Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive874

User:AndyTheGrump shows bias favoring sources that he has added to the [Energy Catalyzer] article and is making repeated unsourced personal attacks against myself and others.

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

---

AndyTheGrump has repeatedly supported ([1] [2] [3] [4]) a quote by Ugo Bardi, a Physical Chemist, which was posted on Ugo Bardi’s personal Blog, which he added [[5]] to the article in question. During the course of discussions on the talk page (see archives above), issues regarding the quote’s blog source were brought up by at least 4 other editors (Tmccc, NUMB3RN7NE, POVbrigand, Liftarn) before being brought up most recently by myself [6]. The question of whether the source is a legitimate reliable source is not the purpose of this discussion, the problem is the way that AndyTheGrump attacks other similar sources for being from blogs:

"Sadly blogs, even those run by physicists, aren't considered reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)" [[7]]

This indicates a consistent bias toward his own sources, which is unacceptable from a Wikipedia contributor with his experience. I’d also like to bring up personal attacks, as this is something that has been occurring as well. He has repeatedly accused me of POV pushing, through strawman arguments declaring me as a ‘Rossi Promoter’ and telling me what my own personal opinion is on the subject, each time without referencing what posts of mine he is referring to, which constitutes a personal attack. He seems to be unable to treat anyone on the talk page with different views from his own with good faith, and his hostile attitude is unbecoming of an experienced Wikipedia editor.

If you misunderstood my last sentence as a 'thinly veiled attempt' to accuse you POV pushing, I apologise for not being clearer - and will state outright that it is self-evident that you have repeatedly attempted to use this article to promote Rossi's pseudoscientific nonsense, in direct contravention of Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

he later told me to: [8]

Go boil your head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Having a quick look through the archives of the Energy Catalyzer page, I found other evidence of personal attacks, such as this quote, where he unnecessarily (and without source) insults Domenico Fioravanti (an Italian Engineer) as ‘writing like a ten-year-old’ while reviewing a source another user proposed. [9]

We base article content on published reliable sources. We don't base them on 'original documents'. Particularly ones that appear to have been written by ten-year-olds. If that is any part of a binding legal agreement with a legitimate customer I'll eat my hat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump has previously been blocked multiple times for making personal attacks, [10] so this is not a new occurrence. He has also not apologized or provided sources for his accusations.

I make this post with trepidation as he has implied that because I have spent the large amount of my edits on the E-cat Page, that I am a single-purpose-account, and implied [11] that as per WP:Boomerang, accusing him could result in an arbitration case being taken against me. I'll let my edits to the article in question stand for themselves [12], as I feel that I have adhered to WP:NPOV. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It is, of course, both safe and accurate to describe Insertcleverphrasehere as a single-purpose account. Essentially his entire editing history (since June 2014) has been devoted to cold fusion and to Energy Catalyzer (a dubious cold-fusion 'invention'). Altogether he has made perhaps a dozen scattered edits that aren't directly related to those two articles.

Insertcleverphrase here has a long history of tendentiously pushing a very...credulous...POV on these two cold-fusion articles, and I can certainly see why AndyTheGrump would be frustrated by his persistent personal bias. (I will, in the interest of full disclosure, acknowledge that I've run into Insertcleverphrasehere recently at these articles, and been impressed by his thoroughly disingenuous approach. See most recently Talk:Energy Catalyzer#A brief history of this article's dubious commercial claims for the sort of point-missing I'm talking about.) This AN/I filing is mostly a way for Insertcleverphrase here to try to take a content dispute which he probably wouldn't win at WP:FTN or WP:RSN, and roll the dice on reframing it as a conduct dispute at AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like to make a dispute about me, or my POV, do so, this is not the place. single-purpose accounts are not necessarily a bad thing, so long as NPOV is maintained. I believe I have done so. As for Talk:Energy Catalyzer#A brief history of this article's dubious commercial claims, you guys deleted an entire section saying that it was 'unreliable nonsense' without participating in discussion of the 8 sources to be deleted. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that using an ad hominem to dispute the sourced evidence that I have given above is disingenuous, and not overly constructive. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually really appreciate that you noticed my recent efforts to be in cooperation with the rules of WP, as I began making edits to the article. Despite our often disagreement, I actually respect your opinion greatly. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This sort of selective misreading of what other editors write is a common problem. I have noticed no such efforts, and I find your endless argumentation exhausting. If I see a post by you on an article talk page, I now try to make the minimum response necessary to keep you from further slanting our content; I recognize that it is a waste of time to try to engage with you further. Lest there be any confusion, "disingenuous" is not intended to be a complimentary description. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia, where anyone can be an SPA and exploit the encyclopedia by polishing their favored topic to suit their agenda, then provoke editors who defend the project and take them to ANI! A topic ban from all topics related to Energy Catalyzer for Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs) is the obvious solution. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What evidence are you going to give to support this? Is this how people are treated with they bring their concerns to the administration noticeboard? You state that I have an agenda... please back this up, or stop attacking me personally. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I'll be unavailable for a couple hours to participate in this, so if I'm not responding thats why. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban of Insertcleverphrasehere proposed by Johnuniq. Throw perpetual motion machines into the topic ban as well, for good measure. Thanks to AndyTheGrump for his consistent work to defend the encyclopedia from cranks and POV pushers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• (ec) @Johnuniq: I will note that cold fusion and pseudoscience are covered by discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator can impose a topic ban (perhaps on "cold fusion-related topics, broadly defined"), as Insertcleverphrasehere was formally notified in June 2014 that DS covered this area. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I told Insertcleverphrasehere to go boil his head - after his repeated attacks on my defence of Wikipedia policy. Which included accusing me of 'disruption' for pointing out the existence of a WP:RSN discussion of the Bardi material. [13] The same material that was previously also discussed on this noticeboard, where likewise no uninvolved contributor raised any issues with it. [14] It should be noted that I avoided edit-warring over the issue, and that Insertcleverphrasehere made no effort whatsoever to ask for uninvolved comment, instead attempting to browbeat other contributors into accepting a position which basically made any criticism of Rossi's dubious claims a supposed 'BLP violation'. Clearly there is a tension between WP:BLP policy and claims of 'scientific' miracles made by individuals - but such a tension cannot legitimately be solved by applying a double standard which effectively excludes all criticism which does not accept the claims that this is 'science'. Personally, I am of the opinion that the appropriate solution for such problems is to exclude articles on magic-teapot-pushers and their implausible contraptions from the encyclopaedia entirely, until such time as their claims are accepted by mainstream science, their products are in verifiable use and working as advertised, and/or pigs fly. Since that is not the case, and since Talk:Energy_Catalyzer has seen a steady stream of the credulous Rossi faithful who's attempts to subvert Wikipedia policy are only exceeded by their assertions that anyone expressing an iota of scepticism is doing likewise, I have on occasions been less than civil. Though frankly, if Insertcleverphrasehere finds being told to go boil his head a 'personal attack' after insisting that I provide evidence for what was self-evident - that he was yet another of the faithful, I have to surmise that he spends little of his time on the internet. As for the proposed topic ban, I'll refrain from offering explicit support since my involvement might make this seem inappropriate, and since I doubt that it will make much difference anyway - the stream of the credulous will no doubt continue either way, at least until they find another miracle of 'science' to believe in... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You'll note that I accused you of disruption for attempting to derail the argument about WP:BLP with the WP:RSN discussion, when this discussion did not discuss BLP violation and was therefore inappropriate as argument. Why do you continue to label me of the 'faithful'? I consider this a great insult, as belief has no place in scientific inquiry. If anyone were to actually look at the edits I've made to said article, you would realise that I am actually highly critical of the 'science' that has been performed regarding testing and demonstrating the device. All I have tried to do is provide reliable sources to the effect, that support the mainstream POV view, where we disagree is that you guys would rather not cover the topic at all. Honestly, pretty much all my edits have been grammatical fixes, tense errors, link fixes, and the citing of experts that are critical of Rossi. And yet you continue to call me one of the crackpot true believers? This is what i mean by strawman attacks. Your assertions that I am a 'true believer' are not supported by the facts. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Certainly belief should not be a factor in science, at least in as much as that is possible - but since we have no evidence from credible mainstream scientific publications that science is being practised this is somewhat of a red herring. A red herring you have been promoting as much as Rossi's teapot itself. I'm tempted to suggest you go boil the one in the other... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And incidentally, a look at the recent history of the E-Cat article [15] might suggest evidence for something of a double standard from Insertcleverphrasehere - who makes unilateral deletions himself, but then insists on 'consensus' before anyone else does the same... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I deleted 1 link, which I had previously brought up in the talk page and the only response had been about [WP:Parity], when you reverted, I asked for talk and MrX stated that

The content above makes assertions about a living person and WP:BLPSPS is quite clear that self-published sources cannot be used this way.

Binksternet deleted an entire section unilaterally with 8 links in it, without separately discussing any of them. These are not directly comparable. However, in future I will endeavour to make sure that consensus is clear before making significant edits. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is doing good work. Articles like Energy Catalyzer would benefit from having more attention, to protect against single-purpose POV-warriors. bobrayner (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that there are too many POV-warriors on the article. And I'm finding it incredibly insulting that people are labelling me as one of them. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you seem to think that dragging up old posts for evidence, here's one of yours from last year. [16] A classic example of the 'they persecuted Galileo' argument, as rolled out ad infinitum by the credulous everywhere: " I will post on the [Cold Fusion] Talk page, and I do have a point of view. However I do not hold that wikipedia is at fault for any of this, it is however the fault of the wider scientific community, which its denial of CF has meant that blind skeptics have far more peer reviewed and mainstream sources than do supporters or scientists in the field." A clear admission of an agenda to promote fringe material in full knowledge that it is rejected by the mainstream. So much for science... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You are judging me for one of the posts I made in my first week of editing Wikipedia (not counting my previous account that I used briefly years ago), and my first serious experience in using Talk Pages? Honestly? Theres a learning curve with this stuff. If you'll note I have refrained from making significant edits to articles until I was clear about control of my opinions to NPOV. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I checked, it was 4 months until I made my first edit of the article itself, and not till recently did I begin to make significant edits, as I became more confident with the system, I have been very clear to try to learn wikipedia rules before jumping into fringe editing. I have received no good faith from you, unlike TenOfAllTrades, with who, although we disagree often, can still have rational conversations. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• No Support and please block and I hope permanently block AndyTheGrump for glaring conduct violations like the one he just admitted to above and the diffs show it. My experience with Andy is that he will just about say anything, even the marginally untruthful, to get his way on Wikipedia. He is an abusive name caller. He is happy to tell someone to boil their head or call people little shits. He really does not deserve to edit here anymore. The other guy that brought this is right. Block Andy for personal attacks, again. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Next time I suggest you at least make some pretence of actually adressing the issues being discussed here before engaging in your usual partisan vitriol... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, Grumpy may often live up to his nickname, but most of the time he gets it right, and for my money that's more important. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah I did didn't I though. Partisan vitriol? Mmmm. You make my point perfectly. You did not come here to apologize for your personal attack but seem to relish it. Block permanently. Boil your head. You think you can use that kind of language? Pretty close to Isis talking with that one [[17]]. Sick humor and has no place on a talk page of Wikipedia. Tell people stuff like that in real life and what happens? Why should it be different for you. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

While I think that Andy has certainly contributed a great deal to this encyclopaedia, he seems to feel that he is immune from oversight. Despite admitting to personal attacks, he did not apologise but instead justified his actions because he does not like my opinions. He then continued to make ANOTHER personal attack by calling me one of the 'faithful', something that I expressed I find deeply insulting (wether he finds it an insult should not be withstanding, as he should not be attempting to wilfully antagonise others). Indeed he seems to feel that my (and others) opinions are inherently less valuable than his, if they disagree with him, and that therefore he can insult me as much as he likes. He has made no attempt to apologise, indicating that he does not feel that my feelings are worth anything. The fact that he feels that he is so far above the rules, may be related to his SEVERAL blocks for personal attacks that he managed to escape unscathed.

I'll finish by stating, again if you have any concerns about MY actions, please bring them up to me. I think I have demonstrated that I am willing to learn and follow the rules around here, so if I am out of line, please let me know and I'll review my actions. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang. It's high time for obviously partisan Insertcleverphrasehere to be topic-banned from cold fusion, which for this editor will be tantamount to a site ban. Insertcleverphrasehere has been the same kind of disruptive for 8 months, and shows no sign of letting up. Binksternet (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've repeatedly asked users to refrain from using language like 'obviously partisan' without backing it up. Accusing others needs to be done with references as per WP:No personal attacks:

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.

Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Banninate insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a likely sock and definite time-sink. Alternatively, for the Mary Poppins types, indefinitely topic ban from WP:FRINGE per WP:ARBPS. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Even casually acusing me of Sockpuppetry is a serious claim. Have you any evidence? No you don't. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Your very first edit pretty much proves it. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Boomerang topic ban for User:Insertcleverphrasehere. It's far too often that we allow WP:TRUTHers to wear down scientifically minded editors. Civility is more than skin-deep. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Andy has plenty of friends that are happy to throw me under the bus without citing any evidence, while simultaneously refusing to comment on Andy's actions. It seems I'm not going to find any help here. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone filing a complaint here opens themself to scrutiny. The filer does not get to drive the agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was under the understanding that users over here would at least pretend to be objective, I can see now that I was baited into coming here by Andy and his 'boil your head' comment. I've just spent 2 hours looking through some of the previous disputes regarding AndyTheGrump and his, how shall we say, colourful descriptions of other users, many of which were far more nasty than what I experienced. Since admins seem fine with Andy being rude and personally attacking other editors due to his many contributions, (might is right, he is valuable enough to put up with), I'll agree with them and say, fuck it, let him say what he wants about me so long as he remains useful for the encyclopaedia. I'm being honest, If Andy is so great an editor that they've ignored all his misconduct and name calling in the past, theres no point in further discussing this. 202.36.179.100 (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Baited"? Your IP hasn't edited in several days. Or did you forget to log in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, occasionally the internet here at the university unexpectedly results in logging me out. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Boomerang. To claim that Ugo Bardi, a professor researching materials for new energy sources is not worth of mention on an article about an alleged new energy source is stupid. Wikipedia is not here to provide whitewashed adverts for unproven WP:Fringe technology. The E-cat article has regular attempts to remove criticism, and put the item in a good light. Further, Insertcleverphrasehere was warned about the possible consequences of actions such as bringing the matter here. AndyTheGrump usually makes good calls on matters such as this, and he is correct here. Martin451 13:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that the quote in question violates WP:BLPSPS, as raised by MrX, as it's a self published work that makes claims about a living person. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Since my name has been invoked here, I wish to clarify my comments. WP:BLPSPS is very clear that we can't use (self-published) blogs "as sources of material about a living person". This is reinforced by WP:FRINGEBLP. The policy can't be changed by a few comments on ANI, or on an article talk page, as it reflects wide community consensus. Whether the blog can be used as a source for commentary or analysis of the invention is a matter of editorial discretion, supported by WP:SPS which states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As to the claims of personal attacks, socking, tendentious editing, and SPAs raised here, I have no further comment but would advise everyone to be mindful of WP:ARBPS and WP:NEWBLPBAN.- MrX 14:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Some diffs. Insertcleverphrasehere's fifth and sixth edits to wikipedia [18] [19]. Replies to User:Tenofalltrades [20] [21] [22] [23]. Insertcleverphrasehere is clearly a supporter of this device [24], which should in itself not be a problem. However the account seems to be a single purpose account, ~90% of the edits are to Energy Catalyzer or Cold fusion, and the user admits to edit warring [25]. Has gone against consensus to have the word "Tests" as a header[26][27][28] Martin451 16:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Might I suggest remediation. I would appreciate andy apologising regarding his comments about me, and I would request that an uninvolved admin examine my edits to the page in question to determine if I am guilty of POV pushing and/or whether I am a valuable contributor. I will accept this verdict, and if s/he has any concerns regarding my behaviour, I am invested in improving my ability to edit with NPOV. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Would those suggesting a topic block or ban for Insertcleverphrasehere please provide some diffs rather than simply referring to an article or noticeboard? It's hard to justify the merits of such a harsh boomerang without actual evidence of disruption. I've seen many editors post incidents here that were dismissed because they didn't supply specific diffs that supported the claim of misconduct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

For your convenience and that of others who wish to quote my diffs here is the full list of my edits to the Energy Catalyzer article, which includes 28 edits in total [[29]]. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit: In the efforts of full disclosure, one additional diff from the IP of my university, which was made accidentally. [[30]] Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of a silly way to represent your editing history. It's almost as if you don't want to draw attention to your habit of tendentious, WP:IDHT behavior on talk pages, or the way that your conduct at Energy Catalyzer and its talk page parallels your behavior at cold fusion and its talk page. If you want people to be able to review all your edits related to cold fusion, it's much more straightforward to point them to your entire editing history. Out of 300 or so edits, perhaps a dozen aren't directly related to those two articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Given Insertcleverphrasehere's blatant misrepresentations in this thread, I see nothing to apologise for. The thread starts with a quotation from a comment I made about a source in 2011, based on policy as I then understood it. I suggested that the source was unsuitable, as a blog, evidently unaware of the exceptions under WP:USERG (though whether it applies in the case of the source then in question, I'm unsure). Insertcleverphrasehere however choses to represent this as evidence of "a consistent bias". An assertion which a simple examination of the source concerned, as I had already pointed out to Insertcleverphrasehere on Talk:Energy Catalyzer prior to the starting of this thread, [31] is somewhat questionable, given that it expresses extreme scepticism towards the E-Cat, describing it unambiguously as "a scam". What 'bias' is evident here? None that I can see. And no, I'm not going to apologise for suggesting bias from someone who made it clear from the start that their purpose on Wikipedia was to correct the "persecution" of cold fusion researchers by the "blind skeptics" of the scientific mainstream, and who's personal conclusions regarding the "reality" of cold fusion outweigh any responsibility to reflect contemporary consensus on the matter, as reflected in appropriate sources for a responsible encyclopaedia. [32] And with regard to the E-Cat article, Insertcleverphrasehere's protestations of 'neutrality' aren't borne out by his persistent insistence that the sole subject of the article is 'science', and that any source not buying this particular dubious proposition is somehow in violation of policy. Science (or at least physics), to my mind (and I expect to the "blind skeptic" mainstream as well) does not consist of 'demonstrations' and 'tests' carried out by a man in a white coat promulgating self-serving and contradictory buzz-words. It requires disclosure and independent verification, and controlled experiments. And for Wikipedia's purposes, to be recognised as science, it needs to be acknowledged as such in the appropriate sources - reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals and the like. Unless and until such recognition occurs, the claims that what Rossi is involved in is 'science' are just that - the unverified claims of a self-serving promoter. Science requires scepticism - and most of all it requires scepticism regarding those who purport to follow its practices, but entirely fail to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You'll note that I carefully explained my personal views on CF and Rossi, and how I arrived at them to Arthur Rubin at the time after he sent me a message which, I had interpreted at the time of accusing me of being financially connected to Rossi, I now see that this was not an accusation but a notice that these issues might come up, (see my talk page for the comment, it is still there). While I was definitely too inflammatory in my response, I think this can be reasonably forgiven in good faith as I had only recently begun editing (one week previously) and was not familiar with talk pages, warnings of the type Arthur Rubin sent to me, nor NPOV at the time. There is a large distinction between having an opinion and pushing a POV. Everyone has an opinion, WP:NPOV states that we should put them aside, something you seem unable to do. I withdraw my request for an apology, as I think it is clear that Andy does not really care that he has hurt my feelings and remains, as ever, unapologetic. I still would request an admin to review my actions and diffs for evidence of POV pushing, or any other conduct that should be improved, as I am fairly confident that this isn't the case, and I'm tired of people making such insinuations about me. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Your representation of your views is not at issue. Your tendentious editing is. Clearly the main problem is that you refuse to accept that it is tendentious. Hence I advocate removing you fomr the locus of your disruptive behaviour. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, you claim to have only recently started editing (a week before) here. Yet in your reply to Arthur Rubin here[33] you claim to have had a previous account which you have lost the login details for. Which is it? Martin451 19:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Behaviour of IrishSpook and 178.216.112.128

User:IrishSpook and 178.216.112.128 are repeatedly removing cited content from Army Ranger Wing and replacing it with their own original research. I have tried addressing this with them on their respective talk pages, and on the article talk page. They both respond by reverting messages from their usertalks, and by removing cited content from Army Ranger Wing and replacing it with their original research. All three of us were recently blocked for edit warring on this topic, and I don't particularly feel like going down that road again, but I'm getting absolutely nowhere by talking to them. Any help? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Both IPs blocked for two weeks; both have been blocked before (by Callanecc). I did not block the spook, who's not been involved; however, it seems likely that 178 and Spook are the same. We'll see. I had a quick look at the matter at hand but the issue is for other editors to decide. I closed a malformed RfC on the talk page as well. Eyes are appreciated: article improvement by established and knowledgeable editors is always the way forward. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I put EEng on notice

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

---

Apparently, he likes to get his message accross by calling me Herr Doktor. Using a German figure of authority only has one connotation, that with Nazi Germany, and I truly am offended by it. I told him to remove it, but it may be prudent for him to hear from others that these kind of personal attacks are not to be tolerated. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You think "Herr Doktor" "only has one connotation, that with Nazi Germany"??!! You need to consult an encyclopaedia. Many people, myself included, would see such a description as a compliment. And since when was Corporal Hitler a doctor? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Calling anyone Herr something only puts me in the mind of 'Allo 'Allo!. Number 57 22:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there any other connotation? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely - the equivalent in Dutch would be Heer Dokter ("Lord" or "Sir" Doctor) - certainly appears to be intended to offer respect. Certainly, I would welcome such an honorific. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure Adolf was the only Doctor Germany has ever had, wasn't he? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• The phrase is used in a number of films to refer to characters. The title characters from Young Frankenstein and Dr. Strangelove come quickly to mind as examples. --Allen3 ^talk 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok I think we can sum this up in three points.

1. EEng made a comment that could have been interpreted in several ways.
2. This was interpreted in several ways by several editors one of which (who the edit was refering to) found it distastefull.
3. An appology for any unintended offence caused may resolve this and we can all get back to improving the encyclopedia (except for me as I have no creative instinct anywhere).

Amortias (T)(C) 22:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Philistine!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Does Edokter also have to apologize, to the entire German nation, for implying that they are still all Nazis? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Only the educated ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this: if an editor objects to the name you refer to him by, for whatever reason (the reason is irrelevant), and says so to you, stop calling him by that name. Period. BMK (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this: if this character had said, "I don't like what you said" I'd have happily clarified, and likely struck my wording. But what he actually did [34] was to alter my post to remove certain words, and at the same time insert his own comment mischaracterizing those words (now invisible to everyone else) as implying he's a Nazi, which they certainly didn't. And that's not OK [35]. Period.

Then he went on to imply that all German authorities are Nazis, which as David Eppstein points out above is also not OK, to say the least. EEng (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this: you stay away from his talk page. And Edokter: you can remove comments from your talk page, but, in general, you cannot change those posted by others. This is spelled out in WP:TPO. Then how about somebody close this thread in which there's nothing for admins to do, and we all get back to improving the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me, but this all happened on my talk page, which he had visited to lecture me on how a dummy edit "adds unnecessary server load". EEng (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Although the thread above is closed, I wanted to repeat here the apology I posted on EEng's talk page. I clearly misunderstood where his discussion with Edokter took place and drew erroneous conclusions from that -- which was a screw-up on my part. I should have been more aware of the circumstances before I commented. BMK (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

BMK, you are a gentleman and a scholar. EEng (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

New editor repeatedly inserting copyrighted material

Thebetedit (talk · contribs) added some copyrighted material from http://webspier.com/essay/315503 to The Bet (short story). I reverted the four edits and warned. Eight hours later the edits were added again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Note - the user has not yet been notified on their user talk page. JZCL 16:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz and JZCL: I've notified the user of this report. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I did, although I didn't sign, but now the editor has two notices so the editor should definitely know. And @Diannaa: added another copyvio warning. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Uniquark9 repeatedly deleting content and refusing to engage in constructive discussion on talk page, telling another user to edit war

User:Uniquark9 has repeatedly deleted content that he doesn't like from the articles Yuan dynasty and Northern Yuan dynasty, often giving no reason at all or just saying in the edit summary that he is reversing my edits without giving a reason why. He deleted multiple sentences on different issues/topics.

Uniquark9 Philg88 Nlu

[36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

[42] [43] [44] [45]

Note that User:Uniquark9 is not actually disputing the content itself. He isn't challenging it or its factual veracity (I provided sources for the content on the talk page at Talk:Yuan_dynasty#Content_deletion. He just doesn't like it so he blatantly deletes it repeatedly. Most of the time on these two articles he gave no edit summaries or no explanation for his deletions. He just says things like "Restoring to a version before Rajmaan's edits."

User:Uniquark9 instead of discussing the content deletion, went to another Mongolian user and told him in Mongolian that I am a Chinese (hyatadiig) and that he should help User:Uniquark9 revert my edits. In other words he is telling another editor to help him engage in an edit war with me based on ethnicity.

After I opened on the discussion on the talk page, Uniquark9 only addressed one of the sentences he deleted, provided no source for his claim, and then totally disappeared from the discussion. [46] He totally ignored the other sentences he deleted and refused to talk about them. He hasn't addressed anything else he deleted or justified the deletions, he didn't address any of the sources I provided on the talk page which justified keeping the content.

He also has issues with civility and uses words like "bullshit" and "bullshitting" like on Talk:Genghis_Khan.

He is refusing to engage in discussion and reach a consensus and instead is resorting to edit warring and trying to promote an ethnic nationalist based edit war to get what he wants. This is not about a content dispute, this is a behavioral issue. I am trying to get him to address the content dispute on the talk page and he is ignoring it. We need a third party admin to make all the relevant users engage in the discussion on the talk page and make sure it proceeds in a civil manner.Rajmaan (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Uniquark9 has repeatedly engaged in edit wars at Genghis Khan and Mongol Empire. He was blocked in December for edit warring and using a sock in an edit war. He frequently blanks his talk page to hide all the warnings and complaints about his disruptive editing.

A friend of Uniquark9, User:Ceithe, engages in similar behavior. They also communicate in a foreign language, possibly coordinating edit wars. Ceithe has been in an extended edit war recently at Genghis Khan. He also blanks his talk page to remove complaints and warnings, though some are still present there. Ceithe has openly stated his anti-Chinese attitude. He repeatedly calls other users "vandals," currently because they are adding sourced content that he doesn't like (see here and here). He has been repeatedly asked to cease his disruptive editing and to familiarize himself with WP norms and practices, yet he continues with edit warring and abusive comments towards other editors. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the merits of the textual edits, but I do concur on the Uniquark9 as being uncivil based on ethnic origin, as well as unwilling to discuss and/or consider any other views. I did not personally take action because I want clearly-uninvolved administrator(s) to look at the situation (given that I've collaborated with Rajmaan on a number of articles). --Nlu (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

In my interactions with Uniquark9 on Genghis Khan, and also List of Turkic dynasties and countries, I've found that they can do excellent research, and are willing to compromise up to a point. However, I agree that they also are frequently are disruptive and prone to edit warring. I do want to make it clear that one series of reverts exchanged between myself and Uniqark9 just barely went over 3RR, but I consider myself as edit warring since I could have defused things earlier before racking up reverts. Finally, as Laszlo Panaflex brings up, editor Ceithe, a frequent collaborator with Uniquark9, is also disruptive. I've found them more difficult to work with and very inflexible, and they take a much more hostile, insulting, and patronizing tone to those who disagree with them.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this in my comment: Rajmaan above has confirmed what I thought, which is that there is some collusion between Uniquark9 and Ceithe to enforce a certain point of view here on Wikipedia. Evecurid I think is part of this as well, though I've found them to be far more reasonable and easier to collaborate with.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't researched whether Uniquark9 or Ceithe do excellent research. I do see that Uniquark9 is communicating with some other editors in a foreign language, and is frequently blanking English content, both templates and reasoned discussion, from his or her talk page. Since the warnings have been going on and have been repeatedly deleted, I have to Support a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please see my comments here.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Um... could you explain how those comments about a retired editor are applicable here? Is the preventive/punitive comment what you are referring to? There have clearly been 3RR violations here, as well as repeated disruptive behavior. Whether a block is preventive/punitive is inapposite as well. Not seeing the connection. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex: Sorry about that—it's an unrelated matter that I inadvertently confused with this one.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Could I also bring up Toguchar on this report as well? Their behavior and attitude is very similar to that of Uniquark9 and Ceithe (edit warring, disruptive and abrasive attitude, communicating in a foreign language, blanking warnings and notices from their talk page, etc.).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Uniquark9 deleted the ANI notification I left on his talk page. I also summoned him here using the User Link template at the beginning and he hasn't responded to any of itRajmaan (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

He/she's not required to respond, although I tend to think it's in his/her interest to do so. But he/she doesn't have to. --Nlu (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest adding user:Alicewond to the list of possible sockpuppets being used to edit war a particular POV. Alicewond has 1 edit, at the moment, had never edited anything, but jumps right into an edit war on the Xiongnu article and coincidentally reverts to the version being pushed by Uniquark9/Khorichar.[47] --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

What Kansas Bear describes is a common pattern for Uniquark9 (see Mongol Empire, Genghis Khan, Yuan articles, and others now). Wherever he goes he is soon embroiled in edit wars with multiple editors. Soon compatriots arrive to argue and edit war on his side, always with newly created accounts. Uniquark9 was blocked in December for using a sock account. He was investigated again in January, but it appears that Ceithe and Evecurid are separate users. Rajmann shows, however, that there is collusion between these editors and others. Some of them have stopped editing, so these new arrivals could be socks of them. At any rate, Uniquark9 and his compatriots engage in disruptive editing on every page they contribute to. He stopped editing for a spell after this complaint was lodged, but now that he has returned, it is the same pattern all over. Ignoring his conduct simply invites more disruption and frustration of the good faith of others. I'm not familiar with the sanction process here, but a block has been issued once against Uniquark9. A topic ban for Mongolia-related articles seems to be the next logical step. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As much as I wish that myself and other editors could work with Uniquark9 and Company, those editors seemed determined to engage in disruptive behavior. If a topic ban is invoked, I would extend a topic ban to any articles that involve Mongolia or Mongols, including pages such as the List of Turkic dynasties and countries where states that included Mongols are listed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

On the basis of the recent history at Xiongnu (an early steppe empire whose territory included modern Mongolia), I'd add Khorichar to the list and I would suggest a topic ban on any article where Mongolia might be mentioned. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Both sides in the debate (Turkish vs Mongol) are engaging in this kind of behavior, with coordinated edit wars. The Turkish users pop up with newly created accounts and start supporting each other in reverting the Mongol users. They are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets and edit warring on the same articles. People on both sides need to be topic banned if they try this kind of ethnic nationalist edit warring. See User_talk:Bishonen#To_answer_your_question and [48] and [49]Rajmaan (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

So nothing is to be done about this, it is simply archived and forgotten? Unbelievable. And for good measure, Uniquark9 has now been reported for another edit war. Thanks for taking no action and letting this problem fester. I've become discouraged from editing over this sort of behavior. You let editors like this run good editors away because they get tired of the endless fighting. Well done. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Remenu and the Aromanian flag

A new user, Remenu (talk · contribs) is only engaged in articles on the Aromanians. While most of his changes are harmless, he insists on presenting a very specific flag ([50]) as "the" Aromanian "National" Flag. I have reverted him several times and explained in his talk page why this claim is dubious at best. In short, the flag features the Vergina Sun, a symbol that became prominent thanks to the Macedonia naming dispute, and which has absolutely nothing to do with Aromanian history or culture. Apparently, however, it has been adopted by some groups in recent years within the Aromanian communities in Albania, the Republic of Macedonia and Romania, due to the fact that the Aromanians hail from the wider area of Macedonia. I have repeatedly challenged the user, in English and in German, to provide even half-way decent sources to back up his insistence that the flag is generally recognized as representative of all Aromanians (a community spread among several Balkan countries, with approx. half residing in Greece), but the "sources" he came up with were Facebook posts, a DVD cover (!) and fantasy flags from DeviantArt (!!), to the point I am not sure whether he is deliberately trolling or whether he is truly clueless. The photos in Facebook do attest to the flag's use in semi-official capacity in some countries, so I re-added it with a modified caption, but they certainly do not bear out any claim as to being the undisputed one and only Aromanian flag as he wants to present it. Indeed, in a Facebook discussion in Aromanian he linked, several Greek Aromanians protested the use of this flag as totally ahistorical, and given the history of this symbol, any unqualified claim linking it to a specific ethnicity should better be backed up by strong sources. But that doesn't seem to bother him; his response to Greek Aromanians being ignorant of this flag and opposing it is "time they should learn about it". Despite repeated warnings not to tamper with the modified description while discussion is under way at his talk page, in true WP:IDHT fashion he simply waits a few hours and re-inserts his own WP:FRINGE WP:POV ([51], [52]). Constantine ✍ 21:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The user just blew by the 3RR Rule; perhaps reporting him there would lend some stability to the article. I have noticed he is added dozens of repeat Wikilinks, and those will need to be removed, too. The rate at which things are changing, and the number of minor edits which need to be corrected, will require some work. This is a very contentious issue for some, and needs to be dealt with. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on this article in Greek, by the former mayor of Metsovo (the Aromanian "capital" of Greece) I. Averoff (scion of Greece's probably most distinguished Aromanian family), the POV this user supports is a relatively recent phenomenon (post-2004), with partial backing from the Romanian state. They claim such absurdities as that the Aromanians being the sole descendants of the ancient Macedonians, and the usual Balkan ethnic posturing. According to Averoff at least, their claims are rejected even by other Aromanian groups within Romania. Given that this is obviously an editor with a cause, and the utter failure of engaging in a meaningful discussion with him, I am not sure 3RR is sufficient. Constantine ✍ 22:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Rather than revert him on the flag text, I provided the official Aromanian flag image as exists in Wikipedia Commons and on other Aromanian articles. Perhaps I am not being helpful, but the flag that was being claimed is not reliably sourced, where this one is. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And... it's been reverted. I am done for the day, but I hope an administrator will step up to the plate and handle things before it gets completely out of hand. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to my world over the past few days of dealing with this guy... BTW, that flag too is a bit dubious, it seems to originate solely within eurominority.org, and is a bit lacking in sources. Constantine ✍ 22:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: Remenu (talk · contribs) blocked by CambridgeBayWeather. 24 hours. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

FIFO disambiguation page chaos

Yesterday I created fit in or fuck off which is also known by the FIFO acronym. I noticed that there were three other articles using the same acronym, yet FIFO went to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIFO_%28computing_and_electronics%29&oldid=644966399 (since then renamed from "FIFO" to "FIFO (computing and electronics)"). It already had redirects to 2 other FIFO articles in the header and I had now added a 4th one "fit in or fuck off". It was crying out for a proper disambig page for FIFO. This I set up and I also included a link to the Wiktionary page witch gives a general definition as well.

However User:BD2412 has just moved "FIFO (computing)" to "FIFO" which creates quite a mess and obviously obliterates the disambig page.

Doing a popularity analysis of the 4 "FIFO articles:

• FIFO (now FIFO_(computing)) http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/FIFO_%28computing%29 FIFO has been viewed 13179 times in the last 30 days.
• FIFO_and_LIFO_accounting http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/FIFO_and_LIFO_accounting 11135 times in the last 30 days
• Fly-in fly-out http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Fly-in_fly-out 1879 times in the last 30 days
• Fit in or fuck off new article - no stats yet

It looks to me like blatant favoritism for "FIFO" to go to a technical article on computing and electronics when the term has several other more everyday uses including the Wiktionary definition.--Penbat (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

BD2412 reverted a boLd mover per WP:BRD and advised in their edit summary that because of the number of links involved a discussion needed to be held per WP:RFD thats your best place to go. Amortias (T)(C) 20:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that we can all agree that there needs to be a disambiguation page. What has now happened, bizarrely, is that FIFO (disambiguation) has been redirected to one of the articles, so that there is no disambiguation list. The question should be whether the primary use is Computing or whether the primary use is the disambiguation. What has happened now is that disambiguation has been defeated. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I started https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_17#FIFO but really I think this is primarily about disambig policy. You would have thought anything with 4 possible Wikipedia meanings (plus Wiktionary meaning) would have a disambiguation page. Even on popularity, which shouldnt be a factor, FIFO_and_LIFO_accounting is almost as popular as FIFO_(computing).--Penbat (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I was bold and have created a place-holder for the disambiguation at FIFO (disambiguation). I know it needs work, but it at least now exists. The RFD can discuss which should be the primary title. I don't own the disambiguation page and I know that it also needs work to add entries. I assume that the defeating of disambiguation was an accident and that everyone was trying in good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I set up "FIFO" as the disambig which is now obliterated. I dont think FIFO (disambiguation) was ever set up unless User:Niceguyedc created it when he was tidying up the links. --Penbat (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I have again set up FIFO (disambiguation). It needs improvement, but it is now there. RFD can discuss which should be the primary title. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I created FIFO (disambiguation) for intentional links to FIFO (per WP:INTDABLINK). Now that FIFO is not a disambiguation page, FIFO (disambiguation) can be the disambiguation page. I make no comment on the WP:PRIMARY topic issue related to this. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really the place for this discussion, but in terms of popularity, the fact that computing was the default page would suggest some people were actually looking for some other FIFO page. On the other hand, you're right that popularity is usually only given minimal attention. For example, after several discussions, it's generally accepted that the island home to 143 million people is should be at Java. Java (programming language) gets mention in the header, as does Java (disambiguation). It doesn't matter that Java got 67710 hits and some of those were likely looking for something else, whereas got Java (programming language) got 151683. (Although there is something weird in the history, and some discussion of this in the last move request. I wonder if there were bots hitting the article for some reason.) This probably doesn't hold much for this case (if anything it may strengthen the case for a disambig), but I think it's useful to remember. Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point, quite a few ppl hitting the computing article probably just got there cos they typed in FIFO not necessarily wanting the computing sense. --Penbat (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yo. Wouldn't it make sense for there to be one disambiguation page FIFO with a list of links to all the various articles? That way there wouldn't have to be one "primary" article for people to fight over... :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I set up.--Penbat (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Rock and roll. Thanks! :D Goldenshimmer (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, looks like with the new FIFO (disambiguation) page setup, and {{redirect|FIFO}} added to FIFO (computing and electronics), everything should be fine! -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:BD2412 has thrown in the towel at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_17#FIFO so will someone please reinstate FIFO as the disambig page ? Thanks.--Penbat (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please do not take the wrong lesson from this process. Your initial move was properly reversed because it created substantial disruption without prior discussion. That discussion has now occurred. This is not a license for future moves of this nature being undertaken without discussion. bd2412 T 02:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done - FIFO is now FIFO (disambiguation). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure Penbat's intent was the opposite, but really it's no different. ansh666 06:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

yes i think previously FIFO (disambiguation) went to FIFO - cant see that it makes any practical difference tho.--Penbat (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Penbat, BD2412, and Robert McClenon: I found this mess because I have Fly-in fly-out on my watchlist, and wthout being aware of the discussion above, I made this series of edits. Graham87 07:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.--Penbat (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

sock

One sock put back into the drawer. De728631 (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Justina Sh*t Biebergas (talk · contribs) is a sock of Gabucho181 (talk · contribs) (duck evidence = User:Justina F*ck Biebergas), if someone wants to show him/her the door. APK whisper in my ear 06:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by Callanecc. APK whisper in my ear 06:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:FreeSpeechDude

New account with username "TheGreatPoopMan". Account blocked per WP:USERNAME. User complained but complied. Username changed to FreeSpeechDude. User left further complaint here, on initial reporters talk page. Edit reverted by another user. User:FreeSpeechDude is now attacking 3 other users as seen here. User appears to exist only to harass/troll. Deunanknute (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by Courcelles. APK whisper in my ear 06:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like his original user ID was on the mark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:124.180.167.228

Blocked for 3 months by Materialscientist. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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

---

User:124.180.167.228 has just returned from a 72-hour block and has immediately started edit warring and foul abuse [53]. WWGB (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editing, removal of well-sourced material, etc., at Sam Harris

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Collect (talk · contribs), LM2000 (talk · contribs), Jonotrain (talk · contribs)
WP:GAMING, WP:TE, WP:IDLI, WP:IDHT
I have to sleep after posting this, so won't be back until tomorrow, so take your time.
I add material to Criticisms section[54]
Jonotrain (who originally posted it, seemingly an SPA with too much Wiki knowledge) re-adds sentence to lead [55]
Xenophrenic deletes criticism from lead[56]
I restore.[57]
Deletes again, with untrue edit summary (i.e., “no summary”). There was a summary of the Al Jazeera and Salon pieces before sentence was added to lead.[58]
I revert and tell him “take it to Talk”[59]
And again[60]
Deletes it again even after I remove “racism” as compromise.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Harris_(author)&diff=646784582&oldid=646775831]
Jonotrain restores my version[61]
Xenophrenic makesdubious claim of “copyvio”[62]
Then he deletes Criticisms section including Chomsky quote as well as sentence from lead, adds one paragraph to the portions of the Criticism section and retitles it “On Islam” under umbrella category of Views. [63]
Created “Political” section under Views, reinserted Chomsky quote, with support from two secondary news article sources, one from the Independent, as well as academic sources taken directly from the New Atheism article.[64] Jonotrain (who originally posted it, seemingly an SPA with too much Wiki knowledge) re-adds sentence to lead.[65]
A new editor to the page (LM2000) starts with a delete and claims UNDUE out of the blue [66]
Same editor, following Xenophrenic’s pattern, deletes Political section and merges some of it under “On Islam”, again deleting Chomsky quote, Lean, etc., and then self-reverts, claiming that he saw Talk and didn’t want to fight for the changes [67]
SPA reverts LM2000 self-revert (as well as his own edits, contradicting himself), and suddenly expresses a change of faith that he agrees (i.e., declaring that his own edits were wrong, basically), including Mondoweiss quote he inserted (from piece linked to and praised in Guardian piece by Greenwald)[68]
After reverting, I integrate quote that Jonotrain “signed” and posted in an exaggerated manner, apparently with the aim of having it declared UNDUE later. [69]
After I move Mondoweiss quote to Political section, Collect deletes it, dismissing the source as “very editorial”, then he removes categories (four of the five) under which Harris is categorized as Jewish.[70] Collect had directly edited the categories (Harris was categorized as a Jew four or five times) in his second of only two minor edits to the article before 2/16.[71]
As shown by this BLP/N thread, his apparent aim was solely the removal of the Mondoweiss quote, claiming I violated BLPCAT with it.
I continue to build the article. [72]
Xenophrenic continues to tendentiously revert[73]
After which LM2000 rejoins with a revert, and I expand the Political section further, after addressing Xenophrenic’s unfounded dismissal of sources on the Talk page as well as misrepresentation of HP piece[74] , and he reverts again, claiming my edits are problematic.[75] Regarding sourcing, etc., see this Talk page thread[76], such as this comment dismissing Chomsky and two other sources on false grounds[77].
Collect also started a bogus RfC.[78]
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If any editors are edit-warring, then take it to the edit-warring noticeboard. Otherwise all I see is a content dispute. I do not see btw what is bogus about the RfC. It identifies specific text and asks if it should be included. This discussion thread should be closed. TFD (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that Xenophrenic should not have necessarily flat removed this material, I do agree that the material was not an accurate summary of the citations at all.

Xenophrenic was right to tell you to take it to the talk page, per WP:BRD (which is not BRRD, or BRRRRD). Per WP:BRD, after the material was removed, you should have gone to the talk page seek consensus for its restoration. That is the spirit of the policy on edit warring, even if the letter defines it as more than three reverts.

Removing "racism" as a compromise was the wrong issue entirely. The articles cited (especially the Aljazeera piece) totally did support including the word "racism" in there somewhere, they just didn't support the notion of "widespread," and needed more exacting summaries (such as "Aljazeera, the Guardian, and Nathan Lean have accused Harris of racism.") Which is pretty close to what Xenophrenic did here. I would be happier if he then summarized the new section in the intro as well, but otherwise the edit was doing your work for you.

The copyvio claim is hardly dubious. This edit removes outright plagiarism from the Salon article cited. Your original addition was a quote (not plagiarism), but it was eventually turned into plagiarism by removing the blockquote tags.

Harris represents a great deal of what I'm personally opposed to, (such that an article that represented only my personal views would portray him as just the pretentious, upper-class, and better-spoken version of the sort of redneck that beat up Hindus after 9/11, combined with the grown version of a teenager who becomes an atheist after finding flaws in his own misconceptions about religion) -- but I have to find Xenophrenics edits and behavior were within site policies and guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hope you got a good night's sleep. I agree with TFD - this is a content dispute. Try working it out on the TP. Atsme☯^Consult 20:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: I could imagine that this edit goes against WP:GEVAL in the intro, but I'd have to study the article in fuller detail to make a solid decision one way or the other.

As for LM2000, I'm seeing edits to WrestleMania 32, List of WWE personnel, Garett Bischoff, and lots of other wrestling articles, going all the way back to Extreme Championship Wrestling. I'm also seeing edits relating to movies, and other forms of entertainment. Is he editing outside of his usual area? Maybe. Is he a single purpose account? Hardly. Does calling him a single purpose account border on a personal attack? Possibly.

Collect's RfC looks to me to be a separate issue, and I do have to ask why OP want to classify a well-known New Atheist proponent he doesn't like as Jewish. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The salient facts are at Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#RfC, and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sam_Harris_.28author. The desire of some to label an outspoken atheist as "Jewish" even to the extent of using a non-notable person's opinion from a non-notable blog to stress their Jewish tribal attitudes seems to be to run directly counter to both letter and spirit of WP:BLP. Clue: When four editors not particularly known for agreeing on much, but agree that one editor is wrong, there is a slight chance that the person posting here is the one who is wrong. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Count is now seven - looks like "trying one more forum" failed. Collect (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what administrative action the Original Poster wants taken against multiple editors. (Ban them all on the request of the OP? Block them all on the request of the OP?) I also don't have a clue what the OP thinks is "bogus" about the RFC. Non-neutral, maybe. Bogus? Recommend Closure of this thread with a strong warning to the OP about what appears to be a tantrum. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I wasn't married to the "widespread" term by any means, and did not insert it myself. Xenophrenic removed the entire "Criticisms" section because he wanted to exclude other sources I'd added, while adding very little content in creating entire new subsections on "Views" from that section. When I started a section on "Political" views, which is well-supported, Xenophrenic tendentiously attempts to dismiss the sources on different grounds. He particularly dislikes the Chomsky source apparently because it is not directly related to Islam.

I simply removed racism from the lead, as Greenwald focused on that Islamophobia instead even though his point of departure was the Hussain piece, but Xenophrenic has warred to remove the entire statement, even after another rewrite, without collaborating. The sentence in the lead seemed DUE in some form, and my focus was not primarily on that. Granted, I should have removed "widespread" in restoring the text, not doing so was an oversight.

If there was a copyvio due to quotation marks being inadvertently removed, that would seem to be a formatting issue, and does not merit removal of the text. Another sign of a refusal to collaborate in good faith. In this case, however, it was in fact Xenophrenic that removed the quoation marks in the first palce with this edit, because he wanted to call the Nathan Lean Salon article a "polemic", as it is referred to in the Independent news article on the controversy. That is gaming the system. He has also accused me of "blatant BLP violations without grounds, which is a personal attack.

@Robert McClenon: OK, point taken, as I don't know whether topic bans are needed, but I would like people to be warned against dismissing sources on illegitimate grounds, such as Xeno calling three RS “jokers”, and while admitting that Harris has “responded to them extensively”, seeks to exclude their statements.[79]

I'm not here trying to make mountains out of mole hills, etc., but trying to create a little content in such an editing environment is extremely time consuming and counterproductive. What does one do when a "content dispute" does not work out in accordance with the "content policies" due to tendentiousness, refusal to edit collaboratively in good faith, etc. Things like civil POV pushing are not easy to deal with, and I have had academic sources culled directly from a related WP article dismissed offhandedly because a group of editors are trying to keep well-sourced critical content they don't like out of the article.

@Atsme: Thanks, got a little sleep.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:12, 09:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

One other point that should be examined follows.

With this edit, Xeno goes from this

Fellow contributor at The Huffington Post, R. J. Eskow, has accused Harris of fostering an intolerance towards Islam, potentially as damaging as the religious fanaticism that he opposes. Blind Faith: "Sam Harris Attacks Islam.""Reject Arguments For Intolerance–Even From Atheists."

To this

Fellow contributor at The Huffington Post, R. J. Eskow, has cautioned Harris, "in your zeal to end the harms caused by religion, don't be driven by blind faith down a course of intolerance."

quote mining and misrepresenting the import of the source, which is plainly evident from the title, both when originally published in 2006 and when re-posted on the site in 2011.

I mention that to him on the Talk page, and with this edit paraphrase the source and reword the first passage as

“Fellow contributor at The Huffington Post, R. J. Eskow, has accused Harris of presenting misleading analyses and making unfounded inflammatory statements, and cautioned him against following a course of intolerance toward Islam.”

And add a direct quote to the Political section

“R. J. Eskow, has stated, "Coincidentally (or not), Harris echoes the statements of Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives who have singled Islam out for special censure"."Reject Arguments For Intolerance–Even From Atheists."

that parallels and supports Greenwald’s preceding statement regarding neocon political views

Greenwald states that Harris shares the same basic right-wing worldview of Muslims as his neoconservative supporter David Frum.

Then Xeno removes the entire Political section yet again.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Summarized:

• If any editors are edit-warring, then take it to the edit-warring noticeboard. Otherwise all I see is a content dispute. ... This discussion thread should be closed. — TFD
• I agree with TFD - this is a content dispute. Try working it out on the TP. — Atsme
• I have to find Xenophrenics edits and behavior were within site policies and guidelines. — Ian.Thomson
• When four editors not particularly known for agreeing on much, but agree that one editor is wrong, there is a slight chance that the person posting here is the one who is wrong. Cheers. — Collect
• Recommend Closure of this thread with a strong warning to the OP about what appears to be a tantrum. — Robert McClenon
• Ubikwit, I appealed to you on your Talk page to collaborate with me and the other editors. Instead, you came here? — Xenophrenic

I understand this is a touchy subject right now. Over the past few weeks, there have been high-profile news events involving shootings, deaths and Muslims. Ubikwit began editing the BLP of an outspoken critic of religions, including Islam, and immediately started inserting "opinions" of him as a racist, islamophobe, bigot and hater of Islam because of Jewish tribalism, while simultaneously trying to remove descriptions and categories of his fields of study, declaring "(categories gotta go, too - the guy is nothing more than a PUNDIT)". And you wonder why editors are reverting your edits, or moving your contentious content proposals to the Talk page for discussion? We're only asking that you edit in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

update

For the record, personal attacks have been made against me by Jweiss11 (talk · contribs)[80], and I replied with a warning[81].
Furthermore, there are obvious competence issues, and those have been raised.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit's behavior is really getting absurd. I have responded to his spurious warning about personal attacks on my talk page. His claim of "obvious" competence issues on my part is ridiculous. If that's not a personal attack, I don't know what is. The subject matter in question, Sam Harris's views on religion and politics, is not rocket science. It can be broached by any intelligent person who can read a newspaper. It's almost like he's pulling Wikipedia guidelines and policies at random out of frustration, like when he claimed I "engaged in WP:OR" in response to my talk page comment; see here. Huh? Perhaps it's time for an administrator step in and put a stop to this nonsense? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of projection going on here. Ubikwit has previously accused anybody who opposes his edits of having a whitewashing agenda.[82][83] In another edit, he called Jonotrain and I "jokes" and called our edits "stupid", while also threatening to bring us to AN/I for reasons which I still don't entirely understand.[84] He has also called me incompetent.[85] Personally I can look the other way when it comes to petty insults like this, but for him to behave in such a manner while also playing the victim is unacceptable. He has taken to the encyclopedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with absolutely no regard to BLP standards and has done so without an ounce of civility or good faith along the way.LM2000 (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You and Jonotrain both contradicted yourselves, making it difficult to take your statements at face value, to say the least.

Jonotrain is a decoy, and as described above, you appeared out of nowhere to make your first edits to this article; furthermore, according to the account above, the article is outside your normal scope of content, which I gather focuses primarily on Pro Wrestling. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Jonotrain came to a compromise once he realized his concerns were met. There was no contradiction on my part, I said that I wasn't interested in fighting a battle over my edits (assuming that I would be battling alone) but that I would give my support if others thought my edits were an improvement; as it happens others thought my edits were an improvement and I subsequently gave them my support. How my reverting of vandals on wrestling articles has to do with any of this I'll never know, this account is five years old and has ventured out into a number of subjects. What any of this has to do with you frivolously accusing others of personal attacks while grossly misinterpreting basic policy is another wonder because it certainly doesn't justify any of the personal attacks.LM2000 (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And if you thought that Jonotrain was a sock of me, or somebody else, you should have gone through the proper channels, in this case WP:SPI. Of course such allegations are baseless, Jonotrain spent much of the discussion on your side unlike everybody else you dragged here. Jonotrain, a new account, has gone stale since you resorted to the personal attacks (violating WP:BITE in the process). As everybody above said in agreement, this was simply a content dispute and should have never ended up here at AN/I. Even after being given a stern warning for the "tantrum" you threw by bringing us here, this thread is yet to be closed because of additional concerns about your behavior.LM2000 (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG time, I fear -- Ubikwit seems anxious to call everyone else but himself a Wikilawyer or sock master - The RfC he calls "bogus" is clear, and the result is clear - quoting a non-notable person's blog entry is not proper -- meanwhile he seeks to re=add hundreds of words of quotes to the already-bloated BLP.

1. [86] 12:35 19 Feb shows a blatant edit war push to re-introduce material which no one else supports.
2. [87] shows gross incivility I suppose you have a minor point in that it wasn't until this edit that you actually outright started deleting material instead of simply obfuscating and rendering it unintelligible. I've modified my statement accordingly.,
3. [88] accuses an editor of seeking to degrade and obfuscate viewpoints expressed in reliably sourced material that he didn't like.,
4. [89] warns yet another editor against touching the BLP Please refer to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE before editing the lead of an article. I see that you were correct about the citation being in error, but the material itself is well-sourced, as per the main body of the article, and the refcite was a minor error that should just have been deleted, because it is not necessary in the lead. and seems to simply ignore the precept that claims in a BLP must be strongly cited.
5. [90] he simultaneously maintains the same "I am the only one who counts - attitude" with :Daveler16 (talk · contribs) There is no need for a B&P rewrite, but of course you are free to sandbox all you like. That doesn't mean anyone is going to join you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC),  :#:#[91] As someone that has continually had to deal with Collect's wikilawyered BLP claims, at the very least he needs to be warned against that, because this kind of thing is an unnecessary time sink,
6. [92] accused editors of being sock masters sans any evidence at all,and without recognizing that WP:SPI is the locus involved. You and Jonotrain both contradicted yourselves, making it difficult to take your statements at face value, to say the least. Jonotrain is a decoy, and as described above, you appeared out of nowhere to make your first edits to this article; furthermore, according to the account above, the article is outside your normal scope of content, which I gather focuses primarily on Pro Wrestling. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC) All in well under two days - and this behaviour has gone on for months. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Atumpan article needs fixing

I am not sure if this is the correct noticeboard (this is mostly a page-related maintenance request), but this article has several connected problems. Maybe an admin can help sorting them out, some of them like move reverting and the possible copyvio need an admin anyway:

• The article seems to be a copyvio of [93], see report, even if it's only a few sentences.

But there are several other minor problems (or I would have simply tagged it):

• Atumpan (singer) was moved away from its original name, Atumpan, without evidence for being the primary topic (could use discussion imo).
• The connected talkpage wasn't moved, so Talk:Atumpan still points to the singer article.
• Several Wiki-articles (f.e. List of Live Lounge cover versions) previously pointing to the singer article haven't been changed after the move and now point to the wrong article.
• Atumpan (disambiguation) was created and may need maintenance, depending on the first points.

Maybe a hard revert would be the easiest solution, but with 3 pages involved I don't dare to do that myself. Thanks for your help, I have notified User:Dkusic1 about those problems. GermanJoe (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyright violation (after removing the copyvio material from the article, there really wouldn't be much left, imo; in addition, the instrument isn't mentioned anywhere in either the talking drum or the Ashanti people article). As far as the move, the info about the singer should be able to be moved back the original title afterwards. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Done @Erpert: Thanks for your help. As there was no clear primary topic, I kept the disambiguation at Atumpan (after the article was deleted), it points to the singer and a possible drum article (redlink). The drum seems notable - there are a few hits via Google search. I also cleaned up 2-3 wrong links from other Wiki-articles in "what links here" (f.e. Timpani). GermanJoe (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've modified it slightly to remove the link to Akan, because an entry should only have one bluelink and the Ghana article mentions the atumpan so that looks like the one to go for. (Also, the Akan link was to another disambig page). Squinge (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

help with an edit warrior who seems to have taken things personally

1. List of online chess playing programs nominated for deletion
2. Closed as redirect to list of chess software
3. Creator of list of online chess playing programs, IQ125, copy/pastes it into list of chess software.
4. I go through the list, seeing if there's anything to merge (I had done this when I weighed in at AfD too), and found that the 8 listed comprise: 2 already on the list, 3 redlinks citing external links to their own websites (links repeatedly added to chess lists in the past), 1 link to a disambig page with no relevant hit, 1 magazine (not software), and 1 website (not software). Accordingly I remove them with edit summaries explaining why I removed each.
5. I leave a couple messages at User talk:IQ125 regarding this and a WP:COMMONSENSE change of redirect target (a matter which, although I find it silly to redirect anything "online" to a list of software when there's a perfectly reasonable list of Internet chess servers/sites, is not something I find important enough to continue to pursue as the name of the redirecting article, "list of online chess playing programs" is imprecise and strange enough that the redirect will likely never be used)
6. IQ125 creates an WP:SPI investigation about me, based on the other accounts I say I have on my user page
7. Bbb23 promptly deletes the SPI
8. IQ125 continues to edit war. Most recent edit summary: The afd consensus and instructions are to place the information in this article. So stop reverting or your account will be blocked! (afd was to redirect, not to merge, and even if it were to merge, that itself wouldn't even be a viable argument to restore copy/paste with duplicates, etc.)

At this point I would rather not continue edit warring by myself against someone who seems like he/she may have taken this personally. 3RR has not yet been breached. Given that, and since IQ125 is removing any messages I leave on his/her talk page, I oh so reluctantly bring this to ANI with what is probably too long an explanation for a relatively straightforward issue. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• No comment on the content issue (the exact nature of the items on the article titled list of chess software should be discussed on the article talk page, and WP:DR can be applied if a cordial agreement cannot be reached) however there's a major problem with the vexatious SPI report. Users should not file frivolous charges against others simply to get them to back off in a content dispute. That shouldn't ever happen. --Jayron32 02:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The content issue is not a content issue. An article that went through AfD with result to redirect, not merge, is being copy/pasted wholesale. Before we even get to things like selection criteria, that's a problem. But even if this weren't after an AfD, DR still wouldn't really make sense because the situation is a block of content (at least partially obviously problematic, e.g. duplicates, unrelated) to a list, that material is being challenged, and no rationale is being offered to include it -- only edit warring and refusal to discuss it beyond the false statement that "this is what the afd said". --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue was discussed during the afd, the article should be redirected and the contents moved to List of chess software. IQ125 (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

For the Nth time, if that were the case, it would've been closed as "merge" not "redirect". --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. IQ125, I believe you are confusing "redirect" with "merge". Redirect does not mean "copy/paste everything from the article into the redirect target". That's not even necessarily what you do when "merging". You can't use that as a blanket reason to keep everything. Please go to the talk page and discuss the individual merits of each item. It can be up for discussion, though honestly, in deciding what items should be on a list, its pretty common to trim off the items that don't even have their own articles, which is the case with a few of them. Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Repeated 3RR Violations & Disruptive editing, Disrupting the Project, Civility: User:Tetra quark

I am issuing a direct complaint regarding the continuing unacceptable behaviour and ongoing edit warring and vandalism by this user Tetra quark.

1) Tetra quark has now been given five violations of WP:3RR, of which he has been blocked by John for WP:EDITWAR I've already counted more than a dozen times (or more) advising of the real consequences of violating 3RR, but never shows even a hint of remorse. His attitude changes immediately when actually sanctioned are evoked, as Tetra quark states "... but I'm not here to discuss the edits themselves and the reason I got blocked."[94] This user is also not prepared to find out what is wrong or correct it, but is quite happy to respond bluntly ignoring WP:CIV.[95] [96] [97] His continued responses are both insulting and unnecessary, which he refuses to retract towards Arianewiki1 Isambard Kingdom .[98]. Tetra quark gave weak apologies to John for [99], but such responses, especially to an Admin warrants more serious sanctions.

Behaviour like that unacceptable, not retracting poor behaviour like that is equally unacceptable. It is clearly avoiding WP:GF and is actionable.

2) Discussion on Administrator User: John Talk Page User_talk:John#User:Tetra_quark, discusses further serious violations like 99of9 notice of replaced, where the lead image on Jesus with substituted with pornography on Commons, in what seems like a revenge attack on en-wiki via its usage while the editor was blocked, causing an the necessary indef-blocked on Commons.[100]

As 99of9 states in this thread; "I agree that the action stems from being upset and angry about some kind of issue on en-wiki, but it was also a "deliberate act". It takes quite some deliberation to go to another project to locate the lead image of a highly significant religious figure, locate some hardcore pornography, and go through the overwriting upload steps to replace one with the other. This was no accident." [101]

There is clear evidence, as stated in WP:BLOCK, "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project". Evidence suggesting the User:Tetra quark is unacceptably disrupting the project. This action needs to be properly investigated.

3) Administrator John has given the option of a 'Last Chance' [102], but shows evidence he is avoiding this advice " Thanks but I'm not quite sure what's the offer here."[103], when the statement is clearly given.

4) There is evidence of Tetra quark suspected sock puppetry while this user was being blocked for edit warring, as inferred by OccultZone.[104]

Given evidence suggests further sanctions are now warranted against this user.

I am unable to discuss or solve these issues with the Tetra quark as he continues refactoring / deleting my posts. I.e. [105] [106]

In priority here, is the first point. I, or anyone else, should be able to edit without being disrespected, humiliated, intimidated or have unacceptable language spoken towards me (or any other user.) If I was spoken to, as highlighted in the first point, like this by my boss, for example, I'd instantly lose my job.

Thank you for your considerations into these matters. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't understand item 2, but it's late. Plus I can't see the picture, though I'm sure it's exciting. How about waiting for John to comment here? He's a big boy and has no problem dropping the block hammer, esp. after the warning. How about it, John? That was not a kind thing that Tetra quark said. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Item 2 occured on Commons (replacing a picture of a stained glass window depicting Jesus with pornography). This has been revision deleted and Tetra_quark has been indef blocked. The reason I think this also deserved sanction on en-wiki is because the specific image was IMO specifically chosen to disrupt this project, where it is used as the lead image on Jesus (and in many other less significant places). --99of9 (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• To clarify number 2 further, Tetra uploaded over several high-profile Commons pics (not just the stained glass) on February 10th, resulting in the indef and this thoughtful comment. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, I hadn't noticed that he also did it to the lead image of a BLP which gets a pageview every 4 seconds, Taylor Swift. Commons admins took only 13 minutes to catch this, but all up that leaves >500 readers presumably including many children, with a severely affected view of Wikipedia. --99of9 (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Been following the situation. Amidst the conflicts, Tetra has done some good work so far, and I hope that continues, so I'm glad that John offered a last chance for Tetra to improve - but unfortunately I don't have much confidence left at this point. I don't think an indef would be out of the question at this very moment, but I also trust John's judgement and his offer of one more chance - so I'll leave it at that. Tetra simply needs to come to terms with the fact that his edits are not always "the right way," and that he needs to slow down and actually take advice from fellow editors. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• I support the idea of giving Tetra Quark a last chance. This discussion was already had somewhere before, and the user was already blocked, so just wait to see what happens when the block finishes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett The post here is AFTER the block not before it. To take such WP:ANI action would be unfair on any the user being investigated. Previous actions sanctioned against Tetra quark were in that block. These additional issues placed here have not been addressed. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• My main concern was to avoid disruption from Universe. I believe that Tetra Quark should be left alone for sometime, he shall realize what others want from him. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• I endorse leaving TQ alone to see how he gets on. After so many blocks for edit-warring, socking, inter-project vandalism and personal attacks (the last being the least significant in context), I have warned TQ that their next block will be indefinite. Maybe I have been too lenient. --John (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• TQ's first two article space edits after his block expired were reverting uncontroversial edits (one of them is mine) with misleading-by-incompleteness edit summaries using Twinkle. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supernova&diff=prev&oldid=647612988][107] I certainly wouldn't complain about either of those particular reversions in isolation, but given the editor's history, it's not an encouraging pattern. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 11:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• @Tetra quark:. I've just received a request on my talk page by SkyFlubbler regarding Tetra quark deletion of the required ANI notification to TQ and the perception that I have power to have him blocked [108] or sanctioned. I wish to note at no time have suggested this, but only present evidence for possible further sanction. My own response towards this one and another post by SkyFlubbler appears on TQ's Talk Page. [109] The deletion of the ANI notification on TQ's Talk Page, which I requested that Tetra quark not remove [110]. This is further evidence that Tetra quark is avoid WP:GF. Undoing the ANI post, TQ says; "leave me alone." [111]. This could be construed as a reaction to me using WP:HARASSMENT, but from evidence of previous behaviours, it is more likely direct avoidance of facing TQs own actions for which he is solely responsible. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Really? I read the ANI warning, came to this page, and then deleted the warning. Why would I leave it there. Also, don't tell me how to use my talk page and please refrain from pinging me all the time. I had 9 notifications today when I woke upTetra quark ^(talk) 15:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, 3RR and PoV-pushing by possible sock: user:M.Bitton

Hello,

M.Bitton (talk · contribs) (suspected to be a SP of Historian Student (talk · contribs)) keeps pushing his PoV and edit-warring on many articles, despite being reverted by many users (examples: reverting 3 users (respectively Marek69, Omar-toons (myself) and Blaue Max) on Sand War after they reverted his controversial edits [112][113][114]). Same behavior on Algerian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ottoman Algeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and First Battle of Amgala (1976) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see respective histories), despite the fact that these issues were discussed before.

I would like to ask admins to block M.Bitton (talk · contribs) from editing (for WP:DISRUPT) while waiting for the RCU's results.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Omar-toons refuses to discuss the issue he's having with the reliably sourced content that he keeps deleting while accusing me of sock puppetry. I stand by all my edits (removal of original research and addition of reliably sourced content that I spent a long time gathering) and will discuss each and everyone of them if given half a chance.

Marek69 made a mistake and later thanked me for my contribution, the other two seem to be involved in edit warring with other users, which would explain why they quickly jumped to the wrong conclusion about me. M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with M.Bitton here, I don't see any examples of POV pushing, and they were citing reliable sources. While it is true that they violated 3RR, I think a warning would be sufficent. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

M.Bitton removed sourced content and broke the talkpage consensus, and when asked to bring the issue on the talkpage [115] he avoids discussion and keeps POV-pushing:"Difficult to prove anything to someone who's falsely accusing me of sock puppetry" [116] Blaue Max (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I get the sourced content/consensus breaking thing now, but I still fail to see how those edits are POV pushing. Seems like pretty NPOV content they are warring over. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And a little bit of vandalism from M.Bitton [117] (removal of sourced infos). Blaue Max (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner:I deleted the unreliable sources (one is about the battle of Algiers and the other is nothing more than a student thesis), replaced them with reliable ones and offered to discuss them. Still, that does not explain the blanking of everything I've added and the accusation of sock puppetry. M.Bitton (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I just want to know how that content falls into the category of POV Pushing. Seems like a common case disruptive editing to me. Weegeerunner (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner:I The short answer: Just like the sock puppetry accusation, it's the quickest way to dismiss someone's hard work without discussing it.

If you really want to be confused, read what Omar-toons wrote in the edit summary after deleting the reliably souced content and restoring his original research. M.Bitton (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner:: Isn't this kind of edits a POV-pushing? WP:OVERCITE doesn't make sth. NPOV, am I wrong? Actually, aren't all M.Bitton's edits of nationalistic-PoV-pushing nature?

Btw, if it is not clearly a POV-pushing case (then I would be wrong), it is still -as you said- a "common case disruptive editing", for whiwh this user should be blocked from editing. --Omar-toons (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (Edited ; Omar-toons (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC))

Unlike you, my edits are backed by reliable sources. Your edit history, particularly your obsession with the Western Sahara issue, leaves no doubt as what's driving your otherwise uncomprehensible reverts and the bad faith assumption from the start. M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Omar-toons is at it again, here and here, deleting reliable references and content without explanation as to why. When an editor provides more references to prove that he actually is not making it up, he complaints of WP:OVERCITE. He adds nothing of value to the articles, his only contribution seems to be deleting other editors work, questioning their motives and attacking them. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Omar-toons is obviously begging to be banned from the Algerian articles. M.Bitton (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Strangely enough, M.Bitton - a "new" user who knows all wikipedia's rules (and how to bypass them)- has the same center of interests, the same methods (and, should I say, the same orthographic mistakes) than blocked User:Historian Student. He has been disruptive of Wikipedia and violated every rules on it, he acted against several users' will [118] [119] [120], and doesn't seem eager to cooperate: "There is no need for concensus to remove origial research"[121]. Blaue Max (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And... here we go again [122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131], and this [132][133] clearly shows that this user is not here to participate to a collaboravtive project but to impose his POV. --Omar-toons (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh... and I just saw the "begging to be banned from the Algerian articles" above... I didn't know that there were Algerian British, Indonesian and Kenyan articles on Wikipedia? (that's sarcastic, in case he didn't get it) --Omar-toons (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Pathetic response from someone who's unable to defend his position in the talk page. It's not about what you think, it's about what you can prove. M.Bitton (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If that wasn't enough, Omar-toons is now engaging in Vote-stacking. M.Bitton (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I specifically asked for help on how to react when confronted to a disruptive editor [134]. Blaue Max (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You were specifically asked to discuss the issue like a grown up. Accusing me of sock puppetry while refusing to engage in a contsructive discussion proves that you are incapable of defending your position. M.Bitton (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Everybody has already spoken against your vandalisms. Once you'll calm yourself, once you'll respect Wikipedia's rules and if you're proven not to be another sockpuppet, then we can engage a serious discussion. But discussing with a disruptive editor is hardly possible. Blaue Max (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This is vandalism and so is this, everything else is a lie from two editors who are unable to defend their positions in the talk pages. M.Bitton (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Just went to get some information on the sand war page and saw that it was in turmoil. To be frank as far as I can see there is not much of a POV insertion, just some guys who are fighting. Classic content issue. The only thing that sounds off is the Sockpuppet accusations. I see both parties deleting content without discussing. IMO all three should be told to take a one day break or perhaps a 2 day chillpill to get those thinking juices flowing. Just my two cents as an observer.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with FreeatlastChitchat. The only thing that is serious here is the sockpuppet accusation. @Omar-toons: I'd suggest you submit the evidence or apologise. No personal attacks please! -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC) (edit; striked out suggestion, SPI open) -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Timbouctou edit warring and vandalism on Magnum Crimen article

This user keeps reverting the article content for the whole week removing huge portion of the referenced text along the references verifying it. For details see here and specifically here, here, here, here, here

He was warned here after which he reverted the article content again.

He put the http://magnumcrimen.org/ link under External links of the Magnum Crimen article. This is a commercial site selling this book, which is against the Wikipedia no advertisement policy.

He was blocked 6 times in the past for the vandalism, edit warring, and harassment.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to my past behaviour which has nothing to do with you or the article in question here. For the record, User:Michelle Ridomi seems to be a sock/meat puppet of User:Milos zankov. Both of them have been engaged in censoring edits to Magnum Crimen - a controversial book originally published in 1948 claiming that Catholic clergy was closely related to Croatian fascists during World War II and which seems to have a special place in Serbian nationalists' hearts. They have been doing this in an effort to keep our article word-for-word identical to what has been posted to magnumcrimen.org, an external website set up to promote English-language edition of the book. The text over there is a mirror of a previous version of our Wikipedia article, much of which had been added in 2010 by a user blocked since, and which had plagiarised verbatim a 1950 book review, including a few glaring factographical mistakes. Correcting these (or at least rephrasing to avoid obvious plagiarism issues) is virtually impossible due to these two editors' never-ending reverts.

Only after User:Milos zankov (a recently registered account) opened an RfC (which was ciriticised already for overall tone and lack of good faith assumption by a passing by editor) and after Milos reported me here twice did Michelle Ridomi (yet another recently registered account) appear out of the blue to start blowing the same trumpet. I think we would all have to be imbeciles not to assume these two are puppets and not to assume they have a vested interest in this article because of a political axe to grind. Perhaps I should have reported both to WP:SPI. I see now I should have, and I will, once this thread is concluded. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"They have been doing this in an effort to keep our article word-for-word identical to what has been posted to magnumcrimen.org, an external website set up to promote English-language edition of the book." It is quite clear that magnumcrimen.org copied most of the text from the Wikipedia Magnum Crimen. The time stamp here shows that the word-for-word text existed in the Magnum Crimen as of 27 August 2010. The magnumcrimen.org site claims its copyright as of 2015. If there is a copyright violation, it is on the magnumcrimen.org side. We tried several times to explain that the time does not run backward which this user kept rejecting. Collaborating in a constructive way, which I did when commenting and submitting changes to Magnum Crimen, is not puppeteering.
"and which had plagiarised verbatim a 1950 book review" In 2010 a portion of this text was not referenced. The un-referenced text was reworded by Milos zankov and the reference added which makes no sense to call it a plagiarism now, nor remove the whole section from the article.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I explained what happened quite clearly - an entire 1950 book review was pasted into our article years ago (unattributed). The article was then mirrored at magnumcrimen.org (unattributed to either Wikipedia or original source), which claims copyright to it. Milos and Michelle are now edit-warring and speficically reverting any re-wording of the said text, many, many, many, many, many times. They also deleted external link back to magnumcrimen.org (the book's official website) several times, they deleted sections on criticism of the book, and they pretend they don't see factual mistakes in the quoted review itself (the book was not banned by the Catholic church; its author was not a priest, etc, etc.). They even oppose translating the title in English exactly the same way it is printed on its English-language edition cover. Milos and Michelle are just here to revert whatever anyone does on the article. And they have no intention of behaving otherwise since they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Timbouctou (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Timbouctou I'll respond to a few issues mentioned by this user.

• "an entire 1950 book review was pasted into our article years ago (unattributed)" -> the fact is just these two sentences were "unattributed": Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples. which I attributed properly. The whole book review is in front of me and has four pages. As a proof that the "entire 1950 book review" is never pasted into Magnum Crimen I'll offer this snippet from the O. Neuman book review: "The invasion and disruption of Jugoslavia in the spring of 1941 has served the author as the dividing line of the period to be covered in the third part of this trilogy. The magnum crimen is not and individual or isolated action: the author uses the the term to designate the activities of that part of the Croat hierarchy which cast their lot with the poglavnik of NDH. Ante Pavelic and endorsed his policy, friendly to the Axis and hostile to the Serbian people, and in general to all those who even after the forceful dismemberment of the country remained faithful to the idea of Yugoslavia. Two long chapters covering over 500 pages, have been reserved for the description of conditions prevailing in the NDH". The Google search will show you this
• "its author was not a priest, not banned by the Catholic church" A Corrupt Tree: An Encyclopaedia of Crimes committed by the Church of Rome against Humanity and the Human Spirit, A.S., Xlibris Corporation, Jan 13, 2014 page 803 Novak, Viktor, ex Catholic priest, professor, historian, anathema pronounced against him, 537 Magnum Crimen ... placed on the Index, 537. See also Autor je Viktor Novak (1889–1977), hrvatski rimokatolički sveštenik i profesor Univerziteta u Beogradu translated as The author, Victor Novak (1889-1977) , is a Croatian Roman Catholic priest and a University of Belgrade professor--Milos zankov (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Milos. Too bad you have no clue where "A Corrupt Tree" got that information from since page 537 is missing from Google Books preview you plucked this from. Also, too bad you don't actually use references when editing the article itself instead of reverting. And reverting. And reverting. And reverting. And then some more reverting. Timbouctou (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You did not add a single reference. Moreover, you added "official site" which is just an advertisement despite the fact that advertising inside Wikipedia articles is strictly forbidden to advertise. Milos zankov added eight new references.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Zankov added very little, and the article is still mostly reliant on primary sources (although, oddly enough, things like author's priesthood and prohibition are not). You, on the other hand, had deleted entire sections about the book's criticism and you are still edit-warring over petty crap, such as the book's English-language title, external link (which is its official website), copyedited 1950 review and a myriad of other stuff that has been touched upon in the talk page. The idea that the external link is merely advertisement is pretty interesting since Milos and yours version of the article body is a verbatim copy of what is on that website. Timbouctou (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Uh, if the review is copyrighted, then it doesn't matter who attributed what or how long it is. Sentences or paragraphs from it shouldn't be in our article, except as direct quotes. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:timbouctou is known to delete any reference s/he does not like, e.g. the image in the article on Extreme right politics in Croatia ( q.v. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Croatia&diff=645719162&oldid=645701856 )

Seems instead of disciplining and civilising extreme right wing Wikipedia in Croatian (which in all discussions calls itself "Croatin wikipedia"), shich was attempted last year, when it escalated so much that Croatian (left wing) government and Wikipedia founders were involved, we just got the same pro-Ustashi Croatian extreme right policies promoted on Wikipedia in Enlgish now. What User:timbouctou and his/her cohort user:Joy do by removing anything remotely critical of the pro-fascist extreme right wing Croatian worldview or of the Roman Catholic church in Croatia is what people with integrity should abhor and reject and those users should be banned indefinitely.

109.245.135.87 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even read all of the above but it's fairly clear to me that the party dragging Timbouctou through the mud here is WP:NOTHERE and needs to be axed. I don't currently have the time to go through an analysis of the abusive accounts, can someone else please tend to it? TIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we can safely add above IP to the list. This one is obsessed with adding an unrelated image to the article on Croatian nationalism. Timbouctou (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Joy [shallot] Looks like this admin is again solicited to intervene on behalf of Timbouctou. See the earlier WP:CANVASS here and here.--Milos zankov (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User Joy: It's clear that this administrator is solicited. An additional solicitation is here. It is noteworthy to write that this administrator was already blocked for abusing administrative rights. For details, see here. After being solicited by Timboctou, administrator Joy attacked Milos zankov saying I'm not sure if this account is yet another sockpuppet of User:Velebit or what, but in any event, I'm issuing a final warning. The same Joy attacked other users as sockpuppets of Velebit which was rejected recently .. and this particular SPI file seems to be a dumping ground without any serious evidence that the mass of accounts connected to Velebit are indeed connected. My proposal is to "review" activity of this administrator equally as we reviewing Timboctou's vandalism and edit warring.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Joy was mentioned by an IP above with a wikilink to their name, so was probably notified, and in any case should have been solicited to take part in this discussion. Also I just realised this discussion is from several days ago. Why is it here now? Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nil Einne, Michelle Ridomi removed this discussion from the archives in this diff and placed it at the bottom of the page. It looks like the issues were never resolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And FYI this was the third time the same thread was copy/pasted to ANI by Milos/Michelle, after the first two had been archived unaddressed. Timbouctou (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I sort of guessed the reposting probably happened when I posted above, my question was more why (since it looked like one of those pointless complaints that wasn't going anywhere hence why it was ignored). Having looking more carefully at the edit history, it seems there is actually a serious issue here that needs attention, but perhaps not in the way Michelle or Milos were thinking. If it's true that the content was copied from the review, and in the absence of conclusive evidence it's in the public domain, as I said above it's not acceptable to copy the content to the article even if it's only one or two sentence. While continually reverting such WP:copyvio edits is completely justifiable, I think blocks are in order in the absence of a good explaination as to why there isn't a copyvio concern or at least good indication that the editors involved now understand our copyright policies (which would also mean they stop trying to add the copyvios). The statements above and in the talk page aren't hopeful. They appear to suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of our copyright policies with the suggestion it's okay because only one or two sentences were copied of a 4 page text and the content was belatedly? attributed to the source when it wasn't presented as a direct quote or at least not entirely. Hopefully a careful reading of the copyvio page, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing will clear things up for them but if not, they need to stop editing wikipedia, or be forced to. Copyvios are too serious to mess around with since they can waste an incredible amount of time cleaning them up. Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nil Einne. FYI I raised this at SPI and asked a CheckUser. The case is still open but results seem inconclusive. 01:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Timbouctou (talk)

• Nil Einne: what are you talking about? Did you read this sentence clearly visible on the Milos' response above? Milos wrote, Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples. which I attributed properly. (to Neumann)?--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• WP:copyvio states: "However, copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation.". The two sentences are just a brief quotation used in accordance to the US copyright code. Nil Einne, please, learn more about the copyright before trying to teach others the same.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The sentence you mention isn't a quotation [135]. It says "According to O. Neuman", but there's no indication it's a direct quotation (e.g. quote marks or an appropriate template). Instead it's presented in wikipedia voice which implies it isn't a direct quotation and doesn't suffer from excessive close paraphrasing but all indications including from you suggest it does. The second sentence is in quotation marks, but I don't see any reason why. It's the sort of thing which would be best written with our own words rather than directly quoting the source (the same with the first sentence BTW). It's incredibly poor writing, and also raises copyright concerns (as we're supposed to be a free encyclopaedia) to use unnecessary quotations. Still it at least includes quotation marks so we aren't presenting it as entirely CC-BY-SA & GFDL text. And US copyright law is largely irrelevant here (unless it's claimed there is a violation of US law). What matters is our policies and best practices, not US copyright law. The fact you even bring it up further suggests you need to take a more careful read before continuing to edit. I also don't know why you bring up attribution which as I said is irrelevant to the point I was making which was about WP:COPYVIO not was or was not attributed. I'll freely admit I haven't looked in to detail in to this case, and have no desire to. My concern came when I read comments from you and the other participant suggesting you have a very poor understanding of our copyright policies as you seemed to think it was okay to copy content provided it was attributed and only one or two sentences regardless of whether the content was presented as quotations, or whether there was a reason to use quotations for the text. P.S. There is the obvious question of whether the close paraphrasing is okay because there's no other way to say it. Again I didn't look in to detail at this aspect, because your comments suggested it wasn't something you considered anyway. P.P.S. I perhaps should have linked Wikipedia:Non-free content in addition to the other stuff I linked earlier, i.e. Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and WP:Copyvio. Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You are just wasting my time. There was no copyright violation nor "our policies and best practices". The two sentences coming from prof. Neumann are properly rephrased and quoted according to the Wikipedia guidelines. If "our" means Wikipedia then try to fully understand that all linked text you've counted above before trying to teach me or anybody else. Avoid the high tone because it cannot elevate you above others and it is a kind incivilty and harassment.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Your above statement is somewhat confusing. The second sentence was in quotation marks. Are you saying it was rephrased? If it was, this is incredibly poor writing since the statement being in quotation marks would imply to most readers it's a direct quote.

Or are you trying to claim the second sentence was quoted (but not rephrased) and the first sentence was not in quotation marks but was rephrased? Even in that case, this still ignores the fact that there's no reason to quote the second sentence. And perhaps more importantly, the first sentence was hardly rephrased at all. The above quotations prove that.

I'm not sure what you mean by high tone but your comment there sounds unhelpful so I'll ignore it.

Also since you are a wikipedia editor, I presumed you considered yourself part of the community, therefore calling them our policies and best practices was perfectly normal. If you do not consider yourself part of the wikipedia community, that's unfortunate, but you still have to follow the wikipedia policies and best practices.

Anyway whatever you want to say about me, until and unless you fix the copyvio issues, please do not add the text back to the article. As I said, above it may be that your other changes are useful and do not violate copyright. I'm not sure since I don't have time to check. But as long as you continue to ignore apparent violations of copyright from your own statement you shouldn't really be editing at all given the risk you may be violating copyright in other parts of your edit.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, let me repeat them down here to prove that your claim of rephrasing isn't correct. The statement from the original source [136] is

Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs.

the statement in our article which you and the other editor kept trying to add [137] is:

According to O. Neumann, Novak was a Croat by birth, and he has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs.

There's hardly any rephrasing here at all. Viktor was removed, "was" was added, a comma was removed, and a "and he" wass added. That is all the "rephrasing" that happened. This almost definitely isn't sufficient rephrasing to allay copyright concerns (i.e. close paraphrasing) since there are many ways this could be worded.

In fact, even ignoring copyright concerns it probably should be reworded since it's fairly confusing in the context of our article. (Without copyright concerns, there may not be sufficient reason to revert, but this further proves the point that there are good reasons why the text should be rewritten to allay copyright concerns.) What does "active among the Serbs" even mean in this context? I guess may be it makes sense in the context of the original review, but I've read the version you were trying to promote several times and I still don't know what it means. Also Novak is dead so it's fairly unlikely he is still "active among the Serbs" whatever is meant by that. It may be he was "active among the Serbs" until his death, but since we only have a source from 1948, we have no idea from that source whether this is true. So in truth, all we know is according to O. Neummann, he was "active among the Serbs" from 1924-1948 at least. But the statement doesn't convey that in any way.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Nil Einne You apparently do not know what are you talking about. You left a proven record that you do not know what is the copyright. Arguing meaninglessly about a University professor book review does not make you smart.--Milos zankov (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sumedh Tayade and WP:INDICSCRIPT 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.

---

A recent ANI thread was closed on the topic after the user apologized and promised to be more careful in their edits and follow consensus. However, unfortunately, the user has resumed his previous activity of adding Marathi script to multiple article lede, disregarding WP:INDICSCRIPTS (which has been pointed to the user on more than a dozen occasions by numerous editors). Sample diffs from just today: [138], [139].
Pinging @NeilN, JodyB, Nyttend, KoshVorlon, RegentsPark, Sitush, and Miniapolis: who participated in the earlier discussion. Abecedare (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to hear from Sumedh Tayade on this before I comment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Concur with User:NeilN JodyB _talk 18:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is worth escalating. They really only added one indic script name, the one at Samyukta Maharashtra Movement and could be a mistake. The Mahabaleshwar one is in the infobox which is perfectly acceptable. Revert and drop a note reminding the editor of their promise and that should be enough for now. --regentspark (comment) 01:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

About Indic Script

The mentioning of Belagavi as 'Belagaon' is logically correct because In all marathi newspapers and news channels, No body says Belagavi, all say or pronounce Belagaon, so at times it becomes confusing that Belagavi and Karnataka Govt has any concern for the large Marathi people in the Belagavi city, I had cited my edit with proper relevant sources, However it is asserted it was not constructive, A mentioning of indic script name used by large number of citizens in the same city can't be helpful? If its not Helpful, Then Jerusalem should also have only one name and not extra transliterations. I had added no illegal or offensive meaning content to the edits i made Sumedh Tayade (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

So you intend to continue adding script to article text? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Belgaum is a city in Karnataka, but there is a long standing dispute and this border district has been claimed by Maharashtra. The dispute not withstanding, Sumedh Tayade has been adding "Belgaon" and also Marathi script in the article without giving any sources, even though Kannada is the state language. I also googled Belgaon and nothing turned up. Please give a source where it is mentioned as "belgaon".--Jonathanarpith (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

About indic script edit

The Samyukta Maharashtra Movement was led by the Maharashtrians and particularly Marathi people in the state, It was intended to bring all the divided or unclassified but Marathi dominanted or atleast claimed region under one single state as 'Maharashtra', Till today, Maharashtra and Karnataka Govt are at loggerheads over border city issues specially Belagavi, In Maharashtra, No Kannadiga is treated with rudeness but in Karanataka, the situation with Maharashtrian differs, The Samyukta Mahrashtra Movement was for Marathi people, by the Marathi people so its mentioning in Marathi couldn't attract consensus issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumedh Tayade (talk • contribs) 04:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

I dont intend to change the contribitions of helpful editors, i have just mentioned the name in Marathi which is wholly used by Marathi speakers both in Maharshtra, Belagavi and all around border marathi dominated regions in and around Karanataka, When i was in std 10th, I had read on the 2nd page of my marathi textbook that it was printed in Belagaon(Belagavi) so i was amazed that even Marathi is recognised, spoken and valued in Karanataka and since Marathi is almost mandatory subject in Maharashtra then how much copies from how many years are arriving from Belagavi in Maharashatra, so why not its mentioning in Wikipedia, Atleast Hindi and Marathi, the indo aryan languages are spoken or atleast recognised widely among east, west and north india, Southern Indian or particularly Dravidian Languages are very difficult to understand yet they are preached everywhere in the country and linguistic riots occur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumedh Tayade (talk • contribs) 06:24, 19 February 2015‎

It is precisely for reasons such as the misunderstanding that you make here that I asked you to stop adding scripts, period. You don't understand the ramifications and you are trying to bulldoze your Marathi-language POV through as if it is somehow superior the position for any other Indic language. We all know that even now India suffers dreadful real-life disruption because of arguments about linguistic divisions; indeed, as recently as last year, yet another new state was formed (after a lot of angst) in large part because of such divisions. My suggestion to you is that you stop adding scripts and start doing something that is more productive: gain some experience in other areas and (hopefully) you will come to realise why we do things in the way that we do.

And, for the record, I disagree with including scripts even in the infoboxes. As far as I am concerned, infoboxes are sometimes added to game this local consensus (not necessarily by you) and the prominence of a box makes it a de facto part of the lead section and equally prone to vandalism, petty edit warring etc as the opening sentence itself. - Sitush (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Query

Ok, i understood your point, but suppose if a majority of people of the concerned city wish or suppose 30 to 35 of my marathi wikipedian editors do same indic script editing as i do in case of marathi dominated Belagavi, then all would be noticed about wp indic script, wouldn't their opinions considered? I know that India suffers from hate love situations of linguistic divisions but why only Marathi script are focused upon again and again, I have not added marathi script to any city or village outside Maharashtra Sumedh Tayade (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not only Marathi that gets attention. That you think it is merely reflects that you are concentrating on that particular script yourself. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Change of user identity with clarification

Dear Sitush Bro, I have registered with a new user name Sumedh Tayade Maharashtrian (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC), You said me to not indicate indic scripts in infoboxes, this is totally unfair, because in my earlier and every edits, i have never used offensive language, u had mentioned that it was a de facto for some people for vandalism to wikipedia, My information of marathi indic script inside info may not be of much information but is certainly not offensive and violating any consensus, I had earlier apologised because i had engaged in edit warring but now only i have added relevant names, The Maharashtrian Marathi Media and Govt have taken several steps to encourage the study of Marathi language which has never met with contradiction with studies of other languages in the state, The Media Consensus of Marathi News Channels and Maharashtrian Marathi Newspapers too support me, I have never added false information to wikipedia. If i am still wrong then some critical explanation should be givenSumedh Tayade Maharashtrian (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sumedh Tayade Maharashtrian, some of your edits to infoboxes are also wrong as they enter script in the other names and nicknames fields. This is utterly useless for English-speaking readers. And can you please stop bringing up what Marathi-language proponents want? Wikipedia articles are not the place for crusading for language awareness. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And who is behind these accounts? Sumedh P Tayade, Sunanda Tayade --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a "typo", by the way. Search results. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wait a minute, User:Sumedh Tayade has now registered one, two, three, four accounts and is editing today from all four of them. Plus he's using the new ones to do precisely what he was asked not to do with his original account, e.g. here and here. He seems incapable of taking in anything which has been said to him. At a bare minimum, three of them should be blocked so that at least his edits can be checked systematically. Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have blocked the first account for 1 week for running the socks and the other three are indef blocked. JodyB _talk 17:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Ongoing issues with Mufaddal Saifuddin

My attention was called to Mufaddal Saifuddin by a post now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive870#Topic Ban Dawoodi Bohra. There is long-term edit warring going on here over a succession controversy. I've not sure what the best way to handle this would be. Could someone with more experience sorting out religious/political/family disputes take a look at it? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Aaand we now have competing edit warring reports over at WP:EWN. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It has been more than 1 year that a number of editors edit wars over the succession controversy, and some of those edits have violated WP:BLP. Other articles includes Dawoodi Bohra, 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Repeated Censorship of Brianna Wu article

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

---

This is a copy of an e-mail I sent to a Wiki admin e-mail. Apparently I am supposed to put it here, so if anything is confusing it's because this is coming from a personal e-mail. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.253.22 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Recommend filing party be blocked for BLP violations. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • He's got a grand total of 3 edits under that IP, so there might be more moles to whack. Also, he's playing a "do this or else" kind of game, basically in the same spirit as a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • hasnt there been enough of this nonsense to semi protect the talk page? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Note that a new editor has arrived, read the (deleted) (Redacted), and has announced their intention to revise the article forthwith based on the evidence and arguments contained therein. Again, this has the effect of bypassing BLP by directing attention of readers (sent here from off-wiki forums and social media) to Wikipedia talk pages that publicize material unsuited to article space. This has continued for months and it is not clear whether, or how, it will be stopped. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • (EC)Should have been done weeks ago. He does have a point about one issue though. The sourcing for 'Death threats have been widely attributed to gamergate supporters' is problematic. Neither source supports that sentence as written. And I *cant* revise the article as its currently protected. (Oh and Mark, I actually *read* the sources used for that specific sentence, they do not say what it says they do) Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

As had I -- and I’m afraid they did say so, quite clearly. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• • • Scratch my concerns, TRPoD has settled them on the talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Deletions at the village pump

I provided a comment at WP:Village pump (proposals) regarding checking about bias and there was no overall campaign against anti-sex trafficking. The first person who read my comment Mlperarc decided to just delete it. He could have simply written underneath that he though there was no merit in it. I reverted it and defended the comment as best I could. I misunderstood what the next user did User:GB fan because he "hatted" it, which meant the comment was not visible, although I thought based on previous experience it was again deleted. So I think GB fan was reasonable. However it did say discussion was closed. De728631 just went and performed another undo, to wipe out everything. And TheFarix wrote "Now knock it off before an admin blocks you for disruptive behavior." A positive response came from Oiyarbepsy who requested that the discussion be held on another page, to do with living persons. Oiyarbepsy copied the relevant material across which was helpful.

It is clear that after Mlperarc deleted the comment, some editors decided to be unjustly loyal to that decision. They attempted to achieve that by using their knowledge of the system, its codes and its rules. I read the policy and nothing I had written justified instant deletion, which is a very rude way of dealing with a comment. Yet, the editors pointed as me for being disruptive! How, I don't know? Hours of problems could have been avoided. On the "living persons page", another user confirmed the bias and all was discussed quickly and reasonably. 120.136.36.235 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There were some clear don't bite the newcomers violations here. Never delete a valid comment because someone mistakenly posted it at the wrong page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A reason I can see it being deleted was because your initial claim that an article might be affected by "sex tourists who visit Cambodia" implies that some editors involved are pedophiles (which, without evidence, amounts to a personal attack); and the suggestion to investigate them is rather McCarthyistic.

If you have evidence that one of the editors involved has a pedophile agenda, then I completely agree that that editor should be exposed and banned -- but you need to provide evidence before making those claims.

Otherwise, this is a content issue and should be resolved on the article's talk page, not here or the village pump. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure who you think was unjustly loyal to the decision by Mlpearc but if you are referring to me, you are wrong. I read what you wrote and it was not appropriate for the page you posted it on. I referred you to a correct spot to continue your discussion and hatted the the current discussion. You obviously read why I hatted the discussion but chose to accuse me taking steps to prevent a discussion. You also implied that I was wishing away the issue You wanted to talk about which is pedophilia, child prostitution and human trafficking. This had nothing to do with any of that, you were just in the wrong spot and refused to listen to what people were telling you. -- GB fan 00:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

IP120, I'd like to note that your original posting at the Village Pump looked like you had a problem with a specific article. Mlpearc deleted your comment which was probably a bit over the top but he left you an WP:edit summary asking you to "take it to the article talk page". Apparently you were aware of this summary tool because you restored your thread without any comment. The next editor to provide a comment was GB fan who "hatted" your thread and wrote a clear message saying again that you should raise your concerns at the article's talk page. You then undid GB's hatting and added another comment. At this point, I decided to step in and restore the previous version because I found your edits becoming disruptive rather than constructive. Several editors had told you where to discuss your issue (ie. at the article's talk page) but you kept ignoring them. And I have to admit that from your initial posting and the following comment I at least could not find out what you were actually looking for. Instead it looked to me like you were trying to start a general discussion about sex trafficking using the Mam article as an example. Only at this stage when the discussion had already been closed by The Farix (who was equally uninvolved for that matter), it became somewhat apparent that you were looking for Wikipedia guidelines like biographies of living people or WP:Child protection. De728631 (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I shot an email to ArbCom earlier today about the IP because it is related to allegations relating to pedophilia. However, this IP editor has been harassing other editors on their talk pages (including myself) by accusing them of supporting pedophilia and the child sex trade.[140][141][142][143][144] The IP's allegations serve no purpose but to create a chilling affect and are thus disruptive by their very nature. —Farix (t | c) 00:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It was merely a catch in my watch-list, I checked the diff and after seeing that it was a message regarding an article and had nothing to do with policy or a guideline that would be discussed on that page, I reverted the post and advised the editor to take to the article's talk page. As far as the events since I think De728631 sums it up quite well. TheFarix I have some of those messages on my talk also. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Nobody was accused of supporting pedophilia or the sex trafficking. If you are going to delete someone's message, you will get a comment on your homepage. In those comment, nobody was accused of supporting pedophilia, but silence on it. The initial question was making sure the system wasn't being used, and responding that it would look like a witch-hunt, would have been more reasonable than deleting it. However deleting it, surely is like silencing. Saying, "go away" is not an answer. Essentially there's a feeling there's a right to say "go away" and orders should be followed without question. Clearly TheFarix thinks it's just about creating a chilling effect, as though such things cannot be real. Of course, it is chilling even to discuss it. In China, a woman was put in a reeducation camp by police for 18 months, because she complained that her 17 year old was raped. I feel it's a comparable situation, although fortunately it's just words here, and places to complain. Stopping the silencing is the key issue to protect children and young women. 114.245.193.58 (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Denisarona

User:Denisarona has changed the redirection of the article Moldavians from the established Moldavia to Moldovans. All attempts to restore to the established version were reverted by user Denisarona. At the same time, he refuses to engage the issue on the talk page of the article in question, and instead posts notifications on my talk page despite they being the person on which the burden of evidence falls. Acting in good faith, I have approached him and stated my arguments on the 26 of November 2014. The appeal was ignored and my message was deleted on the 13th of December 2014 (also please note that he also deleted another comment from User:Dragonmagicediter, and his history of engagements with other users is not sterling). I kindly ask for the article Moldavians to be reverted to the established version (redirect to article Moldavia) and for user Denisarena to be warned and prohibited from touching the article for a set period of time. Thank you. 12:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.25.236 (talk)

I have reverted the target to Moldavia, which does appear to be correct, but I see back and forth on this since at least September 2012. Since I can't find an article talk page discussion and am stuck at work with limited time, pinging Denisarona to come and discuss here; it looks like a good-faith misunderstanding that's turned into a slow-motion edit war. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it might be a good-faith misunderstanding. Otherwise, I couldn't see how one would overlook the fact that this is a very sensitive issue (cf. Moldovenism, Moldovan language, Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Moldova, Cultural appropriation). I'm pretty sure, for instance, that nobody would even think about solving the Macedonian naming dispute just with a click of the mouse. 14:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.25.236 (talk)

@Yngvadottir: your ping failed due to typo. Pinging @Denisarona: JBH (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Denisarona has a history stretching over many years of reverting people's edits without explanation.[145] 200.83.101.199 (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The original redirect was to Moldovans until 20 July 2014, when 85.122.25.236 changed it to a disambiguation page and subsequently to Moldavia. I then redirected it again to Moldovans because it refers to an ethnic group and not a geographical or historical region, as stated in the introduction to the Moldovans article:-

Moldovans (in Moldovan/Romanian moldoveni pronounced [moldoˈvenʲ];) are the largest population group of Republic of Moldova (75.8% of the population),[2] and a significant minority in Ukraine,[3] and Russia.[4] Under the variant Moldavians, the term may also be used to refer to all inhabitants of the territory of historical Principality of Moldavia, currently divided among Romania (47.5%), Moldova (30.5%) and Ukraine (22%), regardless of ethnic identity. In the Romanian part of the historical region, term moldovenean (pl. moldoveni) is widely used as a cultural-geographical self-designation by people who otherwise self-identify as ethnic Romanians.

This seems more logical (e.g. The article about Italians does not redirect to Italy, the article about Irish people does not redirect to Ireland). If I use an encyclopedia to learn about an ethnic group, I don't go to the geographical location.

The comments of 200.83.101.199 don't deserve a response. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP‎.

Regards Denisarona (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. The series of reverts would have been easier to understand with edit summaries. As a matter of fact, I think what you quote supports Moldavia as the better redirect target: "Under the variant Moldavians, the term may also be used to refer to all inhabitants of the territory of historical Principality of Moldavia". But a hatnote of the form "Moldavians redirects here; for other usages see Moldovans" is indicated. Would you agree to that solution, in view of the disputes linked to above by 85.122.25.236. Please don't dismiss the concerns of 200.83.101.199 just because they are (also) an unregistered editor; if you read that "abuse" page you will see they are not under any sanctions. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with your first suggestion. I have no comment on your second suggestion. Up to now I have spent 98% of my time on Wikipedia looking for and reverting vandalism. I will now re-think that idea. Denisarona (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Denisarona: There is already a hatnote of the "see also Moldavians (disambiguation)" type, so I have posted at Talk:Moldavia asking whether people agree it's a good idea to add "and Moldovans" ... and whether anyone knows how! I hate to think you will quit vandal-fighting because of this disagreement. But please do start using descriptive edit summaries - it does wonders to reduce misunderstandings - and please don't revert an edit substantially because it was by an unregistered editor. I've so frequently seen IPs quietly fixing things, most of us started as IPs, and there are regrettably innumerable registered vandals at any one time, that even if you disagree as many do with the policy of allowing IP editors, it doesn't make sense to assume they're all bad. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: As I already said, I have no problem with your proposal for the Moldavians/Moldovans articles. In the past I have used edit summaries to explain various edits / changes / reverts for reasons not connected to vandalism. I didn't and don't disagree with allowing IP editors. I didn't target IP editors when reverting vandalism. I have welcomed IP editors who have reverted vandalism. However, enough is enough. Denisarona (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Denisarona, I apologise for claiming that you modified what I thought, starting from common sense, was the established version of the article 'Moldavians', and I'm sorry to hear that this report led you to reconsider your activity on Wikipedia, this was not my intention at all. Please don't hold any hard feelings about this report, and understand I only acted and all my edits on Wikipedia have been made in good faith. Regards, I.B. 19:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.25.236 (talk)

Good morning 85.122.25.236 and thank you for your comments. I certainly don't hold any hard feelings about what you wrote and acknowledge that you have edited in good faith. My decision was not caused by what you wrote but was influenced by the comments made by others. Again, thank you. Denisarona (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

AfD spilling over into SPI

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

---

Here's what's going on, in brief:

• I nominate for deletion an unsourced BLP.
• User:Раціональне анархіст comes in contributes a comment which I found rather absurd, and I say so, while respecting WP:NPA and, I believe, WP:CIV.
• User:Раціональне анархіст then removes part of my comment, in blatant contravention of WP:TPO.
• I proceed to restore the comment. I do so while logged out, as is permitted under WP:SOCK, as I read it. I have no particular reason for being logged out; neither am I required to state one, for that matter. I just happen to prefer editing while logged out sometimes, as can be seen. It's true that three separate IPs appear; I have no idea why that happened, and I certainly didn't take steps to make that happen. Restoring my comment while logged out did not "defend bullying commentary", as charged - I simply objected to the violation of WP:TPO; and 3RR was never on my mind.
• User:Раціональне анархіст reverts twice. He proceeds to open a sockpuppet investigation against me and notify the user who opened the last failed sockpuppet investigation against me.
• So, yes, that's me, and if I breached any policy by editing while logged out, I apologize and promise to stay logged in while on this AfD (and, in principle, others). I'm busy trying to build an encyclopedia and keep it free of cruft, and I don't care for these types of games.
• Oh, and while we're at it, User:Раціональне анархіст was recently topic-banned from initiating AfDs. Given that the same user barely does anything but AfD, perhaps it's time to consider extending that to any participation at AfD. His contributions there are less than impressive, and his antics tend to waste people's time. He doesn't appear to be here to contribute content. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  Your considering a comment absurd is no excuse for dropping civility in preference to an intimidating bureaucratic battleground. And of course it was completely an accident on your part that you used your logged-out IPs to game 3RR while edit-warring? I find that hard to swallow as you've been warned about it before, and such socking was what prompted the first investigation of you. - You've been a member how long now? You know better. (And I was also wondering how long it might take someone to bring up that recently ended trumped-up porn-SPA-generated AfD ban against me as a complete non sequitur. - But that's the whole point of these types of spurious bans, isn't it? - Their usefulness in subsequent ad hominem distractions.) Pax 05:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No, Biruitorul, you are not permitted to restore your own edits while logged out, or while using any other account.—Kww(talk) 05:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if this is somewhat unhelpful..... But why would you wanna edit logged out ? ... That just makes no sense at all ... Unless you're up to something there would be no reason to edit logged out .... –Davey2010^Talk 05:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Both parties blocked for edit-warring, Biruitrol blocked a week for WP:ILLEGIT violations.—Kww(talk) 05:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Threat of violence

Please revdel the following:

• dif 1
• dif 2

and please block the IP address that made those difs. They have been reverted by cluebot. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, done and done, also forwarding to the emergency email queue. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks, and thanks for sending to the emergency queue. Jytdog (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:RexxS: personal attacks, disruptive editing, etc.

For a good bit of the evening, User:RexxS has been engaged in a series of personal attacks against me to the disruption of a previously productive talk page discussion initiated by me Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Query regarding the use of Twinkle for TfD/TfMs:

• "I am in full agreement with the value of notifying both template creators in these cases, but you seem more concerned with using your own interpretations to attack other editors than actually doing any work to solve problems."

(In a thread started by me to discuss the possible deficiencies of Twinkle for TfD notices and the need to change TfD nominator instructions regarding TfD notices.)

• "But I don't need any lectures from you about attacking other editors as you need to get the plank out of your eye before commenting on the motes in others. Your protestations simply don't match your actions. Fix that first."

(After asking him to assume good faith and stop making personal attacks on me.)

• "Don't talk bollocks, Dirtlawyer. You might think your passive-aggressive behaviour behaviour is clever[.]"

(More personalized commentary.)

• "I've been around the block enough times to recognise your kind."

(More personalized and inflammatory rhetoric.)

• "You've spent far more time engaged in attacking Andy than in supplying the missing notification or clarifying the instructions[.]"

(Actually, I've spent a good bit of the last several days laying the ground work for changes regarding TfD/TfM notices, and reminding multiple editors to notify all template creators in proposed template deletions and merges. My interaction with Andy in the last two weeks has been limited to making a good-faith suggestion to expand a TfM discussion to other templates, compliment him on one of his revamped TfM proposals, and three times to politely request that he provide notice to template creators.)

• "You give the impression of preferring a lack of notification and unclear instructions, just to use as a stick to beat other editors with."

(More personalized and inflammatory rhetoric -- weirdly occurring in a thread started by me to discuss problems regarding lack of TfD/TfM notifications and purportedly unclear TfD instructions. See [146], wherein RexxS came out swinging from the start [147].)

• "You might have a point if you were actually doing anything to resolve issues, rather than snarking at the folks like me who are fixing them."

(Actually, I've been doing quite a lot to tackle the ongoing problem of TfD/TfM nominators (including Andy) failing to notify the creators of all templates in pending TfDs and TfMs. See, e.g., [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167]. Contrary to RexxS's repeated assertions of bad faith on my part, I believe I've been doing my share to address the problem of TfD nominators not providing notice to template creators and other concerned parties. RexxS would know this if he participated in more TfDs for reasons other than attacking me personally for my purportedly unfair treatment of Andy.)

• "Your words ring too hollow when set against your actions for me to offer you any assumption of good faith."

(More personalized and inflammatory rhetoric.)

In short, User:RexxS (1) has failed to assume good faith as required per WP:AGF, (2) personalized talk page discussions by commenting on me, my motives, and my character, and made repeated personal attacks by impugning my character and motives per WP:NPA, and (3) engaged in disruptive editing by intentionally provoking an unnecessary confrontation and disrupting an otherwise productive talk page thread per Wikipedia:Disruptive.

Based on his own words, I believe the real underlying issue is that RexxS believes that I have unfairly targeted User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett), and is determined to draw me and any others who have previously criticized the conduct of Pigsonthewing into an open confrontation, apparently to demonstrate the perceived unfairness, bad motives, etc., etc. Previous attempts to engage RexxS constructively have resulted in more of the same. I am a regular participant in TfD discussions, and, prior to this week (see here), I have not previously had any conflicts with RexxS (nor encountered him at all, to the best of my recollection).

I have every intention of continuing to participate in TfD and TfM discussions, as well as TfD policy and guideline discussions on the relevant talk pages, and there is no reason why I should not. RexxS is, of course, welcome to do so as well, but not for the purposes of attacking me.

What do I want from this ANI discussion? A simple warning to RexxS to assume good faith on my part, back off and cease his personal attacks on me, and not to engage in further disruptive editing in threads where I am a good-faith participant. No enforcement beyond such warning is sought. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Dirtlawyer, in my view this was an attempt to bait, goad, and poke at Pigsonthewing. YOU started a discussion about Twinkle on WP:TfD, when clearly if they were honest attempts to rectify something you would have posted at WT:TW or WP:VP. I considered warning or blocking (more you than RexxS), but figured two grown adults were capable of reaching an understanding. So speaking for myself, "No, I will not be warning RexxS of any impropriety" — Ched :  ?  04:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ched, I have a great deal of respect for you, but you could not be more wrong in this case. Please quote the specific language of my "query" that "was an attempt to bait, goad, and poke at Pigsonthewing." Please read my comments again, because it's not there. As for the appropriate forum to open such a discussion regarding the TfD applications of Twinkle, the discussion is directly related to Templates for Discussion, and everyone in the discussion acknowledged that. Logically, if you actually believe my original thread was an attempt to bait, goad or poke anyone, why would it make any difference whether I posted it at TfD talk or Twinkle talk? The whole point of the thread was to get feedback from other TfD participants who use Twinkle for initiating TfD discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, I respect you as well, and I also respect RexxS Still, when I read through that thread, it appeared to me there was an equal amount of giving and getting there, and that's why I chose at the time to let the two of you hash it out. Reading through it again, I still fell you "gave as good as you got". My view was that while the gloves were off, there were no "blows below the belt" (so to speak) fouls. Now I've seen a great number of pot-shots taken at Andy, and by proxy RexxS, over the last few months. Hopefully, once the review is over, that will subside. I know there are people on both sides of these template discussions, but just like any "political", "gender", or any other divisive topic on wiki - folks will either have to co-exist, or they won't last long. Granted, there was plenty of snark in that thread, but I think you got your fair share in too. There have been more than enough people baiting and sniping at Andy, and I'd like to think you aren't one of them, (although I've been through some threads in which I questioned that) . Like I said, I personally am not going to "warn" RexxS here, simply because if I warn him, then I feel I have to warn you as well. Just IMO. As to the templates and the inner workings of Twinkle, I'm simply not versed enough in those areas to offer an opinion. — Ched :  ?  05:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ched, the comments above by RexxS go far beyond "snark." I know where that line is, and I'm not the one who has repeatedly crossed it. A careful review of the thread will easily substantiate that it was a good-faith effort by me to initiate a discussion about TfD-related Twinkle applications (of which, like you, I admittedly know almost nothing), followed by a suggestion that it was perhaps time to revise and tighten the TfD instructions regarding notices for template creators, etc. If either of the original query or the follow-up suggestion constituted an effort to bait, goad or poke, I ask that you quote the language. From there, RexxS came out swinging, repeatedly, in a very personalized manner. If you feel the need to "warn" me, I would gladly accept that if, by extension, it also requires RexxS to cease and desist his personalized attacks of the character quoted above. Sweet Mary, I do my level best to stay away from ANI and the drama boards, but I don't believe anyone is required to suffer personal attacks, such as those above, in silence. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looks to me like this is a case of forum-shopping and needs a quick close, both here and at the other page. The discussion between DirtLawyer and RexxS is only understood within the broader context of the situation involving Pigsonthewing and TfD issues, and it is really quite clear that Dirtlawyer was "asking the other parent" in an attempt to play the innocent and gain ammo against Andy, then RexxS caught him red-handed, resulting in the crocodile tears being spilled nere. This needs a snow close and a trout slap at Dirtlawyer for even bringing it. Montanabw^(talk) 06:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Gee whiz, Montana. What other forum? Did you actually read the talk page discussion at WP:TfD? At the outset, it did not involve either Andy or RexxS, but RexxS chose to make it about himself (and by extension about Andy). The issues raised there don't require a "close" by anyone: (1) RexxS has already tightened the notice requirements for creators of templates involved in TfD and TfM discussions as embodied in the TfD/TfM instructions, thereby precluding any more assertions by Andy, RexxS or anyone else that TfD/TfM nominators are not explicitly required to notify all template creators; and (2) administrator Martijn Hoeskstra has volunteered to undertake the changes required for the Twinkle auto-editor to provide the required notices for all template creators. Did you read the discussion; if so, did you understand it? Perhaps you should read it again (while ignoring the comments of RexxS). Why do you think the TfD talk page discussion needs to be "snow closed," when all of the issues raised are already in the process of being resolved? As for me asking the "other parent," we are not here to discuss TfD/TfM notices or Andy, we are here to discuss the failure of RexxS to assume good faith per AGF, refrain from making personal attacks per NPA, and avoid disruptive conduct and editing per WP:DISRUPTIVE. Not even close to being the same issues, so it's rather difficult to understand what your point regarding "forum-shopping" is.

As for your assertion of wrong-doing on my part, RexxS did not catch me "red-handed" doing anything. If initiating a discussion regarding the need to consistently provide proper notice to the creators of all templates involved in TfD merges constitutes "an attempt to play the innocent and gain ammo against Andy" -- in which Andy was not mentioned, and even RexxS agreed that such notice should be provided -- then, yes, I plead guilty. Yes, guilty as hell of trying to implement fair notice and a measure of procedural fairness that have been sorely absent in many TfD/TfMs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Will the plaintiff please refrain from leading the witness, and will witnesses for the defense please refrain from hyperbole. — Ched :  ?  06:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ched, I have no witness to lead, sir, and the above witness for the defense is in apparent need of the assistance of competent counsel. But I am doing my best to maintain my sense of humor; regardless of the outcome of this discussion, hopefully you can help in that regard. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Did you know... that "Geh aus, mein Herz, und suche Freud", written by Paul Gerhardt after the Thirty Years War, was translated as "Go Forth, My Heart, and Seek Delight"? - I am known for my seemingly unrelated comments and will travel right now. More later, if needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Gerda . . . the Peacemaker. Blessed art thou. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Gerda the one who wants attention for her DYK, shamelessly forum-shopping ;) - thank you, I feel blessed, my mother's favourite song on the Main page, about seeking (!) joy where joy is not obvious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• I like both RexxS and Dirtlawyer; as they noted in the thread, their little belly-bumping exhibition is a proxy for other issues surrounding another person. Both of you need to call it a draw and to go find more productive use of your limited Wikipedia editing time... Dirtlawyer1 - This is a really over-the-top complaint thread, making a huge case over some comparatively minor nastiness. RexxS - It was poor judgment on your part to escalate the rhetoric and tension for no good reason. Consider your heads knocked together... Leave each other alone and let other people take care of their own affairs. Carrite (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am sorry I haven't responded earlier, but I was away from the keyboard all yesterday. I could escalate by digging out diffs of the disagreements between Dirtlawyer and me over the last several days, but I see no useful outcome here. I would much prefer to be able to assume good faith of any editor, Dirtlawyer included, and hopefully I'll be be able to do so in any future interactions. --RexxS (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Under the circumstances, and in the spirit of Carrite's comment above, RexxS's response above is sufficient for me. Any passing administrator should feel free to close this thread. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to subvert 3RR?

Hi. I'm not intimately familiar with the 3RR, but from what I can see, this is an attempt to subvert it: Middayexpress posts that "I'm at three reverts, so could you please have a look?"; AcidSnow performs a revert and confirms that Middayexpress's request has been fulfilled. I should declare that I'm not neutral in the underlying content dispute, as the editor they were reverting was adding material in that I'd previously proposed. I would appreciate an admin taking a look at the behaviour though, even if it's just to confirm that this is within the rules. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow was already part of the discussion, as you are well aware [168]. The real question is, who is that single purpose account? Middayexpress (talk)

Yes, but you seem to have specifically instructed them to make a revert that you couldn't. Is that allowed? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't instruct him to do anything. I asked him to please have a look and nothing more. The real question remains, who is that single purpose account? Middayexpress (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're asking me, I don't know who it is. Anyway, I won't comment on the revert further - I will leave it to admins to judge. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. Best to try and ignore the initial revert by the single purpose account. Middayexpress (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please tell it in full: "Done. The odds are against him anyways. You can't simply push something to happen". Also reverting a sock doesn't count as a revert. AcidSnow (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not suprised that the sock left after they blew their own cover. AcidSnow (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Tag team may apply (it may apply to the other side as well). 3RR doesn't mean one should revert until one hits three, of course. Midday, I read over the "Systemic Bias" section and that's really way too close to FORUM for comfort; I suggest you take that up on a project page. You may well have a point, but that particular talk page is not the place for it. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow was already part of the discussion, which is expected per appropriate notification. Thanks for the advice, though. The khat and other undue weight issues are definitely relevant, but perhaps the actual policy change that Inayity suggested is indeed better suited for a project page. Another sock also apparently just vandalized my page in connection with this [169]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure, but "I'm at 3RR" sounds a lot like "... so could you...?" I am not sure that that troll is related to you and one of your issues: I think they just picked a bunch of names from ANI. I have been thinking about those comments (they boil down to a claim of unfair treatment based on pure bias), and there is something to that. Then again, it may be a question of how and where that information is dispersed on Wikipedia and how it is linked. British people has nothing on mental health or abuse problems, but there is such a thing as Alcoholism in Britain (though that turns out to be a redirect). The point was, I believe, that the absence of such notes/linkage in a "British people"-style article compared to a "[Fill in minority] people in Britain"-style article (where you do find it) is unfair and places undue weight, and I think that's a fair comment. But, as I said, that's much better suited for a project page, or even a Big Topic Page, not for that article talk page or for ANI, although the casual bystander might appreciate it if you were to drop a link to wherever you start that discussion. Not that ANI is a forum, of course, or a place where one should shamelessly attempt to attract editors' attention. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned the reverts so that AcidSnow (who was already part of the discussion) didn't get the misimpression that I changed my mind and supported that edit. The troll is probably connected with the discussion, as he trolled at least one other editor who was involved in it but whose name wasn't mentioned here. He also rather cheekily gave out Jimmy Savile barnstars for good measure. At any rate, I agree that a project page is better suited for the double standard matter. Middayexpress (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

My thinking was that the troll was instead connected with the discussion at Talk:Mogadishu, because it seems too much of a coincidence that an accusation of promotion of paedophila was made there and the "barnstar" was named after Savile. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That wouldn't explain why the troll vandalized 26oo's page, who was also involved in the matter but whose name wasn't mentioned here. No, that troll is likely instead connected with the discussion as well, and the Jimmy Savile link is apparently his nationality and trollish persona. Middayexpress (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

True. Anyway, this post is about the possible breach of 3RR, not trolling by a now-banned editor. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmies and other admins, I'm increasingly concerned about issues of tag teaming and ownership of this article. Middayexpress now seems to be removing any new material, even if it is well sourced to academic journal articles, on sight (also claiming that the editor who added it is a sockpuppet, despite this not having been investigated, as far as I can tell), and one minute later AcidSnow has removed an entire sourced section that has been an established part of the article for years. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• I looked at that talk page; in fact, I read a lot of it. It's a war of attrition. Middayexpress is very tenacious in that tactic and I've had dealings with them in other places; I suppose you are that tenacious too. Who would ever want to get involved with it? Drmies (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that I've been more willing to compromise (a very small example). I care a lot about the article, which I managed to get into a reasonable state for peer review at one stage. It now looks like Middayexpress is going to progressively remove anything that they think could be perceived as reflecting negatively on the Somali community, regardless of how well caveated and sourced it is. Maybe I should just give up resisting, Drmies, but it makes me sad to see the article subject to such obvious censorship and Middayexpress bullying anyone who dares edit it. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not saying you aren't willing to do this or that, nor am I willing to say that Middayexpress engages in POV editing. What I am willing to say is that a. reading that talk page made me feel five years older and b. the entire area desperately needs more editors. This would be where, perhaps, the old RfC/U could have been a start of something. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that it needs more editors to be involved. I can't blame anyone for not doing so as the debate on the talk page is seemingly endless and goes round in circles (I'm partly to blame for always replying to Middayexpress's comments), and I've even received an offline threat in the post about editing the article. If you have any ideas on how to get other editors involved, I'd love to hear them. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You were threatened offline?!?! That seems pretty serious. I would definitely fill a report! AcidSnow (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AcidSnow. I have filed a report, more than 24 hours ago, but I've had no reply. I should clarify that it wasn't a threat of violence (but of other consequences if I continue to edit the article), and to my knowledge it's not from anyone I've been debating with on the article talk page. Something very fishy is going on, what with this and the troll, if you ask me. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's good to know. Honestly, as the days goes by this discussion gets weirder and weirder. Best of luck. AcidSnow (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate 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.

---

Hi

Can we rev-del this edit summary please. [170]. Amortias (T)(C) 21:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Mike V (talk · contribs) -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Law of superposition, likely copyvio

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

---

At some point back in the Early Neolithic period year 2006, User:Rolinator made this edit to the Law of superposition article. The edit added some content which had already existed on http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/steno.html since at least 16 August 2000. See the relevant copyvio detector results. --Anders Feder (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Argh, this means that at least two sections will need to be completely rewritten. Not to mention the possibility of having to revdel most of the article. Thank you for bringing this up though. I have now listed it for further investigation. De728631 (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Bloody hell, not law of superposition, that's one of the key concepts in archaeology! It's how we date stuff using soil layers! Guess I should help. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 1 Adar 5775 14:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 February 20

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

Mean Abusive message from 65.24.40.85 (from my talk page)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.26.236.244&diff=647232779&oldid=647105726

65.24.40.85 typed this below mean message in my talk page, can you ban or better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.236.244 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2015‎ (UTC)

=== Phuck it ===

And PHUCK YOU! This is what's wrong with Wikipedia! Too many ASSHATS like yourself who DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHUCKING GUIDELINES!!!!

An asshat or (same thing) asshat wearer

• The message is 5 days old. While egregious, we don't often block someone for an old message which isn't part of a continuing pattern of behavior. I will leave a warning on their talk page, in the hopes that it stops. --Jayron32 00:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What is an "asshat" anyway? A hat one wears on one's behind, or a hat made from a tushie, a hat the looks like someone's bottom, or what? BMK (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

reference. --Jayron32 01:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well then, I suppose it is better to be an asshat than an asshat wearer. -Tgeairn (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough, they are the one-and-the-same. --Jayron32 03:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Is LegoBot malfunctioning?

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

---

I found out that on the section in which a user wanted to change his username because it's inappropriate, but even though he censored the vulgar word, "pussy", LegoBot said there's no problem with the username. Does the bot detect problems with the usernames with a similar censoring method or is this bot malfunctioning? Snowager (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Sockpuppet investigations/Hypocritepedia

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

---

Can someone please give the IP's listed in this sock report I filed three days ago some kind of timeout? The user behind them is community banned so they have no business here and continues to add incorrect and inflammatory content, and they just pulled the 'email password reset' 'trick' in an attempt to 'hack' me (yes, I well know this hasn't worked ever in my ten years here). Thanks. Nate • (chatter) 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And now they've decided to 'hack' my Twitter account with the same trick. I know it's off-site (and they aren't getting anywhere unless they can steal my phone from North Dakota), but they're clearly WP:NOTHERE at this point. Nate • (chatter) 04:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• I blocked a third independent of the SPI and this thread. All three have now been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much; just to update further they've now attempted to get into my Instagram, Disqus and fanfiction accounts since this point, all of which have been equally futile. Offsite, but good for the record to account for their MO should they try this in the future. Nate • (chatter) 06:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Tendentious COI editing and socking at Christ Myth Theory

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

Because ANI threads about this article invariably turn into content disputes instead of focusing on behavior: If anyone tries to treat this as a content dispute or turn it into one (regardless of the direction they take it in), I will ignore their input as either in bad-faith or incompetent, and I recommend others do likewise. If you wish to defend the behavior of these two accounts on their own merits, I will acknowledge what you have to say, but if you do so for content-based reasons, you will be ignored. Insinuations about editors' personal beliefs that lack behavioral evidence will be treated as an insulting failure to assume good faith. This is about editor behavior, not article content nor personal beliefs.

Renejs is René Salm, an author focused on the Christ myth theory (what his position is on the matter is irrelevant), and a single purpose account dedicated to promoting the views he writes about. His research is self-published, and the consensus at Talk:Christ myth theory is that it ultimately is not worth including. In response to the consensus that we remove the material about his research from the article, he suggested that we delete the article on claims that the article somehow doesn't meet notability (despite the dozens of the secondary and tertiary sources that remain after removing the material about him). Obviously, he is here with a WP:COI to promote his views, and WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia. What he is here to promote does not matter, it is that he is here to promote it, and how he chooses to do so.

Despite WP:RS, WP:DUE, and so on being cited and explained repeatedly, and a consensus that we need to remove less noteworthy or more fringe subjects from the article, Renejs insisted that we should use the article to list every proponent (including himself, again), simply because he agrees with their work. Regardless of what his views are, this is unacceptable case of COI and RGW.

When policies, guidelines, and other pages such as WP:RGW, WP:NOTPROMO, and WP:COI were repeatedly explained to him, and the consensus clearly sided with reducing the proponents to those discussed at length in secondary sources (i.e. not him), he left an advertisement-like message to announce that he was going to take a hiatus to work on his next book.

The issue is not that he disagreed with consensus or that he accepts the CMT, it is his total disregard for consensus, policies, and guidelines unless they suit him, and his obvious tendentious COI-based POV-pushing in the matter. If he was writing against the CMT he'd've been removed sooner.

GMarxx is a single purpose account focused on:

• Defending Renejs
• Emphasizing René Salm's focus on Nazareth: [171] [172] [173]
• Creating the same sort of artificial prominence for the CMT that Renejs called for
• Generally carrying out edits that Renejs would have wanted, even apparently citing Renejs's posts on talk as GMarxx has only made a !vote.

I raised the possibility that Renejs had not really left but was socking as GMarxx on the CMT talk page, and Renejs responded right away (despite having gone on a hiatus to complete a book). If it had been a few days later, I'd totally buy that Renejs just decided to check on things. If he said he was backing away from just the CMT article and had activity on other articles, I'd totally buy that he just saw the discussion on his watchlist. But, given the obvious similarities between GMarxx's and Renejs's aims, Renejs's immediate response is most readily interpreted as confirmation that Renejs is socking. They are also never on the site at the same time, but there is enough overlap in their range of activity to conclude they're in the same time zone. What information the two accounts are attempting to add to the article is not relevant -- what matters is that they are socking to edit war over that information, and are either not participating in discussion or are only acknowledging discussion that goes their way.

The two accounts are being used to carry out edits that are against the consensus on the talk page, one not engaging in discussion, the other paying no attention to discussion that he doesn't agree with. In particular, they are both restoring material on Richard Dawkins that is original research, a potential BLP violation, and against the consensus on the talk page. And yet, Renejs has the gall to tell the baldfaced lie that there's "no consensus" because the consensus does not go his way. While the consensus on other matters is not universally identical, the changes he suggests have no support whatsoever.

There is disagreement among the other editors, but even the most disagreeable can see beginnings of agreement, and even the most pessimistic can hope for consensus -- just not with Renejs or GMarxx, because his behavior is completely incompatible with this site's practices.

At a minimum, we must:

• temporarily block both accounts to prevent further edit warring on the article, and so we can arrange a...
• topic ban both accounts from articles relating to Early Christianity and Salm's work

That's if we don't just block (or even community ban) both accounts on the grounds of WP:TEND, WP:NOTHERE, WP:COI, WP:SOCK, WP:EW, and WP:NOTPROMO.

Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment At a minimum, it looks like a sockpuppet investigation is in order. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I should point out that there is no WP:OUTING in identifying Renejs as René Salm as the user has done so himself, event used article talk pages to promote information about his books. I have no comment on the sock-pupping, but what Ian.thomson describes does evoke WP:DUCK. More serious is that Renejs is using Wikipedia to make himself more known, in violation of WP:COI. This includes putting out information about his upcoming book [174] and vehemently disagreeing with proposals to restructure the article in line with WP:RS to exclude Renejs and other self-published non-experts. There is a major conflict of interest in both of these actions. That Renejs is an SPA is obvious [175]. It is not a problem in itself, but when he misuses Wikipedia to promote himself, his books and his pet theory, it's more problematic. He's attitude to Wikipedia is also problematic, openly declaring he'll violate the rules to push for the WP:TRUTH [[176]. The whole history of Renejs at Wikipedia shows that he is here to promote himself, gladly edit war to that end, and that he has no interest in constructing an encyclopaedia beyond his personal interests.Jeppiz (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Enough is enough. This user was discussed here last month: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive870#Extensive edit-warring, severe COI-violations and refusal to hear. I'm a relatively latecomer to this issue, and have been appalled by Renejs' behviour - blatantly COI editing, edit warring to add in BLP violations,[177][178][179] and personal attacks like this one. I should also point out that when I saw another editor identify renejs as René Salm, I reported this as a possible outing, but the advice I received from oversight was that this is not the case - the user in question has previously admitted his identity. StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Checkuser note:. GMarxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a  Confirmed sock. The others are MithrasPriest, Spacelib, and most concernedly, Gekritzl. I've blocked them all indefinitely, though Gekritzl's I don't intend to be permanent. I've also blocked Renejs 36 hours for edit-warring, totally independent of any checkuser action. Courcelles 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Update Even though Renejs is currently blocked for 36 hours, he is now back socking [180]. The socking, in addition to earlier policy violations, only goes to show once more that Renejs, who exclusively edit this topic, is on Wikipedia only to right great wrongs.Jeppiz (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I think it is incumbent upon me to point out, as I already have on the talk pages of the editors concerned, that Jeppiz is wrong. I am not René Salm and I consider him to be a particularly unpleasant and not over-bright liar. The only thing we have in common is that we have both been professional musicians. Otherwise, I am a professional historian and publish what I hope is sound work, if not world-renowned, via peer review while trying to fit in all my teaching commitments which is why it takes years to finish anything. The comment was based on my current research project and was designed to inform a debate about Carrier. It is hardly important one way or another. There is however a certain delicious irony in Salm being criticized and having his block extended when for once in his miserable and futile career of lies, attacks, smears and intellectual incoherence he had actually done nothing wrong!109.156.158.20 (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet you're on an anonymous account, which also seems to be an SPA, and you've concluded that Renejs had done nothing wrong with his most recent edit warring, which is clearly inaccurate. Zarcusian (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm on an anonymous account for purely professional reasons. I am not a SP, although due to the instability of my phone line my IP address changes fairly frequently. As for: 'you've concluded that Renejs had done nothing wrong with his most recent edit warring, which is clearly inaccurate'; where do I say that? On the contrary, I have made clear my distaste for Salm's actions on numerous while trying to untangle this wholly unnecessary mess.

My one aim in contributing to WP is to try and improve the content of the articles. Salm clearly is here to promote his work. From that point of view, if I had a vote it would be for at the very least a topic

ban.109.156.158.20 (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't vote, 109.156.158.20, and could I recommend getting an account?Jeppiz (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. My 'for once...he has done nothing wrong' reference in the initial comment was specifically to block extension on the charge of socking, which whatever else he is guilty of (and let's face it, the man's guilty of practically everything else) was an erroneous charge. That has in any case now been corrected.109.156.158.20 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty unlikely that 109.156.158.20 is Renejs. However, I would urge the IP editor to establish a named account—it allows one to preserve anonymity and avoid the suspicion that is often directed at IP editors who contribute to articles with contentious histories.

I also think it would be a good idea to reverse the recent lengthening of Renejs' block, since I don't think he's been using this IP to evade his initial block. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus on both accounts. I no longer think the IP is Renejs. I do think it was a reasonable assumption at first: Renejs talks about his book project on CMT, is blocked, and an IP turns up whose first actions is to head to CMT to talk about his book project. It looked like a WP:DUCK. So it would be quite helpful if the IP would create an account. As for Renejs, I've already asked the admin who first blocked him (and who has checkuser rights) to verify that the IP is not Renejs and then reverse the lengthening of Renejs's block.Jeppiz (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Already done a few hours ago, guys. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It's not that I'm overly sensible, but I'm getting a bit tired of all the personal attacks directed at me by Renejs. loose canon", "hypocrite", "bully", "malicious", etc [181], [182]. I can understand he is dissatisfied that I thought he was socking, but I wasn't the only one, I've retracted that when it became clear it was a mistake, I've called on the first blocking admin to shorten the block, which has been done. I don't expect Renejs to like me, but I believe my accusations against him have been factual (vowing to edit war [183] and a strong WP:COI [[184]). Insults like loose canon", "hypocrite", "bully", "malicious", etc. seem a bit uncalled for.Jeppiz (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

One Four down, one to go: Time to sort out what to do with Renejs

(edit conflict)Ok, Courcelles confirmed via CU that GMarxx as a sock of Gekritzl, and blocked him noting that he used three accounts.

Courcelles has also blocked Renejs for 36 hours for edit warring, with no comment as to socking. That Renejs returned so quickly still makes me believe that he and Gekritzl were at least engaging in off-site collusion.

Given Renejs's other behavior (even without the socking issue) is unacceptable, we still need to discuss the possibility of at least topic banning Renejs from all articles relating to Early Christianity and his offline research, if not just an indef block.

To repeat:

• Renejs does not want the article to exist without mentioning him
• he is aware of his own COI but does not care, and wishes to use the article to promote a particular view against policy, guideline, and consensus
• he intends to use this site to promote his offsite work
• he edit wars to restore primary-source BLP-violating based original research he likes, claiming there's no consensus because he doesn't agree with the consensus; and has made it clear that he intends to continue edit warring
• he has been brought up for this behavior before, and was only let off after making a false promise to change
• he believes that his off-site research amounts to credentials that justify his actions on this site

What his beliefs are do not matter, what his research is does not matter (beyond the fact that it is self-published and fringe) -- all that matters is that he believes he is entitled to do as he pleases to push his beliefs onto the site, and will act against the site's interests, policies, guidelines, and consensus because of that entitlement.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

While I of course can't speak to offsite collusion, technically, Renejs is  Unrelated to the other four socks. And while I've indeffed Gekritzl for now, I don't object to someone changing that after discussion. Courcelles 20:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That is good to know, thanks Courcelles. So we've established that there was extensive socking but Renejs was not involved. That doesn't change things, of course. He is still using Wikipedia to push himself, advertising his self-publish books, and obstructing any change to the article that would remove him (based on WP:RS as he has no expertise in the field). That, combined with the edit warring and even explicit promise/threat to continue to edit war is the issue.Jeppiz (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban I read Renejs's comments on adding the fringe tag and on that alone, he should not be be topic banned. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean. Do you mean:

• That a topic ban is not enough in the light of his other behavior?

-or-

• That his content-based position in those comments excuse his openly stated plans to edit war, insistance on including primary-source-based original research against BLP, his clear agenda to self-promote his work, and so on?

Or do you have something else to excuse those behaviors besides a content-based? Because content does not excuse disruptive editing, especially when there's complete overlap between a user's content and the disruptive editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this ANI is an ad hominem attack against him, that he's a thorn in the flesh against many editors . . . can you say anything good about him? Maybe he doesn't understand completely how things work here (he only edited occasionally over many years but he's very knowledgeable), I like his website and don't think he's inappropriately promoting it. I don't see how the dif you provided above shows he insists that the article mentions him. At this point I don't think there's any valid reason for a topic ban or at the very least, I'd hate to see him gone because I think he knows the subjects he edits but maybe not what a RS is and that can be very frustrating. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

So, people trying to add content you like excuses any disruptive behavior and trumps policy, guidelines, and consensus on their part? Ok, I'm now ignoring anything else you have to say in this discussion now, and encourage others to do likewise. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The previous ANI involving this editor was closed as a WP:OWN issue with a few guidelines recommended. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the previous ANI about the user was closed by an involved non-admin. Closing by an uninvolved admin is good. Closing by an involved non-admin on ANI is rather bad. And I must agree with Ian.thomson in finding it rather extraordinary that somebody should argue that the fact that they like a person's webpage should be an excuse for said person's behavior on Wikipedia. There are persons whose opinions I like a lot who have been blocked, and I've never opposed that, nor even seen anyone oppose it before. Could I respectfully suggest focusing on the actual issue instead of our personal likes or dislikes. As Ian said when filing the ANI, the issue here is behavior, not content.Jeppiz (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Ian Thomson and others. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Ian Thomson and others. I guess it's implicit in my previous comments, but just to make it perfectly clear.Jeppiz (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support, obvious really. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

1.42.15.25 block review

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

---

Not too long ago, User_talk:1.42.15.25 (I'll call the user, the editor) was blocked by User:Coffee for the reason of edit-warring on the page [185] (history link). What happened was, User:TheMesquito asked for someone to monitor the page because he noticed the previous war between 1.42.15.25 and User:DerbyCountyinNZ. Coffee I believe blocked him within a small amount of time. Unfortunately, Coffee quit a few minutes later saying he's going to sleep.

List of reverts and subsequent unreverts

1. Reverted by DerbyCountyinNZ (Reason: Rvt. Not constructive.): The reverted text was text in the infobox noting his area of study, his late wife's name, and a bit of information about his children (diff). The editor subsequently readded the information. (Reason: what do you mean!!! ref. 7)
2. Reverted by DerbyCountyinNZ (Reason: Rvt. Again. Incorrect/inappropriate/uncited use of infobox): Derby should've seen the previous comment by the editor in the history, but despite that he reverted it. Perhaps he could've added the inline cite himself but I don't think it was called for to revert on good-faith edits (diff). The editor then re-added the information with the reason. (Reason: it is all cited in references below,)
3. Reverted by TheMesquito (Reason: factual errors (HG)): This is where TheMesquito entered the picture, but it looks like he might not have noticed the editor's note as well (diff). Now the editor becomes somewhat irritated because his edits were reverted thrice with no one checking his reasons or reference... he subsequently re-adds his changes. (Reason: if you are going to say i vandalise the article, please explain how, ALL THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT READ ARTICLE BELOW UNDER REF .7)

However, comparing the 7th reference that he said was the source, the information he added, he was correct. It should've been evident to Derby, and TheMesquito the information he added was correct rather than reverting it. The first time, DerbyCountyinNZ could have reverted the edits without checking the new reference he added, understandable since the editor didn't inline cite it (he might not know how to). But the two subsequent reverts seems uncalled since they should've checked the history page and his unrevert reasons. Even when accounting for WP:Biographies of living persons, which says "to remove any uncited contentious material", this information was not contentious!

I would like to request that the editor 1.42.15.25 be unblocked after some verification, as it looks like he was blocked/punished for the fault of the other users rather than himself. The others had reverted in fault whereas he reverted with the right and correctly sourced information. Since he was not hurting the encyclopedia and that this was a minor incident, I request that he is unblocked. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 08:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we probably should wait for the blocking admin to return. I would be hesitant to unblock without first conferring with him. But this points out another problem, namely, edit summaries are for a quick summary of what you did. They really are not the place for discussion. The blocked user (the editor) should have taken this to the talk page. 3RR is a bright line rule. JodyB _talk 12:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever you all decide to do... that was a rather late night action for myself, so I looked at it in black and white if you will. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ran across this patrolling recent changes. The IP keeps adding more unblock requests with "LOL" in the reason, over and over, so I revoked talk page access. Then I saw one unblock request was on hold, and then this discussion... so I restored talk page access. I've no opinion on the block itself but their talk page use while blocked is in my opinion becoming disruptive (I've asked them to stop making unblock requests while one is still active). — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I know it's not exactly encouraged, but I would like to compare this with getting framed for a crime and then breaking out of jail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahiyan8 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Promotion of Hästens Company and suspected 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.

---

SleepEditor has been adding promotional material (example) to the article about the bed company Hästens, as well as creating articles to help building a platform for the Hästens company: Signum Priset, Heds socken, Per Thure Janson, Purveyor to the Swedish Royal Court, Pehr Adolf Janson and the deleted "Horsetail hair". I warned the editor the editor about having WP:COI on their talk page. After a conversation the editor removed the warning from the page. After this Special:Contributions/5.150.199.201 continued the editing at Hästens and Pehr Adolf Janson. I suspect that these editors are one and the same, or both being paid editors making these edits just to promote the brand. w.carter-Talk 15:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This editor's sole function is to promote the interests of one company. I think there is a very serious potential Terms of Use issue here, with regard to undisclosed paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

After a discussion with Coretheapple, SleepEditor has posted a COI disclosure on their userpage whereby they agree to stop editing any articles connected to Hästens, and to instead make suggestions on talkpages. I agree that the way the IP took over the article editing after SleepEditor stopped is quite suggestive. They could be one employee, or two employees who collaborate, which of course isn't really any better, per WP:MEAT. A new user might not be aware of that, so they may be in kind of good faith, I suppose. Is there a CheckUser in the house, please? Meanwhile, I have posted a couple of questions on the IP's page, and told them about the sockpuppet policy. Bishonen | talk 00:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

Yes this editor, after a bit of nudging, grudgingly admitted on his user page that he is an employee of the company. The IP is from Sweden as well. There is more than one article involved and considerable promotion of this obscure Swedish bedding company and its grand history. Coretheapple (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: To be fair the Hästens company really is a notable brand in Sweden (I don't know about the rest of the world), but it's founders and so on are not. At least not in the way of Ingvar Kamprad of IKEA and so on. The company is also known for their rather massive PR-machinery, so this attempt to use the WP as well is not surprising to a Swede. w.carter-Talk 11:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by IP editor 72.48.212.34

The following discussion is closed. 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 editor, previously blocked for vandalism, has begun vandalizing articles again, now that his previous block has expired. Request indefinite block.

Block log: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A72.48.212.34

Diffs: (there are scores of these, these are just examples) Diff1

Diff2

Diff3

Diff4

Diff5

Formerly 98 (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Remenu and the Aromanian flag redux

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

---

Contnuation of this dispute. Several sources (quoted in the user's talk page) are clear that this is one flag used by a few groups within the Aromanian ethnicity. The majority of Aromanians, esp. those who reside in Greece, have nothing to do with it. The issue has been explained in two languages, with a wealth of evidence, but the user plays dumb. The user has been kindly requested to stop reverting the description of the flag, and has been blocked for 3RR, yet the WP:IDHT continues unabated. There is obviously an agenda here. The rest of his edits to the article Aromanians are largely cosmetic in nature, this is the one major change of substance he tries to push through. Constantine ✍ 09:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, for reasons outlined on their talk page. I'd also exercise caution User:Cplakidas, as what you're doing could also appear to the untrained eye to be edit warring over the same point. Such disputes should be thrashed out on the talk page rather than dragged to ANI. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC).

I know that I am treading a fine line. But there is persistent refusal to "thrash things out first on the talk page", or engage in a meaningful discussion, and frankly I am frustrated by the refusal to get the point. I mean, practically the only addition of substance this guy has made to the article is the flag, and that is heavily disputed to say the least. If anyone has doubts as to my modus operandi, I can translate the entire German dialogue into English, and am willing to accept any chastisement whatsoever is deemed appropriate. I would also request an uninvolved user to have a look as to what is to be done with this flag: remove it altogether as contentious, keep my modified description, or keep Remenu's description? Constantine ✍ 10:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The flag will be deleted in a couple of days, as it has no license tag or source information. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Malfunctioning bot

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

---

Can anybody please check if the anti vandal bot cluebot NG is working correctly?it reverted me while I was removing vandalism!--93.109.200.241 (talk) 14:, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The fuck off in your edit summary might have something to do with it. Amortias (T)(C) 15:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Ceoil

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

---

Ceoil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has returned to his past pattern of disruption again. The bad behavior is occuring over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime where he has begun engaging in unprovoked personal attacks.[186] I removed the blatant attack,[187] and left a NPA warning on his talk page.[188] In response, he restored the personal attack yet again.[189] Could an admin please remove the personal attack and warn Ceoil? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"past pattern of disruption again". Lovely. And I was unfair for calling you out for baiting? Good days work. Can daddy please tell tell Ceoil not to call me on ill informed agenda driven bullshit? The inscear "thanks" on my talk just kills me; imagine IRL life if somebody treated you with such a naked dis. But anyway, thanks Vir! Error of my ways etc, how dare I call you out! Ceoil (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You know, Ceoil, without commenting one way or the other of the merits of anyone's complaint in this specific conflict, and just speaking in the general here, there are ways of getting other people to do what you want them to do, and conversely ways of getting people to ignore the substance of your arguments and instead change the locus of a problem from something you need fixed to you yourself. Purely as a matter of tactics, if there is the behavior of another which you want others to take notice of and act upon, you need to take care to craft your statements to that end in a way that don't mask a valid complaint and instead make everyone ignore your valid points and turn to focus on you. As a case in point (and I don't say this is necessarily true, but am conceding it to move forward with this discussion), let's concede that you have a valid complaint about something Viriditas has done, and you wish for others to agree with you, or to take some action to undo or overturn something he did. There are means of getting that done, and it starts with the way you present your case, the specific words you choose and the tone you take. If you are not careful, and choose the wrong words, and take the wrong tone, people will not respond by dealing with Veriditas's problem. Instead, they'll focus on you and your abusive tone. It's all up to you, and it has nothing to do with being a nanny or anything like that. When people tell you these things, its because there is an effective way to communicate which causes other people to agree with you and act on your behalf. And what you did just now, and in the link that Veritdas provided, is not effective communication. You need to decide before pressing forward: do you want to be the kind of person people listen to and do what you want of them, or do you want to be the kind of person people ignore, except to complain about. Your move. --Jayron32 02:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I expect Ceoil took exception to this edit, where Veriditas implies that the person who filed the SPI is suffering from paranoid delusions and needs to be warned and chastised. Veriditas should not have said that. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, the SPI case itself, needs sorting out. It's become a virtual ANI discussion on its own. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Jayron, I get the point, but wiki is only a hobby for me, and I just cant be bothered arguing the toss in the expected language with people I dont respect. I dont *at at* care what you or he thinks of me. That stuff is a game, a skill unto itslef but NOT why I'm here; it has less than nothing to do with artice content. Every day dragged down in that mire is an artile lost. So I'm blunt and unapologetically so. Its how I am IRL, and regards being professional, its how we are here in our day to day. Bluffers are a waste time, are sooner or later found out, just a time sink and annoyance to everybody. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a game. It also has nothing to do with "caring what people think of you". I have not once said that you need to do this because it matters what people think of you. I've said you need to do this because it lets you be heard. It seems you want to be heard and understood, and you want people to treat you with respect and dignity, and to give your complaints validity. I only say that because you said anything at all. If you didn't actually want people to listen to you, and understand you, you'd have said nothing at all. The very fact that you attempted to communicate something means you'd like someone to listen. You don't do it because you want people to like you, and it isn't about circumlocution. It's about saying things directly, but in a way that doesn't distract from your point. It's called "how to get things done". It doesn't take any more effort, and is a habit you develop (like anything else) and works here, and anywhere else, where you need to communicate with others in a way that allows yourself to be heard. The only question is: do you want to be heard, or do you want to be ignored. You have many years of experimental evidence as to how your communication style has worked. Let me ask you: are we now acting on the meat of your complaint against Viritidas, or have we ignored your complaint to deal with something else? What about similar situations in your past? How have those worked out. It's about looking at the evidence, and acting upon it. Does your communication method work to get yourself heard and understood, or does it just piss people off and make them ignore your meanings? Certainly, you can't claim you don't have enough evidence to come to your own conclusions about this... --Jayron32 02:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice attempt at psychoanalysis. My method; I'm not stupid. In my heart? Vir is an agitating tosser, inevitably wrong, wastes time and should have been thrown out years ago. But we dont have the stones for that. Block me at will, if thats the best argument you have. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've not attempted any psychoanalysis. I don't really care what makes you the way you are, or what your heart is like. I've given you reason to change what you do, so that you can actually get people to do something. I have no desire to see you blocked, and have made no threats in that direction at all, so I have no idea why you would think that. You seem to be inventing windmills to tilt at, because nothing I said above indicates that I have mentioned blocking, or your heart, or that you were not an intelligent person. I've said none of that. If you're going to refute what I say, fine, but to pretend like I said things I didn't, and then refute those imagined slights, makes no sense. I've laid out a rational argument as to why you would choose to communicate one way over another. Take a step back, and stop thinking that I'm here to change you, or to punish you, or to make you feel bad, or to see you sanctioned in some way. Nothing I have said (read it again!) has stated anything to that end. What I have done is to try to engage you as a person, to perhaps give alternatives to choices you have made in the past, and present you with other choices to make in the future, and presented rational arguments as to why they may work better than what has worked. --Jayron32 02:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And yet you presume, second guess and proffer. I dont care what you think, already said that. I was hauled here, making you an univited audience, making you feel free to ponder on the nature of me at will. What drives YOU to take such liberties? DUNNO, DONT CARE. Out. Ceoil (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Vaya con dios... --Jayron32 03:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Night. Ceoil (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to report two additional attacks since the first one listed at the beginning of this thread. In other words, the unprovoked attacks have not stopped. I will include the original attack for reference purposes:

• "Ha ha how perfect; nice try at deflection. Viriditas I'm not sure if you are being willy obtuse and antagonistic, but you are the perfect example why we have to get bogged down in stupid shit with highly agressive people and cant have nice things. You are a poor sophistic with a badly blunted moral compass. Anytime I look at an extended conversation and want to head north, I look for your - always and ever unsolicited - commentry, and head in the opposite direction. For years it has served me well. [Slow clap]"[190]
• "as expected; run to the boards, you coward"[191]
• " Nice company you keep Viriditas, as usual."[192]

I would like Ceoil to stop commenting about me as an editor and to start focusing on contributions. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

How many years has this being gone on now? This case seems like a candidate for an interaction ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. An interaction ban between which users? I have limited to zero interaction with Ceoil. He attacked me without any provocation. A quick glance at the ANI archives shows me supporting him in 2007 during a dispute he had with another user. Other than that, I can't recall interacting with him. Perhaps you are referring to an interaction ban between Ceoil and another user? Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the attacks were unprovoked. The provocation was when you made to this remark, where you imply that the person who filed the SPI is suffering from paranoid delusions and needs to be warned and chastised. You should not have said that. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

While he shouldn't have said that, the attack was not directed at Ceoil who is the topic of this discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Per Diannaa, not only did Viriditas make sanctionable comments about paranoid delusions, he also asked that "the clerks and CU's warn and discipline the editors who have brought this case" to the appropriate forum for raising concerns about socking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Actionable? Not really. It is an expression of frustration. There's nothing actually wrong with asking for credible evidence, after all. Obviously there is an open invitation to speculation on why Viriditas is so passionate about this individual, but the Internet is a big place, maybe they are friends elsewhere.

Importantly, as the close notes, Viriditas is also right. No credible evidence is presented of a link.

Wikipedia isn't kindergarten, that comment is ill-tempered but does not require anything more than a caution to have a care. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not okay for Viriditas to have suggested that the person who filed the report should be warned or sanctioned for having filed it. He also posted speculation about her mental health. That's over the line in my opinion regardless of the outcome of the SPI. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, Diannaa, but that wasn't what I intended. I was trying to comment about the qualitative aspects of the evidence. In other words, they don't rise to the level of substantiated or sound evidence, but seem mired in paranoia and misperception. I apologize if I gave the impression I was commenting not on the quality of evidence, but on the state of mind of other editors. Viriditas (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is straying into Victoria and not Ceoil's actions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology Viriditas and for understanding my point of view regarding the way you worded your remarks. Knowledgekid87, you have mentioned Victoriaearle by name here, without having posted the required notice on her talk. I will do that right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"where you imply that the person who filed the SPI is suffering from paranoid delusions and needs to be warned and chastised." Who were you talking about then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Conduct of TheGracefulSlick

This relatively new user is constructive, but at the same time they also are a general pain towards the other editors on Wikipedia. The user does not heed instructions, guidance, or warnings. They apparently do not read half of the stuff posted on their talk page. They act like a WP:JERK towards the other editors. They have been warned like ten times to make small changes. To reiterate what I stated in a warning on their talk page, they are clearly here to contribute, but their lack of communication hinders efforts towards a collaborative project.

Diffs: Diff 1

Diff 2

Diff 3

- Bossanoven (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I admit to the examples given. I asked to be left alone by these Users but they failed to comply. I have made positive contributions and excepted criticism from others that has helped me improve. Do as you wish, but I believe I deserve a second chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGracefulSlick (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project- you will need to learn to work with other editors, particularly when they are guiding you to policies and procedures that will make your edits appropriate to the project. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOBAN, they are allowed to request other users stop posting to their talk page. If other users violate that, it could be considered baiting. But given that the comments are on other people's talk pages, and that the editor above has indicated that they will not repeat the conduct, I think that the action taken should be none. If however this conduct props up again, I would support some sort of sanction to dissuade such conduct. Tutelary (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-thought decision making. Hopefully, we can put this foolishness behind us and get back to what this great project was designed for.TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Edit warring, personal attacks and hounding by former EEML member

Volunteer Marek:

• Followed me to an article he never edited to revert text that was added over nine months ago, claiming he knows what the consensus there is.[193].

And again removed the same text and more.[194][195] He is claiming that I added the text, even though the diffs show that others added the text long ago.[196][197]

• Continuously made disruptive edits in Rape during the occupation of Germany, such as removing text on false pretexts:

Reverted a paragraph, claiming that RT is not a reliable source.[198] This is debatable, but RT was only used as a source to prove that the person quoted is a historian; the main source for the paragraph was not RT.

Added the revisionist label to the same historian without providing a source,[199] which he should know is a WP:BLP violation.

Reverted text from a review criticizing the use of statistics,[200] claiming that the review is positive and I cherry picked[201] and "willfully and blatantly misrepresented" the source.[202] I made no claim that the review is negative. The text simply states a fact from a review.

Re-added a sentence to the intro[203] that violates WP:MOSINTRO; this sentence was recently added without consensus by a disruptive user (who eventually was banned for edit warring).[204]

Change historian to journalist,[205] even though reliable sources call the person a historian.[206] He has his own explanation of why they are wrong [207](comment below).

Removed relevant text without any discussion or consensus claiming he is shortening the section, when in fact he is removing important points.[208]

• Constantly made personal attacks: "You are full of it",[209] "Bull...",[210] "you're just gaming the 3RR rule and engaging in tendentious editing",[211] "only reason you haven't gotten blocked is because you're much better at gaming the system",[212] that I sneaked in edits against consensus.[213]

Defended a disruptive user in the 3RR report I opened and accused me.[214]

Also he attacked an admin who presented more evidence on that user in the 3RR report ("someone rightly calls you on your bullshit").[215] Ddstretch replied that Volunteer Marek simply did not read his comment carefully and there was no reason to call it "bullshit."[216]

Told me to go away on his talk page.[217]

Demanded that I provide a quote for the sourced text I added (almost right after I added it), implying that I did something wrong.[218] I provided the quote, but he continued with threats.[219][220] And no I did not misquote the author; it is almost a direct quote.

• Followed me to an admin's talk page to accuse me and stick up for like-minded users,[221] even though the conversation had nothing to do with him.

All this is in the EE topic area covered by WP:ARBEE. He was an active member of the WP:EEML under his old name.
This is only one example of harassment by former EEML members. -YMB29 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a relevant quote from the EEML findings: members coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal". This included coordinating around the three revert rule, commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating.[222] -YMB29 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Response

This is a "preemptive strike" by user YMB239. In this edit YMB239 misrepresented a source. Pretty blatantly and pretty grossly. I inquired about the actual text in source on the talk page here [223]. YMB239 responded by providing a partial quote, trimmed just so it looked like the source supported the source. The KEY information was omitted in the little "...". I gave them another chance but told them that unless s/he was ready to stop misrepresenting the source (and changed his article text accordingly) I was going to report them. Apparently they decided that it'd be a good idea to preempt that by filing this bogus report here against me first.

This is a textbook illustration of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, combined with tendentious editing and POV pushing. When caught red-handed playing fast and loose with sources, quickly start attacking the other person that points out your misbehavior. And YMB239 has a history in this regard. The EEML is a irrelevant red herring, a bullshit excuse. As pointed out here [224] at least six uninvolved users have had problems with YMB239's behavior. To repeat, they were: User:Iryna Harpy, User:Diannaa, User:PBS, User:Kierzek, User:Sayerselle,User:Serialjoepsycho, User:Paavo273, User:Buckshot06 - there's at least one or two admins in there. These editors are unrelated to EEML or anything else that YMB239 might dream up. And just recently, User:PBS (a veteran editor like myself, who's been on Wikipedia since 2003) wrote in response to YMB239's false claims that they had "consensus" (apparently a consensus of one), quote: "I stopped arguing with you YMB29, not because I think that you have not harmed this article by including the text that you have, but because it was too much of a time sink, and I have more constructive things to be doing with my time. A am pleased that someone else has taken up the baton and is willing to discuss it further with you. " (my emphasis)

That's what YMB239 has been doing for the past several months on this and related articles. They have been engaged in months long slow motion edit war, combined with a complete lack of good faith discussion on talk, characterized by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, apparantly designed to just simply wear, tire, and bore, those who take issue with YMB239's POV and edits, out, until they quit and let them have their way. This is extremely disruptive, has been noted and commented on by several users (in addition to those 6 listed above) and a topic ban from the relevant articles has been mentioned. Personally, as a content editor, I think the dishonest misrepresentation of sources to be worthy of a month long block on top of a topic ban.

For anyone who's interested, the full text source is here. The text says pretty much the OPPOSITE of what YMB239 pretends it says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Just to make this a bit less likely to hit the too long cap the request to stay away from his talk page is a perfectly valid request on their part. Amortias (T)(C) 21:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but he could have said it in a more civil tone. -YMB29 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning users like Sayerselle and Paavo273, who were banned or warned for edit warring, is misleading. I never had any real problems with Serialjoepsycho or Buckshot06. There was no reason for you to try to canvass these users here. -YMB29 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I had disagreements with PBS, but he never resorted to personal attacks or following me to other pages. He was not the only one editing that page. The idea that I somehow fooled everyone and pushed edits through without consensus months ago is ridiculous. -YMB29 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've no clue what this dispute is over. Which article? This all sounds vaguely familiar. This have anything to do with Soviets raping Germans in Berlin at the end of world war 2?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Battle of Berlin and Rape during the occupation of Germany.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are just canvassing users to distract from the topic. This is not about content dispute. Me and Serialjoepsycho never had problems, only regular talk page discussion. -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The place where I encountered YMB29 was Talk:Battle of Berlin, which is the same place where he is currently edit warring. The problem is the refusal by YMB29 to accept consensus and move on, as seen in Archives 8, 9, 10, and the current talk page, which has wasted an enormous amount of editor time (essentially our only resource). In March through May 2014, and again starting in February 2015, when the consensus is clearly against him. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So you are claiming that I edited against consensus when I was not the one who added the recently removed text?

Go read the archives and look at the page history. There was consensus to add the text to the footnotes. I wanted it in the article text, but accepted that there was no consensus for that. -YMB29 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

PBS added the text to the footnote.[225] and Paul Siebert added the other text back in 2009.[226] -YMB29 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, how does the source say the opposite of what I quoted? Here is the link to the page in the book,[227] so anyone could look and see that you are making false accusations again. -YMB29 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@YMB29: Before this turns into a pointless rehash of the talk page. I took the time to read through the talk page for Rape during the occupation of Germany from point 15 on before commenting here. I am completely uninvolved in this dispute. I have worked with User:Volunteer Marek exactly once and found him perfectly willing to change his position when the sources warrant it. I have not worked with any of the other editors

Based on the talk page conversation I would say that everyone has been admirably restrained in dealing with your POV pushing. Trying to use Alexander Dyukovand Albert Axell (Who as far as I can tell has published a couple mediocre popular histories and according to JSTOR no peer revieved work) in a controvercial article demanding the highest quality sources shows you are more interested in finding people that agree with your POV than representing what academic consensus is.

• You accuse Iryna Harpy of meat puppeting 10 February 2015, last Tuesday [228]

• You are informed that consensus was required for including of your sources by My very best wishes based on RFC on Soviet Rapes which you participated in. [229]

• You were notified of ARBEE DS on 27 Dec 2015 by EdJohnston

• It looks like you have moved your edit waring to the talk pages by apparently removing another users comments here and here. Then proceeding to argue about it in an entire section on the talk page. If it was an accident a simple 'ooppss I'm sorry' would have likely have been the end of it.

All of the above suggest to me that you are suffering from a very bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and are engaging in battleground behavior to push a fringe POV on this article against the consensus of every other author involved with it. If you do not understand that Wikipedia operates on consensus you need to take a break from editing this topic either willingly or enforced. There is currently no consensus for the changes you wish to make it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Based on what I have read I would endorse the targeted application of WP:BOOMERANG. JBH (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at the evidence?

Accusations like moving comments by a user (who was actually the one removing my comment) are ridiculous. I moved his comment to a new section to help along the discussion.

Iryna Harpy and "My very best wishes" are also both hounding me. I did not present evidence on them because this section was big enough.

You are going by claims by others without looking at what actually goes on. -YMB29 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I realize that the numbers are against me, but that is exactly what the EEML ("My very best wishes" was also a member of that) was about. Converging on other users who were deemed hostile and creating a false consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

YMB29 (talk · contribs) I assure that I'm not on good terms with Marek and the Ukraine are has been a disaster for years, BUT, when will-intentioned editors, lioke Jbhunley (talk · contribs) give you good advice, you need to heed that. Basically, you need to learn more about Wikipedia policy and learn how to address content disputes (and conduct disputes) in those terms. If you can accomplish that, you will be much more effective in seeing that the articles reflect the content as represented in WP:RS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley simply looked at the number of accusations against me and concluded that the problem is with me. He did not look at the evidence I presented, and at the histories of the users he mentioned.

The problem here is a group of users (you should recognize them from the Ukrainian conflict articles) going around to different articles and removing sourced text for dubious reasons. -YMB29 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@YMB29: Yes, I have read the background and looked into the sources - did I not state that? You are trying to put a revisionist interpretation of history in a very controversial article based upon absolutely crap sources. Everything else is drama. An editor with the barest understanding of Wikipedia consensus policy would have stopped by now. Based on the RFC you were doing the same thing almost a year ago with much the same result. I can not imagine the frustration the other editors must be feeling with your behavior. If, with all the passion and dedication you exhibit in pushing your POV you have been unable to find better sources than you have presented then they likely do not exist or you would have found them by now. If they are out there then I strongly suggest you use the time and effort you have been expending on this futile war to go and find them. If you can not find any then drop it and move on.

I care not one iota about who did what to whom so please do not take this as an invitation to rehash accusations. Stripped of all the drama and crap the issue is simple. You do not have the sources to support what you want to say. You are being disruptive. One will not solve the other. Your disruptive behavior should not be allowed to continue. It is a detriment to the project. That is not to say that you are a detriment to the project. If you can put the goals of Wikipedia ahead of your own personal ideology then you can help shape the Encyclopedia. The end result sought is for your disruption to end. JBH (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Crap sources? When you make accusations like that I wonder about your objectivity here.

These are reliable sources (meet the RS criteria). They represent the majority Russian view, but I understand that this is a minority view on the English wiki. However, they are not fringe. Simply trying to make sure they are properly presented in articles here is not pushing some "ideology."

Consensus is not reached only by an RfC, although the RfC's closing stated that the sources are credible. The RfC, started by user Diannaa, also was not fair as it did not represent the dispute properly. There was a lot of discussion and editing going on after the RfC ended. -YMB29 (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are also overlooking the constant personal attacks and going around to different talk pages to advocate for like-minded users (see the 3RR report I filed for example). -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, how do you comment on what I said earlier:

"PBS added the text to the footnote.[230] and Paul Siebert added the other text back in 2009.[231]"

So the users were not reverting text that I supposedly pushed into the article. Regarding the second text (sourced to Bird), it is not a Russian source and I did not even edit the article back in 2009. -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I will say for the third time: I read the talk page history. I looked into the authors you want to use. I applied Wikipedia rules and policies as I understand them in an objective manner. One source was a popular historian with no peer reviewed writings. The other was so far out on the fringe that even Wikipedia, with its BLP policy, unambiguously labeled him as a revisionist historian The only qualified author you wanted to use was Yelena Senyavskaya who as far as I can tell is a lone voice in the wilderness. Even her, according to the talk page discussions, you wanted to use in an inappropriate manner. Just because my analysis is not what you want to hear does not mean it was not objective. It means that after assessing them I found them to be crap, particularly for use about such a contentious subject.

As to the accusations flying back and fourth I already said I give not one iota about them. Based on our exchanges it seems you do not understand when I say I have done something I have done that thing. When I say I do not care about something I do not care about that thing Your inability to grasp that tells me you either suffer from a lack of ability to comprehend what someone is saying to you or you are using an exceedingly juvenile debating tactic in am attempt to discredit.

As to your specific questions. The first is a quote from Yelena Senyavskaya which the RFC said required consensus to include, obviously consensus right now is not to include. The other one I have no opinion on as I have not looked at the source.

As to your third point. Again,I just do not care who did what. The point you raise is irrelevant to your behavior. What you fail to understand is even if you are right on one of the issues you raise it in no way excuses your disruptive behavior. If you continue acting the way you are now no one will care whether you are right or wrong and the one constructive edit you could have made is lost in all the disruption. If you concentrate on one good edit you would make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. What you are doing now is, in my opinion, a net negative.Also, please do not attempt to again represent to others how I formed my opinions on these issues.JBH (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is not Axell or Dyukov (Dyukov I agreed to remove even though he was RS). You constantly referring to them shows that don't know what you are talking about.

Maybe if you don't care, you should not comment here... Your selective review of evidence and insults like "sources are crap" are disruptive.

So it is ok to stalk users, make personal attacks, commit BLP violations just because you think the users doing that are right on a content dispute?

Is it also ok for users to come into articles they never edited before, make false claims and reverts, and suddenly form a "new consensus."?

As for Senyavskaya, no she is not alone. You simply overlook the other sources. -YMB29 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, these diffs[232][233] show that you have interacted with Volunteer Marek before, so you are not a neutral observer here. -YMB29 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Did you really not read my opening statement where I said: "I have worked with User:Volunteer Marek exactly once and found him perfectly willing to change his position when the sources warrant it. I have not worked with any of the other editors"? Hmmm I bet it is not a reading comprehension issue. Try addressing the issues I have brought up to you rather than trying to discredit my opinion.

The locus of the dispute is you have been continuously attempting to edit a controversial subject against consensus. This has lead to UNCIVIL acts on both sides. However, based on the conversations I have read much of the other editors UNCIVIL remarks stem from from frustration with your continuous WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. At the minimum, as I and other have pointed out above, you come here with UNCLEAN hands on the UNCIVIL issue.

Attempting to address UNCIVIL behavior here is all but futile except in the most extreme cases. I chose to focus on your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which the source issue directly relates to. Whether it is source choice, NPOV wording or an argument over talk page editing you seem completely unable to recognize when consensus is against you. He said, she said ultimately makes no difference. You seem to think other editors' behavior excuses your own. It does not. Hence my not caring about it.

When no one agrees with you the wise man considers that maybe he is wrong. I have said what I have to say. I hope an admin will take a look at this but it has become a wall of text for which I share the blame. If you bring up an issue of substance I will address it. I am going to wait now for some more uninvolved editors to comment. We seem to have reached a point of diminishing returns in our conversation. JBH (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well again you are not an uninvolved editor, so maybe you should not have posted walls of text accusing me and excusing violations of policy by others.

Your unexpected aggressiveness against me shows that you are not neutral and commenting in good faith. I never interacted with you before and yet you know that I am some highly disruptive user so quickly...

Advocating for other users, even when it is clear they have violated policies, is a common problem here. The same thing happened when I filed my last 3RR report, but that did not help the user being reported. -YMB29 (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I can read and I can understand what the rules are. It was not difficult to see the behavioral problem. Working with one editor on one article does not make me involved. All that claim does is show you try to deflect when you can not address the issues. The purpose of ANI is to solicit uninvolved opinion. That is what I gave you. I advocate for no one. Cheers. JBH (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well simply stating your opinion, instead of throwing accusations and insults at me and excusing misconduct by others, would have been enough, if you were truly uninvolved and neutral. -YMB29 (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there actually *anyone* on Wikipedia that you don't immediately start a fight with when they try to interact and discuss something with you? The list of users who are telling you to lay off and that you're in the wrong has greatly increased in the short time since you filed this AN/I "report", but somehow that's still not getting through.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Who, Jbhunley? Like said, I never interacted with him, so his attacks were uncalled for. -YMB29 (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly this was many months ago when I was there. Surprised it's still going. But honestly I really don't have much to add.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic bans on all editors active in this dispute. I am not a fan of the "block 'em all, let Jimbo sort 'em out" approach, but in this case, it seems appropriate. Regarding Volunteer Marek, this user has been nothing but a thorn in the side of anyone attempting to have a civil discussion or improve an article, so a topic ban on him would greatly improve the editing environment. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Dude, seriously? Still pursuing your little grudges from months ago? You obviously have not even bothered to read either the article or the discussion, just jumped in here in a pathetic attempt to get back to me for some criticism I at levied at you months ago. Who is this "anyone attempting to have a civil discussion or improving the article" that I've thwarted, you're referring to? No-one (it can't be YMB29)? Point'em out please. Name'em. List'em. Anyone? Anyone? Buller? Didn't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support WP:BOOMERANG topic ban for YMB29. Per everything I said above and based on the diffs I have looked fully into the edits YMB29 is complaining about being wrong were correct:

1. Dyukov is a revisionist historian

2. Yep cherrypicked the reviewer does not say his methods call into question the magnitude of the rapes as this quote seems to imply.
3. Removing the weasaly "A frequently iterated claim that thewar time rapes had been surrounded by decades of silence." and replacing it with "The" does not violate WP:MOSINTRO
4. Albert Axell is not a historian by any accademic measure.
5. Saying that "There is dispute from Russia concerning these claims." Re the rapes is unsupported. Saying some Russian historians dispute the rapes is supported.
   

I see no point in continuing through the rest, I want to go to bed.

Volunteer Marek and the others(not going to list them VM is the one brought up by name in the sanction) may have been UNCIVIL but I can not say I would have remained civil in the same situation. It would be great if we had a civility policy with teath but we do not. Topic banning all the other editors for responding to a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor is extreme. I am sure VM and the others can be a real pain in the ass but this is not the issue to topic ban them over. JBH (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley, why must you misrepresent the dispute and accuse me of things I did not do? If you have real evidence against me, present it. Otherwise, you are simply advocating for Volunteer Marek.

Again, your continuing attacks against me here is proof that you are not just a neutral editor commenting.

Also, you are posting a "wall of text" again. -YMB29 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@YMB29: Evidence? You mean other than the four diffs in my initial statement and my analysis of five of your diffs? Just what things did you not do? Try addressing the issues I have brought up rather than using WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics to attempt to discredit and redirect. I am supporting a topic ban because based on my reading of your history and your continued attempts to deflect any responsibility for your disruptive editing make me think you need a break from this topic area. PS yep I admitted to sharing the responsibility for the wall of text with you. Can you not even quote a conversation froman hour ago without cherrypicking? JBH (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well again you are just continuing with attacks against me... This only further proves my point about your "neutrality" here.

I have addressed most of your accusations here already, and pointed out that the fact that you continue to refer to Axell and Dyukov shows that you don't know what you are talking about. You are also bring up content dispute, and this page is not about that. -YMB29 (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@YMB29: You have done nothing to address what I brought up. I am not attacking you I am informing you of problematic behavior in the hope you can take aboard honest criticism and modify your behavior. What you continuously fail to get it that your behavior in content disputes is not acceptable you came here complaining about people following you and reverting you and acting in what you call an UNCIVIL manner (yes some was, not disputing that). I looked at the diffs you brought here and gave my opinion.You brought up the dispute over Axell and Dyukov. Your behavior in those disputes is relevant, your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing in those disputes is relevant I looked at the talk page you brought up here and I found that you were at least as UNCIVIL as the other editors and I supplied the diffs to back it up.

You can not come to ANI and say people are being mean to you and not expect people to look at why they did the things you said was mean and whether the edits you claim were bad actually were. I showed in this section 5 that were not. I focused on your behavior in the content disputes because, in the sections I read, you are more UNCIVIL than they are. cf calling Iryna Harpy a meat puppet. You really think that was CIVIL? As I have told you now *four* times all the he said she said crap does not matter. If there was something terrible done by the other users you have buried it in a bunch of diffs of content edits you are complaining about having reverted and using as evidence of bad behavior. Wait are you now saying those were only content issues and not what this ANI is about?

Maybe if you will not take my other advice you will take this bit:make sure the evidence you present does not convict you. As you are not listening I am done trying to explain things to you. I will however address my Support for your topic ban in this thread where appropriate. Any other interaction seems futile. Good night.JBH (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Another wall of text... I am not going to reply to your dubious accusations again.

The fact that you commented here more than Volunteer Marek himself speaks for itself. -YMB29 (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for User:YMB29 from this issue. Currently he is again repeating the same behaviour that User:JBH has identified at my talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

:@Buckshot06:Actually I am User:Jbhunley. Did not realize there was an actual User:JBH ooppss. Looks like they have not been active since 2005 though. JBH (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What behavior are you talking about? JBH is just making disruptive accusations here; the fact that this is my first interaction with him and he already posted so much against me here should tell you something...

I simply provided evidence of what was going on in the Berlin article on your page, since you were the admin who was last involved in the article. I added the diffs to make it clear. If you did not want to look at the issue and did not want any more comments on your talk page, you should have told me.

Did you even look at the evidence here and what I added to your talk page? -YMB29 (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I went back through the talkpage, and then scanned your recent contributions to find this discussion. I read your original note on this page, and then the comments that followed. I would again emphasise that it is much better to debate the issue rather than arguing about the users. To illustrate, I would expect a user sincerely interested in advancing the debate over mass rape in Germany at the end of World War II to be comparing arguments from different scholarly sources based upon their relative credibility. Such comparison of reliable sources would tend to indicate to me that the user concerned was truly engaged in improving the encyclopedia. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: I was and am willing to discuss the content issues on the talk pages and even offered dispute resolution, which others were not interested in (see this reply[234]).

However, this is the ANI, so the discussion here can't be about content dispute. The reason I went here is the constant personal attacks by a group of users and them following me to other articles that I have edited. Volunteer Marek is only one of the users who is doing that. There is much more evidence for the other users (including me being referred to as a "Stalinist Neo-Nazi").

On the talk page of the article in question I always try to focus on the content,[235][236] and it is the users I am talking about who focus on me rather than discussing the content (for example this section[237] was created just to accuse me of something). -YMB29 (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

So I don't understand why you support a topic ban for me if I am doing exactly what you are saying on the talk page. -YMB29 (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody called you a "Stalinist Neo-Nazi". Stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

See here[238]. I was the last person he talked to before posting that. -YMB29 (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, nobody called you a "Stalnist Neo-Nazi". You're making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You are ignoring the obvious again and continuing with accusations even here... It was definitely directed at me. I can post more proof of this if required. -YMB29 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06, maybe if you post on the talk page that users should comment on the content only and use dispute resolution if required (no personal attacks and disruptive reverts), and everyone agrees, this matter can be resolved. -YMB29 (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I am an involved editor. If I were not I would suggest that YMB29 be topic banned from editing any of the World War II Eastern Front articles, or at the very least reduced to a 1RR on the same range of articles. This whole ANI is full of the reasons why this would be useful for the project. The way this ANI is mushrooming with unnecessary long comments and repeated replies to distort the points being made. As a microcosm of the problem just look at the two postings by YMB29 directly above (16:23 and 15:52, 13 February). There is no accusation in the statement 'Like I said, nobody called you a "Stalnist Neo-Nazi"' (made by Volunteer Marek), YMB29 reply 'You are ignoring the obvious again and continuing with accusations even here' -- is just a tenacious retort to continue a thread that already should have ended. In the comment to Buckshot06 that '"(no personal attacks and disruptive reverts), and everyone agrees, this matter can be resolved."' YMB29 is being disingenuous. The discussions over changes to the Battle of Berlin page went on for more than six months and in the end YMB29 was able to force through changes for which there was no census by simply wearing out the opposition. If YMB29 is true to form then there will be reply to this posting which is either obfuscation or disingenuous or both, as I have yet to see an example of where YMB29 is willing to let someone else have the last word. -- PBS (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban under WP:ARBEE per PBS. This farce has gone on long enough. RGloucester — ☎ 22:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I should note that User:Nick-D blocked YMB29 for a week, and I have just extended that block to a month. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for User:YMB29 as set out at User talk:Nick-D#User:YMB29 I've checked a couple of the sources YMB29 was using against what they were adding. In both cases YMB29 was clearly misrepresenting the source to further their views. This is entirely unacceptable, and a topic ban is in order - at minimum. Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. While I appreciate that being blocked for a month will prevent disruption for that period of time, and that blocks and bans are not intended to be inherently punitive, YMB29 has already demonstrated patience enough to ride things out, then begin tendentious, disruptive editing from scratch. We're not dealing with someone who needs a cooling off period, or demonstrates any willingness to back down and learn from prior BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I've been at the receiving end of the user's aspersions and can confidently say that we're dealing with a POV warrior who's really WP:NOTHERE. I've even staved off from commenting on this ANI as YMB29 spurts walls of text for every comment made by another editor, all of which add up to "This is a cabal of non-neutral editors harassing and bullying me because I'm right and they're wrong (and they know it!)". This editor is incapable of working collaboratively with anyone who doesn't concede to their POV in relation to Soviet WWII history and should simply not be allowed to edit in this area at the least. I've seldom encountered an editor this obnoxious and immovable, and that's saying a lot. S/he has managed to exhaust and alienate good editors... who may possibly never edit again as a result. For the sake of the project, I'm all for a full topic ban. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

YMB29 (talk · contribs) is continuing to misrepresent sources on their talk page and not take responsibility for material they added. As such, I have extended the block duration to indefinite as this behaviour implies that they will continue their disruptive conduct when the time-limited block expires. Of course, indefinite isn't permanent. Other admins are very welcome to review the block - YMB29 has lodged an appeal. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support block by Nick-D. YMB29 was caught with misrepresenting sources. This is serious. It means that no one can trust his edits. I quickly checked and fixed his contributions in several pages, and I do not think that YMB29 made too much damage. Nick-D checked only English language source. Speaking about Russian language sources which were cherry-picked by YMB29, some of their authors were also accused of fabricating or inventing non-existing sources by other Russian historians [239], so I am not surprised that YMB29 did something similar here. I think main problem with YMB29 is that he simply does not want to discuss anything in a good faith. This should be clear from his discussion on his talk page with Nick-D. There are many other examples. YMB29 can edit war to keep certain content in articles, but argue it was not him who initially included this text. He can forge comments by another contributor and claim that nothing happened [240]. And he always blames others of stalking, tag-teaming and even ... misrepresenting sources (in the end of this discussion). Well, based on the discussion above, it is obvious that checking his edits in the project would be something very much reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Update. (a) During this time 3 admins came to talk page of YMB29 to discuss the situation with him. He responded with various accusations about them. If unblocked, I would expect him to continue WP:BATTLE by complaining about administrators and other users, just as he did on this page. (b) As one can see from this thread and discussions on his talk page, debating anything with YMB29 is extremely frustrating. One can only run away, and that is exactly what other contributors did in a number of pages. (c) I would like to disagree about positive contributions by YMB29 to the project. POV-pushing SPA do not improve encyclopedia. He only wasted a lot of time of other contributors and discouraged their participation. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Some more observations -- PBS (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of the affected articles Soviet war crimes Rape during the occupation of Germany Battle of Berlin "Get your retaliation in first" - (Willie John McBride) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive266#User:MiGR25 reported by User:YMB29 (Result: Blocked) 22 Dec. 2014 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive271#User:Sayerslle reported by User:YMB29 (Result: blocked for other EW) 3 Feb. 2015 There are telling exchanges in both of these 3RRs. The first point is that they were brought by YMB29, it seems that to defend his/her position, if the opponent (I use that word deliberately as YMB29 treats Wikipedia as a battle ground), does not keep to the 3RR rule, then YMB29 uses the process to silence an opponent. This in itself is a positive use of the Wikipedia rules, but when, as is pointed out by MiGR25 in the MiGR25 report: YMB29 uses tenacious editing techiques Comments: "There was no attempt to initiate any discussion" There was a dissucsion:Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#Need_to_obtain_actual_consensus_for_controversial_edits yet, you still continuing to widespreed the contested source to the webpages: Soviet_war_crimes, Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany; Berlin:_The_Downfall_1945 without any acknowledge to the consensus of an WP:NPOV just because (you) I don't like it YMB29, please stop bickering about process. You have been edit-warring to insert your preferred text but it is disputed by every other editor who has commented or acted to revert it. You have no consensus to make the changes you want to make. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC) [Y]ou have implied Beevor is the only one by your edit. I have stated valid reasons as to the problems as has PBS; it appears it is you YMB29 who "don't like it." Kierzek (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) I am categorically opposed to statements implying that mass rape did not happen in Berlin. A ten-minute search on Google Scholar will show multiple independent historians reporting that Red Army forces committed mass rapes. The scale of the rapes is up for contention, using scholarly or academically sound sources, but YMB29, you are warned (a) not to imply that these rapes did not take place, and (b) not to edit war. I encourage anyone to report instances of WP:3RR to me. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (User:Buckshot06) So MONTHS LATER when other editors are tired of your contentious, tendentious editing approach and take a break, that doesn’t mean you’ve suddenly “won.” Even after another editor who is also an admin. told you to disengage, you’re still at it using the same tired m.o. It’s really time to add a few additional strings to the instrument you’re playing. And a good way would be to familiarize yourself with the WP policies that have been cited to you seemingly ad infinitum to no effect. "Outlasting" other editors who tire of your behavior does not mean you’ve suddenly arrived at consensus. On the contrary. Another suggestion would be to read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, an IMO excellent essay that, although it is not black-letter WP policy, has a lot of valuable info. MiGR25 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Digging up an old discussion (a lot has changed since) from another article, where you did not even participate, does not count as an attempt at discussion on your part. For a completely new user, you sure seem to know a lot about my history... -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC) The above is also mostly a copy-paste from a post on a talk page made in May.[241] -YMB29 (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC) then it becomes part of a strategy where the alternative is to out-wait editors who do not edit war. When MiGR25 points out that YMB29 uses tenacious editing techiques to out-wait those who do not edit-war, YMB29 simply dismisses MiGR25 observation as "Digging up an old discussion (a lot has changed since) from another article". As someone involved in that dispute I know nothing has changed. In the Sayerslle report there is a analysis of the history of edits to the article Rape during the occupation of Germany I've looked over the article history, and there really only seems to be one long term edit warrior: 80.117.117.225 removes the text [242]. YMB29 reverts [243] MiGR25 removes the text [244]. YMB29 reverts [245] MiGR25 removes the text [246]. YMB29 reverts [247] MiGR25 removes the text [248]. YMB29 reverts [249] Nug removes the text [250]. YMB29 reverts [251] Volunteer Marek removes text [252]. YMB29 reverts [253] Iryna Harpy removes the text [254]. Page protected. YMB29 reverts [255] a series of minor edits My very best wishes removes the text [256]. YMB29 reverts [257] Sayerslle removes the text [258]. YMB29 reverts [259] Sayerslle removes the text [260]. YMB29 reverts [261] Sayerslle and My very best wishes remove the text [262] [263]. So by the looks of it, YMB29 has reverted no less than 6 editors. Note, I've only looked at the edits with >500 bytes changed, and haven't read the contents of the material added/removed. Stickee (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC) @Stickee: So what is your point? This is since October. I undid removals of text that were done without any sort of consensus. MiGR25 was a "new" user whose sole purpose was to revert; he was blocked for edit warring on this page.[264] Most of the other users have a history of edit warring in the EE topic area and harassing others. -YMB29 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC) So here we have the thee techniqies that YMB29 has been employing for what is now well over a year Be tenacious on the talk page (there is over 300k of discussion in the archives of talk:Battle of Berlin (starting with the section Goebbels's fevered prophecies)) 300k+ all over one sentences and a couple of footnotes in the article! Be tenacious with editing -- as shown on in the collapse box the Sayerslle report "Get your retaliation in first" (as shown by the two 3RRArchives and this ANI all of which were initiated by YMB29) This behaviour has not been against any one editor or group of editors, but against many and as can be seen is a huge time sink for everyone involved. It is telling that not one editor responding to this ANI has given any support for either YMB29's behaviour or the content YMB29 has been forcing into articles. -- PBS (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - As far as the Russian language sources go, I supported YMB29's contributions to the articles in question. Oleg Rzheshevsky and Yelena Senyavskaya are respected and well credentialed scholars, and for historical events in which Russia was involved it only makes sense to include the research of leading Russian historians. Consistently the individuals who opposed these sources were just complaining about how they contradicted the views of non-Russian historians, but as Senyavskaya noted herself, most historians in Russia do dispute the occurrence of "mass" rapes by Soviet forces at the end of the Second World War, and I suppose if Wikipedia were more biased in favor of Russian-language sources and less biased in favor of English-biased sources, then in that case the same users would find it equally strange and shocking to include English-language sources asserting that mass rapes did occur. One of the reasons other users are saying that YMB29 should be banned is POV-pushing, but this is a sort of Anglophone narrowmindedness. Users are insisting that English-speaking historians somehow know more about what Russian soldiers did in World War II than Russian-speaking historians do. Try as I might, I couldn't think of any reason why Wikipedia should not represent the views held by most Russian historians on an issue directly linked to their own country's history. Trying to exclude their opinions because they are different from what English-language speakers are used to hearing is POV pushing.

Having said that, I was a bit embarrassed to have YMB29 as an ally. It was partly because of his nonstop personal attacks on other users, which were extremely unacceptable and uncalled for, that I was hesitant to back his position too strongly. There were also some legitimate concerns raised about whether YMB29 was cherry-picking quotes from English-language sources, though to accuse him of misrepresenting these sources completely is an accusation that goes too far. The specific information cited to Bird and Roberts did say what YMB29 said that they stated, but it's also true that the specific parts which were inserted into the articles did not reflect the tone of the sources as a whole. It was cherry-picking to some degree, but not dishonesty.

It's possible that either some form of topic ban or some restrictions on reverting may be the right course of action to take. One way or another though, the least I can say is that an indefinite ban is not appropriate. Most of YMB29's edits were constructive and I think that his indefinite ban ought to be reduced back to one month. However, whatever other penalties are applied to him after that is a matter that I'll leave to others to discuss.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, as a Russian-speaking and educated user, I can not agree with this. Views which were pushed by YMB29 do not represent anything accepted by majority of real Russian historians. Science is the same in Russia and in other countries. These are views by several nationalist/revisionist historians, which were cherry-picked by YMB29. These revisionist historians, for example Senyavskaya or Stalinist historian Zhukov, were criticized for fabrications and scientific misconduct (no less) by other Russian historians, such as Mark Solonin (for example here or here). Unfortunately, these revisionist historians (e.g. Vladimir Medinsky) were placed "in charge" of History by the Putin's administration [265]. Thinking that majority of real historians in Russia share these ridiculous views is nonsense and just another misrepresentation by YMB29. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, we need to distinguish between the viewpoints of Wikipedia users and the viewpoints of reliable sources. We do have available to us a reliable source by a leading scholar, Senyavskaya, who says unambiguously that most Russian historians dispute the occurrence of "mass" rapes at the end of the Second World War. By contrast, we have no reliable source saying that a majority of Russian historians disagree with Senyavskaya's views. The idea that her views are fringe is solely the view of Wikipedia users, and not of the sources which have been presented. Mentioning Medinsky is not relevant since no one ever tried to cite him, and using one claim on one single issue from the blog of an amateur historian like Solonin does not somehow discredit Senyavskaya's entire corpus of work. It's true that not all of YMB29's sources were included in the best possible manner and some legitimate concerns were raised about phrasing, and obviously I don't condone YMB29's uncivil behavior. However, no one has proven any deliberate dishonesty on the part of YMB29, and no valid, policy-based reason has yet been presented by any user to exclude the views of Rzheshevsky and Senyavskaya from the relevant articles.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Relevant WP guideline is WP:FRINGE where these authors belong. There is no doubt (per vast majority of RS) that mass rapes in Germany indeed had happened. Authors who openly deny this belong to WP:FRINGE (for example, Senyavskaya has declared these rapes to be a "myth" by the Goebbels and Western propaganda). We do not use people involved in Holocaust denial as sources about Holocaust. By the same reason, we should cite Soviet crimes deniers (such as Senyavskaya and some others) only in pages about themselves, propaganda or pseudoscience, rather than in pages about actual events. This is precisely the reason why YMB29 has a trouble around here: he promotes works by fringe authors, but misleadingly presents their views as a legitimate scientific discourse. For example, we are not going to quote views by Trofim Lysenko as a legitimate scientific discourse. My very best wishes (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. And no, I believe that Medinsky is relevant. He tells, for example that "The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact "deserves a monument." and "The U.S.S.R. never occupied the Baltic states, it just "incorporated" them.". This is precisely what YMB29 promotes here: he removes information about war crimes by the Soviet military [266] because he believes that Baltic States were not occupied by the Soviet Union [267], and that is WP:FRINGE. We do not need contributors who edit war to promote fringe views in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, where and how on earth did you come to the conclusion that "Oleg Rzheshevsky and Yelena Senyavskaya are respected and well credentialed scholars." Have you actually read through this discussion or the relevant articles? Senyavskaya, alone, has been criticised by Russian peers for essentially basing major conclusions drawn in her research based on forgery she could not have taken seriously if she were an honest, impartial historian. Her work has been questioned in no uncertain terms, and determined to be revisionist agenda driven! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I read through all the talk page discussion, and plenty of sources were presented demonstrating that Rzheshevsky and Senyavskaya were historians with credentials and respectable publications. It's true that one source of dubiously reliability, put forward by an amateur historian with no credentials comparable to Senyavskaya's, did suggest that Senyavskaya may have misused one document, but that does not automatically invalidate all the research Senyavskaya has done on the subject. Other users have put forward their view that Senyavskaya is an unreliable revisionist, but not a single reliable source has been put forward by anyone to prove this point. Whatever other flaws he had, one had to respect YMB29 for understanding that Wikipedia should be based principally off reliable sources and not the opinion of users. He proved with reliable sources that the scholars he was citing were reputable, in sharp contrast with other users who believed that they could dismiss Senyavskaya as a dishonest revisionist without actually bothering to present any reliable sources proving this accusation.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you actually read Russian? Have you checked the texts? I find it a little strange that you're referring to Senyavskaya as a he when she's a 'she' (which you would have understood without thinking twice if you knew Russian). Therefore, I have to ask myself whether you have any idea of who the 'amateur' blogger is, or the depth of that which he revealed about her research. He's not an amateur historian of any description. If you bother to check into his credentials, you'll find that he is considered an expert on WWII Soviet military history, is published (and peer reviewed). Please don't just mimic what YMB29 claims just because you've decided to pick a side and stick with it. What is on the curriculum for state-sponsored scholars is, as has already been pointed out to you, WP:FRINGE. It isn't a matter of what Russian historians are saying about themselves, nor what Anglophone sources say: other language sources agree with the Anglophone sources (or, to be more precise, Anglophone sources are in agreement with other language sources regarding the research). If you care to go to one of the other language Wikipedias, you won't find the FRINGE Russian theories represented there. Please don't try to treat the matter as a court of law where 'both' sides (they're more than one side involved) get to have their hearing: i.e., that's known as WP:GEVAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, the criterion of WP:FRINGE is very simple. There is absolutely no doubt (per vast majority of RS) that mass rapes in Germany by the Soviet Army indeed had happened. However, Senyavskaya has declared these rapes to be a "myth" by the Goebbels and Western propaganda. That denial qualifies her work about Soviet rapes in Germany as "fringe". My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I never referred to Senyavskaya as a "he", and incidentally I did check some of the other language Wikipedias and found that Senyavskaya's views on rapes by Soviet forces are cited in several articles on both French and Spanish Wikipedia. But at any rate, the point I'm trying to make is that YMB29 had reliable sources stating that the historians he was citing were reliable and that their views were not fringe. Those who trying to remove Senyavskaya did nothing more than repeatedly insist that her views were fringe without bothering to take the time to find even a single reliable source saying so. It should be noted that when it came to the sourcing which was used during the talk page discussion, YMB29 by and large had the sources on his side, whereas most others had only their strong personal opinions to back up what they said.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see above why her work is fringe. There were numerous discussions by multiple participants who explained to YMB29 why his sources or the way he is using them were inappropriate, for example here, here, here and here (one could easily provide 10 more links to similar discussions), but he did not get it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I already read those discussions. As I said, the problem was that those who disagreed with YMB29 relied either heavy or entirely on their own personal opinions, whereas YMB29 cited reliable sources which proved Senyavskaya's credibility and also suggested that her viewpoint is not fringe in Russia. After YMB29 provided a reliable source saying that Senyavskaya's views were not fringe, both I and YMB29 repeatedly asked other users to provide a source contradicting it as a counterpoint. But, again and again, those who disagreed with YMB29 just kept on ignoring the question and continued to assert their own opinions without corroborating sources. The only reason why I took YMB29's side was because when he was asked to provide sources to back up his view, he did. Everyone else who was asked to do the same just ignored the question.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

One can not be sure that any sources by YMB29 were reliable because none of them was decided to be reliable on WP:RS noticeboard. You can not tell that 10 independent contributors, who all happen to strongly disagree with YMB29, were wrong. YMB29 acted against WP:CONSENSUS for years and failed to admit it. I can not speak for others, and I did not read all Russian language sources by YMB29, but those I read were fringe propaganda pieces, as also noted by experts [268] [269]. I did spent some time trying to explain this to YMB29 [270],[271], but he did not listen, just as in all other discussions with other contributors (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, did you not notice that both the French and Spanish Wikipedia versions are translations of the English language version? The French Wikipedia entry was begun as a direct translation on 15 November, 2014, corresponding almost verbatim with the English language version at that time. It has barely any edit history and absolutely no discussion. The Spanish version of the same article doesn't use Senyavsaya as a source. I'd be interested if you could point out which other articles in those Wikipedia's accept her as an RS so as to establish how the articles came about and what form of scrutiny of the content and RS there has been. Any vigorous deliberations on their talk pages? Remember that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Further to this, the Ukrainian Wikipedia entry doesn't even mention Senyavskaya individually, but does critique the polemics of Oleg Rzheshevsky particularly as being part of the Russian government's revisionism. Now, if you'd like to dispute this as some form of prejudice against Russia by Ukrainian Wikipedia, remember that we (and Ukrainian Wikipedia) are discussing an article on Soviet war crimes: and over half of Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, therefore we are looking at self-critiquing. I assume I don't need to remind you that Ukrainians and Belarusians (as well as non-Slavic ethnicities) formed a large part of the Soviet Army and are directly implicated as being amongst the perpetrators. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it would appear that French and Spanish Wikipedia do accept Senyavskaya as a reliable source, but Ukrainian Wikipedia doesn't, though I'm not sure why you brought up other language Wikipedias in the first place, because as you noted Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The fact remains that Senyavskaya is a prominent member of the Institute of Russian History who, as YMB29 pointed out, has received plaudits from many other scholars. For example, Catherine Merridale stated that her scholarship has "fostered an entire school of new research". I think that Solonin is a reliable source too, but in comparing the two an engineer like Solonin is not on the same level as a leading historian like Senyavskaya, and Solonin of course is noted for advocating non-mainstream ideas like concerning the Soviet offensive plans controversy. Based on the sources provided, as opposed to the personal opinions of users, I don't think there can be any question about Senyavskaya's reliability as a historian.

Compelled to interject here. You don't understand why I'm bringing up other language Wikipedia's? Take a look at your comment a little further above: "... and incidentally I did check some of the other language Wikipedias and found that Senyavskaya's views on rapes by Soviet forces are cited in several articles on both French and Spanish Wikipedia." I'm not certain as to whether you're suffering some form of short-term memory loss, but it was you who brought both French and Spanish Wikipedia as examples of how widespread the recognition of Senyavskaya is. And, yes, she is 'fostering a entire school of new research'. You don't see the irony in presenting her as being anything other than fringe? More worryingly, she appears to be fostering a new school of revisionism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You said in your previous post, "If you care to go to one of the other language Wikipedias, you won't find the FRINGE Russian theories represented there." That was the only reason why I checked, because you explicitly asked me if I cared to check. It turned out that you were wrong. Furthermore, Merridale made that remark in praise of Senyavskaya, it was not a criticism of her.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Gawd, I despair. Did you pick up on usage of her research is only used in Wikipedias copying directly from English Wikipedia or not: that is, checked the history and compared. You happened to find translations of English Wikipedia, not articles written independent of the articles here. As for Merridale's remark, being 'praise' is irrelevant as it makes it absolutely clear that her research is new (i.e., fringe). It hasn't even been taken up by the broader global academic community and discussed. To make assumptions as to whether she will be taken seriously is WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps she will be in the future. It could also be that, if her research makes any serious impact on this area of research in the future, she will be challenged as being a revisionist with a political agenda. Either way, her work is not acknowledged as being presently part of the global representation of the subject at hand. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact is, she is cited as a reliable source in other Wikipedias contrary to what you implied earlier. You don't have any proof that they were copied from the English, not that it would matter one way or another. Furthermore, Merridale was unreserved in her praise of Senyavskaya so evidently Merridale regards her as a reputable scholar. YMB29 noted numerous other works of history which cited her research. If we take a look at sources, there seems little question about Senyavskaya's reliability as a scholar. As I said before, we need to distinguish between reliable sources and the opinion of users. I know a few other users have strong personal objections to Senyavskaya's ideas, but published sources of information leave little doubt that her works are clearly reliable sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding YMB29, his uncivil conduct alone justifies the one-month ban he was given earlier, and he was also edit warring to some extent, but those two charges appear to be the extent of his misbehavior. The charge that YMB29 was POV pushing is complete and manifest nonsense, and even the charge of misrepresenting sources is on somewhat shaky grounds. One way or another an indefinite ban is not justifiable here, though it's possible more restrictions beyond a one-month ban should be applied at administrator discretion.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You tell: "the charge that YMB29 was POV pushing is complete and manifest nonsense". No, actually, I have never seen anyone in the project who would did POV-pushing for so long, so stubbornly and so consistently (and I am also talking about articles related to Soviet-Finnish wars). For example, he pushed his position that the scale of rapes was greatly exaggerated. He did it over and over again, through multiple pages and using numerous partisan/fringe sources. He conducted edit wars to push this position. He even misused sources by authors from "the opposite side" (like Bird) to prove his point. And he still denies his POV-pushing and misrepresentations on his talk page.My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, what you are talking about is irrelevant. He was not blocked for using Senyavskaya, and he was not blocked for uncivil comments. He was blocked for intentionally misrepresenting at least two English language sources. And he still believes that he used these sources correctly, but all others were wrong [272], even though several people did their best to explain this matter to him. It means he will continue doing exactly the same after coming back from the block. And that is relevant and important for a number of other contributors (see above).My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - YMB29 has spent the last couple of days rewriting their responses to conversations on their talk page relating to the issues brought up here. This diff shows all of the changes they have made to their responses since the last editor commented on their talk page. This changing of history does not give me confidence that they can properly represent what a source says since even the history of their own words seems mutable to them. JBH (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I spent a good deal of time with YMB29, mainly on the "Battle of Berlin" article; like JBH, at this point, I as well do not have confidence that YMB29 "with change his stripes". The block was the correct decision. If it is decided to shorten the length of the block then he should be topic ban. Further, enough has been said and shown that Yelena Senyavskaya should be considered a WP:Fringe source. Kierzek (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Danish Pastry (talk-side)

I have not contributed to the article nor to the derailed talk-page. And I live in southernmost Sweden, close to Denmark. And I find it essential that the article must be labeled as this bun is called in English language, whatever that may be. If this indeed is "Danish", the article name must be that one and no other! In order to separate this from the adjective "Danish", we simply must use the form "Danish (pastry)", as we do in all other ambiguous matters. This ought to be obvious, I think. Boeing720 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, my good Målmoman, I'm afraid this is not the place for this naming issue over this delicious pastry. Please bring it up on the talk page and then use this page to report any personal attacks, legal threats from pastry company representatives and angry bakers, or death threats that might arise from arguments there (all of which would be hilarious and sad in equal measure). This is a naming dispute or content dispute and really has no reason to be brought up here unless things get ugly in discussion. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Adar 5775 22:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Also report editors editing for dough, sugar-coating events, engaging in puffery, jamming things up, twisting the facts, souring the editing environment, acting flaky, or being just plain nuts. But if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. EEng (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Eh, I'll open up a move request at the article for him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am here to report a Sock Puppet Account

Hi. I am HanSangYoon, and I am here to report a user with multiple accounts (and most likely in an illegal manner). Who: The user is named SecondaryWaltz (he is in my talk page). The account I suspect him controlling is Martin Morin and Rickey Courtney. I also suspected him using the non-logged account of 50.101.38.143. His account and Martin Morin both describes this user from Canada. Another user also in suspicion is IJBall. He is also from Canada. SecondaryWaltz claim that he uses multiple accounts in a legal manner, but I disagree. Why: I am in massive suspicion because the user used the three (maybe four?) users altogether to break the three-revert policy when he tried to revert my edits for adding two pictures on the Union Station page. I took the pictures freshly and put them up at the page (one which is the Union Station red line platform view where the placard shows and the other being the upper floor view of the entire platform). I made and added them because I believed the pictures were a necessary description of what the station was like. Whenever I took pictures, edited, and put them up or wrote the captions, SecondaryWaltz would always appear, reverting multiple times, and causing obnoxious disruptions. I explain to him of my logic of why I should put it up like that, and he goes away sometimes, but always reappears, complicating my process of editing on Los Angeles Metro pages. It is VERY disturbing. He uses his accounts to ignore the three times revert policy, and for that reason, I request this user be blocked. Please help me. HanSangYoon (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. You are flaming out much faster than I expected. First, I'm no one's sockpuppet (in fact, Secondarywaltz and I have even disagreed a couple of times). Second, when you launch in to a process like this, you are supposed to notify all of the people you are accusing of misconduct, something you have patently failed to do. Thirdly, it is you who is edit warring at Union Station (Los Angeles)... Well, I tried to warn you on your Talk page, etc. Don't be surprised if this comes and WP:BOOMERANGs back at you. --IJBall (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. You also patently ignored the advice you got from Mandruss, et al. at the Help desk. Bad move. --IJBall (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. Oh, and you're supposed to take this particular accusation to WP:SPI, not here, just to complete your 'hattrick'. --IJBall (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

SecondaryWaltz is most probably a sock puppet controller. I never said you were clearly the puppet, but I am here to report this user's dishonest use of his accounts. I do not worry about what's gonna happen to me, since I report with justice. And 'hattrick'? What? I don't get what you're trying to say, but for now, you are also under my suspicion, like it or not. If you are not under him, then this wouldn't affect you, so why be so rhetoric? You're only fueling my suspicion against you as you speak so negatively. HanSangYoon (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

HanSangYoon, when you posted this request, you should have seen a bright orange box at the top, saying When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. It's your responsibility to notify all editors you mention about this discussion. Also, IJBall is correct, if your concern is sockpuppetry, file a case at WP:SPI, not AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I already did, Liz. Thanks for the statement. HanSangYoon (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The OP has been adding their own photos to many articles. That is obviously not a bad thing in itself, but they have shown poor editorial judgment in doing so, and ignored constructive criticism at the Help Desk. In particular, in multiple articles about train stations, they have replaced a main infobox photo of the station with their own photo of a sign at the train station. In fact, they came to the Help Desk to ask how they could put TWO of their photos of signs in the infobox of an article about a train station! I advised at Help Desk that they reverse these changes, and they ignored my advice, but it sounds like multiple other editors have chosen to take a more active role. There is nothing wrong with that, I'm glad to see it. In my opinion, the OP is very close to WP:CIR. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed the infobox at the article that was the subject at the Help Desk, Indiana (Los Angeles Metro station). I am not feeling inclined to research and fix all the rest, and I still think User:HanSangYoon should do that. As I said at the Help Desk, I think the OP should begin putting article quality before their own interest. Wikipedia articles are not showcases for their photographic artwork, no matter how good it may be. In some cases, the existing photo of the station could be better, the OP was obviously there at the station, and they could have taken a better photo of the station. But ANY halfway decent photo of the station is a better choice for the infobox than a photo of a sign. And a sign photo is of questionable value to anyone not in the field of graphic design, anywhere in the article — especially in short articles with a limited amount of layout space for images. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The OP has reverted my above-mentioned fix to the infobox in Indiana (Los Angeles Metro station), pretty much confirming WP:CIR. If it were only this article affected, I might let this go, but it's more than one article. I'm requesting a block or advice as to how to proceed. I don't see much point in starting a discussion in article talk. The OP and I would likely be the only participants, and the OP has already heard and discounted my reasoning. RfC? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

He also doesn't respond well to criticism, even gentle constructive criticism, and immediately takes a BATTLEGROUND pose, as has been demonstrated numerous times with... I dunno, what seems like at least half a dozen different editors over the past several days (e.g. see his Talk page, etc.). --IJBall (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Unresolved

―Mandruss ☎ 03:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: OK, does this qualify as a "personal attack"? What about this, i.e. accusing me of "stalking"? I feel like this editor is escalating, and it is increasingly concerning me that nothing is seemingly done about it. --IJBall (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Shared account problem

HanSangYoon just said on his talkpage that his user was controlled by several people. I'm not sure if that's exactly what he meant, or just that the one editor was proxying for several other people, but it should be looked into. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I am the only one who controls this account; I get pictures and advice from my friends, and I don't see anything wrong about that. The one who touches this account is solely me (HanSangYoon), and any investigation towards me I will accept as a proof that I am not going against the Wikipedian law. HanSangYoon (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel like this is veering dangerously towards WP:CIR concerns. ansh666 03:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

From Day One, I'm afraid... --IJBall (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ClarkNievera

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

---

Since nothing is happening at AIV at the moment, can someone please block ClarkNievera (talk · contribs). I'm receiving lovely messages on my user talk page. I'm more offended by the misspelling APK whisper in my ear 09:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Cleavage (breasts)

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

---

Peter Isotalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing images from a range of articles about sexuality. Today, over 10k bytes of images and sourced material were removed from Cleavage (breasts) by a couple editors. I attempted to restore it and asked for us to take it to talk (I probably should have been nicer but AGF is something I need to work on). We are now just edit warring. Can we get some thoughts or suggestions?Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I restored the article to the version prior to removal per WP:BRD. If information is removed and it is contested I agree it must be discussed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Cptnono, you need to motivate yourself when reverting. Removal of content isn't in itself problematic, especially with unreliable sources are involved. Taking the issue to ANI before even attempting a few rounds of discussion isn't helpful.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter you have also edit warred here: Brassiere, you have to give time for a consensus to form rather than start a discussion wait x amount of minutes and then revert. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

KK, consensus requires everyone involved to present coherent arguments. Every single edit was clearly motivated, and many of them weren't even removals. Except the blanket reverts, which really just amount to "too many edits".

Peter ^Isotalo 21:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Cptnono is assuming bad faith from the get go, reverting edits where clear reasons were given in the edit summaries. They assume large changes are automatically vandalism (and expressed as much in their edit summaries [273] and [274]). While WP:BRD is a great essay and a good way to go about editing, it's just an essay and does not override WP:BURDEN, WP:V, WP:SYNTH, or WP:RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The WP:COATRACK issues can be worked on if there is a disagreement on Cleavage (breasts) but I don't see the need to revert back and forth on the Brassiere article because of one image. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

BRD is as near a policy as an essay can get. How do BURDEN, V and RS affect the images? I understand that they might affect the sourced content. - Sitush (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this about Cleavage (breasts) and not Brassiere? I'm not involved in the latter and am only speaking about the former and Camel toe. The issues mentioned by Cptnono are not about one image, unless I'm misunderstanding. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4)With respect, BRD means there should be discussion, not a counter-revert. Looking at the timeline of the article and talk pages, all that happened was a single comment, followed by a flurry of content removal edits. Cptnono reverted citing BRD and concerns at 20:16; EvergreenFir counter-reverted at 20:21 claiming BRD didn't apply because discussion had already happened (a review of the talk page history suggests this is dubious: at best, insufficient discussion had taken place to produce a consensus); Cptnono counter-counter-reverted at 20:22 calling for discussion; Cptnono attempted to start discussion at 20:25 and :26 arguing that the removal was incorrect; EvergreenFir made an initial response to Cptnono at the talk page, though this mostly consisted of conclusory statements; you (Peter Isotalo) counter-counter-counter-reverted at 20:44, and only then commenting at the talk page at 20:46. Then, and only then, did Cptnono come here, admittedly hastily.

There needs to be discussion. Further reverts may merit temporary page protection until discussion takes place. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Envoking WP:BRD doesn't let you off the hook when it comes to genuine discussion. Cptnono has made exactly one round of discussion and has not bothered to comment a single edit summary. Three other editors have been reverted, myself, Evergreen and Johnbod. We're talking 26 edits in total, including perfectly uncontroversial copyedits. Every single edit has been clearly motivated. Cptnono has not addressed any of those motivations.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right. An invocation of BRD does not mean anything without discussion. This means that you, Peter Isotalo, need to go discuss rather than counter-revert. BRD is not a suicide pact: it does not mean that if the first revert is not made using the right magic words, it's to be counter-reverted without any discussion. You have as much of a burden to discuss as Cptnono does. So go discuss, and do not revert. No further comment is needed here unless another revert is made, in which case I recommend temporary page protection to compel discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but three separate editors have motivated their edits cogently. That's technically not talkpage discussion, but you're obliged to actually read edit summaries and reply to them, not just take the issue to ANI after two reverts.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. You have two, maybe three people commenting on a talk page over the course of as many days, leaving barely a handful of comments. The burden clearly falls on you to demonstrate that such cursory discussion rises to the level of creating not only a consensus but giving the removals the status of "the stable reversion" within the BRD framework. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree all you want. You're saying that any edit summaries can and should be ignored if you make any talkpage comment. That's very much WP:BURO.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries aren't discussion. Yes, I agree that it probably wasn't a best practice for Cptnono to just bulk revert rather than picking out the substantive changes with which he disagreed. My problem is with your response: a counter-revert, rather than reinstating the non-substantive changes, or simply going and requesting Cptnono to say what specific changes he thought should have been reverted. The point of BRD is exactly to prevent what happened today, not to enable you to do it because someone failed to follow some formality. It's a practice that adapts to people sidestepping it (whether deliberately or because they're inexperienced users). It does so by encouraging more discussion. More discussion is not harmful, while counter-reverting is generally harmful (except where removing bright-line vandalism or BLP violations). Yes, it means more work. But it does not mean bureaucracy. It means discussion. But as Wikipedia matures more, the amount of discussion required will only increase. We all need to adapt to that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm loath to join in this discussion for fear of giving the impression I don't think it's completely absurd. However, and without having examined the actual edits in question, a mass revert, particularly involving contributions from more than one editor, should really be treated as the B stage of BRD. Formerip (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Mendaliv, what prevents edit wars is people being diligent and considerate. Blanket reverts of anything other than vandalism and incompetent editing is not considerate. And you know perfectly well that edit summaries are always the basis for discussions when there's a BRD situation. You can't just barge in on a talkpage and demand to have everything repeated for your consideration. That's implying you can't be bothered to actually spend time on the issue. If other editors have made an effort changing an article edit by edit, you're damned well obliged to actually look over those edits one by one rather than sweeping them all away.

If you revert stuff like this, something other than just article content quality is at stake.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

When did we start hosting guest articles from Uncyclopedia? Formerip (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Concurring with Formerip , I'm very skeptical that this article does the encyclopedia much credit. It is copiously illustrated, to be sure, but many of the illustrations appear to be gratuitous (breast anatomy) or lascivious. There’s at least once example of a bra picture that has since been removed from Twitter, suggesting that the young woman who posted it now regrets releasing it with a CC license; we’re not violating copyright, but are we right? Above all, this is a lot of verbiage for a slight topic, one that could easily be covered elsewhere and which -- let's face it -- makes Wikipedia seem a bit ridiculous. It also does nothing for the gender questions discussed in the popular press. (Now that I’ve said that, does Cleavage fall under Arbcom’s GamerGate sanctions?) MarkBernstein (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that we have Navel in popular culture and other similar articles I would oppose deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it will goto AfD though, I have seen more than one editor talking about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The physiology section and the one on cleavage in the history of fashion are decent sections but half of the article is about cleavage enhancement which seems like a gratuitous display of breasts and bras and goes far beyond a simple encyclopedia entry on "cleavage". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The subjects are notable enough and definitely discussed by RS. But the tone of the articles and the images used need overhaul. Many of the breast-related articles are more voyeuristic than informative. FSM knows we don't have this kind of crap for male bodies though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, as I said the physiological and fashion sections are very educational. The table with different varieties of bras, not so much. But this is best discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it can be classed as a content phwoark. Formerip (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Formerip argues that Cptnono's revert is really the B in BRD, and I think I agree with that. To revert dozens of edits by three different editors, with clear edit summaries, in one fell swoop with nothing more than "Restoring per BRD", that's disruptive. I agree with EvergreenFir that it shows a lack of good faith. And thank you, Peter, Johnbod, EvergreenFir, for your good work in making us look better/less of an embarrassment. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • And thank you, Drmies! There is now an opportunity for editors to !vote on these on the page, at the bottom of Talk:Cleavage_(breasts)#COATRACK. Johnbod (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think that makes sense within the framework that BRD establishes. For that to work, the flurry of edits, made within 24 hours of the revert, have to be considered the article's status quo. There wasn't even a consensus for the edits. It's one step removed from plain bold edits insofar as there was a talk page comment made contemporaneously with the edits. I'm not saying the block revert by Cptnono was the right move, nor am I saying it couldn't be considered disruptive (insofar as good, uncontroversial changes were reverted, it certainly was). But BRD is not a bludgeon. It's a behavioral principle to encourage more discussion rather than letting whoever can push the other person into violating 3RR win. The counter-reverting that happened at this article flies in the face of that principle, and is behavior that should be discouraged, especially in experienced editors. While there is no need for admin action at this point, it needs to be remembered that we are here to edit an encyclopedia, not to play chicken with other editors. All parties here behaved badly and deserve a trouting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Mendaliv, following a talk page plea to not mass revert the changes, of multiple editors, in one swoop, with no explanation beyond "stable", you do just that and request page protection to enforce it (??) I honestly think it would have been much more productive to only revert what you have a policy based reason to object to (or actually any stated reason to object) and allow the multiple editors to continue to discuss and improve the article from there, which certainly can include reverts, but mass unexplained reverts done only in the name of "status quo" do not seem to further the goal of actually improving the article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Mendaliv, I don't the the age of the edits is all there is to consider. An edit needs to actually be bold in order to qualify as bold. If you're reverting uncontroversial edits or reverting without explanation ("stable" is not any kind of explanation), then it is you who is being bold. Even if you don't buy that (which you should), you also need to follow through to D or your action should not stand. For a mass revert, that means that, unless a full justification of the entire action is forthcoming, your action should also not stand. Formerip (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Article has been full-protected. I will assume that a week will be enough time for editors to come to a clear consensus and heavily encourage everyone to handle the content dispute on the talk page. it's very clear that some of the BRD decisions have not resulted in the desired outcome but there's no point crying over spilled milk. —Dark 07:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Clear consensus requires clear discussion. The onus now is squarely on those who have blanket reverted. If those motivations aren't forthcoming, then we have opposition for oppositions sake. Peter ^Isotalo 13:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • In other words, you're refusing to discuss even the edits you claim are minor or uncontroversial because you don't see it as your responsibility to start discussion. This is exactly why I requested page protection, and exactly what is wrong here. Discuss. Discuss even if you feel you're in the right. Discuss even if you feel it's the other side's responsibility to do so. Discuss even if they're wrong. Just discuss and get this issue off ANI. That is all you need to do. I fail to see what's so hard about this. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The purpose of BRD—regardless of whom we consider to have taken the bold step—is not to give you an excuse to fail to engage in discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Mendaliv, what actually seems wrong and disruptive here is for you to make blanket reversions of many different editor's good faith efforts to improve that article, and refuse to specify why all those edits were problematic and warranted reversion. What are we supposed to discuss? People need to specify objections in order for meaningful discussion to take place. At this point, I honestly don't know what the objections to any of the changes are. The OP at least gave us some hint, seems he was annoyed pictures were being removed, maybe referring to that topless nude diagram in the middle of page, which to me doesn't seem very on topic for an article on cleavage. That being said, Peter, I know this seems frustrating and disruptive and you apparently put a lot of effort into improving the page, but please don't let this craziness rile you to the point that you end up becoming disruptive. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't bring the content dispute here. This is about behavior, and is why I reverted to the status quo and requested page protection. Go to the talk page and discuss it with the stakeholders. Then once you have reached a consensus, you should use the edit request function to commit the changes to the page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Mendaliv, a word to the wise: don't ever walk into an edit war and revert (to whatever version) because you think there's an issue with "behavior". Either you agree with the content or you don't. Anything else is technically disruptive, even if I acknowledge that you did so in good faith.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I'm not seeing much of your name in talk:cleavage (breasts), yet you're one of those who made a blanket revert of all those edits. You're spending more time arguing why we should do the discussion for you than you are explaining what content changes you don't agree with.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the discussion, nor am I an interested party. I am mostly concerned with the conduct here, not the content. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is involvement. Whatever reason you had for doing that, I'd say you're obliged to explain it on the talkpage beyond a "revert to status quo".

Peter ^Isotalo 16:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I am not particularly involved in the discussion. The diff you have provided does not change that. I reverted to restore the stable version of the article before the edit war. Please go discuss content matters at the relevant talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

To me, it's an odd reason to revert in the middle of an edit war, but what's done is done. I will take this comment to mean that you don't actually oppose any of the reverted edits.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Mendaliv, in an article that is constantly the subject of edits, I'm not sure that there ever was a "stable" version. It seems more like you supported an editor who reverted all of Peter and EvergreenFir's edits over the past two days. The version before they started editing it was frequently edited as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's really not correct. Look at the editing history. There was virtually nothing being done for weeks, and then suddenly, out of the blue, there is a flurry of editing. My support is for the status quo. Please give some proof of your allegations that I am engaging in some nefarious support of a single editor's preferred version. I am rather surprised that this is somehow being made about me: you might as well complain about the admin who acted on the request for page protection. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a question, did you look at the content you were reverting? Because honestly, I think this is maybe "being made about you" because it seems like you did not look at the content you were reverting (or checked the talk page) before that mass revert followed by request for page protection. From a policy standpoint, I can see nothing wrong with a "flurry of editing", which was actually explained on talk page and in edit summary, done for policy based reasons to an article that, as far as I can see, was in seriously bad shape. The OP here made vague unspecified complaints regarding images but attempts to clarify actual specific objections on talk page were unsuccessful. It does not seem reasonable to fail to say what is wrong with multiple edits, yet revert them anyway simply for the sake of "status quo". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I'm somewhat stunned now that I realize that you were the one who requested article protection[275] just one minute after diving into the edit war yourself[276] with the comment "do not edit war".

Peter ^Isotalo 21:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive talkpage comments by Sitush

I'd like some input on Sitush's comments on Talk:Cleavage (breasts). From my perspective, Sitush is directing purposeful incivility at me and is attempting to derail discussion I've started because he is personally opposed to its format.

1. [277]
2. [278]
3. [279]
4. [280]

Peter ^Isotalo 21:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything problematic with those diffs. How about helping to defuse the dispute rather than continuing it? Your central thesis is sound: there is a problem with these articles and the use of some of these images. I am disgusted, for example, by articles like thigh gap which seem to glorify body dysmorphic disorder. Most men do not find things like thigh gaps attractive, just the opposite actually, and the studies of male and female attraction bear this out. That's a sickening article and something should be done to clamp down on it. On the other hand "cleavage" is mostly harmless, and this seems to be a good faith dispute among well meaning editors to choose the correct images. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Add: I found this comment from Sitush on talk:Cleavage (breasts) where he refers to GGTF as a "haunt of feminists" a bit rude. [281]. Honestly, I would imagine to an administrator looking over these links, it doesn't seem like much, but in the context of disruption/battleground and insults from Sitush going on for such a long time now on GGTF and related pages like Women's rights in 2014 (tons of difs available upon request) it really does get old. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In context, I find his comment acceptable. I'm really not seeing Sitush as the problem here. The fact of the matter here is that Peter Isotalo has contributed to a battleground atmosphere, whether you choose to accept it or not. He's been engaged in heavy reverting and edit wars across many articles just within the last week. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an absolutely accurate assessment. If you view Peter's comments above, there is a shocking refusal to take responsibility for his own conduct in connection with the edit warring that spawned this incident. While I strongly disagree with Sitush's views on GGTF, his involvement in the discussion at the cleavage talk page has been anything but disruptive. Peter's conduct is what merits review here, and possibly sanction if it's found to be part of an ongoing trend. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether Peter needs to step back and chill a bit or not, I still honestly don't think calling GGTF a "haunt of feminists" has any place on talk:Cleavage (breasts). Think about it, would a similar comment about Jewish or black editors working as part of a WikiProject to improve an article be acceptable? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Peter Isotalo was this an attempt to fan the flames of conflict? I see [[282]] which is a ridiculous request anyways followed by [[283]] and [[284]] which you ping him not once but twice. Odd, maybe just a coincidence but odd all the same. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I had concerns even before that, which I had tried to point out to Sitush.[285] And then I see the exact same type of behavior over at Lightbreather's talkpage. That's why I pointed out that it was "serious to me". As for pinging, I assume that's what you do when you discuss other users.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: Peter was most recently involved in a rather vitriolic dispute on ANI that was archived here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive873#High handed editing by Peter. I think review of his current behavior should involve consideration of conduct in that last dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note that my participation in the edit war over cleavage (breasts) amounted to exactly one revert.[286]

Peter ^Isotalo 22:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Mendaliv, and as for the other ANI, it received zero support. It was the same dispute where one of the involved parties called me a "terrorist" for joking about disputes about Danishes at a talkpage.

But if you believe my behavior needs reviewing, you're welcome to present some diffs. Considering I was singled out at the top of this ANI by Cptnono for simply making too many edits, I'm sure you can start a second thread about me that is just as substantial.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In the first diff, Sitush's edit summary was "poor logic." In the second one, Sitush called Peter "ham-fisted." In the third one, his edit summary was "pointless." In the fourth one, Sitush wrote, "You've done it again. How the heck is someone supposed to reply to this? I despair, I really do." They're all uncivil, uncollaborative. They're meant to belittle. There are other comments on that page that bother me, too. "Hyperbole again," "this article appears to have attracted the interest of people who are heavily involved with the GGTF project," "you've missed the core point and have chosen instead to (fairly mildly) attack me personally." Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sitush's comments to Peter aren't uncivil and appear to be attempting to guide, not derail, discussion. I don't think calling the GGTF a "haunt of feminists" is all that rude or uncivil, especially since a discussion about the presence/number of feminists at the GGTF is occurring there. Some editors do think that the GGTF is composed mainly of feminists, and some also see that composition as driving other editors away. Ca2james (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ca2James, I wonder if you would react similarly if Sitush instead complained on an article talk page that a "haunt of Jews" from wikiproject Judaism was thought to be editing an article. It's certainly not the rudest thing he or others have said in relation to GGTF, but it seems sad that this sort of comment is standard and somehow completely acceptable. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing an inborn ethnicity to a chosen philosophy? Capeo (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I've said pretty much the same about caste warriors on occasion. If there seems to be an overt campaign going on (rightly or wrongly) then it should be noted, and I don't think anyone has ever had a problem with me referring to caste warriors. The recent activity at the Cleavage article seems almost directly to relate to comments that were initially raised at WT:GGTF and have since drawn in a swarm. Please also note, while this hate-fest goes on, that I have made several statements at the article talk page which, prima facie, should actually please the supporters of GGTF, although that was not the reason for saying thus. Unreasonable is one thing that I am not. And someone should check the number of TPG violations involving Peter Isolato, plus the number of warning notes that he has deleted from his talk page of late. - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

User_talk:Sitush#Reboot might make interesting reading. Please note that I deleted a final comment from Peter Isolato - it will be in the history. - Sitush (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, you and I had no interaction prior to this (except this[287]). You have been active longer on GGTF than I have, but you seem to be getting sucked into an awful lot of disputes. And you've already drawn up a clear battleline with me on the side of "GGTF supports" and you on the other.

And this is really odd, because as far as I can tell, you don't appear to have any real interest in gender-related issues content-wise. Your involvement in GGTF is all talk and no content. And on top of that, your pet peeve is feminism. That's like haunting the talkpage of WP:X while constantly griping about it being "too religious".

Do you have a genuine interest in working with gender gap issues, feminism or gender-related topics? I'm asking because I'm not seeing it in your edit history. What I do see, though, is an awful lot of griping about feminist enemies over at GGTF. And as far as I can tell this "frustration" seems to be more relevant than anything I might have done.

Peter ^Isotalo 03:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ca2james, comments like "ham-fisted" and "I despair" is guidance? You know that the talkpage overall has been remarkably civil, right?

Peter ^Isotalo 23:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat, I don't know how I'd react, because religion is a touchier subject than feminism. Without the context of what's happening at the GGTF, the comment would be quite uncivil. As it is, with that context, I don't find that comment nearly as uncivil as I think you do. Quite frankly, to me it seems that there are as many people against Sitush who are as - or more - uncivil than Sitush is at the GGTF and that rudeness is rampant on both "sides". Peter Isotalo, I stand by my opinion. I found that Sitush's comments were much more in a guidance vein than in an uncivil vein. "I despair" clearly shows frustration at someone who appears to be blocking discussion, and "ham-fisted" is a description of an editor trying to force edits through without working with other editors - which again I read as frustration. Ca2james (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, one absurd factor about Sitush's comment about a GGTF being a "haunt of feminists" is that he claimed that Task Force members were being recruited to participate in this dispute when, the truth is, the majority of the editors involved in this discussion about the cleavage article are men. In fact, when I first visited the talk page on Thursday, as far as I could tell, I was the only woman participating. So, it was an unsupported claim that was intended to demean GGTF. In fact, I can not think of a reason why he would bring up the subject of GGTF on the article talk page as the task force hadn't been mentioned up until that point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Did I say recruited? I cannot recall that. Since when has GGTF been an all-women preserve? Peter Isolato himself has been very active there during the last few days, and equally active at the article under discussion. There is also Bobo, myself, Evergreen and, well, I can't be bothered naming the rest. In my case, I arrived at the article not via GGTF (which is not on my watchlist) but via this thread itself. - Sitush (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Not "recruited", but "drawn in a swarm" (post above). Your rhetoric regarding GGTF is just one small step from open accusations of a feminist conspiracy against you.

Peter ^Isotalo 03:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I find Sitush's edits to be brusque, direct, and expressing frustration, but not especially rude. Given the animosity towards Sitush by some over at the GGTF, I do wonder if that's part of the reason he's been brought here. Ca2james (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is the reason I have been brought here. What is omitted is the number of times that I have been, at least by default, shown to be correct. Lightbreather, in particular, is a far, far more disruptive contributor than I will ever be. - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Uninvolved non-admin comment Having seen then discussion develop for more than a day, I think it's becoming clear that Peter Isotalo is the problem right now. As for the content, I tend to agree with him, but the battleground mentality is a problem. First heavy edit warring [288], [289], [290], and now this ANI accusation for what I really doesn't see as "disruptive comments" in any way. I agree with the edits Peter has made, and with the factual reasons he has given, but a more reconciliatory approach would be beneficial.Jeppiz (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How is this edit warring? Peter ^Isotalo 23:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Edit warring is not about being right or wrong. I already said I agree with your actual edit, but if you repeat the same edit three times in four hours, it's really quite worrying if you have to ask how it's edit warring.Jeppiz (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
      • That was not why I asked. I wondered why you presented a basic non-revert as example of edit warring. Peter ^Isotalo 00:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, Peter is not the problem, he was working on improving this cleavage article when all of his edits were summarily reverted. He does have the distinction of making bold edits in some contentious articles, ones that are the subject of disputes so he ends up participating in discussions on noticeboards like this. I agree, the articles would be better served by a more collaborative approach on the part of all parties but his edits should be judged on their merits, not on the editor who is making them. If there is an issue with edit warring, the right noticeboard is that way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: It's hard to be collaborative when an editor just hats threads that are not going exactly how they'd like. [291], [292] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. The reverts were not about Peter making the edits, but about the fact that they were largely undiscussed and unilateral. BRD was invoked and Peter is playing some kind of bureaucratic game demanding that the edits be reinstated unless an explanation for each and every piece of the revert is forthcoming (apparently within minutes). Peter's conduct on the talk page is equally troubling and smacks of article ownership behavior. Unilateral archival of a discussion after less than a day, for instance, is not a good idea: [293]. I think it would be best for Peter to take a few days off from this article and allow the discussion to develop. It's probably too soon to talk about a topic ban, but I'm not impressed with his conduct. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, discussing anything with... whoever is a requirement for not being reverted these days, is it? I'll keep that in mind. I'll remember that next time I want to revert someone. I'll just "invoke" BRD and make an ANI complaint. I look forward to your support.

And I certainly look forward to seeing y'all making valuable contributions to cleavage (breasts) in the future.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not an isolated incident, this sort of thing has been going on for years now. Peter demonstrates a feeling of entitlement and ownership in areas he has contributed in. He does work very hard and improves articles he works on but he does not react well when disagreed with. Chillum 05:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's nice to see that you're still keeping an eye on me over whatever it was that happened in... 2007? Sounds like you have a WP:OWN-related ANI to work on. I think I'm done with this one, so just lemme know when you file it.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That is correct, I have seen this behavior from you since 2007. If anyone cares to go through your user talk page history they will see that this is an ongoing pattern of behavior and not just something that happened in 2007 and 2015. Thank you for clarifying the duration. Chillum 16:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's another example of edit warring a couple of days ago by User:Peter Isotalo in the Brassiere article that was stable for months:

• [294]
• [295]
• [296]

Then when challenged, there's no acknowledgment of an alternative perspective, and offers a combative - it's my way or the highway - response [297]. I was not interested in launching into another round of edit wars, but given his rapid fire deletion, and redeletion of the material within minutes, it's not likely he'd take kindly to any other points of view once he's decided he has to have his way.

This is my first interaction with this editor, and it was unpleasant.Mattnad (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with Peter's argument (though I think I would have articulated it differently), the counter-reverting on that page is exactly what was going on at the cleavage page. In fact, this is an even more egregious case of not respecting BRD: Peter's excuses from cleavage that the changed version represented the status quo cannot possibly apply here. I am disappointed to see an editor of Peter's experience taking this bludgeoning approach to editing rather than starting with good faith discussion. This can only hurt his credibility in editing disputes going forward. I'm not sure what remedy, if any, should be applied here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Mendaliv, even after this lengthy ANI thread, and even after multiple pleas on talk page for the reverters of these policy based and explained changes to please state what their objections are, no clear objections have been stated. What we apparently have on Cleavage (breasts) is a case where the article is being reverted to the status quo, apparently for the sake of the status quo. This seems to fly in the face of the whole point of Wikipeidia as a changing and hopefully improving entity. I think Peter’s talk page activity after the repeated and very disruptive unexplained reversions was not ideal. I do not agree with the hatting of discussion in response to Sitush responding in what appears to be Sitush's standard style. However, I saw zero disruptive edits by Peter in article space to Cleavage (breasts). Mendaliv, you’ve been disruptive in article space to Cleavage (breasts), which seems to be more problematic, so calling for remedy or sanctions against Peter here doesn’t exactly seem reasonable. Regarding the other article, haven't looked at it until now but I would tend to agree that removing this image from the article Brassiere seems appropriate [298] This is supposed to be encyclopedic, not a Victoria Secret catalog; however, given the nature of WP, removing this image will unfortunately probably require tons of drama and endless ANI listings.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You've got company, guys.[299]

Peter ^Isotalo 16:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Btw, Mendaliv, right now you're just rehashing previous complaints from a slightly different perspective. And it's the second time you've mentioned sanctions or remedies against me. I don't feel it's right that you go on hemming and hawing about administrative action here. This is still in a sub-thread I filed as a complained against Sitush. So either we close the book on Sitush, or you could just to start a separate thread on your concerns over my behavior.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The Diff you've chosen to tar long-standing editors who don't agree with your approach isn't helping you here. It's just more evidence of your bad behavior in these matters. I'm pretty new to you (first exposure yesterday), so there's no rehashing here on my part. Editors like you are part of the reason people leave wikipedia. Why bother collaborating when an editor doesn't care to.Mattnad (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You brought up "SEXY" and WP:CENSOR as a rationale to keep an image about a piece of clothing in an encyclopedia. I pointed out that neither of this relevant. You got pretty much the exact same response from another editor[300] on that talkpage. The image was removed[301] by an uninvolved editor. So what exactly is your complaint here? That I didn't agree with you on the talkpage?

Peter ^Isotalo 16:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did say that the (pretty tasteful) photo was sexy and I have no issue because that was the point of it. Bras are considered both functional and fashionable, and tightly linked to female sexuality and the expression thereof. That's why you had a fit about it. There was no other photograph capturing the fashion elements and actually showing a bra. The other editor was complaining that it used soft focus (which is common in photography) as a justification for calling it a poor photograph, but that's stylistic question, not one of quality. If quality were the issue, then others would have to go in that article too. You also failed to mention here your fretting about how it objectified women (hence the accusation of censorship). Now, are you going to say that's not the reason (Or shall I provide the diff too). Being disingenuous seem to be your modus operandi.Mattnad (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The concerns presented here are not about if you were right or wrong in a given content dispute. You are more often right than wrong but you still have to play well with others. The concerns are about your behavior when other editors disagree with you. Chillum 17:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

With respect to the article Cleavage (breasts), the concern of "behavior" appears to have been used as a smokescreen to return the article to the status quo, retraining unencyclopedic images etc. I'm not sure about the article Brassiere, as I haven't participated there, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was also the case. However, if there are any legitimate concerns regarding edit warring (concerning Peter or anyone else for that matter) it seems that should be brought to edit war noticeboard. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with restoring status quo until discussion has been undertaken. You're about one step removed from arguing that the counter-reverts Peter made fall under some kind of exception to 3RR. All that said, I do agree that this thread has probably reached the point where it's bringing more heat than light on the situation. I'll be keeping a loose eye on this situation, as will other level-headed editors. Peter's actions in this situation have been to take a minor gaffe by one editor and turn it into a full-blown edit war. Was it unfair for me to revert and simultaneously request page protection? Perhaps. Does that change the fact that Peter's conduct here was disruptive and contrary to consensus-building? No.

And with that, I suggest that this thread be closed. The page is protected and discussion is ongoing. If the same lunacy that resulted in this thread just resumes once protection expires, I fully intend to request an extension of the protection. Until then, no administrative action is required here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but the discussion had been undertaken with multiple editors requesting specific objections over and over again, instead of simply blanket reverting. Unfortunately, it is not possible to discuss beyond the type of copious discussion which had already occurred, when others refuse to clearly state what their objections are. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Add: currently there is ongoing discussion about the main image, but that image was never removed to begin with, so it was not part of the massive unexplained revert of changes made by multiple editors. The objections to all of those changes remains unexplained (unexplained by anyone, not just Mendaliv) in spite of repeat efforts on talk page to find out what the problem is. Absent any policy based objection to those changes, it seems reasonable that those changes will be restored once page protection has expired. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Can we close this thread? The relevant discussion is taking place on the talk page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that discussion is occurring without the input of the editors who made blanket reverts. BoboMeowCat is correct that the page was reverted simply for the sake of reversion. It's nonsensical that the page remains locked. This started as a nonsense ANI by a user who has not contributed to the article into a derailed discussion of a user's behavior (who only reverted once on the article in question...) while ignoring the poor decisions by multiple editors and an admin. I'm all for closing this thread as it's pointless now, but hope in the future people will actually take the time to properly judge the situation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

C'mon. I thought that taking a step back instead of continuing to be a dick would be a good thing. The edits were completely inappropriate and I stand by my reverts. I hope the conversation goes well and I will likely join it when I can keep my self from calling other editors assholes.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 almost every rule

Apparently, there's an American school in Italy, St. John International University that was granted rights by New Hampshire to issue degrees. Last year, New Hampshire withdrew this right, and the school no longer has the right to issue any degrees. From the start, it would seem that somebody [302] at this school used Wikipedia to advertise the school ([303]). Now that the school has lost its rights to grant degrees, an information that perhaps is embarrassing for the school but which is sourced, it seems that somebody tries to suppress this information. Earlier this week, in what may be the worst AfD ever, they argued the article should be deleted The information on our page continually is edited by a third party with incorrect information, which is hurtful to our organization. The text they are adding and altering are opinion based. This untrue information is negatively impacting the reputation of the university. We have attempted to contact the editors but they will not respond or stop. Due to this, this page must be deleted for good. So if they cannot WP:OWN the page to use it for WP:Adverts, and WP:CENSOR sourced information based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then the article should be deleted. The AfD was of coursed closed as a speedy keep [304], and the nominator given a soft block for user name. Today, the same user is back with a new name and again nominates it for deletion, less than three days after the speedy keep. This is getting ridiculous. I know nothing about this schools, but the information in the article is relevant and it's well sourced. The repeated AfDs are getting disruptive.Jeppiz (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This is hilariously bad, but Jeppiz, I hate to say it. You forgot to ping/highlight the SJuser (undoubtedly because of laughing too hard over the AFDs). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Adar 5775 15:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Sorry, you did inform him and I was looking in the wrong place. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Adar 5775

I've removed the newly placed AfD tag because it simply linked to the now closed one, a second AfD doesn't appear to have been properly opened. Sam Walton (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Clintonelam, one of the AfD nominators, does seem a very likely sock of the already-blocked previous nominator User:ClintonElamSJIU, or at least a bit meaty. Squinge (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Some rather loud quacking based on his first and only edit. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Adar 5775 15:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course it's the same person, but that's fine. The previous account was soft blocked (I'm not actually sure why, X at Y is fine), so they created a new account. Sam Walton (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a sock, in fact, though the same person. User:ClintonElamSJIU was given a soft block for the SJIU in the user name but told he could continue editing under a different name. So there's nothing wrong in him now editing as :User:Clintonelam. The edit itself is of course wrong, but not the fact that the user is editing.Jeppiz (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Well that account is kind of a you know what, which is really not cool.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Adar 5775 16:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Chrisabraham violations of WP:NOTPROMOTION, point five, and NPOV through paid editing

To be brief, Chrisabraham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has violated WP:NOTPROMOTION, point five, and NPOV through failure to disclose paid editing. Here are some noteworthy quotes from his video, A Step by Step Instruction On How To Manage Your Wikipedia Page (emphasis mine):

• "My name is Chris Abraham, I'm Principal Consultant at Gerris, and part of what I do there is consult people on this thing called Wikipedia management [...] nobody who hires me wants me to share the Wikipedia pages I edit [...] I need to keep it discreet" (2:48–3:15).

• "Anytime anyone wants to get on a Wikipedia, I put them through an exhaustive process of finding a citation for every single sentence that they put into their page"(6:15–6:29).

• "Generally speaking, your Wikipedia page shows up above the fold on organic search, so if you have a reputation problem [...] it will be up there at the top amongst your Twitter and Facebook and your own personal .com site or page" (13:08–13:31).

Diffs that constitute violations of NPOV:

on Chick-fil-A "The Original Chicken Sandwich is a boneless breast of chicken that is seasoned, hand-breaded, pressure cooked in 100% refined peanut oil and served on a buttered bun with dill pickles.", "In 2012, Chick-fil-A introduced a kids’ meal with Grilled Chicken Nuggets to help parents balance nutrition, convenience and price", "In 2014, Chick-fil-A introduced a custom-made, specialty-grade coffee with partner Thrive Farmers Coffee.", all of which were later removed by an IP here. On December 24, Abraham re-added the promotional content, which were reverted and again re-added, with another item added five days later. Most recently, on February 19, Abraham added "Through the years, company leaders, including Truett and Dan Cathy have encouraged a passion for service in all restaurant team members to achieve customer-centered leadership."

on Orkin: switched "The Fulton County lunacy commission made its ruling as to Otto's sanity in August 1960. Otto filed a lawsuit against his sons, his daughter Beatrice, and her husband Perry Kaye, accusing them of conspiring to have him declared incompetent so that they could take over the company, but he eventually settled with them out of court" to the more discreet "Otto successfully fought to have his competency status restored, aided by his younger daughter, Gloria; her husband, Petty Bregman; and Ted Oser", replaced "pest resistance to common insecticides, growing regulations over the pest control industry, and a number of deaths attributed to pesticides resulted in a drop in annual revenues for Orkin in 1960" to the more Orkin-friendly "Pest resistance to common insecticides and growing regulations over the pest control industry [...]"

on American Association for Clinical Chemistry: "... to help patients and their caregivers better understand the many clinical lab tests that are part of routine medical care as well as the diagnosis and treatment of a broad range of conditions and diseases."

on Lab Tests Online: "... to help patients and their caregivers better understand the many clinical lab tests that are part of routine medical care as well as the diagnosis and treatment of a broad range of conditions and diseases."

I've further been contacted five times over the past day, which approaches WP:PAY's guideline on "long or repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue". Wikipedia doesn't tolerate this "'black hat' practice that violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people.'" I have no sympathy for anyone who sees Wikipedia as a public relations venture and takes advantage of our good faith for personal profit, notwithstanding such a flippant disregard for our intellect. It's time to go. Seattle (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a big question: if he's a paid editor, has he ever stated this up front on Wikipedia? I don't see where he's placed this on his user page (the recommended place for stating a COI) and transparency is one of the biggest requirements for paid editors. I'm really very uncomfortable that his video has him saying that his clients don't want him saying that he's editing their pages, which gives off the impression that he's hiding his paid editing (if he is doing paid editing, which seems likely). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well, the few clients that I have never said anything like that, I just didn't want to make that the focus of the webinar, I wanted to make the webinar a how-to. I was being as clear as I thought I needed to be -- I was wrong -- as I aspired to make everything as 3rd party source based as possible. I see now the errors of my ways, so to speak, but didn't quite understand the process by which a person who has COI must go through by appealing to the community and working the changes through a collaborative forum through the talk process. I am feeling the heat, I am hurting really badly, but I want to work through it so that I can come through to the other side. Any help you can give me to help me make it better would be much obliged Chrisabraham (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm talking to him on his user page and he's said that he has done some paid editing but that this isn't the whole of his editing history. Since he's open to the idea of better learning policy, I'm more leaning towards the idea of letting someone mentor him and watch his edits from here on out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Hello Tokyogirl79 Seattle. Seattle is correct. As I have been saying to TG over the last hour or so is that I intentionally made that video and edit under my own name only because I truly believed that I was doing nothing wrong. That, as long as the 3rd party citations were strong and I was holding my clients to editorial neutrality that I was being within the expectations. I tried very hard to make sure that my webinar was very clear as to who I was and how you couldn't cheat -- how you needed to become a Wikipedian in the first place. Tokyogirl79 tells me that being a paid Wikipedia editor isn't easy but I am very interested in coming into compliance. I am sorry that I have stumbled through to now and I am sorry that I put you, Seattle, through so much work and so much trouble. It turns out I have been doing everything wrong. So, in the last few months, I have been a paid consultant and have done paid editing for Michael Doven, Elisabeth Leamy, Orkin, Chick-fil-A, American Association for Clinical Chemistry for their online resource page Lab Tests Online and I helped Sally Falkow for free because I have known eachother forever (but she really isn't notable enough and the copy she provided me was terrible). That said, I am in no way financially-related to Concept2 or any corporate or organizational -- I am just a participant in the challenges and the rowing. And, I also intend to be really transparent when it comes to when I KNOW someone or am FRIENDS with someone and am doing them a FAVOR because I guess that's also not pure, clean, or detached. Seattle got something really wrong, however: I really DO respect and appreciate the individual as well as collective intellect of Wikipedia. I believe my slide show -- my presentation deck -- is very respectful as to how ubiquitous, passionate, empowered, and expert Wikipedians are. And, I didn't even know how disrespectful I was actually being. I believe, to the best of my ability, that that's everybody. As I said in the beginning of my piece, I am afraid of both reddit and Wikipedia. Well, I don't want to be afraid any longer. I would appreciate a mentor. I would appreciate some help to get started and someone past whom I can sanity-check any edits I might have or want to make. Please let me know what I can do Chrisabraham (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Tokyogirl79 Seattle as a sign of good faith, please check my user page Chrisabraham -- I added a section called "Disclosures." I will put anything there that you recommend. I will dig through my logs as best I can to make sure this is everything. I should also have a section that addresses my loves, likes, and whatnot, right? Chrisabraham (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• If you want to, then absolutely. I have a section on stuff that I like on my userpage, as it's usually pertains to stuff that I tend to edit frequently. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• OK, then I will work on putting that together. I will work on trying to get my personal page up to code. Thank you, Tokyogirl79 Chrisabraham (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have started looking for a Mentor. If I am not too toxic, Tokyogirl79 or Seattle, would either of you be willing to take me on? I have also placed a "looking for a mentor" beacon on my personal page. But I am also proactively looking for one as well. I'll let you know how it goes. It's very late here. I don't know why I woke up. Must be my Spidey sense. Good night and I'll be back in the morning. Chrisabraham (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Normally I wouldn't mind, but I'm currently working on my Master's and I don't get online as often as I normally do, so it'd probably be better to get someone that can get online a little more reliably. I'm usually on a few times a week, but my editing has kind of become a fraction of what it used to be. That said, I don't really mind if you want to post questions on my usertalk. It may be a while before I can respond, but I should respond. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you, appreciate it Tokyogirl79. Good luck on grad school and thanks for all the time and energy you put towards it in the first place. I appreciate it that that you assumed good intent Chrisabraham (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Death Threats from "User:Gouncbeatduke will be burned alive." and other socks

I received death threats from several socks (for example, "== You deserve to ₫ie for your support of genocidal Islamic settlers. == I will make sure you suffer greatly." and "I can arrange for you to die in Gaza. Keep it up, raglover." ) and would like to obtain all IP address information and any Sockpuppet investigation information to share with my local police. To the best of my knowledge, User:Gouncbeatduke will be burned alive. and the related socks have never been used for any legitimate Wikipedia editing purposes and have been used solely for harassment purposes. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me to request this information. Does anyone have any advice about this? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You should email the details to emergency@wikimedia.org , who are the Foundation's contacts for this kind of matter. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 21:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This fellow comes to mind. De728631 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yupp, it sure sounds like him. I´ve had a few lately, too. And via wiki-mail: I have had to unlink my email-adress again. Gouncbeatduke: If you edit in the I/P area, then I´m afraid you just have to get used to it. If it is who we think it is; then he has been doing this for 10 years. My best advice is to try to ignore it, don´t get too upset about it. You could also send any info you have to this guy, who is collecting info. Oh, and making harassment-accounts is very typical of him; I´ve had this and this and many, many others. Huldra (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

User:BarkingFish request for unblock

Refered to Arbcom and BASC per NYB - User:Ched

BarkingFish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) OK Guys, time for me to come clean about my problems back in April 2013. For those of you who don't know, I was indefinitely blocked from the site for socking using at least 3 accounts. I was trapped after having a conversation with myself and someone who I said was someone else, but who wasn't, while I was on IRC using 2 clients. Immediately after, I retired from WP, and I claimed to have committed small amounts of vandalism to Wikipedia over the course of around 7 years and generally made myself out to be a mean, vicious little shit who had basically crapped on everything you stood for. It's time for me to tell you what actually happened, in the hope of finally clearing the air. I had been working in Germany after leaving the UK, doing a lot of good work and helping to make a lot of children well. This was the life I wanted. The one I hoped and dreamed of. But it had a downside. Within 6 months of starting, I began to have problems with my capacity to operate and have since been removed from active duty as a medic. My mental health has been a great concern to me over the last year - I am being medicated to help my stability and am now receiving voluntary treatment through my local mental health service. I am also no longer based in Germany. I have left my job and returned to the UK to settle down and be near my friends. My blocking on Wikipedia was absolutely nothing to do with vandalism. I never vandalized a damn thing - I confessed a short while after receiving an email from User:Philippe (WMF) that what I'd actually done was nothing more than Suicide by administrator. I was stressed, breaking down and I'd had enough. I couldn't cope with WP, life, work, health... shit got too much. I took my own sword and gave it to someone else to kill me with. I can't say much more to the community other than, I'm sorry I have caused you so much trouble. I will ask to be unblocked, it's unlikely to ever happen, but I would like to make a clean start and come back to a new place and a new me. With warmest regards to the community, BarkingFish Note: The above request has been copied and pasted from BarkingFish's talk page at his request. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC) This should be removed from here and passed to BASC/ArbCom. ANI is not the right place for discussion involving an editor's mental health. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC) In requesting this unblock, the editor has mentioned some personal issues that might have interfered with his past editing. This frankness ought to be beneficial, in theory. But the real question is whether he is capable of proper editing from now on. My suggestion is that one or more admins who have interest in handling unblock requests should enter into a discussion with him on his talk page, to try to define an area in which he might contribute successfully in the future. Or, if it seems that's unlikely to work, they might propose some work on another WMF project to prepare for his return. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Continued addition of uncited ethnicity categories by User:Eruditescholar

The following discussion is closed. 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:Eruditescholar has added many ethnicity-based categories to articles without sources to prove their ethncity. When challenged on these actions, the user claims that the BLP in question's birthplace, national origin and/or names are proof of the person's ethnic origin. When I brought this issue to the talk page of WP:BLP, there was a consensus that we should not add ethnicity articles to pages without proof of that specific persons ethnicity. Despite this consensus, the user continues to edit in the same manner, which is in violation of BLP, IMO.--TM 11:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@TM. This is getting wierd regarding this being an issue with you. First and foremost, I advise you to be careful with what you attribute to other editors and refrain from unwarranted accusations. I have worked with many editors and they don't have any issue with my citations on ethnicity. Ethnicity is diverse and defined by the people it belongs to in several ways across nationalities all over the world. I have made it clear to you how ethnicity is defined in Nigeria especially regarding the predominant ethnic groups: Hausa, Yoruba and Igbo in the discussion at talk page of WP:BLP To re-iterate: Names are an important cultural aspect of ethnic groups in Nigeria and only people from the various ethnic groups use the language of ethnicity for their names. This might look alien to you if you are not African or more specifically, Nigerian. In Nigeria alone, there are over 200 ethnic groups. In many cases of these BLPs they have multiple names from their ethnic group. I usually only cite one of them (either the first or middle name for both sexes and the surname for males). In cases where there are no name sources, I usually find other references to cite their ethnicity. This is usually coupled with the fact that they originate from the cultural region belonging to their ethnic groups. Originating from Nigeria alone gives one approximately a 1/4 chance of having a Yoruba, Igbo or Hausa ethnicity or descent. Almost all the BLPs you previously removed ethnic categories from where undid and recategorized with explanations to clarify and where feasible with citations. Is this not enough to prove that my categorizations are valid? Verifiability is used to establish veracity of articles on Wikipedia and I have not only categorized Nigeria-related articles but others like Americans, Black British, English e.t.c. where feasible with citations. You happen to be the only editor that has been engaged in an edit-war with me and I will recommend that you stick to your American articles and those you have full or sufficient knowledge/information of and keep away from Nigeria-related articles. Eruditescholar (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a continuing problem on Wikipedia. I remember encountering the same issue over and over, years ago. I take it you've read WP:CATEGRS, Eruditescholar? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Eruditescholar, changes to BLPs need to be supported with sources. Looking at the BLPN discussion you linked, it appears you've been told this already. Tiderolls 16:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Eruditescholar, I will respectfully add that your statement indicates you are adding these articles to categories based onOriginal Research, and not on reliable sources that clearly indicate that the person in question is in a particular ethnic category. If so, please reconsider your approach. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• I would also suggest for Eruditescholar to create an article about what they eloquently wrote above. If there are sufficient reliable sources on the subject. It will be a valuable contribution. Besides, having this article and collecting enough references, there will be a possibility compromise, kinda "the third name from the end Mbumbu indicates his possible Mzongo ethnicity" (often seen in historical documents: "The surname Hernández indicates on his possible Spanish descent"). -M.Altenmann >t 16:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Cordless Larry and JoeSperrazza:Thanks for your advice. Wikipedia's criteria for ethnic categorization might not be easily applicable to ethnic groups in Africa, because most ethnic groups in Wikipedia are outside Africa and their ways of identification are different. However as an African (or Nigerian), I think our way of identification should be considered. What I am implying is that I try as much as possible to use reliable sources in lieu of Original Research based on the above ethnic definition which is peculiar to ethnic groups in Nigeria. I have not objected to comments made by editors in talk page of WP:BLP and will try to adhere to it. However what I have a problem with is TM's continual assertion that I persist in uncited ethnic categorizations which I deem untrue. Eruditescholar (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  See also, special pleading. 76.109.38.129 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  Eruditescholar, please consider what people above are saying: it has nothing to do with how these ethnic groups are categorized in Nigeria, or anywhere else. It as to do with providing a reference for what you write in an article. If you write in an article "John Doe is of Igbo ethnicity" then you need to provide a direct reference to a reliable source which ALSO states, in similarly unambiguous terms "John Doe is of Igbo ethnicity". No one is arguing over what it means to be Igbo; what we are telling you is that the burden at Wikipedia to say anything is that it is written somewhere else first, and that you can show people where it is already written. That's the first, last, and only issue here. There is no inherent problem with noting someone's self-identified ethnicity, insofar as it is a relevant aspect of that person's biography. However, before you can note it, you need to provide a reference to support it. That's all. --Jayron32 03:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with WP:CATEGRS but I'm not familiar with ethnic groups in Africa. For the articles and categories I've worked with, WP requires sources that the article subject self-identifies with any ethnicity or religion in order to be categorized as such. This topic is frequently in dispute especially for notable people as different ethnic groups want it noted that a celebrity is part Irish or Croatian or Jewish when the attribution is made through fan blogs, the subject's name or WP:OR, not WP:RS. While most Western editors are likely ignorant of the large variety of ethnic groups in Africa, I think the same standard applies. If the subject is notable, it shouldn't be difficult to find a RS that states their ethnic identification. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Eruditescholar removed this comment from the thread. I think it is highly inappropriate for the user to remove any comments from this thread, given that it is about the user's inappropriate edits.--TM 02:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@TM, There you go again! I was surprised by your accusation that I removed a contributor's comment. After looking at this discussion page's edit history, I observed that it was replaced with my comment which might have been akin to an edit conflict, otherwise it was unintentional. Nothwithstanding, the contributor's comment is still on this discussion and has not been removed, so your accusation is unwarranted. Eruditescholar (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've warned User:Eruditescholar on his talk page, and at my suggestion he has removed the ethnic categorization at the Ike Nwankwo article. This thread can probably be closed, given that the editor is now aware he may be blocked if he adds any more poorly-sourced ethnic categories to BLP articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Ararat arev socking again

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ararat arev Example

166.137.246.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And 166.137.247.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) too. A. Parrot (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And 166.137.246.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I note there have been a couple of range blocks imposed. This guy is playing games with us as he makes his socking obvious, and seems to have an unlimited supply of IP addresses. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

User:1027E canvassing

1027E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is canvassing regarding an AfD discussion. Diff. After warning: Diff. Diff. I think a block might be in order.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please 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.

---

Furan Mulatar (talk · contribs), who is spamming multiple pages, both in article and in userspace? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so that's how NUKE works. Cool. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Mighty Jingles

The following discussion is closed. 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 I get some more eyes (preferably admin) on this page? Apparently the subject mentioned it in a media outlet and it is now being swamped by vandals. I've filed a RFPP but no one has responded yet. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Conduct of Dan56

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

---

Dan56 (talk · contribs)

Topic ban requested.

User repeatedly violates WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, is stubbornly Wikilawyering, and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he willfully pushes his view without considering other editors' input.

• AGF: [305], [306], [307], [308]
• Recent edit warring, & WP:POINT in article editing (in the first diff, he disruptively removes [while I was still improving the section] reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: [309] + my response: [310] + [311]; [312] + [313]; [314] + [315] + [316] + [317]; [318] + [319] + [320] + [321] (←linked to Wikiproject discussion in which he said himself recently it was only a guide)

I'd addressed his behavior in article and talk page with a cordial message on his page, asking him to stop disrupting and start working collaboratively.

I know I have a disadvantage here as Dan56 has promoted many GAs or FAs (reading over ANI, that apparently tends to give you automatic pardon of Wiki guideline violations), but this user has a history of eschewing collaboration, of disruptive and tendentious editing, pushing POV, OWN attitudes, WP:battleground, disrupting editing to make a point, not assuming good faith, genre warring, accusing others of what he is exactly doing or has done, and many editors have called him out on his behavior and editing practices in the past, on various article talk pages (particularly RfCs). Dan56 evidently is not interested in changing his behavior as he feels his promotion of GAs absolves him of any responsibility for his actions and that he's potentially answerable to no one (as his unsanctioned acts would lead him to believe), evidenced, recently, here and here. Most of my encounters with him have been on the band Garbage's articles, at which he arrived about 7 months ago after being canvassed by another editor (who possibly didn't know about the policy then) in a content discussion, and where he willfully employed the same editing tactics and violations he's still willfully and freely employing.

Please see see this relevant RfC here, which is the (recent) source of this dispute, and where much of the aforementioned is evident further. Dan56 does not appear to want to contribute to a collaborative, disruption-free environment at this band's pages, where he has quarreled with me and engaged in all the aforementioned countless times. My request is a topic ban for this band's articles. What he's contributed (e.g., copy edit of reviews, date formats) (by essentially shutting out others, really) can just as easily be and have been contributed by myself or any of the other editors watching the article. And, as I pointed out in the RfC, If Dan56 had actually bothered to give me a minute or two to copy edit and fix issues and continue improving and augmenting the article, as opposed to just reverting and disrupting constructive edits none of that would occur. Of course, that appears to not be in his nature, particularly for these Garbage articles, for which he, going by all prior indication, has a bias against. --Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77 is personalizing a dispute which stems from my involvement at Talk:Garbage (album)#Album genres and the subsequent RfC for those genres, which didn't go Lapadite's way exactly, partly because I was invited by Andrzejbanas to weigh in and sided with him. Last October ([322]), I began cleaning up and expanding a section at Version 2.0 and have been involved there since. My recent revisions to Lapadite's edits were justified by guidelines I don't feel he can fully grasp at the on-going RfC, where he canvassed two of his recent collaborators at other "Garbage" articles to weigh in. Lapadite argued for his version of the article by drawing comparisons to other stuff in the RfC, so I dont believe he had any intention to drastically trim and properly paraphrase the quote farm he added to the article in question. The section in question is essentially complete, considering the notability of the reviewers and the viewpoints researched, so this is appears to be another attempt at creative control. Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Did I mention Dan56 had a history of accusing people of things, never admitting he has done anything wrong, and creating striking lies and misleading statements which are easily refuted by the actual, readable evidence? In that Garbage album RfC, which one can readily see, toward the end, editors called him out on his intentionally misleading tactics (for which he took 0 responsibility for and ignored the comments, and which he again similarly employed in this recent RfC, which I commented on). I created a new poll, because the other was corrupted by Dan56's tactics and lies and more useful content had also been included in the article, with an updated proposal based on recent article edits, and it went smooth and successfully. Exactly the opposite of what he claims here. This accusation - "this is appears to be another attempt at creative control" - and the hypocrisy is utterly laughable. As you can see, in accordance with my report, Dan56 does not believe he does anything wrong. All of the aforementioned, articles and diffs linked, speaks for itself, regardless of how Dan disregards and reinterprets his actions and assumes of others'. If one were to bring all the editors that have called out Dan56 on his disruptive behavior and editing practices throughout various articles they would all agree with this. I don't link to past talk discussions not directly pertaining to this dispute because it may be tacky and doing so might be interpreted negatively but I have no problem doing so if asked. This is far from a personal dispute or vendetta, which I don't care for. You can see my cordial message on his page, and after that Garbage album content dispute he linked, I had very amicably discussed with him on his page some content matters on another article; unlike him, I don't hold grudges and I'm not here for battlegrounds and disruptive practices, only to improve articles. Dan56's presence at this band's articles has been continually disruptive as his POINTy, POV-pushing, OWN, Wikilawyering, NPOV/Stick to sources-eschewal, genre warring (a significant issue during that album article discussion he linked) and lack of collaboration inhibits progress. For instance, If he hadn't disrupted improvement of that article's section (specifically the start of my constructive edits which, as I said in the RfC [contrary to what he too claims here] were far from finished) that section would've been completed right soon and without the need of all that came after it. Of course he credits the current version (which needs a checking of sources and copyediting for POV, cherry picking, sticking to source) to his mighty self, since, liked I stated above, he shut editors out and steamrolled his edits, and while RfC had just started. Again, this isn't the first time here Dan56 inhibits or significantly slows down progress here, takes ownership of an article and disregards collaboration, in the process perpetuating an environment of only disputes (as I remarked near the end of the current RfC I linked: "Is there an RfC that's not a battleground with you? To which he replied, "that's cute and all".). I strongly believe a topic ban is best. --Lapadite (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to file a report here. I recommend including only good evidence in the form of diffs. This thread will likely be closed, by someone else, accordingly. Or do you expect an admin to jump in and block the user per this report? Doc talk 08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I expected admins to comment on ANI and consider the irrefutable content in all the links provided. Why do you think I should file a report there instead? That page says it is inactive, and the topic dispute isn't limited to RfC conduct, it also, and primarily, regards editor conduct on this band's articles, hence my request of a topic ban, and not another kind; WP:TBAN →"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia.". --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another tendentious edit, which I partially restored. --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another tendentious edit and reversal of copyedit/improvements, demonstrating again WP:OWN, POV, and Wikilawyering issues:

I copyedited, as edit summary details: [323]

He wrote, in another section on the talk page, at 10:08: [324] and 2 minutes later, made the following revert (including restoring of his tendentious, NPOV, undue weight-violating ratings replacement [mentioned in the first "Another tendentious edit" diff above]): [325]. The pre-copyediting version (his) that he restored is in many respects cherry picking, giving undue weight, and not sticking to source.

My response to his talk page post: [326])

I sincerely hope what has been provided and continues to be provided (obviously, again Dan56 has no plans to change his habits here) is more than enough to see why I, with reason, request a topic ban for Dan56, due to his considerable, disruptive OWN issues on this band's article, his complete disregard for collaboration, his consistent tendentious editing, knee-jerk reverts of improvements he disagrees with, violations of WP:PRESERVE and all else aforementioned.

Can any admins bother to tend to this thread? All that continues to happen is disruptive and more disruptive editing from Dan56. Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinging a couple of editors, spotted while skimming ANI, that I believe are admins, to see if maybe this could start getting some attention (sorry if you're not one): Drmies, Stalwart111

I understand what Lapadite is saying, as some of my debates with Dan56 were similar in the past, but unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully, where he can come off as rude or abrasive, not its not really bad enough to warrant a block. Unless it starts escalating to personal attacks or hounding, I think a better approach would be to just keep starting discussions or RFC's, to come to a consensus that combats the WP:OWN issues. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the disruptive editing guideline mentions some "tread the line" behaviors these kinds of editors may engage in such as: "Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article". Dan56 doesn't do blunt personal attacks, although others may disagree, and this isn't a report on personal attacks nor a proposal to ban him from editing Wikipedia but a request for a topic ban, to rid of his considerable, still ongoing (after 7 months) pattern of disruption at this band's articles, his considerable OWN and WP:POINTy behavior, and considerable disregard for collaboration. He's still doing it, still reverting. And presumably this guy has many editors not wanting to speak against him, perhaps admins. Pretty much every other thread at ANI has several comments. This is just ridiculous. --Lapadite (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

More tendentious editing: [327] --Lapadite (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Part of Dan56's tendentious edits, is (first mentioned above) the constant replacing of a positive score with a negative score in the album ratings box (which already contains 10 review scores). It has been called out and explained multiple times on the talk page, noted how it's not only tendentious, but violates WP:UNDUE and WP:PRESERVE, but Dan56 keeps restoring it. There's also the persistent claim that reviews that agree on some element of an album are virtually incompatible in that regard in a reception section; summaries of reviews can't include similar opinions, unless of course for something that contradicts positive notions. Any admin's care about this pattern of disruption, OWN and tendentious editing? Seriously, this article would've been completely improved by now if Dan56 hadn't gone (and still continue) on a disruptive, tendentious crusade. --Lapadite (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this thread still open? Dan56 does like to ram a point home when he thinks he's right, the problem with that of course is that sometimes he is right. He's been very helpfully sorting out the "critical response" sections to numerous album articles to the extent that when I start improving one for WP:ALBUMS/500 I look at that and think, "good stuff, Dan's done it". With that in mind I'm just reluctant to come down like a ton of bricks on him. As others have said, he's never crossed the line into personal attacks, so all I can really advise is to just stick to the article and forget about who's saying what. It's the only sane method. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't pretend I've read all of this thread, but I'm not at all surprised to see Dan56's behaviour become the subject of another discussion. Just over a year ago, I talked GabeMc out of opening an RFC/U on this user, when Gabe and several others were fed up with him, and, although I could be wrong, I believe this was the near-miss referred to in a subsequent RfC on Dan56, in August 2014. I chose not to have any input into that discussion either, but the references there to Dan56 being so obviously pro-Robert Christgau and overly controlling of article content were all too familiar. My direct contact with Dan56 has been limited mainly to tedious discussions about album genres at Talk:All Things Must Pass and Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#"Heavy metal album"; I've seen numerous, similar discussions going on over the last year or two – for instance, at Talk:Crime of the Century, Talk:Are You Experienced (can't access the archive for that page), Talk:Sgt. Pepper's – but, quite honestly, just the sight of his username is enough to ward me off, unless I consider speaking up really important. Ritchie's correct when he says that "sometimes he is right", but at the same time, Dan56 behaves as if, by divine right, he must be so at all times – there's no element of compromise, nor any awareness that he might be making working on music articles a miserable experience for others. He drives editors away from the encyclopaedia, I'm convinced of it – and I can't help thinking that's fine by him, if he alone is left working on album articles here.

Doc commented above that Lapadite needed to supply specific diffs rather than launching an unsupported attack. I don't doubt that that's the correct way to proceed, but I sympathise with the frustration that Lapadite seems to be expressing. As Sergecross73 says about Dan 56: "unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully …" So, by and large, everything appears correct per the letter of the law but (I think) at the same time he's continually falling foul of the spirit of Wikipedia – pillars four and five, as I understand them.

Dan56 is the only editor I've ever felt the need to watch, and for all the wrong reasons. I see him constantly laying down the law with new editors and regularly removing the protests that arrive on his talk page, when those editors are not time-wasters but have a case to present. He initiated the removal of terms such as "favourable", "mixed", "unfavourable" from the album reviewer ratings template without (as far as I can see) posting any notice at all on relevant project pages such as Albums or Rock; if those terms have to go in favour of recognised scores and ratings, then fine, but anyone proposing such far-reaching changes, you'd think, would want as broad a consensus as possible. A select few were similarly invited to a proposal on alphabetising album articles' personnel sections (after which Mudwater and I put the word out to a wider audience). To me, along with the other actions mentioned, these are examples of how this user wants to – and does, unfortunately – dominate album articles on the encyclopedia. I don't have bad feelings towards anyone on Wikipedia but I think admins need to address this behaviour. I said to John around the time of an episode in March 2014, it's not just about looking at diffs and specifics, it's about the entire way this user conducts himself on Wikipedia. That's the problem, that's why a thread like this gets opened, and it's why there'll be another one about him within six months. And as I've mentioned, there are other conflicts concerning Dan56 (the January 2014 episode) that don't even get the attention they deserve. JG66 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you hit the nail on the head JG66. That is precisely the grand problem. My frustration is exactly because this concerns a longstanding pattern and is far from the first time Dan56 does this on this band’s articles - which I discussed above. Dan56 certainly has had numerous disputes with other editors on other articles regarding this kind of behavior, and he does immediately delete all objections and warnings he gets from his page, sometimes mocking the editor that leaves a message or asserting his ‘status' (e.g., here and when I left him a disruptive editing notice in September of 2014. I’d actually mentioned a few of those past disputes, admittedly inappropriately, out of frustration, in that Garbage album talk page (inside the “off topic” shell) he linked in his post here. If what admins need is more proof of Dan56’s pattern of disruption I personally and perhaps others would have no problem linking several examples there and elsewhere. But like I said before, this is a topic ban proposal for this bands’ articles as my own interactions with Dan56 have mostly been there, and his constant disruption, disregard for collaboration, and POV pushing there is intolerable at this point. The problem is Dan56, as usual, might temporarily stop his overtly tendentious disruption and then start up later after ANI thread is closed, but especially if objecting editors leave the article. Like JG66 said, It will certainly reemerge, again (like it did months after the last album dispute); editors like Dan56 who don’t get sanctioned for their disruptive actions never learn and change; obviously they'd have nothing to learn from since, as they mask POINTy, OWN and tendentious behavior largely through Wikilawyering and 'status', hiding behind it and professing no wrong doing (others are at fault and personalizing), they normally don't see consequences, beyond a ‘don’t do it again’ slap on the wrist. In fact, the lack of consequences only reinforces that behavior. I’ve personally stopped improving this particular article, at least temporarily, as I find it futile; only thing I'm still doing is restoring Dan56's tendentious, POV edits/his inability to stick to source when it doesn't suit his bias. Like JG66 mentioned, Dan56 likes to appropriate an article, shutting out others who object to his editing practices, wanting to be left to his own devices. Other editors in the past have noted how he edits tendentiously on articles of artists he does not like, but he also edits tendentiously on artists he does like (for example, the reception section of this album - an article he wrote, and fixed after much FA dispute [ironically, concerning things of which he has accused others]). You can see this in his comments in both talk pages initially linked here. I don’t know how many more diffs from this particular article are needed; figured I’d linked enough and was already tired of linking as the thread received no comments. The page history is plenty evidence of how much revert/restoring happened there as a result. Much of that has been linked here, as well as the talk page discussion.

In the recent RfC that I'd linked, the three editors that responded clearly want nothing to do with the dispute, understandably. At the start of the RfC you can see that one editor noted the inappropriateness of removing the initial reviews I’d added from the album ratings box ("simply removing everything Lapadite added seems drastic"). I'd be shocked that anyone would agree with Dan56’s egregious behavior unless they’ve agreed with Dan’s POV editing in the past. That he may be “sometimes right” - everyone is at least “sometimes right” at some point - does not remotely null or invalidate his history of disputes and disruption, disruption at this band’s articles, or any he makes in the future there and elsewhere. --Lapadite (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

More, under false pretexts: [328], [329]. For how long would this need to go on? 5, 10 revision history pages? Lapadite (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan56 apparently went on overdrive instead; More again, this being the first of multiple edits largely of the same nature as previous ones and as described above (his edit summary merely repeating what I stated in the previous edit): [330]. Restored by me here, with some fixes and additions on further edits. --Lapadite (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Action needed here; proposal

• Dan56 was the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56 in October 2014, which (despite the stricken participation of a sock) was closed by Beeblebrox with findings that Dan56 be reminded of WP:COPYVIO, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN.
• AN/I threads involving Dan26 after his RFC: [331], [332]

This is a complex case that I think is headed to ArbCom if it doesn't get resolved here. I have observed Dan56 in many places (he's difficult to miss if you work on any music articles) but I assert that the primary sources of his conflicts on Wikipedia are: plagiarism, music reviews, and music genres. I will attempt to concisely demonstrate that Dan has continued to exhibit problems with WP:COPYVIO, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN pursuant to these three items since his RFC, and then propose a remedy in an attempt to avoid ArbCom.

You haven't concisely demonstrated anything. If anything, you've barely inspected what flimsy evidence you provided below. Also, the second AN/I thread you cited above was opened by a frustrated, genre-warring IP, since blocked for being the sock I suspected. You're building a flimsy case just to draw more attention to me, simply to have some action done to me. Also, since my RfC, I fixed the close paraphrasing issues at Talk:Of Human Feelings and performed source checks before I reopened its FAC. I haven't exhibited any problems with WP:COPYVIO since then. Dan56 (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I last interacted with Dan56 directly at this FAC where 3 different editors expressed concern about plagiarism and close paraphrasing in his writing. I was surprised by his aggressive and uncivil response to such concerns, and to my own concerns. By the second nomination, I had given up dealing with him and so had anyone else who initially offered constructive criticism. He then asked for it to be withdrawn, saying it was "tainted" because he believed one of the objectors to be a sock. Rather than conceding that Rationalobserver had any legitimate objections to his nomination, he accused her of being a sock with a grudge against him who was only opposing his nomination out of spite. He succeeding in getting Rationalobserver blocked as a sock of Jazzerino (talk · contribs), which was later demonstrated incorrect. However, Dan56 edit warred to maintain a note in the second FAC nomination calling Rationalobserver a sock. I will note that Rationalobserver will not be commenting here because she actually agreed to an interaction ban with Dan56 to demonstrate that she wasn't here just to harass him. I will also add that I thought it was sneaky that Dan56 opened this second nomination and notified several editors, but specifically did not notify the editors who opposed the first one.

The situation at Xx (album) demonstrates that the plagiarism problem has continued despite the RFC, and demonstrates how Dan56 reacts to normal constructive criticism in this realm.

I stand %100 by my suspicions and what I had to say on that matter, a matter which I did not provide the deciding evidence but @Mike V: had, who then offered this cryptic explanation as to why that decision was overturned, NOT that it was "incorrect"--it'd be great for the purposes of this insulting thread that you get your facts straight about the situations and disputes you decide to use as "evidence" here, because I feel you're painting an inaccurate picture of that situation in broad strokes. I find it equally dubious that you pretend to forget I responded to what you claim as finding "sneaky" at that FAC page. You're forcing me to explain and discuss a dispute I've been warned not to, so it's incumbent upon you not to misrepresent it. Btw, you do realize I have an open FAC for Of Human Feelings where I "reacted to normal constructive criticism"? Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Music reviews

One of the constant sources of conflict for Dan56 is his interminable addition and removal of music album ratings and reviews to suit his personal opinion, many times with a fixation on Robert Christgau. Lapadite77 provided diffs above for recent conflicts involving reviews and ratings at Garbage-related articles. I'm concerned that Dan cherry-picks and promotes/demotes sources to back up his preferred vision for how the reviews and rating should be reflected. Here is a good example of his removing a source he doesn't like under an unclear and disingenuous edit summary. You would think he was simply adding Newsweek and NME, but he is also removing a source he has argued against without clear rationale or consensus. These are clear WP:OWN violations post-RFC.

I'm tired of having to defend myself against this type of nonsense. Being as active and involved as I am means you're going to butt heads with some fancruft and POV-driven editors from time to time, but I'm offended by your accusation that I add or remove ratings or reviews based on my personal opinion--on one hand you say I'm fixated on Robert Christgau, yet support Lapadite77's assertion that I have a negative opinion of an album (article) which Christgau gave a positive review of? I addressed and explained my role in this "Garbage-related" dispute already in my comment above on 3 February. Furthermore, your above example demonstrates what a flimsy case you are making--did you bother to read anything at the article's talk page where the review sources were being discussed?... because that edit was made when I made a case for a source I had originally added be removed in favor of obviously more notable sources per MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception. Either make a close inspection of this dispute--that article's talk page, each editor's edit summaries and arguments--or don't bother slinging vague accusations of ownership at me when the same could and should be said about the other guy (WP:BOOMERANG). The burden is on you to read through Talk:Version 2.0#Revisions to Critical reception and the corresponding revisions made to the article during that discussion, if you're to introduce it here as some kind of evidence of disruptive editing made on my part. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This, for the record, is emblematic of the ownership issues exhibited by Lapadite77 on Garbage-related articles, articles I hardly care about, with the exception of Version 2.0, whose Critical reception I took upon myself to improve and expand starting last October, with (take a guess)... positive reviews! ([333]) But then I continued my research and found reviews not to the liking of Lapadite77. Dan56 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Music genres

Again for anyone editing music articles, you will see Dan56 all over your watchlist because he reverts anonymous and established editors who attempt to alter the genres on any article he watches, without any rationale or explanation. This is well-documented in his RFC, and he has continued the behavior despite the RFC findings. You needn't go further than the first page of his contributions to find him reverting genre changes calling them vandalism ("rvv"). Most of the time he's changing one unsourced genre to another. This violates WP:BITE (calling people's good-faith contributions vandalism) and WP:OWN (attempting to control the genres on large selections of articles without sources or discussion).

Untrue. Also, the link you provided is my revision restoring the genre sourced in the body of the article. With what I've contributed to Wikipedia, including the improvements I stand by at Version 2.0, I deserve for my accusers to get their facts straight rather than relying on their impression of isolated disputes I've been involved in. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solutions

We need some help here. Beeblebrox, since you closed the RFC, perhaps you can be of some assistance in putting this to bed. I don't think any progress has been made since the RFC. Therefore, I propose the following:

1. Dan56 is required to solicit an independent plagiarism review for any article he's developing before nominating it for either GA or FA status.
2. Dan56 is prohibited from editing reviews or ratings on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status.
3. Dan56 is prohibited from adding, removing, or changing genres on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The genre warring too characteristic of past dispute at the album Garbage article. I support the proposed solutions, especially the second and third. However, Dan56 could just use the 'preparing article' as a pretext, augmenting the OWN and WP:POINT issues. --Lapadite (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Dan56 characterizes the aforementioned as "isolated disputes". Let's see, a scan through the ANI archives of the past year also brings up: [334]; [335]; [336], where an editor who initially disagreed with the OP of the report said:

"All that said, I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Wikipedia doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers ... I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Wikipedia is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers. Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly)."

and [337], where Dan56 is reminded: "I see the changes as improvements, albeit minor ones. Just because the article is an FA, does not mean that it cannot be improved or changed for the better. Please remember it is a collaborative project, repeatedly templating good faith editors is just not good practice and often invites a hostile response." --Lapadite (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Both the report and the ANI threads you are referring to involve editors who were found to be sock puppets or IPs evading a block--Harmelodix and 5.81.225.225. Just like in your research for the articles you edit, you haven't critically assessed the sources for the case you are trying to make and instead are relying on making a lot of noise with weak evidence in hopes that whoever makes a decision on this matter wont carefully look through it. Dan56 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan's insubstantial, retaliation claims shtick was addressed in the talk page here, where he first professed them. On that note, again the start of more disruption and WP:TE of the same from Dan56, likewise just mimicking my previous restore edit summary (mentioned in above section). Does he care, think he's at fault in anything, or believe he will see any real consequences? Clearly not. He is still reverting what has already been called out for multiple guideline-violations or cleared up on the talk page. Given the nature of some of the content in this subsection created by Spike Wilbury, I'd remind that after the first disagreement and dispute with Dan56 at this article he too accused me of Wikihounding (addressed here), as previously noted in the first post of this ANI thread. --Lapadite (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Shtick"? That's cute, you used a word from the Newsweek review you've removed numerous times without explanation. And on that note, the start of more "disruption and WP:TE of the same" from Lapadite77, who is still reverting after having been called out for multiple guideline-violations or cleared up on the talk page. Given the nature of this insulting thread, I'd like to bring up the fact that Lapadite made these edits here while editing had grown hot and tempered between us at Version 2.0. In any case, I've opened multiple RfCs now at the article's talk page, because Lapadite is showing little civility or competence concerning the guidelines his edits are violating. Dan56 (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It is clear Dan56 is merely repeating exactly what I've said to him regarding his gross guideline-violating behavior and edits, on talk page and edit summaries, and projecting exactly what he's been accused of doing. Everything is on the talk page and page history, and detailed above. Dan56 opened two more RfCs (with multiple misleading statements, unsurprisingly) and restored his WP:TE, WP:POV, possibly WP:OR edit again, which was questioned and challenged on the talk page; one of his reverts states: "unexplained removal", which is not the case and is something one of the editors quoted above from a past ANI questions Dan56 on *. It is beyond clear, from all that has been discussed and linked, how much WP:OWN is exhibited, and how disruptive, biased, and uncollaborative Dan56 is; particularly at this band's articles. He has been called out and warned multiple times on various talk pages and ANIs before, and, looking through ANI, edit warring, and SPI archives, Dan56 appears to been been blocked multiple times in the past for disruptive behaviors, largely edit warring. It is clear he has not learned and has no plans to. Nor does he appear to have read the entire ANI thread as I pointed out more than once his lack of ASG and baseless accusation of Wikihounding, which, like I'd said. and linked, was addressed on the talk page.

* An editor's comments from a past ANI thread are relevant here again:

I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Wikipedia doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers ... I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Wikipedia is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers. Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly)."

--Lapadite (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No one has questioned what Lapadite calls my "WP:TE, WP:POV, possibly WP:OR edit" other than Lapadite himself, who has been the one accusing me of tedious or tendentious editing at Version 2.0 since the content dispute began. After I had opened the first RfC there, he canvassed other editors who had worked with him on other "Garbage-related" articles ([338], [339]). His most recent "unexplained removal" that he is referring to is his removal of text expressing criticism of the article's topic from The Times and NME magazine, a removal he did not explain in any way, either in an edit summary or at the talk page. I don't understand why he continues to refer to the sockpuppet case of Harmelodix, who was in fact found to make tedious GNOME-like edits at good/featured articles I had either created or promoted. Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this thread, it's nothing new for a disgruntled editor whose edits have been disputed to accuse those disputing his edits of disruptive editing and edit warring at an ANI thread. In fact, Lapadite's done it before, here and here, where he accused Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) of ownership and edit warring at, you guessed it, a "Garbage-related" article. Before Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) invited me to a discussion at one, I had no interest in Garbage articles. I regret having the idea of improving Version 2.0 because of having to interact with such fan-fueled ownership on the part of Lapadite, but all this crap he's flinging at my character and motives doesn't obligate me to bow out. Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

More projecting from Dan56, like I noted at the beginning of the ANI, throwing out accusations and (laughably) claiming things of which he is guilty. How predictable; randomly citing the two times I've posted on ANI - one seeking resolution on an article tag dispute after reverts of by two editors who were uncivil, the other, reporting an editor's edit warring on an article, as one can clearly see. On the other hand, one can see from all aforementioned part of Dan's history of being the subject of ANI and other disputes, regarding various articles and various editors, as well as his block history. Obviously Dan56 is "disgruntled" with and inconvenienced by having another ANI report on him, and the possibility of actual consequences, such as a topic ban or the aforementioned by Spike Wilbury, which then won't allow him to freely and persistently subject others to his WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:EW disruptive behavior on selected articles. See how he's continued engaging in all the aforementioned while the ANI is opened, but arguably to a less degree than before the report; I can imagine his drive after it is closed if nothing were to come of it. More WP:TE from Dan56, also misrepresenting a tag: [340] --Lapadite (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO, Lapadite's only concern in this thread is removing my presence from Version 2.0 so he can develop that article to suit his preferences (WP:OWN), by any means necessary. Dan56 (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And again, which is, in actuality, precisely Dan56's concern and source for being "disgruntled" at this ANI and his retaliation claims. --Lapadite (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

In reference to Lapadite's accusation that I "misrepresented a tag", he is not being truthful. this diff clearly shows he added a "failed verification" tag without good reason, to which I responded in my following revision and removed the tag. He then added a different tag, albeit with the edit summary "Undid revision by Dan56", and is now falsely accusing me of misrepresenting it. He added a "failed verification" tag, and I responded to it in my revert. Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan56 lies and misleads again; The actual order is as follows: I added the 'failed verification' tag (6:02), changed it to the appropriate one (6:49), then many hours and edits later, Dan56 removed the tag, misrepresenting it as the old one that was replaced (19:28).

He's also edit warred again, whilst violating BRD during another RFC he opened: [341], [342], my talk page comment --Lapadite (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Also, you removing my original addition of prose from NME's review and then choosing to revise it after I had restored what you'd reverted doesn't make your revised version the original. Dan56 (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Responding to Dan56's initial edit, which was replaced by the one above; Another frankly pathetic projection of what Dan himself has been called out on multiple times, by various editors. Dan56 also said this on the talk page. Notice how he also sidestepped evidence of his lies. Dan56, re the above, you need to respond on the talk page, not here. That is not the case at all, and I suggest you read WP:BRD thoroughly. --Lapadite (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That Wikihounding accusation Dan56 made and linked to (as did I initially) on articles Coexist (album) and Xx (album)? Now, Dan56 has reverted the two edits made by me which he formerly agreed with → revert #1 , revert #2. Did I not mention the retaliation, hypocrisy and projection of his own behaviors? --Lapadite (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Problem is, ANI is for incidents, not behavior. The RfC on Dan, mentioned above and available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56, was railroaded by a sock, but as closer Beeblebrox mentioned, there were legitimate concerns there, and a shortlist of recommendations. We've done away with the RfC/U process, of course, and I don't know what it is replaced with, but RfC/Us were precisely for these kinds of situations, for patterns of behavior that indicate disruption of one kind or another without crossing the boundary of CIVIL, for instance, or EW. I'm not familiar with the editor who filed the claim here, but I am with Ritchie333, whose opinion I value, and JG66 has a slew of GAs and doesn't seem to have fallen off a turnip truck. Dan56, I strongly urge you to make a substantive comment here, not just a repartee of an individual comment by Lapadite. Because it is possible that an admin in a foul mood comes by here and says, hmm, yes, longterm issues of OWNership and favoritism of this source over that, BITEyness of new editors, borderline edit warring, canvassing and copyright issues, hmm already suggested by an RfC going back a half a year and still happening--perhaps some action is warranted. I'm not going to be that admin since I think the good outweighs the bad, and you do a lot of good stuff around here, but sheesh Dan, please address the actual criticism. You may not want to be a teamplayer, but you simply have to be. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Drmies. The problem is that, Dan56 merely getting just another slap on the wrist, another "be a team player, don't do it again". As he has shown and actually implied himself countless times, he has no plans to change his disruptive editing practices and behavior. The conglomerate of evidence presented is unequivocal, the long pattern of disruption and disputes unequivocal, the number of editors in the past speaking out against Dan56's behavior unequivocal, and yet because Dan56 has promoted some GAs and FAs (I'm sure given his history, appropriating articles himself) or has some admin connection, there's hesitation? If this were an IP, or a new editor, they would have been sanctioned, blocked or topic banned right quickly. I've edited collaboratively with multiple editors from various Wikiprojects who've written and promoted multiple GAs and FAs and have never had any problems with any of them; they actually work collaboratively, are civil and uphold guidelines, and don't hide behind some 'status' to go on doing as they please where they please. 'Status'/WP accomplishments doesn't and shouldn't give one a free pass for such egregious editing behavior. WP:HERE, WP:NOTHERE. Drmies, ANI appears to be the only place to report this, something that isn't remotely an isolated incident. See Dan56's hypocritical, laughable, projecting claim above: "IMO, Lapadite's only concern in this thread is removing my presence from Version 2.0 so he can develop that article to suit his preferences (WP:OWN), by any means necessary" - speaks volumes. I mean what more is there to say, beyond more corroboration and more links? Admins either disregard (thereby implicitly validating) this long pattern of WP:DIS, WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:POINT, WP:BITE, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:Wikilawyering, WP:HOUND, not WP:AGF (e.g., [343]; [344], [345], [346], [347], [348]), WP:POV, WP:GWAR +, or they actually decide to take long due action. --Lapadite (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite, I don't know what to tell you. I'm somewhat on the fence and since I participated in the RfC I'm hardly uninvolved, even if I did know what to do here. This needs more eyes, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Dan56 - I will say again what I said six months ago, and what User:Drmies alluded to four months ago. There is a counter-intuitive aspect to extremely possessive involvement with articles or with the characterization of their genres. You have been so heavily involved in some articles that you risk losing the ability to be involved with them at all, because Wikipedia does not allow an editor to assume ownership of articles. A common response to article ownership attitudes is a topic ban, and you risk being topic-banned from music articles. I warned you of that six months ago. I won't make the proposal to impose that ban at this time, but I don't see a positive or collaborative response by you, and I am likely to support a proposal by another editor to impose a topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This thread has gone on for more than a week, and it is time either to consider a topic-ban or to close the thread with one final warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You might find an uninvolved admin by posting on AN. Sadly TParis left us--that's one fewer admin who wasn't afraid to jump in and cut Gordian knots. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, is it appropriate to post this on AN? The noticeboard says: "If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead." I think, if uninvolved admins aren't available and this is unresolved then ArbCom would be the final step. --Lapadite (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Lapadite77 - Yes. Yes, I will explain. Your reading is correct that this board is for specific issues and disputes, and this is a specific issue or dispute; but User:Drmies was suggesting that a request for formal closure of this thread be posted to WP:AN, not that this thread be restarted on AN. This thread has gone on for more than a week, and is getting nowhere. You are continuing to dump about Dan56's article ownership, with which I agree, and about Dan56's copyright issues, which I haven't looked at, but have not taken the time to make a formal proposal. You are just venting, and are continuing to engage in personal attacks. (Yes, it is still a personal attack to say that an editor is lying.) At the same time, Dan56 is continuing to restate his issues with the editing by other editors and to say that there are other bad editors who are worse. Since you, Lapadite77, won't make a formal proposal for a topic-ban, this thread is just wasting pixels. What is now needed is a request for formal closure of this thread, which has degenerated to just two editors dumping on each other. It probably will end in another final warning to Dan56, and it should also end in a warning to you, Lapadite77, about accusations of lying. This thread needs formal closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Right: AN is the place to find a sucker admin willing to read this over and close it. I do think that Robert McClenon has a valid point, that this is devolving into little more than namecalling: "more heat than light" is likely a phrase used by a closing administrator, and that's kind of a shame. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmies; Robert McClenon, I'd hoped you had read the entire ANI thread as I did formally request a topic ban, and direct evidence (Diffs) was provided of Dan56's lies. I was not asking if the thread should be reposted on AN but if it would be appropriate to ask for admin input there on an ANI incident (I'm not familiar with it). This has gone on for however long it has gone on because no admin has cared enough to do anything about it. The reason there's been a "back and forth" here is precisely because Dan56 has decided, instead of giving a substantive response, to throw out baseless accusations and retaliation claims; and I respond to such, otherwise normally a lie unanswered to is a lie confirmed. So you're suggesting because nothing has been done, that it should just be closed, with a warning for both of us? Another warning for Dan56, and a warning for me for bring up editing abuse by an editor that has been the subject of numerous similar disputes, from various editors? It's just another confirmation that regardless of how much evidence provided, however many diffs, points laid out, specific action requested, ANI is essentially useless and editors like this are given free will to do as they please, disrupting where they please, driving editors away, as I'd been suggested by others. Very constructive to Wikipedia. Dan56 has restarted edit warring and POV pushing on the article in question (Version 2.0) - e.g., removing positive reviews from reliable sources and refusing to provide verification of a citation/source he found online and didn't access himself - , and without discussion, without waiting for Rfc response, anything: [349]. So the expected thing is: edit warring continues, and nothing happens? --Lapadite (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I see that you, User:Lapadite77, did include a request for a topic-ban in your post above that was too long, difficult to read. You buried it in there with a dump. If you had provided a heading requesting a topic-ban, you might have gotten Support comments, but you expected that everyone would read its whole length. In a fairer world, we would have read it, and you wouldn't have posted it, and you might have been blocked for the accusation of lying. (Even if you know with 100% certainty that Dan56 is making incorrect statements, can you read his mind to know that he knows that they are incorrect? If not, saying that he is lying is a personal attack.) I have taken the advice of Drmies and requested closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I'm not familiar with proper protocol here. You're right it was muddled in explanations. I'll add it to the heading for what it's worth. I see you had already requested closure on AN. --Lapadite (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), unless you take a considerate and meaningful look into whatever disputes or "evidence" brought up in this thread, including the pathetic example posted under "Music genres" which I exposed in my response to it, then I don't feel the need to dignify this thread any longer. If you're interested in editors who exhibit ownership attitudes, then refer to this AN/I thread below, where Lapadite has responded by throwing the same accusations (WP:OWN, tendentious editing, etc.) at Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs). Dan56 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan56 is misrepresenting again. Homeostasis isn't a random editor that reported me, Homeostasis was with Dan56 in the past dispute at a Garbage article, doing the exact same thing Dan56 was doing (all in the links provided here), albeit to a lesser degree there (Dan56 really had it covered). He was reported by me for edit warring for tendentious editing on another of that band's article in October 2014 (which was linked here and in the report below). I haven't had any interaction with him since; he's disgruntled about this report (which he mentions), and the only thing he's doing is retaliating, accusing me of the things Dan56 is reported for here using the same links used here, sticking up for his likeminded ally there, and engaging in 'character assassination'. Like I said there, just a baseless retaliation report; And that is the kind of thing that would warrant a warning for the editor who posted it. --Lapadite (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

^ An absolutely ridiculous and misrepresenting summation of events. I was never "with" Dan56, I merely opposed Lapadite77's proposal here, since then I've stayed well clear of this mess. Here is the bogus edit warring report Lapadite filed against me in October (nothing to do with "tendentiousness", like he's trying to suggest). As you can see, it was dismissed as "no violation", that still didn't stop him complaining to the closing admin. I'm surprised @Robert McClenon: and @Drmies: have reacted to Dan56 the way they have. If you actually delve in to what Lapadite is posting, you'd see some serious skewing and misrepresentation of the entire situation. The links Lapadite77 posted here to demonstrate Dan56's "long pattern of WP:DIS, WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:POINT, WP:BITE, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:Wikilawyering, WP:HOUND, not WP:AGF" were in fact Dan reverting genuine vandalism. At least he attempted to post some diff's this time. He usually just calls you "tendentious" and accuses you of Cherrypicking, OWN, NPOV and OR without ever providing a diff. Lapadite77 has a seriously unhealthy attitude towards contributing to Wikipedia, and this entire situation stems from it. He has a huge "me-against-the-world" mentality. Instead of discussing something decently, he immediately accuses opposing editors of all sorts of things - pick a WP:, any WP: - and has demonstrated Badfaith and lacked Civility at every turn. And despite FOUR separate RfC's at Talk:Version 2.0, he is still edit warring there. Action of some kind would be appreciated either here or here, because the level of disruption [350] is ridiculous. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What a joke. One can see just how biased Homeostasis is when he deems my recent linking of Dan56's continued overt edit warring at the Version 2.0 article (again clear POV-pushing, and tendentious editing, such as removal of positive reviews from reliable sources, refusing to provide verifiable citation/source, as stated in the diffs there) to be evidence of edit warring on my part, not his. He has not and does not at all disagree with Dan56's tendentious editing and OWN behavior, nor his edit warring (which he himself has evidently engaged in in the past) at that bands articles of course. See how he, like Dan, just repeats the exact language I've used in my report on Dan56 on the baseless accusations fest in which he's instilled himself. Unlike what he claims, Homeostasis is not remotely just a random editor that stumbled upon the rfc from that Garbage (album) dispute linked and "merely opposed" a proposal from me on that article (which was, unlike what both have claimed, and as one can easily see toward the end of it, successful); we had had a disagreement before, and he showed on the talk page of another of this bands articles that he has a bias against that band. That was the subject of the edit warring report I opened on him in October 2014, which he calls "bogus" as the admin that closed it deemed the edit warring no violation because it was a 'content dispute'. In the Garbage (album) talk dispute he and Dan56 linked, he had accused me (out of all the other editors there) multiple times of being an IP that was making unwanted edits on the article. If admins care for this particular, involved dispute from Homeostasis, I have no problem providing the diffs for all I've mentioned. Until then, this is merely a pointless, redundant, vendetta-driven series of ranting posts from an editor that has nothing to do with this particular report but is just disgruntled that Dan56, whom he supports, is being reported, by me. As Robert McClenon had suggested above, this is the kind of thing that does warrant a warning for the editor. --Lapadite (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur's Alternative Proposal

Since this thead is way over the TL:DR threshold, I suggest we reset it with some basic ground rules.

1. Lapadite77 come up with a short and concise posting explaining the problem, what supporting documentation they have (diffs only, no editorializing), and what resolution they seek from Dan56.
2. Dan56 responds in 1 section without cutting up Lapadite77's comments explaining what mitigating circumstances may be present.
3. Both "disputants" then step back and not post unless specific questions are directed at them (probably via {{U}} pings).
4. The community at large reviews the issues at hand and decides what the best way to resolve this dispute that has passed over from content to conduct disruption.

Please feel free to comment, but I'm frankly sick and tired of raging back and forth with no resolution. Hasteur (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of report - In an attempt to gather from months of exceedingly disruptive pattern of editing culminating on the article in question, Version 2.0 (an album from the band Garbage), primary points are presented in the following:

·Proposal – Topic ban for Dan56 (talk · contribs), from Garbage articles, or, as proposed by others, from editing/reverting music reviews, ratings and genres on music articles.
·Reason – repeatedly and willfully violates multiple guidelines and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he deliberately pushes his view whilst disregarding other editors' input. Long-standing violations of WP:OWN, WP:POINT, WP:DIS, WP:TEND, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:NPOV, WP:COLLAB, WP:BRD, WP:WAR, WP:GWAR, WP:AGF, WP:LAWYERING, WP:HOUND (Dan56 has also been denounced for WP:BITE and WP:COPYVIO in the past, pointed out by an editor who commented here, Spike Wilbury), and zero indication Dan56 has ever had or has any plans to change (WP:HERE, WP:NOTHERE), which he himself has implied more than once (e.g., [351], [352], [353], [354])
·Some diffs (far too many to list all, but not opposed to presenting more if asked) – largely taken from posts throughout this thread:

• AGF: [355], [356], [357], [358]; adressed here and here
• "Hounding": [359]
• WP:TEND, WP:POINT, WP:POV, Cherry picking, edit warring, in article editing (in the first diff, disruptively removes [while I was still improving the section] reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: [360] + [361] + [362]; [363] + [364]; [365] + [366] + [367] + [368]; [369] + [370] + [371] + [372]; [373], [374]/[375], [376], [377], [378], [379], [380], [381], [382], [383], [384]; [385], [386], [387]; [388] + [389] + [390], [391]; [392], [393], [394]; [395] + [396], [397], [398], [399], [400], [401], [402], [403], [404]; [405]

Talk page where 'discussion'/lack of collaboration took place: RfC sections, and the section above them. Past band album article where the same, all of the above behavior (including genre warring), was exhibited (about 7 months): 6th - 7.2 sections

Summary of the above sections of this report — Diffs are spread out and generally contextualized throughout this report. Dan56, in response and throughout out a back and forth, would repeat the same language and points I did in my report in retaliation with inaccurate accusations (which he also did in article diffs, some linked above). I called him out on lying/misrepresenting in the following, with evidence (which he then sidestepped, changing the subject): [406] → [407], [408], [409]; [410] → [411] → [412], [413] → [414]. Dan56 accuses me precisely of what his motives evidently are: [415]; [416]. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) - an editor that has nothing to do with this report, but is involved and entirely biased as (a)he had participated with Dan56, supporting his WP:TE, POV editing, in a past dispute at one of this band's articles, (b)has had prior disputes with me regarding the same issues at this band's articles, (b)was reported by me for edit warring through persistent, repetitive WP:TE on one of this band's articles in October of 2014 - then began making 'character assassination' posts on me on ANI, using the same language and points I did in this report through inaccurate and baseless accusations against me, because he is disgruntled Dan56 is reported, by me in particular, for doing doings he's supported at this band's articles.
I can provide more diffs or further explanation/clarification of anything if needed. The Version 2.0 revision history along with its talk page revision history is notable.

Spike Wilbury created a subsection above further elaborating on some of Dan56's past disputes and initiating a proposal; JG66 also commented on Dan56's history. An admin, User:Drmies, commented above, but said they are/were in some way involved therefore will not make a verdict. User:Robert McClenon, who commented above, asked on AN (February 2) for an uninvolved admin and closure.
Pinging editors that have publicly commented on this report: Ritchie333, JG66, Spike Wilbury, Drmies, Robert McClenon, Hasteur. --Lapadite (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Come on, really? Does that response really strike you as "short and concise"? You're shooting yourself in the foot every time you write a massive wall of text like that - you're scaring away people because they don't want to search through all of that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sergecross73, Concise means brief but comprehensive; all the relevant, primary points of the report were summarized above, succinctly. Are you telling me admins are unable to click on diffs and read the subsequent two short paragraphs? That this report is invalid or useless because there are too many parts to the issue? Like other editors above remarked, this is a complex, perennial issue, and it can't be summarized in just 2 or 3 sentences or a few random diffs. What was said by other editors in the report I believe needed to be summarized as well in order for it to be a concise representation of the report, of the issues presented. Sergecross73, you're an admin, why haven't you at least commented on this matter? Lapadite (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm telling you we're all volunteers here, and like all writers, you need to to write to keep the interest of the reader. People's eyes just glaze over when you write these excessively long entries. You're writing to humans, not machines. Humans who have time and motivational constraints. Write me off all you want, it's pretty obvious you're going about this all wrong, or this discussion wouldn't be running past the 2 week mark now. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Just asked why you hadn't commented on it. I don't know how any of this is interesting really, or could be presented interestingly. Nothing in this section is 'excessively long' though; there's a Proposal statement, a Reason statement, Diffs linked, and then two short paragraphs. I gather that editors here simply don't care to pay attention to the points and diffs given, disregarding the obvious fact that this isn't a one-time incident warranting two or three diffs and sentences. Do ask yourself, if this were an IP being reported for long-standing disruption would this have gone on as long? --Lapadite (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you missed my point. Maybe sub in "attention span" for "interest" and you'll get what I'm saying a little better? Anyways, I did respond to you, 2 weeks ago, when it all began. I don't like or approve of Dan56's interactions with others, but based on past precedent, it still manages to fall on the side of what we tend to tolerate. It falls more into "rude" than outright personal attacks or being uncivil. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I get what you're saying. I'm saying I see no way to trim the summary without leaving out pertinent points representing the ANI report. Sorry, you're right, I see that you did comment (didn't see it when I skimmed through the thread). This report wasn't and isn't at all about personal attacks though. I'd said myself, agreeing with your first comment, that Dan56 "treads the line" carefully in his disruptive, tendentious editing, even if he does fail to assume good faith many times, as linked above. That's the problem I see, that this deliberate "tread the line" behavior over however many months is tolerated here without consequence merely because he isn't overtly uncivil. The only thing that will follow is more tendentious edit warring from Dan56 (which has continued), disregarding guidelines and others' input. I'm sure when he's the subject of another dispute/report again, he will again be implicitly validated through lack of action. --Lapadite (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that this "is not about personal attacks" is exactly my point - much of the time, action isn't taken until things have escalated to that point. Like I said, I certainly don't personally like Dan56's actions, and I won't stand in the way of anyone who wants to take administrative action against him, I just don't think anything warranted yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but with the best will in the world, all my brain can parse is "blah blah blah Dan56 blah Dan56 blah blah WP:WALLOFDIFFS Dan56". If things are that bad, and the RfC hasn't had any effect, then the only thing left that I can suggest is an Arbcom case. I'll reiterate that I've never really had a problem with Dan and his ability to stop an album infobox going from "Category: Rock" to "Category: Rock, Art Rock, Experimental Rock, Weird Rock, Shoegazing Rock, Uneasy Listening, WP:GARAGE Rock" is very much appreciated. Actually, having had a look at Version 2.0's history, an interaction ban between Dan56 and Lapadite77 might be another answer - if they both work away from each other on something else, it'll stop this thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes you said in an above section that you personally don't find Dan56 to be disruptive because you've agreed with some of his edits in the past. I do find it interesting that you deliberately disregard "wall of diffs" here. Regarding your genres claim, Dan56, as discussed on this ANI thread, has genre warred multiple times on music articles (including this band's), and the genres presently in the infobox of Version 2.0 (6) were all added by Dan56; I haven't touched the infobox of that article. If the reaction to all disputes on Dan56's disruptive editing on music articles he takes ownership of is some interaction ban between Dan56 and the editor that reports him then that is troubling. The implication here is beyond troubling: Dan56 shows no wrong doing in 7-month long OWN, tendentious, disruptive editing at this band's articles, and the editor reporting him is only ranting incoherently and should be IB'd so Dan56 continues doing as he pleases. --Lapadite (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lapadite: I have to echo the message from some of the recent posts. I was intending to jump in after Sergecross73 a few hours ago, but … well, blink and it just keeps growing. You've had some support in this thread, and you know that, but you're continually shooting down any potency in those arguments with your repetition of the situation. I'm sure I said something similar to GabeMc early last year: by buzzing around in everyone's face, you're actually running interference for the other guy. If people welcome Dan56's input with an album article's critical reception or genres, for instance, as mystifying as that may be, you can't hold it against them here.

Someone above mentioned that an admin might just come along to a thread like this and take some drastic measures against the user in question, perhaps as a result of his past record. (I think I've got that right – it's hard to find the message now.) They might do, or they might not. Or it might happen in the near future, in which case this thread should be a contributing factor. So, really, what's important is that in the next dispute involving Dan56, someone, particularly an admin, can refer to this discussion and glean something useful. People build their reputation and perhaps this is just another block, but I worry that the more you write, the less effective this whole thread will be. (So please do not feel the need to reply to this message!)

Anyway, where's that turnip truck …? JG66 (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

JG66, I do feel the need to reply to this one, because my comment: "I do find it interesting that you deliberately disregard "wall of diffs" here" does not say "you should not welcome Dan56's input on an album's article". That is not what I mean to say at all, and I resent that implication. Richie333 said: "all my brain can parse is "blah blah blah Dan56 blah Dan56 blah blah WP:WALLOFDIFFS Dan56", hence my comment. "So, really, what's important is that in the next dispute involving Dan56, someone, particularly an admin, can refer to this discussion and glean something useful." - Yes, and like I've already said, that is expected result every time; another warning, another, etc. JG56, I've just responded to editors' replies, clarifying where I feel is needed; no harm meant. Thanks for your input though. This thread was posted a week ago on AN for an 'uninvolved admin' to assess and close it. Just waiting for that to happen. --Lapadite (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77 hasn't even specified what topic he thinks Dan56 should be topic-banned from. It presumably has to do with music, but he or she hasn't specified the scope. Both for that reason and because Lapadite77 hasn't even been concise when Hasteur suggested being concise, Oppose a topic-ban (on something). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Did in the ANI, but it's specified now at the beginning of this section. --Lapadite (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the diffs, but if copyvio is an issue then a topic ban is not a remedy but more of a bandaid. An I-ban solves nothing. What is needed is examination of the allegations and then sanctions or exoneration depending on findings. Given the lack of interest here, as it requires a detailed look, I recommend a case request at arbcom. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 insists on creating foreign language articles at en.wiki

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

---

Rameshpoonia1 (talk · contribs) has created many times an article in Hindi (and at least one in Arabic) that are essentially translations of the en.wiki page Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology. The user has been warned about this activity on many occasions (just look at the history of his user talk page.

In response to one of his latest creations of this type of article, I made a request at his user talk page (see here) for him to stop such activities, and to respond to the talk page warnings he had been given. I included the {{Contrib-hi1}} template so that, if he is unable to communicate in English, he would at least receive the Hindi request to stop trying to create articles in Hindi. His response to my request was to blank his talk page, and to continue to create the Hindi language article.

It has become clear that this user has no interest in listening to the advice he is being given, and that a block (at least a temporary block) may be required to call his attention to the matter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If I kept posting English articles on the Hindi Wikipedia, even after they asked me in English to stop, they'd be completely justified in blocking me on the grounds of WP:CIR. I'm more open to an indefinite, but easily appealed, block, simply to prevent further disruption. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The user has not edited since the AN/I notice and the CSD A10 tag being applied to the article. He may be getting the message. I'd like to wait one more edit to see how he proceeds before blocking. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If you'll look at the history of the user's talk page and his deleted contributions log (I'm not admin, I can't look at that, but I'm sure there's a fair few deleted contributions), you'll see that prior A10 warnings have proved ineffective. Perhaps the AN/I warning will be sufficient. I'm not sanguine about that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, The user has 24 deleted edits. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My lack of optimism has been validated. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Since they have started back up without response, I've blocked the account from editing until they respond to other editors' comments. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Conduct of User:Lion101010 on Mandodari

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

---

WP:PERSONAL attack on Mandodari page:

• [417] "You will loose your head Redtigerxyz be careful I am warning you."
• [418] "Wats up Redtigerxyz you are alive only because you are a woman."

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

User anyway has been given a 4im. I think a block is in order. Clearly not here to built the encyclopedia. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've indefblocked them, per the above. -- The Anome (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:DISRUPT by M.Bitton

The following discussion is closed. 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,

Please, can someone do something to prevent M.Bitton (talk · contribs) from further disruptive editing and edit-warring?

As shown on the previous ANI request, M.Bitton's edits were largely made of putting back controversial versions of articles, as previously edited by Historian Student (talk · contribs) (or by his multiple socks). That even made me believing that M.Bitton was one of Historian Student socks, which is obviously not the case. Thus, the sole explaination is that M.Bitton is a disruptive editor (as stated by Weegeerunner on the previous request : a "common case disruptive editing") who doesn't care about other people's opinions or about Wikipedia's policies.

Btw, note that he's doing a mess on Algerian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), while being reverted by multiple editors who clearly disagree with his edits (actually, putting back an edit made by Historian Student) and describing another user's edits as "BS". So he made 14 reverts on many contributors' edits in Algerian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since Feb.17th [419][420][421][422][423][424][425][426][427][428][429][430][431][432]

Note that he also edit-warred about the "Algerian War" subject on List of wars involving Algeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article where he also deleted sourced content while describing his action as "deletion of original research" on diff's comments (post-Feb.17th edits only) : [433][434][435][436]

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

+while I was writing this request: [437][438][439] (+kind diff's comment on that last one) --Omar-toons (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Had thrown this at WP:3RR before found this. Seems to make more sense over there but will leave it to someone else to decide which one to close. Amortias (T)(C) 23:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I blocked this highly-disruptive user for one week; I also fully protected the page for two days as this seems to be an ongoing issue involving more than one user (although perhaps an SPI would be warranted for M.) If this page protection is obstructing any immediate improvement to the article let me know, but looking at the history it seems like the majority of the editing going on is content disputes and edit warring. I think a two day lockdown of the page is a pretty minor action, but a positive one. Swarm ^X 23:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Think this has already been to WP:SPI here[440] and no connection was found. Amortias (T)(C) 23:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. Swarm ^X 23:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Jantzen7

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

---

• Jantzen7 (talk · contribs)

Should this guy get the benefit of the doubt after the second blanking of Talk:List of hentai anime?[441][442][443] They are clearly not here to contributed to the wiki. —Farix (t | c) 02:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on this, I'm going to go with "No"... --IJBall (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As hilarious as I find that diff, I'm gonna go with "no" as well. User indeffed. Swarm ^X 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Conduct of TheRedPenOfDoom

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

---

Topic ban requested.

User TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom is violating WP:DE, and has made bad faith edits to the Gamergate controversy article. TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom apparently feels the article is some kind of war-zone. I am an editor with relatively few edits, however my interest in wikipedia was rekindled after seeing the recent media attention regarding gamergate. I attempted to make a very minor edit to the article and was immediately met with a bellicose attitude both at the article itself [444] as well as at my talk page [445].

I made numerous attempts to civilly discuss the article, all of which were met with silence. [446]

I'll say here what I did there: Like it or not, the Gamergate article is drawing a tremendous amount of attention right now, and as it stands many feel the article could use improvement. Not everyone is on one "side" or another, I choose to believe there are many like me who want the article to fairly represent, according to the guidelines of wikipedia, what RS are reporting. If anyone here has trouble believing me, I urge you to attempt a minor edit at the Gamergate article and see for yourself the hostility you receive from a small but powerful group of editors. I had NO axe to grind but frankly am dismayed at the behavior of user TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom.

On a positive note, it seems a number of other editors are helpful and constructive, even if they have differing viewpoints. Again, it is a very small minority that is damaging the wikipedia community through bad faith, discouraging new editors from participating.

Marcos12 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain, Marcos12, how placing the standard Gamergate discretionary sanctions notice on your talk page is "bellicose". And for that, you come here to ANI? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response, the sanctions notice is not the problem - I was referring to the sarcastic "Oh Welcome Yet Another Wikiepdia Editor..". On top of that I attempted to discuss this with TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom and was promptly ignored. I thought the idea of wikipedia was to welcome new users "in good faith". It does not appear TRPOD got the memo. Marcos12 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Persistent copyright violator

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

---

In August last year Sosonet91 added copyright material from a cakeentertainment.com page (which carries a clear notice, "© Copyright Cake Entertainment") to the article Angelo Rules, and then, after I removed it, added it again. I left a talk page warning on each occasion, the second time with an extra note to say that I would request a block if it happened again. Today the editor again added the same content. Block requested until such time as the editor can demonstrate both understanding of our copyright policy and intent to abide by it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked. Thanks for reporting -- Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Rihanna pages

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

---

Anything to do with Rihanna's pages they are ignoring the 3RR rule which they were blocked over that a few weeks back; and to make matters worse threatening to get an admin involved so I told them bring it on so can someone please block them as they haven't learnt their lesson from the other week 20:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.240.181 (talk)

Reporter blocked for lame edit-warring and personal attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why, this looks quite like the above.... -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Javalenok

The following discussion is closed. 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 Javalenok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues personal attacks after final warning:

• PA on article talk page ==> warning by user Johnuniq: [447]
• response to Johnuniq ==> formal 1st level warning for NPA: [448]
• restored PA on article talk page ==> 3rd level warning: [449]
• "Go fuck you self, owner" ==> final warning: [450]
• "Exposing your misbehaviour... So far, go fuck yourself." after final warning

Not the first time. - DVdm (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on the ongoing nature of the attacks, the given warnings, the likelihood of it continuing, and that the attacks are part of a content dispute and are likely to have a chilling effect on our neutral point of view I have blocked this user for 48 hours. Our editors should not have to put up with abuse just because they have an opposing point of view in a content dispute. Chillum 17:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Chaldean Catholic Church article

sock rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:C.Fred and User:DoRD are abusing and violating their roles as Wikipedia editors, and I believe these two editors may actually be the same person or are working together to enforce their personal point of view on several Wikipedia pages. This issue needs to be investigated. These two editors (we will assume they are two people for the sake of this notice) are confiscating certain pages associated with the Chaldean people (and Chaldean Church) and will not allow anyone to make edits to these pages which do not match the personal point of view of C.Fred and DoRD. As you will see from the pages, “Chaldean Catholic Church,” “Chaldean Christians,” “Chaldean Neo-Aramaic,” “Tel keppe” and “Raphael Bidawid" are a few examples of pages related to the Chaldean people/Chaldean Church, which are being hijacked by these two editors and they are abusing their authority in this matter. The issue at hand is these editors C.Fred and DoRD have a personal point of view (which is politically motivated) that members of the Chaldean Catholic Church (or Chaldean Christians) are ethnically Assyrians, not Chaldeans. Members of the Chaldean Catholic Church have attempted to update these pages with correct SOURCED information, but C.Fred and DoRD are using underhanded and dirty methods to stop any changes to these pages which do not match their personal point of view. I believe C.Fred and DoRD are advancing their personal point of view in this matter for political reasons, as the Assyrians are trying to steal Chaldean towns away from the Chaldeans in Iraq. The unethical methods used by these editors include: 1. Deactivating the account of anyone who changes the pages with sourced information that does not match the personal point of view of C.Fred and DoRd. For example, Suraya90 was deactivated by these two editors for updating Chaldean pages with information not matching the point of view of these two editors. 2. Locking the Chaldean pages mentioned above so that no one can edit them with information not matching the personal point of view of C.Fred and DoRD. For example, see the history behind the “Chaldean Catholic Church” and “Chaldean Christians” pages. Members of the Chaldean Catholic Church added correct updates to these pages and included TEN sourced references, many of these sourced references were from leaders of the Chaldean Catholic Church. Who would know who its church members are better than the leaders of a church? But, since this update does not match the personal point of view and political agenda of C.Fred, C.Fred removed the updates and locked the pages. 3. C.Fred continues to block any IP address which updates these Chaldean pages with information not matching C.Fred’s personal point of view. The following IP pages were blocked from editing for this reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.158.61.66 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/107.77.87.118 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.158.61.66 Wikipedia Account: Suraya90 Due to these factors, C.Fred and DoRD should have their editor credentials revoked. They are tremendously and unethically violating Wikipedia policies. Additionally, C.Fred and DoRD should not be allowed any editorial abilities when it comes to the following pages, due to their trying to push their own point of view and political agenda: a) Chaldean Catholic Church; b) Chaldean Christians; c) Chaldean Neo-Aramaic; d) Raphael Bidawid; and e) Tel keppe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warda2015 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What originally appeared to me as a simple content dispute has revealed itself over time to be abusive editing. Please compare the contributions of the blocked IPs to blocked user ChaldeanEthnicity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I think you'll agree, as I did, that we have a sockpuppetry situation. In the talk page of the articles in question, there has been discussion of the situation, and consensus emerged to not use the term Chaldean as an ethnicity, using Assyrian instead. When User:ChaldeanEthnicity was blocked, (s)he has resorted to editing anonymously. Frankly, I don't have a personal opinion in the matter—other than that a blocked user should not be gaming the system by editing while not logged in. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As noted at the top of this page in nice big red text, you must notify users if you are raising an issue which concerns them here. I've done so for you. Sam Walton (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

sock rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Pages regarding the Chaldean people and the Chaldean Church have been confiscated by vandals such as USer:C.Fred who tries to push his/her own political agenda. The Chaldean people have made several attempts to correct our Chaldean peoples' pages from vandalism and to stop C.Fred & other politically motivated Assyrians from inputting their own personal opinion and political agenda into the Chaldean pages. C.Fred uses various unethical and abusive methods to advance his/her personal point of view and political agenda. If we are providing 10 sourced references, many from leaders of the Chaldean Catholic Church, these references should not be removed to advance C.Fred's POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warda2015 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Politically motivated Assyrians, including C.Fred, are attempting to get land in Iraq for Assyrians, but the majority of Iraqi Christians are actually Chaldeans. Therefore, these politically motivated Assyrians have decided they need to refer to all Chaldeans on Wikipedia as actually Assyrians and replace any reference to Chaldean history with Assyrian history, in order to help their political agenda of acquiring land in Iraq. The theft of the Chaldean culture and heritage is is a violation of Chaldeans international human rights and User:C.Fred must be stopped from his unethical and abusive actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warda2015 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Warda2015 (talk · contribs) blocked as an obvious sock of someone, probably ChaldeanEthnicity (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, yes, I blocked Suraya90 (talk · contribs) as a block evading, checkuser confirmed sock of ChaldeanEthnicity (talk · contribs). Warda2015 (talk · contribs) is a likely sock of them as well. Other than that, I've had no activity related to this topic. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like there's a new sock that's arrived:

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

Do I need to file a sockpuppet report for this new IP, or is there enough evidence for an admin to act on this IP directly? I'd like another set of eyes besides my own on this. —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This IP is in the wrong location to be the same person. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Conduct of Rockcat57

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

---

A user by the name of Rockcat57 Made some edits to the Suzy Kolber article, which when reverted by a me (as I mistaked his edits for OR), lead to many WP:CIVIL violations by him. That uncvilty can be seen on this edit summary and with a passive aggressive message he left on my talk page. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner: No, Rockcat57 has been removing poorly sourced info from a WP:BLP. IMDB is not a reliable source and after a brief search I could not find any decent source for that info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take fault for that. But his reactions to my edits were still uncivil. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner: How's this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

While their response may have been uncivil, Weegee, surely you can understand why they got worked up to begin with?! They removed poorly-cited information with a perfectly reasonable explanation, and you re-added it multiple times without addressing their reason for removing it at all. I'd get pissed off too. You made a mistake, and instead of apologizing, you're creating further unnecessary drama by filing a report here? Come on...we don't even normally provide civility enforcement, much less over something as minor and trivial as this. Swarm ^X 23:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Angelo6397 move-jacked the Ron Henley page

• Angelo6397 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ron Henley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, the page about the chess grandmaster and businessman Ron Henley is well established on wikipedia, and was created back in 2005. Recently Angelo6397 (talk · contribs) hijacked this page by moving it to Ron Henley (chess), an edit which he marked as "minor", then editing the resulting redirect with details about a Filipino hip hop musician. Several chess-related articles link to Ron Henley, so I moved the new article to Ron Henley (musician) and tried to move Ron Henley (chess) back to Ron Henley, but this was not allowed by the software. As an interim measure I set up Ron Henley to redirect to Ron Henley (chess).

I need some admin help to move the Ron Henley (chess) article back to its rightful place at Ron Henley. Also, please explain to Angelo6397 that hijacking articles in this manner is absolutely unacceptable. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, a WP:BOLD move of an article is not in and of itself a problem. It only becomes a problem if an editor makes a lot of Bold moves that are bad choices, contested, and have to be moved back, or if the moving editor starts move-warring, or moves it again against a talk page consensus. Then it's worthwhile dealing with the disruption that's being caused -- but a single Bold move is not a matter of concern, however annoying it may be at the moment. BMK (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: I'd suggest you place {{db-move|1=Ron Henley (chess)|2=response to this [[WP:ANI#User:Angelo6397 move-jacked the Ron Henley page|ANI thread]]}} if this is noncontroversial. (I think it should be restored too, but others might not agree.) OR, we could keep it as it is, and add {{redirect|Ron Henley|the musician|Ron Henley (musician)}}. Either way seems fine to me. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The other Ron Henley is a Filipino rapper. It doesn't appear to me that either is the most obvious target for "Ron Henley", so I've converted Ron Henley from a redirect to Ron Henley (chess) into a dab page. This, of course, can be undone as the result of a RM discussion BMK (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That works. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the talk page of Ron Henley is directed to Talk:Ron Henley (chess) and I'm not sure how to break that link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone seems to have fixed that problem. BMK (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not happy with Ron Henley pointing to a DAB page because several wikipedia pages were already pointing to the page for the chess player. Moving the page to Ron Henley (chess) should never have been done. MaxBrowne (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's a valid complaint. The number of links is not great, but it's more than a handful, so rather than sit here and change them by hand, I've moved the current disambiguation page (Ron Henley) to Ron Henley (disambiguation) and changed Ron Henley to a redirect to Ron Henley (temp) which redirects to Ron Henley (chess). The bot should come by fairly quickly and fix the double redirect, so that all links to Ron Henley will go to Ron Henley (chess). Then the dab page can go back to the main page and the linking problem will have been fixed. BMK (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The bots usually pick up on the double redirects pretty quickly anyway, but I've left a request at AvicBot to do this one. BMK (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The bot that handled it did not do what I've normally seen done -- that is, it just changed that article title levels without fixing the double redirects at the level below -- therefore, I did the changes manually myself. I've also undone anothher editor's changes of the disambiguator "chess" to "chess player" because it fucked up everything I had just done. BMK (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The musician seems non-notable or barely notable, and the article about him is badly written. I'd go back to the chess player on the main title, with the musician as "see also" or AfD. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he is non-notable, but that gets taken care of with one of the deletion processes. In any case his non-notability wasn't immediately apparent to me -- he's got a major label release -- so as long as he's got an article (however poorly written), this seems like the best arrangement. If his article goes away, that's a different story. BMK (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NMUSIC calls for more than one such release. I agree that the musician article shouldn't be deleted without normal process. I'm saying that between the two articles, it looks to me based on the musician's marginal notability that the chess player is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and therefore the musician article (if it's not deleted) should get a hatnote rather than a dab. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for that mistake, I thought it was non-controversial. As I searched in Google, there are 515,000 results when I search Ron Henley as a rapper, and as a chess grandmaster it only results about 50,000. So I think that's a large margin. I'm sorry if I'm wrong and for the mess I made. Anybody can revert my actions freely. Thanks! -Angelo6397 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's contested, but not necessarily wrong. That remains to be seen. BMK (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't also think so that it is eligible for RfD. He has almost 100 million YouTube channel views, he also has 3 major album releases and including 1 EP that is popular here in the Philippines. -Angelo6397 (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how the procedure works formally but the next step is to decide (through concensus) what Ron Henley should point to. Internet hits aren't everything, published books and videos must count for something too. We need to decide, should it point to one article or the other, or should it point to a DAB? BTW there's another musician called Ron Henley, he was a member of the Liverpool Five. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Where would a conversation like this happen, MaxBrowne? Liz 15:45, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

The easiest thing would to have it on one of the two "Ron Henley" article talk pages, and put a link to it on the other article talk page. Also, put neutral pointers to the discussion on the talk pages of all Wikiprojects listed on both article talk pages, and list it on the contested moves section of WP:RM. I think that would cover it. BMK (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

To avoid confusion as @MaxBrowne said there is another musician with the same name. I moved Ron Henley (musician) to Ron Henley (rapper). It's like this article --> Abra (rapper). -Angelo6397 (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletition of an article that was put for submission

Good day,

I wrote an article and submitted it for checking in September 2014. It was rejected because of some content issues, and I was requested to make changes and resubmit it. I did, and resubmitted it, then it was rejected again in January by some more minor content reasons. Last week I fixed them and resubmitted the article...
Now it was rejected and deleted (!) because of unexplained Copyright issues.
This is the message I got:

 17:39, 20 February 2015 Cryptic (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Silverray123/sandbox 

 (G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page: Draft:Stormy Atmosphere) 

The copyright issue never came up at two last times, and nothing was added to the article since then, few things were actually removed, so unfortunately I cannot understang why it suddenly came up this time,
especcially when I can assure you that all the rights are reserved to the band the article is about, nothing was taken from anywhere else (like albums pictures, band picture, names etc.)
Yes I am a new user and don't have much experience, but unfortunately the answers I've got so far were rather partial and therefore not helpful... Especially last time when the work I put so much effort in was just thrashed...
So I would really appreciate an explanation, because I really want the world to see my works and continue contributing to the Wikipedia knowledge base...

Thank you in advance,
Silverray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverray123 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In general, if you have questions about an administrator's actions, it is best to contact them first. Draft:Stormy Atmosphere was deleted by @RHaworth: with the summary "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://progresja.com/events/mike-terrana-usa-2/?lang=en ". Indeed, portions of the text of the draft article are copied word-for-word from the linked webpage. For details about Wikipedia's copyright policy, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just because the copyright issue didn't come up in previous reviews doesn't mean it wasn't a problem. It is simply because the previous reviewers didn't check to see if there was a copyright problem. —Farix (t | c) 15:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Aren't user sandboxes generally not deleted except in extreme cases? -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The draft was deleted for copyvio. The user sandbox page was then deleted because it was a redirect to a deleted page (the draft). Both perfectly standard actions. Bencherlite^Talk 12:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I am evading a block but not a sock for which I was blocked Self Reported

The following discussion is closed. 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 started an SPI about an article I came across that was around since 2006 and deleted and salted after a few attempts by User:RGloucester and some new accounts like User:Jobrot which is a SPA that states they are "noob" but then first edits in December 2014 in a discussion to delete the article using very sophisticated alphabet soup. Clearly not a noob and the edit analyzer shows a remarkable number of edits with the above sock master even though the sock only has a few hundred edits of which most show up in the edit analyzer with RGlocester who avows to be a Marxist on their talk page. The subject cultural Marxism in an modern American use does not say nice things about Marxists or cultural Marxists. It was nominated for deletion and theatrically argued for deletion by RGlocester and then a new SPA shows up arguing for the same thing out of no where. I do acknowledge it may be a meat puppet recruited by the sock master but a meat puppet is to be treated the same as a sock per WP:SOCK. I was accused of pretending to be new by Chillum but he fabricated that and accused me of being a sock and then blocked block me based on his ridiculous claims. I previously argued against User Talk:John Foxe for COI and his previous use of a sock. That will demonstrate that I always use an IP to edit and not what Chillum falsely accused me of. And John Foxe edits on behalf of Bob Jones University a very politically conservative fundamentalist school. That demonstrates I go after both extremes of the political spectrum. Cultural Marxism in an American sense reflects a conservative use of the philosophy. It was a valid article with 9 years of existence that was salted for Marxist ideological reasons. It is the worst case of WP:PUSH I have ever seen and a complete failure by involved admins. One reasonably would question if they had COI or in my opinion acted foolishly. If you got the time look into the salted SPI about RGloucester and check out the case I made. It demonstrates meat puppetry at the best and a sock puppetry in the worst. The edit analyzer and Jobrots contributions are very clear. It needs to see the light of day and not be immediately salted without examination. Again a foolish or malicious move by an editor. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "I am evading a block". This is an important point to be clear on. Sam Walton (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My cellular IP changes all the time and I never know when as it used by millions. But I went back to check on a SPI I started and found that the last SPI had been deleted quickly. I went to see what happened by looking up a contentious article that existed for 9 years and was deleted based on ideological push. I noticed my notice of an SPI to other editors involved in a lengthy and heated deletion discussion (names I got from the deletion record) were deleted by User:Chillum. I also noticed he falsely accused me of being a sock for starting a SPI. So here I am squawking about it and evading his block, although unknowingly when I first started editing today. I turned myself in, but showed the reason I was blocked as well, as Chillum has attempted to bury that. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

172.56.6.142, what specific action are you seeking here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The deletion of the Cultural Marxism article has been discussed to death. I don't believe it's fruitful to debate over whether it was "salted for Marxist ideological reasons" or "It is the worst case of WP:PUSH I have ever seen and a complete failure by involved admins". Particularly given that none of the 3 closers of the AGF were Chillum or RGlocester. Also, one of the results of that long discussion is the article is at Draft:Cultural Marxism. You should instead be worrying about bringing the draft up to a standard acceptable to the community, presuming you're allowed to edit. Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Further, I have deleted a copy of the article at Talk:Cultural Marxist [451]. It's clear by comparing to [452] that a lot of the content originated from the older article. Please remember our copyright licences require attribution. If you are going to be copying and pasting (regardless of whether you modify it) content to other locations, you should be properly attributing it to the original article so the original contributors can be properly attributed, and as I said above that is currently at Draft:Cultural Marxism. (Although if Cultural Marxism was attributed, at least you would have made a good faith effort to attribute.) See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more info. There should also be a good reason why you are copying and pasting the content around. In this case there is none since any article development should happen at the draft article. I would like to think 172.56.6.142 is simply unaware of the draft article, but I'm fairly sure [453] is the same editor with a different IP. Yet the content was added to the talk page [454] after they edit the draft page. This seems to suggest the reason they edited the talk page rather than the draft page was because they weren't getting their way in the draft page and were hoping they could target an area with less attention. I would of course be willing to WP:AGF, if they have good explanation why they copied content to the talk page of Talk:Cultural Marxist rather than continuing to edit the draft article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Finally, the orange box when you edit and the red text in the box before you edit are quite clear that you need to notify edits on their talk pages when bringing them to ANI. None of User talk:RGloucester, User talk:Jobrot, User talk:John Foxe or User talk:Chillum seems to have been notified and I did look for deleted messages. I have notifed them for you, but failing to do this basic step isn't generally a good look for any ANI complaint. Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• A fine example of confusing wiki lawyering. I self reported and stated my reason for block evading because I was falsely accused and blocked for properly initiating an SPI. The sock subjects were informed of the salted SPI as were several other editors related to the deletion that the meat or sock puppet first appeared. Do your home work. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What specific action are you seeking here? NebY (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Who cares about the SPI? There isn't a requirement to inform people of opening an SPI and I never said anything about the SPI since it was irrelevant to the points I was making. There is a requirement to inform people when you open an ANI discussing them, and you cannot assume people will know that you are opening an ANI on them because you previously opened an SPI which was deleted. (Frankly that's ridiculious.) And I still can't see any evidence you informed people who you discussed in this ANI, the fact you appear to have evaded the point on not informing people when opening this ANI suggests you did in fact fail to do so. Or perhaps you simply have problems understanding simple instructions (like the orange box when editing this page and the instructions in the page header) and my comments which I felt were clear enough that I was referring to ANI (particularly since I didn't say SPI anywhere before this comment). Either way, this strongly suggests to me your complaints are without merit, without having to even look at the SPI (I'm not an admin so I can't). I don't get the relevance of your other points to my comment. Are you referring to someone else? It may help if you are specific as to who you are referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read the title. I self reported for block evading because I was banned for starting a SPI. I care about the SPI because I got blocked for starting one and accused of being a sock by Chillum. Chillum never specified any sock in particular nor did he start a SPI that I am aware of. He just tossed an accusation as a way to justify blocking me, that is what is known as a convenient excuse. It has no merit and I am here for that reason. If he never blocked me I would not be here. Do you understand That? 172.56.8.117 (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. The SPI was completely irrelevant to my original comments which were concerning your failure to notify people despite opening this ANI thread on them (and other stuff, none of which related to the SPI), which the orange box when you edit, and the red text before you edit make clear you need to do. The SPI was irrelevant to my points, and so you mentioning that you informed people when opening the SPI was irrelevant, and not something I cared about, or I'm guessing anyone else. If you truly care about the SPI, you should be giving yourself the maximum chance people will actual pay attention to you. That means you should be doing what you are required to do when opening the ANI. And it also means you shouldn't be mentioning irrelevant stuff like you informing people when you opened the SPI when someone mentions that you failed to do the basic task of informing people when opening the ANI. (It also means you should be concentrating on the SPI, not how the deletion of the cultural marxism article was some great evil which is what a lot of your original comment appeared to be about. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, but my guess is that the IP is confusing the AfD for "Cultural Marxism" with WP:SPI, and likely some of the talk page from the old article where this was discussed. The AfD was closed by 3 admins, and then deleted. Afterwards, a redirect was created. There were attempts to restore some of the talk history - but in the end: The whole thing was a huge mess. Note that there is now a "Draft" at Draft:Cultural Marxism, and a great deal of discussion there. I think what happened was that this editor had his IP address changed, was mistaken either for another editor, or as someone attempting to avoid scrutiny, and an IP was blocked. It appears to be a T-mobile IP, so perhaps part of the confusion is the changing IP addresses, and it's become a vicious circle in him/her trying to explain the situation. — Ched :  ?  14:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No confusion between AFD and SPI. The action I am seeking is 1. Look at the reason I was blocked, it is clearly for initiating a SPI. 2. look at the SPI I initiated which was well laid out and then quickly closed and salted. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you link to the initial block and SPI report so we can assess the situation objectively? --Jayron32 14:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is my edit summary which is now missing the SPI investigation but clearly shows I informed the parties and those affected by the meat puppet. [455] SPI summary User:Jobrot claims to be a Noob on their user page: [456] Jobrot first edit 8 Dec 2014 was to a heated discussion to delete and article that existed for 9 years: [457] On the same day Jobrot starts using wiki technical jargon of why the article should be deleted. Clearly not a noob and demonstrating the clearest example of using deception to avoid being caught as a sock or for meat puppetry which is treated the same as a sock per WP:SOCK. I edit analyzed every editor involved in the AFD review because of comments made about new accounts, etc. Only one showed a remarkable similarity to Jobrot and that is User:RGloucester. [458] Of 529 total edits made by Jobrot nearly all are linked to RGloucester who claims to be a Marxist on their user page. Jobrot is editing as a SPA and only in closely related Marxist articles to the deleted Cultural Marxist article. There is no way Jobrot is legite and clearly a meat puppet. The facts speak for themselves and I was banned for doing my homework and starting a SPI. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) For admins: [459] - for non-admins: [460] submitted by: 172.56.15.36 — Ched :  ?  14:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - OK - the first thing I'll note is that you (IP 172) can NOT go around calling editors "paranoid" and such. Not seeing anywhere you impersonated Chillum though, so I'm not sure where that came from (we'll have to hear from Chillum for that I suppose) — Ched :  ?  15:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment 2 - OK, I've looked about as much as I intend to absent further requests by others:

1. NEVER speculate about mental health issues of another editor: (see: WP:NPA)
2. I don't really see anything in regards to John Foxe issues seem to be addressed in other venues.
3. I don't really see enough in the SPI to validate a block of either user, although I agree that ...
4. Jobrot is a new account seemingly devoted to the topic of Marxism, but that's not a violation of policy
5. Jobrot has more knowledge of wiki than is expected with the amount of experience that account has: BUT - again absent other evidence of wrongdoing, there's nothing blockable there either. WP:MEAT and WP:SPA may apply to some extent, but not to the extent that anything is actionable.
6. I think Chillum may have been a bit quick on the trigger with the original block, and a bit more WP:AGF would not have hurt.
7. The second block was valid because the first IP was blocked, so indeed it was block evasion. However, given the circumstances I'm in favor of overlooking that.
8. You're (IP 172) not blocked at the moment, so perhaps best to just take this all as a learning experience, and visit another topic for a bit until the fires of this die down. I understand your frustration, but I feel you've gone as far as you can in regards to pointing out issues on the Marxism topic and similarities of agreement between the other two editors.

That's just my two cents worth after having a look around. — Ched :  ?  15:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for acknowledging the SPI had merit. 1. It should of been looked at by more people and not quickly salted. 2. The analyzer does not lie about interactions. 3. Chillum admits to smoking herb on his user page and I am unsure of his mental state or whether he was under the influence at the time but I saw his block as either paranoid behavior or malicious behavior. Because I am an IP I know many have biases towards IP's and as a result exhibit paranoid behavior towards IP's. That was lesser than malicious although it may have been done for that reason instead. 4. Jobrot clearly is not legite based on their clear deception and jumping in a very heated discussion on their first edit while claiming to be a noob and then using all kinds of wiki tech terms on their first day editing. If anyone should of been blocked as an obvious sock it would be Jobrot. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to participate in this discussion (so admins feel free to blank anything I've said, if it's not allowed) - but the reason I appear to have become so quickly versed in wikipedia "alphabet soup" as the accuser puts it, is that I've been editing as an IP for substantially longer than as a registered user. The idea that I jumped in a very heated discussion on their first edit while claiming to be a noob and then using all kinds of wiki tech terms on their first day editing is a misapprehension. I walked in... from considerably further away... and I read the signs as I went. --Jobrot (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Then why do claim to be a Noob which clearly you are not. Not even close. And that edit analyzer shows almost all your edits are with one other editor, no one else comes close. That is very strong evidence of a meat puppet. 172.56.16.85 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I originally blocked this IP after they engaged in edit warring and disruption at the cultural Marxism draft page/talk page using multiple IPs and also filed a frivolous SPI report. Our sock puppet policy does not allow the use of alternate accounts to file complaints against other users. Disruptive edit warring and political rants while changing IPs is also a violation. I blocked the user for multiple violations of the sock puppet policy, their interpretation of the reasons for the block seems cherry picked and over simplified.

The IP is mistaken about me deleting the SPI, another admin deleted it likely because it was ill formed and without merit or evidence.

Never said you deleted it. It is about you unfounded accusation that I am a sock. It is not my fault you do not understand that by now. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The user came back under another IP, proceeded to impersonate me on several user talk pages by repeating my warning to him to other users including a copy of my signature[461][462][463][464]. This gave the appearance that I had left block messages to all of these users accusing them of using multiple IPS. At least one user thought I was accusing them[465].

Nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No one impersonated, enough with the paranoid behavior. I highlighted Chillum's unjustified block and brought Chillum under scrutiny. It was reposting what you said to bring you under scrutiny. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I blocked that IP for block evasion. The users stated position is that they will use their dynamic IPs to evade block and encourages a range block in the hopes of collateral damage, I think that clarifies if this user is acting in good faith. Not what I said. Another lie of Chillum, I said You could at least block my current IP and all the other one for a least a year or permanently. That would be screwing some other unfortunate sap who just wanted to edit anomalously and highly unlikely ever affect me after tonight due to the thousands of IP the carrier randomly assigns. I was pointing that out so you did not do another knee jerk reaction that would screw millions. I made my point and it was effective and likely the only reason you did not do a knee jerk range block. I was taking care of others and being a smart a$$ to Chillum who blocked with the accusation I am a sock. Again Whose Sock am I supposed to be? Where is the investigation? 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I am blocking the reporting IP for block evasion, a short block as the user has made it clear that he is using a shared dynamic IP range and they intend to evade further. I think that since this user seems only interest in certain topics it will be easy to recognize them and that a range block is not needed. As always I welcome scrutiny of my actions. I would gladly lift the block on this user if they stopped switching identities regularly to avoid scrutiny. I suggest they create an account, I did not put an autoblock on this latest IP. If they are able to behave under that account in such a way that does not result in a fresh block then I consider the matter settled. Chillum 16:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC) What subjects would that be? Again more nonsense by Chillum. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC) That is a manipulative way to force editors to register, I am glad you are no longer claiming I was logged out to post as a sock as you did in the original block. That is why I brought this here. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) The user appears to be trying to re-created deleted and salted content - Draft talk:Cultural Marxism --Jobrot (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Chillum you a liar and a blatant liar at that. No one impersonated you, as made clear I reposted your comments on other pages involved and made my comments. There was no edit war either as no one exceeded WP:3RR. You are fabricating to cover up your unjustified block for starting a SPI. I entered a SPI and you blocked me. You continue to lie and are you not one of the "neutral" admins who deleted and salted the article. It seems you are abusing your admin privileges to abuse and silence dissent. Your an obvious liar to anyone who looks at the record. I do my homework and you just go about abusing editors. The admin who looked at you said you did not assume good faith. I thinks it is much worse than that. 172.56.16.85 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I will leave this to another admin to resolve, it is clear this user will keep evading their blocks. It seems they are taking my response personally so another admin handling it may diffuse the situation some. Chillum 18:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I've just blocked 172.56.16.85 for block evasion. If they carry on with this, the edit filter awaits. -- The Anome (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Not to mention violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV (speaking of "blatant"). Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I am glad you brought that up. Is it civil to accuse someone of being a sock and then block them without evidence? Whose sock am I supposed to be? 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I suggest you take a read of Wikipedia:Edit warring again. There isn't any requirement to break 3RR for there to be edit warring. Note I'm not commenting on whether there was edit warring, simply that the claim "There was no edit war either as no one exceeded WP:3RR", fails from the get go, and is actually another one of the several things which suggests your complaints lack merit. For the same reason and more, I also strongly suggest you tone down your language. It's not helping anything. To be blunt, it'll probably be best to drop the SPI. Several editors have suggested that there wasn't enough evidence to merit action. Regardless of whether it should have been deleted, there's no point making a big deal about it. If you want to have any chance of continuing to edit the draft cultural marxism article, you really need to start editing more constructively with others, regardless of whether you believe them to be socks when there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate they are. (Note the socking issue is basically irrelevant to the AFD. It had quite a few participants, even if your claims are correct about the 2 alleged socks, the chance they had a significant influence is very slim. This doesn't mean socking is acceptable, simply that even if the wrong decision was made in the AfD as you appear to believe, the purported socking was surely only a minor component.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC) The AFD was nearly tied to keep or delete. Socks had a big effect on the outcome. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Once again, you need to reread stuff. This time the closing statement Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination). None of the 3 closers said the AfD was nearly tied. Actually, this is incredibly unlikely since if it was nearly tied, then it would almost definitely have ended up as no consensus rather than delete. If you don't understand how WP:Consensus, or WP:AFD works, perhaps you need to re-read those as well. They aren't a vote so numbers being tied may not indicate the outcome is close to tied. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Given comments like "it is what you can expect from an avowed marxist as marxists are nothing more than sophisticated thieves and you can never trust a thief"(referring to Jobrot/RGloucester on my talk page[466]) I am retracting my above offer "I would gladly lift the block on this user if they stopped switching identities regularly to avoid scrutiny". I don't think this user's strong opinions and attitude are compatible with a neutral point of view. Chillum 18:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC) That is after you blocked me not before so it has no bearing on your original decision to block. I was perturbed at your abuse of me for being an IP. Apparently Chillum has no clue as to how cellular IP's work. That is his problem not mine. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I'm involved as an editor at the draft cultural Marxism page, so I'm not going to take any steps in this case as an admin. I see some priority in getting a solid, scholarly article on the "cultural Marxism" meme, following the recent controversy, etc., with the article. If I weren't involved in that way, I might have considered reducing the length of the original block if I'd been asked - it seemed a bit harsh for the behavior up to that time. In particular, the SPI was without much merit (the two users concerned have very different styles and modus operandi), but evidently sincere. Also bear in mind that this editor was not the first on the talk page to delete large chunks of material by others. The excuse used on both sides was that the material took the form of political ranting and that talk pages are not forums for political discussion. That's true, but the material by the people on the other side has been almost as bad in that respect. I wish everyone there would calm down, stop pushing their pet POVs, and concentrate on producing the best possible (neutral, informative) article, since it will be exposed to scrutiny from the community at some point. (I actually think the current version of the article is pretty good and would be fine in article space.) All that said, this editor has come here with a culture warring mentality and has been increasingly uncivil. Having seen how they interacted with User:Chillum, and now some of their language on this page, I now don't have a lot of sympathy. It would help if they would create an account, establish an identity here, and try to get along with others by editing articles in a neutral, incremental and civil way. Although they have a strong point of view, they actually do seem to have some relevant knowledge that we could use. But if they are here to use Wikipedia as a battleground in a culture war, I don't think there's a future for them. Metamagician3000 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Increasingly irate for being blocked after starting a SPI and being accused of being a sock and then blocked. Again WHOSE SOCK??? Their is no merit to Chillum's accusation it is just a convenient excuse to abuse and block an IP because they are an IP. Very cultish behavior in my opinion. People are free to edit without harassment to become registered. Treating IP differently and insisting they register is harassment. I know, I have dealt with it for 10 years here. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Enough group think. Bottom line is Chillum blocked an IP for starting an SPI and he keeps fabricating lies to justify it. He accused me of being a sock. Well whose Sock??? That is the hole in Chillum's thinking and easily proves his maleficence. His behavior was either paranoia, inability to handle admin duties, or maliciousness. You decide. Hot off the press is the events of the fiasco posted here: [467] Look it over and it will be clear there was no edit war or sock as he accuses with no evidence. I have always been an IP and I am not easily pressured to join because of relentless requests (kind of cultish behavior). Here's an article to consider creating the Cult of Wikipedia. Chillum considers abusing IP's to be acceptable behavior and he lacks integrity. He has lied and repeated his lies and I have pointed that out quite thoroughly at the above link. I will not stand for his lies and abuse, Chillum must be someone special in the real world, kind of like the comic guy on the Simpsons. Of course I do not mean to offend Comic Book Guy. 208.54.32.236 (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I've removed a bunch of comments from the IP above which were either inserted in the middle of someone's signed comment. Or were inserted between signed comments, which may be fine, if the IP had bothered to sign, but they didn't. See [468] for what was removed. This created a very confusing thread where it wasn't clear who had written what. Ignoring the block evasion, the IP really, really needs to learn how to participate in wikipedia discussion (like signing comments, and not inserting their comments in to the middle of someone else's signed comment), if they want to continue here. I did this manually because when I tried to undo one of these changes, the most recent one, it couldn't be done. I think I got everything though. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I reinserted my responses in the ANI I started.172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC) And I reverted you. If you want any chance for your comments to stand, fix the issues you've made. Don't expect anyone else to fix your mess, particularly when you're a block evader. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Thank you for signing. There's still no excuse for you inserting your comments in to the middle of others signed comments though so I've reverted such comments. Please fix that issue if you want your remaining comments to stand. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC) When the IP is blocked, will some revert the IP who is still insisting on inserting their comments in to the middle of existing signed comments [469]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Would some please look at the four times User talk:Nil Einne reverted my comments. He is clearly edit warring at ANI even after I put a warning on his talk page. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Comment, I dont know if this IP editor is way off base here but the circumstantial evidence he posted on my talk page certainly seems to warrant a checkuser. Would it be kosher for me to file it on his behalf? WeldNeck (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Feel free to file if you think that there is enough evidence to conduct the checkuser. It looks like there might be from my read of the discussion. Mamyles (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Does evading a block count as a "good faith" act? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC) The user is on a dynamic IP shared by many users, I doubt a CU will show much. To clarify it was the use of multiple IPs while edit warring, posting political rants and posting frivolous reports. It is not relevant if they have an account somewhere, and the technical evidence is unlikely to reveal concrete evidence against a user given the changing nature of the IP. The relevant parts of WP:SOCK are Editing project space and Avoiding scrutiny. If you look at all of the IPs this user has used then it is behavior that would not be tolerated by a regular user if they had not been engaging in evasion of scrutiny. Chillum 15:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC) If you meant a CU against RGloucester/Jobrot then you can try. I personally did not think the complaint had much evidence at all. Chillum 15:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Okay I am seeing the IP has posted about 20k of comments on your page, more than was in the SPI. I am tired of reading this users very long posts but if you see evidence then I see no reason not to proceed. Chillum 15:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Note I have unblocked the original IP based on the fact that they are changing IPs. This should be seen as unblocking the IP not the user. Note the most recent incarnation was blocked for disruption here by another admin. Chillum 15:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC) WeldNeck: If you mean you want to start a SPI on Jobrot/RGloucester, I don't think it's appropriate to initiate a SPI on behalf of a blocked editor who can't seem to learn basics of how to collaborate and discuss, particularly when they already tried once and it was rejected and deleted due to I believe insufficient evidence (even if they have more now). As always the case with blocked editors, anyone including you is free to initiate a SPI (or whatever) on their own behalf using material a blocked editor has presented to them. This means they will be taking responsibility for it, not the IP/blocked editor. Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC) BTW, Chillum, I'm not sure if you saw the IP's insertation of comments in to the middle of your comment above [[470]]. I haven't bothered to revert now that there are more people here, but if you want to I think you're completely justified. I've tried to convince the IP they shouldn't be doing this, but to no avail. Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I think the evidence should be viewed for what it is and I was taking the temperature of other editors to that end. Do you think it has merit? WeldNeck (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Einne I saw that, and I reverted/moved the comments a few times. If this editor wants to switch ips and mangle my comments all day then then is not much that can be done short of semi-protecting this page. If it becomes disruptive to the noticeboard someone may decide to do that but no need on my account. I have reverted it again because this thread is already unclear due to the changing IPs scattered contributions and my posting being mangled makes it far less clear. Chillum 16:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC) WeldNeck I don't think it has merit. Post the SPI if you think it has merit but only if you think it does. Don't post it because this IP thinks it has merit. Chillum 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the tip. Ill go over it again and be doubly sure before (if) I do it. I dont want to feed a troll and encourage hsi behavior but if it has some merit I'd hate to write it off when they obviously spent so much time on it and reached out to me. WeldNeck (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC) While I'm not a checkuser in any sense, if it's any help, I just went over evidence for awhile and could not substantiate the SOCK claims. I personally wouldn't file a case. Mamyles (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Note Chillum has deleted many of my responses and repeatedly block me so I can not reply. He even changed the title. Bottom line is Chillum originally blocked me for starting a SPI that had a basis and called me a sock as an excuse. Whose sock am I supposed to be? Having a cellular IP that changes when it wants is not a sock. If I turn off my device like when I go somewhere or go to bed changes the IP. Chillum has tried consistently to misrepresent this even though it is clearly spelled out above. If he still cannot understand cellular IP's well it ain't my fault as I have pointed it out several times. Chillum is putting on a show here as he is trying to save face at my expense. I cannot say what Chillum's true original motives were but based on his deceit now it is malicious. He may have originally been paranoid of IP's earlier or just feels it is ok to abuse IP's and treat them like crap. Chillum is now twisting things and deleting my earlier responses because I put this here to put his actions under scrutiny. I could easily disappear but I do not take abuse well. Now he plays catch 22 if I defend myself and point out his maleficence I am evading. Well so be it then. Yeah I made it easy for Chillum to block me again but I turn of my device and have a new IP in 5 minutes, and I will continue to evade his block to edit the ANI I started. Chillum is trying to hide the evidence.172.56.38.47 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Your IPs are being blocked for block-evasion. Get a clue. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC) This IP is mad, and that fact that his nonsense is still being entertained in this forum is beyond belief. Block him and be done with it. RGloucester — ☎ 18:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC) He has been blocked like 5 times. Chillum 01:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Determined but you can call it whatever offensive poison the well tactic young can think of. Your comments say more about you. Are you nervous because some have talked about opening a SPI on you and know you are back to cast aspersions??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.38.47 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I have no need to cast aspersions about you, as you do that well yourself. I think it is fairly obvious to anyone that looks that I'm not related to Jobrot in anyway. That's what the SPI clerk said about your report, if you may remember. It is quite clear that you are just another in a long line of sock-puppets that has dominated this discussion from the moment it started, egged on by Mr Wales. Please cease and desist. You can't win. RGloucester — ☎ 18:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC) "Egged on by Mr. Wales"... uh-huh. BMK (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)− Section break (for readability) IP, I don't think that vowing to continue block evading on purpose and assuming that everyone here's out to get you since you're an IP is going to help your case. Take a deep breath and step back- I'm sure people will be more willing to read your comments if you do so. Thedeadlypenguin (my primary acc.'s talk) 23:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC) The Remain Silent Don't Say Nothing Bad About an Abusive Admin has Never Worked ANI I started to have my actions and Chillum's actions scrutinized Note I transferred the below comments from my comments with Wildneck I started the ANI so others could look at the block I received for starting a SPI. Chillum blocked the IP I submitted the SPI with. I have a cellular IP and it changes frequently, that is how cell towers serve many customers. Chillum specifically said I logged out from an account and was a therefore a sock. What account did I log out from, what evidence was there? Did he start a SPI on me? No he just used a convenient excuse to block me. It was malicious at best. I believe he has a low level of respect for IP's and was not AGF. He has made up lies after that to defend his block. He says I edit warred. That is a lie. Show where I did that? The only thing I have done is turn off my device for 5 Minutes to get a new IP to respond to the ANI I started. Why did I start it? So his actions and my actions would be scrutinized. I could of walked away but I am tired of the abusive atmosphere here towards IP's. I will stand my ground on this one. I started the ANI and I will participate in it and see it out. The hell with the catch 22 when you have been maliciously abused by an admin. 172.56.38.47 (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Hey WeldNeck, I left a post at Jobrots page and I am no longer seeking a SPI. It has plenty of merit but if it is a sock or meat puppet I like Jobrots attitude better than the sock master. It could be a friend or even a sophisticated sock but it is no longer my intention to pursue it. My main concern is the abuse from Chillum and all the lies he has been telling to cover his tracks. He makes up stuff or misrepresents it by twisting the facts. His reason he posted on the account he blocked is that I was editing logged out and a therefore a sock. I have nothing to log into as I will not register due people like Chillum. Besides that it would be ok to log out to start a SPI if they thought they would face retaliation and considering User:RGloucester is involved that would be likely. It is your call about the SPI but it does not matter to me anymore. There are so many editors with sock accounts and friends battling for them what is a couple of more. 172.56.8.17 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC) If you feel the evidence is strong enough to warrant the SPI then go for it, I certainly think there's something to it. Just because everyone does it doesn't mean we should let people get away with it. WeldNeck (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I think the abusive atmosphere here by some admins towards IP's does much more damage to the project and I have to pick my battles. I originally started the SPI which was deleted and then Chillum who was deeply involved in the article came along 5 hours after I started it and blocked my account here: [471] Chillum wrote: Per our sock puppet policy undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Logging out to file a complaint against another user qualifies as such. It is clear from your knowledge of events that take place well prior to your edit history that you have prior history here. It is also clear you are using more than one IP to edit war and act disruptively at Draft talk:Cultural Marxism. If you wish to appeal this block please log into your regular account to do so. Chillum 17:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC) What account did I log out from? Having knowledge makes me guilty? Having cellular service that randomly changes IP's is now a crime? Discussing on a talk page about a bias and push in an article is now forbidden? Reinstating my deleted comments 1 time is an edit war? Making false allegations about someone who is an IP is accepted practice? What is troubling is User:Chillums amount of lying to cover up after I self reported myself at ANI to get the matter scrutinized. The evidence speaks for itself but so do the reactions. It seems there is little accountability for admins abusing other editors especially the IP editor. There is probably a process to take this higher/further but very few know about it and are willing to go there. The catch 22 of being abused and then being blocked so you cannot make a report without being accused of evading a block is severely flawed as well. I have let enough admins know so at least their is more information about it. Thank you WeldNeck for looking into the matter of the original SPI. The evidence is strong and I believed it deserved more attention. I would of been ok with the SPI going nowhere after the process which was very short and deleted, why? The clear abuse of someone who started a SPI has become a bigger issue for me. I did not even know about Chillum's block until I went back the next day to look at the SPI. My IP had already changed when I turned on my Cellular device. Chillum has tried to use my changing IP as evidence. That has no merit as cellular networks continually change IP's to allow more people to use the network than they have IP's allocated for. Take your cell phone for example (same type of network) and google "my IP" and then turn it of for awhile or go somewhere and google "my IP" again and it likely changed. The bigger the population of people the more likely it will change faster. I could of said oh well to Chillum's block and went on about my business and no one would of known or cared. However there are people out there who use an IP that does not regularly change (unless they unplug their modem over night) who have been targeted by an abusive admin and I stood up for the community. It is possible Chillum thought I fell into that category and would be an easy target to abuse. Maybe he acted maliciously due to his involvement in the very controversial Cultural Marxism AFD. Maybe he has an dislike of IP editors or is paranoid about them. I do not know his reason and it does not matter so I fought against the abuse and false allegation. I forced the issue rather than just walking away which would of been easy. I knew I could fight him at ANI as blocking my IP is pretty much a waste of time unless admins are willing to go nuclear and range block millions of cellular users. That is unlikely to stop someone who has other access and knows how IP's are assigned. I pointed that out to Chillum on his talk page in a smart a$$ way to prevent such a meat head move on his part that would do a lot of collateral damage. I was successful in preventing that. I have been very determined and sometimes a little to much of a smart a$$ towards Chillum as he has been towards me. Chillum's lying, false allegations and twisting to cover his a$$ did not bring out the best in me at all times. However as an Admin Chillum is the face of Wikipedia and he needs to exercise better judgment and that is my reason for not ignoring it. 172.56.32.8 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

More Discussion

172.56.0.0/18, in case any admin is interested. 199.47.73.100 (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Now this IP is using my password reset form over and over. Not going to work, my e-mail is plenty secure. Unless someone is going to take action against me perhaps this can be closed and we can just quietly revert, block, and ignore? Chillum 15:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent disruptive editing by User:80.111.174.103 on The Salute Tour

The following discussion is closed. 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:80.111.174.103 has been persistent in editing and reverting false information on this page over the last week. They edit the setlist linking a song to an unrelated artist and continue to try to alter the sourced name of the opening act. This user also has a prior history of inserting inaccurate information into this article and was warned and banned as User:80.111.184.146 in the past for disruptive editing. They have been asked to provide sources for their edits and warned repeatedly to stop adding and re-adding inaccurate and unsourced information but continue to revert back to their unsourced content. Morhange (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [472]
2. [473]
3. [474]
4. [475]
5. [476]
6. [477]
7. [478]
8. [479]

Semi-protected 1 week. Please discuss on talk page why it is incorrect to link it as a cover song. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Chaulin humberto tuteto

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

---

• Chaulin humberto tuteto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User keeps creating problematic articles, then removing the various deletion templates that come as the result of problematic article creation.

• Removal of AfD templates: [480][481]

• Removal of PROD templates: [482][483]

• Restoring article after AfD result was to convert article to redirect: [484].

I seem to recall the user removing speedy delete templates, but I believe those might have disappeared when the related articles were deleted. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• As Chaulin humberto tuteto has been blocked numerous times in the past, it is evident that he has not learned his lesson. Therefore, I recommend for him to be blocked indefinitely. - Areaseven (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Minor nitpick: It's not against policy to remove a {{prod}}. "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." the template says. Kleuske (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A valid nitpick. Given the other behavioral matters, specifically his removal of AfD templates and CSD templates (which I can't find b/c I don't have access to deleted articles), what I'm painting is a portrait of an editor who submits sub-par content, has a personal interest in keeping it up, so he removes templates to support his personal preference. The user has not discussed any of these removals, nor has the editor participated in any of the AfDs. They're avoiding consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• The user also refuses to add sources when editing [485][486] in spite of numerous requests on their talk page to do so. The Toy Story 2 content linked here seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding about what sort of content is noteworthy and deserving of inclusion. Reruns of an English language film on Spanish language network Telemundo does not qualify as noteworthy, particularly when there is no context to explain significance. WP:TVINTL discourages this for TV shows, and MOS:FILM#Release seems to discourage it as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• The user has also made an unapproved redirect of an article: [487]. - Areaseven (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• After reviewing User:Chaulin humberto tuteto's editing history, I agree that their edits are problematic. And their persistent failure to discuss or communicate is the ultimate disruption. I have a placed a 3-month block on the account -- with some slim hope that they might begin to communicate with other editors. Should they return and continue the same behavior, I would have no problem extending the block for an indefinite period due to issues of competency. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Denver Stevenson abusing talk page while blocked

The following discussion is closed. 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, User:Denver Stevenson was blocked for using Wikipedia for advertising only, however, the user has started abusing its talk page and continously reverted other's changes on that page. Please revoke talk page access. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Sigh, User:Pagesclo 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.

---

User:Pagesclo (formerly blocked user User:Craftdraw) is once again mass moving pages. Since it is a topic area I am not familiar with, I have no idea if it is justified or not. More indicative of the user's general attitude is this edit. While minor in itself, the edit summary ("revenge edit") says it all; User:Pagesclo reverted my edit simply because it was my edit. I have tried communicating with this user on previous occasions, with no response. The user is disruptive and unwilling to engage, is constantly moving pages without consensus, and is prone to template-spamming articles. I don't like asking for people to be blocked, and can't recall the last time I did so, but my patience is wearing very thin... Simon Burchell (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

For info, previous posting from ANI archive at Disruptive editing by User:Pagesclo and User:Pagesclo... There are others. In the "Disuptive editing" linked incident, the most recent, the user never responded here. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also just noticed this current sockpuppet investigation. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User account has been blocked as a sock of User:Madere etc. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:No rest for you tonight!

The following discussion is closed. 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 might just be me but I'm sensing a WP:NOTHERE probably with the aim to recreate pages ive tagged for WP:SPEEDY. If someone can nip this in the bud it would be appreciated. Amortias (T)(C) 20:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And User:Smalljim's already done it. Amortias (T)(C) 20:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Superdupersmartdude's edit after final warning

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

---

In their short stay here at Wikipedia, Superdupersmartdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has managed to demonstrate that they are unable to edit on certain issues without vitriol. They started off making generally good faith edits but with some inappropriate humor and copyvio. More recently, however, they made an inappropriate edit on Feminism, added personal analysis to a disambig page, made some colorful statements on Bernie Madoff's article, added some unsourced and inappropriate content, and went full Godwin's Law on Talk:Feminism and ended up calling users "gender-fascists", adding Maybe I should report all of you to Arbcom as part of the feminazi wikistorm which happened here a while ago, along with your feminist wikiproject, since I have nothing to hide. Count yourselves lucky I don't feel like doing that right now. The user has been templated by multiple editors on their talk page regarding their behavior, but the "gender-fascists" comment came after a final warning. Since it's not a clear case of vandalism, I'm filing this ANI to bring attention to this user's behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Rohingya article

Rainmaker23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When I started editing this article in 2011, it was nothing more than random news collection. My hope was nothing more than to present accurate information without personal prejudices. But soon, I received a wave tirades from Burmese nationalists: "The article apparently is edited only by Muslims and Rohingya Supporters in Myanmar and noting is neutral." After that, some other editors contributed a part. So it went on. But after 2012, the Rohingya received international attention. So I expanded it accordingly, using sources from foremost experts such as Jacques Leider and Derek Tonkin. I also expanded humanitarian situations about them using sources from Amnesty International, and International Crisis Group as well as authoritative books from my university library. But soon, I received another wave of personal attacks. Here is from Rainmaker23, "You're trying to act as an appeaser. Wikipedia is not a place for your POV pushing pro-government stand against Rohingyas." and another user, "The paragraph is written to suggest that repressions against the Rohingya were deserved." These are too much and too unfair apparently when I spent countless hours to research and obtain diverse perspectives. One focal point of attention is the note by Leider I added. No reader would fail to get what he means. But you can see at Talk:Rohingya people, people do not answer when asked for direct quotations but respond with a string of personal attacks. My hope has always been to give neutral experts' viewpoints to the readers and play a part, however trivial, in resolving the current crisis. But I am accused by both sides of being a Muslim Rohingya supporter or pro-government appeaser who believes repression against the group is deserved. This is way too much.

User Rainmaker23 wants to delete everything that suggests some people from Bangladesh immigrated to Burma after Burmese independence. I have supplied extremely reliable sources which a Stanford Professor acclaimed "the future historians will owe significant debt". Another source, Moshe Yegar for example, is a respected Israeli historian. I also provided a source to Bangladesh Ambassador himself. But Rakhinmaker23 always says I misrepresent the sources even when I have provided him/her with direct quotations. When asked for direct quotations, he failed to do so but responded with a string of personal attacks. I tried to compromise by deleting a sentence that says post 1980s immigration is very low. But he is determined to delete everything that suggests post-independence immigration. (Also note that this article already states from the 1990s onward, a lot of Rohingyas went to Bangladesh. And Ne Win's operations created an outflow of refugees to Bangladesh.) I can no longer discuss due to extreme level of personal attacks. Please help. SWH^{® talk} 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I am familiar with this user and observed his (assuming male) behavior in many Bangladesh relates articles I watch. He has a strong belief that his standpoint is always correct and his narratives are better than anyone else. He is indeed a very good editor and can help improve articles a lot. But he has hard time in dealing with other editors, heading to consensus and wants to push own POV. I have encountered and observed several incidents with him which could be ANI, but I always decided to peace out. If administrators want to investigate this incident, they may also want to have look at other incidents, specially pertaining to Bangladesh and Dhaka. BTW, he has a habit of removing Talk page contents (I do not mean his own talk page, I mean Wikipedia article talk pages) claiming they constitute personal attacks (towards other users?) or irrelevant (!). A recent incident that bother me a lot was when I tried to partake in a discussion on Talk:Bangladesh#History where he (in)advertently went furious, made challenge, blanked discussion indeed and went to removing a message on my talk where he tried to get help from me on an encounter with another user. – nafSadh did say 17:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment User:Soewinhan, I did not engage in attacking you. It was your last personal comment at me which provoked my response. You brought major changes to the article this February, replacing the lede with many unbalanced statements. You are claiming that Rohingyas are different from the "original" Bengalis who settled in Arakan- in that case do you consider them to be illegal immigrants or non-Bengali? If you consider the Rohingya community to be illegal outsiders, that is absurd. Your sources clearly document Rohingya roots in pre-colonial Burma.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Nafsadh, I've asked for your opinion on occasions, I've sought to engage with you. I conceded to you on several issues. And yet you don't relent. What do you want? --Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Soewinhan: Could you provide diffs of this behaviour for admins to look over? Blackmane (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

New Victoria Cross award to be made

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

---

Rumours emerging that a new award of the Victoria Cross is to be made (see Talk:Victoria Cross#New award to be made). No reliable sources to confirm yet, but there's bound to be attention as the rumours spread. Recipient is said to be Joshua Leakey (redlink at time of writing) of the Parachute Regiment. Will bear keeping an eye on and keeping unreliable material out. David Underdown (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• And confirmed. I'll keep an eye on the article when it's created (I would start myself, but it's past midnight here), but I can't see there being many problems as there'll be plenty of reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This is at ANI because... why? EEng (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Cooliemandude

The following discussion is closed. 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 recently blocked for attacking a specific editor, then made another personal attack at his own talk page. A revoke of talk page access may be helpful. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Kostanay and User:Rinice

I am afraid I need some advice since I am unsure what to do. User:Rinice yesterday started to post big chunks of text to Kostanay. They have no contribution outside this article. The first one was copyvio, I reverted it and warned the user. They continued, adding latge pieces of text, which were recognizable as machine translation from Russian (some words were not translated and it was clear they are Russian). I think this is copyvio as well, but I can not find anything since there is no source. I reverted this as well. Today, they continued. I tried contacting them on their talk page in English and in Russian, but they never respond. Suggestions to proceed are most welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have placed a final warning on the user's talk page. Any further copy vio should result in an indef block. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. But how can we prove it is copyvio? Only their first edit was directly copied from elsewhere. For other edits, I can not find the source of the text.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Mr Ymblanter, my editing is not a copy-pasted text! As for my interest in the theme - it is a project of our university as we want to present more information than the page contains. I don't understand why you keep reverting my editings, because all the information is taken from our local archives and newspapers that is why I cannot give you direct links. I'm not guilty if other people from Kostanay might have used a resembling information. I live in this city, so, please, don't blame me in the lack of competence! It is I who need an urgent help here, as the interface of Wikipedia turned out to be not very convenient at all! And we thought that it is a free encyclopedia, open for everyone who CAN include something interesting ang new! But in practice I see only those people who suppress any beginnings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinice (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rinice: I'd suggest you learn on how to cite the information you use. I believe you are looking for the template that is used for books and such (Template:Cite book). If you need, use {{helpme}} on your talk page followed by your question. Hope this helps! -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is great that you use the old information to improve the article, but please note that old newspapers are likely to be copyrighted, and adding even translated text from them would be copyright violation. The only way you can add material is to add your own text (written based on the sources, but not repeating them literally and not even closely paraphrasing them).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Great! I see you won't be against the nonsense then (maybe, you are not in trend, but there occur plenty of mistakes in Wikipedia, because 1. people do not know what they write about, 2. they make up things by themselves. I've understood, you don't want any changes here at all. Local chronicles are the most trustable source, and even a well-processed work is a violation of somebody's rights. It is impossible to write completely different facts for history, for example. According to your logic all historians just copied info from each other (actually they did, if you haven't known). Of course, I will try to invent new things. But, please, try and PROVE that my last editing was taken from somewhere else, or I'll make a petition to your director. Good wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinice (talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

At this point, my communication skills fail. May be someone else could try?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And where is the proof I've asked you about??? If you give up quickly, you admit that this site does not have any responsibility for reliability of the facts which it contains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinice (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, may be you indeed should make a petition to my director. Sorry, I just failed to communicate to you in a manner you understand.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• The edits were reversed by Epicgenius (thanks). The material is, of course, also poorly and non-neutrally written and unverified... Drmies (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)