to participate in a discussion before an admin takes action on the request. This is a situation that needs to be resolved, someone who's been told repeatedly over the last several years that his actions are problematic, and waiting until he sees something would be just as ridiculous for apologising to someone for enforcing policy against him. Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I have. I was very careful in reading it, collecting my thoughts to properly lay them out here. There's been quite a number of requests for him to use edit summaries. But, there is not a single warning that his editing ability might be suspended for failure to do so. There isn't even a policy or a guideline to point to that he has violated, just a help page. Show me a precedent where a person was blocked without any staged warnings regarding the lack of use of edit summaries. Why do you suppose I went back 25,000 blocks to see if there was a recent precedent? Should I go back 250,000? What would be enough to convince you? A week long block without so much as a warning about the possibility of being blocked, much less a final warning, for an editor of 21,000 edits, nine years and 700 articles is wrong on every level. It is not defensible. And don't insult my complaints as frivolous. You state this is a situation that needs to be resolved as motivation to block him before he's had a chance to respond. Care to explain what ongoing emergency there was that required blocking him before he had a chance to respond? What should have happened is to see if he continued editing despite the WP:AN/I notice, and/or a final warning given. You claim you're enforcing policy against him? Ok. What policy is that? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• It appears that he's been doing this since about 2010. And if I'm using the search function the right way, he's only edited a talk page twice in the last 5 years. So he appears to be unwilling to communicate. If he wants to get unblocked, he can request an unblock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• BB, I empathize. I wish the search functions here worked better than they do. Anyway, the point is he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. In an era of declining editorship, blocking a long time contributor here who has done a hell of a lot of good work is a serious smack in the face. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• The vast majority of his/her edits marked as minor are indeed minor edits. He/she may believe that edits to infoboxes are all minor edits. I agree that there was not enough warning. He/she does not edit very much, so there was no need to rush to a block, rather than taking a little more effort to communicate with an over all constructive editor. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see the editor's name in the incident archives. Unless the OP here has a complaint about the edits themselves, maybe an unblock would be reasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Not commenting on this block but "I've looked at the last 25,000 blocks given on this project, dating back three weeks. Not one block was given for not using edit summaries" is completely incorrect. Blocks are regularly given out for not explaining deletions or changes after the editor was repeatedly asked to do so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Example? I searched 25,000 blocks and none but this one mentioned not using edit summaries as a reason. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

given that 25,000 is still only 1.4% of the blocks given by just the top 3 admin accounts, maybe it's still too small a sample size? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not a statistician, but that 25,000 edits covered three weeks of blocks, which is 5.76% of a year. I vaguely remember a rule of thumb that a sample of over 5% has some validity. *shrug* --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: You said about me "a pattern he has kept kept up for years".. laughable. Out of my 10000's of edits you find a few where I forgot to include a signature. Well done Nyttend, good block, you have my support. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• You will note that I said "lightly admonished". --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hardly a pattern though is it? A ridiculous thing to say; but overall I am glad the block was made. JMHamo (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• You want to quibble over semantics of "pattern"? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Just because this does not happen often does not make it problematic. Communication is required in a collaborative environment and even minor violations are disruptive if they continue with no sign of stopping. The block is not punitive and can be removed once some communication is established. Chillum 17:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• He hasn't edited in 2 1/2 days, so what damage was being prevented? He wasn't warned that his editing privileges could be suspended, so we treat long time editors with an otherwise fantastic track record like this? Even the blocking admin told us it was an attention getting block. I'm stunned and appalled that an editor such as this would suffer a week long block, without a block warning, without a chance to respond to this thread. If this is what we've become, we've badly gone off the rails. We don't even block first time vandals for this long. Even repeat vandals get shorter blocks. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Neutral. On the one hand, I agree that the practice, by a few long-time editors, of labeling all edits as minor and as using no edit summaries, is non-collaborative and troublesome, especially if accompanied by never editing talk pages. (I will comment that using no edit summary is less disruptive than using insulting edit summaries.) Something needed to be done. It does seem that a one-week block without a warning was harsh. However, maybe it wasn't too harsh for an editor who doesn't edit every day. Is there consensus that the subject editor will be unblocked if they request unblock, saying that they will in the future label non-minor edits as non-minor edits? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• NY has left the user a message saying that any admin can unblock once they explain an understanding of the issue[298]. Given that I don't think the duration is an issue. Chillum 18:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Sorry, but this line of reasoning is I think without merit. No warning to this user they were walking in the wrong direction. Result? We whip out an M-16, blow off his legs, and tell him we'll get him a medic and artificial limbs if he agrees to cooperate. Am I being hyperbolic? No, I'm not. There are many editors who are very pleased they have a spotless block record. To be wrongfully blocked and then told to agree to the terms of the unblock then validates the wrongful block. He needs to be unblocked, now, without condition and his block log needs to be amended to reflect the erroneous nature of the block. If he returns to editing without discussing, without amending his editing behavior, then fine, block him. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait to see if/when they respond on their talkpage. They don't seem to engage with anyone and has had several warnings on the talkpage prior to the block. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• There hasn't been a single warning anywhere on his talk page regarding edit summaries. There have been multiple requests, which is an entirely different thing. Warning implies negative consequences if ignored. Requests can either be answered or unanswered. I've had people request me to not use bullets on talk pages to indent. It's a request. I've not acceded to those requests. Should I be blocked for a week for failure to agree with those requests? If I had received a warning that would be entirely different. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with Hammersoft. I can't find any policy that states that failure to use edit summaries is a blockable offense? If it were a blockable offense, just about every IP editor on Wikipedia would have to be blocked. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wish to heck Wikipedia had a decent search function which allowed you to search your own posts. No one should be blocked for not using edit summaries if the edits are uncontroversial. However I know I've made a couple blocks when processing reports here and on AIV where editors have ignored repeated requests to explain their edits. At least one of these editors had been blocked before for the same thing by a different admin. One type of this edit is even considered outright vandalism - "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we unblock this editor now? Message was received. agtx 22:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a real problem with this

I value my clean block record, and I really need to know that before being blocked I will be given a warning and a chance to stop doing whatever I am being warned not to do. Multiple requests by other editors who cannot point to any policy don't count. I think that any admin who blocks someone with a many-years-long clean block record without warning should face some sort of sanction or admonishment. That's the only way I can see to stop this practice. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• I concur. This block was wrong and should never have been applied. As I feared, his block record hasn't been cleaned. Instead, his unblock just says "Per request". So now forevermore someone will question why he was blocked and not understand the misapplication of the block. This sort of treatment to long standing editors causes people to leave. This was flat wrong. There is no other word for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there no process for erasing block log entries? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No. No there is not. At least that's what I've gathered. Even mistake blocks are going to be on your "permanent record".[299] C'est la vie. Doc talk 00:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • By "cleaned" I meant the notation in the unblock would note the original block was improper. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There were multiple attempts to communicate with the user and they got no response. It was not improper, in fact functioned as intended and got the users attention and they have responded that they will be more careful about describing edits and marking as minor. Chillum 02:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As an editor with a clean block log, I would have a great deal of sympathy if I thought that the block was clearly out of line. I don't. I don't see this as a case of a clearly bad block. I do see this as a case of demands that administrators must be perfect, that they must never make a controversial block of a user who has not been previously blocked. Maybe we need a guideline that no administrator should block an editor who has been editing for more than a year with more than 1000 edits and a clean block log without a formal warning. If so, I won't propose that. I see this as a case of a block of an editor who was clearly wrong, and had been cautioned previously, but had not been formally warned. I think that a rule against blocking an editor whose conduct has been wrong but who has not been formally warned would allow gaming the system and wikilaywering. The editor had been wrong in marking all of their edits as minor and in omitting edit summaries. They have admitted that. Just unblock and drop the issue. There is no policy that administrators must be perfect, and, in this case, the administrator was within the bounds of reasonable judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I think the block was good but the lack of warning was completely wrong. If you aren't willing to make the tiny effort to issue a warning and let a nine year veteran with a spotless block record know that he is at risk of being blocked, you should resign as an administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are being more than a bit over dramatic asking him to resign. Get realistic. There were attempts to communicate, the word "warning" was not used but this did not come out of nowhere. Jumping straight to asking for resignation is silly. Chillum 03:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. I don't want whoever did this block (I haven't even bothered looking up who) to resign. You don't just go along for years accepting something as OK and then suddenly change your mind and make an example out of whoever did it last. What I am saying is that you can (and we should) decide that it is now no longer OK, get the word out that the community no longer considers it to be acceptable behavior, and at that point any admin who isn't willing to make the tiny effort to issue a warning and let a nine year veteran with a spotless block record know that he is at risk of being blocked should resign as an administrator. It all has to start with the community deciding that it isn't OK.ot just me thinking that. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the block was borderline okay, but I've got a lot of sympathy for what Guy is saying. As another editor with a clean block log, I don't want to think that an admin will block me just because he doesn't think he's got my attention. Would leaving the formal warning on his talk page for a week really have hurt? After that, any of us here would say, "Fine, he's not listening; go ahead and block him to get his attention." GoldenRing (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Dramatics aside, the block was perfectly warranted and I would have done the exact same thing had Nyttend not beaten me to it. Every administrator knows that sullying someone's clean block log can be a very significant and controversial action and in practice we generally give considerable extra leeway to longstanding editors with a clean block log. It is very difficult to block an established editor with a clean block log, both for the controversy it generates, and the damage to the editor's morale. However, that absolutely doesn't mean that a block is not justified, and this editor has been given years of leeway and has never made an effort to modify their behavior. We're not a bureaucracy and to suggest that the block was improper because no official "warning" was given is absurd. At the end of the day, WP:NVC is an important principle in this project and no one can expect special treatment just because they have a shiny and clean block log. One example that comes to mind is OccultZone, who had 200,000 edits and a clean block log when I blocked him for edit warring. A couple months later, he was revealed to be one of a cavalcade of sockpuppets and was indefinitely banned. Perfect example of why there should be no vested contributors nor people defending established editors who exhibit problematic behavior. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wish you the best of luck with that last sentence, Swarm.—Kww(talk) 05:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Haha. Of course that part is not much more than a pipe dream, but hey that doesn't mean I'm not right! ;) Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• If all of you think that this guy wasn't warned, you're reading his talk page just as much as he was. Try looking at it more carefully: you'll see several years of people telling him that he's out of line. Among other things, the "January 2015" section is a formal uw-delete1 warning, which is given someone's removed something without an apparent good reason, as seen here. If he's not going to listen to this warning, or all of the others, he's not going to listen to yet another formal warning. Again, stop wasting everyone's time with bureaucratic demands: go and improve an encyclopedia, as I've been doing this evening. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• What is a "formal warning" that someone is owed? Notices from over seven years ago requesting that you use edit summaries and not mark everything minor should be some sort of clue. The fact that the editor never even responded once on their talk page to a single comment in years, nor even to the warnings nor to the ANI notice means how much more effort needs to be made? Are we here to make an encyclopedia or not? For the encyclopedia, we need people to collaborate and I suspect this is like one of the dozens of the editors I see intermittently who edits on their own, never communicates, ignores all warnings, doesn't really care about consensus or verifiability or the MOS or style requirements or anything really and once blocked never returns again but creates a new account and does it again which is ultimately disruptive to the project overall. I don't think I would have blocked this person but I agree with the principle that pages of warnings to do something should have an effect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Disruptive editing guideline is often cited, namely #4 & #5. It's not policy, granted. But editors sort of eventually must communicate with each other here, when "coaxed", as part of maintaining this collegial environment. Doc talk 07:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Did he continue deleting and get blocked for that? If so I withdraw my objection, which is based on the premise that he got blocked for something he was not warned about. As for your final comment, with all due respect, if you think discussing what admins should or should not do in response to a particular situation is "wasting everyone's time with bureaucratic demands". why are you reading ANI? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The edit has been unblocked. At this point, absent wanting to flog Nyttend any more, we should be done here. If there's an actual interest in changing policy, that's for another page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

He finally replied on his talkpage. Good block. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The purpose was to get the user's attention, and it worked ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

...and JRRobinson (talk · contribs) is no longer marking all his edits as minor, so the message has definitely been received and understood. Thank you @Nyttend:. Good work. Issue resolved. JMHamo (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat from Nate1983420

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

---

Nate1983420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I received a legal threat from this user after reverting an edit of his. See: [300]. A referral to WP:FREE would probably be helpful to this user if he remains on the wiki. ~ Rob^Talk 04:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• He needed a warning about WP:NLT more than he did WP:FREE, so I gave it to him. If he returns and doesn't retract the threat, he should be indef blocked. KrakatoaKatie 04:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• @KrakatoaKatie: I strongly agree with you. If he can post a legal threat then he should be indefinitely blocked. I support the indef block --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• I have indef blocked Nate1983420 for making legal threats. Normally I would encourage investigation of if there are legitimate complaints, but in this case the user is upset because we are not including something. Chillum 04:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• You don't need me saying it, but I will anyway: good block. Can't have that. Jusdafax 05:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Good block, and FreeRangeFrog is right to point out that a first amendment lawsuit on a private website will get nowhere. Though I can't help this is more somebody getting really upset than an actual desire for legal / financial compensation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Hes blocked i hope he does not make a new account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A8v (talk • contribs) 10:43, July 22, 2015‎

The discussion above is closed. 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 Banner (Incident)

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

---

Hi, RMS52 here.

There has been recent changes to the main airport page on Amsterdam and past changes to Dublin Airport by this user

The main thing here is that this user deleted the Dublin Airport Airlines and Destanations chart and moved it to a seperate article. When asked why he stated that it was taking up to much of the article (27%) and that it was now possible to mention former destanations. Now everyone should know that this is not reccomened by the Wikipedia.

Two Things Here

• Former destanations by airlines are usually mentioned in the airport's history section.
• All information about the airport in an article must stay together in 1 article (this was covered in a disscussion)

He stopped editing Dublin Airport but then he moved on to Amsterdam's main airport page. It went unnoticed for 2 days until an IP user spotted it. And removed it. It was the exact same thing that happened on Dublin Airport. But there was no disscussion started about this. The IP user left a message on his talk page mentioning me going to report him. (I told the user that)

I wanted to bring this up now before this user moves on to other airport pages, thanks. RMS52 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute. Not an ANI issue. Also since you left a message on The Banner's talk page consisting of "Your article is RUBBISH AND IS NOT NEEDED ON THIS WIKI DELETE NOW" I suspect you might want to withdraw this report before you get hit by an Aborigine hunting device... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This is far more a content dispute, involving a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the side of RMS52. I split off the airlines and destination of Dublin Airport and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol to Dublin Airport airlines and destinations and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol airlines and destinations because in my opinion those list are taking far to much space. Conform WP:BOLD this is allowed. Unfortunately, RMS52 did not like that and tries to circumvent a normal discussion at AfD by complaining here. I suppose it is better to wait for the decision of that AfD than sir around in a content-dispute.

I am willing to wait for the closure of the AfD but the behaviour of RMS52 is at least mighty unfriendly if not bullying. The Banner talk 14:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well, let's have a look at the editing of User:RMS52 and the IP User:194.224.188.90 (194) here.

• On 15 July, RMS edits from 10:13 to 10:16. IP194 then edits from 11:01 to 11:09. RMS52 then edits from 11:25 onwards. Both on airport articles, but no overlap. OK.
• Today, RMS52 makes one edit at 08:54. IP194 then makes 4 edits from 09:09 to 09:12, on Zakynthos International Airport. RMS52 then makes another edit at 09:23 on the same article and continues to edit until 14:05. From 14:13 to 14:29, IP194 then reverts an edit on the Schipol article and then posts vandalism warnings on The Banner's talkpage. At 14:41, RMS52 reports The Banner to AIV. At 14:45, the IP posts on The Banner's talkpage "Your disruptive editing has gone to far, User:RMS52 has reported you for your disruptive editing.". at 14:50, the IP reinstates an edit of RMS52 that had been reverted on Charles de Gaulle Airport. RMS52 then edits from 15:05 onwards, including The Banner's talkpage and this report here.
• The edit summaries of both RMS52 and IP194 display similar incorrect capitalisations and spelling errors.
• We may be many things here, but we aren't, in general, stupid. I have blocked both the IP and RMS52 for a week. Black Kite (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Abusive sock

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

---

• InterPersonalAutomaton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone available to block this abusive sock? [301] Keri (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked one week for the completely unacceptable edit summary which I have deleted. This might be upped to an indef depending on the SPI. Otherwise, if InterPersonalAutomaton doesn't change their editing style post-haste, we'll be back here very soon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

InterPersonalAutomaton seems to think that citing neo-Nazi websites is appropriate: [302] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And now blocked indefinitely as an obvious sock of User:Equivocasmannus, but to be honest, WP:NOTHERE anyway. Black Kite (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Thomas.alrasheed evading block with Saudi IPs

User:Thomas.alrasheed was blocked on 26 June for vandalism, for making sneaky and false changes. Since then, a handful of Saudi IPs have been doing the same thing at the same articles.

These are the involved IPs:

• 14 July 91.147.158.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 14 July 5.41.92.111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 14 July 37.16.140.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 12–13 July 95.185.219.189 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 12 July 5.41.33.123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 10–11 July 95.185.127.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 6, 13 July 37.16.146.46 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 3 July 93.169.136.252 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2 July 93.169.59.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 July 93.169.12.138 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 July 78.95.255.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 June 78.95.244.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 29 June 93.169.155.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 29 June 93.168.23.175 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 28 June 5.156.128.116 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 27–29 June 78.95.146.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 24–25 June 93.168.204.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 19–23 June 91.108.164.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The question is how to stop this guy? Do we protect articles, or block IPs, or set a few rangeblocks, or set a filter? Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Not convinced rangeblocks would be helpful looking at the IP ranges, edit filter might be the best way to go depending on the contribution changes, page protection is onyl other viable option . Amortias (T)(C) 18:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Thomas.alrasheed registered his account on 25 June but the problem started months before with other Saudi IPs, interspersed with edits by an IP from UK targeting all the same articles and doing the same vandalism. Another IP from the UK, Special:Contributions/80.42.129.101, vandalized by inserting the surname Al Rasheed, the same as the registered account.[303] So this guy has access to both UK and Saudi IPs. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• 9 January 2015 – 212.215.223.124 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 6 January 2015 – 95.184.30.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 6 January 2015 – 212.215.223.138 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 3 January 2015 – 212.215.236.62 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2 January 2015 – 212.215.205.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 January 2015 – 94.97.218.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 31 December 2014 – 94.97.169.225 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 December 2014 – 94.97.178.186 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 28 December 2014 – 185.5.153.45 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• December 2014 – January 2015 – 89.187.100.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

(Non-administrator comment) I agree regarding the edit filter. This seems too broad to warrant mass page protection; I can't see much of a pattern to his targets at all. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 20:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The guy is still active, see Special:Contributions/95.185.33.12. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

A combination therapy might be the way to go. At least one of the target articles is semi-protected already. I'll think about creating a reasonably narrow edit filter. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks! Another IP appeared today, Special:Contributions/95.185.249.232, making just one edit but with the usual style and target. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And another: Special:Contributions/5.108.160.29. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/5.41.187.86. Persistent guy. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Also re-appeared on User:37.16.140.91, which could maybe use a 31 day block or smth. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC).

Thank you to blocking admins NeilN, Edgar181 and Darkwind. I have created a long-term abuse case, which you can see here: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Thomas.alrasheed. I expect we will need to remain vigilant, regardless of what kind of edit filter can be fashioned to match this guy's style. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

(Mis)using Wikipedia to promote a candidate in the Canadian election.

Canada goes to the polls in the autumn, one of the candidates is Amarjeet Sohi. In the last few days, Sohi's page has been "improved". Improved from the candidate's point of view. Sourced and neutral information about the candidate having been arrested was modified to say "falsely arrested" [304], and information about controversies was heavily reduced to give way for promotional material [305]. These changes are made by WP:SPAs (possibly socks of the same user [306], [307]) and all attempts by established users to restore the article [308], [309], [310] are swiftly reverted. I've encouraged the SPA to use the talk page, but to no avail. I first reported the page for semi-protection but was encouraged to take it to ANI instead. I think it's problematic that Wikipedia is being used not only to promote a candidate but to censor information from highly respected media Globe and Mail just because it's not favourable to a political candidate.Jeppiz (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, a protection request on that article was declined? That's weird. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought so as well, yes. And the activity here at ANI is rather disappointing. As the SPA has decided to WP:OWN the article, what action to take? Say, "Hey sure, go ahead and abuse Wikipedia as a tool for your political campaigning!". The only other option seems to be edit warring, as bringing it first to WP:RPP and now here yields absolutely no result. I realize it's holiday season, but still.Jeppiz (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to talk about this but the original wikipedia page contain a lot of unsourced opinion. I think the revision clarifies some points. On falsely arrested, read the source and tell me what you think source. It's pretty clear that the arrest was false, he was never charged and then releaseed. There are other statements like "Following his election in 2007, Sohi soon became a strong proponent for the abolishment of the old 6-ward system in favour of the current 12-ward system." which are not sourced. In the other sections the changes reflect sourced material replacing non sourced material.

In the federal election section: "Mere months after Sohi was re-elected by a large margin in the 2013 municipal election, rumours began swirling that he was considering a run federally in the 2015 federal election" Not sourced. On the other material that was changed, read the articles and let me know how what is said a) that Bhuller was disqualified from the race for rules violations and b) that there was controversy is not reflected in the post. Anyways I'm not involved in the Sohi campaign. I just think the page was weak, full of speculation and opinion and in need of edit. Let me know how you would like to see it changed. YEGGradStudent (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like this can now be moved to that article's talk page. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Gampalagudem

The following discussion is closed. 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:Raw-WikiEditor has WP:POV pushing Gampalagudem page, even after admins intervention, he tried to add back his own info by removing sourced references such as this. I've even filed a sock investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Raw-WikiEditor. The edits on the village page shows spamming site references such as also non working links such as this by removing an official census of India website reference provided by me. He added some cinema theatres info, and removed this, not against his edits, but he doesn't collaborate even after talking on his talk page.--Vin09 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit Warring and Violation of WP:NOR

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

---

• Oranges Juicy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kosovo Verification Mission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello everyone! I would like to inform you on a case that I believe is a violation of WP:NOR in the article Kosovo Verification Mission.

The brief summary of the article is: "Prior to the war in Kosovo 1999, OSCE sends a verification mission to check the violation of the human rights of the Serbian security forces towards the local Albanian population."

All reliable sources present in the article refer to the forces involved in the massacres against the Albanian population as Serbian forces, Serbian army, or Serbian security forces, e.g.: [311], [312], and more sources present in Kosovo Verification Mission.

My reading of the sources indicate that it is undoubted and supported by plenty of sources (see article refs), that the conflict in Kosovo and the violation of the human rights prior to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia were conducted by the Serbian forces against the local Albanian population. Yet, and now my case begins, an editor Oranges Juicy claims that the usage of the term "Serbian forces" is wrong, because the official name of the state was "Yugoslavia" and the troops should be either called "Yugoslav army" and/or "state loyalist forces".

While I acknowledge that a large section the troops were part of the army of Yugoslavia, the most precise term is Serbian forces. The reason is that the violation of human rights was carried on by a mix of Yugoslav army, Serbian police and Serbian paramilitary forces (not part of the Yugoslav army) [see article sources]. Therefore the term Serbian forces is a precise umbrella term for commonly describing the actors carrying the violations of human rights against the local Albanian population. Numerous reliable sources [see article] explicitly refer to the troops as Serbian forces/army/security forces, etc ... Those sources are from very respected institutions such as HRW, UN Security Council, US Government.

The editor is right in asserting that some of Serbian forces were part of the Yugoslavian army, and I agreed to add such a clarification in order to reach a consensus. However I find it not acceptable to completely remove the fact that those forces were Serbian, given that i) numerous reliable sources EXPLICITLY state the Serbian ethnicity of the troops , and ii) not all Serbian troops were part of the Yugoslavian army, e.g. Serbian paramilitary. It is my firm understanding that the case is unambiguous, given that numerous reliable sources are explicit in the usage of the Serbian ethnicity term.

Despite the explicit usage of the term Serbian by reliable sources, the editor Oranges Juicy insisted and repeatedly edit warred [see the most recent article history] on removing the term Serbian from the article. I have warned the editor multiple times in the article's and his' talk page that WP:NOR is not acceptable, and he should not edit war towards covering the Serbian ethnicity of the troops. I even had communicated that he is leaving me no other option than ANI.

In that perspective, I believe a disciplinary action is useful to restore the neutrality of the article.

A note: The editor Oranges Juicy is also Serbian, therefore trying to cover the fact that the Serbian forces committed violations of human rights, MIGHT be a point worth assessing (even though I would like to assume good faith). In addition, the user has a prejudice against using official US Government reports as reliable sources, citing Oranges Juicy in Talk:Kosovo Verification Mission "... It is not reliable anyhow since it is a partisan government account rather than an independent report. ..." This is just an illustration to show the attitude of the editor in treating reliable sources.

Sorry for taking your time. I would have preferred the editor dropped the stick and we would not have to resort to escalations, however it is my duty as an editor to not neglect violations of Edit Warring and WP:NOR. --OppositeGradient (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Response from Oranges Juicy

Hello from me as well.

I will attempt to summarise how I see the situation and then I will gladly take advice from admins on the best course of action for my circumstance.

The Kosovo war happened 1998-1999 and was according to sources fought between the rebel KLA and the government forces of the FRY. Sources state that atrocities took place, and where government forces were the perpetrator, those sources attribute the incidents to three separate bodies:

• 1. Vojska Jugoslavije (SRJ). The national army comprising staff from all over the territory which was Serbia and Montenegro.
• 2. Serbian Police. As Kosovo was in Serbia and not Montenegro, most police-based incidents report "Serbian police".
• 3. Serb paramilitary groups, clients to the government but otherwise independent. Here, Serb is accurate because the fighters were volunteers from outside Serbia such as Bosnia and Croatia where ethnic Serbs originate from.

To this end, the general term Serb forces is vague and should not be used. If one knows the act were carried out by the Scorpions or the police, the editor should say so. Where we know it to be military, according to sources there was only one army for which we have an article, Military of Serbia and Montenegro. Links to Serbian Army or Serbian Armed Forces sends a reader to articles pertaining to entities only reformed since 2006 which is wrong for incidents reported for 1999. Also when an act is attributed to the army then one would say Yugoslav Army regardless of whether witnesses believed the suspects to be ethnic Serbs as OppositeGradient believes - just as one would speak of the British Forces even if the suspects for an incident were all English.

The Kosovo Verification Mission article should be precisely about its title, and other matter should only be included insofar as it relates to the subject. Given the coverage in world media in early 1999 there is no shortage of sources to report on the aftermath of the Mission's departure, which is that hostilities resumed. Originally the article named "Serb forces" with a link to one source. Personally I question the reliability of a source published by the US State Department given the country's involvement but either way, nobody disputes the content as reliable sources back it up. The problem is that - apart from the source not being independent - the writing style was anecdotal rather than empirical, outside of the first paragraph, "Yugoslavia" was not mentioned and the term used from there onward was Serb, as in Serb forces, Serb army and Serb government. It is not WP:OR to see this is generalisation since at the time, Serbia and Yugoslavia were used interchangeably, even when reporting naval engagements during the NATO war: Serbia is landlocked. During this time, sources frequently cited Slobodan Milošević as the chief suspect and as sources reflect, he headed the Yugoslav government in 1999 - but this did not stop reliable sources referring to the Serb government where they meant central, and even calling Milošević "Serb president", even though the real Serbian president in 1999 was Milan Milutinović.

OppositeGradient is desperate to present the ambiguous "Serb forces" on the section dealing with the aftermath atrocities, though he cannot grace readers further on which grade of force was being referred to (police or paramilitary). Despite me explaining the above to him, he dismissed the facts as original research and synthesis purely because one anecdotal and questionable US government publication has used the "Serb" demonym for all to come out of FRY in 1999. The article section deals not with one incident but all things that continued from the time KVM left until UNMIK was created and Yugoslav forces withdrew. As such, I provided three reliable sources which referred correctly to Yugoslav troops/army or security forces that were present. Before doing this, I revealed these sources to OppositeGradient as well as a host of others. He has failed to disprove them, or to intelligently question the content. If those sources are wrong, and Serbia and Montenegro had separate military forces then all OppositeGradient needs to do is provide a source (such as one that shows that Montenegro was independent during the 1992 to 2006 period) and then we can question why the heck we have a Serbia and Montenegro hoax article and the like. OppositeGradient claims "Serb forces" is an umbrella term but that is the only example of WP:OR presented in this thread, no source whatsoever acknowledges the various bodies and then informs its readers that they will use "Serb forces" as an umbrella term. Furthermore, paramilitaries are not above the government for which they fight. If there had been unauthorised paramilitary activity against other non-government forces then the government perspective would be that it is internal rebel fighting. Besides, the bone of contention did not involve me adding Yugoslav but I chose the neutral unambiguous state loyalist forces and it doesn't need to be explained why - but OppositeGradient is adamant that "Serb" alone should be used per his idea that the source deploys the so-called "umbrella term" even though the same source refers to the non-existent "Serbian Army" of 1999. I believe the person drafting was simplifying the very same way people spoke of the "Russians" as opposed to the multi-ethnic Soviet forces, or the "Turks" as opposed to the multi-ethnic Ottoman forces.

In the short time OppositeGradient has edited, he has already been warned about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and I believe that casting aspersions that I am "Serb" is very boderline with these policies. I have never revealed my ethnicity to anybody and would prefer that to remain private just as I do not suspect one of being Kosovar Albanian. But as I have stated previously, I have lived in Britain since 2000 and I was born in Mostar. That city is one which by 2000 was almost empty of ethnic Serbs, I will happily confirm that my parents and siblings all live in Mostar as do my surviving grandparents, their children, other grandchildren, the lot - only my wife (also from Mostar), two daughters and one son (all born in UK) have left Mostar. In fact, if one were to examine my edits that closely he will quickly see that I have made numerous edits not favourable to the alleged "Serb" position.

For my part, I would like to apologise if my editing has been disruptive, if I have violated policies and if I have made mistakes. Concerning the latter, I would dearly appreciate advice on how best to handle a situation that would avoid an edit war with an editor hell bent on inserting incorrect information on account of a source that clearly does not discern, and one that is offset by countless that do. I apologise again for my inexperience and confess that no I have not read every single policy, though as each is presented to me, I read them.

Thanks, I will get back to this when administrator replies arrive.

Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

More discussion

• The reasoning above is exactly what I referred to. I cannot provide a better WP:OR description, than inviting you to read the post above. While most sources explicitly identify the actors committing violent acts as "Serbian forces", the involved editor argues that the reliable sources are wrong and need revision. He believes HRW, official US Government reports, most journalists at the time ... etc are all wrong and biased in naming the armed Serbians as Serb forces. Admin it is your call, because I have no breath left to further explain to the editor what WP:OR is not allowed. In addition, his arguments are quite irrational. It is out of imagination to expect, for instance from a journalist of Human Right Watch, to clearly specify the affiliation of the perpetrators of a massacre in a Kosovo village? How can reliable sources of the time know who pulled the trigger against civilians in villages, whether they were Serbian Police, Yugoslavian army, or nationalistic Serbian paramilitary troops. Even to date, the International Court of Justice does not know exactly which fraction of the Serbian forces murdered the civilians. For this reason, all the reliable sources use the term "Serbian forces", because it is the most realistic and precise umbrella term. P.s.: Just to inform you an important detail, the original version of the article had the term Serbian forces, precisely as the numerous reliable sources called them. It was the editor involved who started edit warring and changing the article by covering the Serbian ethnicity of the troops based on his WP:OR. OppositeGradient (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• “It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the great majority of (atrocities) have been committed by security forces in Kosovo acting under the authority of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,” (then-UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan speaking in October 1998);
• International negotiators obtained agreement from Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw a portion of the Yugoslav troops in Kosovo and to allow a "verification force" from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to oversee the truce between the KLA and Yugoslav forces. (source referring to KVM itself).
• From the beginning of the NATO air campaign against the FRY on 24 March, large concentrations of Yugoslav forces were active around Decani. (OSCE source, in contrast to OppositeGradient's claim)

So, am I still guilty of WP:OR? Oranges Juicy (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• First you WP:OR against the given reliable sources, and now you are offering some new sources to save yourself at ANI. You should have presented reliable source long ago in the talk page, instead of edit warring. However, even the new sources you selectively presented here are contradictory to your claims. It is not true that the newly presented sources above do not refer to the troops as Serbian forces. Please notice that all the newly presented sources contradict their usage:
  • source 1) citing: "“Fighting in Kosovo has resulted in a mass displacement of civilian populations, the extensive destruction of villages and means of livelihood and the deep trauma and despair of displaced populations,” Annan wrote. “Many villages have been destroyed by shelling and burning following operations conducted by federal and Serbian government forces.”",
  • source 2) citing: "Then, a massacre of Kosovo's civilians by Serbian forces in January 1999 led to the threat of air strikes by NATO."
  • source 3) This is spectacular :). The editor above cited one of the 24 occurrences of the term "yugoslav forces" in the third source. However, a careful look at that document reveals that it uses the term "serbian forces" 338 times and the term "serb forces" 130 times! .
• Summary: You resorted to WP:OR in the article and now you suddenly present new sources to save yourself at ANI. Anyway none of the new selective sources prove your points, quite the contrary. And those are just a handful of selective sources, since the term Serbian forces is used by significantly numerous sources, found in the article. Furthermore, if sources regarding an event claims the perpetrator are Serbian forces, we should not use other terms from other sources, if they do not refer to the same event of a specific article aspect. Unfortunately, I believe both the initial WP:OR and the new initiative of the involved editor to rescue him(her)self by bringing contradicting sources here at ANI, are problematic behaviors. (P.s: Trust me, I have no desire to get the editor involved punished, because I find him a hardworking editor and a nice person. However, for the sake of Wikipedia's quality one cannot simply violate WP:NOR, edit war on top of that and continue to not drop the stick even at ANI.) OppositeGradient (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well now the OP is producing utter nonsense. He says, "Anyway none of the new selective sources prove your points". All I can suggest here is that he read them over and over until the information registers, or find someone to read it for him and elaborate. He then says, "And those are just a handful of selective sources, since the term Serbian forces is used by significantly numerous sources, found in the article." Well that comment is not only utter hogwash but it betrays the sheer desperation by this editor to get the "Serb" point across. Those sources weren't new and yet it took me seconds to find them because reliable sources here are copious, add those to the ones listed at Talk:Kosovo Verification Mission and the others I added to the article. First he says, "sources explicitly use Serb" and then when he is shown that they explicitly do not necessarily use it, rather than admitting he was wrong or that sources use two terms interchangeably, the editor clutches at straws out of insane hopelessness by labelling these items as "a handful of selective sources". Apart from the fact that this is not so (Google producing thousands of results), it wouldn't matter if there were just one source because using the accurate terms "Yugoslav forces" or the completely safe "state forces" do not contradict the reported facts - totally incommensurable to the Flat Earth theory. The fact is that OppositeGradient named what he believed to be his own "most trusted sources", and I provided direct links from those very same publishers, they do not say what he wants them to say, and he doesn't like it. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oranges Juicy links arent a complication they are a requirement. Also please read this link and then consider rewording your response. Amortias (T)(C) 18:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

References

• Neither of you in this page long discussion provide diffs of the actual edits nor point to any talk page. There's just two of you at Talk:Kosovo Verification Mission so I'd suggest trying WP:3O or other options rather than just calling each other's edits "OR" as if that's an actual argument. This is a content dispute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done - See here. Thank you for the advice and for drawing my attention to WP:3O. I have drafted the question and background in a way I feel does not hint one way more than the other, though if you disagree with this, please let me know and I'll see about amending my text. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682 I fear the case is mistakenly understood as a content dispute. To illustrate the case let me please provide you a very concrete example. Based on a US Government official report [313], the article originally had the following sentence. "Then, after the KVM had left, Serbian forces began a campaign of killings, rapes, detentions, and deportations of the Kosovar Albanian population." The claim was explicitly supported by the source (Introduction section) as follows:

• Serbian forces have made Pristina a ghost town. Serbian military police and paramilitary forces reportedly expelled between 100.000 to 120.000 persons from Pristina in only four days. Kosovars now in Macedonia have claimed that only 100 ethnic Albanians remain in Pristina. Serbian forces reportedly had been taking furniture from abandoned homes.
• In Pec, Serbian forces allegedly herded young Albanian women to the Hotel Karagac and raped them repeatedly. The commander of the local base reportedly used a roster of soldiers' names to allow his troops visit the hotel on a rotating basis. The Hotel Karagac is only one example of the gender violence that plays such a large role in Serbian actions in Kosovo.
• Reports indicate that the violence in western Kosovo is stronger than in any other region of the province. Serbian forces emptied Pec of ethnic Albanians in 24 hours. In Djakovica's old city, Serbian forces allegedly burned 200 to 600 homes the day after NATO airstrikes began. By the next day, the rest of the old city had been torched.

It is very explicit that the acts were conducted by Serbian forces, as the reliable source explicitly refers to them. Now the other editor involved, arbitrarily removes "Serbian forces", and enters his own synthesis term "state loyalist forces", despite my numerous clarification and the explicit nature of the reliable source. See his edit diff: [314]. In the talk page, he first argued the source is not found, then he changes stance and expressed that the source does not support the claim (on the contrary, the source can't be more explicit), and finally he reasons that official US Government sources are not trustworthy and the person writing that report is incapable (see his words above). As you can very clearly see, this is a not a content dispute, but a clear violation reliable sources and WP:NOR. Nobody can change explicit statements of reliable sources based on personal synthesis, that is the basic concept we are being taught in Wikipedia. Finally, I did my duty as a responsible editor to fight against, and report, WP:OR and edit warring, now I naturally expect the admins to ensure that Wikipedia rules are respected. OppositeGradient (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I fear OppositeGradient has got his needle stuck. Each point stated above has been thoroughly addressed and rebuffed.

He continues to play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in order to give the article special flavour at the expense of accuracy. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• To all involved admins: While his case is being inspected here, the involved editor Oranges Juicy is currently spreading his WP:OR on other articles [315] and [316]. He is literally trying to remove the well supported fact that Serb forces were involved in the war events, replacing the identity of the forces with the invented synthesis words which do not include the term Serb. If we do not act in time, it would be a mess to clean up all the WP:OR and WP:POV from multiple articles. As events are unfolding, the more the case is tolerated, the more the problem grows. In my opinion, the lack of determination to condemn the WP:NOR is - regrettably - giving the editor courage to further intensify his wrongdoings. Furthermore, the repetition of the same acts, indicates the lack of sincerity in his initial apology to Amortias [317]. Thanks again! OppositeGradient (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Quack quack. -- --OJ (TALK) 23:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User ClassicOnAStick

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

---

Could an administrator please examine the conduct of ClassicOnAStick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Their talk page history is littered with warnings from other editors, about such things as adding unsourced material, and not leaving edit summaries See [318], [319], [320], [321].

To each warning this editor responds the same way: they blank their talk page. Several editors have asked them not to blank their talk page and start responding to comments about their questionable edits, see [322], [323], [324].

On July 19th User:Lord Laitinen wrote here "It is very important that other users see Level 4 (final) warnings. Removing them is very undesirable and questionable. If you wish to "erase" this warning, please refrain from controversial editing habits. Thanks." Then finally a response, in an edit summary as they blanked their talk page here, "just leave me alone". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Wikipedia:User pages that requires retention of warnings. In fact, the guideline specifically notes that those warnings can be found in the talk page history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, that is true, however in my opinion the behavior of immediately removing every warning raises warning flags about the editor. Not enough for any official action, but enough to keep on eye on the editor's behavior. BMK (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The presence of level 4 warnings are enough to keep an eye on an editor. --w^{L<speak·check>} 04:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is nothing wrong or in violation of policy about removing warnings from a user's own talk page. However, I guess we could take BMK's advice, see [325], [326], and [327]. Each was removed shortly after it was posted. GregJackP Boomer! 04:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I do indeed remove unwarranted warnings from harassing editors such as yourself. Don't like it? File an AN/I report and see how far you get with it. It's a far cry from the topic at hand, which is an editor who deletes all relevant warnings. BMK (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say I didn't like it or that it was in violation of policy? Try to stay calm and not get paranoid about it—no one said anything about reporting you to ANI for taking actions which did not violate policy in any way. The comment was to illustrate that you believed that doing something completely within policy somehow merits scrutinizing that editor. You know, sort of how the NSA views scrutinizing all cell phone calls. GregJackP Boomer! 17:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it bears watching. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply from the mentioned user

I'll tell you why I remove messages. I am ashamed of my mistakes so I remove them so I don't have to look at them. I said leave me alone because I didn't appreciate the constant notifications. i apologize If that was line crossing. Deleting messages has since became a habit. It seems that I need to brake it. I also don't leave summaries because #1 I forget and #2 I get lazy Rewind Wrestling (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is your signature completely unrelated to your user name? The sig is intended to identify the editor to other editors, yours seems to be intended instead to obscure your name. I suggest you change it. BMK (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I raised this issue about another editor recently. I was told that there's no rule against have a signature that has nothing to do with one's user ID. I don't think it's ethically right, but it's "legal". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As Baseball Bugs said, there's nothing wrong with removing old messages from your talk page; the edit history is almost always preserved. But if the notifications are bothering you, it may be a good sign to read up on any policies they're pointing out and try to follow them, so at least you'll get less notifications. --w^{L<speak·check>} 04:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• You're a highly active user who seems to be boldly editing in good faith. Nine times out of ten, I would say you shouldn't be receiving templated warnings to begin with and that you are of course within your rights to remove them. Your response is reasonable enough but at this point it's insufficient. This is a collaborative project. You need to collaborate with the other editors you encounter. You don't need to summarize every edit but you do need to communicate. Especially when you come into any sort of conflict with other editors. Regulars shouldn't be templated normally but you literally offer no other form of reasonable communication, so editors are having to drop official warnings and hope you'll listen to them. We will give you considerable leeway as an established editor but users who refuse to collaborate usually end up blocked. No one wants to see that happen. Explaining your edits with summaries, and responding to messages rather than deleting them out of embarrassment would be a good place to start. There's no need to be ashamed of mistakes. This is no big deal. You're just supposed to learn from them. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Elara (Monarch)

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

---

Why was the Tamizh script of EllaLan removed from article Elara (monarch)? Watching by the history, it is Ogress who removed valuable content from that article by the name of cleanup. Can you please revert the edit to the one before it? Though the old revision DOES have some bad format, the cleanup cleaned too much "content" along with bad format. On other Chola (Three Kingdoms) articles, the Tamizh script is generally allpwed because the name of them, in fact, is in Tamizh. And, isn't removing valuable content considered 'vandalism'? Moreover, I do not see any reason why the article was reverted; the personal attack is irrelevant to the article; it involves the person than the article of concern. Moreover, a sufficient explanation was not provided for removing Tamizh script from the article; it was rather like an attemt to remove all non-latin characters. For an artocle about Cholas, see Cholas, it has Tamizh script in it, so as the Three Tamizh kingdoms. I wish someone adds "எல்லாளன்" to the article. Any help is muvh appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.250.141 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 July 2015‎ (UTC)

A content dispute like that is best handled at the article's talk page. I do see where an IP editor has asked the question of why the Tamil script was removed. That hasn't been answered, but it's been less than 24 hours.

That said, there are some conduct issues, based on IP editors' edit summaries in the article, that would fall within the scope of the administrators' noticeboard if they persist. Personal attacks are unacceptable. —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, since she was mentioned in the report, I have notified Ogress. —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Thank you, I just wanted to say that some content I saw suddenly disappeared for some unconstructive reason, by someone who has a Wikipedia account. Yes, the IP in question had some questionable manners but I don't see the purpose of cleaning the article that had some more useful content in a way that removes useful content - cleaning up at the expense of content. I don't know if format is preferred over content in Wikipedia; as we usually share IP addresses in Wikipedia, it is difficult to point to a person. I usually edit Wikipedia anonymously (last logged in years ago) but I found that the article was locked, that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.250.141 (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred: The answer is WP:INDICSCRIPTS. However, I would like to observe that the user above was socking from IPs to revert-edit-war and engage in nasty personal attacks: these are the edit summaries on that page. He was blocked on both IPs last night for this behavior:

as 175.157.200.100:

• (If you have no idea what you are doing, please don't do it. If you couldn't be of any help, at least SНUT UР. Undid revision 671845011 by Ogress (talk))
• (FАG, personal attacks do not invalidate my claim; You cannot undo just because of personal attacks. the article was already on the good format; don't vandalize Wikipedia. You are trying to pump up your edit count, by unconstructive edits. Undd 672334023.)

as 175.157.245.185

• (FАG, I am still watching. You are probably Chinese or someone who has no knowledge on Dravidian culture. Do we go removing every other scripts in EN wiki? He was a Tamil king, and it is advisable to have his name in Tamil script. (User talk:Ogress))

I mean, call me crazy, but... Ogress _smash! 23:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to be diplomatic; those are the "conduct issues" with edit summaries that I was referring to. —C.Fred (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: Sockpuppet investigation on this currently ongoing, here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/175.157.245.185. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Are images not loading properly for anyone else?

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

---

Hi sorry but the images are all showing up as broken links. I was wondering if this was a problem on my end, or what. Images on other websites are loading properly though. Thanks. Zombiesturm (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I logged out and back in, and the images are loading just fine now. What would have caused this? Zombiesturm (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Caching is better for logged-in users. Mostly an advantage when editing, but it could affect images too. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Is this IP Randi himself? (And a little help with harassment, please?)

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

---

An IP is editing James Randi rather fast. I may be naive, but I think he may be Randi, especially considering this edit summary. I've posted on their talk, and also made a null edit to the article asking for response, but I guess the person doesn't know about talkpages or histories. If it's Randi, I would really like to talk to them, especially before people start reverting and blocking him. Any suggestions? I'm a little extended at the moment reverting the storm of socks of User:Kutsuit who follow me around and revert all my edits — I'd much rather talk with Randi, I must say. A little help reverting, please? Bishonen | talk 20:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

Wow, this summary does suggest we are graced by the presence of the great man himself. Mr Potto (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This one even more so. That was the link I meant to give. I guess I'm too star-struck to make a proper diff. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

My concern is people may start reverting as "unsourced", not to mention blocking. :-( Bishonen | talk 20:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

And possibly should, since any IP can type "my" and possibly impersonate anyone they want. General Ization ^Talk 20:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As cool as it would be to see James Randi editing (assuming it is him), I'm conflicted because I normally act on the assumption that subjects should not edit articles about themselves. That said, his edits thus far appear to be minor phrasing, only removing material that is no longer applicable (like a planned-then-cancelled book). I'm not seeing any reason to revert other than "subject editing article," but they're edits that anyone else could have reasonably made. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with the man and his work, and those edits look genuine enough to me to not be the work of a faker. And though editing one's own biog is generally frowned on, the edits look modest, fair and factual (as, in fact, is Mr R himself ;-) Mr Potto (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This needs a source but other than that the edits are uncontroversial and do not need reverting, no matter who the IP is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've implored him to respond on his (the IPs) talkpage, but it's like most noobs: they don't know they have a talkpage, or that the page they've been editing has a history. And IP's don't even get an alert, do they? Yes, they're fine edits. I hope nobody goes wikilawyer on them. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

Ceasing to be star struck and simply looking at edit quality is all that is important here. Fiddle Faddle 20:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a charming comment, Fiddle Faddle. Did I mention they are fine edits? Of course I looked at them carefully before posting on ANI. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

I feel as if I have offended you, which was not my intent. Perhaps I was stating the obvious, yet sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. I shall now go and hide under my favourite rock. Fiddle Faddle 20:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the IP geolocates to Florida[328] and it appears that Randi lives in Florida.[329] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

All of the putative Randi's edits have just been reverted. General Ization ^Talk 21:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, by Winkelvi. I reverted back and referred him to ANI, but rather than look here he reverted again. Great. I'm really tired of idiots for today. I'm going to bed. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

What's the deal with the assumption the anon IP is James Randi? How silly to believe "celebrities" are exempt from BLP policy regarding unsourced content. And a lot of it filled with peacock terminology to boot. If it is him (and we don't know for sure if it is), he's no different than any other editor in Wikipedia when it comes to policy. And...what if he did register an account? Isn't all of this speculation actually WP:OUTING and also a violation of policy? Perhaps he doesn't want us to know it's him. Perhaps he does. Perhaps it's not him but his spouse. Perhaps it's his next door neighbor, or bridge partner, or best friend? Perhaps all of this speculation is ridiculous. And since you're throwing around personal attacks by way of childish name-calling, Bishonen, the only "idiot" I see here is the editor(s) who think the possible interaction with a celebrity means anything at all. Gawd. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If "he" (and I'm as skeptical as they come) didn't want to known to be the editor, he wouldn't be typing "me" and "my" in his edit summaries. FYI, I reverted your warning to the editor about OR. We don't know yet that "no reliable, published sources exist"; the IP just didn't supply them. At this point, {{uw-unsourced1}} might be appropriate, but a warning about OR is not. General Ization ^Talk 22:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. Whomever the IP is, they are still violating BLP policy. And if they want to continue to contribute content, they need to be aware they are violating policy and content contributed that is not sourced (especially so much of it) needs to be removed immediately. Because, after all, the article is still a BLP and we have rules for a reason. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Bishonen shouldn't have implied you were an idiot and should immediately clarify or retract that statement. It was hopefully not directed at you, but it doesn't read well.

The reason folks think it's him are the edit summaries in the two diffs linked at the top of this thread: [330] and [331]. Obviously far from dispositive, but because we assume good faith, let's assume the IP isn't lying in those edit summaries. That's not to say that unsourced edits should be accepted--they shouldn't--but that there's no reason to speculate as to who else it could be. As far as outing, it doesn't apply when the editor tells us who they are. agtx 22:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi appears to be stepping of to an edit war in order to enforce their POV regarding these edits, instead of discussing them, as is required. They are up to 3 reverts at this time. BMK (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a POV about the edits, I have a POV about policy. And continually adding the unsourced content back into the article is a violation of policy. Removing unsourced content from a BLP is not a violation of policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And WV (3 reverets) just templated me (2 reverts) for edit warring. Pot/kettle/black. BMK (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Winkelvi is right. Since when do we allow subjects to dump a mass of unsourced awards (and some closely paraphrased text) into their bios? Move the text to the talk page and find proper sources for it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Neil, don't get your pants all twisted. If the IP is Randi, it doesn't help Wikipedia much by treating him as if he an Ememy of the People, instead of explaining to him the problems and guiding him to sort them out. If he is Randi, than getting permission from his own foundation to license the material is a snap, and sourcing a piece of cake. Since none of the material was defamatory, bringing down the BLPhammer is inappropriate, and not what the BLP policy was intended for. BMK (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Despite your assurances, sourcing is not a piece of cake. See my and NQ's posts below. Never mind the issue of weight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You miss my point - a piece of cake for him, assuming he's Randi. Have you asked on the IP's talk page? Have you dropped an email to the Foundation? Do you think it's possible that we could AGF that it is Randi, and that's he's simply unfamiliar with our ways and needs assistance, instead of assuming that someone decided to pretend to be Randi and add perfectly innocuous material to his article? (Why?) BMK (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

When I turned up empty on sources for the society memberships, I looked up his entry on Marquis Who's who and emailed him for confirmation but the personal email address listed does not seem to exist anymore. Like I said on the talk page, I've emailed the foundation after the IP inserted the copyrighted material. - NQ (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That's great, hopefully they can clear up some questions, like was the IP Randi or not, and will the Foundation license the copyrighted material. Will you report the results on the article talk page? (I'm assuming this AN/I report will have scrolled off by then). BMK (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

NQ just removed the text contributed by the IP as a copyvio (yet another wrinkle). General Ization ^Talk 22:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You all need to read the current KWW/TRM ArbCom case, where it is being established that the sourcing doesn't necessarily have to come with the immediate edit, that time should be given when appropriate to allow sourcing to be provided, especially when the material is not defamatory. Considering the signs, which are extremely good, that the IP is Randi, then sourcing should be quite easily come by for him. Why not, in the meantime, mark the material with a "fact" tag, and wait for the IP/Randi to respond to the template you left on their talk page. BMK (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If Arbcom wants to nuke WP:BURDEN then we'll handle that if it passes. I've spent a good chunk of the last hour trying to find proper sources for his society memberships - it's not easy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I've searched almost all the databases I have access to for a reliable source and I came up empty. - NQ (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• fwiw, about whether it is Randi or not... this edit summary says: ": I entered the value of my MacArthur grant." and this one says: "I deleted the reference to the Skeptic Magazine contribution I used to do" So I take that as a declaration that the IP = James Randi. Could be someone lying but AGF.... Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This AGF observation still means nothing. If it is him, he still has to abide by policy and the article still needs to be written according to policy. Why is this even being discussed as if we should wink-wink/nod-nod and let BLP violations go because the article subject has added content? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Then by all means, let's treat him like a piece of shit and not help him to master the process. BMK (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If following policy regarding BLPs and the language contained within the canned warning left on his talk page about being certain to include reliable references with content added is treating someone "like a piece of shit", then take it to the appropriate noticeboard. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean, clearly the entire structure of the encyclopedia would implode if we didn't follow every single rule to the exact letter immediately with a jerking knee, without consideration for the situation, circumstances or content. I also see now why it is your name appears as a subject on the noticeboards so often. That, at least, is useful to know. BMK (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This is absolutely bizarre. An editor has just replaced +10,290 characters into the article without a single piece of verification. Are biographies exempt from what I thought was the ultimate policy of this project?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

C'mon, Dr. Chrissy, anyone familiar with your history knows that's not why you're here. BMK (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry - just what is that supposed to mean? I have no idea what you consider my history to be, but have you heard of Assume Good Faith?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Turning a situation not about me into something about me as a way to win an argument; how entirely helpful and productive. Of course, I'm being sarcastic. If your comments aren't treating someone "like a piece of shit", I don't know what is. But yes, let's get all worried about whether or not we are behaving wrongfully against someone we are assuming is a celebrity (even though we still don't know who the anon IP is) and treat established editors (who are merely trying to keep an article within the boundaries of policy) like worthless targets and villains. Talk about effed up priorities. And, yes, DrChrissy, completely bizarre. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

But this situation became about you, at least in some respect, because of the way you behaved: didactic, closed off, bureaucratic and totally lacking in AGF. It's not bad to act in that manner about obvious vandalism, or promotionalism, or defamatory BLP material, but this wasn't one of those situations, and you behaved as if it was, without consideration of the circumstances or what the best response would be. Your knee jerked, you set your course, and you would not be swayed. That's not good editing, that's very bad editing, bad for the project. You think you know what's what, but you're not there yet, not by a long shot. BMK (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I really don't feel you should be lecturing another editor about AGF after the edit you just made about me!DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"But this situation became about you". No, it didn't and it never has been. But keep telling yourself that if you must. Although why you would is "beyond my ken". "that's very bad editing, bad for the project" What's bad for all of us is your insistence on making this about editors rather than edits (the comments you made to DrChrissy above included). Now, if you're done criticizing editors, I'm happy to discuss content, policy, etc. with you. If not, then I'm done discussing with you because it's really just all a waste of time and bytes and does nothing productive. Unless, of course, you have a legitimate complaint about me. In which case, you are free to start a new discussion on same at this noticeboard. Otherwise, please drop the darts and arrows and walk away. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I just reinstated the IP edits, with the edit summary "reinstating edits from IP editor; no problem letting them remain for a short time while IP editor's identity is sought to be confirmed or clarified." In response to a criticism of the revert on my talkpage, I'll copy here what I wrote there: "Several editors have suggested that the IP editor appears to be Mr. Randi himself, or perhaps someone working closely with him. Given that there appears to be no dispute as to the accuracy of the edits, I perceive little downside in leaving them in place for a short time while the editor is being asked to check in on his talkpage. In these circumstances, and consistent with the views of others expressed at ANI, the upside of treating a BLP editor with courtesy in the event that it turns out to be the article subject, outweighs the downside of allowing the edits to remain for a day or two if it turns out it is not." Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Brad: Thanks for that very common sense approach. BMK (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Islam-related articles

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is quite clear to almost everyone that almost all the Islam-related articles in Wikipedia are of a very poor quality. A filthy cabal of vandals & meat puppets are vandalizing them. Most of them seem to be from Christian background or from Christian atheist background. For example, Look at what they did here in this article: Muhammad in the Bible. Replacing this version, which is well-sourced & well-written & well-organized & consistent with the sourcebooks in the bibliography, with this poorly-written version can only be considered as an act of obvious vandalism.--5.107.36.81 (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Name-calling takes away all credibility you could possibly have had. A big nope to this kind of editing. Page has been protected from you so have a nice day now before we block you and start a new game of whack a mole. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Describing "how dirty you are" is not a name-calling.. I have only described what I saw.. and I saw that you are indeed filthy cabal of bastards.--5.107.135.165 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:TROUBLES for Ring Julian and Text Julian

• Ring Julian (talk · contribs)
• Text Julian (talk · contribs)

Single purpose accounts set up solely to rake trouble at a controversial discussion at Talk:Derry (i.e. WP:TROUBLES related).

No other contributions. Posts indicate a (seemingly intimate) knowledge of previous discussions, editors, etc. Contributions are combative/trolling.

Can another admin block this editor as a case of WP:QUACK in violation of WP:TROUBLES? Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

People aren't psychic so some diffs and some explanation would be helpful. Saying they are to "solely to rake trouble" about an RFC for renaming a city article name that goes on for pages isn't the best way to get fast results. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary since they have less than 20 edits and none outside of the scope of this thread. It's a WP:COMMON-sense case of WP:QUACK (IMO) but Valenciano has spelled it out below. --Tóraí (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that Text Julian arrived and plunged straight into an RFC to support another editor, whose arguments they have a habit of repeating. If you look through their first six contributions, Text Julian already showed familiarity with sandboxes, signing their contributions, article talk pages and indenting their comments, as well as Wikipedia concepts like "consensus" and "common name." I could live with a new editor figuring out one of them but all of them together, in less than 7 edits, is highly suspect. When questioned about that they cited their computer literacy. Yet that literacy didn't extend to following a big "forgot your password?" sign or following a clear link from their talk page to this ANI. The latter two look simply like attempts to overcompensate and try to belatedly establish their "newbieness." Most of their edits since then exhibit a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, being more focused on attacking other editors for their supposed political motivations ((diff1), (diff2), (diff3)) than discussing the topic at hand. Valenciano (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What twigs it for me is a seeming familiarity with the editors involved, previous discussions and conflicts, as well as a literacy of policy and guidelines and the culture of Wikipedia.

Take their 3rd ever contribution: it demonstrates a familiarity and literacy with Wikipedia (e.g. referring to policies and calling Wikipedia "the project") and this topic area (e.g. saying that, "The current situation has only worked well for those...") that immediately quacks loudly. In their 4th ever contribution, they are discussing other editors user pages, not just in a functional sense but with a fluency that demonstrates an intimate understanding of their significance in Wikipedia culture and a seeming prior knowledge of the editors themselves. By their 5th ever contribution, they are redacting another user's comments, quoting WP:NPA.

That's some progression for a newbie. They may as well write, "Quack! Quack! Quack! Quack!" So, since the account holder has been evasive in explaining himself/herself, can we block these accounts, please, as a clear case of WP:QUACK? --Tóraí (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"familiarity with the editors involved, previous discussions and conflicts". Can you provide a diff for this point? Any user can view the talk page history, and in the case of WP:Derry, it is essential reading to understand the issues at hand and to identify the characters involved. Dubs boy (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are you still being so cryptic? If you think it's a QUACK of someone, say who it is here or file a WP:SPI report rather than come here. Otherwise just saying "this guy knows what to do here, block him now" isn't going to work for me. The editor may have some knowledge but we don't block IP editors just because they are knowledgeable. I've seen IP editors who have been around more than 10 years. Otherwise, don't pretend like I'm supposed to understand the litany of background for whatever point you want to make. The talk page is full of IP editors, full of bizarre tangents and I'm not blocking everyone just because they seem to know something of what to do. Nevertheless, I blocked User:Text Julian as an admitted sock account with serious WP:NOTHERE issues. User:Ring Julian's edit here could either be complete trolling or a fairly newbie but silly vote and that's not sufficient for me to say it's blockworthy if no one files an WP:SPI report. I can't tell if people think the RFC is just trolling from an editor who is rotating IP addresses to avoid refusing to accept consensus or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

I'm not being cryptic. I don't know who he/she is - but they aren't new. And I've no objection to someone making a clean start - if that is the case - but as you say, they're not here to make a positive contribution. Not this time around, anyway. Maybe at another time, under another user name. --Tóraí (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of blocking a user who's viewpoint you don't agree with. Eliminate a user and you silence their voice. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.Dubs boy (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It may appear like that to you, but Julian has clearly used multiple accounts, and has failed to assume good faith by accusing all editors who favour "Derry" as the article title of either being Irish republican activists or stupid. If anything is "not in the spirit of Wikipedia", that is. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

He has used multiple accounts but he has not abused multiple accounts. Big difference. The same can not be said for other users on the WP:Derry page. An accusation is only an accusation if its not true. Other users have done worse within the same domain and been served with no ban or consequence. This is the 2nd attempt from those opposed to change at WP: Derry to block and eliminate an opposing voice at the within the same discussion. Wikipedia is not about eliminating opposing views.Dubs boy (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

So are you now suggesting that it's true that anyone citing WP:COMMONNAME in support of "Derry" is either a republican sympathiser or stupid? If so, which one am I? Julian would be advised to stick to policy-based arguments rather than suggesting that everyone who opposes changing the article name is doing so for political purposes. If he did that, there wouldn't be attempts to ban him. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Larry, I missed the part where you actually provided evidence of WP:Commonname. Users who object to change also have to provide a rationale. So far those opposed have failed to do so. Quoting WP:Commonname and WP:Consensus is just lazy. This is a fresh discussion and those opposed need to change the record. Mabuska sums it up best.Dubs boy (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that evidence is required to support claims about the common name, but Julian not assuming good faith hardly helps in that regard. Both sides need to focus on the evidence, rather than on attacking the other's motivations. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Very difficult to assume good faith when users quote WP:COMMONNAME as a reason for opposition based on no evidence what so ever. What exactly were you basing your stance on?Dubs boy (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss that evidence - the article talk page is. I'm happy to present evidence there, but the discussion needs to focus on that evidence, not on unfounded claims of political bias. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed but to note that Julian was not the only user who was attributing political bias. Its a two way street.Dubs boy (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Text Julian has requested that the block be transferred to Ring Julian, but hasn't used the unblock request template, so this might have been missed. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Copy/paste content after move

Christian75 (talk · contribs) first moved a template, then copy/pasted code into the old page. This is bad.

Original page: Template:Recent changes in Chemistry

Moved to Template:Recent changes in Chemicals (note the diff is -mistry vs. -icals)

Then c/p code [332].

One hour earlier I already noted that that the name change was not a good idea: [333].

I have tagged the new page (created by the move) for Speedy T3, duplicate code. Surprisingly/stunningly, Christiaan75 removed the speedy tag [334].

What is needed now is to restore the page history (attributions, mostly mine). Also, given that the editor is making disruptive edits afterwards, some measurement may be needed to stop that. -DePiep (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: See the talk page of the template. And your edit summary says "[...] I won't have to do with WP Chemicals anyway". But its not your user page. The WP Chemical projects have all the chemical articles (which use the {{chembox}}). I moved the template because it was named chemistry, but didnt contain articles which are related to WP Chemistry, but only articles related to WP Chemicals. Therefore, I created a new template which have recent changes for all articles in Category:WikiProject Chemistry articles but you insist to undo it. Why? Please explain.

I removed the speedy deletion request because I didnt think it should be deleted. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says: "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." I am not the creator, and I hope you will undo you recent edit Christian75 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering. You did not discuss a single edit. The move was disputed, and you knew it beforehand. The copy/paste is not allowed at all. The code was copied, so it's deletable. -DePiep (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've functionally reverted to the pre-war edition. Christian75, please observe the following statement in the license. "If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties...". You didn't attribute the source of the template code, so you committed a copyright infringement. Don't repeat. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend and DePiep: The talk page got a {{copied}} (but after I made the template, but the talk page is now deleted when Nyttend moved the template back) (The edit summary said something like "from chemicals" which I realized wasnt very helpfull but should have been more clearly. Btw, the template was created by DePiep with the edit summary "from RC in Anatomy" - IS THAT OK? and DePiep please comment my comments and not just say "Wikilayering". Christian75 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

On attribution, you're right; I'm sorry. But on general issues, still please don't copy/paste content from one place to another, if for no other reason than that it's confusing. It's easy to see that the older template was created from Template:Recent changes in Anatomy, since the previous edit involved moving that template to a different title. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that "chemicals" changed. I thought that they are what they are.

Anyway, the name change seems like a really terrible idea. BMK (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: - have you seen the template? Its a help box, which have a link to recent changes in the chemical articles at en-wiki - and yes they change. Theese articles are all tagged with WikiProject Chemicals, not WP Chemistry (the "drugbox articles" are covered by WP:PHARMA). None of the of the articles are covered by WikiProject Chemistry. Therefore, I moved the template:recent changes in Chemistry to Chemicals, so I could make one for WP Chemistry too. (The template should be named "Related changes to" like the label in the tool box[335]). But its allowed because DePiep doesnt like the WP Chemical project[336]. He has proposed to merge the Chemical project but no consensus[337]. DiPiep have long wised me blocked, see [338] Christian75 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Continuing the battle attitude, without acknowledging their copy/paste error, Christaan75 now forked the code into a misleadingly named {{Recent changes in WikiProject Chemistry}}. So far, non of the edits were based on talk activity. -DePiep (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Its not battle attitude. I didnt change your templates at all. I made a template for "recent changes for the WikiProject Chemistry" which I find very useful. Please comment my comments which I posted two days ago, and this one too. Explain why it isnt useful. Christian75 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I thank admins for reverting the chaos. Given that this ANI post did not prevent Christiaan75 from creating forked template (by pattern: no talk preceded), it might as well be closed. I've put the copy-paste 'creation' up for deletion at TfD. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Its the second time you write my name with two a's - the other is here. I think its really bad attitude to start an ANI and not comment afterwards! Btw. the TfD shows that Im not the only one which finds the name of the template incorrect. Christian75 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• By now, please block User:Christian75. He is editwarring Template:Recent_changes_in_Chemistry. TfD related. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

More edit warring shows, in the history link. -DePiep (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I request reversion into the pre-Christian75 involvement. -DePiep (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You are changing the template and I added both WPs but you disagreed and reverted me, and I reverted to a version prior today. I asked you to use the talk page, but you are just reverting me. Please block DePiep for a violation of 3RR - see [339], [340], [341] and [342] and revert pre-today-DePiep version. Christian75 (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've fully protected for two days, no doubt the WP:WRONGVERSION. Both of you need to use the talk page to hash out what belongs in the template. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Why not revert it to the version before DePiep started editing it today. I wants the WP Chemical tag to add if its includes Chemical article. Right now its the version DePiep probably is happy about.

Thanks NeilN, OK with me. However, I do oppose your "both are wrong" note. So far, in all related edit history, my opponent editor did not start a Talk. Ever. -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Christian75: I protected whichever version was current. @DePiep: If you are reverting good-faith edits repeatedly, you can just as easily open a talk page discussion yourself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Messed up ping @DePiep: --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Help with the Republic of China elections page move

User:Number_57 has mass moved articles pertaining to elections Republic of China (Taiwan) to use the name “Taiwan” without starting a discussion, and in one case a page where such a move proposal was already rejected. Since the political status of Taiwan is highly controversial and the pertaining user moves are quite numerous and without consensus, this potentially constitutes vandalism. These moves ranges from articles about presidential, legislative, local elections and related templates. While some are reverted, I do not have the energy to find all the changes and revert all of them.

Here is a list of related moves (not exhaustive). Special:Diff/642446410/650200771, Special:Diff/639532221/650200886, Special:Diff/645569045/650200867, Special:Diff/640398686/650201015, Special:Diff/638063457/650200814. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlur (talk • contribs) 05:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums. Alex Mattrick | ゆうせい 05:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I moved the articles in March to bring them into alignment with the naming convention for article titles (WP:NC-GAL) seeing as the main article was moved to Taiwan some time ago. I wasn't aware that there had been an RM on the "Elections in" page three years ago, but saying this "potentially constitutes vandalism" and filing an ANI report is really taking the piss, especially coming from an editor who has about 50% of their edits to their own userspace... What is rather concerning is that (on my userpage) they have claimed that moving the articles back is in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), which doesn't even mention the Taiwan/ROC naming dispute. Number 57 07:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that my edits in my own userspace bothered anyone. I used Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) because it refers to Republic of China multiple times, and if that is not a valid argument, I apologize for that. If I interpret it correctly,Number 57 moved those pages based on WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums, but I failed to find the part where it applies. Alex Mattrick | ゆうせい 11:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two mentions of ROC in that guideline, neither of which are relevant to this situation. If you can't even read the first sentence of the WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums guideline (or are aware that Taiwanese is the demonym for Taiwan), then I think I see why there is a problem... Number 57 11:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I hope I am not reading WP:NPA. Please refer to Taiwanese identity. Alex Mattrick | ゆうせい 11:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

All seems fine to me. All these articles that fall under the Taiwan banner should have been moved three years ago, or whenever it was that the ROC article was moved to Taiwan. The reason why they aren't all there already is because people get fed up with every single move being contested like this and forcing it through a weeks long RM process. So good on Number 57 for cleaning these articles up. The only one that should probably be moved back is Elections in Taiwan as that has already gone through RM and needs a consensus, but it's completely understandable that Number 57 missed this. To label these moves vandalism is completely ridiculous. Jenks24 (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a touchy subject - on one hand, I can see why using Taiwanese makes sense since it's a common name, but on the other hand, political status of Taiwan does come into play with how we want to deal with neutrality. I think stuff like this probably needs to go through consensus-building before we settle on where to actually place related articles. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The consensus building was done in the requested move that resulted in Republic of China being moved to Taiwan. The election articles are not appropriate forums for editors unhappy with that move to continue attempting to make their point. Similarly, when we moved Myanmar to Burma, all the election articles were moved to follow suit then too. Number 57 22:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Revert moves, go to RM – This is completely controversial, and should be reverted. The idea that there is a "Taiwanese National Assembly" is rubbish. No such body exists, but that's what the likes of Taiwanese National Assembly election, 2005 implies. The use of "Taiwanese" is not clear-cut, just as the way "Northern Irish" isn't clear-cut. "Taiwanese" can imply a political position favouring Taiwan independence. Anyway, the body itself is not "Taiwanese", does not claim to be "Taiwanese", and never has been "Taiwanese". Whilst I can understand the moving of the country article to Taiwan, even if I would not've supported that move, these articles are a separate matter, not clear like the Burma / Myanmar case. That's because "Taiwan" has never been a name of the state itself, which has always been the Republic of China. The organs of the state are therefore organs of the Republic of China, not of "Taiwan", even if Taiwan is the common name of the country. RGloucester — ☎ 03:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the moves myself. This is simply too much of a mess to be settled by bold moves. If a change is to be had, it should be done for all articles at once through an RM. As it stands, I certainly can't support using "Taiwanese National Assembly" or "Taiwanese" in general. Demonyms are not always the best solution, especially in cases where said demonyms are charged with political rhetoric, as with Northern Irish or Taiwanese. That's why we don't write "Northern Irish Assembly election, xxxx". I doubt we should do such a thing here, either. RGloucester — ☎ 04:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion / disruptive editing / 5.107.141.137

Hi, 5.107.141.137 continuing on from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/92.96.206.60/Archive has now moved onto dumping their version of the article into المسيح ,Jewish view of Muhammad and Jewish views on Muhammad. Also related to this previous ANI "Theories of Muhammad in the Bible", and 5.107.141.101 reported here earlier today. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I processed this via a report at WP:AIV. IP has been blocked and all their redirect targets semi-protected but the disruption will probably continue. [343] If they'd actually stop and listen and work with other editors, a lot of the material they're trying to dump into redirects could probably be worked into the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Since they keep doing this, and have vowed to continue, can this not be detected with filters of some sort since it is exactly the same huge (53K) chunk of text each time? I only keep bumping into to guy because of the same errors posted every-time (and not because of the secret cabal he blames this on). KylieTastic (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging an edit filter creator Samwalton9. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Special:AbuseFilter/710. Hidden to avoid WP:BEANS. Sam Walton (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• They are back - now using 92.99.239.114 @ Scriptural prophecy - KylieTastic (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked. KylieTastic, are you detecting these during recent changes patrol or something else? Email me if there's WP:BEANS involved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I was wondering why we hadn't seen them again.... The reason was they moved over to simple.wikipedia.org simple:Muhammad the Apostle in the Bible, simple:Muhammad in the bible, simple:Muhammad and the Scriptural prophecies KylieTastic (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest reporting this also at m:Vandalism reports. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Due to the editor swapping IP addresses I'm not sure what they could do, unless they have a global edit filter? At the moment at least this has settled down to an discussion (well on one side, and dismissal of any other view on the other) over on simple. I guess the best thing to do is see what happens after simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Muhammad the Apostle in the Bible is resolved. Hopefully the addition of the edit filter here will stop the situation coming back here. KylieTastic (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Tamsin Kendra for Terms of Use and COI violations

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

This account is used as part of a scam that has been reported multiple times to OTRS. Relevant tickets are #2015040210025176, #2014092910015601, #2014082110017591 , #2014080810016151 and #2014080610021121, plus the latest one #2015070210016402 which finally produced this information. I have some additional off-wiki data that I can share, however I would probably be skirting WP:OUTING so I will not, at least not here. I apologize for using information that is not readily accessible to most editors, I hope one or two folks with OTRS access can verify that these are related. There are also two relevant threads at AN and ANI:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive270#Something_new:_COI_extortion
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive889#Someone_may_be_impersonating_me

The methods of operation here as far as I can tell are to a) create an article, then demand money from the subject and mark with {{db-g7}} if not produced; and b) to trawl AFC looking for declined articles and demand money to get them accepted, claiming they have "special rights". The userpage of the account above is included in emails sent to targets of the scam and used to give credibility to the idea that the editor is an active member of AFC with 16,000 edits registered 10 years ago, which is of course not true since the account was created a month ago and they have exactly three edits. They have also apparently included links to administrators' userpages claiming to be them.

Now that we have an actual target account, I would like to propose a formal project-wide ban for this user (or users) for violations of the terms of use and WP:COI so they can be blocked on sight. I would also like to request an off-SPI CU, so that perhaps a few more accounts and related articles will surface. I honestly don't know if this is actionable based on the evidence and the lack of edits on this account, so if there is no consensus for this at least I'd like everyone to be aware that this is happening and how. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• No objections to the block. The details of the OTRS tickets are noted. An off-SPI checkuser investigation is already underway. Risker (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've had a couple of these through OTRS so we might have some more accounts we can use to pool SPI data. I'll go ticket digging. Looks like blatent undisclosed paid editing so that looks like our trumpcard. Amortias (T)(C) 19:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ticket #2015061010024265. Admins will have to gather the username in question as I cant see who the author who requested deletion was. Amortias (T)(C) 19:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Amortias. Since I'm not consistently onwiki right now (traveling), if you'd be so kind as to email me the ticket numbers, I'll make sure that the CU team is reviewing the whole lot. Risker (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have OTRS access at this time, but per confirmations above that the tickets are valid and investigations are proceeding off-wiki, I have indefblocked the account here for apparent violations of community standards and terms of service. I would like to request that someone on the OTRS and CU teams update the block once details are appropriately gathered. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the WMF Office aware of this incident, and has the above evidence been forwarded to them? MER-C 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That aside, it would be worth broadcasting this somehow to editors site wide, perhaps via a banner? As much traffic as AN and ANI get, the vast majority of editors would not be watch listing these pages. Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@MER-C: Not this specifically, in the past I have forwarded what information I had to Legal but they never got back to me as to what they did, if any. @Blackmane: I think the best thing we can do is make sure admins examine any G7 deletions by new accounts with a bit more care, and also be on the lookout for new accounts fiddling with AFC submissions as well. Although they likely don't use the AFC tools, perhaps a filter can be written to detect when an article is created in mainspace by a new account that already exists in draft form. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, is there anyway to prevent new accounts from nominating articles to AFD? kinda how autoconfirmed works is what I had in mind Blackmane (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: It is possible with an edit filter but that should be considered only as a last resort.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Blackmane (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to close the loop... Office is aware. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Note an additional account her surfaced via OTRS. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tamsin Kendra. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)