Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888

Disruptive new editor who's been warned a couple of times on other things.

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

---

The latest by Dayquill. Take a look at his Talk page too, just a list of warnings and he's only contributed 5 things. Block for a month? --A21sauce (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The account has 4 edits and is less than a day old. If you consider his edits vandalism, I'd file a report at WP:AIV. I don't believe it is an issue of misconduct that warrants an WP:ANI report. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, will file but even with a warning on here, he continued to vandalize, on another topic.--A21sauce (talk) 14:34, 5 June 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 Bowei Huang 2 sockpuppet needs blocking

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

---

Currently at the ref desk we've got a user:Gyotu posting almost verbatim copies of prior questions posted by Fivult who is an indeffed sock of the User:Bowei Huang 2.

See, for example, this post by Fivult:"God and the Devil are opposites? In order for two things to be opposites, they must be equal. If they are not equal, then they are not opposites. God and the Devil are not equal. How can God and the Devil be opposites if they are not equal? Fivult (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)"

and the identical post on God and the Devil by User:Gyotu: "God and the Devil are not opposites? God is good. The Devil is evil. God symbolizes and represents good. The Devil symbolizes and represents evil. Aren't God and the Devil opposites just as and in the same way as good and evil are opposites?"

This question on Christianity and political causes diff follows the same modus operandi.

Can someone please nip this in the bud? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The user makes no real attempt to hide who he is. I don't think he's been formally banned yet. He should be. Because then his junk could be reverted on-sight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I strongly concur with the above two editors. Bowei Huang is a serious nuisance, and should be banned. And Bugs and Medeis - I'm sorry for having been intolerant towards you both in the past. On balance, I think we can probably all find a way to coexist on RefDesk; I don't for one second believe the same about Bowei Huang. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No harm, no problem. You're fine. :) There is a strong distinction to be made. Editors like Bowei Huang won't communicate. Editors who will communicate, like you and me, may argue sometimes, but we can reach an accord. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We vary wildly as to how much we agree or disagree, but communication goes on. Bowei Huang has never done anything on RD except post questions of this sort, and then ignore the answers. (It bugs me, because they are often topics which I know a bit about, and would be happy to discuss and provide sources, but it's all so basic and repetitive.) And of course his contributions in the main namespace are drivel. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I recall some of his mainspace junk, most of which was reverted eventually. When someone won't communicate, that usually points to either incompetence or plain old trolling. Either way, they don't contribute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comment AlexTiefling; I am happy to let bygones be bygones. I noticed in researching this how much BH had avoided any communication, regardless of your efforts, until he got blocked. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Bagged and tagged. Thanks all. --Jayron32 00:14, 5 June 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.

MariaJaydHicky new IP disruption

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

---

A new IP, Special:Contributions/86.131.167.114, is being used by banned editor MariaJaydHicky who was so disruptive in pop music articles, trying to push the "Contemporary R&B" genre onto her favourite songs and albums. This person fabricated a quote,[1] supposedly taken from page 122 a book,[2] but it's clear from the book's table of contents that the index starts on page 119, which means that book prose will not be found on page 122. We are looking at block evasion and edit warring. I asked for and received[3] page protection, but more eyes are needed with regard to this IP. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The IP has already been blocked for 31 hours, but considering this almost immediately afterwards, I suggest also revoking talk page access (and maybe even revdeleting that nonsense). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Support loss of Talk page access – that diff is over the top (and it's still on the IP's Talk page, as of 30 seconds ago...). --IJBall (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed talk page access. Chillum 01:28, 4 June 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:Agostino.prastaro using Talk pages as a forum

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

---

Agostino.prastaro (talk · contribs) has been using Talk pages of various advanced topic mathematics/physics pages as a forum for his CV and the like for the past two years. Per WP:TPO and WP:PROMO, I have been repeatedly reverting his most recent self-promotion in Talk:Poincaré conjecture, and I have left messages on his Talk page. He does not seem interested in discussion or learning/respecting WP policies whatsoever.

He has a legitimate CV, but the latest announcements are clearly WP:FRINGE. Something as significant as he claimed would absolutely receive coverage all over the math world, and might even be covered somewhere in MSM. There's apparently not a peep on any blog asking if this is what it claims to be. Choor monster (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, needs to be blocked immediately.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And now a direct attack [4]. Definitely not here. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

One problem is that he's never edited a user talk page. I think a limited duration block would get his attention and encourage him to engage editors bringing these problems to his notice on his talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• And now an anon, 81.168.78.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has joined the misuse, restoring Prastaro's direct attack. Choor monster (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the talk history, both Prastaro and User:Choor monster should be blocked. It is not clear to me what is wrong with Prastaro's attempt to discuss this at a talk page of the article on the Poincare conjecture. He has published in refereed journals on this, and raising the issue at talk concerning a possible mention in the article does not seem to me to be beyond the pale. I didn't get a chance to see if there are references to his work in the literature, but at any rate that's the issue that should be discussed, instead of the multiple reverts as practiced by User:Choor monster. Tkuvho (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's completely clear to me what's wrong with Prastaro's edits: he's simply promoting his own crackpottery. As you said, you didn't get a chance to figure this out, and yet you know that I am in the wrong? Sheesh. There is nothing to discuss, it is 100% revertible anywhere it shows up on WP, even his own user page. Choor monster (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

For some more context, this is the same editor who claims to have proven the Goldbach conjecture (and the rest of Landau's problems, apparently for good measure), Riemann hypothesis, Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness, the realization of quantum gravity, the smooth Poincare conjecture. Definite crank. What's really strange is that some otherwise decent journals actually do publish this guy's stuff. Having looked at a few of the references, apparently the recipe is to make the paper so incomprehensible that it cannot be properly reviewed by a referee. When unsure how to prove a theorem, refer to three earlier papers that are equally incomprehensible. I'm rather astonished that it works, but there it is. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, WP:TPO and WP:PROMO make it absolutely clear that, whether or not Prastaro's papers are great stuff or bizarro gibberish, his edits are 100% revertible everywhere. Tkuvho's concern that maybe the work is actually mention-worthy and we ought to find out is misplaced. We wait for RS to promote his work for us. Choor monster (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Although not directly relevant to those guidelines, being an obvious crank does rather cast doubt on Tkuvho's view that we should AGF this. As an editor already observed, WP:NOTHERE seems to apply. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I posted at User talk:Agostino.prastaro inviting the editor to explain himself. Since his response there was not satisfactory, I think the next step should be an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. He may be a solver of these famous problems in his own mind, but that doesn't entitle him to space on Wikipedia. There seems zero chance that he will wait for confirmation by the mathematical community that any of his solutions is valid, before adding his material. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

His response to you definitely seems to be a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. --IJBall (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

OR-related dialogue, not relevant to this encyclopedia, and distracting from the primary issue. BMK (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I am surprised for unjustified personal attachs against my person by someone entering in this discussion. None of these mathematician is able to enter in the mathematical subject considered in my papers, hence they prefer to lunch insults to me. This is really a non academic approach ! I posted some talks on Wikipedia about my published solutions to some important mathematical problems, believing to do a good service to the International Mathematical Community. I believe that talk-Wikipedia space is the suitable space to this purpose. In fact these were some instructions that I received some years ago from Wikipedia. EdJohnston says: There seems zero chance that he will wait for confirmation by the mathematical community that any of his solutions is valid, before adding his material Dear Johnston, I have not problem about what you claim for confirmation by the mathematical community ... History is made by centuries ... What is important for me is that some serious international mathematical communities have accepted and published my solutions ... I do not pretend that all world gives me his consensus. Let me recall, that Perelman's proof of the Poincare' conjecture is yet today disputed from some sector of the mathematical community ... but also Einstein's General Relativity is considered a wrong theory from some 'serious scientist' ... However, I do not think that the Wikipedia's interest is to apply a santa inquisizione against scientific subjects. Regards. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (87.10.230.75 (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) On the contrary, I did look at your mathematical papers, specifically the one on Goldbach and the one on Navier-Stokes. In the Goldbach paper, you commit elementary errors. The Navier-Stokes paper is incomprehensible, with key parts of the proof missing (instead we are vaguely referred to other papers of yours, equally incomprehensible). I have no idea how you managed to publish this stuff, but I am beginning to believe that this is just a successful troll against mathematics publishing. Someone should compile a list of your publications and contact the editorial boards demanding an explanation. This seems like fraud. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC) I have looked at some of this person's work. He claims to have solved several of the most famous open problems in mathematics, and repeatedly cites his own papers which are published in journals with no editorial standards, such as Mathematics Without Boundaries, and the Garbage Machine (a.k.a. "General Mathematics") section of ArXiv. The style of writing in these papers is incomprehensible and involves saying all of the fanciest words in pure mathematics, and writing endless complicated formulas and definitions without apparent purpose or direction. He seems to be here to publicize his delusions of grandeur. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC) It is too easy to freely lunch insults against some author saying that his work contains some 'elementary errors' ... what errors ? I remember that soon after posted my announcement on arXiv on the Goldbach's conjecture (2012) many stupid injuries were diffused on the web against my person ... none founded on some serious mathematical argument ... At the same time one of these claimed that in my paper there was a mistake in the proof ... and continued to claim this statement, despite in the next editions of my posts on arXiv of the same work, I clearly proved that mistake does not exist. ... But today one can continue to find this URL under the name 'The danger of confusing cosets and numbers' ... A serious academic behaviour should require to cancel that misunderstanding ! The final version of my proof of the Goldbach's conjecture is the one posted in the same 2012, but some further editions are also posted containing simple formal improvements. Next I enveloped this paper as the first part of the work 'The Landau problems. I-II', since this has been the arXiv request. Never I received some mathematical dispute on these works. Some leader mathematical journal, where I submitted these works for publication, asked me to send a recommendation letter from a renowned specialist in the field. This is a very strange approach for journals that should they produce a peer review. On the other hand, since I use new mathematical methods to solve such problems it is impossible to find a specialist therein... However, I followed such a procedure for another my paper posted on arXiv: 'The Riemann hypothesis proved'. For privacy reasons I do not say the name of the envolved mathematician. By the way this is a very famous mathematician, that at the beginning accepted to consider my paper, but after decided that he was not expert enough in the mathematics considered there, therefore he was unable to decide about ... My opinion about these experiences is that since my papers speak mathematics any mathematician can be able to understand my works, whether he aims seriously force himself to understand ... (Who claim 'I do not understand ...' without saying 'what' and 'why', gives a self-declaration of stupidity.) Therefore, when a journal reject a paper since there is not a recommendation letter, or without a serious peer review, the unique possible conclusion is that journal is not following a serious editorial approach in the interest of the Scientific Community. Let me add that the last two statements against editors that accepted my works are very crazy ... For the future we will ask to these unknown mathematicians whether it is suitable to publish my works ... Regards to SANTA INQUISIZIONE. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (82.61.154.141 (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)) *This comment seems to be at the root of the problem: "On the other hand, since I use new mathematical methods to solve such problems it is impossible to find a specialist therein." Since Wikipedia depends on reliable sources and verifiability it matters a great deal that there are not specialists who can evaluate your work. Wikipedia does not publish original research and if these methods are so new that your peers don't understand them, then it is way too early to be including your work on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for blazing new trails of academic and scientific research but for reporting what the mainstream academic world and established sources can agree upon. Minority points of view and interpretation can be included but even they need to be supported by independent secondary sources that validate them. If you (or another editor) can supply other mathematicians' positive evaluation of your ideas, then your work might be included, depending on the consensus view of those editors who are working on these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 12:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC) You forget that my contributions in Wikipedia are posted on Talk-section about published works, hence works that have just received some consensus. Wikipedia-talks accomplish just the service to inform the scientific community about new important researches. To accept the last post's interpretation, it should be equivalent to eliminate the talk-section. Such a restrictive interpretation is against any scientific interest. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (82.53.149.149 (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (82.53.149.149 (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)) Well, I think think post really speaks for itself. Obviously, the purpose of writing papers for you is not to communicate to other mathematicians, otherwise you yourself would not shoulder some of the burden for causing readers not to understand. When you claim a proof to a famous mathematical problem, the responsibility is solely yours to make others understand. In particular, the most recent version of the Goldbach paper that you for some reason have enjoined us to read, says that "mirror symmetry" that the well-known fact that if $a$ is a unit in a ring, then so is $-a$. I do not see any connection to mirror symmetry, a deep fact of symplectic geometry. Presumably, you must believe that I am too stupid to see the connection, yet you shoulder none of the burden for not making the connection apparent? This is rather typical of the overall style: try to wrap rather simple things into apparently complicated formalism in the hopes of tricking the reader. For example, quibbles about "mirror symmetry" aside, your alleged proof of Goldbach appears on p 17-23 of [5]. You bring in a lot of unnecessary concepts to the proof: spectra, local rings, Artin and Noetherian rings. All of this is far too much technology just to study the ring $\mathbb {Z} /\mathbb {Z} _{r}$. The structure you describe is elementary number theory, just tarted up in a language you hope will be impenetrable. For instance, "Lemma 2.32", "Lemma 2.33", "Lemma 2.35" are all just (weak forms of(!)) the Chinese remainder theorem. (The latter even features a bizarrely complicated proof involving the Zariski topology and sheaf theory, when it is in fact a trivial consequence of the previous lemmas.) Ultimately, the "proof" of Goldbach, such as it is, appears to constitute the assertion that the 2n Goldbach bordism group is isomorphic to the 2 Goldbach bordism group. This assertion can be found near the top of page 23. Unfortunately, a proper definition of the Goldbach bordism group appears to be lacking, so it is difficult to find any specific flaw in the rest of the proof. But since nowhere does it seem to use any multiplicative property of the integers, the same technique could be used to "prove" just about any property you like. A vague non-definition of a "bordism group", followed by a vague non-proof that the group is non-trivial. Presumably this is how you also "proved" every other outstanding conjecture of modern mathematics. Also, none of the formalism developed in the preceding 20 pages or so was actually used in the "construction" of the isomorphism of bordism groups. It all seems to have been a red herring. As a final specific remark, in the 2012 version of the Goldbach paper, the alleged "proof" is one paragraph long and contains elementary mathematical errors (as in, high school algebra level errors). Yet, now we are assured that the same proof appears with "simple formal improvements". That is, the same high school algebra error has now been wrapped in several layers of algebro-geometric and algebro-topological formalism. Incidentally, I was not able to locate the original error in the revised version. Presumably that was the goal of including so many red herrings. And here we come to the real purpose of all of the formalism: include enough formalism that the errors are impossible to detect. The reply above appears to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what mathematics and peer review is about. The purpose of a mathematical argument is not to conceal falsehoods, but to reveal truths. Likewise, good assessment of mathematics is not about revealing errors, but grasping those truths. But, typical of other papers by the author in question, the goal is precisely contrary to that of actual mathematics. Instead of revealing truths, the goal appears to be to create a black box that is sufficiently obscure that it is impossible to discern the errors that it conceals. (For example, the non-existent definition of the "Goldbach bordism" group, on which the entire alleged proof appears to rest.) Instead of clear mathematical writing, favor ever more elaborate formalism, red herrings, and convoluted proofs. This is not a recipe for communication. Instead it seems to me to be a calculated attempt to mislead the reader. As such, this is a violation of core principles of academic integrity. I've written an email to Steven Krantz expressing my concerns over the paper in J. Math. Anal. Appl., since I feel that the editorial board has been negligent in exercising due diligence. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC) User:Agostino.prastaro should by now have perceived that other Wikipedia editors don't favor his use of our pages to publicize his solutions of famous problems. Barring an agreement by him to cease this behavior, I will proceed with an indefinite block. To avoid this, Agostino.prastaro could agree not to mention or cite his own work in any of his future Wikipedia edits, either in articles or on talk pages or noticeboards. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC) This last post by EdJohnston could teach something to the Santa Inquisizione against Galilei. Unfortunately for EdJohnston the times are changed and nowadays no lobby can cancel the truth, that is open to anybody. But let us consider EdJohnston's arguments against my works. 1) He specifically refers to my proof of the Goldbach's conjecture. He states that in the final version it is impossible to recognize errors. This should be interpreted positive ! NO ! For EdJohnston this simply means that I was so sly people to hide errors ... these should necessarily exist ... Why ? But this EdJonston's approach vs. my work has nothing to do with a serious academic behaviour ! Really I cannot understand why he assumes such attitude. 2) But he is neither satisfied of such unprofessional behaviour ... He claims that has written to Krantz against my papers on the geometry of PDEs published in JMAA. I have never seen a paper by EdJohnston on the PDE's algebraic topology ... (the subject considered in my papers published in JMAA) Then how it is possible that he pretends to examine critically my work there ! This EdJohnston's approach vs. my work has nothing to do with a serious academic behaviour ! 3) Really he states that all my work can be similarly criticized. But my central work in the last decades concerns PDE's Algebraic Topology. I repeat, I do not know something written by EdJohnston in this field. But he pretends to be an expert therein, so strong to be able to criticize an Editor Board to have published my work. The minimum that I can say: EdJonston's approach vs. my work has nothing to do with a serious academic behaviour ! 4) As a final by Santa Inquisizione, EdJohnston requires that I will be blocked on Wikipedia, unless I abjure to cite my work in Wikipedia. This is really great ! At this point I ask to Wikipedia: But it is possible that nowadays there are so inadequate editors working for Wikipedia ? It is possible that I am constraint to lose all this time with such nonsense discussions ? This is my last reply to this nonsense-old-fashioned process against my contribution in Wikipedia-talks. After this I would like receive a definitive and formal position by Wikipedia. Thanks. Agostino Prástaro There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (87.19.235.121 (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)) Obviously, you didn't even read my reply if you believe that I did not identify any errors. I did identify errors. I was just unable to identify the same error as the original version, but you have assured me that it is there. The point of mathematics is not the concealment of errors. But you clearly wouldn't understand this. Nor, apparently, do you understand enough mathematics to read the actual issues that I pointed out in your Goldbach paper. Instead, you accuse me and others of participating in an inquisition. But it is, of course, the right of any scientist to question the published work of another scientist. That is part of the peer review process. A denial of this as "inquisition" shows a fundamental disconnect with the process of academic peer review. Ironically, if you did not incessantly cite your own work, it probably would not have been subject to the same degree of critical scrutiny. But there it is. Finally, I am not EdJohnson. This is further indication that you did not actually read my post, despite the fact that I endured over twenty pages of your mathematical blatherskeit. Not academic behavior indeed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone pointed out to this editor that we're not an academic medium, that we're a popular encyclopedia for the masses, that we don't follow academic standards of behavior (because we're not academics), but have our own set of standards, including that new and original work is absolutely not welcome here under any circumstances, because we rely on secondary and tertiary sources? And if someone has poiinted all of this out to him and he's still doing what he appears to be doing, why is he not blocked from editing? This behavior is at least as disruptive as adding "poopy" to articles. probably even more so. So why doesn't some on-the-ball admin give him an absolutely final warning and if he does it again, indef block him? What's he adding to the encyclopedia except angst? BMK (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Agostino.prastaro is now blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing, per the reasoning in this thread. Detailed rationale is on his talk page, plus suggestions for how to be unblocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 7 June 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 and inappropriate use of tools by User:FreeRangeFrog

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

---

Earlier this evening FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized and inappropriately used his admin tools on the userpage of User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. His rationale for the page protecting was "Persistent disruptive editing" but there was absolutely nothing persistent or disruptive about my edits. Furthermore, it is outright vandalism of someone's userpage to declare them an admin when they are not. For the vandalism and inappropriate use of admin tools I am submitting this administrator's edits for review and, hopefully, removal of his tools. 24.2.241.52 (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Question, why would an IP's first edit be on removing an admin status? Regardless, it is not "vandalism" to protect the page. Such a removal should be done by a logged-in user. No one's tools will be stripped from them for that, so closing this is the best option.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The vandalism is adding information saying a person is an admin when they are not. The inappropriate use of tools is protecting a page with an invalid rationale. Both are inconsistent with Wikipedia policy and require mitigation. 24.2.241.52 (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your statement of me being an IP and my "first edit" I do not have an account and I will not for the sake of my privacy. Please WP:AGF. 24.2.241.52 (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That had nothing to do with AGF, it was a mere question. Makes no sense for an IP to make that their first edit.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I might question the admin's summary "persistent disruptive editing", but that isn't worth tool removal by a longshot, so the best option would probably be to just speedily close this discussion. (Non-administrator comment). Dustin (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, nothing needs to be done, so it is time to move on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:15, 10 June 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.

John Cryan

The following discussion is closed. 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 edit about the place of birth which is referenced is reverted many times today and this should stop. Diff Link. Cruks (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected for three days. Next time please use WP:AIV and/or WP:RFPP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:WARN may come in handy next time. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:01, 9 June 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.

Trolling of a blocked editor

Block evasion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User David J Johnson is baiting a blocked user (Billy from Bath) by posting factually incorrect information on his talk page while he is blocked. Here [[6]]. The user Billy from Bath (talk) was also blocked for the very same reason in 2011. Here [[7]]. 86.131.172.186 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC) You are really not helping your case here. I could see a decent argument against blocking you on the basis of your block evasion in 2011, as you have managed to not create problems since. But your use of IPs to evade your current block, whether or not that block makes sense, undermines it. If you want to stand any chance of getting unblocked, you need to respect the block and appeal it properly. Monty845 15:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

RussianDewey

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

---

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

We have a user here named RussianDewey, who has been pretty aggressive toned and uncivil since he joined Wikipedia. I've tried to tell him to refrain himself from being like that from the start, but it seems that he doesn't really care, his recent uncivil comments being on this talk page [8], saying things such as these [9] [10] [11]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing your issues on his talk page? A personal note is better than placing a template warning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

HistoryofIran did warn the user several times on an article talk page, if that counts for anything.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Template talk:History of Iran, I see plenty of venom from both Russian and yourself, HistoryofIran. The Banner has done a respectable job of trying to bring common sense on the talk page (although he did get a little heavy with the reverts). NeilN had to full protect the template due to warring. That particular page is a case of some edit warring, and as such, ANI isn't the best venue, particularly since that seems under control for the moment. Still, I did a spot check through his previous talk page additions, and see he has taken issue with you since he arrived. This does appear to be a personal problem that is mainly focused on just the two of you, although I can't say exactly why without more research. For the matter at hand, I can only assume that NeilN saw the discussion and events and decided that template protection was adequate. HistoryofIran, looking at your contribs, you aren't always the pinnacle of civility either, although it pales in comparison to some others.

That said, let me be clear in warning RussianDewey that there DOES seem to be a pattern here, and it does look like you are targeting HistoryofIran for constant ridicule. It is one thing to get into an argument over a template, which happens sometimes, it is another to harass. Your very first edit was [12] which I find quite unusual for a new user, to come in guns blazing and harass someone. I strongly suggest you quickly develop some tact in your communications. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a collaborative endeavor. If you can't cooperate in a collegiate fashion, then you don't belong here. Tone it down and quit making personal observations on the character of other editors. If you make another comment like this, what we call ad hominem, you are likely to find yourself blocked. It is unhelpful and unwanted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"and it does look like you are targeting HistoryofIran for constant ridicule"

Why are you lying? This wasn't a target on one indviudal to ridicule this was to bring back the old template back, if you are gonna twist my words at least do it right and better than that.

"Your very first edit was [300] which I find quite unusual for a new user, to come in guns blazing and harass someone."

Wait a minute? Am I missing something or does every first new editor act the same, that page is what made me an editor today. I had to edit and bring back the guy's first name? Sorry that I like my things in order. Also "gun blazing" wow. It is clear you are one HistoryOfIRan's side, painting me ine one image while leaving the other guy as the angel sent from heaven.

"I strongly suggest you quickly develop some tact in your communications."

I do't need to take your syuggestion after what you have said about me? I request another adminsitator or another wikipedian to asses this siutation with no bias.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a collaborative endeavor. If you can't cooperate in a collegiate fashion, then you don't belong here."

I do collobatore, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean I don't do, work on your logic there buddy.

"If you make another comment like this, what we call ad hominem, you are likely to find yourself blocked. It is unhelpful and unwanted."

Petty threats again to marginzliae new editors and let the old gaurd hold this place down.
RussianDewey (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems like you might have a battleground mentality. We are here to make an encyclopedia, not be uncivil towards each other. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 17:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That being said, @HistoryofIran: can be a little intimidating at times, but that's just what I think. If we all act a little more civil towards each other, a lot of disputes won't happen. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 17:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• RussianDewey, the very fact that you started your comment to me with "Why are you lying?" demonstrates exactly what I am talking about. Indeed, a battleground attitude with no tact, and shows an inability to work in a collaborative environment. I've not heard of either of you until today, so to assume I'm picking sides is a fool's errand, particularly since I pointed out his incivilities as well. What you have done is confirm my suspicions that editing an encyclopedia may not be suitable for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"It seems like you might have a battleground mentality. We are here to make an encyclopedia, not be uncivil towards each other."

Then be civil. If you be civil, I will be civil. Golden Rule.

"the very fact that you started your comment to me with "Why are you lying?" demonstrates exactly what I am talking about."

So you have a telepathic abilities, or am I not allowed to question your integrity here, where is your dignity? You see another question I can ask.

"Indeed, a battleground attitude with no tact"

No tact but some strategy. I'm looking in the longterm mister brown not short term.

"and shows an inability to work in a collaborative environment"

What a load of bull, so the incident in the template and Malik-Shah's page represents all my edit and collaborative effort in Wikipedia? Who the hell do you think you are?

"I've not heard of either of you until today, so to assume I'm picking sides is a fool's errand"

Excuse me of thinking in worst-case scenario, you have to have your back.

"particularly since I pointed out his incivilities as well"

That is what you call it? WOW, *claps hand slowly*

"What you have done is confirm my suspicions that editing an encyclopedia may not be suitable for you."

Did you epext me to back down? Sorry I fail to understand after the way you talked abiut me, did you truly expect me to say "Sorry Mr.Brown I will behave like a good by and listen to HistoryOfIran"

You already knew I wasn't suitable you already had your opinion fro the get-go so don't beat behind the bush and man up. RussianDewey (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your current behavior is just confirming my idea of a battleground mentality Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Trash talking an administrator on ANI is not the smartest move for a 3 month old account. You don't have to behave "like a good by" but you do have to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines that we all are supposed to follow. You're being given advice here which you are not only ignoring but stomping on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Support block for RussianDewey's the behavior on Kww's Talk page as much as for anything. WP:BATTLEGROUND might actually be an understatement here, and this is just going to lead to further disruption here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked until such time that another admin feels comfortable that he "gets it" and can work with others in a less confrontational way. We can keep kicking the can down the road, but it seems all too obvious that a block is the only way to prevent disruption and the constant battling, and continuing to argue what is obvious policy isn't going to improve behavior, nor the encyclopedia. As always, any admin is free to review or modify my actions without prior permission. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:58, 10 June 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.

84.208.216.16

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

---

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

I propose to indefinitely block 84.208.216.16 (talk · contribs). On the talkpage there is nothing but warnings. Today he removed thousands of characters from an article in an edit war,[13] and removed Kurdish categories from a number of articles even though in most cases the Kurdish descent was clearly in the article. Nothing good seems to come from this IP. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: IPs don't get "indefinitely blocked". However, particularly disruptive ones can get relatively long blocks (e.g. on the order of months). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Congratulations on passing your WP:RFA- I must have missed it. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

However, all that said, this IP is a long-time editor (going back to 2012, at least), so this seems to be a stable IP. And their Talk page is a long string of templated warning messages (esp. in regards to Kurdish topics), with no indication that the IP has even touched a Talk page. So a block of some sort may be in order here, if just to force the IP to a Talk page if nothing else... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The principle against long blocks for IPs is because most IPs change hands sooner or later, so we should reduce the risk of a new editors being lumbered with blocks intended for other miscreants. However, if an IP has shown the same problematic behaviour for a longer period, it's reasonable to assume that it's more static and hence apply a longer block. bobrayner (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Imperatrix Mundi Had I indeed passed a WP:RFA, I would surely have read up about the finer details of blocking nuisance IP-editors. :)

In that case a long block would perhaps be in order. In view of the frequency with which this editor visits Wikipedia, that would have to be a least a month, perhaps up to three months. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of ¼ year. After ¼ year the user will be automatically unblocked. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 9 June 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.

Stetson7

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

---

• Stetson7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.191.14.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.191.102.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.217.4.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Stetson7 has been sockpuppetting to insert POV original research in articles such as Veil of Veronica, Shroud of Turin, and Waldensians.

Stetson7's addition to Veil of Veronica is comparable to 101.191.14.182's addition to Shroud of Turin. Stetson7 has also been hopping between that IP to edit war ([14], [15], [16], [17]). The material he's trying to add cites an Encyclopedia Britannica article to claim that it "proves" that the Waldensians are older than Peter Waldo -- Something that the EB article does not say or imply in any way -- whether he's making it up, lying about it, doesn't understand it, or just didn't read it, that sort of POV-pushing is unacceptable. This has been explained on the talk page, and he refuses to address that issue. He did make uncited primary source claims before completely bungling the EB citation, but he has been told before that we do not accept original research.

This is not the first time he has done this. He has previously claimed that the Arles entry of Jewish Encyclopedia discussed Joseph of Aramathea, Jesus, Mary, and Boronius, even though those figures are not named in said entry. He also used his IP address to edit war to keep this material in. Even after it was explained to him that the Jewish encyclopedia did not support his claim in any way, he restored his uncited primary-source claims, calling them secondary sources.

At a minimum, Stetson7 needs to be topic banned from articles relating to Christian history. Whether it's dishonesty or incompetence, he cannot be trusted to accurately cite sources. When his mistakes are pointed out to him, he continues to edit war to reinsert the material based on uncited primary source claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: Stetson7 finally did respond on the talk page, though the response amounted to nothing but WP:IDHT and WP:REHASH. He did not address the fact that the source he cited does not (as he pretends) claim that the Waldensians predate Peter Waldo, and was even disingenuous enough to pretend that the group he was talking about somehow wasn't the Waldensians (which would have made the addition completely irrelevant). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked Stetson7 and hardblocked xxx.182 for 72 hours for socking with IPs on Waldensians. If he resumes then we'll need to have an SPI case filed to keep track. Leaving open for continued discussion on topic-banning.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been no discussion, we can probably close this thread and revisit if he continues.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:15, 9 June 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.

69.132.34.133

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

---

IP 69.132.34.133 continues to restore challenged, unsourced content to List of programs broadcast by Me-TV, without any participation in discussion, despite there being two open discussions on the talk page, and despite the IP editor having received a [direct invititation to discuss, and despite numerous edit summaries from me, pointing out the open discussion and urging participation in discussion. The IP presumably has seen these things, but still restores the problematic content, like here where he writes, "Cyphoidbomb, it was NOT a backtalk, but it WAS vandalism recently. To me, you are one rude user! >:( Now, if you don't cut out that unfair bull****, some administrator will as well BAN you for good! >:( So, your ass needs to leave it the way it was! >:("

Most of this began with this edit by Vjmlhds, who removed a lot of unsourced date ranges. The IP editor reverted with the explanation, "Vjmlhds, it IS vandalism, and if you don't cut out that unfair bull****, some administrator will as well BAN you! >:( So, leave it the way it was! >:(" I happened to agree with that bold edit, and commented thusly on the talk page, since none of the removed data was sourced and I feel there is virtually no reasonable way to verify that X series ran between Y and Z dates, which creates a verifiability concern. We're talking about a network that airs a lot of reruns, not original content, so even if we were to scour television listings, how do you prove definitively when Beverly Hillbillies started airing on this network? Unless you could source the start/end announcements, (and typically there would be no end announcement) you'd be trying to prove a negative, that Beverly Hillbillies didn't air before this date, and didn't air afterwards. There is also an issue of whether or not reruns are notable, and where the people who submit the volumes of this ponderous content get their information. But this is a bigger discussion for a different venue.

Per the behavior and comments made by the IP, we clearly have NPA violations, AGF violation both with me and with Vjmlhds, and ownership problems. I'm also assuming the editor saw my talkbalk link and is confusing that for "backtalk"? This might suggest competence issues. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• • 69's behavior and edits are way over the top. And Chypho is correct in that this network airs reruns that have aired and tons of channels over the years - no need for such intricate (and unsourced) detail. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This IP editor has 4 edits over the past 7 weeks. Is this an urgent situation? Because blocks are supposed to be preventative. They responded to you on their talk page but but all of the warnings have been from you. Maybe a higher level warning from an admin might get their attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever administrative intervention prevents the disruption, I'm happy with. Like you or any other power user, I don't have time to waste on editors who are involved in long-term edit wars. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That's amusing, I never considered myself a "power user", I'm just an editor like millions of other users. But I do dive into conflict and see if resolutions are possible where both editors can continue to contribute to this crazy encyclopedia. Conflict is inevitable whenever people are involved but there are ways to not focus on our differences and instead focus on those areas of the project that we truly enjoy working on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 6 June 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.

Unblock of JackTheVicar

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

---

JackTheVicar (talk · contribs) was blocked by Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs) for three weeks due to actions in this thread. I noticed Jack had no chance to give his right of reply in that thread and was blocked without any real discussion. He's filed an unblock request and I have proposed to unblock him if he takes a self-imposed interaction ban with Winkelvi (talk · contribs). Jack has agreed to this, but Kevin is strongly against unblocking him under any circumstances. Since we don't have consensus to unblock, I'm going to have to ask the community as to what we do. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin is in fact emphatically not against the idea of altering Jack's block, but just isn't willing to do it until the causes of the block are addressed. Kevin Gorman
• The IBAN condition and Jack's statements that they understand what the problem with their actions was (both the civility and canvassing elements) is good enough for me. It might also be worth a warning that further civility and NPA in general likely won't be looked upon kindly, but that's up to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock. The promise to avoid the conflict from now on, under parole, would be a way worth trying. I have noticed the editor as a solid contributor of content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Everyone in every situation should be given a right to reply and, if relevant, explain. This is a very basic aspect of human life that is ignored in Wikipedia. I implore closers of discussions here to please check the recent contributions of people who are reported here to check whether it is clear or whether it may be reasonable to assume that they have at least been on line since the submission of a report. Come on people. This should be basic. GregKaye 08:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

At a minimum he violated harrassment , civility, canvassing and hounding. He approched ten people off-wiki asking for them to come to his ANI to suppor him. He consistently refused to acceptresponsibility for his own action, and ignored alll the excellent advice people gave him. there's a big in the newest MW release that someone used to delete my first comment while insuliting me. it's 1;30 am so i'm not rewriting it fully tm, bit i don't really imderstand how the totality of his be

Also, i have never stated that i with certainty against unblockng jack. That;s a really, really big reading of my posts, one of which I copy here below ````

I would be inclined to reduce his block length if he indicated he understood why what he did was wrong. Every time he posts he minimizes his own actions, and stresses, to paraphrase, 'other bad people made me do it.' Blocks are preventative; unless he understands why what he did was (severely) wrong, he'll likely repeat it, unless he has the stick of a threatened block. At this time I am not modifying his block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Gorman (talk • contribs)

In the recent conversation on Jack's talk, you wrote "I normally am supportive of early unblocks... not here .... Please reflex to ANI if you must"[18] so that is what I have done. The only other options were to go back to Jack and say, "sorry, you're going to have to have a 3 week holiday, cheerio", or "screw you Kevin, I'm unblocking him anyway", neither of which would have led to a peaceful conclusion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock – I don't know this editor but I have looked through the diffs and agree, some of them were a little hostile. However, the block term is a little excessive and, with no explaination allowed by Jack, a little unfair too. Still, this wouldn't be the first time Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs) has been heavy-handed when it comes to "incivility" complaints. Cassianto^Talk 11:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So.. you're pretty much saying I was wrong to block someone who canvassed ten admins off-wiki to try to get matters decided in their favor because I was wrong about one block? Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words. Off-wiki canvassing via email goes on all the time; are you naive enough to think that it doesn't? FWIW, the block was justified under the circumstances, but the length, in my opinion, was far too excessive. Unfortunately, you seem to never get the balance quite right, do you? Cassianto^Talk 00:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• • @Cassianto: If you're going to make the accusation (re not the first time) could you please provide evidence, otherwise it seems to be personal attack territory (I'm not threatening or waving an admin stick, just a polite request). Thank you :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • See the dispute where Gorman blocked Eric earlier this year. Not an accusation, more of a factual event. Cassianto^Talk 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock. A three-week block for someone with no previous blocks and a record of improving the encyclopedia is excessive (especially when you consider the third week was added on for something Jack had already been blocked for). Jack has agreed to avoid interacting with the other user in question, so keeping him blocked would be more punitive than anything. Calidum T|C 11:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please reread my initial post, and also note that Jack still has not seen anything wrong wth massive canvassing. Jack produces content, yes. That kind of canvassing drives away content producers, and that kind of action undermines the core values of Wikipedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Calm down dude, no need to bludgeon this. I'm not saying the block wasn't warranted to begin with, only that's excessive and overly punitive at this point to keep it in place. Jack has agreed to avoid the other user in question (under threat of an indefinite block, mind you) and has said on his talk page he understands he made mistakes. I'm not sure what else you would like to see; would a pound of flesh suffice? Calidum T|C 17:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If he had recognized the problems, including the intimidation and canvassing, in a way that made it seem like he actually sounded like he got it (and my threshold for believing people isn't too high, and accepted responsibility instead of blaming the part - then I would've been content altering the block. Nothing he has said that I have seen has indicated he sees the (very, very significant) problem with off-wiki canvassing done with the intent of intimidating a user. I don't think a three week block is too long for that - others have gotten longer for the trio of npa, canvassing, and deliberate illicit intimidation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock Jack has made the offer. This kind of threat from Kevin reeks of someone with a vendetta/on a powertrip. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lugnuts: Are you referring to the last sentence? If so I agree it was quite ill advised to say the least. I'd like to hear Kevin's thoughts on that during (his) tomorrow. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's to the last sentence. Seems to have no policy-based rationale and not helpful to anyone. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Jack has offered to avoid interaction with someone, Jack has not addressed the rest of the issues. I view massive canvassing used to intimidate someone as significantly against the encyclopedia's interests. Letting someone know that if they do it again the block length will increasse hopefully has a deterrent effect and certainly is based in policy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: - Can you point to the policy that allows you to block someone "for at least six months", so we're all crystal clear on that one? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Policy makes it clear escalating blocks are endorsed, and that their level can vary based on level of offense. Offwiki canvassing and intimidation has gotten people arbcom banned plenty of times before; I believe six months fits in with the general policy of escalating blocks. I'd rather give a user a warning about what would come if they repeated an action than just escalate a block without telling them if they repeat an action - it both seems more fair and acts as a preventative. Out of honest curiosity, how do you view the seriousness of canvassing ten people off wiki and using the results to intimidate another user? Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"I believe six months fits in with the general policy". You believe? That's the best you have? A hunch? A gut-feeling? That doesn't sound very robust to me. Canvassing/requesting an opinion. I'd assume good faith and believe it was done in good intentions. I've not seen the alledged canvassing emails either. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laure nt is dead} 18:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"You haven't seen them because sharing them with would violate a policy with legal implications and if I showed them to you I could be banned. Escalate blocking is clearly stated in our main blocking policy, WP:Block. It doesn't specify durations, and leaves them at the discretion of admins. Given he severity of the offense, I view - and I think rightfully - that six months would be apropriate. Please read our policies about stuff like this, even if just briefly, before. If you didnt know our block policy was WP:BLOCK, google would;ve gotten you there, ctrl f 'duration' would've gotten you to the policy secion that supports what I did. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"It doesn't specify durations, and leaves them at the discretion of admins" - ahhh, got it now. Carry on. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose unblock. Are you all seriously saying this? You're calling telling a user there's an entire group of people who hate them, and that you've been conspiring with that group to ensure any complaint about your behaviour will be ignored, is "a little hostile"? Jack's problem is not the other user, Jack's problem is Jack. Ironholds (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying what Jack did wasn't problematic. We're merely saying keeping him blocked after he agreed to stop the behavior in question is unwarranted and there were problems with how the block(s) was doled out (excessive length and not being allowed to defend himself/provide mitigating evidence). Calidum T|C 13:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? Where did he agree not to canvass off-wiki, or give the impression that he was canvassing? I must've missed that. Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's one such example of Jack admitting his mistake [19]. What else are you looking for, an op ed in The New York Times admitting he was wrong and won't do it again? Calidum T|C 14:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd read a message saying "okay, I messed up but he started it why isn't he blocked" as a recognition that the behaviour won't be repeated. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin Gorman while I uphold and support the view that JackTheVicar is well advised to consider his situation and that some action may be validly taken despite anything said please note that, before issues were raised with JtV, his last previous edit was an admittedly argumentative Revision as of 23:13, 29 May 2015

An editor began the Civility thread on JtV's TP at 01:48, 30 May 2015 with comment in agreement regarding JtV's incivility coming at 05:06, 30 May 2015. Following this came the comments:

• "Jack, I've blocked you for two weeks. Your actions are not okay. Follow NPA/Harrassment/etc in the future, or you will be blocked for a longer period of time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)"
  • "Kevin Gorman • usually, ANI gave people a chance to respond to the accusation which I would have done within the next few minutes. To do so without a response, smacks of arbirtrariness. But I don't care. I have other hobbies. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)"

IMO, despite anything that JtV may have done, he is right here. The final timings may seem questionable but JtV's contributions show a history of starting editing sessions beginning in the 13:00-14:59 time period and it is reasonable to consider that s/he was just logging on. Please consider giving people a chance to respond. The aim of sanctions surely is resolution and I personally don't have any faith that a cornering of an editor in TP isolation for some personal and potentially private interrogation is a fair way to proceed. This is not to say that a block may not be warranted but this is not the way to do it. I await your response and hope that this thread will not be closed until you the chance to give it. GregKaye

Kevin is currently dealing with some meatspace stuff, so I have no idea when that will be. JTV was, prior to his block - and this was the reason for the extension of the block - emailing me very frequently asking me to intercede in discussions because he felt hard done by. This was the core problem; the off-wiki canvassing. I'm happy to forward the initial email he sent to any administrator. Ironholds (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This page has archival settings of three days following last edit. There is no hurry. GregKaye 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ironholds, with the best will in the world, is any of this drama as important as writing the encyclopedia? I suspect not. Now, can somebody find me more reliable sources that show any notable musician outside of Mike Rutherford using a Dewtron synth so I can spin an article out of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, if you think this thread is unimportant drama, why did you open it? Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I answered that upthread, but to summarise I had no other choice other than leaving Jack with a block I didn't agree with or wheel warring with an admin. It should have been obvious by now I want him unblocked and this thread to close; indeed, every time I have posted on ANI it has been with the aim of closing a thread down so we can get back to work. Apologies if that sounds a little harsh. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Or, alternately, coming up with a solution that addresses the canvassing etc... I never said I wasn't comfortable unblocking Jack, just that I found your unblock conditions insufficient. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

it doesn't seem harsh, it seems naive. I'm sick and tired of users going "this is just drama! Let's get back to writing the wiki! Writing the Wiki is the most important thing!" Because, you know what? I agree with you. I think writing the wiki is the most important thing. And that's why I have such a problem with users whose actions create chilling effects: because we should care that the wiki gets written and tolerating users who drive off others reduces who's writing the wiki. If you're tired of this discussion, take it off your watchlist, but please stop acting like the best thing for the wiki is for us to unblock anyone smart enough to productively edit an article without looking at the impact their behaviour has on other users. When that impact is negative, we lose users by retaining this one, and that's a zero-sum game. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Which users have been lost? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

My point is that this is the behaviour that drives people away. Ideally we shouldn't lose those people to address it, and "but he writes articles!" shouldn't be a defence to that kind of behaviour. Ironholds (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So your point is pure original research. Thanks for clarifying that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Years of experience (and I've been tracking this since about 2007) have shown me that the biggest things that drive people away are speedy deletion tags and reverted edits, generally done by editors in good faith that you'll never see on this board. The stuff we're talking about here seems to be way down the list. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Years of experience (and I've been editing since 2006, and am, in meatspace, a full-time researcher into how collaborative platforms and environments work, specifically...Wikipedia) has taught me that tags and reverts drive away the early editors, but that there's nothing better than toxicity to drive away more experienced contributors. Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Jack had his edit [20] reverted by the other user [21] which seems to have started this whole mess. The revert was one of seven made by the other user in a span of 30 hours. Maybe if someone had done something about that this could have been avoided. Calidum T|C 15:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Kevin should remember that blocks are not disciplinary. Extending the editor's block in the midst of their interchange was ill-advised; two weeks is plenty enough time to attempt to reason with them. Jack should remember not to personalise disputes to such an extent. At the very least, I support reinstating the original block period. Jack has promised to stay away from WE, so the block has outlived its purpose. Alakzi (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

See my reasoning above as to why I fully believe the block is preventative and not personal. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Alakzi: are you aware that the block was extended for off-wiki canvassing around the initial thread, and things the blocking admin had missed, not the things the user was initially blocked for? Ironholds (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  The length of the block is not a function of their accumulated offences. Alakzi (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the correct answer. Looks like Kev and IH need to bone up on that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm very concerned by the comment regarding conspiring off wiki, and I don't think it has been adequately addressed. At one point after the block, in reference to the post regarding off-wiki planning for retaliation, he said "It was probably bluster"... Either there were off-wiki discussions, with 10 people, consistent with the comment, or it was bluster and there weren't, how is there any room for a qualification of probably? JackTheVicar is the one that would know, to say probably is evasive. If that sort of off-wiki conduct did occur, it is a very serious problem, and we need to treat it as such. I'm not opposed to considering the block duration once that is fully addressed, but I'm loath to let it just be brushed under the carpet. In the interests of transparency, I would also like to know if anyone currently participating in the discussion was one of the 10 canvased per the comment, (I think only 1/10 has been identified) or were otherwise alerted to this discussion off-wiki. (Not to accuse anyone here of being canvassed, but in light of the circumstances, it seems reasonable to ask) Monty₈₄₅ 14:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not I, first saw it here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would unblock him myself under certain circumstances, but not these. Jack's posts minimize his own actions, and frequently, paraphrasing, state "other people made me do it." He canvassed ten users and then used that as a threat against another user. Ignoring his NPA etc violations, the intimidation alone is absolutely not okay, and I'm surprised people don't see the issue with it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kevin Gorman: What would your unblock conditions be? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock until Jack the Vicar has dealt with the totality of the problem. BMK (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock JackTheVicar's hostility and threatening behaviour are clearly meant to have a chilling effect. This sort of intimidation is damaging to our ability to create a neutral encyclopedia. I think this is a big deal, and I think Kevin made a good block. It is good that Jack agrees not to do it any more, this can be demonstrated in 3 weeks. Chillum 18:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Please explain how WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE is not applicable. Alakzi (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• The third bullet under "Blocks should be used to" that says "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". Right above the second bullet describes that blocks may be used as a deterrent. The unblock request sounds like lip service to get unblocked. There is deflection of blame and there are still a lot unanswered about the nature of this conspiracy he used as a threat. Who exactly was canvassed? Someone was threatened and told they had a group of people out to get them. This is not punitive, it is to protect the community. I think a 3 week block is very lenient considering. Chillum 18:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Chillums: Ironholds is the only person who has come forth so far, the claim of ten as from JtV. I have a copy of the email he sent to Ironholds and although it's not the worst I've seen, it's also definitel not appropriate and is active canvassing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Deterrence ought to be interpreted in the context of the likelihood for the problematic behaviour to be repeated. Do you believe that he will continue bothering Winkelvi, or that he might similarly bother another editor? If not, it would be fair to say that his block has outlived its purpose - would it not? It is quite rare that people will readily (and fully) admit to all of their transgressions; it is not our job to extract a confession. Alakzi (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that based on the off-wiki stuff, we may not be able to tell if things are going on. Obviously when it comes to offwiki conduct, our ability to monitor is minimal, but I'd still like to see some commitment in that regard. Something along the lines of promising not to discuss the conduct of other editors or editing disputes off wiki, unless all those involved consent to it, and with an obvious carve out for reporting things to functionary mailing lists like Arbcom. Monty₈₄₅ 19:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I believe that this user will find new and creative ways to be disruptive and that it is reasonable for the community to get a 3 week break to recover from this recent incident of bullying. Chillum 21:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• That's pure conjecture; this was his first offence. And, unlike the American justice system, we try not to demonise first offenders. Alakzi (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that totally unnecessary remark just won you a lot of friends. I assume you prefer the justice system in Saudi Arabia or North Korea? Or how about Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Pakistan or Cameroon? [22]. Or perhaps you might want to keep your political views to yourself, since they have no relevance to this discussion. BMK (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't believe that this merits a response. Alakzi (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet you just did. MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated to thread topic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm an anarchist and thus lacking in nationalist sensibilities. I apologise if my comment offended anybody. Alakzi (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC) You are an "anarchist", and yet you're arguing over the interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies and procedures? Don't you see a certain ... weirdness about that? If Wikipedia was an anarchy, there wouldn't be any policies or procedures, and every interpretation would be as good as every other one. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not an anarchy, although thanks to the political proclivities of its co-founders it's much more libertarian than is healthy for it -- but that's still a far cry from anarcy. BMK (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC) That's not what anarchism means. You can ask on my talk page if you'd like me to explain. Alakzi (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC) No thanks, I'm 60 years old, and I know what anarchism is. Be happy in your dream world. BMK (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC) I don't understand why you're being hostile towards me, but OK. Alakzi (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, I'm absolutely certain that there is much that you don't understand. BMK (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Ummm.... you say above quite definitively that you are an "anarchist", but your user page says that you are a "libertarian". Are you under the impression that these are the same thing? BMK (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, in the rest of the English-speaking world, libertarian means anarchist. Alakzi (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC) No, no it does not. Anarchy is a very different thing. Chillum 14:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC) You could've just read the lede of our article on libertarianism: "While it has generally retained its earlier political usage as a synonym for either social or individualist anarchism through much of the world, in the United States it has since come to describe pro-capitalist economic liberalism more so than radical, anti-capitalist egalitarianism." Alakzi (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC) About a year ago, I closed an RFC that involved definitions of anarchism and capitalism. I suggest that this off-topic discussion be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC) No, let's just see how long before BMK's incivility will elicit anybody's protest. [23] Alakzi (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC) So, when the Sex Pistols sang "Anarchy in the U.K.", what they really meant was "Social or political libertarianism in the U.K."? Uh-huh, sure. Yes, certainly, their conception of "anarchy" was childish and puerile -- "Give the wrong time, stop a traffic line" -- but, then, so many so-called "anarchists" are. The more intelligent among them grow out of it, eventually, and learn to live inside the rules, sometimes even to appreciate having them. (Add then there are those who go too far and slide right past liberalism to become hide-bound reactionaries, sometimes even fervent nationalists.) The human world's a pretty complicated place, social psychology and anthropology are just babies among the sciences and cannot as yet explain most of those complications, and yet the anarchists, with their simplistic view, have managed to get it all down pat. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." BMK (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Anarchism does not mean a world without order. At its core, anarchism is the tendency to question repressive forms of authority. Anarchists do not abhor rules, but they'd just rather rules are expressly democratic and be instituted in the most democratic way possible. You appear to be confusing anarchists with hooligans. Alakzi (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Actually, "anarchy" does mean a world without order: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority" "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal" "a state of society without government or law." "political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control" "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority" "Absence of any form of political authority." "Political disorder and confusion." " a complete lack of government — or the chaotic state of affairs created by such an absence." "a lack of organization and control in a society or group, esp. because either there is no government or it has no power" "chaos due to lack of authority to enforce rules." "general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government" See? BMK (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, in other senses of the word. When people say they're anarchist, they mean that they adhere to anarchism, the political philosophy. Alakzi (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC) There is no other sense of the word "anarchy", it means what is listed above, either literally or figuratively, and "anarchism" is, by definition, a philosophy that supports the concept of anarchy. Any other definition is pure sophistry. You've been sold a bill of goods, kid. BMK (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Etymological fallacy. Alakzi (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Argument from ignorance. BMK (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose unblock, per the ANI report [24], their personal attacks were seriously out of line and unnecessary. It seriously goes against WP:NPA, WP:Harassment and WP:Wikihounding. JTV promising to stay away from Winkelvi does not prove that he will not restart his attacks once more against some other user. Secondly, he seriously violated WP:Canvass, by contacting, or seems to have, 10 editors to in fact intimidate Winkelvi over whatever was going on. Then, they contact admins. Two violations so far. Thirdly, he only admitted to his wrongdoings under a threat of an indefinite block. This doesn't seem very truthful if you ask me. And what bugs me the most is their reasoning to their actions was because "they made it me do it". I'm sorry, but that is lame. No, they didn't make you do it; you are at fault for your own actions. They could have easily reported the user, but they decided to violate a bunch of policies. Saying "they made me do it" only proves the temper the user may have in content dispute, 3RR and edit warring by personally attacking users and harassing them. And quite frankly, they also have this reasoning of "he also did a bunch of things; why isn't he blocked?". I am well aware of WP:OUCH, but it only proves the case weaker as they don't see the wrongdoings. They only focused on Winkelvi. Again, they could have easily reported the user. However, I do agree that it was unfair that JTV didn't have the chance to respond to the ANI report. That's my only issue in terms what other people are saying. Otherwise, I agree with the block and I disagree with unblocking JTV. Callmemirela (Talk) 00:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock; Jack's incivility crossed the line, and his block is quite justified. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note Kevin was blocked by GorillaWarface as a compromised account this morning. What's going on there? Arkon (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

  Now Kevin is "temporarily" desysopped. Arkon (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

  The block and removal of permissions is completely unrelated to his block of JackTheVicar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Kevin has asked me to post here and let everyone know that his computer's been compromised and he can't safely access his account right now. He will return here as soon as possible, if you need to contact him his email is under his sole control. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure whether it matters whether JtV serves the two week remainder of his block or whether the block is lifted. While he offers a weak apology for his behavior, he still holds Winkelvi responsible for his own acting out because he argues he acted out of frustration with the other editor. When I've seen these kinds of incidents on ANI before, it takes more than one ANI thread to deal with these personal disputes. Despite promises, the parties usually can't seem to ignore each other. As long as JtV views Winkelvi as the truly guilty party, I predict that there will be future interaction between the two editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this kind of drama usually goes on for a while. The "notoriously difficult user" language in his unblock request probably isn't helping Jack's case any. If I were him, I'd strike that out. But it's probably a bit late to change anyone's mind. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• oppose unblock - Kevin Gorman gives strong blocks and gives blocked editors a lot of runway to clearly acknowledge what they did wrong. To the extent JtV is not taking personal responsibility there is no reason to reduce length of the block.Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 8 June 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.

Ozzie10aaaa competence on medical topics

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

---

Ozzie10aaaa (talk · contribs) is an enthusiastic and good faith contributor to medical articles, but his reach exceeds his grasp. On Paternal age effect, Ozzie deleted several references while leaving the associated claims intact.[25] I reverted him with an explanation.[26] He has continued this behavior on several articles since. Here, he deletes a high-quality 2008 Cochrane review for the claim that "Steroids help reduce the risk of death or disabling neurological deficit." In a later edit, he adds a new reference for this statement -- a single 2004 trial republished in a book.

To find "better" references, Ozzie searches keywords of existing statements on Google Books. If the result shares enough similar words, he adds it, even if it does not mean the same thing. I explained this to him with three examples from his edits to Paternal age effect. Here is one of those:

Article text	Source text	Source link	Diff
"Later age at parenthood is associated with a more stable family environment, higher socio-economic position, higher income and better living conditions, as well as better parenting practices, but it is more or less uncertain whether these entities are effects of advanced parental age, are contributors to advanced parental age, or common effects of a certain state such as personality type."	"Research has demonstrated an inverse relationship between maternal age and child maltreatment. [...] Youthful parenting is intertwined with other factors. For example, less positive parental nurturing and discipline were seen in mothers who were younger, who had more than one child living at home, who were single, who had a lower level of educational attainment."	[27]	[28]

This unintentional misrepresentation of sources has continued. In one edit to Acute erythroid leukemia, he adds a single-sentence cause section, later reverting my removal of it: "The bone marrow creates cells that become leukemic white blood cells." The reference says nothing of the sort. His other edits to the article are also problematic, such as making "History" a subsection of "Epidemology", populating the Symptoms section with the ambiguous and irrelevant claim that "Acute erythroid leukemia representing less than 5% of all cases," and adding the misleading claim that acute erythroid leukemia requires a bone marrow blast count of more than 20%, when the source is referring to acute myeloid leukemia in general (AEL has more specific requirements).

Numerous other examples of accidental source misrepresentation can easily be found in Ozzie's recent history. More often than not, his references do not fully support the attached claim. I don't have time to mentor Ozzie or review every one his edits, so unless someone else volunteers, I do not think he should be editing medical articles. KateWishing (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I follow MEDRS as is dictated by wikipedia--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Doc James should be present--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What we need is someone to show Ozie10aaaa the ropes and explain the MOS when it comes to medical articles (I don't mean to be patronizing). Weegeerunner (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

absolutely we all improve everyday--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope you can at least see why you need to read the entire article when citing it and not just use it because it showed up on a Google search based on a sentence or phrase. You have to understand the context of the sentence, it's not just a matter of finding a statement in a respected medical journal through a search. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I always do, but there is always room for improvement (for me )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but why are the sources being replaced in the first place? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

[29] (the first question being made) was changed to a book which is MEDRS compliant Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)

[30] (the second question being made)...I pinged DocJames in regards to it May28 (the talk page history indicates he visited the page [31])

[32] (the third question being made)...I had changed the source...here I asked the editor to please take to talk page [33]

having shown the above, due to these proceedings I will not only be more careful but have lost some interest in editing the articles in question...(we all have room to improve, and I welcome advise given, so that I can improve everyday )...thank you for your time--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So long as you're very careful with sources in the future, no topic ban will be necessary. I suggest only adding sources for unsourced statements (no replacements), and only when you're certain the article and book say the same thing. I'm sorry to subject you to this; all of your edits are clearly made with the best intentions. KateWishing (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If Ozzie is this incompetent with sources, why wouldn't he ask for consensus or a second opinion before removing sourced material? Perhaps he could start doing that in the near future until he reached the competency to do it independently.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• [34] May 24 this editor was asked please do not leave any more messages on my talk page (banned) [35]from my talk page (just so you know) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, I did not realize AN/I was your talk page...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

could someone please close this ANI. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:23, 3 June 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.

Request for assistance in recovering content from a file description page

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

---

Hi. File:King Ananda Mahidol portrait photograph.jpg was originally uploaded locally and later copied to Commons. The local file description page was then deleted as CSD F8. However, I seem to recall that there were more details in the original description that hadn't properly been copied to the Commons image page. Could an admin please look in the page history and copy the missing information to Commons:File:King Ananda Mahidol portrait photograph.jpg? (I am the original uploader; I'm asking here since the deleting admin has since retired from Commons.) Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 18:53, 10 June 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: Myrmusp and the Article: List of University of Westminster alumni

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

---

For some months there has been an issue with User:Myrmusp and the article List of University of Westminster alumni. The problem concerns the somewhat controversial inclusion in the list, of Mohammed Emwazi, referred to in many press outlets as the member of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, 'Jihadi John' (which is the page that Mohammed Emwazi currently redirects to). From the time of Emwazi's first addition to the list it has been a matter of controversy. It was first repeatedly removed by User:Tron reboot, [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] who immediately undid the last revert on threat of block [43] then removed the content again,[44] received a 24 hour block,[45] and has not bothered the article since. Then Myrmusp arrived at the article, (and rather than list the diffs I point to the user's contributions)[46] as it has been pretty much a single purpose account, that is to remove Emwazi from the list. At Myrmusp's first removal of the content User:Epeefleche advised and warned Myrmusp [47], [48], and I, having some sympathy with Myrmusp's position, encouraged the editor to engage in discussion rather than in repeated reversions.[49] These attempts at engagement went unheeded and following a brief discussion at AN3RR[50] Myrmusp was blocked for 24 hours. Following the block Myrmusp has continued, albeit with a week or two between edits, to remove or adapt the entry concerning Emwazi without engagement and it is becoming tiresome. In addition I wonder whether Myrmusp has some association with the University of Westminster, as a google search of 'Myrmusp' brings up a number of results connected with postings of corporate media related to the University. My own opinion is that the inclusion of Emwazi on this list does little to enhance the page, but I accept that other editors feel that it has value, and that it is reliably sourced.Poltair (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree with controversial. The whole concept of alumni is that someone is nourished and I see no relevance in his education at Westminster in relation to the path of life that he has taken. I doubt that this future was discussed in careers advice sessions. However the unwillingness to engage is an issue and has no place in community here. GregKaye 14:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thats complete hogwash. We dont whitewash people's/organizations associations. If he meets the criteria of inclusion (which cannot be "good and famous, but NOT infamous alumni) and there are sources to support it, he belongs on the list as much as anyone else. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've indeffed blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia. Two things are clear: they are here only to whitewash to remove the one persons name, they refuse to discuss it even after a block, and 2) this is either a bad hand sock or an SPA that has no interest in Wikipedia's accuracy, only their own agenda. Blocking less than indef simply makes no sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Two SPAs deleting RS-supported text without appropriate reason. It's RS-supported, and its removal unwarranted. The view that "the whole concept of alumni is that someone is nourished" is baseless. We reflect in lists people who live in place x, and went to school in place y, and the fact that other people who lived there or went to school there wish to disassociate from them have zero bearing. In fact, they smack of whitewashing, which is to put it lightly not a goal at the project. User Tron Reboot is a university teacher with 36 edits to his name, hist 8th ever being his first revert here, so I understand his not immediately appreciating this point. User Myrmusp was then created and picked up where Tron Reboot left off with his second edit ever -- he now has 17 edits to his name. A CU is perhaps in order. Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 10 June 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.

What the heck? Blatant incivility from JzG

I'm the IP editor who posted this complaint above: Removal of promotional material from User and User Talk page. I went to respond and found I was blocked for two weeks by the closing administrator JzG who advised me to "get a life." I had to post THIS message from a different computer. If this is a joke I don't find it funny. How can I appeal (a) the block on the other computer and (b) the close of the complaint above? 168.1.75.52 (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

FaterNatan editing

Dear Sir, Madam,

I am being accused of "vandalism" by a Wikipedia partial User-Inspector > who erase my posts. I am a Sorbonne Scholar and I have been working for 30 years on the Location of the Real Site of the Temple of Jerusalem (2.500 pages with reliable sources) www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org I dont want to force anybody to be convinced by my discoveries. I just wish my point of view to be known, even if it is not conventional, but just common sense. I will give you one simple example : The Second Temple (Hasmonean) was completely destroyed by Herod -including its foundations > and Herod built an entirely New Temple : Therefore, I just say that Herod Temple should be called "The Third Temple". Is such a common sense affirmation "vandalism" for Wikipedia ? In other words > can I contribute to Wikipedia -with my erudite discoveries in History and Archaeology of the Temple of Jerusalem- and will the User-Inspector stop to erase my Contributions ? Thanks FaterNatan — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaterNatan (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are not vandalism, but we don't allow original research in Wikipedia articles. It is an encyclopedia and so all content must be sourced to reliable sources. I'm sure you are doing good research, but your website does not count as a reliable source. I suggest reading up on Wikipedia policy and don't hesitate to ask for advice from me or other editors.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations at Chooriyan

I didn't want to bring this here, but I'm not sure how else to resolve this. In this edit, Meenalraut (talk · contribs) removed a copyvio tag added by CorenSearchBot without fixing the issue. After I removed the copyright violation, he began edit warring to restore it: first time and second time. I have asked him on his talk page to stop restoring the copyright violation to no avail. I guess there could be a language barrier, but given the number of license warning templates on his talk page, I don't think Meenalraut cares much about copyright. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate or anyone, Can you provide evidence to show that this is Copyvio?

Meenalraut or anyone, Can you provide an argument to indicate that it isn't? If it is decided that it is copy vio can you give assurances that this behaviour will stop?

Thanks. GregKaye 18:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, like I said, CorenSearchBot tagged it. If you click the link, the bot cites this page as the original source. I've since located another copyright violation at Solid Patels from the IMDB. I'm guessing there are more beyond that, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've placed a final warning on his talk page and will monitor his contribs. I will hunt through his contribs and see what else can be found. Thank you for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Persistent violation to MOS:FLAGS

JamesG2000 (talk · contribs) keeps ignoring the messages left at their talk page regarding the use of flags in aviation-related articles, and made two similar edits [51] [52] after a final warning regarding MOS:FLAGS was given. Please also note that the user was pinged at WT:AVIATION. There were no replies from them.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• I added a warning to their talk page. Let's hope that helps. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• The use of flags as icons in the project is extremely common. There's open disregard for WP:MOSFLAG in a multitude of areas across the project, to the point that WP:MOSFLAG is functionally defunct. Policy/guideline are intended to be a reflection of current standards, not as proscriptive barriers that prevent evolution of the project. WP:IAR ultimate trumps. I'm not making a comment on the editors in question here. But, edit warring over it? Really? Have a look at Albanians, Romani people, Germanwings Flight 9525. Ottoman Empire, 1994 FIFA World Cup, Operation Barbarossa, (I could go on for a long time here). Can you really tell me with a straight face that enforcing this defunct guideline is worth a report to WP:AN/I. Sorry, this should be closed and the target of the complaint left alone. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry to disagree, but the fact that a lot of new users start going againtst policies and guidelines doesn't mean we should review them. This is not a laisser-faire, laissez-passer site.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You're welcome to disagree of course. But, try to enforce MOSFLAG on various articles and you will be reverted, and revered hard and often. There's guidelines, and then there's what actually happens. Reality trumps ideals. You can't win this. I've tried. Threatening someone, edit warring with someone, etc. over this is counterproductive. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
      • The fact that people get away with murder is no reason to endorse it. A policy says X; X is thus enforced wherever it is found, and those that complain... are directed to policy. It's a bit like every other policy we have. Just because a lot of people like adding ickle pictures to articles doesn't make them right if WP:CONSENSUS says otherwise. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I'm being clear. First, this is a style guideline, not a policy. Second, it's not enforced. Third, if you try to enforce it, you're reverted. Fourth, if you try to get consensus to support the decision to remove the icons, it fails. Whether it is murder or not, this is the way things are handled with respect to this style guideline. I am speaking from a wealth of experience on this point, trying to enforce this guideline to little avail. Anyone who disagrees with this exhibited behavior is of course welcome to disagree. But, with respect, you are spitting in the wind. You can not enforce this style guide. It's obsolete in the face of overwhelming common practice on the project. It's not a case of othercrapexists. It's a case of this is what the project is doing virtually project wide, and you can no more change it than you can change the color of the sky. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Of course MOS is supposedly descriptive and not prescriptive, so if the project-wide behavior is not what's in the guideline (and I agree that it is not), the guideline should, in theory, be changed -- but try to get that pushed through. (Or, for that matter, try to get WP:BRD elevated to a policy, as it should be.) BMK (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Regardless of the MOS, the user has replied neither at their talk nor at WT:AVIATION and continued with their preferred version of articles. Considering the MOS, of course it can be changed, but with a previous discussion. JamesG2000 did not do this.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
              • Changing MOS (or pretty much anything else on Wikipedia) is nigh on impossible unless you've got a coterie already in favor of the change. Otherwise, you'd better count on spending almost all your times trying to convince other people whose minds are already made up, and then having the proposed change be defeated. Wikipedia's lost a great deal of its ability to adjust its policies and guidelines to new circumstances, or even to allow editors to color outside the lines without being hassled. BMK (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
                • Yep. Pretty much every existing guideline already has a cadre of editors who will oppose any change to it (even sensible ones), while readily throwing out WP:BURO and WP:CREEP (the latter seems to be the preferred method of clubbing down any editor who has the temerity to think a guideline should be changed...) as the preferred reasoning for opposing. Occasionally, something will happen in the real world which will lead to a big RfC which may lead to a change (as I suspect is about to happen to MOS:IDENTITY), but that's pretty rare... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Persistant spammers on two articles

A spammer with rotating IPs has been adding links to some turkish game server site on the articles PvP and Metin2 for a few years now. Check the recent IP edits on both. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to semi-protect the articles for a short while. Eik Corell (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If they have been adding content for years, why is it suddenly imperative to protect the pages now? Also, please provide links to the questionable edits. Thanks. If this is not an emergency, WP:RPP is the place to go. John from Idegon (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• yenipvpserverlar.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• 91.93.77.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 195.155.180.69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 78.185.220.47 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 78.185.220.232 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

• pvpserverler.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• 78.168.151.111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 78.166.127.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 78.182.119.85 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Blacklisted. It looks like there is some sort of spam war going on, please list any further URLs here with the spamming IPs. I don't think a short semi-protection will work because, as you said, they've been spamming for 1.5+ years. This should. MER-C 13:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User talk: AndyTheGrump

An IP troll is attacking his talk page. I have reverted several times but need to go to bed. Thanks to anyone who can help/block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's been protected and I'm blocking some IPs. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's continuing at User talk:Malik Shabazz/Talk, and with a new IP too. - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This is where a privilege to temporarily block vandals and/or semi-protect pages would come in handy... especially when the admin corps appears to be asleep at the switch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Given that the user ID is a built-in personal attack, isn't there some way to expunge it from the system? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ — Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Why bother? It's not as if anyone with an ounce of sense is going to take it seriously. And thanks, by the way, to all who have dealt with this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur, I take the same attitude toward impostors and insulters of my own ID. But maybe the other user wouldn't feel so generous. In any case, the longer-term solution is get your talk page permanently semi-protected, and then create a separate, unprotected page which can be a dumping ground for those kinds of attacks without soiling your actual user page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

They've already expunged it all from Malik's visible history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There's another bozo attacking SchroCat's page now. Presumably an admin will soon semi-protect it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Tiptoety has got there already - as I was part-way through leaving a request here. Thanks to all - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

For those criticising the admins here, WP:RFA is that way, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• And the new user [...] (redacted) has started up on my page again. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Given the vile nature of the attacks, your page should be semi'd for a short interval. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Given the third sock leaving messages, Tiptoety has done just that, thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • (ec)And they did it already. I apologize for the "asleep at the switch" comment. They're on it now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have revdel'd some comments that were still in the open record. I have asked for renaming of the user account in this diff: [53]. Please list diffs for any other usernames that should be renamed as offensive. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems like there has been more widespread user talk page vandalism than normal lately. I know my talk page has been hit twice, first by IP accounts and then with newly created accounts just in the past couple of weeks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I even got a weird Talk page message from an IP the other day, and I never get any Vandals bothering with me. This must be a very dedicated troll... --IJBall (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Why is it that we allow IP editing again??? Carrite (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ya got me. BMK (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• It might be because of the answer to the question, "What would it take to require registration in order to edit?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible SPA promotional editing of university articles

• Ticktock01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We have a recently registered editor, User:Ticktock01, making mass edits to American university articles, adding the university ratings for something called the Social Mobility Index (SMI), and displacing the established ratings services in the articles: [54]. Another editor has already attempted to engage our new friend on his talk page, as have I, but he has stated that he may add any sourced information to Wikipedia articles. As we have seen from time to time in our university articles, these edits appear to be a fairly promotional in nature by prominently adding a relatively unknown ratings service. I think this could use some experienced admin eyes on this. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

it appears to be a reasonably useful indicator, but I would like to see some third-party evaluation of the validity of the measures before assigning much importance to it. We've had no comment from my IHE's administration about it, which suggests they see little value in it. Regardless, it should not lead the rankings section of any university article, much less displace more reputable ratings and rankings. One wonders if Ticktock01 has a COI, given his eager defense of his edits. Drmargi (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

178.71.254.119

178.71.254.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Non-constructive editing/vandalism at Slingshot 6 7/8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([55][56][57][58]) and some other articles ([59][60][61][62][63]). Have discussed this issue with the editor at User talk:178.71.254.119, and the editor said "I removed the content, because GlueBot NG believes [edit] possible vandalism.". So this would appear to be an revenge to ClueBot's revert. Technically not yet violate 3RR but I cannot revert on Slingshot 6 7/8 because I'm on the limit of 3RR because this does not seems to be an obvious vandalism without talking into the context, in particular the discussion on the editor's talk page.

Possibly linked to 178.71.250.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which has been blocked for vandalism on a similar category of articles.

Possible to block at this stage? — Andrew Y _talk 08:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Numerous problems with EllenCT

Notice has been posted on EllenCT's Talk page about disruptive edits. This editor is a constant source of problems on several articles including Economic growth, Economic inequality and United States. EllenCT refuses to yield to editors' consensus. This editor is trying to monopolize Economic growth with income inequality, which by that editors own sources say that it is a minority view. This editor has a biased POV and is believed to have removed properly written and sourced material from Economic inequality and when questioned, promised to restore it but never did. In her Talk discussions EllenCT has not demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the subject matter to be qualified to edit and for diversion requests sources for comments made by other editors on subject matter that someone familiar with the literature should know, then criticizes the sources, even when they are classic works on the subject. EllenCT has created such a mess that it will take many hours to sort out. This needs to stop.Phmoreno (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No, this needs some actual evidence, not content-free weasel-wording like "This editor has a biased POV and is believed to have removed properly written and sourced material..."

So, evidence, please. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As Calton says, Phmoreno, if EllenCT is "a constant source of problems" you should have no difficulty assembling a range of diffs supporting your argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why was my reply deleted along with so many other comments here? EllenCT (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies EllenCT, this was some sort of finger trouble I was not aware of, while I was posting at the bottom. I'm sorry. You've obviously reinserted your section; I'll go check the others. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The assertion that I have not demonstrated sufficient knowledge is contradicted by the fact that I base my article improvements on the peer reviewed secondary literature such as literature reviews published in the Journal of Economic Literature. Phmoreno has been trying to use primary source literature to avoid the importance of income inequality, and tried to delete this graph from the International Monetary Fund's large recent WP:SECONDARY study of the largest data set amassed on the question yet, which indicates that the income distribution is of top importance. Most of what Phmoreno calls "classic works" are monographs which have not been submitted to peer review. Also someone else notified me of this complaint. EllenCT (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think a boomerang may be due here. I'm hardly EllenCT's greatest fan, but EllenCT is standing up for relatively high-quality content - and Phmoreno has left a long trail of flaky sources and WP:SYNTH. bobrayner (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow EllenCT's editing, but I haven't seen much "relatively high quality content". Anybody can look at my user page and judge the quality of my content. Using my 500 pages of notes I turned some important technology and economic history articles from total junk to accurate representations of the subject, including a highly viewed article that was rated as a Wikipedia good article. It's unfortunate that we can't have a face to face debate over the subject matter in the board room and have the looser fired.Phmoreno (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, be sure that any edits that purport to have been made by User:EllenCT were really made by User:EllenCT. There is a report below at this noticeboard that, among other things, mentions that an editor has a barnstar with a copy-and-paste of Ellen's signature that is therefore a forgery of Ellen's signature. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support boomerang on Phmoreno for making unsubstantiated claims and spreading rumors about EllenCT without a single supporting diff. I recommend that the closing admin strongly warn Phmoreno about making baseless claims on ANI in the future. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• While I agree he should show up with diffs next time, Phmoreno isn't wrong. EllenCT is by far the most disruptive, tendentious, aggressively soapboxing editor I've encountered on Wikipedia. She's also thoroughly incompetent, tossing out non sequiturs in a jargon word salad that sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk. This linked evidence section contains 70 diffs documenting instances of her misbehavior, with links to many more diffs by several other editors, all of which is the tip of the iceberg. The cited instances include her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor, leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit them, admitting her partisan editing agenda, blatantly lying, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and general POV pushing, disruptive behavior. At the time Arbcom took no action specifically against her (most likely because she was peripheral to that case's purpose and just showed up as an unrelated person to level false charges against others, including me, which is how we were roped into it; of course Arbcom took no action against us either), but it certainly established a pattern of past behavior that should be kept in mind going forward. I didn't interact with her much after that until recently and haven't followed most of the specific activity Phmoreno referenced above, but I can affirm that she's hit the United States page with a POV blitz across multiple sections that sparked an edit war which led to the article being temporarily shut down, and has caused another editor to seek to have the page's recently restored "good" status reassessed.

For a specific, recent example showing she hasn't changed, she agreed to a compromise proposal on content that she blatantly violated a few days later. I led off my proposal saying "The current long standing Government finance segment stays the way it is..." in exchange for me adding a separate segment to another section addressing her alleged concerns. She replied by saying, "I'm completely okay with that." Yet a few days after I implemented my part of the compromise, she tried to completely rewrite the segment she had just agreed to leave as is, deleting the most important parts. That's not good faith, and without good faith productive, collaborative editing is impossible. I don't expect this complaint to result in sanctions, but don't assume Phmoreno is just making this up and don't be harsh with him with a "boomerang" when he may not have understood how these things work. EllenCT has frustrated a lot of good editors over the years, even some who agree with her politics. VictorD7 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• While EllenCT has engaged in such behavior listed above in other topics (documented at this ANI that I brought forward awhile back), diffs are needed to show what the actual problem is (if any) in this particular case. Without that, there's nothing to discuss here. I suggest Phmoreno should look at how other ANI postings are set up and provide diffs to support these accusations. Without that, those of us who are not involved in this particular case will only assume there isn't a behavior problem that needs to be discussed here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, SPECIFICO'S accusation against me in that discussion is completely false, and he posted no evidence or specific commentary to support it. If I was "mercilessly" hounding EllenCT I probably wouldn't have completely missed that ANI discussion that apparently lasted a long time and involved many of the other editors who have had to deal with her. VictorD7 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• To further underscore what I said above, I will add this recent illustrative quote that shows where she's coming from ([64]) in response to another editor's fairly innocuous post: "If this article were governed according to WP:UNDUE, right-wing views would properly be sidelined and marginalized because the demographic center of Americans' political preferences is to the left of the Democrats. That is not an opinion, it is a fact about the opinions of Americans on a per-capita instead of a per-dollar basis....If your idea of an excellent encyclopedia article emphasizes only the topics according to your discredited political preferences, then perhaps your skills would better serve your fellow citizens by editing Conservapedia." - EllenCT VictorD7 (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the mainstream run between the people and the corporate parties, or between the parties? EllenCT (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think readers need to look through the diffs Victor has brought up. There is no need for boomerang as it clearly appears Ellen is conducting all she is accused of. For all the damage she is causing, she cannot simply get away with it just because the user was ignorant to how AN/I works.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is not reassuring to see this edit by Phmoreno saying I will do whatever I need to to get rid of her distorted edits even if I cannot have her blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Though I agree Phmoreno is not conducting himself in a respectable manner, it does not excuse EllenCT for her editing. Perhaps the both of them should get blocked, but Ellen definitely deserves a longer duration.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe you would find anything wrong with wanting to remove material that misrepresents the truth and the sources. That message was to VictorD7 who understands what I am talking about.Phmoreno (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think people should look at the ongoing POV pushing by Victor and others at United States. Ellen is not the problem. For victor, this is an ongoing problem. Examples from another article, America: Imagine the World Without Her include edit warring 1.[65], [66], [67], [68] [69] [70][71] [72] [73][74] [75] 2. [76], [77] [78], [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] Of POV Pushing: [84], [85], [86] [87] [88],[89] [90] [91] [92] [93], [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101], [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107][108] [109] [110] [111] Attacking other editors on talk pages: [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]. Ellen is defending well sourced material. Other editors are seeking to remove it or weaken the statements to support their POV. I would encourage any administrator to read the talk page of United States and examine the edit history. There are clearly editors who have problems with POV pushing, with the major problem being Victor. It isn't like he isn't pretty clear about his purpose here.[118]Casprings (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

<INSERT>Except that Casprings' case falls apart under scrutiny. He pads his diffs with routine edits, alleged "personal attacks" that are mostly me defending myself, and alleged "POV" pushing that really just shows me expressing concern for neutrality. There was some edit warring on the other article, but it involved several editors on both sides, including him, and was ultimately resolved by me and what Casprings called my "supporters" using clear, honestly constructed RFCs to gain input from the broader community. He and his cohorts were the POV pushers, and he already filed a complaint against me with all that "evidence" that Arbcom declined to even hear, as the issue had already been resolved by then and it was just him waging a content dispute by other means. EllenCT wasn't even involved in that dispute, so this is just a lame attempt by him to distract from this section's topic. Casprings has a history of trying to get posters he politically opposes sanctioned by any means necessary, as this embarrassing example shows when he went after Arzel (citing some of the same evidence against him that he cites against me here above, including his link to my alleged "purpose" here). The admin's rebuke for the frivolous report was harsh enough that Casprings felt compelled to retract it, saying that he had posted it because he was "mad", not that it stopped him from trying again later. Gradually he morphed from targeting Arzel to targeting me. Calling me "the problem" is absurd. Ellen's entire Wikipedia existence is about ramming as much low quality political propaganda as she can into articles. Ellen and Griffin's soapboxing triggered a period of instability in the United States article in 2013, and their departure from the article after responsible left leaning editors joined with me and other conservative ones in stopping her resulted in a long period of article stability that recently saw the page's "good status" restored for the first time since early 2012. Her recent return has triggered a new period of instability. I'm not the one trying to radically alter long standing segments throughout the article or shove in one sided talking points on random topics of interest to me without talk page discussion or concern for encyclopedic quality. As for your old link allegedly about my "purpose" from a year ago, that was on my personal talk page and was in the context of simply trying to create a neutral article in the face of relentless POV pushing opposition by you and others. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Casprings 100%. I find it incredibly ironic that some editors are calling out EllenCT as a "problem editor" while ignoring VictorD7, who has been edit warring and POV pushing on the United States article since he first joined Wikipedia, and has been called out numerous times on his own talkpage. And looking over the edits that culminated in the United States page being locked down, it seems to me that VictorD7's reverts were to blame more so than anything else. It also looks like he violated WP:3rr with these four consecutive edits: [119], [120], [121], [122].--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My reply to Casprings is above. As to Griffin, who often acts as Ellen's POV pushing tag team partner, just because someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true (it's telling that I'm transparent enough to leave even false accusations on my Talk Page). I wasn't even one of the last three people to revert before the article was locked down: [123], [124], [125], [126]. I did not violate 3RR, as some of my edits you cite were consecutive. If you had bothered to read your own link, you'd see that "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." It would show good faith if you were to retract at least that false accusation. I did arguably engage in a little edit warring, as did you in recent weeks in that article, Griffin ([127], [128], [129], [130], [131]),and Ellen ([132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142],[143], [144], [145], [146], [147]; Ellen often falsely claims in edit summaries that an item has been approved "per talk", even when it has received nothing but opposition if it was mentioned at all on the talk page, and lumps things under an "RFC" that had nothing to do with an RFC), but I've never engaged in the lying, misrepresentation of sources, or libelous personal attacks that she has. Blaming me for the page lockdown or POV pushing is absurd when I wasn't the one trying to make changes to long standing article segments. Ellen showed up after a long period of article stability that coincided with her previous departure and instantly renewed old efforts to shove political talking points into sections across the article, in most cases without even bothering to try gain a talk page consensus first. Without that I wouldn't even be editing the article right now. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I will have to sort through a lot of material to present the pertinent facts in the case in addition to my personal experiences. In the meantime this discussion should remain open. It should be focused on the person who the complaint is against and not go directly into character assassinations of those in support of my complaint.Phmoreno (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not character assassination if it is fact. I still think EllenCT needs to be blocked, but maybe it would be better if all three (Phmoreno, VictorD7, and EllenCT) be handed some sort of block. They are all in some way tied up in this POV pushing and deserve a block to be determined by admin.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't be suckered by false claims, TheGracefulSlick, or knee jerk statements of equivalence. I've done no "POV pushing". Also, while I (among many others here) have engaged in some edit warring at times (in the sense that I occasionally reverted bad edits without breaking 3RR), my evidence against EllenCT in my first two posts above isn't even about edit warring. I lay out clear, salient examples of her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor of a specific outfit, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and showing disruptive bad faith in other ways. No one can find a single example of me doing anything like that, so don't lump us together just because we're involved in an argument with each other. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You might be the OP, Phmoreno, but other editors can add any facts here that they think are pertinent. And I think "character assassination" is overly dramatic when your words against EllenCT are just as harsh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think one way forward (but not the only way) is for an admin to levy full page protection and for a new RfC to take place. I visited the talk page to see what all the fuss is about and made a few comments only to find myself quickly under attack by VictorD7, a wikilawyer par excellence. His contribution history portrays him as an SPA pushing an extreme, minority POV. I do not know if that characterization is accurate, but that's the impression I get from viewing his contribs. It needs to be noted that VictorD7 and Phmoreno have been actively feuding with EllenCT for at least the last year. Viriditas (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

False. You showed up and in your first post accused me of "engaging in outright denial" ([148]). You hadn't even commented on the right topic (the one actually being discussed), so in my reply I simply corrected your mistake and advised you to read more closely ([149], scroll down). In your next reply you attacked my motives ([150]), falsely accusing me of "intentionally attempting to manufacture doubt about inequality in the U.S." and "engaging in denial". The rest of your post, again, contained a straw man argument, and my next reply just corrected you again while defending myself. If anything you showed up and started attacking me, not the other way around.

I'd also ask that you retract the false "SPA" claim. As the SPA page states, that tag is not based on timeline. You are not to use it on established editors who have edited multiple articles in the past but focus on one for an extended period of time. I've posted extensively on numerous articles since creating this account in 2012. In fact I've been accused of being a "SPA" on two different articles in recent months, lol, which proves it's not true. If I tend to mostly focus on a small group of articles it's because I don't have a schedule that permits dozens of edits a day. That has nothing to do with being a Single Purpose Account, which is mostly about ferreting out paid advocacy (COI) and is a very serious accusation you shouldn't recklessly throw around. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang: Clear attempt to bully and intimidate a content contributor who does careful research. WP:BAITing of EllenCT is also inappropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for VictorD7

From the conversation above, I propose the following:

VictorD7 (talk · contribs) has aggressively pushed his POV, edit warred, and dismissed other viewpoints in the topic area of American Politics. This behavior has occurred over a long period of time. For example, in the article America: Imagine the World Without Her, he has edit warred 1.[151], [152], [153], [154] [155] [156][157] [158] [159][160] [161] 2. [162], [163] [164], [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] POV Pushed: [170], [171], [172] [173] [174],[175] [176] [177] [178] [179], [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187], [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193][194] [195] [196] [197] and attacked other editors: [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203]

He has POV pushed in the article United States since he first joined Wikipedia. In edits that culminated in the United States page being protected, VictorD7's reverts played an essential role. He also violated WP:3rr with four consecutive edits: [204], [205], [206], [207] He often attacks others editors on the talk page of the article. [208] [209] [210]

Victor edits primary on topics that relate to the Politics of the United States and has made his purpose for editing those articles clear. [211] As such, VictorD7 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page about or making any edit related to the politics of the United States, broadly construed, across all namespaces. This restriction includes the article United States. This restriction is enforceable by any uninvolved administrator. VictorD7 may request reconsideration of this remedy twelve months after the passing of this motion.

Casprings (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I did not violate 3RR and I ask you to show good faith by retracting that false accusation. Consecutive edits counts as one revert. The rest of your post I rebutted in the above section. VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Enough already. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  Really, Cwobeel? It doesn't bother you that he started this outrageous character assassination section with a blatantly false claim about me violating 3RR (actually multiple false claims but that one's salient, objective, and easy for anyone to quickly discern), a claim you had made about those same edits earlier that I've already corrected you on? On what grounds should this ridiculously over the top punishment be imposed? Have you even read these links? VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  Maybe it would be best of you declare a break, take some time off per WP:WPDNNY, come back after that refreshed, and maybe with a better attitude. That may save you from a block... - Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  I'm fine with taking a Wiki break, but I'd prefer you answer my questions. Defending myself from false personal attacks isn't reflective of a bad attitude. VictorD7 (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support(uninvolved non admin) The numerous diff's provided leave little doubt a ban is needed for VictorD7. POV pushing and attacks on other editors should never happen. AlbinoFerret 00:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  You mean attacks like false accusations of violating 3RR and paid editing? Did you actually read those "numerous" diffs? What were the most egregious examples of "POV pushing" you found? Mostly I just read sources and clarify issues for people on talk pages. The vast majority of my interactions are civil and productive. VictorD7 (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I read each and every diff, it took some time. You repeatedly pushed your own edits back in. You went off of the discussion of the article and aimed your replies at another editor. The one I find most troubling is the use of "any sane person". You did all this and looking at what has been presented it is more than enough. I will also caution you, as others have, that you do not help your cause questioning ever poster here, it in fact proves to me that you need a break from the area. AlbinoFerret 00:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect not defending myself would work even worse. Just to clarify, the "personal attack" you found most "troubling" was this one...[212]...where I simply used the same "any sane" wording the editor did in the post I replied to, visible above mine, where I was setting the record straight and defending myself from, among other things, his accusations of being "churlish" and engaging in "gamesmanship"? BTW, like most of the above "evidence", that was from last year (or the beginning of this year) in an article that did get heated on all sides at times, but I haven't been to that article in months nor have I interacted with that editor since. Is that really worth something as draconian and sudden as a broad topic ban? VictorD7 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Overwhelming evidence against the user, and I propose a block with time to be decided by admin. VictorD7, don't bother commenting to this support as your counter-statements help little to whatever defense you have left.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I stopped being able to believe that VictorD7 has been editing in good faith years ago. I keep trying to work with him, but he refuses to accept only adverse RFC results, with an extremely asymmetric idea of compromise, always in his favor even when he has accepted facts which imply his judgment has been in error. I would be most grateful if the community recognizes that he is motivated by ideology instead of a desire to improve the encyclopedia, to the extent that corrupting the quality of articles and intentionally trying to mislead people about vital economic and policy topics means nothing to him when he has some glimmer of hope that he is scoring some long-antiquated political point for far-right corporate interests opposed to those of individuals. EllenCT (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reasonable case has been made for a block on VictorD7. It is just a list of the man's edits, not evidence of edit-warring, POV-pushing, etc. I followed up diff 173, which was an August 2014 edit to the article on the film : America: Imagine the World Without Her. Looking at the edit in the context of other the edits to the article, VictorD7 appeared to be acting reasonably. Though two editors disagreed with him, another editor agreed with him on that point (though disagreed with him on other points - so was not part of a tag-team).-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. (uninvolved) As with the discussion about EllenCT above at this time, I don't see a case laid out justifying a topic ban. A large number of diffs were provided, but they alone without context don't provide a narrative for a major NPOV issue. I'm only seeing involved editors looking to topic ban the other at this time in the conversation. If someone wants to rise above that, they'd need to actually demonstrate the actual ongoing problem at least somewhat concisely. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This is seeming typical of both sides of the political articles squabbles here at ANI – to try and knock editors from other side out by having them "blocked" for this or that. I should have boldly closed this entire topic down early on when I had the inclination (and before it morphed into a tit for tat exchange...). At this point, it would be a mercy for Admin to close this down, and send both camps back to their various articles to argue and fume some more. [sigh...] --IJBall (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Kingofaces43 I'm also not seeing the context within the diffs to justify a topic ban. I'm not familiar with this particular dispute, but I should note that I've worked with both Victor and Ellen in the past. I can't recall working with Phmoreno. Morphh ^(talk) 15:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per Casprings, TheGracefulSlick, EllenCT and what I stated above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per the evidence, and the arguments, presented above. IjonTichy (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a unilateral ban in a case like this. There's enough bad behavior in both directions to go around between these two across a wide range of articles. Would support an interaction band or a bilateral topic ban to make the articles they fight over usable again by other editors. But a one-way action against the one initiated by the other is of no use. --Jayron32 01:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a mistake to equate me and EllenCT (or me and Griffin or Casprings for that matter). I've typed up an EllenCT section that would show just how out of whack that is, though I haven't decided whether I'm going to post it or not. For now I'm holding off, mostly because I just showed up here to defend the op from a harsh "boomerang" when he clearly wasn't familiar with how ANIs work. I didn't call for sanctions against EllenCT in my posts above, and the only time I initiated a report against her was when she refused to stop accusing me of being a paid editor, though I could certainly make a much stronger case against her than Casprings did against me. VictorD7 (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with VictorD7. Each user should be handled individually instead of saying, "well, look at all the bad behavior going on".Casprings (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all. On the contrary, I think context is vital. Besides, you've got a funny way of showing you believe that either since this section was created to discuss EllenCT. VictorD7 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: if you are claiming sufficient bad behavior on my part to support any sort of a ban, please say what specific edits constitute that bad behavior. You and I have had disagreements in the past, and it is very disappointing to see such insinuations from such an administrator without any evidence. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jayron, this dispute is hardly a one-way affair. There are uncivil POV pushers working in both directions here (which has created an interesting pseudo-balance in the articles about the politics of the United States). Banning one editor would not solve this dispute, but I would be in favor of a bilateral topic ban. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you are claiming sufficient bad behavior on my part to support any sort of a ban, please say what specific edits constitute that bad behavior. I have been editing strictly according to the peer reviewed literature reviews, not my personal politics. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This isn't a one-sided issue and any sanctions shouldn't be one-sided either. It takes two to tango. Calidum T|C 21:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, I note that no actual evidence of any bad behavior on my part has been presented. The idea that "it takes two to tango" is as bad as he-said/she-said journalism when one side is obviously right and the other is obviously wrong. EllenCT (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Strong support (uninvolved non-admin) Knowledgeable editors like EllenCT who cite neutral scholarly sources about contentious matters are so exceptional here that pushing for informed neutrality is seen as POV pushing by those (from both sides of the left/right divide) who are here to overwhelm and conquer by using their own pet junk citations. This is not a matter of one side trying to knock the other out in a left/right divide. It is a matter of who is here to contribute and who is here to just win. [213] makes it clear why VictorD7 is here. There are many knowledgeable editors who have EllenCT's ability to cite neutral, scholarly sources and just can't stand contributing here any longer because of "the numbers and persistence" of those who can't or won't find the best citations instead of the ones that allow them to achieve their goal for their team. Flying Jazz (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  Leaving aside the fact that EllenCT routinely uses fringe blogs (example: [214]), is generally terrible at selecting and comprehending sources, and is the least neutral editor I've encountered on Wikipedia, that quote by me you mention was context specific in regards to trying to pull a particular article toward neutrality from a tendentious group bent on propagandizing, and was simply an undeniable description of how Wikipedia works. It said nothing about "why" I'm here. By contrast, statements like this from EllenCT say a lot about her purpose here: [215] "There is no way to edit Wikipedia in a completely nonpartisan fashion. Refraining from editing reinforces the status quo which is mostly libertarian Austrian nonsense." [216] "If this article were governed according to WP:UNDUE, right-wing views would properly be sidelined and marginalized because the demographic center of Americans' political preferences is to the left of the Democrats." VictorD7 (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  The same editors who can't or won't evaluate textual context in sources also often fail to evaluate context in other editors' words. Using a blog (fringe or not) on a talk page to summarize opinions for other editors about what's wrong with an article is a great idea and is very different from using a blog in the article itself. Using blogs in the article will almost always harm the reader. Pointing to blogs in the talk page can often help the reader by allowing one editor to summarize things (fringe or not) for other editors. By simply writing "EllenCT routinely uses fringe blogs" without adding the context in which she uses them, you conflate discussion about an article with harming an article. My thinking is that this is a strong indication of your motives, and my opinion has changed from "support" to "strong support" as a result of this most recent failure to evaluate words in context. Of course, whether a blog is fringe or not is irrelevant to a discussion about editor behavior. EllenCT's comments at [217] that VictorD7 mentioned continue: It's not a case of both sides being equally valid. They are not; one side has models that can predict historical outcomes from prior emperical data, and the other does not. Removing demonstrable nonsense helps the reader. My view is that VictorD7, by citing particular sentences that EllenCT wrote out of their context, simply wishes to win. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  Who said she didn't want to use the blog in the article itself? She defended the source (what Cadiomals aptly called "some twenty-something woman's rant blog"; it is a rabid anti-American screed on some random personal blog) when its RS status was attacked, and said she wanted to include points from it in the article and reshape the entire page according to its themes. Leaving aside the fact that using such a horrible source to dictate the entire layout of the United States article is even worse than simply using it to support one segment (perhaps one covering broader opinionated disagreement) per WP:NPOV (among other things), the blog itself uses fringe blogs (and sometimes Wikipedia or busted links) as sources for the points she wanted included. It does help to fully read what you comment on. EllenCT also has a history of using fringe advocacy/lobbying groups as sole authoritative sources (e.g. [218]; INSIGHT: Center for Community and Economic Development, Oakland CA), even when their claims are uncorroborated and strongly disputed by far more reliable sources (the most salient example is Citizens for Tax Justice, the lobbying arm of a liberal think tank called ITEP, whose tax chart she tried to force into articles across Wikipedia for over a year, causing enormous disruption; e.g. - [219], [220])

As for the quotes, it's interesting that you accuse me of taking things out of context when you above quoted a full four words from me in totally distorting what I was talking about. By contrast, the most pertinent element in my quote of EllenCT above is "There is no way to edit Wikipedia in a completely nonpartisan fashion." That's not true. We all have our views, but we are supposed to edit in a nonpartisan fashion. Of course we're to avoid false balance, but simply asserting there is such a false balance in a particular case doesn't make it true. It's also telling that EllenCT believes Wikipedia is "mostly libertarian Austrian nonsense", and that most Americans are to the left of the Democrats. That means she believes Wikipedia is politically waaaay to the right of the American people, which is something to keep in mind when championing her as a supremely competent, knowledgeable editor with a firm grip on reality while attacking and dismissing the countless editors who have been frustrated trying to collaborate with her. For real context, read the rest of the link you quoted from (you actually posted the wrong link). She's replying to an editor who shares her politics and started off on her side, but started distancing himself when shown proof she was wrong. After she complains about him saying something positive about me, he answers, "I said that because he had valid arguments, and when he explained further I thought the arguments were even more valid (the ITEP's federal income tax has yet to be explained in-depth). I have yet to see a rebuttal from you which addresses the substance. Do you think you're editing in a completely nonpartisan fashion? I don't have time read the tens of thousands of bytes you and him have expended in your arguments, but I do notice that you keep saying he wants to use non-peer-reviewed publications but the peer reviewed literature you're relying on isn't immediately apparent to me, especially since you don't like the Tax Policy Center, which publishes working papers on its model, but are partial to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) model, which does not appear to publish details on its model. In any case, the debate over the substance is somewhat irrelevant to the bad faith tone and insults."

As for evaluating sources, maybe you can succeed where she failed. That same discussion was one of the multiple times she claimed [221] that this article [222] states that roughly 50% of corporate tax incidence is borne by consumers, even calling it "the best source". Except, like the rest of modern scholarship, it focuses only on different ideas about the labor/capital split. Searches show it doesn't even mention the word "consumer" in any variation. She made similar false claims [223] about "page 17" of this source [224] (everything she said about me there is false too), saying it shows "50%-75%" of taxes fall on consumers. Except page 17 doesn't mention the word "consumer" in any variation either, and is also about the labor/capital split. In fact it, like most of her own sources, totally undermined her own claims about tax regressivity. Discussion elsewhere indicated she didn't understand the difference between labor and consumption, or even that investment, labor, and consumption are activities rather than distinct groups of people. When I repeatedly asked her to support her assertions with a single source quote she refused to do so and has never retracted her claims. [225], [226], [227], [228], [229] Maybe you can find the source quotes she couldn't. Or, if you're unwilling to read and rationally engage in discussions like this then you shouldn't stridently make assertions you can't back up. I'm only posting this now because I couldn't let your above comments go unchallenged. Pretty much everything you said above is the opposite of the truth.VictorD7 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is a pretty unfair application of bad faith to those that have had disputes with Ellen. Intelligent people can disagree on what sources say if we're not directly quoting them and what the weight should be for the given scope of an article. Ellen and Victor are both very passionate and opinionated editors, which tends to balance out. I hope that any admin considering action would take the time to read through some of these disputes and see the varying viewpoints in full context. Morphh ^(talk) 16:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Jayron and Flying Jazz, overwhelming a post with bullying and incessant tl;dr exhibits bad faith from a longtime tendentious editor. Montanabw^(talk) 04:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - if we keep putting TBs on editors because of their interests in certain topics we will run out of editors, which happens to be a pretty serious issue WP is facing now. What happened to the brief cooling-off periods, like 48 hr blocks for both sides with unclean hands? Or how about a mandatory discussion at DRN or with a 3O? This new trend of TBs is rather disconcerting, especially when PP, and possibly imposing 1RR or 0RR for a set period of time are still options. --Atsme^📞📧 00:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose You want to place an indefinite ban, "broadly construed", on an editor one side, proposed by an editor active on the opposite side of the issue, and based on the "discussion above" that didn't start out to involve the person to be banned, and appealable only after 12 months, without at first assessing more balanced and temporary measures, and you can get support for that? Wow. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, generally. They were also maximally obnoxious and unwilling to work with other editors on an RfC about how to describe progressive taxation to the point where I had to threaten to block them unless the remained civil. They have not. Protonk (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a casual read through the dozens of diffs VictorD7 has supplied show a strong prima facie case that EllenCT is on an unapologetic POV crusade. His documenting this at length may not please certain editors, but arguing, for example, tl;dr as a basis for a ban is absurd. VD7 has been nothing but civil and patient here, and there is no basis upon which to sanction someone for strongly arguing a case. μηδείς (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Saying Victor is civil or polite is like admitting you haven't read the evidence; especially that of his disdain for consensus decision making through the RFC process or building an encyclopedia based on secondary sources instead of a forum for primary source debate. EllenCT (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I note that experienced administrators have come to very different conclusions than those about whom I have complained of tag team and COI editing in previous ANI threads. EllenCT (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT- specific issues

Difficulties I’ve experienced with EllenCT are issues on Economic growth, although it appears that she is causing similar problems on Economic inequality and United States : EllenCT’s edits on Economic growth are primarily, if not exclusively, in the Income equality section.

1. EllenCT is the person most responsible for the Income equality section being disproportionately large relative to the topic’s main causes and to its coverage in growth literature. (See 5)
2. Despite the Income equality section being tagged WP:UNDUE several times, EllenCT continued to add to it.
3. It has been suggested several times that most of the material in the section be removed to I separate article. I added the main article Economic inequality, where EllenCT actively edits.
4. EllenCT then added income inequality related material into the productivity section, trying to use the supposed gap between productivity and median family income. In this discussion Soapbox 1 she exposes her POV by trying to change the focus from the importance of productivity to growth to how income is distributed by using a graph of median family income. EllenCT had to be aware that this graph was misleading because she was involved in discussions about it where papers said: Total compensation tracks productivity better than median family income and there was a change in “family” composition over time, with a rise in single parent households associated with poverty and income inequality.
5. Here is how some of the material the Income equality section is described by others on Talk:Economic growth#Other problems in the inequality section “I'm sorry but that whole section is crap.” And “The whole thing is still one big disorganized mess”.
6. On EllenCT’s talk page I asked her to leave a summary and take the rest of the material to Economic inequality. She ignored this request.
7. What do you make of this exchange?: Phmoreno: Sounds like you either not reading your references or ignoring what they actually say.Phmoreno (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC) EllenCT: That is so dishonest! The only reason Temple (1999) says there has been little interest in income distribution because he spends the remainder of the literature review showing why it's so important. You can take your unfounded personal attacks and shove them, thank you very much. EllenCT (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Phmoreno: So that there is no confusion about what my statement referred to, here are Temple's words: Yet macroeconomists have traditionally shown little interest in the gulf between rich and poor. The study of growth at the aggregate level has often been something of a backwater, relegated to a brief last chapter in mainstream textbooks, and rarely taken on by anyone outside development economics.Phmoreno (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
8. Based on her edits and more importantly our Talk discussions, I have doubts about EllenCT’s knowledge of economic theory. She keeps asking for sources on basic concepts like the importance of productivity, then when I refer her several references used in this article and to the NBER, she criticizes the sources. She's questioning concepts that are fundamental to understanding her favoriet reference Temple (1999), which requires an understanding of macroeconomic modeling and analysis techniques. (Perhaps she can give us a section-by-section summary.) Also, thre was a comment to her on Talk:Economic inequality about the fact that developing countries should be handled separately from developed countries and I have pointed out here (as have her sources, suuch as Temple) that many countries do not report the necesary statistics (or they are of too poor quality) to put into production fucntions for analysis. Despite this she keeps mentioning that the IMF paper claims income inequality is the most important determinant of growth, failing to mention non-traditional, difficult to quantify variables have to be used in the analysis. Also, I had to go correct the statement about the IMF paper in one of the articles to say that income inequality is related to the duration of growth, not the magnitude.
9. However, she admitted that productivity was important in this exchange: Talk:Economic growth #"Needs to be replaced with real per-capita income versus productivity” EllenCT: @Phmoreno: re [230], how would per-capita (mean) income ever diverge from productivity? They are completely correlated…. EllenCT (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
10. I will not pursue claims of removing material which she admitted to here: Talk:Economic inequality#Recent edits EllenCT: “I intend to restore most if not all of that material absent persuasive arguments to the contrary.“EllenCT (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC) EllenCT’s removal of content was relatively minor compared to another editor’s.
11. In conclusion, the various talk pages show a long history of problems with EllenCT involving several editors. She has left some serious messes that will require a lot of work to sort through and clean up. She has made some attempts to do this, but still engages in posting slanted edits.Phmoreno (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm the editor who has engaged with EllenCT the most with regard to the inequality section of the Economic Growth article. I'm the one who put in the undue/too long tags - because they need to be there. I'm the one editor who's argued with her the most about the issues pertinent to that section. I've disagreed strongly with many of her edits - in this particular section, in most other respects her edits were fine - and did at one point get pretty exasperated with the inability to find common ground.

Still, I see no reason for why EllenCT should be sanctioned in anyway or warned or whatever for these edits. This is mostly a straight up content issue. In fact, problems with Phmoreno, conduct wise, have been much worse than with Ellen. At least one can have a constructive conversation with Ellen, with Phmoreno it sort of degenerates quickly. I'm also willing to take some responsibility for the continuation of the existence of the dispute about economic inequality and economic growth. Basically, I know that if I had the time I could sit down and write that section so that both Ellen and I would agree on it. Problem is that it's starting with a pretty crappy draft to work with and properly revising it would take a lot of work. And I've been lazy about it. All this is a way of saying that's it's not all Ellen's fault that those tags are still there.

Anyway. Boomerang it or let it go. I got no opinion on all the opportunistic assholery that's showed up in this request above calling for Ellen's head but the nature of the comments makes me suspect that that's exactly what it is: "I have a chance to get somebody who disagreed with me once banned so I'm gonna act like an opportunistic asshole!"Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"It's not personal... it's strictly business."Phmoreno (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you have her agree to let you remove everything and rewrite it yourself, including some of her content. It would be easier than for you and the others than constantly agruing with her. Otherwise, this will go on for a long time.Phmoreno (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Anybody who sympathises with Phmoreno's line of argument here - that EllenCT has put excessive weight on a topic, and lacks economic expertise - is invited to read Phmoreno's most-edited article, Productivity improving technologies (historical). You'll need a couple of days and you'll need to forget about the existence of WP:SYNTH, of course. bobrayner (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not disagree with Phmoreno that productivity is important. I have asked Phmoreno for sources comparing the importance of productivity and income distribution. There are abundant, recent, WP:SECONDARY sources claiming that the income distribution is the most important independent determinant of economic growth. So far I have seen zero sources, from Phmoreno or anyone else, comparing the relative importance of the two. Phmoreno's productivity section is longer than the income distribution section in the Economic growth article, and he has insisted that it come first. Why does he want to downplay the importance of the income distribution? Several of his points enumerated above (especially 2 through 6) apply to the article in an intermediate state before recent improvements and the long series of improvements in January in which Phmoreno did not participate at all, and none of them are serious behavior issues. So far, Phmoreno has been unable or unwilling to identify a single peer reviewed literature review in support of any of his points.

Phmoreno's point number 7 is indeed an extremely dishonest further attempt to misrepresent a secondary peer reviewed literature review, Temple (1999), published in the Journal of Economic Literature. The review author was complaining that economists in general did not give sufficient attention to the income distribution among the determinants of economic growth, and his primary conclusion is directly contrary to Phmoreno's contention that it should be ignored. EllenCT (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not know and never claimed to know of any sources that specifically compares the importance of labor productivity to income distribution. But let's look at your statement here: There are abundant, recent, WP:SECONDARY sources claiming that the income distribution is the most important independent determinant of economic growth. This is a perfect example of how you operate because your sources do not make that comparison either, because of insufficient statistics on productivity and capital in developing countries. They are comparing a different set of variables. The burden of providing proof that income distribution is more important than labor productivity, capital or new products falls on you because it is completely outside of any mainstream view. If that were an accepted view you should have no problem finding multiple sources to support it. The literature only claims productivity, capital and new products as being responsible for economic growth. The importance of productivity is well noted in the history of economic thought where it was mentioned by classical economists, neoclassical economists and modern economists. Marx clearly stated that productivity and technical advancement were the causes of growth. Kendrick stated that labor productivity accounted for three quarters of US economic growth in the century leading up to 1956. There is a vast amount of literature on productivity and its relationship with growth. The opening sentence of this St. Louis Fed paper is typical: [231]Over long periods of time, increases in “real” wages-that is, adjusted for changes in consumer prices, reflect increases in labor productivity. If you compare real wages a century ago with those today you will see that they are between 10 and 20 times higher today. So what do you think would have happened to real wages if we had redistributed income 100 years ago and held productivity constant?Phmoreno (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I was a bit ignorant of many of these issues, so I went to the Income distribution article (which EllenCT has not contributed to in any way to the best of my knowledge) and found the link to INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND Research Department. Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin? Prepared by Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry1. Figure 3 on page 12 compares the impact of multiple macroeconomic factors on growth spell duration, and Income Distribution comes out on top. Labor productivity isn't mentioned. Why not? Here's a hint: it has something to do with the word "independent." Yes, EllenCT is up to the usual sneaky tricks that knowledgeable people have of using language in a precise way. You may not know what the word independent means in this context or in the context of any complicated function with multiple inputs and one output. If you do know, you may be intentionally hiding or misapplying that knowledge. Ellen and the IMF are, in effect, saying, "This car is faster because it is built a certain way." You are saying, "This car is faster because its wheels have a higher rotation rate." Why doesn't someone in the automotive industry compare the importance of wheel rotation rate to car design in determining speed? Because that would be a stupid thing to do. Why doesn't an economist compare the importance of labor productivity to income inequality in determining growth? Same reason. One editor has the background and knowledge to correctly utilize the word independent and the other without that knowledge seems to be ignoring it. All of that would be viewed as an amusing miscommunication and comedy of errors among editors talking past each other on a talk page. It's being discussed here because the less knowledgeable editor wishes to win an argument by preventing the more knowledgeable editor from contributing at Wikipedia. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding point #7, here is what I make of the exchange. It's difficult for a person who is knowledgeable in a particular field to know how to best react at Wikipedia when another editor misrepresents the literature of that field by taking a single isolated sentence or two out of its particular context in one paper. It can be immensely frustrating for someone with a strong background who knows and understands a discipline to see another editor advocating for overemphasizing one sentence in a misleading way. EllenCT recognizes the context of a particular sentence or two due to familiarity with the intent of the paper in the field as a whole. I believe (but I can't state this strongly because of my own lack of familiarity with the field) that Phmoreno not only doesn't recognize this context but accused EllenCT of not reading or ignoring that one sentence. Being called dishonest in that situation is well deserved, and the statement "You can take your unfounded personal attacks and shove them" is also well deserved. I want knowledgeable people here who are familiar with a field and care about it to contribute to articles. Unfortunately that sometimes means displaying appropriate impatience with unfounded accusations of ignorance from the truly ignorant. That's what I make of the exchange. Flying Jazz (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a simple argument over weight. Ellen is arguing that it's due weight as an important viewpoint (referencing the publication author) and Phmoreno is arguing that it's a small minority viewpoint (referencing the publication author). Both points worth further discussion - no reason for personal attacks or calling anyone ignorant. Morphh ^(talk) 17:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

When I read "Sounds like you either not reading your references or ignoring what they actually say," I see an unjustified accusation from Phmoreno that EllenCT is ignoring something that she did not ignore. Ignoring something is ignorance personified, so I see an unjustified accusation of ignorance from Phmoreno to EllenCT in that statement, thus personalizing a dispute, where you only see an argument over weight. We have different eyes. I don't think the request "What do you make of this exchange?" was meant for editors like me with my eyes. I will not comment here again. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Vandalism and thus, edit war, at College tuition in the United States

• Flyte35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I was looking at old discussion on the College_tuition_in_the_United_States talk page, and noticed this discussion, in which 3 editors, ElKevbo, 71.101.54.88, and Flyte35 all agreed that if credible sources could be found to support a claim that college loan forgiveness was not inflationary, it could be included in the article. However, one of the prior editors decided to refuse to abide by the community consensus, and it has created an edit war. The other 2 editors can not be reached: One is unregistered and the other is taking time off due to vandalism and ill will. The 3rd, remaining editor, Flyte35, decided to violate community consensus (with edits, such as this one), and thus when I arrived on the scene to edit, in accordance with the consensus previously reached, and when he (or she?) deleted the post, I marked it as vandalism, but tried to talk about it in the talk page. That did not work, so we are in need of your intervention.96.59.141.215 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Where's evidence of talk page discussion? Weegeerunner's on wikibreak^{chat it up} 05:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe this original discussion and this more recent one is what 96.59.141.215 is referring to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion it's clear that there was no agreement "that if credible sources could be found to support a claim that college loan forgiveness was not inflationary, it could be included in the article." There is no vandalism here, and no edit war. This is just normal BRD. The anonymous editor made an edit. I reverted it. And now we're discussing it. Flyte35 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you, everybody, for weighing in, but again, I've done my part: I have, as others have requested and noted, participated in talk-page discussion. We're still at an impasse, and thus need more discussion on the edits. My 3 bones of contention are as follows: 1) The edit is, indeed, contributory to the topic, and thus does not place undue emphasis, since, of course, credible sources could be found. 2) All 4 sources (or at least 3 of the 4) are, indeed VERY credible. (How are they not?) 3) Oh, one more thing: Yes, all 4 sources do seem to support the edit in question. So, I will wait for further input on my requested edit before proceeding further.96.59.142.246 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, 96.59.142.246, ANI cases generally involve editor misconduct (or perceived misconduct), not disputes about sources or references. If you feel that the article talk page discussion is at a stalemate, you might try posing your questions at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN to see what more experenced editors think of the arguments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Why was this thread moved down from where it was (topic #16 earlier)? We don't work on "bumping up" topics, and it should probably be moved back. Nate • (chatter) 00:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I was also confused by this. Threads are archived based on how long it was created and if it was closed. I will restore the thread to where it was --->  Done. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 00:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

DesmondCoutinho

DesmondCoutinho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Irom Chanu Sharmila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

SPA editor DesmondCoutinho edits his fiance Irom Chanu Sharmila's article. He is a controversial figure amongst the activist community Sharmila hails from. He has ignored warnings and suggestions about conflict of interest editing and original research. Most of his talk page comments contain personal attacks against other editors and BLP violations. He was blocked for making personal attacks, but has continued to do so after the block was lifted ([232] [233]). -- haminoon (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: I don't think this comment rises to the level of a "blockable" WP:NPA offense, but it's not good either. However, DesmondCoutinho has not edited at all since posting that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No its not blockable on its own, but it came after many warnings and worse personal attacks against other editors; likewise the OR, COI and BLP violations he constantly makes and ignores warnings for. I think we can assume he will be back to edit the article at some time in the future so any advice on dealing with this would be welcome. At the very least the article needs more eyes on it. -- haminoon (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User 174.3.213.121

This started with an edit I made to Scotiabank,

I removed an image of Scotiabank Place that was in the article as I felt it wasn't relevant to the article anymore because the bank itself no longer sponsors the arena and the other two images were of branch locations themselves.

User 174.3.213.121 undid the edit and put in the summary "just because you love euge & nhl hockey, doesn't mean the corruption RE: cdn tire/scotia/canada banks should be ignored" which I still have no idea what he means. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotiabank&diff=prev&oldid=664735983

I then tried once again to delete the image and was greeted with another summary of "unexplained removal. likely conflict of interest (NHL hockey fan interested in protecting scotia/cdn tire's corruption to prolong league's duration". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotiabank&diff=prev&oldid=665054835

The user doesn't appear to be active on his talk page and his talk page just is other incidents of him getting into edit wars or issues with comments made in summaries. They did not respond to any of the users/notices posted.

His user talk page is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:174.3.213.121. This is the only link I can provide as he doesn't have an actual user page created.

--WestJet (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Typically, the next step you might take is to go to Talk:Scotiabank to begin a discussion with other editors who watch this article. It would help to see if your edits had support from other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the article itself is really active. The user doesn't respond to anything posted on his talk page and just basically does what he feels is right. In the past he's made comments about other people's religion in edit summaries. WestJet (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

So are we resolving this? WestJet (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the complicating issue here seems to be what you said earlier: based on 174.3.213.121's contrib. history, they have only posted once since June 1. And they already received a warning about their earlier problematic edit summaries (from another editor) at the IP's Talk page. So I'm not sure there's anything "actionable" here until they do this again. ----IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Abuse by Editor Taeyebaar

I would like to alert the Senior Wikipedia Administrators to evidence that user User:Taeyebaar is manipulating a series of Wikipedia articles towards a specific viewpoint - and in the process has improperly targeted users, businesses, Wikipedia editors old and new over several years - but much more acutely in recent weeks.

Although there are several examples, I would like to use the example of the Arrowsmith_School article. (Previous examples exist on this noticeboard for other pages).

The total edits on the Arrowsmith page are clearly biased towards adding and maximizing the information about "skepticism" on this page. Out of these 137 edits to date by user Taeyebaar (30% of the edits to the page), clear and undue weight has been presented surrounding skepticism of the program in relation to the other information on the page. This user is also clearly connected to the edit histories of IPs 192.0.173.58 and 192.0.173.58 (which made most of the skepticism edits until both disappearing suddenly when user Taeyebaar was created, as well as having similar editing history and shared relationships, so obviously connected), which is a further 135 + 11 edits (32%) - for a total of 62% of the edits to the Arrowsmith article - almost all in the additional/tightening of "Skepticism" by this user. (The user has been accused previously of multiple logins under the IPs in question).

Instead of focusing on information relevant to the program for Wikipedia's readers - the page has been modified so as to focus on Taeyebaar's skepticism of Brain Training programs in general. In fact, the edits appear to be designed to to do harm to the Arrowsmith business.

Some stats, for your ease of monitoring (note the edit headings);

• http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Arrowsmith_School&project=en.wikipedia.org (List of editors - top editor Taeyebaar and IPs)
• http://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/usersearch.py?name=Taeyebaar&page=Arrowsmith+School&server=enwiki&max=100 (Taeyebaar edits)

Many of the edits are highly suggestive and editorialized, implying a specific viewpoint. Some examples;

• To help herself, Arrowsmith Young developed cognitive exercises that she claims help (clearly weighted towards a viewpoint, editorialized)
• A lot of doubt and criticism has emerged (clearly weighted towards a viewpoint, editorialized)
• lack of evidence of change in learning skills as well as the high costs. (clearly weighted towards a viewpoint, editorialized without sources)

This isn't appropriate editing behaviour on Wikipedia. It is clearly an attempt to damage the Arrowsmith reputation as opposed to providing a well written, balanced article for Wiki readers.

• This user has taken a similar approach to many other Brain Training Programs, including Cogmed, LearningRX, etc.
• A number of users have reported Taeyebaar, whose voices have been drowned out by Taeyebaar'sbetter knowledge of the system (primarily through accusations of sockpuppetry). Attempts to communicate with Taeyebaar on their talk page have been deleted by Taeyebaar. The user refuses to collaborate or have open discussion.
• The user has repeatedly posted notices directly on administrator pages and Administrator Noticeboards to undermine other editors.

Taeyebaar's Connection to the Loudest Critics, Dr. Siegel

It also appears that user Taeyebaar has a connection to and specific knowledge of an individual whose commentary forms much of the content of the Arrowsmith page - Dr. Siegel. Evidence exists to suggest that they are connected to Dr. Seigel, a vocal critic of the school listed on the article.

• Dr. Siegel is a known and active critic of the Arrowsmith program. On the Wikipedia article, said user has greatly weighted the article with criticisms from Dr. Siegel. In fact - the article now has more information about Dr. Siegel than about Barbara Young - the founder of the program. Dr. Siegel has been accused of crossing the line of libel before (see the references added by Taeyebaar in the article). There is no reason to have this weighted diatribe on this page - except to undermine Arrowsmith intentionally.
• The user has intimate knowledge of all external sources critical of the Arrowsmith program, far beyond "normal" research. This implies intimate understanding of the subject matter and personal relationships with individuals listed on the page.
• Of the three Loudest Critics of the program (Dr. Siegel, Max Coltheart and his student Anne Castles) - user Taeyebaar created Wikipedia pages for the first two, but not of the third (Dr. Siegel). When a page was created for Dr. Siegel - said user made minor edits to the page within a few hours (and had recommended others edit it immediately instead of doing it themselves, as noted in their talk pages). As this user is adept at managing Wikipedia through it's policy's (banning and reporting users regularly), and has edited dozens of other pages - it implies that this user is "connected", and didn't create the page originally out of an attempt to maintain neutrality.
• It is clear (for example in the documentary cited, where Dr. Siegel "is the only vehement critic of the program") - this individual is one of the few people who is compelled to add such an overwhelming amount of criticism to the Wikipedia article and other articles of its nature.

This is all circumstantial evidence given the nature of Wikipedia, but is compelling nonetheless.

Whether or not the individual is directly connected with Dr. Siegel or not, they are certainly aggressively advocating one viewpoint. Either way, their actions are still consistent with lack of neutrality by this user.

Wikipedia Users Targeted by Taeyebaar

This user has also improperly targeted many other users on Wikipedia, in some cases to the point of getting them banned or leading them to quit. They have leveraged their knowledge of Wikipedia's regulations to manipulate articles about Brain Training towards their own opinions. The Wikipedia editors have focused (rightfully so) on the actions and reports of Taeyebaar, not the edits to the article. However, this has enabled Taeyebaar to continue to edit and control various articles and continue to add skepticism to various articles to promote their own opinions.

Taeyebaar has had bans attached to all of the following editors who have attempted to provide balance this on the Arrowsmith article alone;

• User:StarbucksLatte (the person who brought this matter to my attention, got them banned)
• User:Wiki-shield (an unknown psychologist from Toronto, got them banned -wikipedianyt@gmail.com)
• User:Mishash (unknown individual, got them banned - possibly from the same office as Wiki-shield)
• User:Eaqq (since given up editing on Wikipedia)
• User:Brunasofia (since given up editing on Wikipedia)

These users were all accused of being "sock-puppets" by Taeyebaar as soon as they made improvements to the articles Taeyebaar has been "controlling". The individual also reverted all edits of several experienced editors who made edits to the article;

• User:Nyttend
• User:Wbm1058

Their edits were reverted without discussion or collaboration - one attempt to edit met with the feedback from Taeyebaar "Oh no, you don't". These experienced editors have now "stepped back" from editing the article as per Wikipedia's spirit - and the article is no longer being collaboratively managed by Wikipedia editors but exclusively is being used to espouse Taeyebaar's critical opinions of the subjects in question.

IMPORTANT - The user has currently advocated for a block on editing the article now that it has been significantly weighted (User talk:Zad68). Obviously, the user is happy with their unbalanced negative weighting of the article, and would like future edits/improvements to stop.

The user Taeyebaar has also made similar edits to various articles in the brain training space. When questioned about it on their talk page, they simply deleted the discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATaeyebaar&type=revision&diff=664362450&oldid=664361198).

These articles include:

• Arrowsmith School
• LearningRx ‎
• Cogmed
• Dore Programme
• Fast ForWord
• Brain training
• Brain Gym ‎
• Fast Forward
• Lumosity
• Neuroplasticity
• Brain training
• Brain fitness

All with what appears to be a a strong goal of promoting a singular viewpoint (that Brain Training is definitively pseudoscience).

Taeyebaar has made a number of repeated posts to get users banned, posted to numerous Administrator pages asking for bans/blocks/etc., posted numerous complaints to Admin boards, etc. - all without engaging or openly discussing on their Talk page (or the user Talk page). This is not consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia - a place for all neutral editors.

Violation of Wikipedia's Policies

This user has violated the spirit of Wikipedia in many ways - but even more so, violated core policies;

• Taeyebaar, as noted above, has a clear viewpoint (against Brain Training). WP:NOTOPINION
• Taeyebaar, as noted above, has intimate knowledge of these programs and therefore is likely to be deeply connected to the sources. This is clearly an individual with a conflict of interest. WP:CONFLICT
• Taeyebaar clearly has the opinion that Brain Training programs are "without merit" WP:OPINION, and leverages the rules to accomplish the telling of their viewpoints.
• Taeyebaar exclusively adds undue weight towards their critical viewpoints towards almost Brain Training Programs WP:NPOV
• Taeyebaar has added many additional opinionated statements (for example, statements relating to "high cost", and "many people's opinion's), in order to promote their viewpoint WP:EDITORIALIZING
• Taeyebaar is not acting collaboratively, where "articles should not belong to any one person". WP:OWN
• Taeyebaar is concentrating on the negative aspects of the programs exclusively, to the detriment of all of the information about these programs on Wikipedia. The information presented is from a connected individual and is not neutral. WP:WEIGHT
• Taeyebaar isn't engaging on the talk page, but rather just making direct edits to the page, and undoing anything else added in conflict with their opinion. WP:EDITCONSENSUS
• Taeyebaar repeatedly edit-warred with senior admins and newbies, and managed to get this overturned through sock-puppet accusations WP:EDITWAR
• Taeyebaar repeatedly uses accusations of sockpuppetry when someone edits articles they don't like WP:LAWYERING
• Taeyebaar has had numerous individuals banned as sock puppets who were new editors, trying to help balance opinions and clean up editorializing. WP:NEWBIES

Taeyebaar is clearly using the system WP:GAME to accomplish their goal of undermining public perception of neuroplasticity-based products, programs and software. This is not the act of a group of editors working collaboratively. It is a single person's viewpoint being promoted - on all of the articles Taeyebaar has edited.

As there is notable and valuable information on various articles that this person has had deleted, they are clearly not an unbiased, good faith editor.

Past Behaviour

This user has a history of similar improper behaviour surrounding the subjects of dyslexia and (completely unrelated) subjects around various subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.165.246.181 (Same user*)

• Warned for edit warring on the subject of "dyslexia"
• suspected "multiple editors objecting to your misuse of tabloid sources to push your POV about dyslexia"
• "repeatedly reverted to their own opinions of dyslexia"
• Blocked from vandalizing "animal testing"
• Warned for edit warring on "Indo-Pak Confederation"
• Warned for edit warring on "Backstreet Boys"
• Involved in edit war on "Hain_Celestial_Group"
• Found switching back and forth between user accounts

• Recent connection: Several communications between user Mad_Hatter (recently and in the past) between this IP and Taeyebaar.

This user has also been previously accused of lack of collaboration - "A half dozen editors have disputed Taeyebaar's edits. None have supported them." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive809)

What's next?

I leave it to your better understanding to suggest a recourse of action. At the very least - the Wikipedians who have been banned for their contributions to articles "under Taeyebaar's control" should be re-considered as editors (and perhaps more research into additional user actions on other articles should be undertaken). At the very least, someone impartial and senior should edit these articles to return them to impartiality and a neutral point of view. Or alternatively, control should be returned to the collaborative space for multiple editors to achieve consensus on the various Talk pages and make future edits accordingly from there (read: don't allow Taeyebaar to edit articles in this space - ban them from all associated articles). Thanks in advance for looking into this matter, and sorry about the lengthy post.

Sean Stephens (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Couple of things

• An admins an admin there arent levels of administrators
• It might be worth reading TLDR and then restructruing your report as its quite lengthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs) 19:28, 31 May 2015

@Amortias: A couple of things:

• In the sentence "An admins an admin there aren't levels of administrators," the first "admins" is short for "admin is", and therefore takes an apostrophe: "An admin's an admin...". Further, "arent" is a contraction for "are not", and therefore also takes an apostrophe: "aren't". Finally, as it is a sentence, it needs a period at the end.
• In the next sentence, "restructruing" is misspelled; the correct spelling is "restructuring". The word "its" is short for "it is" and needs an apostrophe: "it's".
• After a fellow editor has just presented a complicated situation in a coherent fashion, telling them to go read TLDR is rather insulting.
• If you're planning on "correcting" someone's post on Wikipedia, you had better be damn sure that you don't make a bunch of stupid mistakes when you do so.
• You neglected to sign your post, but an important person like you, who doesn't have the time to read about someone's problem (but does, apparently, have the time to "correct" them), probably just didn't have the time to do so.
• It might be worth reading WP:DICK, and then restructuring your approach to commenting. Alternately, you could just keep your mouth shut and not say anything if you don't have anything worthwhile to say.

BMK (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A little harsh, don't you think? There were other ways to comment about what Amortias (not sure if I typed it correctly) wrote instead of "shut your mouth". Personally, I do agree that Amortias did not pay attention to the report at all and seemed to only focus on "senior admins". However, there were other ways to explain what you said in other and better words. Frankly, I would consider what you've written, especially in that tone, WP:NPA. Callmemirela (Talk) 23:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No, not harsh at all. Too many people seem to think that posting "TLDR" is a sufficient response to what may be, after all, a complex situation, and that impulse needs to be sharply discouraged (as does the impulse to say "XXXXX is thataway" instead of dealing with the problem: the correct response is to deal with the problem to the extent that one can, and then say "BTW, next time you can go to XXXXX"). There certainly are "wall of text" complaints, and if they are poorly structured, formatted, and written, they may justify a response of "TLDR", but this was not one of them, and Amortias' reply was, in my opinion, a total knee-jerk, compounded by poorly written advice. BMK (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, something is either "a little harsh" or it's a personal attack. Those trains don't meet. BMK (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Should I Spinoff? I know it's long, but it shows a pattern which goes back years by a specific user. Always genuinely eager for suggestions from more experienced admins. Sean Stephens (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems odd to me that this editor, who stopped editing in 2013, would suddenly come back and file this report, while having no recent interactions with Taeyebaar, or any at all as far as I can see. As well, Sean Stephens has made arguments that involve knowledge of Wiki policy that seems completely misplaced when referring to WP:SPI. The arguments by this user would have us believe that Taeyebaar has been the prime reasoning behind the banning of some sockpuppets, however anyone familiar with SPI knows that Checkusers determine who is to be blocked, rather than the filer. And, anyone who has cited wiki policy would also be sure to read about SPI processes before making claims such as these. It could be that he did not feel that the reason to the socks being blocked was worth a deeper look. (Which would then make his argument shallow). But, this whole thing is producing some noise that I can't quite place. Anyway, FYI Sean Stephens, all the users you have listed that were 'banned because of Taeyebaar' were banned for legitimate reasons, not the control of one editor. These should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again for any reason. Socks of these accounts should be put back in the drawer. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• (ec)Comment - At this point I don't have an opinion about Taeyebaar because I haven't examined the issues closely. But Sean Stephens, you have made one very glaring false assumption. Taeyebaar didn't get anyone "banned". The editors you name above got themselves permanently blocked because of very inappropriate behavior; in fact, three of them have been confirmed as the same person (sockpuppets). As for those who "gave up" editing, do you have any clear evidence other than speculation as to why they "gave up"? Lots of people stop editing for a lot of reason. If your other evidence against Taeyebaar is as weak as your arguments about getting editors "banned", you need to rethink this entire report. Sundayclose (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

After reading other responses to Sean Stephens, I agree it is odd that he returns after a two year absence to point the finger at someone who recently came into conflict with one of the socks mentioned. Could we be dealing with a WP:BOOMERANG situation? A sock investigation might be in order. Sundayclose (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I have recently awoken from a long editing slumber by someone who saw me speak on the value of Wikipedia's neutrality and collaborative practices. Her user account User_talk:StarbucksLatte was banned as a sock when she created a private account after reading the book "The Woman Who Changed Her Brain" and noticed the abundance of negative comments on the related Wikipedia article. After looking into it, she noticed the user Taeyebaar had edited highly politically charged articles (e.g. "Jihad Watch" and "Iran-Pakistan Relations"), and didn't want to use her normal editing account given the inflammatory editing history of the individual. When she started editing the article under this account, she was "confirmed" as a sock, though she wasn't the individual with the inappropriate behaviour - and now she has quit. For the record - I'm happy to start a sock investigation on myself, if you'd like. I've used my real name here, I'm not hiding (but admittedly, I'm not a particularly experienced editor either). I am behind this report to maintain my assertion that the Wikipedia collaborative process works - even for the lay-editor. Who wants my phone number? Sean Stephens (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this report should be reformulated but the issue remains. I would have made this report myself if it wasn't done already but real life keeps me busy. The issue of socks is independent of the issue. In no way does completely ignoring the rules of Wikipedia and then trying to pass it off as a problem with socks make it justifiable. User:Taeyebaar has clearly taken ownership of Arrowsmith School and refuses to discuss any changes on the talk page. I have left it alone for now as there appears to be no end in sight for his edits and reverts so there is no point in 2 of us being banned for violating WP:3RR. I'm at a loss to understand the point of your comments about the person who made the report while completely ignoring the subject of the report. Can we address the issue and not the players?--Daffydavid (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never edited in this area and am not familiar with Taeyebaar but I don't think suspicions about the OP should preclude consideration of this incredibly lengthy complaint. At the least, it should be seen whether a COI exists regarding the use of Dr. Siegel as a source. I think it is WP:UNDUE for an article to be primarily composed of criticism rather than facts about a company or organization like at Arrowsmith School. But clearly looking into this in any detail will take some time. I look forward to hearing from Taeyebaar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, regardless of the unhelpful originator of this thread, I see ownership and POV pushing on the part of Taeyebaar. As I found the article, most of it was dedicated to attacking the subject, with the "Skepticism and criticism" being larger than the rest of the article (5018 characters of skepticism and critism, vs. 4629 in the rest of the body), so I chopped a bunch of completely unsourced content and removed content published in news media articles, which being news media, aren't vetted by experts in the field. I then cleaned up a poorly written chunk discussing reliably-published criticism from some Australian neuroscientists, adding commentary from the neuroscientists in place of a couple of paragraphs that basically said "these scholars have opposed it" and spent only half a sentence discussing what they'd actually said. The result? Wholesale reversion: restoring the paragraphs of unsourced and off-topic criticism, removing the information about what our Australian friends said, restoring the non-scholarly publications, restoring the article to being heavily weighted against the subject. Not at all neutral, especially when you keep it up by going way past 3RR edit-warring with other editors a few days later. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no idea whether the rest of the OP's complaint is valid, but see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mishash/Archive where User:StarbucksLatte, User:Beardocratic, and User:Wiki-shield have all been blocked as socks of User:Mishash by the closing administrators. Voceditenore (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore - I can't help but notice that you also edited the article for Dr. Siegel with Taeyebaar, within a few hours of the page being created. You were also invested in accusations of sockpuppetry for the users above. Are you connected to Taeyebaar or Dr. Siegel? Or is this just circumstantial? (Not trying to be a jerk or wear a tin hat, I apologize in advance if I am off the mark here - you seem like an experienced, neutral admin). Sean Stephens (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• I am not aware that I was ever accused of being a "sock-puppet" by Taeyebaar, or any other editor for that matter. Would appreciate see diffs where anyone made that accusation. Looking at the article history, my edits were limited to reverting WP:CUTPASTE moves, and ensuring that proper procedures were followed to determine whether the article should be titled Arrowsmith School or Arrowsmith Program. I would be interested in seeing diffs where positive information about the school or program from third-party sources was being removed. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: I've blocked Sean Stephens as a  Confirmed sock of Beardocratic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Mike V • Talk 22:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, this complicates things even more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Regardless of whether or not the complainant is a sock the issues raised are the same as I would have raised. Why is no one addressing the completely blatant violation of WP:3RR? Is the consensus here that Taeyebaar can do whatever they want with no consequences?--Daffydavid (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No Daffydavid, you haven't missed anything, except perhaps a little patience. The issue will be addressed in time; sometimes it takes a while. The OP's report justifiably raised a lot of red flags, and it turns out those of us who were concerned about sockpuppetry were correct. And I agree with Liz's comment that a report by a sock with a vendetta complicates the situation. If you have concerns about 3RR, feel free to take it up at WP:3RRN. In the meantime, let's wait and see how the issues with Taeyebaar turn out. Sundayclose (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

And not just a sock, a block-evading sock of an editor indef blocked as being WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. That throws an entirely different light on the allegations. BMK (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

If I've parsed the data correctly, Seanstephens stopped using his account in October 2013, then created Beardcoratic a week ago to post complaints about Taeyebaar on AN and got indef blocked for it within a couple of days, so the editor went back to using Seanstephens. Clearly, this person has a thing about Taeybaar, but if his complaints are legitimate, he has reduced the chances of something being done about it substantially by his own misbehavior. BMK (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree BMK. The editor might have been a sock account but that doesn't mean this incredibly detailed case should be thrown on the bonfire (that is, archived into oblivion). We can "shoot the messenger" but that doesn't mean that the message is meaningless. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Since I am preoccupied with real-life matters, I am going to make this short. Admins should see this and this edit. As for the links on anything positive about these 'brain training' programs being removed by me is a lie. Multiple users removed positive links to the program because they were poorly or primarily sourced, including administrators. I only cared about reliably sourced material being left alone. I also have NO connection to Max Coltheart, Linda Siegel or Anne Castles. I NEVER created any of these articles. A user created an entry on Anne Castles, so I felt Max Colheart, who Castles is or was a students of, deserves an entry as well, but it was not me who created them, just suggested them. The accuser thinks that other users don't have the capability of checking an articles creation history. The accuser also has a habbit of claiming that anyone who is opposed to him or edit wars against him has a 'special connection' to the subject that they are editing (see the links I shared for details). That is my response.--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• The Linda Siegel article is an interesting case. It was originally created by the sock StarbucksLatte. It was an appalling coatrack which consisted solely of criticising her research on Arrowsmith School, referenced solely to material written by the head of the school and published solely on the school's website. So here we have an eminent academic whose 40 year research career on learning disability is presented on Wikipedia as consisting primarily of her criticism of this school. I and another editor were in the process of cleaning it up and turning it into a proper biography, when it was deleted as the creation of a blocked sock. The other editor who was cleaning it up quite rightly re-created it, and it is now a decent article about a notable academic. (Admins can view the original version of the article.)

I've now had a close look at Arrowsmith School and it is equally appalling from the opposite perspective. I'm going to leave some recommendations on the talk page later today. Taeyebaar, I strongly suggest you step back from editing that article. In my view your additions were not helpful to furthering a concise, balanced, and above all encyclopedic coverage of the subject. To Seanstephens and assorted socks, who I'm sure are reading this... Don't sock (in all its definitions, including "meat puppetry" via off-wiki canvassing). The reason it is so heavily sanctioned on Wikipedia (and the reason why I personally detest it) is that it destroys trust amongst editors and makes coherent, constructive dialogue impossible. To both Taeyebaar and the assorted socks, I strongly suggest you all avoid speculating about other editors' motives. It does nothing but muddy the waters and it rarely ends well for any of the parties. Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I found a notice about this discussion by Seanstephens on my former talk page. He did an amazing job collecting evidence against rogue editor Taeyebaar. Well, not surprisingly, he got himself blamed for sock-puppetry and blocked. Taeyebaar is a skilled manipulator and he is clearly supported by many influential editors and admins. I seriously question WP CheckUser policy, to me it has clearly become a tool to silence opposition. I was under impression that the goal of this tool is to fight vandalism and it can ONLY be used when somebody suspected in vandalism, it clearly states that "It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects." It is clearly not the case here. I personally can no longer edit WP thanks to misuse of CheckUser. My former WP account was declared as a sock-puppet of my business partner John. Ok, I can at least explain this by IP overlap when we both did editing in the office. Next, few people come to my defense and raised questions about dubious edits by Taeyebaar... within days their accounts were declared as sockpuppets of John (ironically, John doesn't even know who Taeyebaar is). There is absolutely no way that CheckTool could show any IP overlap for these accounts, so the results of CheckUser tool were clearly manipulated. To demonstrate this just consider that some "very trusted editor" based on "results" of CheckUser tool first declared Beardocratic as a "confirmed" sock of Mishash, now Beardocratic is declared as a "confirmed" sock of Seanstephens... People who care abuse of WP should (1) investigate this sockpuppetry farce and (2) take accusations of Seanstephens a bit more seriously. I don't know who pays Taeyebaar, but they clearly got their money worth. [My home and office IP addresses are blocked thanks to Taeyebaar, but I am visiting my son in Montreal, so I can write this post-mortem...] 24.114.107.238 (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)block-evading sock — 24.114.107.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I would like to bring your attention to the actions of admin Guy. He just tried to hide this entire section of noticeboard. He was also the admin who edited all brain training articles back to Taeyebaar's biased version after all the opponents were blocked. Something fishy is going on here... 24.114.94.82 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC) block-evading sock

The above IP has now been, of course, as pretty much anyone reading this thread knew it would be, blocked for block evasion. @Seanstephens: Every time you do this, you're making it less and less likely that anything is going to be done about your complaints. BMK (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You should really act upon the content of this thread rather than dismiss it based on presumed "sockpuppetry". Sockpuppetry or meetpuppetry become a convenient tool to eliminate opponents here, as you can see from my comments above, IP match doesn't even matter for CheckUser anymore, one user could be in the UK and another in Canada and they still be labeled as "sockpuppets" just because they oppose the same type of biased editing. As for blocking dynamic IPs, that's just plain stupid - to block me while I am in Montreal you'll need to block IP range of the entire downtown Montreal :). Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.103.65 (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2015‎ (UTC)

I thought you had been blocked as a sock? BMK (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, yet another block-evading sock of Seasnstephens. BMK (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The 24... IP claims to be Wiki-shield, who according to the CU, is technically indistinguishable from Mishash. Meanwhile, according to the CU, Seannstephens is technically indistinguishable from Beardocratic. 'Quite coincidentally' three of these four all ended up making a fuss over the same issue and the same article at the same time despite each sock pair claiming not to know the other pair at all. Then there's User:StarbucksLatte, who took up the fallen Wiki-shield's baton at Arrowsmith School and who Seanstephens claimed 'just happened' to contact him about this problem. Meanwhile, both StarbucksLatte and Beardocratic were pronounced by the CU as possible/likely matches for Wiki-shield and Mishash as well. So you pays your money and you takes your chance. At the very least there's is meaty collection of sock pairs here. None of which surprises me given the shenanigans at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LassoLab back in 2013. Some of the current issues they've raised are valid, though. It's a pity that they chose the "tangled web" route. Voceditenore (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Back to the original discussion

As noted above by several of us, Taeyebaar's editing has been going against the WP:OWN and WP:NPOV standards, and several of us good-standing editors have already participated in a discussion attempting to get these standards enforced. Don't close the discussion just because it was started by a sockpuppet. Nyttend (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it has not, at least not always. His edits include balancing material. And I am not happy that this thread is started by a block-evading sock, who removed hatting, again evading the block. We should ignore this trolling per WP:RBI unless and until an independent and neutral request is brought. Meanwhile, the entire series of articles is a walled garden and needs ruthless pruning. Brain gym is bollocks, and most of the programmes sold by these firms are bollocks as well. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

So Taeybaar has finally made a comment here which is surprising since he has steadfastly refused to comment at the Arrowsmith talk page. I find it interesting that he ignores the discussion and instead tries to provide more evidence against the OP. The key takeaway I believe is this - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive809) where we see Taeybaar engaging in (and admitting to)sockpuppetry and engaging in the same behaviour that leds us here in the current instance. So if socks are fighting with socks do we have a drawer of socks? --Daffydavid (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I propose the washing machine. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Washing machines aside, Zad68 has already given Taeyebaar an unequivocal warning about his/her unacceptable behaviour [234]. People now know that the various "brain training" articles, including Arrowsmith School still need a lot of clean up and have probably put them on watch, since all of them are subject to COI editing. I suggest that Taeyebaar step back from them all and let other editors monitor and improve them for a while. If Taeyebaar doesn't step back, and there's more trouble, that would be the time to lower the boom. And Taeyebaar, if you're reading this, stop assuming that when two or more editors disagree with you, they are sockpuppets. Sometimes it happens to be true as in the Arrowsmith case. But most of the time it's not. Filing SPIs on that kind of evidence rarely ends well and poisons the atmosphere. Voceditenore (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I already responded to the warning. Isn't anyone reading? Daffydavid's accusations are nothing but absurd. He has made edits to the Arrowsmith article (and possibly others) by de-listing the names of school's that use their program. I honestly think it was unecessary, but I did not revert him. However when he reverted the article to the version of Mishash's sock (which included adding a lacking references tag in the middle of the article content), I reverted him, only for him to engage in an edit war and then start pointing fingers. I even explained to him what the revert was for. And from the look of his talkpage, DaffyDavid does seem to have a history of interjecting himself into edit wars and then pointing fingers. This kind of behavior doesn't help wikipedia in the least. Also I never accused anyone of disagreeing with me for being a sock. What a lie! Amazing how much confusion and chaos a troll can cause. The criticisms of these programs were not added by me for various programs, such as Dore and Brain Gymn. They were added by other editors from before. Mishash even tried to remove them, only to be reverted by someone else. I think I'm done here.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Taeyebaar: in 2013, you filed a sock puppet investigation against Gothicfilm after he reverted you. Shortly after that, you admitted to editing while logged out to avoid detection by Gothicfilm. This is ancient history, though. The real problem seems to be that you're edit warring to maintain a version of the page that other editors have found problematic. Some of them are sock puppets (or meat puppets), yes, but others are obviously not. From your reply to Zad68, it sounds like you see nothing wrong with your behavior, and you will continue unabated. I don't know about anyone else, but this has made me reluctant to edit the page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL, filing one RFCU two years ago based on what I felt was reasonable suspicion at the time, does not mean I accuse everyone who I come into loggerheads with being a sock. In fact that ANI report was posted not long after the mistaken RFCU. Exploiting, or rather attempting to exploit, another editor's previous mistakes seems to be the first-hand response at disputes nowadays; especially when many of these editors have been in disputes on other issues before.--Taeyebaar (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

"Exploiting, or rather attempting to exploit, another editor's previous mistakes seems to be the first-hand response at disputes nowadays" It is so bizarre to hear this statement from you... isn't it exactly what you were doing with other editors to maintain your version of brain training pages? 24.114.96.132 (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that's rich, Taeybaar, I'm a troll now? I have to commend you for giving me a good laugh. On to the subject at hand, trying to whitewash the issue by trying to defame the other editors only shows that you indeed know you are well outside the Wikipedia policies and as pointed out above you have no intention of stopping. This is the issue, even if you think you are correct it does NOT allow you to continue with your reverts. I stepped away while this was ongoing, you on the other hand have carried on like you own the place. I clearly missed the Wikipedia policy that precludes me from editing on a page when I disagree with content (or as you put it - inserting myself), please point me in the direction of this page. --Daffydavid (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Daffydavid, I believe that Taeyebaar was referring to the original poster of this discussion as a "troll", not you. Having said that, I find the use of "troll" to dismiss the substance of an argument to be extremely unhelpful, and I'm not the only one here who has pointed this out to him/her. Voceditenore (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• On a more general note, I am in the process of trying to remedy some of the problems at Arrowsmith School which I've outlined above and at Talk:Arrowsmith School. It would be very helpful if there were more eyes and fresh ones on the article itself and more participation in the current talk page discussions. I am also going to ask WikiProject Psychology and WikiProject Education for input—something which should have been done long ago. Voceditenore (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless whether it is started by a sock or not, this thread is not just about Arrowsmith School but about multiple articles in brain training area butchered by Taeyebaar and about this person's editorial practices and lack of respect for WP rules. Yet, you try to defend him and narrow it down to Arrowsmith School article. 24.114.89.109 (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

MarioMarco2009 part two

MarioMarco2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See also the previous thread: [235]

MarioMarco2009, a single-purpose account focussing exclusively on Homeopathy has, despite repeated warnings (including being warned about discretionary sanctions [236] in January) continued to waste contributors time with repetitive and tendentious postings on the talk page, and has despite being informed of the WP:MEDRS guidelines more times than worth counting, still continued to spam the page with dubious sources, outdated primary studies, and similar material - see for example this latest post: a primary study from 1989. [237] Or indeed see Talk:Homeopathy in general, for a classic example of chronic WP:IDHT syndrome and general tendentiousnes. [238] Since at this point it seems self-evident that MarioMarco2009 either refuses to conform to expected standards, or lacks the competence to do so, I ask that per discretionary sanctions, he be topic banned from the homeopathy topic, along with all medical and 'alternative medicine' subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support this editor has become a massive time sink and chooses either not read our PAG, or just cannot understand them. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, he shows absolutely no sign of either giving up or attaining Clue. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Done. I'm about to log this. Please feel free to check if there's more paperwork I need to file. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for extreme IDHT and competency issues. A time sink is a very good description. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a lovely word, isn't it? But I gotta tell you, I'm also starting to like the word "asshat". Drmies (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

New user creating suspicious redirects

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

---

StephanieTV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been creating redirects for subjects that are clearly not related, such as St. Jude Thaddeus Institute of Technology, which redirects to ABS-CBN, a broadcaster in the Philippines; and New Life in Christ Fellowship, redirecting to Thai Public Broadcasting Service. Perhaps related to this is the recent vandalism and sockpuppetry concerning articles related to television in the Philippines (cf. this investigation at SPI and this long-term abuse entry). dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO, i think this user is either User:Taiki0409 or User:CarlandEllie 991. But clearly, this user creates dubious redirects and TV station articles. -WayKurat (talk) 08:11, 12 June 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:MYS77

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

---

MYS77 (talk · contribs) is being disruptive and called me a child and stalker because he does not agree with my addition of links per WP:ELOFFICIAL. SLBedit (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Oh, please. I apologized and I'm waiting for somebody's guidance, that's the reason I've started a discussion at WT:FOOTY. MYS77 ^✉ 19:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

MYS77 implied that he has some kind of privilege on Wikipedia and can ignore rules because he edits since 2010: "Child, stop. I'm here since 2010, you're the one who needs to learn." SLBedit (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Already being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#User:SLBedit "abusing" from the guidelines at Sergi Samper and Álex Grimaldo, unsure why SLBedit felt the need to escalate to the dramaboards. GiantSnowman 19:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment it is difficult to judge an apology with the wording "my dear friend" but an initiation of communication is potentially positive. Please show respect as relevant.

SLBedit can you point to the edit on Sergi Samper that you claim is unproductive. This seems to have been the starting point of your spat. GregKaye 19:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

1, 2, 3 and other disruptive behaviour in other articles. My impression is that MYS77 feels that he owns Spanish football related pages and does not let me edit them. Then he starts calling me names. SLBedit (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

GiantSnowman WP:FOOTY is not the proper place because WP:ELOFFICIAL affects every biography. SLBedit (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not the first time that MYS77 bugs me and he admitted ("don't make yourself a victim (again)." SLBedit (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are offended at being called a child then why not demonstrate how adult you are by ignoring it? Chillum 02:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I will ignore this from now on, we don't need drama here. If you see these edits at Samper, none of them are disruptive. Every other user (except him) disagree with the inclusion of social networking profiles in football biographies. However, creating a noticeboard about me when I'm improving the pages here (just see my recent contributions), is unnecessary and humiliating for me. I should be the one offended here. Cheers, happy weekend to you all. MYS77 ^✉ 03:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah: just a short note before leaving. WP:CTDAPE fits perfectly on what's SLB is doing with me, this is not the first time he creates an unnecessary discussion for simple things. If you check Lolo (footballer, born 1993), Álex Grimaldo and others, you'll get what I'm saying. Last message, I promise. Cheerio, MYS77 ^✉ 04:33, 12 June 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.

Restored OUTing?

The following discussion is closed. 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 I was the one dealing with Cla68 recently, I've had them on my watchlist to see comments and such. This edit just appeared and restored information that appeared to be connected to a previous issue involving Cla68. The edit is from an anon IP and is the anon's very first edit. Something doesn't look right, so I leave it to the admins to sort out ... --McDoobAU93 17:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm not interested in quibbling over who identified themselves as what on which mailing lists and have revdeleted. I think we should get a range block here, or semi-protect the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've already semi-protected 4 days, slipped up and did then undid a \20 block, which isn't sufficient as it is a \11 network. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by blocked user

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

---

Recently Weathereditor(talk) was blocked for disruptive editing. The user is back with a new account Weathereditor1 (talk), continuing the pattern of disruptive edits (i.e. here , or here). The user also appears to edit via IP's, see for instance Eureka Nunavut history. Several editors tried to reason with the editor on his talk page (see history), to no avail. The user replies often with ad hominems. Someone need to block the new account and the IPs the user uses. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sock blocked, page temporarily semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Geez Neil, you got there before I could. Save some work for the rest of us. Chillum 15:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wot'll ya do with your redundancy package...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have been saving my admin pay cheques since 2006 and my admin pension is bigger than expected. Chillum 15:49, 11 June 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.

And Weathereditor3 (talk · contribs). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User talk: Millennium Child Support Group

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

---

After being blocked (which I didn't notice at first) for having a promotional username, Millennium Child Support Group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keep writing an advert entry for their organization on their user talk page. Not sure what to do there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Due to misusing their talk page for promotional purposes I have revoked talk page access and given them a link to UTRS. Chillum 17:39, 11 June 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.

Fromm Packaging

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

---

Suspicious page and its author:

• Fromm packaging
• User:Fromm Packaging

compared to http://www.google.com/?#q=fromm+packaging

--CiaPan (talk) 08:52, 11 June 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.

Removal of promotional material from User and User Talk page

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

---

Here [239] I removed links from editor MarkBernstein's page to that editor's website. The website promotes his company and commercial products. Pretty clear violation. User Parabolist disagrees. He reverted me twice without explanation [240] [241] and when I tried to find out why on his talk page he reverted that too [242]. Thoughts? 168.1.99.209 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, although perhaps he should just have a single link per WP:UPYES. — Strongjam (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you, Parabolist, and MarkBernstein discuss this on the user's talk page, like you were attempting to do. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I tried that - the most I got in the way of discussion was an edit summary of "Nah." Unfortunate but neither editor has an obligation to respond to me - that's why we have AN/I. Strongjam, I'm going by WP:UP#PROMO - I removed 6 links to the editor's website on that one page, seems "excessive." I agree a single link would be reasonable. 168.1.99.209 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not really applicable, all of those links appear to be links to his writing about Wikipedia, WP:UP#PROMO is meant more for things not applicable to WP. There is no clear-cut yes/no answer here. The right way forward is to discuss on their user talk page first. — Strongjam (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood the guideline - can you be clear on this because I don't want to waste anyone else's time if that's the case. You're saying we're allowed to link self-promotional, commercial sites on our userpages so long as the linked content relates to wikipedia? 168.1.99.209 (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

These essays concerning Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee appeared on my personal website, where I have previously reprinted other papers on hypertext and Wiki research. The essays, in turn, were covered by a number of newspapers, broadcasters, and journals including The Guardian, Gawker, der Standard, de Volksrant, and Think Progress. The traffic from the Wikipedia links is negligible, especially compared to the approximate 875,000 visits they received during the Arbcom Gamergate case, but they may be useful to Wikipedians following up allusions to those pieces -- and it saves my having to link them separately when they come up in discussions at Arbcom and elsewhere. This complaint by an IP user appears to be another attempt to pursue Gamergate’s agenda through new means. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: my objection is not to the writings, it's that a) wikipedia links to any website bolster its search ranking so that tends to be abused here and b) the website has several sections on you, including your CV, and a prominent link to what appears to be a software product you sell (apologies if I'm wrong on the last point.) 168.1.99.209 (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please remove that personal attack Thank you. 168.1.99.209 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: Whoa bro, let's Assume Good Faith here. I don't see the IP doing anything blatantly disruptive over ethics in video game journalism. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 17:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: You left a warning template explaining "Gamergate discretionary sanctions" on my talk page. Why? Mark (or anyone else) - is the PCSX2 article covered under Gamergate sanctions? 168.1.99.209 (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops! @168.1.99.209: I left it for you because a bunch of other Gamergate fans have been chasing me hither and yon, and it's so hard to keep all the 168's straight. But the template won't do you any harm -- as it says, it's simply advisory and doesn't suggest wrongdoing. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you really write and strike that in the same edit? Jesus this Gamergate thing is a mess. @Strongjam: can you clarify my policy question above? If the links are compliant for some reason I'm not understanding I'd like to get out of this thread ASAP. 168.1.99.209 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no bright-line test here, sorry. They're links to Dr. Bernstien's personal website (eastgate.com is his commercial website, btw) and are to material about Wikipedia. Per Justice Potter Stewart - "I know it when I see it, and ... in this case is not that." — Strongjam (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This looks like hounding MarkBernstein. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I won't be dragged into the mud, that happens too often at AN/I. If you have comments on whether the links comply with user/talk page policy they are welcome. Anything else, kindly refrain. 168.1.99.209 (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

IP editor with almost immediate harassment of MarkBernstein. That looks like WP:HOUNDING. With a suspicion of block evasion. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:08, 11 June 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:DylanMcKaneWiki and the Celtic Phoenix article

• DylanMcKaneWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.79.4.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Celtic Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Post-2008 Irish economic downturn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Post-2008 Irish banking crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DylanMcKaneWiki joined Wikipedia about a month ago and immediately started moving articles around. There were a number of issues with cut-and-paste moves and non-standard titles. Things generally settled down. Then he started the Celtic TigerCeltic Phoenix article—if we assume good faith, it's a split, but it leans into the realm of a POV fork to prevent only the good side of the recovery. That article has been tagged for a prospective merge into the article on Ireland's economy for a few days.

For the past few days, he has shown a pattern of editing while logged out, primarily with the IP listed above. If you look at the edit times over the past 24–48 hours, it's almost a clean handoff every time one or the other starts editing.

Today, he declared that he was giving in and allowing the merge to go ahead.[243] So, the logged-in Dylan proceeded to merge the article. The IP then unwound the merge, and Dylan logged back in to proclaim he'd changed his mind.[244]

Frankly, that was a bridge too far: the number of articles and templates he's edited in the last few hours will be daunting to correct for all of his edits. While I'd like to assume good faith that he just keeps getting logged out, it's starting to look like there's some intent to disrupt the encyclopedia with his edits—almost to the point of intentionally logging out to avoid scrutiny. Maybe I'm reading too much in, but at the least, he needs some good guidance on how to work constructively with other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC), amended 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Guliolopez has tried to engage with him, offering tips and advice. I admit to being snarky with him, but have also latterly offered advice, pointed out some of the problems with his editing, etc. Dylan rarely engages (only interaction with his talk page has been to blank it), and when he does it's to talk about us leaving "his" article alone diff. The cut-and-paste page moves have been problematic, the ownership is an obvious issue, as is logging out to perform edits/avoid his earlier block. A more serious problem is the complete ignoring of WP:NPOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

When I looked at his talk page before he deleted most of the content, I see a string of warnings for the past three weeks, asking and even pleading with him not to do moves which mess up the edit history of the page. It seems like this has happened on multiple occasions. Have you seen any improvement, C.Fred? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't so much say he improved through the first part of May as his editing just quieted down and there were fewer problems. He went away from the economics articles and focused on shopping centres. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there was no improvements just because he lowered his amount of disruption. I feel a long-term block is required as it is more and more evident from the several warnings he recieved that he has no intention to learn from mistakes and cooperate with others.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note, this dispute is about the Celtic Phoenix article, not the Celtic Tiger article, which DylanMcKaneWiki does not appear to have edited, but which would be a good merge target. Paul B (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's (mainly) about the Celtic Phoenix article, but DylanMcKaneWiki has edited Celtic Tiger, too, albeit when logged out - see this diff from 15th May is an insertion that adds in a 'See main article: Celtic Phoenix' template, for example, and there are more. The "109.7*.*.*" addresses that edited Celtic Tiger are the ones also disruptively editing Celtic Phoenix. WP:DUCK. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

And checking what links to Celtic Phoenix, I've found that the IP and/or editor concerned has inserted a chunk of text (that completely ignores WP:NPOV, WP:RECENT and WP:CRYSTAL) into many articles, which includes a "See main article Celtic Phoenix" template, rather than directing readers to Economy of the Republic of Ireland. The chunk had been pasted into Economic history of the Republic of Ireland, History of the Republic of Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Post-2008 Irish economic downturn. This is a definite PoV fork... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I added the above note because this section was originally entitled by C.Fred "User:DylanMcKaneWiki and the Celtic Tiger article" with a link to Celtic Tiger below, and the inaccurate statement that "he started the Celtic Tiger article". Obviously just an accidental slip up on C.Fred's part, but there was no reference to Celtic Phoenix at all in the thread. I changed the title and link so the comment now seems semi-irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. I had been trying to see what existed on ga.wikipedia; there is an article on the Tiger but not the Phoenix, so I crossed them up in my brain. Sorry about that. Paul B, feel free to whack me with a trout (which happens to be one of the main aquaculture products of Ireland, but I digress). —C.Fred (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Could an admin also semi-protect Post-2008 Irish economic downturn, please? It's currently got one whole page of edits by this user (both logged in and not), some small changes, some serious, many removing significant content, and what appears to be efforts to remove/alter admin-only templates. Most edits done with no edit summary. This is extremely disruptive editing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

And now we have a page move - 2008–13 Irish economic downturn, because in Dylan's PoV, the downturn ended then. He has been repeatedly asked and warned not to do page moves like this, especially moves that may be controversial (and instead to use the requested moves procedure), and he simply can't be unaware that this wouldn't be uncontroversial, especially given it's talk page. Can an admin please do something about this? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've unwound the move. @Bastun: Had he been warned about the moving process and using WP:RM before? I know he's gotten prior warnings related to page moves, but I thought those were cut-and-paste moves. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope, he did another cut-and-paste move today: Post-2008 Irish banking crisis. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he has certainly been warned about them before, and I've requested him to use WP:RM. See also his talk page on 1st May and your own prior warning to him. I'm a little too busy right now to hunt down diffs for the WP:RM warnings/requests, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Again - can an admin please add semi-protection to Post-2008 Irish economic downturn - Dylan (logged out) is repeatedly removing Financial crisis from the article, not using edit summaries, not genuinely engaging on talk page, etc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Have added Post-2008 Irish banking crisis to the list above. Similar logged out edits, again removing Financial crisis from the article, without consensus and in breach of NPOV. (A parliamentary committee was told just yesterday that over 110,000 Irish mortgages are in arrears... that should be of concern to the banks...) Can semi-protection be added to this one, too? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Update Semi-protection has now been added to the various Irish economic articles where disruptive editing by the IP listed above was taking place. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Note - re-added from Archive 887. Can we get an admin decision or recommendation on this? The user in question has stayed away from the articles in question over the last few days since SPP was added, but is still editing disruptively elsewhere - e.g., a series of seemingly random page moves, redirects and merges, done without discussion. The Quinnsworth merge was repeated again after another editor had already reverted. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Update Dylan took a break for a few days but was back today, 4 June. Dylan made this edit (on other pages, too). Apparently, the "BANKING CRISIS ENDED" in 2013. Which means the government was very silly announcing all this just yesterday. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And again.... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm now proceeding with the Merge of Celtic Phoenix to Economy of the Republic of Ireland as per the consensus on the talk page of the former. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Admin here. Bastun, you should not have made the close to merge on Talk:Celtic_Phoenix, even though the consensus was clear. I'll add a note endorsing it, but sheesh, if you're going to ask editors to play by the rules you should do it yourself as well. Also, I do not see how this edit is so terribly disruptive, but hey, I'm in English so I know nothing about money, having only seen big quantities of it at my drug dealer's. Having said all that, it is clear that DylanMcKaneWiki's knowledge of how Wikipedia works is severely hampered, to the point of serious disruption. POV forking etc. is not a good thing, and it is blockable: DylanMcKaneWiki, if you keep this up you will be blocked. Now, I think we can close this, with the following point of order: any repetitions of severely disruptive behavior will be met with a block; editors can place a note here on ANI and refer to this discussion. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to why I shouldn't have closed the merge discussion? Consensus was clear, I thought, and I'd given plenty of notice. Removal of "Category:2015 in the Republic of Ireland" was disruptive in my view (and that of at least one other editor) as it was pointy, verging on WP:OR and breaching WP:NPOV. Dylan maintains that everything in the garden is rosy when it comes to Ireland's economy and banking - he has asserted that the economic crisis and banking crisis ended in 2013, so therefore was removing references to 2014 and 2015. Thanks for your help. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Simple: you started the discussion, you were intimately involved with its outcome. Of course you shouldn't have closed that. I see your point, now, with that category edit--make sure that, if it happens again, you explain--briefly and neutrally. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, DylanMcKaneWiki has since been blocked for 1 week by admin C.Fred for disruptive editing - page move of Post-2008 Irish economic downturn to 2008–13 Irish economic downturn (as discussed above), despite previous appeals to use WP:RM for controversial moves. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Guys I strongly recommend you perform a range check on my current IP. I suspect you may catch some sleepers. Where do I post such a request? 82.132.234.244 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:SPI, but you need to provide evidence in the form of diffs, not just vague claims. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Cjhanley

User user:Cjhanley is a former AP reporter whose work earned him a Pulitzer. Unfortunately, it was found to have some holes in it, and he has taken this real world fight to Wikipedia. The author who initially embarrassed the AP team wrote a competing book on the subject and Hanley went so far as to contact the publisher and pressured them not to release it.

Now, one of the three AP writers, Charles Hanley, is apparently trying to suppress publication of a new book -- "No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident" -- that takes another view of what happened at No Gun Ri. The book, written by U.S. Army Maj. Robert Bateman, is highly critical of the AP story, calling into question the reporters' sources and research. But Bateman's book isn't the first time the AP story has been criticized.

He has been arguing for nearly 2 years that all of this material should be removed and has begun a large canvassing effort to accomplish this [245]. Interestingly enough, he has pinged nearly every editor I have had even an interaction with on this project. His COI is obvious, but no actions were taken when it was brought to the community’s attention [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=56826848 4#No_Gun_Ri_and_the_AP.27s_Charles_Hanley].

Now he’s attempting to dig for information about me off wiki as well [246].

His non stop insults about me, and a recent allegation that I am some kind of White Supremacist have put me over the edge though.

Hanley needs to be banned from this article immediately. WeldNeck (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban would seem appropriate in this case. Maybe we could have a vote on it to see if there is consensus to topic ban him. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse a topic ban, but we should ensure that Cjhanley is given the standard advice to biography subjects on how to correct errors of fact (rather than interpretations of fact with which you disagree) without violating policy or damaging your reputation. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban as well, given this user's problematic behavior. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at this diff, it seems like it's another editor, Oilyguy, who is calling you a white Nationalist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Liz, @User:JoeSperrazza, Did you see the part of Cjhanley's post [247] which reads "He has great interest in the subject of guns, and in some imagined threat to the white race called Cultural Marxism". (This was cited in Weldneck's original complaint.)--Wikimedes (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are kind of obsessed with the subject of cultural Marxism. I don't see him saying the editor was a "White Supremacist". And you are completely ignoring that Oilyguy did say white Nationalist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, "some imagined threat to the white race" is not the same as "White Supremacist", but it does seem to be an accusation of racism. (I had not meant to say anything about Oilyguy's comments. Cultural Marxism is completely new to me.)--Wikimedes (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. @JzG, this is not a "biography subject," this is a Pulitzer winning career journalist and book author, a subject expert. Carrite (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite: "subject experts" aren't exempted from the fourth pillar. And the article will be just fine without him, just like any other article subject. ― Padenton|✉   19:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? And that means User:Brian Josephson, who has a Nobel prize, is free to promote woo to his heart's content, does it? The problem is clearly and credibly identified. Respecting someone's achievements does not give them a free pass on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse (edit conflict)Multiple attempts at inappropriate WP:CANVASSING, a guideline which is generally expected to be common sense, especially for a professional journalist. Specifically, the inappropriate canvassing violations here are Campaigning (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history diff, also directly copying and pasting another editors comments including their signatures without any statement that it was copied and not posted by that user), and spamming (and possibly votestacking, here:diff). I see numerous assume good faith and civility failures in these 2 diffs as well, and numerous personal attacks. I find it interesting, given the fact that he has almost no editing history for the past year, that he chooses memorial day to wage this new assault on the article. ― Padenton|✉   19:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I have nominated User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre, a page linked from User:Cjhanley for WP:MFD as it violates WP:POLEMIC. That discussion is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre. ― Padenton|✉   19:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I can only assume anyone supporting this idea of banning me from the No Gun Ri Massacre article is not familiar with what has been going on at that article for the past two years, and is unaware that my colleagues and I, along with academic acquaintances, have by far the greatest wealth of knowledge and documentation relating to the subject in the English language. I urge any interested parties simply to review the section "Reader Beware" that was posted at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre to get some sense of the damage that has been done by WeldNeck, at [[248]]. I use the past tense because WeldNeck unilaterally deleted my Talk posting within minutes. Isn't that the kind of offense that warrants a topic ban? In fact, his behavior should have been dealt with by late 2013 by responsible admins. Finally, to suggest that "the article will be just fine without him (Cjhanley), just like any other article subject" is to underline the problem that a huge number of serious people in the world have with Wikipedia, the attitude that "we don't need subject-matter experts; any Tom, Dick or Harry can write about anything." Driving experts away from WP will only deepen its problems. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 22:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)

• This edit, seems inappropriate, per WP:TPO. The materiel meets none of the listed criteria that would make it eligible for User:WeldNeck to remove them. The comments very specifically discuss the article and ways that User:Cjhanley feels it should be improved. The revert should be reversed, ideally by User:WeldNeck. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban.

1. From the diffs presented, the complaints are either unfounded (e.g., per Liz) or don't show edits that are either disruptive or unsourced. He may need some guidance on Wiki policies and procedures, and at most perhaps a mentor for traversing Wikipedia's sometimes arcane rules.
2. In addition, I also agree with User:Carrite and offer the following rationale. Like it or not, there is a long precedence in WP in allowing competence to trump certain policies, as documented in numerous noticeboard and arbitration cases. Surely, per WP:IAR, if nothing else, it is for the good of WP for the community to engage subject matter experts and help them. We don't want to end up in a situation such as this. I don't mean to say we're there, but let's turn the ship and avoid it. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@JoeSperrazza: - you dont see a COI with Hanley and his attempt to exclude a source that embarrassed him professionally? WeldNeck (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban and I find his choice of days to begin this fight absolutely disgusting. WeldNeck (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

!vote by nom above (stricken). Normally nominator doesn't !vote too. As one of the two parties, seems inappropriate to !vote too. Widefox; talk 01:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support a ban on editing the article, but not the talk page. Someone with an obvious and significant conflict of interest should not be editing the article. However, talk page suggestions for changes to the article should be allowed and should be evaluated by uninvolved editors. Deli nk (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Both users User:Cjhanley and User:WeldNeck have behaved inappropriately, in my opinion. COI is a real issue, plus the level of personal attacks by both sides. I present:

WeldNeck attacks Cjhanley's credibility: [249]

WeldNeck deletes an entire section by Cjhanley: [250]

Cjhanley attacks WeldNeck multiple times: [251]

While I initially sympathized with each user for different reasons, I think the conduct is unacceptable. We need uninvolved editors working to ensure quality on this sensitive article. Examining the talk archives, it is clear that this is yet another resurgence of the same dispute from years back, and nothing has changed.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that removing his talk page entry may not have been in the best spirit of things, but I am sick to death of the constant attacks from Hanley on me which has now moved onto Hanley trolling outside Wikipedia to dig up information on me. The entire section I deleted has been replicated several times on Hanley's personal talk page as well as the article's talk page. Its the textbook definition of tendentious. I have never edit warred on that article and every significant edit I have made included a explanation on the talk page. WeldNeck (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Further evidence (from the previous debate in 2014):

Personal attacks:[252][253][254]

Another implicit attack on Cjhanley: [255]

My (2015) comment that reignited the whole thing in the first place: [256]

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Although neither editor is blameless in this content dispute, I think that Cjhanley's apparent belief that he is the only expert on the subject runs counter to the collaborative nature of this project. Miniapolis 00:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Hold Our Horses (is that an option?) See submission on the same article below. I think we're going to try to work this out in talk. Both users at least pay lip service to thinking that it's a good idea. So we're going to take this an edit at a time and see if things will remain civil long enough to get something done. If anyone wishes to volunteer, I would love to have a fourth or fifth commenter that I can ping if needed to the talk to back me up (or tell me I'm stupid...either one works) if this gets (every bit as) nasty (as it has been for two years). So, I apologize for abusing the parenthetical. I suppose you can come over to my talk if you would like to volunteer. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hanley's COI, and canvassing still needs to be deal with. WeldNeck (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

WeldNeck, do you have a WP:COI as well? WP:BOOMERANG (disclaimer: I was canvassed here). nom's vote stricken above. Widefox; talk 01:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A large part of this issue is that Weld seems to have rarely sought and (AFAIK) never gotten consensus on his edits. Hanley doesn't seem to understand policy well enough to know that a lack of consensus defaults to no change to the article. So intentionally or unintentionally, Weld has exploited Hanley's lack of understanding to do basically whatever he wants. I have addressed a lack of consensus in no uncertain terms on the talk. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of .... just a love of history and a strong sense of justice. WeldNeck (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

WeldNeck Let me put it another way...you've been or are employed by the US military. Correct? The topic is a historical US military event. Widefox; talk 07:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There are 21.8 million veterans of the U.S. armed forces as of 2014, are you saying every one has a COI and cannot edit? WeldNeck (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: Are you serious? You think everyone who has ever been employed by the US military has a COI on any military-related article? Do you realize they're generally the only ones who build these articles? Well, I guess it's convenient to declare that anyone who disagrees with you must have a COI, but I don't think you'll have much luck with that one. ― Padenton|✉   17:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to have other experienced editors as "backup" if things deteriorate. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton: 1. logical problem with that argument: big employer ≠ COI, 2. strawman argument: nobody said all military history (and nobody said COI can't edit, or no human can't edit a biography either). Back to the point, see WeldNeck's edit history for pro US military POV-pushing (including a BLP violation) for reporters exposing US military errors. This is the second one I've seen. COI may be a cause, but we don't know as there's (so far) no simple COI statement. Are you saying nobody in the US military has a COI? Valid to ask, right? If this was another country's, say the Chinese military or Russian, would that be different? Widefox; talk 23:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether Weld has been employed by the military is not really relevant to the ANI. Saying someone who was in the military has a COI isn't the same as saying someone who worked for say Apple has a COI. "If this was another country's, say the Chinese military or Russian, would that be different?" Not at all. I might be suspicious of someone if they were North Korea military, but that would depend on the discussion at hand. ― Padenton|✉   23:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I am also military. If that's a COI then so be it. But perhaps it's important to note that most of the things I've learned about the military, I did not learn because I was in the military; I learned them because I was interested in military history. Not everyone drinks the Kool-Aid. Some people understand that war is bad and bad things happen in war. To anyone who thinks the US military is blameless: Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would like a word with you please. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and climb down from the soapbox. None of these events are relevant to the article at hand. Whether US military is to blame for Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki, has no impact on whether they are to blame for this No Gun Ri incident, and whether the US military is to blame for the No Gun Ri incident has no impact on whether either or both of these editors should be sanctioned for their behavior. ― Padenton|✉   23:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 3 month topic ban or moderation by Timothyjoshephwood and GeneralizationsAreBad. Cjhanley’s repeated ad hominims against Weldneck on the No Gun Ri article’s talk page need to stop. (Weldneck also occasionally takes a swipe at Cjhanley, but much less often.) In this post, [257], 2 days into this ANI thread, Cjhanley goes so far as to title a section on the article talk page “A brief WeldNeck primer (please do read):”. Additionally, both the article and Cjhanley would benefit from some time away from Cjhanley’s WP:ownership of the article. On the other hand, I’ve found that it is possible to work with Cjhanley, it would be a shame to lose a subject matter expert, and I think Cjhanley is still capable of making positive contributions to the article. So while IMHO Cjhanley has well earned a topic ban, if this is the result I hope that it will be of limited duration. On the other hand, Timothyjoshephwood appears to be taking the talk page firmly in hand, and his and GeneralizationsAreBad’s efforts may accomplish the same things.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, I do not think a block is an appropriate solution. Part of the reason there is a situation is that Weld has consistently made substantial edits when no consensus exits, and has maintained those edits after much argument making it abundantly clear that no consensus exists. He has, in good or bad faith, abused Hanley's lack of understanding of WP:CON. Weld continued to make edits with no consensus after I began trying to moderate, and after being explicitly asked to postpone editing until we can talk things through. It took "you're wrong and at this point I'm going to revert any and all of your edits until to pass them through the talk page" to get him to stop. Hanely has clearly violated WP:CIVIL, but has done so out of frustration with Weld's violation of WP:CON. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No consensus can exist with Mr Hanley as long as you dont hold his POV. I haven't had issues with anyone else on the article and have worked fairly well with them. One user with both a personal and professional interest in the article refuses to consider any material that does not conform with the reporting he has done on it. WeldNeck (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that per WP:NOCON, when no consensus can be reached in proposals to add to or change the article, the default is to not add or change. You have ignored this. If no consensus can be reached with Hanley, the correct action is to draw uninvolved editors to the page to evaluate the arguments, which is what we are doing now. Rather than doing this you have simply added your edits and repeatedly reverted any attempt to remove or change them. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose two opposing COI POV-pushers. Standard COI editing applies. Widefox; talk 07:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Demonstrate I have a COI ... we know Hanley does and he has been very public about trying to suppress the work of competing academics. I have also striken your vote because you were (admittedly so) canvassed here. WeldNeck (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

WeldNeck, don't strike my !vote, I'm not involved or been asked to come to this page by anyone. WP:VOTESTACK doesn't say to strike. I'm not involved in the content dispute, and have not been canvassed to this page (but possibly to the talk of the article). My full disclosure doesn't mean you (as an involved party) get to disregard an opposing position, just like you can't nominate an action and vote. Widefox; talk 23:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. There's a bit too much drama going on here, but it can be resolved through standard channels, such as NPOVN and consensus on the talk page. Removing just one of the editors would be a bad idea, as it will give the other one free rein. Not to mention that we're discussing topic banning a subject matter expert, as Carrite pointed out. The ideal solution would be for neutral editors to get involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I agree with NinjaRobotPirate, that there is so much drama here that it has muddied the waters. The only thing that is clearly apparent to me is that Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre has been a battleground between two editors with a handful of other editors trying to moderate the dispute or move past it. This dispute was brought to COIN in August 2013 without any resolution or much of a discussion so I encourage a return to WP:COIN if that is the central issue or a visit to dispute resolution if the dispute is solely over content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I went to DRN, but my report was closed very quickly. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The two editors are trying to score points against one another; they've got to get beyond this, if any substantive changes to the article and talk page environment are to be made. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Close. We have at least four third party editors on the talk and we are evaluating sources and proposed edits one-by-one. If we reach a consensus and one or another editor starts a war because they don't like the consensus, then we can return here. By policy we could ban both of them, or we could moderate the issue and reach a strong consensus that will protect the article in the future. I recommend we do the latter. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Timothyjosephwood and support Close. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you point out some of these editors or link to a talk page? I see many that were canvassed to the incident by Cjhanley. Wikimedes and GeneralizationsAreBad were both canvassed here: User_talk:Cjhanley#WeldNeck_seeks_to_ban_me. ― Padenton|✉   23:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I was not actually canvassed here, by the way... GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Padenton, I was not aware Wikimedes was canvassed. I honestly have no idea where Irondome came from. GAB and I are doing most of the moderation at any rate. Topic bans seem silly at this point. We've already instituted an informal freeze on the article, that no edits should be made without establishing consensus, and that the person proposing the edit should not be the person doing the editing. See Edit 5 on the talk page where GAB proposed and I actually made the edit. There is no reason to continue this discussion so long as editors are on the page, enforcing and elucidating community standards. If other's would like to join in that's fine, but I think GAB and myself are sufficient at this point to keep things civil and productive. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi I work on COI issues a lot here in WP. In my view. Hanley has a COI here - he has relationships external to WP that affect his editing here - namely his Pulitzer, the attacks on it, and his desire to defend his work. He should not be directly editing the article about that subject nor about himself. So - topic ban is too strong. Instead"
  • CJ Hanley should be instructed to not directly edit the article - only if he violates that, he should be topic banned. Also,
  • CJ Hanley should be strongly warned not to violate WP:OUTING (l this dif is unacceptable behavior)
  • CJ Hanley should bewarned against WP:CANVASSING and
  • CJ Hanley should be urged to read WP:DR and to use those processes, calmly, when he cannot persuade other editors.

I do have questions for Weldneck - it sometimes happens that the people on both sides of a content dispute have conflicts of interest. Your military service was brought up. I agree that this is far too broad a brush. More specifically, would you please answer:

1. do you have any relationship with the 7th Calvary?
2. were you at all involved in the events around the Gun Ri Massacre itself, or do you have a relationship with anyone who was?
3. are you in any way involved in the RW with the controversy over CJ Hanley's reporting?

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

To answer your questions: No to all three. WeldNeck (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Weldneck. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems that there's a thin line here between a COI and a WP:EXPERT. I don't think Hanley understood that these things were prohibited by community standards. Just as I don't think WeldNeck saw anything wrong with editing for WP:TRUTH where he thought it was lacking. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasnt editing for truth, I was editing to inlcude all significant POV's which were lacking from the article. WeldNeck (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Case in point. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Cjhanley. BMK (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Cjhanley. An interaction ban would be a good idea, too, because of this kind of digging for personal information to gain leverage. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

:Strongly support interaction ban. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Changed my mind. I'm confident that ANI won't be necessary anymore to resolve this. To be sure, if things take a downturn, we might have to return to this venue. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any ban. Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes ? Pldx1 (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support- cjhanley's attempts to dig dirt on users and canvass for his POV-pushing is uncollaborative and just outright low-down. Author or not, he needs to be topic banned and perhaps briefly blocked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Again move to close. We are going through a process. A ban on either user will at best delay that process or at worst delegitimize it, as one user will not be able to weigh in on proposed edits. I would remind those here that WP sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. There is no damage control to be done here. At this point neither editor is going to be allowed to unilaterally change the article. Military History has brought three users to this page and we will take care of our own dirty laundry.

Both users lack an understanding of WP standards and we will elucidate them.

Both users are biased. One needs to be taught the difference between hard hitting journalism and an encyclopedia. The other needs to be taught the difference between what is mainstream and what is controversy.

Both users seem to completely lack historical context. This event is well upon the heels of the US campaign to erase Japanese cities until they surrender. It is not unimaginable that a few hundred civilians would be killed. At the same time, this event is well upon the heels of the US campaign to flatten Japanese cities until they surrender. It is hardly a Holocaust level event.

Please let Military History take care of its own and leave sanctions for the point at which they can be expected to be preventative. That point is not now.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither the MilHist Project nor any other WikiProject owns their subject area. A problem has been brought here, and is being dealt with here. MilHist will just have to deal with whatever the outcome of that is, since this is not a content dispute, it's a behavioral matter. BMK (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

MilHist doesn't own anything, but this article falls within the scope of our subject matter, and we have responded with appropriate action to protect the article. There is no consensus here. There is no preventative action to be taken. We have handled it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Since this is a behavior dispute, I think the following should be added. Since being warned, CJHanley's personal attacks continue unabated: [258], [259], [260], [261]. If he cant watch his behavior now, with all these eyes on him, what are the prospects once things have moved on? WeldNeck (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the community has concentrated focus on edits, rather than users, Hanley has been quite productive and has been receptive to criticism of his proposed edits. Meanwhile WeldNeck has proposed a single edit, which he claimed he would provide supporting sources for that evening, three evenings ago. WeldNeck is using this ANI as a weapon to punish a user he disagrees with. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Cjhanley response

CJHanley here: I am deeply dismayed by this discussion. Anyone who actually studies what has gone on at No Gun Ri Massacre since August 2013 cannot possibly conclude anything other than that the article was seized by an uninformed user who was angered by its straightforward account of the massacre and who took a wrecking ball to it in order to push a pro-U.S. military POV, to whitewash a massacre. He deleted reams of material without discussion, reverted efforts to restore key elements, without discussion (let alone consensus), rebuffed attempts at reasoning and compromise, and, indeed, even fabricated material at times (when explicitly shown on Talk, with the source text, that these things were false, he refused to delete them). His POV is fed by material coming directly from 7th Cavalry activists, the regiment responsible for the massacre.

Help was sought at ANI and elsewhere, and the WP community failed utterly. “I’m in over my head,” one admin said. Now users here are actually listening to WeldNeck as he tries to eliminate me from the article? Can this be true? Three years after those of us, journalists and academics, deeply knowledgeable on No Gun Ri took a truly chaotic, mindless article and turned it into a solid account of an important historical event?

Ultimately sickened by WeldNeck’s behavior, and WP’s failure, I swore off the article and WP a year ago, as so many have done. I’ve come back because finally a real, competent effort is being made to restore some sense and more truthfulness to the article. My colleagues, academic acquaintances and I have the source material and the ready background knowledge. We want to help those who’ve taken an interest, shown real capability and made progress. WeldNeck, now facing more scrutiny, is lying low – for the moment. That effort should be given a chance. Thank you. Charles J. Hanley 12:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS seems relevant here. Cjhanley is personally much too close to this story to edit our article on it in a neutral and unbiased manner. (Perhaps WeldNeck is too, but I've yet to see anything except accusations, no evidence.} I continue to support a topic ban for Cjhanley. 12:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)BMK (talk)

This statement also seems to contradict the assertion that the problem is being adequately "handled" internally by the MilHist Project. War is too important to be left to the aficionados.BMK (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

BMK, we are currently in the process of thrashing out consensus through proposals and counterproposals for edits. I agree with your concerns, and I think we should keep ANI on standby in case the situation worsens further. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Cjhanley: You should read your comment again: "I am deeply dismayed...", "Anyone who actually studies ... cannot possibly conclude anything other...", "...whitewash a massacre", "sickened", etc. You are well past the point of being an objective reporter of facts, and have become deeply entrenched in being a true believer. You admit of no possibility whatsoever of anything you have reported being wrong. You are, in fact, an advocate for one set of "facts", period.

For all these reasons, you have a serious conflict of interest with our article and it is not appropriate that you edit it at all. You can point other editors to sources of information on the talk page, even things you've written that have been published elsewhere (in reliable sources, of course), but you should not edit the article directly, because you are clearly incapable of being neutral about it. Yes, you have expertise, of a sort, due to your reportage, but your attitude towards that story is such that you are not suited to edit our article.

As for WeldNeck, I've seen a lot of accusations here, but there's been nothing about him as damning as your own statement is about yourself. What I've mostly seen is that your "side" thinks his "side" is wrong. That may be true, but he has not demonstrated the kind of serious conflict of interest that you have. Please stop editing the article. BMK (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cjhanley: per the above. BMK (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a dispute between two points of views. Should the Armed Forces use their resources to study and learn from their past or use their resources to whitewhash the former top ranking Officials (and provide larger opportunities for the actual ones to create yet another mess) ? In this controversy, it appears that Hanley stands strongly on the "Army should learn" side, while WeldNeck stands strongly on the "I attended graduate school with this guy" side. Perhaps, both of them are standing too strongly on their opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not the real world ! Despite the cruel context of the No Gun Ri Massacre, this is only yet another Wikipedia article, among so many other ones, about handball, movies awards, diacritics and even "The Dakota" himself. Nevertheless, trying to use the letter-soup drama board to silent the other point of view seems to be over the top. WeldNeck shouldn't be the Gracchos of the Juvenal quotation. Pldx1 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC) [restoring chronology: a remark made at 12:51 should appear after another one done at 12.39] Pldx1 (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, BMK. If Pulitzer-winning journalists with 40 years’ experience in digging up, verifying and publishing facts, from wars to baseball games, are people who write with a Point of View and are not to be trusted, then Wikipedia’s in big trouble, because a hell of a lot of those citations at the bottom of articles show the information comes from journalists with even less experience and less recognition for their professionalism. Then there are the academics who work on subjects … too closely?

In fact, it was AP journalists who first amassed the facts of No Gun Ri, on which others built. If those facts cannot be trusted, you’ve got a pretty weak house of cards and, if you take them away, a pretty paltry WP article. Might as well just copy and paste the Pentagon’s report. That’s what they would do in North Korea.

You “haven’t seen any evidence” against WeldNeck? Haven’t you looked at the Talk pages and the article history, from August 2013 to March 2014? The article history is a veritable waterfall of reverts, re-reverts and re-re-reverts by this one guy, with nary a word of discussion, as he furiously rid the article of anything that might put the U.S. military in a bad light. If anyone wants a clear explainer, try this from late 2013 User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre, and this from early 2014 [262]. That second one (see the Reader Beware section) was posted at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre only recently, and immediately deleted by WeldNeck. That single act should be enough "evidence" to get anyone banned. There’s enough in those two “explainers” to get anyone multiple life sentences, especially for a guy who has clashed with, by my count, 28 other contributors in the same nasty way at various articles. One slammed him for “POV pushing at every article you edit.” Have a look.

Meantime, a process is under way at No Gun Ri Massacre. Sensible, energetic people are on board. Let’s let them work, with help from me and other knowledgeable folks as needed. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 20:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're comparing apples and oranges, and you're clearly not understanding what the role of an encyclopedia is versus a reporter or publisher of investigative journalism. We don't go by the criteria the Pulitzer Prize committee follows, and they don't go by our rules and policies. We don't break news, we don't take sides, we don't advocate, we summarize what other people have written in a neutral manner (as much as is humanly possible). As I said to an editor the other day, if Einstein came back to life and had finally figured out the Grand Unified Theory of Everything, we wouldn't let him break the news here, and we wouldn't even report it until it had appeared in the appropriate peer-reviewed journal, because that's our role.

By our criteria, and without consideration of anyone else's, you're clearly an advocate for the story you tell (and I'm using "story" in a neutral manner, without knowing, or caring in the context of this discussion, whether it's "true" or not), and that gives you a strong conflict of interest, which means that it is highly inappropriate for you to edit our article. Other editors are free to cite your reportage, and it can be offset, if necessary, by what other reliable sources have written. Please make an effort to understand how our role differs from the one you're used to playing, and why that disqualifies you from editing the article. Publish any additional information you have in a reliable source, and editors can use it, but you should not be editing that artice. BMK (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, having read User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre and your "READER BEWARE" comment (which you neglected to label as such in the diff above) makes me even more convinced that you do not understand that editing here is almost completely the opposite from being an investigative journalist. Perhaps you could fulfill the role of Wikipedia editor on other subjects that you're not so clearly invested in, but you shouldn't get near this subject with a ten-foot pole. Inow strongly think that a topic ban is essential. BMK (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, if you actually read those "explainers" and still do not understand what the behavior problem has been at that article, of endless reverts without discussion, by a well-known bullyboy around WP, I don't know how better to open your eyes, BMK. Be aware of one thing: The great bulk of citations at that article came from me and knowledgeable colleagues, from peer-reviewed journals, books by reputable publishers, responsible journalism by others, television documentaries and other solid sources. You may be under the misapprehension that the article is based on Associated Press reporting, period. Far, far from it. Instead, as the people who've followed the story for 17 years, we know all the sources, reliable and unreliable. Now, if I'm not supposed to come within 10 feet of the article, shall I remove everything we contributed to make it, as of 2013, a truthful, comprehensive and readable article? Charles J. Hanley 22:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

WP:STOPDIGGINGTimothyjosephwood (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it any better. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Also note the strong element of WP:OWNership. BMK (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Suppose, hypothetically, that Einstein comes back to life and tries to help writing the Special_relativity article. The odds are that he becomes quickly topic-banned due to an obvious conflict of interest: who is that guy that pretends having some expertise in the field that he opened? Aren't there so many other topics to edit: butterflies? handball? The process is well known and should have been recognized by any letter-soup specialist. Bob wants to push a fringe theory. He detects the person that resists the most, say Alice. Then Bob keeps harrassing Alice and waits for an overreaction. At that precise moment, Bob starts crying and weeping out of loud, complaining about Alice. And then comes the letter-soup expert. The guy is overbooked and has no time for a further inquiry. He even has a feeling of ownership over "our article" (great lapsus). Guess what could be the end of the story? But let us go back to the current topic. As it was stated by User:Beyond_My_Ken, any specialist is replaceable, even a specialist in letter soup. In this "story", only the people that were shot to death at No Gun Ri are not replaceable. Pldx1 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite poetic, really. I think your analogy may be valid. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And complete crap, actually. Specialists and experts are always welcome, as long as they follow the rules. Einstein can edit the Special relativity article to his heart's content, as long as he cites from reliable sources to do so -- even his own previously published peer-reviewed work. But if he has a sudden new revelation, that's WP:OR and he can't include it in the article, he has to get it published elsewhere first. And if he starts edit-warring against and displaying WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior towards other recently-deceased-but-returned-to-life-to-edit-Wikipedia physicists who oppose his views, he's going to receive warnings, and possible blocks or topic bans if he doesn't back off and edit within the bounds, Einstein or no Einstein. His expertise doesn't give him a free pass to do whatever the hell he pleases, and neither does Cjhanley's. BMK (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I was agreeing with Pldx1, and I agree with you as well. (My "poetic" comment referred to his last sentence.) Conduct on the NGR talk page has been very bad in the past, but we're trying to hit restart. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that online accounts I've read concerning CJ Hanley's real world dispute with Robert Batemen, author of No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident, show the same personality faults which have been observed here, and which have led myself and others to support a topic ban for Hanley. I'm hardly in a position to adjudicate between the two views of the incident, but that's never been the issue in this thread -- despite Cjhanley's attempts to make it the issue -- which is all about the editor's inability to fit into the Wikipedia process. And that is also why MilHist can't "handle" this, because it's not the content issue which is under scrutiny here, it's the behavioral issue. BMK (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in the past, WeldNeck has certainly cited Hanley's dispute with Bateman as evidence of COI. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

He's has also cited COI as a way to push through his preferred edits. It is, of course, a non sequitur to argue that "you have a COI so my WP:FRINGE theory should be included". I really find the whole ANI report suspect, in that it just so happens that the need to report two years worth of saved up grievances just so happened to arise at exactly the same time that uninvolved editors were attracted to the article, and started taking things seriously. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, if there is evidence that WeldNeck has a COI and is incapable of editing the article in a neutral manner, or that he is editing in any way against Wikipedia's policies, the evidence should be presented in an ANI thread and that can be dealt with separately. As far as the COI of Cjhanley, the evidence is very clear, and right here in this thread. The one obviously doesn't have much to do with the other: Hanley's problem does not necessarily imply that WeldNEck has a problem, nor does it mean that he's a white knight with no agenda. These are two distinct issues. I believe that one has been settled and so I call on an admin to close this thread and impose a topic ban on Cjhanley per the overwhleming evidence here. Anyone is free to open a thread on WeldNeck. BMK (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Just counting beans, without concern for strength of argument, there are 9 !votes in support of a topic ban for Cjhanley and 6 oppose !votes. That's 60% support for a topic ban. In addition, the words of Cjhanley himself in this thread show severe COI, NPOV, OWN, BATTLEGROUND, RIGHTGREATWRONGS, IDHT, and NPA problems. BMK (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There's enough evidence on both users to fill up a good deal of server space. I just fear the repercussions if WeldNeck cites a ban on Cjhanley as endorsement of the former's editing. This is a unique issue on account of the COI accusations, and is exacerbated by the recent nature of the No Gun Ri revelations and scarcity of scholarship (at least it's been hard for me to find sources). GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban on Cjhanely is a reflection on Cjhanley's behavior, period.

The situation is unique only in the sense that Hanley has co-authored a book on the subject, and has taken that to mean that anything he writes it is unassailable WP:TRUTH. One of the first things a good reporter realizes is that, try as hard as possible, he or she is going to get some stuff wrong, that's just the way things work: poor memories, deliberate dissembling, access to only a limited portion of the possible documentation, unconscious self-bias, etc. The good reporter gets close enough to the nub that their representation of reality is very, very close to the fact, but they keep their minds open to the possibility of being mistaken, and accept new data to integrate it into their overall view of the story. Hanley doesn't seem like that kind of person at all; in fact, he rejects out of hand any other possible interpretations, and seems to deflect any new information which doesn't conform to his previously established viewpoint. That removes him from the category of a reporter directly into that of an advocate, hence the need for the topic ban. BMK (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Let us count the beans, indeed. User:Beyond My Ken has left 14 (fourteen) messages here. It looks like some of them (to say the least) are falling into the letter soup: NPOV, OWN, BATTLEGROUND, RIGHTGREATWRONGS, IDHT and so on. For example, one can say that, rather than over-reacting, C.J.Hanley should better attend a lecture about "Strategy and Tactic in Low Intensity Conflicts", at the Quantico Marine Corps History Division or somewhere else. But using weasel words to imply that Hanley could be a not so good Pulitzer seems, how did they say, slightly NPA ? In any case, the closing admin should consider how to INCREASE the womanpower working to redact the No Gun Ri Massacre article rather than giving too much weight to a procedural artifice intended against some IDONTLIKEIT. Pldx1 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, counting the many, many ways in which you are wrong would take much too much time of my time, and, frankly, wouldn't be worth the effort, so just.... wow. BMK (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Counting the ways that you fail to understand that WP sanctions should be preventative and not punitive is...actually very simple. I apologize that we've distracted your attention from removing talk page comments of other users that you don't agree with, and I apologize that you don't understand that things like WP:OR don't apply to talk pages. And I apologize that you don't really seem to know how this works, but I'll please side on the hours I've spent researching this issue, plus the hours I've spent involved in it, versus your cursory reading of this thread. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So, let's prevent Cjhanley from acting in the future as he has fairly consistently acted in the past, both on- and off-Wiki, as a very committed advocate for a specific POV about this issue. Unless you'd like to volunteer to be his mentor, and take on the responsibility of keeping him in line? BMK (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's basically what we're doing. I'm impressed you are so unaware. Perhaps the fewer the facts the stronger the opinion. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please be careful, you're coming perilously close to violating WP:NPA, for no particular reason at all except that I disagree with your opinion. BMK (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't really seem to disagree, in as much as you think it is appropriate for editors to act as mentors and take on the responsibility for keeping users in line. I think it's perfectly reasonable. That's why we're doing it. Don't confuse curtness with aggressiveness. My comment was about your opinion, which both appears quite strong, and also appears to be devoid of the knowledge that we are putting in a good deal of work to help this user conform to community standards. At the base of it you seem to have committed a good deal of time on this thread arguing your case, and I had assumed that, like many others here, you had put proportional time into researching the disagreement. It appears you have not, because what you have (very sensibly) suggested is precisely what we have implemented. I suppose thank you for arguing my case for me, albeit probably sarcastically. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we please keep things civil? As the above indicates, the three of us seem to be basically in agreement on the key points, namely:

-- Cjhanley is closely affiliated with this subject, and has inappropriately acted to advocate for a POV.

-- Cjhanley should be informed of the pertinent WP policies surrounding COI, WP:TRUTH and original research.

And, most importantly:

-- Any and all outside help on the No Gun Ri Massacre page is greatly appreciated.

As for a topic ban, I think it needs to remain on the table as an option if things deteriorate again.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think things may be deteriorating again. GAB^Hello! 20:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Coren

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

---

Coren (talk · contribs) and his bot CorenSearchBot (talk · contribs) are not assuming good faith over at Deposit Guarantee Corporation of Manitoba. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Me-123567-Me: I'm not sure what you mean by them not assuming good faith. CorenSearchBot tagged the article as a possible copyvio because it contained four lines (out of five) of copyrighted text, which I've now removed. I don't see where Coren has not acted in good faith; you didn't give them a chance to and your article was tagged by an automated bot. On a related note, I'm not convinced that the articles you're creating are notable, at the least you're not demonstrating that they are. Have they been covered in reliable sources? Sam Walton (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reiterated on Me's talk page your concern about the notability of his stub articles, one of which has already been speedy-deleted, and have suggested that if he wants them to survive, he had better get them better sourced and show some notability. BMK (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Even though you attributed the quote, and put quote marks around it, you can't have 80% of an article coming from a copyrighted source. Even when quoting from another website with proper attribution, these quotes should be limited in scope and not just promotional verbiage. Even if not for the improper usage of quoted text, it adds nothing to the article and is "fluff", although that opinion is the editor in me, not the admin. I would have removed the four lines simply for editorial reasons. Regardless, Coren and his famous bot worked exactly as designed, in pointing out material that was potentially infringing copyright, so there is no foul on his part here. As for notability, Sam has already noted his concerns and I'm confident he can make up his own mind as a fellow editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Why couldn't you have talked to Cohen before coming here? I mean Cohen is clearly doing nothing wrong, so it could have saved a lot of time, instead of coming to AN/I to be told no wrongdoing occured. If you expanded on your articles with reliable sources and relevant info, this can be avoided.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:23, 12 June 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.

Subject of Article asked fans to upload "funny" picture of himself for use in an article; kosher to do?

Tipped off by a thread post on 4chan (can't link to direct post because 4chan is blacklisted by Wikipedia), Jeph Jacques asked his Twitter followers to upload a pic of him after chasing a chicken. Is this allowed, or did it violate some Wikipedia rule? I don't think it's a COI conflict, but at worse, maybe vandalism? But then again, it was sanctioned by the subject of said article? I dunno, this just looks fishy. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's fine, they released the image under a Creative Commons license. Sam Walton (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And it's better to have a more current picture. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 19:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to be sure. Thanks. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a point: a newer picture is better all other things being equal. If the newer picture doesn't give the reader a good representation of what the subject looks like, than a picture which does is preferable, even if it's older. BMK (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with BMK here...a newer photo is not necessarily a better photo. The new image was a rather bad selfie, and, I should point out, was licensed as CC-by-NC by Jacques. It wouldn't have been acceptable anyway. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

I'm 100% convinced that 101.160.12.43 is blocked user Shagadelicbasil23. The IP's edits are exclusively cricket tournaments and the 2015 AFL season, which SB23 focused all of his time. He then posted (and was blocked as) Sportseditor123. The IP address is located in Melbourne, which is where SB23 is from. It's raining ducks right now and the umpires have called for the covers to be brought on. Also pinging @Joseph2302: and @PeeJay2K3:. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. The guy is clearly a bit of a Wiki-obsessive and won't learn to play nicely with others. – PeeJay 09:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shagadelicbasil23, my evidence for it is there; I'm aware you can't checkuser an IP address, per WP:OUTING. Their edits are on the same pages (AFL and current cricket series/tournaments), and they're making lots of consecutive, small edits, all of which are tagged as "Mobile edit, Mobile web edit"- the only person involved in cricket articles whose edits tag with these is Shagadelicbasil23. Also, @Flickerd: because you asked me about this on my talkpage yesterday.

To me, it's definitely the same person- and they definitely don't want to collaborate with anyone again. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This says it's definitely them- only Shagadelicbasil23 ever updated scorecards too early (e.g. at drinks breaks). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

As an aside: WP:OUTING does not prohibit use of checkuser on an IP address. Checkusers are generally very cautious with the relationship between IPs and named accounts, but it's not forbidden by policy, and nor should it be. bobrayner (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The privacy policy, not OUTING, dictates Checkusers' methodology wrt IP addresses, though in practice if the abuse is severe or serious enough (think sustained harassment or non-blustery threats) they will link accounts to IPs. Otherwise, though, no dice. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Joseph. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, I've been heavily involved in editing the 2015 AFL season. SB23 would often input the crowd when it was announced and would add the final score within seconds of the games finishing. The IP address did the same for the Queen's Birthday match, see 1 and 2. They were also tagged with Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, the edits were in quick succession, and they've also done null edits, see 3. It is very clear to me that it is the same person. Flickerd (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

IP rang block needed

The IP posts at User talk:Alex Bakharev (mostly in Russian, but sometimes in English). The posts contain harassment of me and another user and promises to "tell all the truth about me" (to Jimmy, and also to publish an article, since the IP claims they are a journalist). Today I blocked four different IPs. They have a pretty long history of harassment, and they posted earlier on my talk page and on my talk page on Commons, but this is really becomes annoying (now they posted "the last warning" to me). I would appreciate a block range if possible. Thank you. (Alex objects to protecting his talk page, and he seems to be offline).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• If an editor's final comment before being blocked is a "last warning", then he at least got something right. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've put a couple of rangeblocks in place. Let me know if further IPs appear. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  They continued immediately, calling you a vandal.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  Nice of them to give me a range for that one. Blocked as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks again. Probably we will hear again of them soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverts without reason

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

---

The user {{MahenSingha}} is carrying out reverts on the Bihari Rajputs article without giving a reason. I've had various other actual administrators look at like {{Sitush}} look at it and he saw no substantial problem. I even had the article approved early in the formation process using articles for creation. I am new to using the features of wikipedia and I would like an explanation of where I went wrong instead of being addressed in a confrontational tone. This can be seen in the Articles talk page. I hope a resolution can be reached quickly. Thanks.Suijai (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Suijai: I think you mean Mahensingha and Sitush; can you provide diffs to demonstrate specific moments where you were reverted without reason? Ogress _smash! 20:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I added a reference to the term Purbia being used to describe Eastern Rajputs but this was promptly reverted without any explanation.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bihari_Rajputs&action=history I have even asked on the talk page for a reason but none has been given. Also one of his edits come from a district gazetteer. I included a reference to the gazetteer which was also reverted by Sitush who explained that it was to old and from a unreliable source. I am confused as to why he is also allowed to do this as well.Suijai (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at the article history, I see three times he reverted you (different content), twice with very solid explanations in the edit summary. I also see he is explaining on the talk page, in detail, and is improving the article. Getting reverted is part of editing an encyclopedia. Once you create the article, everyone has the same right to edit it. See WP:5P, it is part of how Wikipedia works. No one owns an article, even if they create it. Following WP:BRD, you need to continue the discussion on the talk page, which looks reasonable. This isn't an issue for ANI at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I second with Dennis. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 20:26, 13 June 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:Beyond My Ken

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

---

The following was posted on my talk page by user Beyond My Ken:

---

Please see...[edit source] ...WP:NOPRICES #5 and WP:NOTGUIDE #2. You've already been blocked once over your little mini-obsession with me, are you trying for two? BMK (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

---

In my view, this is a mixture of harrassment and threat. Thank you for your attention. Kerry (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

When you file a report at this noticeboard, you are required to notify the reported editor. I have notified User:Beyond My Ken. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

He notified me. I deleted them. BMK (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but Beyond My Ken is right on this one. You can use dollar figures to establish relative information for the reader (ie: "this would be $2000 in 2012 dollars") but not regular rates for hotels. The rare exception is something you get consensus for on the talk page if you think there should be an exception. I would also note that just because one article does something, that doesn't mean it is right anyway. See WP:WAX. According to WP:BRD, after he reverted the IP, you should normally have taken it to the talk page before reverting it back. Just reverting back is confrontational and asking for a fight. Regardless, BMK understands the policy and I think you haven't fully grasped it yet. I don't see any need to do anything else here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:11, 14 June 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.

Akash1000

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

---

The user manipulated the article List of countries by Fragile States Index by putting India to a higher position and also changing its data values. He also minded to put the other states to a lower position to make his goal of data manipulation possible.

I suggest to block this user and the related IP "106.218.144.89", which he also used to vandalize on this article, immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.2.92.31 (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2015‎ (UTC)

• @176.2.92.31 - You've made two edits to Wikipedia, one to notify Akash1000 of this complaint (before you actually filed the complaint) and this complaint itself. This leads me to wonder whether you normally edit under an account name, and if so, under that name, if you've had conflicts with Akash1000. Would you care to clear up those concerns? BMK (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• On the other hand, the edits of Akash1000 did indeed move India from #81 - where it actually appears on the list -- to #57. Since there is no way that falsifying data can be considered an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, these edits are indeed vandalism, so I'll be templating Akash1000 shortly. BMK (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I don't believe an admin would have done any more than that - they very rarely impose a block after a single incident. BMK (talk) 21:40, 12 June 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.

E-Meter

The following discussion is closed. 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 the last few months, I have researched a number of sources on Electrodermal activity and the E-meter. I carefully rewrote those articles and expanded them as well as I could in accordance with WP policies. Within the last few days, Scottperry (talk · contribs) began discussion on the talk:e-meter page, arguing that E-meter was no longer neutral according to WP policy. Scottperry suggested he would be reverting it prior to my edits. I answered him that it was fully supported by peer-reviewed references and he should read them. He said the history was all wrong with "such nonsensical claims as its [the E-meter's] supposed existence since before 1915, and other such wild and uncited claims." Again I referred him to the journal references. Instead of addressing the sources, Scottperry reverted the page prior to my reconstruction of months ago. I reverted his change and requested him to (1) study the sources and (2) address the issues on the talk page. Scottperry reverted the page a second time and has now opened an improper RFC that is highly prejudicial and misrepresents the history of the discussion as a "consensus." I have enumerated my objections to that RfC in the responsive body. This is much more than a content dispute. Scottperry's conduct is not within the spirit of the Wikipedia and cooperative editing. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Somehow my first reply here seems to have disappeared. I will repost it here from memory.... The "e-meter" is a device that is used by the Church of Scientology, and by some former Scientologists, to try to sort out what they believe are "disturbed memories". The e-meter is a device that was patented by Hubbard ca. 1954, and the name coined by the Church of Scientology, around about the same time. In so far as I know, the Church has never advocated for any other device to be used in its auditing practice. The "electrodermal activity meter" is a device used by law and law enforcement agencies to assist in determining the honesty, or lack thereof, of interviewees. It was invented sometime around 1900 and is manufactured under different patents with slightly different components. Law and law enforcement agencies have never advocated for the use of Scientology e-meters for their work in monitoring electrodermal activity. Now to assert in the article, as SFarney would assert, that the Scientology e-meter has been in existence since ca. 1900, to me seems a bit of a stretch. I felt that this "confusion", along with numerous other "confusions" throughout the article gave me cause to perform a major overhaul of the article in order to bring the article back into compliance with WP policy. I wish my posts here didn't disappear so easily too. This too concerns me. By the way, if anyone from WikiMedia security might happen to read this and want to get in touch with me, I'd be happy to tell you some more happenings that would be guaranteed to knock your socks off! In fact, I could explain to you how they did this deletion, and unless you knew better you would never be able to find a trace. No joke here. Scott P. (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to sort out the RfC train-wreck myself, having seen what I read as a notification for the RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (I have no prior involvement in the dispute). It now appears that Scottperry was actually trying to start a second RfC there, rather than merely notifying the project - which suggests to me that he is hopelessly out of his depth, and doesn't really have much idea about the way Wikipedia works. AS to the appropriate course of action, I'm not sure - beyond suggesting that an uninvolved admin should take a look at the two RfCs, and if they agree with my assessment that they are malformed (and in the case of the one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, entirely misplaced) to close them summarily as out of process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly I mistakenly initially did not follow the correct procedure for the RFC. I have since removed the Medical page RFC as was suggested by Andy, and the RFC is now hopefully properly made. If not, I will be happy to fix whatever mistakes I still might have made with the RFC. I know my RFC skills are not good, but hopefully they are not hopeless, I hope..... Scott P. (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that you probably didn't click 'save' after previewing your post - an easy mistake to make. There is nothing in the edit history of this page to suggest that posts have been deliberately removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I am absolutely certain that I hit the save button. This is not the only rather strange "WP-software-glitch" that has occurred with me for the first time in the 11 years I've been editing here, but only when dealing with a Scientology article, of course. Not good. Scott P. (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

And with that, I'm out of here. Someone else can sort this mess out... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No, just say the word, and I will remove the RFC, I leave it up to you Andy. Scott P. (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that I have already told Scottperry that I wish to have no further involvement. If he lacks the competence to make such a decision for himself, he shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That is OK, Andy. I will ask no further decisions of you. Thank you for your help of this clumsy editor. Still, my decision is therefore, that I feel just barely able to continue with this RFC, despite my obvious ineptitude. Scott P. (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

According to his own statement in a source comment, ScottPerry twice reverted the page to a version from 2007, discarding the work (and consensus) of many editors. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that under any other circumstances, taking into consideration ArbCom's discretionary sanctions[263] on Scientology-related articles, Scottperry would have been either topic banned or blocked indefinitely for his actions, none of which have any consensus support. In addition, he has been canvassing on external anti-Scientology forums, as well as flagrantly violating WP:3RR on E-meter. Laval (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional ScottPerry message canvassing for editors: [264]. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that that:

1. In Laval's claim that I have somehow supposedly "flagrantly violated the 3RR rule" in his head Laval must for some reason have redefined the 3RR into his new 2RR rule. If he could please point out where I supposedly made three reverts to that article in a row, I would be quite happy to see this. A word: It's not fair to make up the rules as you go along... By the way, you did notice that your party's cross-posted complaint at the edit-war admin board was closed without even a comment, didn't you?
2. Laval has yet to show me where our off-site behavior is regulated by Wikipedia in the manner as he is now claiming. Anyone who might go visit the board he speaks of will see that nowhere did I counsel any type of unethical behavior by anyone.
3. In light of the fact that Laval has not yet once explained his total lack of concern for the WP:Due/ Undue violation at that page, it seems rather obvious to me that he has now run out of any rational arguments for keeping that page so out of balance, so instead he must now stoop to attempting to derail that question which I have asked at that RFC, and thus attempt valliantly to convert it into an ad-hominem attack on me. Smoke and mirrors, no?

Scott P. (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR, Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Laval (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the next time you try to make the claim that someone is: "Flagrantly violatiing the 3RR rule", you might consider following it with the phrase in parenthesis, (my own personal interpretation of the 3RR rule), no? Also, why don't you spend your time specifically answering the question of the RFC and not here? Do you actually think that article is in compliance with Wp:Due/ Undue? If so, why? Scott P. (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on the problem at hand, which is a pattern of anti-Scientology behavior on your part that is emerging, a pattern of editing behavior clearly prohibited and proscribed by ArbCom sanctions. The problem is when you go to an external forum and basically claim that the Church of Scientology is covertly taking over Wikipedia articles on Scientology — here is an exact quote: "Right now there seems to be some kind of a systematic infiltration of Wikipedia going on by the CoS... I'm an old hand editor for the last 11 years at Wikipedia and some of us are trying to stop this CoS operation over there." [265] That is just one quote. There are many others there where you apparently accuse Wikipedia "management" as having been "infiltrated" by the Church of Scientology. Laval (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, but right now I have an RFC to run. Apparently since you can't find anything to the point to say, so you have now made it your business to try to divert me from there. I must say you are doing a better job at this than I expected, but I feel I have said enough here, at least for now. I give you my permission to make claims that I have Flagrantly violated the 33RR rule, investigate my personal off-Wiki life, or whatever types of amazing things you do here. Obviously you will do them regardless of whether or not you have my blessings, but I give you my blessings, none the less. Good luck. Scott P. (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If you had opened the WP:RFC as I had originally advised and conducted it according to the way an RFC is supposed to be conducted, there would have been no need for anyone to post to ANI to begin with. There was no consensus for your wholesale reversion of the article to a version from 2007. Laval (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd just point out that, whilst clearly falling under the Scientology discrectionary sanctions, this article almost certainly falls under the Pseudoscience ones as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• That is a content issue, of no concern for this board. Let's keep the focus. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually it's of considerable concern for this administrators' board, since they're the ones who would implement the blocks and topic bans that are authorized by discretionary sanctions which cover contentious subjects such as Scientology and Pseuodoscience. Editors working in those areas have less leeway for behavioral anomalies then are generally allowed. BMK (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected. Thanks. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor's behavior has crossed the line: [266] JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, though would say he crossed the line as soon as he began accusing other editors of being a part of some sort of covert Scientology attempt to takeover Wikipedia, canvassing on external forums spreading this conspiracy theory, and then threatening to rollback articles like Psychiatry to versions from several years previous [267] before a mass of other editors chimed in, stopping him in his tracks. On E-meter, he decided to preempt any attempt at discussion and decided to revert to a version of the page from 2007! [268] And then when he was rolled back on that (which any competent editor would have done), he reverted back to the 2007 version again. [269] He has made similar threats on Citizens Commission on Human Rights, going so far as to claim an RfC was not actually needed to rollback the article to a version from several years ago. [270] That's only the tip of the iceberg, and considering ArbCom discretionary sanctions, it is still surprising to me that he was not at the very least topic banned and given some time to cool off and have an admin explain policy to him, because apparently the word of ordinary editors is not sufficient enough. Laval (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Any cursory review of the matter will furthermore show that Scottperry has basically made a big fuss about nothing and wasted all of our time for nothing. There is no Scientology conspiracy to take over Wikipedia, there is no covert attempt on anyone's part to slant the articles in question to a pro-Scientology bias, which are absurd accusations to begin with, and this is to say nothing of the further accusations against myself and others as apparent throughout this section. Laval (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Even more bizarre is Scottperry's attempted involvement of the police [271] and allegation that " I am dealing with some rather unpleasant folks here"? [272] Laval (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

All of those edits have been rev-deleted but oddly, there is no message about this on Scottperry's talk page. I'm not sure what kind of warning to offer since I don't know what the contents of the edit were...vandalism? BLP violation? disruptive editing? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: They were contact details [273]. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, those of us coming to this discussion late in the day will just have to trust that there was material that should have been deleted because the log, wisely, doesn't disclose the nature of the content that was deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The more I look into this matter, the more snarled up it appears. I read most of the 17 now-deleted posts, and a bit more than "contact information" was in them. Useless to discuss them now, since they are suppressed. Again, this matter appears to be complex. Jusdafax 21:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed block of Scott P.

I'm not sure what to make of this person's claims, but Wikipedia needs to be free from them, in my view. For the record I have no involvement in this matter in any way. Jusdafax 19:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Indef block Scott P. - As proposer, I've seen enough. The phone number, the police references... (now suppressed) These are covered by WP:NLT, and the ArbCom sanctions make a block an easy call. An admin needs to step up. Let's block and move on. He can email ArbCom. Jusdafax 12:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional bizarre accusations and statements by Scottperry: [274] [275] [276] How much longer do we have to put up with this lunacy? Laval (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• ScottPerry overtly canvassing for Wiki editors to counter the Scientology "infiltration" of Wikipedia administration.[277] Many messages on the same theme in the last few weeks.

First off, as I understand it, you are Laval editing under a different name? You wrote this last unsigned post as User:Sfarney, who has a three day old account largely focused on this matter. Jusdafax 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not post the unsigned comment in question and I always sign my own posts. Laval (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what you mean by User:Sfarney having a "three day old account" — based on their edit history, User:Sfarney has been an active editor since 2012. Laval (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I neglected to sign that post.{https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=666092930]. My editing history is here.[278]

• Oppose Seeing as Scott P has had a relatively calm and productive editing run here, this latest drama excluded, I'd be more inclined to support a topic ban instead. I'm not sure the project is well served by an outright indef block over what is essentially a content dispute that has escalated (albeit unnecessarily). I'm sure Scott feels strongly about the idea that Wikipedia is being taken over by the Scientologists, and that's fine, but perhaps that's precisely why he should stay away from the topic in general. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of attempting any further edits on any Scientology related articles until after the mess I just pointed out is fixed. I have just held my hand over the fire, and I seriously have no intention of putting it back there until some fairly major things change around here, you have my word. Of course you remain free to spin this however you may wish, with a topic ban or whatever, but as for myself, you have my word on this. No more edits on CoS related articles by myself until this rather "huge mess" is fixed. (Hopefully that will be before the end of this century.)  :-) Scott P. (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What is this "huge mess" you are referring to? Is it the alleged Scientology conspiracy to infiltrate and takeover Wikipedia you are continually writing about? Or is it the fact that you have an apparent need to ignore and act against consensus and make wholesale reversions of articles to outdated versions from several years past? Laval (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Your continued allegations and threats over at User_talk:Scottperry#Tyranny_and_ignorance_vs:_freedom_and_wisdom, including your misunderstanding of WP:3RR and why its not okay to revert 2 times instead of 3 in order to avoid violating 3RR, your inability to communicate properly, not to mention all the other issues going on and in past disputes you've been involved in (such as your attempts to whitewash A Course in Miracles [279], ironically), illustrate why you should never be allowed near any Scientology-related articles ever agains. Laval (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not to say that there won't still be a "few little sparks" from this little adventure, that I may still find "smoldering" here and there in my life over the time ahead for myself. But I will not "fan them", should they arise. Water usually works best. In this case that would probably in most cases mean the local sheriff. All in all, it was still well worth it for me. Scott P. (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

See what I mean.... Scott P. (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and security folks, please look at the interesting timing of the three remarks just above. Interesting....... Scott P. (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• What, specifically, are you alleging? You are beginning to sound a bit WP:NOTHERE. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Holy conspiracy theory, Batman! Someone's talk-page comments have a later time stamp but precede an earlier set of comments - just like these do! Let's see, possible reasons are:

1. (To be confirmed with WMF Security, once they get their Hugo Boss-issued black uniforms back from the dry cleaners) Secret talk page process # Z109 was used to intercept your comments, pass them to agent Laval, so his team of writers could craft a special response designed to make you look like a raving loon,
2. (To be confirmed with the FBI, once they recover from celebrating Donut day) All of your electronic communication devices have been hacked. To recover, please place them all (cell phone, DSL or cable modem, router, Wifi access point, USB hubs, laptops, desktops, tablets, and even land-line and wireless phones) into the nearest microwave. Run for 10 seconds for a quick wipe of the infection. If that doesn't work, try moving them outside, coating with lighter fluid and igniting).
3. The editor in question chose to place his comments before yours, as I did.

• Special note to anyone who's sarcasm meter is broken - items 1 & 2 are remarks made in jest and should not be followed. Sheesh JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The time stamps show me posting before Laval, but my comment was placed after his. Have you ever seen that before? When I posted, my screen showed me that my comment would be placed immediately after my own last comment. Still the system interjected a slightly older comment just before a newer comment (thanks to Laval). I've never seen that before. I think I know why the system did that, but I would have to speak with Wikimedia Security to explain. Thank you for asking Joe. You were right, it is good that I got a chance to explain a little further. Scott P. (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Now you're accusing me of what, exactly? Laval (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You did nothing intentionally, and I am accusing you of nothing but doing what all editors generally do, posting a fairly typical rebuttal. But I believe the exact timing of our two posts may have just revealed a certain "security hole". I would assume that you believed your post would immediately follow my comment about the "huge mess", no? Scott P. (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's see what Laval says, Robin. Scott P. (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Have you ever seen that before?" Yes. Quirky behaviour from the Wikipedia editor is more or less the norm when posting on frequently-edited pages like this. Posts appear out of order sometimes. It is software. Outdated software. Arguably not very good software. It has bugs. Bugs not (as far as I'm aware) injected by Scientologists in order to... In order to do what exactly? In order to insert posts out of order so pro-Scientology contributors gain an advantage in discussions by... By what? You really need to drop the tinfoil-hattery, for your own good. All you are doing is ensuring that nobody will take you seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Andy, I'll take your word for it. I've never seen it before, but maybe I just never had that misfortune before. I'll take your word for it Andy. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I had never seen my post disappear either, along with a few other very blatant "system malfunctions" that I had never seen before either. Now that disappearing post, I will not chaulk up to quirky software, much as I would like to, I am not quite that gullible. Scott P. (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The way my computer is now interfacing with the Wiki software, I still say the mismatched timing is significant. I could tell you a whole slew of "anomalies" that my computer is now exhibiting, that... yes..... "I've never seen before". Only now I'm taking screen shots and notes, as per suggestions by law. Scott P. (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidently for me to point out that I've also seen posts disappear despite apparently being saved would be a waste of time then. Enjoy your paranoia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It just did it again.... I think the "timing belt" on this system must be broken. Eleven years of editing here, and now their software starts to act up for me for the first time with this "stuff" going on. Enjoy your blissful ignorance. As for me, no I'd much rather be on a beach right now enjoying coconut milk in the sun, but hey, why not. Scott P. (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You must not be a regular visitor to noticeboards like ANI. I lose half of the comments I post due to edit conflicts. It happens all of the time because there are people posting edits at the same time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC) (and it just happened again right now)

Speaking from experience, it's no use engaging Scott on these kinds of matters. Suggest you stop wasting your time and focus on if there's enough support for any editing restrictions you want to implement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I just love it when one of my "admirers" posts for me. Scott P. (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit-conflict posting issues are common, when the red EDIT CONFLICT notice pops up right after you hit the "Save page" button.... But posting a comment with the click of the "Save page" button, verifying that it worked, then having it disappear, now that was a new one for me. Been here twice as long as Andy, according to his posting record, and never had it happen once. Scott P. (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And don't worry, I've got enough odd screenshots just now to satisfy me. Good night to all. Scott P. (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, I needed to get home anyways. Good night Neil. Scott P. (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not sure if you understand how edit conflicts work. If you get an edit conflict, the software will automatically try to resolve the edit conflict. While it often can't in edits to the same thread in discussions, sometimes it can and when it can it's possible that your edit will end up in a slightly different place from where you expected. (Very very rarely, the software seems to remove an intermediate edit, it will be completely visible in the diff this happened of course.) This is completely normal behaviour and if you've been editing highly active discussion pages for long enough you will probably encounter it. Edit conflicts which the software can't resolve and gives you a warning is only one kind of edit conflict.

Anyway, your edits to User talk:BeenAroundAWhile were suppressed but nothing visibly has happened to your edits here. Nominally Wikipedia:Oversighters could suppress their log enteries but there's no obvious reason why they would do so here. Therefore as Andy and others have indicated, continuing to claim publicly that your edits simply disappeared is not going to help your case in any way. There far more likely possibility is you screwed up and failed to save them. I think people could perhaps imagine a single instance or may be two of the mediawiki software suggesting the edit was save when it wasn't (which does seem to happen very rarely). But in that case, you couldn't have verified it worked.

These screenshots aren't going to prove anything but they haven't even been presented anyway. If you really believe you have evidence of possible misuse of suppression (oversight), you should take that up with appropriate people at the WMF privately. So repeating what I said earlier, I suggest you stop with such wacky claims publicly as perhaps it isn't too late to avoid a indef block or community ban.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your last sentiment, and will do so. However, until I am able to minimally gain the ear of someone in WMF who would be willing to keep a file on things like new and unusual vandalism reports potentially on myself, I will continue to report such incidents with breif and succinct descriptions, on this incident board. I will be happy to call WMF tomorrow, however tonight, being American EST, I must go to bed. Hopefully no further reports will be needed here. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

All this distraction aside, Scottperry has violated a number of principles of Wikipedia editing, and that is the reason we are here:

• He canvassed for editors on other forums to effect an issue gang-up on the Scientology pages
• Accused (and continues to accuse) the Wikipedia administration of being "infiltrated"
• He began a conversation in the talk page, suggesting roll-back to an earlier date. He got two editors to agree, and one strongly opposed, with references and citations, requesting specific problems. He declared a consensus and reverted the topic to a version more than seven years in the past.
• This is the third (at least) incident of Scottperry's radical reversion in the last few months, all in the face of significant community protests
• When another editor reverted his roll-back, he immediately re-reverted it.
• He has threatened to involve the police
• He complains that his electronics are are being "messed with" over this editing conflict
• He has refused to deal with any of the content issues and the RS support for the updated topic. His arguments are almost entirely color, not substance.
• He has "conceded" that his attempted roll-back is a failure, but only because it was overwhelmed with pro-Scientology protest, not that it was incorrect. He even said he "expected" this would happen.
• He implied and continues to imply that everyone opposed to his roll-back is a Scientology agent or dupe.

These actions indicate rather convincingly two things:

1. He cannot work cooperatively to edit and improve the Encyclopedia
2. He is not here to create an encyclopedia, but to use Wikipedia to push his ideas

Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block, community ban or topic ban with preference for topic ban or scientology related content and discussions and wikimedia or mediawiki security discussions, broadly construed for now with the hope that will be enough. It doesn't sound like Scottperry can resist coming up with wacky ideas which appear to be at least partially based on serious misunderstandings about how stuff works here. And plenty of his statements indicate he can't be trusted to edit on the Scientology area point blank. That area already has enough problems from both sides hence the discretionary sanctions (hint hint), we don't need someone like Scottperry. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Further seeming security related anomalies

I don't know who to bring this concern to, but after 11 years editing here, some slightly "strange things" are now happening to the way my computers are now interfacing with WP, including some of my IP's now giving back reports to me before I log in, that my IP has vandalized WP, which I have not. This is now the second time in the last few weeks that this has happened, and this most recent IP associated with vandalism is 50.33.219.112. The vandalism now associated with my most recent cell phone's IP is rather silly looking vandalism, something about gummy worms and such, but I minimally felt I should at least report this here, in light of other recent events in my editing history. I don't know if this "silliness" might rise to the level of any major concern for anyone.... but if it did, and if anyone might want to reach me privately, and if you might have access to a recent post of mine that was "suppressed" then you might already know what phone number to call to reach me. Otherwise if this is nothing, which it probably is, I will also naturally monitor this complaint to see if this is anything more than a minor issue for anyone. Sorry for this, but at this point I prefer excess caution over unnecessary risks. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The one example you gave, 50.33.219.112, has not edited Wikipedia nor been warned about the two nonconstructive edits they contributed since November 2013. We don't want you to post other, more current IPs here, since that would potentially violate your privacy, but if this is characteristic it simply means that you happened to be assigned an IP someone else used at some time in the past to edit Wikipedia, perhaps unconstructively. General Ization ^Talk 02:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, please note this user is also being discussed above at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed block of Scott P.. This is more then likely not a security threat at all.TheMesquito^buzz 02:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidently, despite claiming to have the knowledge to be able to detect security flaws in Wikimedia software, Scottperry doesn't even understand elementary details concerning dynamic IP reallocation, which suggests to me that regardless of what else we do, it might be in his own interest to topic-ban him from discussing such matters further - he is needlessly giving away personal information. This would not of course prevent him contacting the WMF directly if he has genuine evidence of security flaws, which in any case shouldn't be discussed in public. Though frankly, if the 'evidence' he has is on the level presented in this thread, there is nothing to be concerned about anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidently Andy believes that even though I've been posting here for 11 years and never seen this before, I should whistle "Sunshine", pretend I didn't see it, tell nobody, and go on my merry way. I thank you the Mesquito for your insights, and Andrew for his merriment. Scott P. (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing said so far in this subsection or the one above is evidence of a MediaWiki security flaw. If in the future you genuinely believe there is a security flaw in MediaWiki, contact the developers privately. As has been pointed out, a public place, including ANI, is not the place to post reports of security issues. I'd recommend any future security messages here by Scott be removed as they're either not security issues, and therefore just a distraction from the discussion, or they are security issues and therefore publicly announcing them is itself a security issue. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure many phones were even capable of editing wikipedia 11 years ago. In any case, I somewhat doubt you were using on based on your comments.... While it depends on the ISP, in the developed world you'll frequently keep your IP for long periods if you never turn off you router and it doesn't autodisconnect. Some will even give the same IP if you only disconnect for a short time. And even with IPv4 address exhausation having happened, AFAIK there are still very few fixed connection ISPs in the developed who use CGNAT. In the mobile world, things are quite different. Even in the developed world, many devices may change IPv4 addressess frequently particularly since they often won't have a continous connection and CGNAT is AFAIK resonably common. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipedia started acting mysteriously just in time for this ANI thread. It's just mind boggling. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup. When have the developers ever managed to deliver software on time before? ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to close

As the editor proposing a block of the subject, and after further research, I propose we close. There is no consensus, or even much interest, and since my initial block !vote was based on material that has since been expunged from the record, there's no transparent way of explaining my reasoning further. Nor am I satisfied that the complaintant is entirely correct in every respect, and seeing as there has not been much activity on this thread in the past few days, I suggest the matter be closed as a simple "no consensus for action." Jusdafax 00:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The problems seem too numerous to ignore and I oppose closing the issue. But nobody seems to be watching or deciding it. . Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sfarney, the matter should not be closed as User:Scottperry has a habit of disappearing after threatening to quit Wikipedia and then popping back up months later to take action again. Many other editors have chimed in with their views that action be taken against Scottperry, and considering he may actually be mentally unstable or experiencing other such personal issues, the proposal to close without at least a topic ban is ill-considered, to say the least. Laval (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Speculating about an editor's mental health could be seen as a personal attack, Laval. Can you strike that comment? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Seconding Liz's request. Laval is over the line. Jusdafax 12:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack when the actions and behavior of the editor in question are so over the top as to no longer be considered sane or stable. This is an unfortunate reality on Wikipedia and I would urge you both to WP:AGF that I am not trying to insult the guy, but am making a serious point. It is not over the line at all. Laval (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, Scottperry directly accused me and several other editors of being in on a conspiracy by Scientology to infiltrate and take over Wikipedia, he was encouraging another editor to call the police to help him against this conspiracy (the screenshot of the deleted diffs I have, but obviously cannot present here or publicly), that the FBI was involved somehow, and on and on. Yet I'm out of line? Whatever. I'm not striking anything. Laval (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Laval, the charge of insanity is a rather odious charge. I would suggest that this is a rather "over the top" charge as well. The article in question was and is certainly controlled by a certain group of people with a known pattern of using exactly such charges against its critics. Your charge is no surprise to me. I have the sense that you (and your "friends") recent activity represented the activity of a group known for canvassing extensively amongst group members, yet claiming that I, who had not a single post from any such "friends" on that article talk page was the "canvasser". I have a sense that the group controlling that page has a known and well documented history of using harrassing techniques to make its critics appear as lunatics, then to attempt to, in some cases actually have its critics institutionalized, (Paulette Cooper and many others). I am only pointing out some rather obvious facts here. Not in any way implying anything about you yourself Laval. Any similarities..... are purely coincidental, of course. Far be it from me to even "imagine" such a thing. So please, do continue with your line of thought here. I would love to see where it might conclude. Might you also have me institutionalized if you could my friend? All the world is crazy but I, why not? Scott P. (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"The article is controlled ..." well, there is the first departure. Who might those controlling people be, exactly? Andythegrump, perhaps? And how do they control it?

We are here for exactly one reason -- you, Scottperry, started a discussion to revert the last few months of editing on the E-meter page because you said it violated WP policy on neutrality. I requested a number of times that you provide specific detail of which statements were not sourced, which sources were not RS, and which RS were not correctly represented. You did not answer, and you did not answer. Instead, you declared consensus to the reversion and autocratically reverted 7+ years of editing on the page. When I re-reverted the change, you immediately re-re-reverted it. Then you opened an RFC heavily propagandizing your preferred choices to confirm your reversions. In the week following those actions, you did not once (that I noticed) address the issue of sources. Your arguments were always about color, not substance. We also learned in that period that you personally had been canvassing non-Scientology forums for raw editors to come and gang up on the veteran editors here. Those canvassing incidents appear here [280] and [281]. Contrary to your statement above, there are at least two such incidents in the last 30 days and there may be more. And also contrary to your statement above, those messages were posted by you, not to you.

This incident (here, today, on this page, in this thread) presents a significant "lack of candor" on your part. And while those messages show clearly your intent to bully the editorial policies of the Scientology pages, you accuse others of engaging in exactly the same misconduct on behalf of Scientology -- with no supporting evidence presented.

Perhaps Laval wrote as he did to excuse you of that lack of candor. Perhaps he was trying to cover for you, suggesting you have lost your ability to know when you are telling the truth and when you are fibbing -- I don't know. Your repeated accusations that the Wikipedia administration has been "infiltrated" by Scientologists is certainly suggestive, as is your suggestion that Scientologists are "messing with" your cell phone and other electronic devices. But the alternative to Laval's suggestion is even worse -- that you know exactly what you are doing, and you are deliberately obscuring and misrepresenting the truth.

In any case, you have demonstrated clearly that you are incapable or unwilling to cooperate with others to build an encyclopedia under Wikipedia rules. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

We are here for one purpose, and as per typical practice, the CoS instructions are to always attack the critic, and ignore the criticism. So yes, you would have that purpose be your attack on me. I would have the purpose be a discussion of the absolute lack of balance in that article. You folks will undoubtedly win the battle of the "sheer volume of words" as I am only one, and you are many. But that in no way wins your lost "by your own implied consent of silence" battle of the quality of that article. In those few hundred words above, you completely ignore that question, per your own group's policy. I must commend you in following CoS policy to the letter. Scott P. (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional threats of canvassing and edit warring

There is additionally a new problem as can be seen at this link: [282] -- that thread was originally started by Scottperry, but now the canvassing is being continued by others. This can easily spiral out of control as it did several years ago. Therefore, I would urge admins not to close this discussion as it is clearly not over. Laval (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, as well can be seen at this link at a different forum [283], I am being mentioned and called out by name regarding this whole situation here. However, it is the ESMB forum which seems to be the potential problem, not WhyWeProtest, the latter of which rarely, if ever, appears to ever get involved in anti-Scientology activism on Wikipedia. Laval (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Laval, I find it interesting to note that you "accidentally" omitted my last post in that thread, (see my post dated June 7, 7:20 AM) of which I have spoken of to you before. Very good strategy, until perhaps now.... Also, I cannot be responsible for the acts of others now. The tyranical control that the CoS obviously weilds over its articles here is no fault of my own, and I take no responsibility for its ramifications now. You accuse me of canvassing when clearly there is a well coordinated cabal of editors who would mercilessly harrass in the Wiki world, as well as in the real world, "ask our local police department", an entire flurry of investigations regarding all sorts of strange goings-ons around me, all seeminly aimed at me by others, now suddenly surrounds me. Numerous of your "friends" seem to be acting in concert in your attack of myself (the canvasser) while not a single post by any of my "friends" was made in the E-meter article's talk page, or in this discussion. Who is the real canvasser here, and who is the target of the "real" canvass here? Scott P. (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, who is insane here, me, perhaps for being willing to submit myself to the gauntlet of fear that your organization threatens others like me with, and to which nobody else in Wikipedia has yet mustered up the courage to assist in this effort of defiance of the CoS, (but this may change, hopefully) and nobody else before me has previously defied them, and somehow "miraculously" survived, having his or her "Wiki-life" left in-tact to still be allowed to "speak" (lucky me). I propose that the tactics of the CoS as we have just recently witnessed should be banned from WP, not me. Scott P. (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I recently promised to only post innocuous comments from now on. Innocuous: Free of harmful effects. I see no harm if these current tyrannical tactics of the CoS in Wikipedia were to be banned. WP is in need of some major changes. The sooner these changes are begun, the better. Perhaps it is not too late. Scott P. (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Scott P, you have presented precisely zero evidence that anyone exercises 'tyranical control' over anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy, obviously in your view of the article, it is "balanced". If that is your view of that article, then you may look from now until the cows come home, and you will see no "evidence". I cannot help that. The very lead itself claims that the emeter is over 100 years old with no documentation. How balanced is that? Fictitious claims in Wikipedia are usually routed out in most articles, but not here. The rest of the article goes on to present a device which has been uniformly and officially condemned by nearly every major group of licensed therapists and physicians, as if it was a tool used by those same therapists and physicians. If that is how you would have our articles written....... (no comment)..... Scott P. (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have expressed no view on the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So then, you would prefer to jump on the pileup over myself, rather than to evaluate the article that this whole thing is questioning?Scott P. (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No. I am jumping on no pile. And 'this thing' isn't about the article - it is about the fact that rather than engaging in appropriate methods of dispute resolution over a content issue, you had unilaterally reverted an article to a 2007 version, and then thrown around wild and entirely unverified claims regarding 'cabals', 'tyrannical control', manipulations of your posts and much else besides, after failing to get your own way. That isn't the way things are settled on Wikipedia, and the fact that you have met so much opposition since has nothing to do with 'cabals', and everything to do with your apparent inability to see disagreement with your personal views as anything but evidence of malice. If you had actually tried to resolve the issues concerning article content by appropriate means and failed, it might be possible to take your claims seriously - but since you have made no effort whatsoever to do so, I can see no reason why I should even bother looking at the article in question. I only got involved in this after seeing your misplaced and malformed RfC post on the Wikiproject Medicine talk page, and advised you then that you were going about this the wrong way, and that it was liable to backfire. You ignored my advice, and instead chose of your own free will to inflame the situation further. As a result, nobody takes your opinions regarding the article seriously. Why should they, when you refuse to accept that any opinion differing from your own can be legitimately held without an ulterior motive? That sort of attitude has no place in any collaborative environment, and if you get blocked or topic banned because if it, it will be your own fault. Not anyone else's. Not as the result of a 'cabal', but because you have freely chosen to ignore appropriate methods of dispute resolution regarding a content dispute, and instead elected to act in a confrontational manner entirely at odds with Wikipedia process. You apparent inability to see why your behaviour is so problematic no longer surprises me though, and I suspect I am wasting more of my time trying to explain this. You are responsible for this mess though, and that will remain true whether you acknowledge it or not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violation and possible sockpuppetry

The following discussion is closed. 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 December 2013, User:Michaeltleslie was indefinitely topic banned from "making any edits related to MD Rabbi Alam or the Million Muslim March, broadly construed." Topic ban was properly logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and remains there (search for his username) and the user was informed of the topic ban. Despite the topic ban, the user has (since the inception of the topic ban):

• Extensively edited Draft:MD Rabbi Alam (see history) (which has thrice been declined by WP:AFC).
• Uploaded File:Md Rabbi ALAM.jpg, which was deleted for lacking licensing information.
• Uploaded File:Md Alam.jpg.
• Requested undeletion [284] of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MD Rabbi Alam.

Unless the topic ban applies only to mainspace (which is not specified), it seems clear that this editor is in breach of his topic ban.

Related; User:Mercibabur (so far at least) appears to be a single purpose account working on User:Mercibabur/sandbox, which is effectively identical to Draft:MD Rabbi Alam, and in an early incarnation attempted to use File:Md Rabbi ALAM.jpg, which had been uploaded by the User:Michaeltleslie account [285]. It appears possible that this second account is a sockpuppet of User:Michaeltleslie.

Other eyes please? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I ain't a sockpuppet of any account, I just picked the draft of Rabbi Alam as a good subject to work on. I have seen many references about this subject available online (which weren't present 5 years ago, when his article was first declined and his last draft didn't have most of available references). I will work on his draft and if I will be able to bring out the subject's notability then it may get published. Mercibabur (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked and tagged Mercibabur based on behavior and some technical evidence. I saw no point to blocking the master who han't edited since April 26, 2015. However, that can be re-evaluated if the acccount edits again.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 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.

Improper page move List of Dalits to Notable And Famous Dalits needs to be undone

The following discussion is closed. 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 move [286] is wrong for so many reasons. Can someone undo it? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Taken care of . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Page Protection Issue @ UT:Cassianto

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

---

I've seen a fair amount of poor admin decisions in my time, but the frankly awful censoring of mild rebuke by Chillum ranks as one of the more foolhardy actions I've seen. Can this pointless and petty page block be lifted please. – SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support admin - appropriate protection, enforcing a cool-down block from users insistent on perpetuating a flame war. SchroCat, I'm sure this was in good faith, but editing at the request of a blocked user makes you a meatpuppet. You should drop this. Ivanvector (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Absolute tosh – it does nothing of the sort. If you want to point the finger at someone, point it in the direction of the grave dancing troll who shouldn't have been there. – SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• It was MikeV who did the talk page restriction, not Chillum. He's one of the heavier-handed admins, as my own block log shows. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. you complaining about the talk page protection, not the access restriction for its owners. Still, my point stands. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Please see WP:COOLDOWN --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I had, but thanks for the link. That section explains what I meant, that blocks should be used to prevent a disruptive user from further disruption, such as this case. Ivanvector (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not what is being done here. Cassianto's talk page is blocked to all but admins, not just Cassianto. That's the piss-poor bit – the censoring for all other users. – SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• I notified Chillum as SchroCat was required to do, and I notified Mike V as Sitush should have done.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Bbb – I avoid this place like the plague and forget this steps needed. – SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• The protection certainly seems like much too much. It must be admitted that the talk page of a blocked-without-tp-access user is not a great place for any kind of constructive discussion to happen, but even so, I don't see anything like the kind of disruption needed to justify full-protection, particularly of a user talk page, which as the protection policy says, should be rare even in the context of full-protection. Chillum, would you consider lifting the protection, with the proviso that wider discussion of your or Mike V's action would be more productive elsewhere? Full protection of user talk pages can have nasty knock-on effects, if something important but unrelated to the block, like a notification of AfD nomination or something, were to be missed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat's comment appears to be founded on the fact that he can no longer abuse the talk page to make tedious and patronising comments accusing other people of making tedious and patronising comments. Protection is a reasonable response tot he trolling going on there. Sometimes people just won't drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. You missed the point and avoided the whole concept of WP:AGF. - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here: WP:KETTLE. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Meh. The irony of this applying to you is probably list. I'll move on, given the unconstructive nature of your efforts. – SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. My position is that the purpose of a talk page is to communicate with a user. Since the talk page access was revoked I saw people complaining about the block and supporting the block on the users page. Since the user is unable to respond the correct place to criticize or support the block is in a community forum such is here.

It is not uncommon to protect a page of a user with talk page access revoked when it is being used for purposes other than communicating with the user. I have invited those who wish to talk to me to my talk page and will be responding to any concerns there.

Naturally I will respect whatever consensus is arrived at here. Chillum 15:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, this is the protection policy. Which part of it do you think applies here? IAR doesn't mean you have the right to invent your own policies and then use the admin toolset to enforce them. – iridescent 15:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Our policies describe our practices, they are not all inclusive rules that we follow blindly. We are allowed and expected to use common sense. Do you think it is a good thing for users to be using the talk page of a user who cannot access it to be posting things like "Good block. Cheers"? Between the heckling and the grave dancing I felt it was not an appropriate use of the page. I did give a simple request that people use another page for their comments but it was not headed.

Again, I am happy to respect whatever consensus is arrived at here. Chillum 15:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm puzzled and quite troubled by this. Do I correctly understand that nobody but administrators is permitted to edit Cassianto's talk page? How can this possibly be justified, if so? It seems to me positively totalitarian. I don't know the circumstances in which Cassianto (whom I much respect) came to be blocked, or for how long, but it would be outrageous to block the rest of us arbitrarily. – Tim riley talk 15:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Given the reason for protection I would hope that most admins would have the sense not to post there unless it was for legitimate communication with the user. When the block expires so does the protection. Chillum 15:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Chillum:I don't disagree with your premise about the purpose of user talk pages, but I do disagree with your methods. Full protection was an overreaction, and prevents the user talk page from fulfilling the very purpose you're trying to defend. There are potential threads that would have merit even when the user can't respond right away; my AfD notification example above is one, and there are others. I'm not sure that I agree with you that full protection of a blocked user's talk page is common, and when I have seen it done, it hasn't been in a situation like this; I've seen it used more often than not to either prevent the user from evading their own block or to protect the blocked user from actual trolling directed at them, when they cannot reply. I'm not sure I've ever seen it used to quash discussion or criticism of the block, misplaced though it may be. I could be wrong--I can't profess to know more than you or anyone else about it--but I still wish you'd consider lifting the protection. It's not worth it. Being able to post "good block" to a tp-locked user talk page is not a good idea, but that's not what was happening when you decided to protect the page, and even if it was, full protection is a tool of last resort, not of first resort. Common sense is one thing, but admin tools--especially ones as serious as fullprotection--should always be used with restraint, and within policy. I could go on about how IAR shouldn't apply to use of admin tools, but it's probably going to fall on deaf ears, for one reason or another. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

First off I am not quashing any discussion. I have told people where they can discuss the block. The page of a user who cannot respond is not the correct place for a community discussion on a block, or the manner in which I respond to e-mails. My talk page, Mike's talk page and this noticeboard are all available.

I suppose we could remove the protection and then use warnings and blocks to prevent inappropriate use, but my reasoning was that this would be more disruptive to the actual building of an encyclopedia. People tend to dig in and get themselves in trouble when you ask them to stop using a page as a peanut gallery. While I personally don't think it is a good idea to remove the protection I consent to any admin unprotecting the page who is willing to babysit the page.

What I do not want to see is the page being unprotected and then it being used as a place to discuss things that don't belong there. Chillum 16:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• I fail to see what the problem is here. Criticism/support of the block or the user can be discussed in a community forum, not on the user talk page of a user who no longer has access to it and cannot respond. Gamaliel (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Giving people a venue to discuss and criticize admin actions, without having to escalate to a full blown AN/I dramafest is a good thing. When the criticism relates to the admin action taken a against a particular user, that user's talk page is a perfectly logical place to make the criticism. Furthermore, forcing it off to AN/I causes it to become disassociated with that user's history. So the block log stays with them, but the criticisms of the block will end up forgotten in an AN/I archive. While a line does sometimes need to be drawn, I don't think we were at that point here, and admins need to have a thicker skin, particularly where their own actions have been criticized. We need to be more careful about the perception we are trying to silence dissent than has occurred here. Monty₈₄₅ 16:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• It also pre-supposes that the only messages that people want to leave will be extensions of the dramah boards, let alone requests for comments at PR, FAC, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I noticed Cassianto's talk page was full-protected, couldn't see a good policy reason, and unprotected. I didn't see this thread first, however I am fine to keep an eye on it. Best way to reduce dramah is, of course, to ignore it. I apologise for stepping into a massive elephant trap. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

While I do not agree I have no objection. I appreciate that you are going to keep an eye on it. Chillum 16:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This is why it's useful to have a separate, unprotected talk page. It's quite easy to set up, and once Cassianto is unblocked he would be well advised to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 13 June 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.

Improperly Deleted Articles

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

---

Over the 5pm EST hour today, Compassionate727 (talk · contribs) speedy nominated multiple radio station articles per WP:A7. Under WP:NMEDIA and Common Outcomes, these radio station articles would not have qualified for speedy deletion under WP:A7 or deletion at all. Furthermore, community consensus has allowed these types of article many, many times over.

The articles were speedy deleted, under A7, by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs) and DESiegel (talk · contribs) (both admins). As admins, they both should have known better and should have denied the deletion requests. I have removed other Speedy/A7 requests placed by Compassionate727 from other radio station pages to prevent further improper deletions.

I am asking that the following articles and talk pages be restored immediately:

• KKGB
• Talk:KKGB
• KYKZ
• Talk:KYKZ
• KTSR
• Talk:KTSR
• KQLK
• Talk:KQLK
• KPPM-LP
• Talk:KPPM-LP
• KELB-LP
• Talk:KELB-LP
• KHLA
• Talk:KHLA
• KAJN-FM
• Talk:KAJN-FM

I will leave it up to the community to decide whether or not the above mentioned users require warnings, blocks or whatever. My main concern is the improper and unnecessary article deletions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have notified all the above mentioned editors of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at only the first 2 articles. They mention that they are radio stations, that they are licensed and who owns them. I don't see any assertion of notability. How do these not meet A7? While an essay may document common outcomes of AfD I don't think the mere fact of being licensed is "credible claim of significance or importance" as require by A7. Chillum 00:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Uner WP:NMEDIA, the only claim of notability that a radio station ever has to meet to be eligible for a Wikipedia article is the fact of being properly sourceable as a licensed radio station. They can be taken to AFD if they prove to be unsourceable as such (e.g. if they're an outright hoax), but they are not speediable on the basis of a notability claim that would automatically constitute a keep under almost any other circumstance. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:DRV is here. Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 00:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• S Marshall makes a good point. Chillum 00:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, that's passing the buck and doesn't help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Actually that is where we handle disputed deletions, so I think it would help. Chillum 00:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• {{trout}}—S Marshall T/C 00:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, but since this is an issue that is ongoing, it belongs here. How about we fix the problem instead of passing the buck. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• An editor of your experience really ought to know better than to bring a disputed deletion to AN/I. How about we follow the normal process and go to the correct venue.—S Marshall T/C 00:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I shouldn't have to bring anything to ANI or DRV. Admins should know the policies and the community consensus and not create messes (which they refuse to clean up). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see anything in WP:CSD#A7 exmpting radio station articles from speedy deletion for failure to state a basic claimof significence, as there is for schools. If the comunity wants to create such an exception, of course, it can do so, all speedy criteria function onkly by established consensus.

  I will add that when contesting a speedy deletion one thinks improper, the usual procedure is to contact the deleting admin and await a response, and if that is not satisfactory, to raise the matter at WP:DRV, not to come here to ANI. However, the matter is here now. DES ^(talk) 00:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Since apparently you all are stuck on A7, lets read the first section from NMEDIA:

Notability may be presumed for a radio and television broadcast station if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of a variety of factors, such as importance to and history in the station's market, as well as the uniqueness of the programming.

Along with these and community consensus, this is all that is necessary for a radio station article to remain. A7 has NEVER been an issue until today. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

While essays are great, it is generally policy that is considered when applying CSD. I see not even a claim of notability. Chillum 00:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As long as the article is sourceable, a radio station has to make no special claim of notability beyond "exists". It can absolutely be flagged for lacking references if applicable, and it can be taken to AFD at a later date if it proves entirely unsourceable and/or the research suggests it might be a hoax, but apart from BLPs Wikipedia's rule is that sources merely need to be demonstrably possible to add to the article, not necessarily "in it already", to make an article keepable. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We have always used Federal Communications Commission and Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission documents as the main forms of notability. These are federal government organizations, so they are considered very good sources. From there, further information is taken from other sources. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If that is to be the community consensus, then WP:CSD#A7 needs to be edited to include it, as it was to include the consensus on schools. And might I ask for a pointer to the discussion where this consensus was established? For the record, i don't see why radio statiosn should be more inherently notable than other buisnesses with a physical presence, say malls. But i that is the community's wish, so be it. DES ^(talk) 00:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you read any of the original post? Common Outcomes is the consensus. If you like, you are more than welcome to search through the numerous AfDs.

There isn't one instance of consensus, but ongoing strong community consensus. I can't say anything about malls, but I think radio and TV stations are more apt to be inherently notable because they are in every community (or available form every community) like schools. Not every community has a mall, these are major city type things. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What kind of special "more than just existing" notability do you think is even possible for almost any radio station to ever actually assert? Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm new here, maybe about a month and half ago. I've read the CSD A7 criteria. There's nothing there about radio stations. I wasn't aware that WP:NMEDIA, which isn't even policy, had anything to say about this. Compassionate727 (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You've been here a couple months and you are nom'ing articles for deletion? Perhaps you should learn the rules, the consensus, the policies, before going out and making a mess. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hopefully we can all agree that running these through A7 is not appropriate, nor is PROD. If there is a notability question about a radio station, take it to AfD and let's see what people think. I personally can't remember any radio stations getting deleted there, but I don't exactly watch out for them either... Carrite (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Seeking review of an unblock of mine

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

---

I have done a block of a user for personal attacks and later unblocked that user. While I think this is a routine event User:Cassianto seems very concerned about it as can be see here: User_talk:Chillum#Unblock_of_FIM

This incident started with this edit: [287]. I felt this called for an immediate bock and I made one. Not long after the user posted this message: [288].

I somehow missed the pings at the time but was later drawn to it by this ping: [289]. After seeing an admission of fault and a desire to not repeat the personal attacks I felt the block was no longer preventative and I undid it.

It is not clear to me what Cassianto's concerns are despite attempts to communicate so I am asking for community review. I will ping @Cassianto: and leave the traditional notification of this discussion. Chillum 21:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose continuing the silly drama any further. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• While the urge to disregard this user is strong, I don't think I am the one to decide their complaint is without merit. Chillum 22:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you not embarrassed yourself enough? Cassianto^Talk 22:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, enough Cassianto. This needed to be said. Based on your block log, you have a history of making personal attacks and making uncivil comments. I suggest that you WP:AVOID Chillum at all cost, because you seem to get more rude by the second. The comment above has pushed my limits and I don't tolerate this behavior, admin or not. Anyone is able to communicate properly, and so are you. You have a bad rep, and I seriously loathe your behavior. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• You blocked them, reviewed it, unblocked them, someone objected, they appear to only be willing to throw unverifiable claims of off wiki communication and personal attacks, you havent risen to them, carry on as before. Amortias (T)(C) 22:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• I kept getting e/c'ed, but yes, everything looks fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Things look in order but if an admin can school me on this point, when is a block appeal reviewed by the blocking admin and when is it preferred to be heard by a different admin? Or is there no hard and fast rule? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Admin can't review a request and deny if they made the block, but they can always unblock someone they blocked, formal review or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so Darkwind actually reviewed the unblock request (which wasn't actually an unblock request, really) and Chillum reconsidered the block on his own. Got it. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• What Floquenbeam says. So that's a couple of admins, past-present-future, who agree that this unblock was just fine. Let's move on. Cassianto, you're a good editor (though you stoked that fire some)--don't let this ruin your day. FIM will be on better behavior. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 14 June 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.

Akhil222 making odd AFDs

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

---

Akhil222 seems to have taken issue with a few articles. Earlier today they blanked the Rasna (actress) article and when that was reverted they slapped an AFD tag on it with the reasoning given as "some reason". They have now done the same thing to Charmila with the same AFD reasoning given ("some reason"). These seem to be pretty bad faith tags as both are articles about actresses that have quite a few references. Rasna (actress) seems to have been initially created by Akhil222 back in January 2014‎ so it is possible the editor just doesn't understand that they don't own the article and can't just demand it's deletion. The Charmila, however, was not created by Akhill222 so I don't know why that one has been tagged. Helpsome (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I deleted the two obviously bad faith (and improperly transcluded) AFDs and left a message on his talk page. If it continues, then a block is in order. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:09, 14 June 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.

Proposed desysop of Future Perfect at Sunrise

Nothing new presented here by the IP. Any further attempts at filibustering will be met with a block. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

---

As requested, I'm starting a new thread. Previous discussion is above at "Future Perfect at Sunrise reverts, hats, semiprotects and blocks against policy". Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi says I "swear blind" that IP .19 is different from .20. I said that .19 recycles to .20, which is the opposite. Future Perfect comes on to denigrate editors but does not justify his actions. 5.150.92.19 (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Propose block of IP 5.150.92.19/5.150.92.20 for disruption, for wasting peoples' time here. Thomas.W ^talk 16:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'll raise that to "nuke from orbit". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• 'support the block of the IP on the basis provided at WP:CIR. Oppose the desysop.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:57, 14 June 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:CableLabs 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.

---

This username does not comply with Wikipedia policy. Further, this user has been removing references which contain dead links to the website they are apparently associated. The user has not responded to requests to stop from three editors (WikiDan61, Joseph2302 and myself) over 10 days. ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for the user name violation. I have also added archive urls for the dead links. Anyone can do this step; you don't have to be an admin. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:04, 14 June 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.

Valproate merger

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

---

As per Talk:Valproate, I think we have consensus to merge Valproic acid, Sodium valproate and Valproate semisodium into the now empty Valproate page. I think the talk entry at Talk:Valproate should be copied to another page for reference, and then have Valproic acid moved to Valproate, since Valproic acid carries most edit history. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Merging. At the bottom there are a list of templates. One of them i just for this purpose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You could move Valproic acid to Talk:Valproate and just use the templates on the other merged items. You could perhaps archive valproate talk before that. Though I'm not sure in a move that the talk page moves with the main page. I don't think it does. There's not any recent discussion on the Valproic acid talk page. It's not necessary to move over.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You can try posting at WP:PM but the backlog includes requests over a year old. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 14 June 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:Koolpo's vandalism of The Voice (U.S. season) articles

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

---

• Koolpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Voice (U.S. season 8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Voice (U.S. season 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Voice (U.S. season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Voice (U.S. season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user created a user account on 30 May 2015 and has been vandalizing many of the The Voice (U.S. season) articles. Some of his vandalism appears to be benign (changing colors of tables), but he has also been changing the results of the series. Recommend a temporary or permanent block.

Pinging User:Musdan77 who reverted some of the vandalism.

Natg 19 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

a) Can you provide some diffs (examples) so editors can see some evidence that support your assertion that he has been disruptive? A link to the article isn't sufficient.

b) Have you tried to discuss this dispute on the articles' talk page or on Koolpo's user page? ANI is usually the last place one comes to resolve a dispute after other avenues have proven to be unsuccessful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Koolpo at some point, perhaps once a clear case has been presented, can you give your thoughts on your editing of these articles? GregKaye 03:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

a) Here are some diffs: [290][291][292][293]

b) As for discussing it on talk pages, I have not done that. Sorry about that. It seemed to me that Koolpo was being overly disruptive, so I wanted to bring it to someone's attention at ANI. Natg 19 (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's clear cut vandalism, WP:AIV is your best bet. Nil Einne (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• I moved the following comment from the bottom of this page to here, where I presume it's supposed to go. BMK (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I Didn't Do GRAFFITTE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolpo (talk • contribs) 23:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Koolpo (is anyone else getting bade vibe from this username?...) has gone back to editing The Voice (U.S. season 3) (diff) and The Voice (U.S. season 7) (diff), and I'm not sure that this can be described as "constructive" editing this time either... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I hope this won't be considered "forum shopping", but after more questionable editing from Koolpo, I've decided to take Nil Einne's advice and pass this on to WP:AIV... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:14, 14 June 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:Future Perfect at Sunrise archiving threads with ongoing discussions and making threats of sanctions

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

---

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

---

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) hatted my last item on the Gamergate controversy talk page after only a few hours. When I asked them the appropriate steps to reverse that decision and made my case for them to reverse theirs, instead of responding to any of my questions, they simply threatened me with sanctions if I pursued the matter further. I've been notified many editors have been sanctioned on that article, so I dropped it. Today I found an egregious case of editorializing in the article with text that is not supported and brought it to the talk page. Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise immediately showed up to comment, condescendingly told me that editorializing articles is 'called writing' and 'that is what we do here' and threatened to hat my discussion, before any discussion took place -- and I expect it will indeed be hatted shortly.

I'm aware it's only an essay but WP:DAOHATTHOD gives my argument against these actions very well. Stifling discussion is not productive. It's the opposite of productive, actually.

I would ask this editor to either voluntarily cease hatting my discussions and threatening me with sanctions for engaging in discussions, or I would ask them to be prevented from doing so if they will not do so voluntarily Handpolk (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that a truly neutral reading of the 38 pages of repetitious "discussions" about the same well-worn topics is decidedly NOT something that puts "more discussion about the same topics" as an action that has even a slight chance of leading to improvements in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree, as you and I were just able to improve the article once the threat to hat this discussion was not kept. Maybe jumping to conclusions isn't always the best idea? Handpolk (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If you think the article was "improved" by insertion of multiple reliable sources most of which were already in the article and most of which merely "verified" claims that were amply verified the by the multiple sources attached to the sentences immediately following and proceeding - but it was not improved by endless repetitive "discussion". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think not editorializing helped the article. I am beginning to believe 'repetitive discussion' is another way of saying 'people disagreeing with the current version of the article' -- if that happens so frequently, at some point you may ask yourself whether the article actually has problems, and not all of those editors making good faith contributions. Handpolk (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

that answer has been made clear by 1) the fact the NO sources have ever been produced that substantially contradict what our article presents and 2) the stated intentions of off site group known for trolling to disrupt Wikipedia. Are there dozens of reliable sources discussing Gamergate in a different fashion that 8 months of intensive editing have not located or is it a troll fest? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You've made no effort to actually discuss this with anyone, least of all FPaS, and you've waded directly into one of the most controversial articles on Wikipedia without any apparent effort to check the extremely voluminous archives to see why the wording you object to is there. The talkpage has special sanctions in place to quash repetitious challenges to the consensus from new editors who have not previously participated, as the tick-tock explanations of how things got there began to loop back on themselves. Why is this at ANI so quickly? Acroterion (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Not true: Handpolk brought this up on FPaS' talk page first.Bosstopher (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I need caffeine it appears. Nevertheless, the core issue is why is this at ANI? Acroterion (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I will acknowledge I did not spend the required 10++ hours of reading necessary to go through the archives. That said, I would think in that case, rather than hatting me with dismissive and condescending explanations and threatening me with sanctions when I ask how to proceed, the editor in question could calmly explain it to me in a mature manner, possibly with links to previous discussions. Handpolk (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The admittedly lengthy talk page archives are searchable, so you might try that feature. Also, it states at the search tool, Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives and review the FAQ before commenting. Good advice for us all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk, it is typical in ANI discussions to provide diffs, that is, evidence in the form of links to the edits that you are talking about, on the Gamergate controversy talk page and any other page where these discussions have occurred. You should make it easy for admins and editors here to see the dispute you are talking about so they can assess your argument and weigh its validity rather require them to search to find the edits you are upset about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And I offer myself as example #1 of why Liz's advice is important. Please present a case, don't just complain that you don't like something. Sanctioning any editor as you appear to desire requires direct evidence of a pattern of problems over time. I see a simple disagreement over when a discussion has become unproductive typing. Several threads on that talkpage have veered in that direction in recent times, and there appears to be a certain amount of filibustering, particularly by the OP. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I did present a case. What I did not present was links to make it convenient to verify my claims. I spend my time editing articles, my noticeboard and talk page game evidently needs work. If anybody wants to edit in diffs to what I said, I would be very grateful. Handpolk (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I did present a case. What I did not present was links to make it convenient to verify my claims

What you just did there was make a claim in one sentence then contradict it in the next. No, you made no case whatsoever: the links ARE your case. And if you can't be bothered to make a case, then why should anyone bother to pay attention to you? --Calton | Talk 13:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I just tried, I have no idea how to link to a specific part of a talk page. I disagree one cannot make a case without being an expert at using this arcane and complicated software. It may require a couple extra clicks, but anybody can verify the claims I made. Handpolk (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In summary, you have adopted a confrontational position on a controversial topic that has been the subject of extensive previous discussion and active sanctions. You do not wish to take the time to see what has happened before and demand that it be explained to you, as it has been explained dozens of times to other editors before, as the talkpage archives would indicate. You would like to argue about this. You are surprised when other editors express impatience with this method of engagement. You wish to come here and complain but do not wish to take the time to prepare a case that supports your complaint. You appear to want everybody else to accommodate you. There is nothing actionable here, apart from an admonishment to the OP to not waste everybody else's time. Acroterion (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You forgot the part where the hat threat that led me turned into a discussion that resulted in changes to the article. In other words, I was right. I apologize for not being skilled in making diff's. Though I would admonish you for being too lazy to make a couple of clicks and verify my claims. Handpolk (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk, if you had clicked on "diffs" in my comments, it would have taken you to instructions on how to make a diff. Here it is again: How to make a diff. You seemingly have time to respond to comments here and at the GG talk page but not take a few minutes to find edits that support your argument. If you don't make the time to persuade others with evidence, no one is going to make the case. We all have things we'd rather do than spend time making your argument for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hat unhelpful sniping
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...why am I not surprised by this editor's conduct. CassiantoTalk 12:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC) ...why am I not surprised at your trolling? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC) ...Sorry, you are? You can't be much good as I've never heard of you before. Oh no wait, your the person who embarrassed themselves on the Richard III talk page not so long ago. CassiantoTalk 15:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Perhaps you would care to defend your cretinous remarks? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC) ...why am I not surprised you've yet to retract your false allegations about me from this editors talk page? Handpolk (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC) ...why am I not surprised at your lack of surprise at my calling you out over canvassing spam? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Another (minor) example: On this very page, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Religion in the PSR of Albania Future Perfect at Sunrise told me[294] to not accept the closing comments by another administrator[295] on my recent RfC. Although this is a very minor issue because I was the target and I am an experienced editor, this sort of behavior would have been quite discouraging to a newbie trying to follow the rules but unsure whether he understands them correctly. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Guy Macon, I don't see FPaS's comments at that discussion as relevant here. What FPaS appears to be saying is that the RFC's results aren't applicable, because the RFC was about individuals and the article concerned is a political entity. Zad68 12:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You clearly failed to read the closing comments on the RfC. It applies to all articles, not just articles about individuals. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The point I made, and what's relevant to this ANI discussion, is that FPaS made a reasonable argument regarding the interpretation of the RFC results, and so it isn't clearly evidence of bad behavior on their part. Zad68 13:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So the message you are sending users is to ignore the admin's closing comments if you happen to disagree with them, interpret contentious RfCs for yourself, revert editors who do pay attention to the closing admin's closing comments, and report those users at ANI for doing what the closing admin told them to do? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Guy, sorry man but we're really not meeting each others' points here. You and another editor are involved in a content dispute at an article FPaS has (as far as I can tell) never edited, the other editor brought it to ANI, FPaS made one, pretty even-handed comment that was really about behavior (avoiding edit-warring) rather than the content dispute. I'm talking about that and whether or not it provides support for concerns regarding FPaS's behavior. I'm not really interested in the actual underlying infobox question. Zad68 13:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am going to stop right here and say no more because I decided a long time ago to not express any opinion either way on "gamergate" -- it is a topic that really doesn't need one more voice. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree, strongly. It needs many more neutral and unbiased voices. Can't really say more without being accused of not assuming good faith. Even though half the regular editors have accused me of acting in bad faith simply for being neutral and unbiased. Handpolk (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not slagging on FPAS (he's dealing with a tough job) but I'm sympathetic to Handpolk's underlying complaint and WP:DAOHATTHOD. It's not reasonable to expect someone to read 34 pages of archives before they can post to a talk page. That amounts to making the article and talkpage WP:OWNed by their longtime participants, plus truly obsessive newcomers, not a good combination at all. There's a "search the archive" text field at the top of the talk page, and typing "virulent" there does find some earlier discussion, but the most relevant-looking hit is has comments grounded in mentions of earlier discussion but without any concrete links.

  One improvement might be expand the FAQ sub-page so it includes topics like whether the article should say "virulent", with links to where that topic was resolved in the talk page. People would be expected to read the FAQ and the current talk page and make a reasonable search attempt before posting new proposals, but that's much better than reading 34 archive pages from start to end. They could challenge individual FAQ entries as to whether there was actual consensus regarding a given topic (unless there was a formal RFC with an uninvolved closure for that topic), but any such challenge would have to be based on analysis of the archived discussions, or else evidence that outside developments (documented by sources) changed the external facts enough to justify revisiting the question. If someone has an issue that's not in the FAQ, they would be allowed to bring it up even if it's already in the talk archives. A reasonable response would be "we have already discussed that, here are the relevant archive links and I've just put them into the FAQ so this doesn't have to be brought up again".

  Guy Macon's tangential sub-thread IMHO isn't helpful. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that the "egregious editorializing" complained of here is the characterization of Gamergate’s threats against Zoe Quinn as " virulent and misogynistic." This characterization has been discussed extensively in the million-word talk page history of this page and at Zoe Quinn’s page as well, and the consensus holds (correctly) that it is a reasonable summary of the sources. One editor, at Handpolk’s request, today re-added a citation for this sentence to The New York Review Of Books, which uses both terms. A later editor preferred The Washington Post, which uses "virulent" but prefers "sexist" to "misogynist": in its context, sexism and misogyny are interchangeable. For reasons I cannot fathom, Handpolk felt that the change from The New York Review of Books to The Washington Post was outrageous; I've restored both refs for the time being.

Please note, however, how many AN/I complaints have been filed in this area, so suddenly, without apparent cause. (See also the IP complaint that my own user page links to my essays on Wikipedia were inappropriate because I work for a living.) Editors may be interested to know that Gamergate boards currently boast of the effectiveness of this new tactic of flooding AN/I with requests from IPs and accounts they don’t mind losing, pointing out that comparatively few admins are active here while they have plenty of fresh fodder to burn. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It is editorializing if not properly sourced. If properly sourced its fine. Changes are being made to the article and that is evidence the impulse hatting was not the correct decision. Remember, that is the subjective of this ANI. Not the changes to the article. It is the stifling of discussion and the threats of sanctions merely for discussing things. Handpolk (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, for the second time today you have effectively accused me of being a Gamergate supporter. If you do that again, you are going to find yourself reported. You are to assume good faith. And you know that. Stop doing that immediately. Handpolk (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk, you are being confrontational in a topic area that requires great peace of mind. Please calm down and try to have some empathy. If you are really new here, consider editing other subjects for a while. I do see more focus on Gamergate in your editing than I think is healthy for an editor, whether pro or anti. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Empathy for somebody making repeated personal attacks and false accusations about me? No, I'm sorry. I will not. Handpolk (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone made such attacks or accusations. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

(Handpolk has already done that [296] [297] [298] racking up the 500 edits required so that as a truly neutral editor he can participate on the GGC article) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he mostly did dozens of, repetitive minor edits to List of Tamil films of 1973 and List of awards and nominations received by Aamir Khan to reach that magical 500 edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That was suggested to me openly by a GGC editor. Nobody disagreed. The next day Zad asked about it on my talk page and I stopped. Impossible to win with you guys. I am convinced the only two things I could do to not face fierce resistance and attacks to everything I do are 1) adopt a strong anti-gg outlook or 2) leave the articles. Handpolk (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I already checked that Handpolk met the 500 edit requirement, and I didn't say they exclusively edited GG and I didn't dispute their neutrality. I just see a level of concentration on GG that doesn't mix well with a combative attitude (Handpolk's user page is another indicator). The original dispute is essentially whether the 500 edits is enough to participate, or whether it's 500 edits and read 34 pages of talk archives (the latter is unreasonable). I think the most essential requirement is harder to quantify, but it's the ability to edit calmly in a contentious area. Another possibility is that the 500 edit thing isn't working and it will be time to try something else pretty soon. I'm never impressed by edit counts and always put much more weight on actual contributions of new content. Maybe something like that could work better. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Beyond Wired, The Washington Post, and The New York Review of Books, here is some more “virulence” in Gamergate: Journal Of Gender, Race, and Justice, Feministing, Slice, Geek Feminism, Vox, The Guardian Online, Daily Dot, Forbes. None of these are hard to find. The talk page, incidentally, now implies that the NYRB author, Michael Massing, lifted "virulent" from the Washington Post. Michael Massing is a former executive editor of the Columbia Journalism Review. Forsooth. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone who is so desperate to post on the GamerGate page that they do this to reach the target should not be editing it anyway. That says "I don't care about the encyclopedia, I just want to talk about the subject I am obsessed by. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it says I care about the encyclopedia so much I'm willing to spend a few hours working on Project Wikify, as was suggested to me openly be a GGC editor, to reach 500 edits. I guess when you guys tell noobies 'go edit some other articles' you don't expect any of them to actually do it? Well, I did it. Maybe time to find a new line to discourage people. Handpolk (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So go and make 500 productive edits (unlike the ones I linked to above) and then you might find people are more willing to accept your contributions at a controversial article. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OMG, that was awful, I didn't notice earlier that there were a bunch of additions and self-reversions of the same trivial edit. That is gaming the system and not ok. The 500 edits means real edits that contribute to the encyclopedia and move the project forward with each edit, rather than cancelling each other out. The actual intention is to require a buildup of some editing skills (sourcing, citations, talkpage discussion, etc) but if you had made 500 legitimate spelling corrections that probably would have been accepted. As it is I'd say the self-cancelling edits don't qualify so I'd support not counting them. Handpolk, could you try a few content contributions in other articles? That will help build up your skills and convince people that you're here to help the project. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"I didn't notice earlier that there were a bunch of additions and self-reversions of the same trivial edit" that is not accurate at all. You don't understand what you're looking at. I took part in Project Wikifiy and one of the articles that needed to improvement was an article about Tamil Films that had WAY too many internal links on it. So I was removing the internal links. I did them mostly one-at-a-time because it was hard to do it any other way (I had to find new links). An administrator asked me why I did it that way and it was implicit I should not. So I stopped. That was maybe 100-150 edits at most. The rest were not like that. Handpolk (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, this is for sale again

And you're seriously asking us to believe that instead of dealing with the supposed overlinking in one or two or a half-dozen edits, you chose to deal with it one link at a time, and that choice had nothing whatsoever to do with reaching the 500 edit Gamergate requirement, and that your subsequent Gamergate-related editing was simply a coincidence? BMK (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I would invite you to actually look at the article in question. It is nothing about a massive grid of names, the majority of which have internal links and some of those were red (empty) internal links. I was removing the red ones. And remember that I don't have a lot of experience doing this type of thing, as you can see from me never using diff's here etc. Now given that framework, how would I do it other than one edit at a time? I had to save the page to find a new red link. There may be other solutions but that's the best I could come up with at the time. But I acknowledge the whole reason I was working on Project Wikify was to get my edit count up. This was suggested to me openly in GGC and noone objected until now. Handpolk (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of experience doing this type of thing, as you can see from me never using diff's here - and yet you feel qualified to jump into one of the most contentious articles in the entire encyclopedia? You do understand that the purpose of the 500 edit requirement is to ensure that the participants in the discussion can do simple things like "find diffs", right? --Jorm (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I was about to topic ban Handpolk from the GG topic indefinitely, due to that blatant gaming of the system (190 edits to 2 articles, 4 characters at a time) when I noticed that although people have been talking about the GG arbcom restrictions to him for weeks, no one gave him the Official Template^(TM) until yesterday. Is there any objection (besides, I presume, from Handpolk) to this topic ban? On the theory that bad faith cheating results in the application of WP:IAR? The topic ban would meet the spirit of the restrictions, but maybe not the letter. Note that omitting those edits, he's still about 200 edits short of the 500 edit minimum, because as soon as he hit the magic 500 limit, it was 99.5% gamergate from then on. If we don't make it clear you can't play this game, others will surely follow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It was suggested to me openly by a GGC editor that I participate in Project Wikify to meet the required number of edits. I did not game the system. See my talk page where I discussed this with the administrator who enforces the sanctions. Handpolk (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it would help if you didn't blank your talk page every day so we could see this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do that on reddit too. I'd delete my edit history here if I could. The past is the past :) Handpolk (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that within 24 hours of their initial return to editing they attempted to open a case at the Arbitration Enforcement page demanding a reversion of the sanctions it would be hard to argue with a straight face that they were not aware of the sanctions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I had considered suggesting requiring 250 new real edits to make up for those bogus ones, but couldn't be bothered counting how many of the bogus ones there were. Your AGF-o-meter is probably better than mine about this though, so I'm ok with the indef tban as long as we're open to an appeal once some good contributions in other areas appear. Handpolk, as you put it, your noticeboard and talk page game need work, and you really can't edit a topic like GG until you have gotten good at the talk page thing. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

50.0.136.194, perhaps I'm missing it but I don't see any reversions or self-reversions within those contributions. They all appear to be positive, albeit incremental, edits. I would add, examining the talk page his contributions seem to be some of the more civil and productive. If more editors behaved similarly the space would be significantly less contentious.

Floquenbeam, Is your argument that 500 minor contributions to areas outside Gamergate demonstrate less general interest in the encyclopedia than 500 contributions exclusively within Gamergate? Unless those minor contributions are somehow negative that math doesn't reconcile. Note we have a number of editors currently participating who meet the 500/30 requirement only due to Gamergate contributions. Yet here you suggest for Handpolk, contributions within Gamergate should not count. That doesn't appear to be evenhanded enforcement of either the spirit or the letter of the restriction. 104.156.228.170 (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

104.156.228.170, see for example [299][300][301][302]. And the 500 edits are supposed to signify both interest in other topics, and acquisition of editing experience needed to contribute to contentious topics competently. Those 500 mechanical edits don't do either. Note I wasn't a supporter of the 500 edit thing in the first place, but it was clearly being gamed here. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Those edits are not the same. That one guy had like 25 different internal links at various places in the article. Those are all unique edits. I did actually replace the link once because I accidentally removed it in the wrong place. Handpolk (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean, the repeated linking/unlinking of the same guy was deceptive, it was at different places in the article rather than self-reverts. Sorry about that. Still it would have been better to do all those links/unlinks in one big edit. I can't support crediting all of them separately towards the 500/30. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

None of the linked diffs are revisions or self-reversions - they're repetitions of the same correction to multiple entries, independently. I fully support counting only meaningful outside contributions toward the required 500 but as I said above, minor, repetitive contributions outside Gamergate can't possibly signifiy less interest in other topics than contributions exclusively within it. 104.156.228.170 (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course they can (whether they do here is a separate question). Someone who makes 500 outside edits with the apparent express motivation of qualifying to edit Gamergate is obviously far more interested in Gamergate than someone who passes through the Gamergate article and fixes a few spelling errors. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I was passing through and decided to fix a few bias error. I was not an am not interested in Gamergate. I'm happy that you are such an expert into human psychology and motivation but alas, it has failed you in my case. Handpolk (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Given User:Handpolk's attempt to game the system, an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE should be considered. We usually impose topic bans when there is reason to believe the person could make good contributions in another area. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see a reasonable proposal for an editing plan from Handpolk. Something like "I'd like to improve the article on calcium chloride by adding some info about its use in welding, and my main source will be so-and-so's book [title and year]" for some encyclopedic topic (could be pretty much anything non-GG-related). Stating such a plan and carrying it out would be evidence against NOTHERE. Otherwise maybe you are right. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

How about evidence of having a plan and executing it? I very recently created and wrote most of Greg Penner. Among other things. Anybody who accuses me of being an SPA is not looking very deep in my history. I've been a regular editor for a year. On varied topics. On this article like a week. Handpolk (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd probably be defending Handpolk if he had not a) said he really didn't care much about Gamergate and didn't take sides while b) simultaneously focusing all of his editing--on Wikipedia pages, user talk pages, article talk pages--on this subject (well, aside from the Bollywood edits). I wish he had shown an interest in any kind of article other than this one, just to indicate that he wasn't a SPA. But it looks like he wants a line by line review of the main article. Also, it doesn't help to call another editor a troll or "SJW shills". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, you're not looking very deep in my history. I recently created and wrote most of Greg Penner, the new Chairman of Wal-Mart and am actually quite proud of that. I also spent quite a bit of time on Ebonics. Like this article, that one I felt was biased and I wanted to fix that. And ultimately was proud of the results. If I can survive getting topic banned in the process, once I'm happy with my contribution here, I suspect I will move on as well. I maintain that I have little interest in the topic. I have an interest in improving Wikipedia. And in this instance, I feel that Wikipedia needs my help. Handpolk (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk is very clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. He has clearly attempted to game the restrictions in bad faith in order to pursue an agenda of "neutrality". A "neutrality", mind you, that involves calling people "SJWs" and creating subreddits where they can talk shit about editors here on wikipedia. I would support an indefinite topic ban from this area and all areas involving videogames and feminism. If they are truly here to better the encyclopedia, then they can do this elsewhere.--Jorm (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Come on, stop feeding. Support indef, support topic ban as backup. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you examined the editor's full history? I'm genuinely surprised you'd suggest indefinitely banning an established account with a history of positive contributions to number of independent topics. 104.156.228.170 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC) — 104.156.228.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Handpolk's work on Greg Penner looks ok to me. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang

Several editors above have proposed that User:Handpolk be either given a topic ban from GG articles or an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. These suggestions stem from the Handpolk's eagerness to edit in the GG article space and the disruption caused since reaching that threshold. I would also add that his creation of an offsite forum where additional harassment is facilitated shows that his intentions here are far from neutral. Thoughts? 208.76.111.246 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC) — 208.76.111.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Assuming Handpolk is the creator of the forum "rocketsalt", I would note his reply to the offensive comment. 104.156.228.170 (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no "assumption" about it; he linked to it from his user page saying "I have created a subreddit for GGC". Facts in evidence, as it were.--Jorm (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In deference to our OUTING policy, I'll assume but not endorse. Either way, the redditor's response to that harassment was notable. 104.156.228.170 (talk)

NOTHERE is clearly not valid. I have been on Wikipedia a year contributing to all sorts of stuff. I have been on this article a week. That one week, whatever your opinion of it, it not evidence I spent that whole year here for reasons other than improving the encyclopedia. I also continue to make non-GG edits. I did so today, offering to help some new person with an article about his business if he could find me RS's. Handpolk (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned Handpolk is NOTHERE due to setting up an offsite forum to discuss GG... where he is posting pretty unpleasant harassment that corroborates his statements on Wikipedia showing he is pretending neutrality to grief/troll/push POV. That's not the only place where he posted unpleasantness. Ogress _smash! 22:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is a fancy way of saying you are not assuming good faith. What point of view is it you think I am pushing exactly? And what proof do you have of that claim other than the fact that I disagree with the current version of the article? Handpolk (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk, are you talking about this edit as an example of you helping another editor? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Some sort of sanction or strong warning is clearly necessary here. Handpolk's 170 4-byte edits in an hour on List of Tamil films of 1973 is one of the most blatant attempts at WP:Gaming the system I've ever seen. I have suggested to several admins that such edits made consecutively within a very shot time period be considered to be a single edit, which is precisely the case when determining how many edits a user has made to see if they've broken the 3RR "bright line" when edit warring. Adoption of such a standard would put a stop to the kind of gaming Handpolk engaged in. BMK (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Although I much prefer stricter standards applied to everyone's edits in achieving 500/30, counting his multiple edits as a single edit is one of the few reasonable suggestions in this thread, assuming it includes a reminder that Future Perfect observe the standards of behavior expected of admins on this site (the original complaint.) 104.156.228.170 (talk)

Support boomerang, per my reasons above.--Jorm (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess also this, where he harasses Liz offisite. (edit: he's deleted the post now, but I have a screenshot if anyone cares.)--Jorm (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The most interesting thing about this subreddit is that it presents a completely different persona of Handpolk than what he represents here, where he gets outraged at Mark for saying he is a troll and demands an apology. I'll admit, I reacted poorly today to being called a "SJW shill" and being asked to show my breasts. But I've said what I've wanted to say about this editor and will leave it up to others to decide whether a topic or site ban are in order as I am clearly "involved" regarding the editor. It's a little ironic because I have actually tried to give him some useful advice until I saw the name calling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly cannot believe you just implied that I asked you to show your breasts when I actually harshly criticized the person who did. Of course you will ignore this comment and not apologize, like you do each and every time you say something incorrect about me. Warning #3. Handpolk (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly cannot believe that you have the unmitigated gall to ask for an apology when you were the one who created the space for your pals to harass her and even called her out by name in the goddamned welcome post. How can you not catch the cognitive dissonance here? --Jorm (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

If it weren't for that last posting, I'd support a topic ban. Now, I believe that this editor is, in no way, the kind of person we want to have working on the project, and support indefinite block.--Jorm (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Support boomerang. There's ample reason for this on-wiki, but the offwiki comments this subreddit hosts are repellent. This editor has thoroughly disrupted Gamergate since he arrived, with trips to AN/I and AE, and he's threatened several editors today with fresh AE actions. Great! MarkBernstein (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If we apply that standard to reddit will we apply it as well to editors on wikipediocracy who've outed themselves? And would it additionally apply to twitter or markbernstein.org where you accuse Masem of the same and worse, even linking to his edits? Hopefully you'd not hold others to a higher standard than that to which you hold yourself. 104.156.228.170 (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Support reiterating my above comment. Come on, he told you which bridge he lives under; no need to keep debating whether he's a troll. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Support a topic ban, but not a full ban from the Wiki- the editor has expressed interest in the wikify project, as evidenced by their 154 wikifying edits to the List of Tamil films of 1973. I do not, however, believe that the editor can edit fruitfully in the gamergate topic area. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Admin attention please! - Handpolk has now filed an AE request against MarkBernstein here. Whether it is justified or not is immaterial to me, as he should not be editing Gamergate articles after baldly manipulating the system to qualify. This, plus his incredible -- in fact unbelieveable -- statements in this thread, and his insulting of other editors both on-wiki and off- has certain earned him a block. I ask that he be sanctioned before he can cause more disruption, and at this point I think an indef block rather than a Gamergate topic ban is most appropriate. (Incidentally, I am totally and completely uninvolved in any aspects of the Gamergate morass.) BMK (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: In the context of the case he's filed, your "whether it is justified or not is immaterial to me" sounds a lot like victim blaming. I suggest you read the filing and re-evaluate your request. 173.192.176.190 (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. This person is trying to bring an external fight into Wikipedia, to cause disruption. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Final Comment

Nearly all of these editors suggesting I be sanctioned are people who disagree with me on the content of this article. Their comments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. The battleground mentality and war of attrition taking place results in everybody who disagrees with them eventually getting sanctioned. Look at the history. This is how it works. A new person comes along who disagrees with them, they bait them into hanging themselves and then they show up in force to call for that persons head. Problem solved. Allowing that to happen is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. If anything, editors like me should be protected from sanctions to ensure neutrality. So all voices are heard, not just those who agree. Handpolk (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what your opinion is, in fact, you say you have no opinion on Gamergate. It's your conduct that has been disruptive. You have argued with nearly every editor you have encountered, you've filed cases at AE and ANI and you say on my talk page that you are going to file another AE proposal. Editors with more experience give you advice which you ignore, you say everyone else is acting in bad faith and yet you believe editors are out to get you. You call editors "trolls" but demand an apology when another editor says this to you. You don't seem to admit that any of your troubles are your own responsibility, they are all because of this cabal of editors on this one article. If you are going to go to AE or ANI any time you butt heads with another editor, your time on Wikipedia will be very short. Editors here disagree with each other every day but we still have to find a way to collaborate with each other and it often takes much longer than a week to work out our differences. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This is your 4th warning to stop saying things about me we both know are untrue. There are at least 5 examples in that paragraph. Stop lying. Handpolk (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise reverts, hats, semiprotects and blocks against policy

Sorry to be so late with this comment, but I only just became aware of this discussion. F P has a habit of making accusations against editors and blocking them without going through the proper channels (i.e. filing a report at SPI). See the recent history of User talk:Jimbo Wales for context. This is exactly what Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry did and he is no longer an administrator. What makes it worse is that F P never shows up to justify his actions. Following precedent, I

propose desysop of Future Perfect at Sunrise.

5.150.92.20 (talk) 09:55, 14 June 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.

Give the editor a chance.

Reading through the thread, I see that editors who come to ANI are supposed to support their arguments with diffs. So I looked through the history of Jimbo’s talk and this is what I found:

On 29 May an IP commented on Jimmy’s piece in ‘’Radio Times’’ [303]. Four minutes later Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi reverted under edit summary "Remove nonsensical, irrelevant interjection".

On 2 June F P made a post to another thread by this IP on the same page which employed the words “sock” and “blocked” but did not follow any kind of reference to SPI [304]. The OP’s arguments were not addressed and F P says he will not be bothering to justify his actions. Five minutes later JzG hats the thread using the words "block" and "evasion" again without having referred to SPI. One hour and forty minutes later another IP comes along to explain why ArbCom, Jimmy and Panyd are right and F P and JzG are wrong [305]. Reading the full thread, it transpires that an IP had been working hard to remove incorrect information from Common Era which other editors had been repeatedly adding, citing two sources which did not support their claims.

WMF invites the public to look for errors in articles and remove them. When they do, it doesn’t invite people like F P to go in and block them to extinction, which is what happened here. There is a parallel – DangerousPanda’s treatment of Barney the barney barney. DP is no longer an administrator and BBB was smartly unblocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.92.19 (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

When you say, "Give the editor a chance", you mean- give you a chance? Your IP: 5.150.92.19; the 'other' IP: 5.150.92.20. LOL we might be daft.. but not that daft!!! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger. I am sitting in front of a computer which recycles the last unit of the IP address between "19" and "20". 5.150.92.19 (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course... Handpolk _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, I don't think this IP is Handpolk. As far as I could follow it, it's another reincarnation of 156.61.250.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), a person fixated on editing disputes related to calendar issues I recently blocked, or some other troll who likes to piggy-back on other blocked users' pet causes for some reason. There have been so many of these I'm losing sight of which is which. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, struck, and pace, of course, to Handpolk. I still like the swearing blind that the .19 is completely unrelated to the .20 though! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

IP editor undo abuse

216.177.129.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
216.177.129.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2001:590:4802:1CD:1A82:9DC8:F15B:FA91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
63.141.204.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
98.124.175.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
216.177.129.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2001:590:4802:2f9:2b1f:133b:35fa:2cd5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
67.71.140.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
just undid several of my edits across multiple unrelated pages without any reason given, as visible from their contribs.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep expanding the list, and we can hopefully find the ranges we need to block. Monty₈₄₅ 02:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ceased for now.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't think that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. All the IP editors are doing is reverting the OP's undoing of their edits without leaving any reason for doing so, just as the OP is complaining. 86.153.135.110 (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Acroterion (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Everything I looked at was unhelpful on the IP's part and helpful on Anders' part. Consider this edit, for example; the IP changes [[inheritance|hereditary]] to [[hereditary]]; the displayed text is the same, but inheritance is the most relevant article, while hereditary is a redirect to Heredity, a genetics article that has nothing to do with the legal concept of inheritance. This is the kind of thing that can be undone or rolled back without need for an edit summary. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Although I accept your basic premise. I still think it is a bit much when someone complains that someone else is not leaving an edit summary when they are not leaving an edit summary themselves. There are plenty of AN cases that have been declined where someone has complained of someone else not raising a controvesial edit war on the article talk page where they have not used the talk page themselves - exactly the same principle. 86.153.135.110 (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The rapid IP changes involved here really undermines any argument that the editor behind them was acting in good faith. Combined with the clear targeting of the reverts at the editor, on a variety of articles, it is hard to not find the IPs to have acted in bad faith which justifies a revert without further summary. Monty₈₄₅ 14:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is about as fine an example of WP:POINT as one is going to get Blackmane (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Mtd2006

Mtd2006 (talk · contribs) just made an edit on Ramadan even though he knew perfectly well that it would be reverted. There are two talkpage sections about this issue and he is well aware that his edit comes down to the beforehand contested removal of well-sourced information which he and another editor either don't like or regard as dubious (for unsourced and unclear reasons). In addition his edit[306] deliberately mocks my edit of a few days before that[307] and the Wikipedia policy of consensus in the process, both explicitly and by the very fact of the edit being made.

On the one hand, I think this irresponsible and childish behavior should not even make it to WP:ANI. On the other hand, I have met only too many editors who with such behavior try to push through their opinions, and it is best to nip this in the bud.

I propose a 3 day edit restriction for Mtd2006 on this article, not including the talkpage. This would not really affect him, but it would serve as a warning signal to him, that mocking WP:CONSENSUS will not be tolerated and that removing sourced information is a big no can do on Wikipedia.

Mtd2006 has been warned and informed about this thread on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment the warning mentioned above was made ~8 minutes prior to the opening of this incident report. GregKaye 11:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I reject Debresser's assertions. I and other editors have an ongoing problem with what I perceive as Debresser's tendencies toward ownership practices, as he attempts to have his own way in the Ramadan article. The event that triggered Debresser's complaint is as he says... he made a bold revision to implement his is interpretation of consensus stating he hopes he got it right. Debresser's narrative omits several significant events.

• Debresser and I discussed our differences on his talkpage. Note that he ends the discussion with his assertion, "I really think that editors should abide by WP:BRD, which I think is one of the most important guidelines in Wikipedia to help advert [sic] edit wars."
• Amid spirited give and take among several active editors at Talk:Ramadan#Origins and Talk:Ramadan#Ramadans Alleged Pagan Origins., Debresser made his bold revision. I strongly reject Debresser's assertion about unsourced or unclear reasons. Please review the discussion in the talk sections I mentioned. I did not invoke BRD, Debresser's own preferred method to avert edit wars.
• Instead, I explained my concerns at Talk:Ramadan#New pre-Islamic section lacks consensus, before continuing the BRD cycle. I waited. Debresser dismissed my concerns stating "stop wasting ink on wikilawering [sic]."
• I engaged Debresser using the BRD conflict resolution method he insists upon. I reverted his interpretation of consensus and made my own bold revision that implements consensus as Fauzan and I understand it.

Debresser claims to rely on BRD; he should expect other editors to revert his bold revision and to discuss... abiding by the bold-revert-discuss cycle. I suggested that Debresser rejoin ongoing discussion to establish consensus, propose changes and seek agreement before revising the article. I avoided escalation, although I feel there are grounds to have done so. It's apparent that Debresser disagrees. At this point, I ask for help to resolve this dispute. I have prior commitments that prevent me commenting as promptly as I'd like. Thank you for your consideration. Mtd2006 (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Debresser is not addressing concerns raised by multiple editors. I asked him repeatedly to provide a quote to support the first paragraph (Abu Zanad mentioning Ramadan), and he failed to do so. He then edit warred to keep the first paragraph even though it fails verification, contrary to wp:v. The second paragraph is also still under discussion, with valid wp:due objections. I agree with Mtd2006 edit. The section as is should be removed, pending a rewrite with better sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wiqi55 That statement is sourced and verified, and what was not sourced has been removed. With me in agreement with everybody else. Not nice to say lies here. The WP:UNDUE objections are not valid, for several reasons as explained on the talkpage. In any case, the main issue in this post is the behavioral one.

@Mtd2006 I never left the discussion. You did, when you made an edit that you knew would was contested and would be reverted. And that edit summary to mock me and WP:CONSENSUS was really not nice. That is bad behavior, and that is why we are here. At the same time I am still actively participating in the discussion, as anyone can see. Debresser (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Ignoring wp:v and lying about the content of sources is a behavioral problem. Now, here is a diff of the first paragraph currently in the articles.[308] What does the cited source say about Abu Zanad's claim concerning Ramadan's origin? Quote it here please, so that we can move forward on this issue. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I will respectfully decline to do so, because 1. the content issue is not the reason for this post, only the behavioral issue. 2. Any interested editor can check for himself what is written, what the source says, and what changes I have made to the article. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: It isn't optional. The burden is on you to point out where exactly Aby Zanad mentions Ramadan. Otherwise, the 1st paragraph should be removed, including the misrepresented sources and fake citations. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Having looked at the talk page I personally have concerns that there may be WP:TENDENTIOUS attempt to unencyclopedically remove reference of the historical context of Ramadan and would encourage other editors to become involved. GregKaye 10:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have the same feeling, and have raised this concern on the talkpage as well.[309] I feel a little overwhelmed as a single editor in view of those attempts, but try to uphold the integrity of the article as best I can. I am a little worried by the silence from other editors on this article, although I recognize the efforts of editors like Mtd2006 to adhere to the high standards of Wikipedia as genuine.Debresser (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, may I suggest as a model the exposition at Shabbat#Origins, which feels to me like a very parallel sort of situation. There, the article says (paraphrasing here) that beside the traditional Jewish/traditional/Torah sourcing of Shabbat, some scholars see precedent in the practices of other near-Eastern cultures and civilizations. Article then reports those practices. Article doesn't say that those are definite proof that Shabbat has a pre-Torah origin, only that some scholars make a reasonable case, made in reliable sources, that this might be the case.

The current text at Ramadan (at 22:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)) merely reports on a theory expounded in reliable sources. It by no means offers them as definitive proof of a pre-Islamic source for Ramadan. And, I might add, they don't invalidate the religious explanation for Ramadan stated in the Quran, any more than the theories in the article on Shabbat invalidate the Torah's explanation of Shabbat.

As long as the sources mentioned in Ramadan actually exist and are reliable, I don't see the problem. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds admirable. Debresser (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

False information about Larry Silverstein

I need an administrator asap! I was looking at mobile Wikipedia, and I was looking at Larry Silverstein, and it said that "In May of 2013, Larry and his pal Tom, confessed to the implosion of the WTC, and were later sentenced to multiple life terms in prison" You can see the image here. This is vandalism mostly likely from a "Truther", I am not sure how to fix that subtitle, but somebody who knows how to needs to as soon as possible. Thanks. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 19:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be Mobile Wikipedia. Are you looking at a mirror site, maybe, or using a third-party app? HiDrNick! 19:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the Wikipedia app, and I'm seeing the same thing but I can't work out why, it doesn't appear to be in the article or its recent history... Sam Walton (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The text isn't showing up in the article, but in the search results blurb. It's got to be a caching issue someplace, but no idea where or how to fix. I looked through the article history and that text wasn't from any of the more recent changes. Very odd...Ravensfire (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, C.Fred found it just as I did. Sam Walton (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The scary part is just how long that vandalism had been sitting in the description there. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it better now? I just changed something (at 19:50 UTC); I think it's fixed. —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's rather sneaky. Good to know about where the search blurb comes from though! Ravensfire (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's just awesome. So now you don't have to vandalize Wikipedia [ redacted per WP:BEANS]. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The worst part is that this material was added in May 2013 and existed for over 2 years before being changed today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The neat part about this is that because the data was exposed in something that is more user-facing than Wikidata itself, the problem got fixed. Wikis Work^TM. --Izno (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So how many admins are there at Wikidata and Meta, cos they're workload may wll be going up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nthep (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

wikidata and meta. But admins just wield the ban hammer, they aren't really required for patrol work of course —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The less neat part is that it took over two years for the problem to be fixed... Sam Walton (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright issues at the Sandbox?

This has been going on at the sandbox for probably close to a week [310] [311] [312] [313] that I have noticed it from a series of apparently dynamic IP addresses. Is there perhaps a copyright violation of someone's thesis or something that needs to be done? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

At least a few revisions there seem to have been copied from this forum. I'm trying to find some more copyvios and will revdel where applicable. De728631 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

And here's the paper being quoted in various stages: [314]. Anyhow, this should not remain in our sandbox. De728631 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that Coperincus7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be involved in this scheme [315]. De728631 (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Argh. What makes it even more difficult is that the IP user kept making multiple edits until any another account happened to clear the sandbox, and I can only hide 6 consecutive edits of this kind without getting a database error. I revdel'ed a fair bit of these edits but this goes back to May at least.

Hi, someone has made it so that I cannot enter the posts that I have created in the sand box, under history. Please, allow me to enter or give me a reason? I saw a reason that I was violating copyright but these do not contain any copyright problem, that are past "fair use".

cur | prev) 19:56, 9 June 2015‎ 137.150.100.205 (talk)‎ . . (117,630 bytes) (+445)‎

(cur | prev) 19:49, 9 June 2015‎ 137.150.100.205 (talk)‎ . . (117,185 bytes) (+195)‎

(cur | prev) 19:47, 9 June 2015‎ 137.150.100.205 (talk)‎ . . (116,990 bytes) (-567)‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.100.205 (talk)

Copying the entirety of a website is not "fair use", it's a copyright violation, see WP:COPYVIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia has very strict definitions for fair use, and posting entire papers or whole paragraphs is not allowed. Fair use at Wikipedia is only allowed in the context of articles, and "excessively long copyrighted excerpts" are strictly unacceptable. Your edits have been hidden so that the copyrighted material can no longer be accessed. Please note also that the Wikipedia sandbox is meant for practising how to write articles at Wikipedia, but it is not your personal desktop. De728631 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

And note also that Wikipedia's non-free content criteria are more strict than fair use under US copyright law.--ukexpat (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

They are back [316]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

IPv6 range block needed

So far we've got

• 2600:1014:b00b:c07:0:44:abfd:9d01
• 2600:1014:b056:9eba:0:48:ac72:fd01
• 2600:1014:b00e:c8ab:0:3e:5336:fb01
• 2600:1014:b052:5dfe:0:48:ac6d:7601

There's instructions at MediaWiki but they might as well be in Japanese for all the good they do me. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like 2600:1014:b000::/33, although any admin applying this will want to double-check this. I forget how difficult IPv6 are to calculate! In any case, this is a rather large range, so this is likely to have too much collateral. Mdann52 (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Simplified you can say: The first 3 groups separated by : identify the ISP, the next group of numbers is any segmentation inside the ISP (sometimes customers get a partial block of this), and the last 4 groups are the device part. Then :: or :0: means: "do padding with zero's here until it's a full address".

A single ISP can have 65,535 subnets each with over 18-quintillion (18 with 18 zeros after it) devices. In general you would never want to range block anything where the first three groups are not equal to each other, because those could be multiple ISPs. So ranges smaller than /48 are a no no.. A single subscriber is a /64 at minimum, but often a /56 and in theory can be an entire /48. It really depends on the ISP, so it's difficult to know for sure. Start careful.. this table helps visualize it a bit. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

this is a very useful website for calculating IP ranges, just stick them in and it gives you the notation required. Sam Walton (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What, an IPv6 calculator? I'm saved :P Mdann52 (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thank goodness. I've been looking for one of these since our rangeblock tool died. KrakatoaKatie 01:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a /41 range on Verizon mobile, so far too much collateral to block, although it's tempting. When this particular individual turned up the other day, we just used semi-protection until they got bored. Children are very soon bored when they have their toys taken away. Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks all for the help. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: The user has continued at User talk:AGK and User talk:Geraldo Perez, and User talk:Courcelles. Based on their claimed identity, this is the same user that had several named accounts and IPs blocked within the last week or two. I've been using WP:RBI - although they are under the mistaken notion that block evasion is permitted to troll Arbcom member pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Black Kite, you can check for collateral damage here for all contribs this year. Here is the narrowed search since April 1 til today. I looked at it yesterday (discussed here) and I stated "If nothing else, shutting that range down to quash that puppet might be worth it so that he grows bored and goes away." so I concur that this may be worthwhile to calculate a rangeblock to snub him as he is dominating that range. And active since last January.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Three

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

---

(@JamesBWatson, Mike V, and Diannaa:) Abusive user is back. IPs: 81.193.2.240 (talk · contribs), 85.247.78.198 (talk · contribs), 85.245.57.9 (talk · contribs) and more. See my previous ANI reports (1, 2). SLBedit (talk) 17:00, 12 June 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.

67.246.36.232 a hip hop vandal

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

---

The above user that I have just reported to you keeps changing the D.O.B.'s and birthplaces to many rappers including Dina Rae (they changed it to say she was 51), Obie Trice (changed the date of birth and gave him a made up real name when his real name is Obie Trice) and LL Cool J (changed the date of birth and that he came from Pennsylvania, Philadelphia and unfortunately I can not revert his edit as several other users have edited it, can we please keep an eye out for this user who is only here to vandalize Wikipedia? Many thanks Kandiwell 14:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE

I was able to revert their edit of LL Cool J's birthplace Kandiwell 14:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked IP for a month (third block in about a week). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 15 June 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.

Leave the archiving to the bot

Mean old admin covering up the misdeeds of his fellow admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. yet more tedious trolling by block-evading IP The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I've noticed manual archiving on this page and User talk:Jimbo Wales. I don't know why this has started, manual archiving is often only a few hours after discussion concludes. In one recently archived thread there was some argy - bargy between Handpolk and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi regarding the conduct of Future Perfect at Sunrise. Then Fortuna has the gall to accuse me of being Handpolk and of denying that my IP is dynamic and follow that up with a message on my talk page suggesting I assume good faith. Really, when s/he follows with a message accusing me of harassing him/her. At the end of the archived section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Future Perfect at Sunrise reverts, hats, semiprotects and blocks against policy there is the beginning of a complaint against F P. Another thread about F P, now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Proposed desysop of Future Perfect at Sunrise was also archived prematurely. Note the close in that thread by De728638 complaining that nothing new has been presented. Two points - internet access is not easy to come by on a Sunday night - De728638 should have allowed time for evidence to be filed during normal working hours. Secondly, the main reason for the shortness of the complaint is that De728638 objected to evidence being carried over from a previous thread. So let's collect all the evidence together here. F P has a habit of making accusations against editors and blocking them without going through the proper channels (i.e. filing a report at SPI). See the recent history of User talk:Jimbo Wales for context. This is exactly what Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry did and he is no longer an administrator. What makes it worse is that F P never shows up to justify his actions. Following precedent I proposed desysop of Future Perfect at Sunrise. That option remains on the table. Reading through the thread, I see that editors who come to ANI are supposed to support their arguments with diffs. So I looked through the history of Jimbo’s talk and this is what I found: On 29 May an IP commented on Jimmy’s piece in "Radio Times" [317]. Four minutes later Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi reverted under edit summary "Remove nonsensical, irrelevant interjection". On 2 June F P made a post to another thread by this IP on the same page which employed the words "sock" and "blocked" but did not follow any kind of reference to SPI [318]. The OP’s arguments were not addressed and F P says he will not be bothering to justify his actions. Five minutes later JzG hats the thread using the words "block" and "evasion" again without having referred to SPI. One hour and forty minutes later another IP comes along to explain why ArbCom, Jimmy and Panyd are right and F P and JzG are wrong [319]. Reading the full thread (it's at the top of the diff) there is a complaint that F P is telling Jimbo what to do. It also transpires that an IP had been working hard to remove incorrect information from Common Era which other editors had been repeatedly adding, citing two sources which did not support their claims. WMF invites the public to look for errors in articles and remove them. When they do, it doesn’t invite people like F P to go in and block them to extinction, which is what happened here. There is a parallel – DangerousPanda’s treatment of Barney the barney barney. DP is no longer an administrator and BBB was smartly unblocked. The admins at AIV check reports before reaching for the block button. Future Perfect blocked an editor who was removing incorrect information which was being added, unreferenced, by others. His incompetence, coupled with his failure to rectify the matter when his neglect was pointed out, could indicate that his continued access to the tools is a menace to editors. 31 minutes later F P reverts, citing "block evasion" without raising a case at SPI. He also blocks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry did this once to get desysopped, but F P, as we will see, does it over and over again. The following day an IP made two posts to Jimmy's talk. Both were quickly reverted and the IP was blocked for five years. No reason for reversion was given [320], [321]. Later the same day a query is raised over an unblock request handled by jpgordon. Both Fortuna and 5 albert square fail to AGF [322] and 5 albert square blocks for "trolling". A further exchange with an IP follows [323]. Note that Barek refers to vandalism, a claim which even F P didn't make, and also this gem from F P: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.92.20 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Per the instructions at the top of the page and the edit field you need to inform each of the editors that you have mentioned in your "wall of text" about this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 16:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Some of the people mentioned are only bit players, while the main people were already notified of the thread that this is a continuation of. MarnetteD, as an experienced editor could you notify anyone who you think should be notified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.92.20 (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC) So, to be clear, you lack the experience to notify editors yourself, but still feel you have the experience to lecture long-term editors and admin about how to do things? That's a bizarre place to be in. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Per the previous close [324], "any further attempts at filibustering will be met with a block", so would somebody do the honours now? I'm growing weary of this constant troll attention. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, Good Lord, please!! At this point, I'll offer the incentive of cake as well! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC) I am still waiting for a TP notice telling me that my name liveth on at AN/I-!!! lol Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Wait, all of you. This report is not finished. 5.150.92.20 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC) All that text and still not done? Blocked for 48 hours per previous close. --NeilN talk to me 16:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) They think it's all over...! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Dennis, there is a point in continuing because the block was applied by NeilN who is mentioned in the thread. So we can discuss misuse of tools by him as well. Here's the rest of the report. This is of course just the same anon editor block - evading again, just like in another thread yesterday. How stupid does he think we all are, pretending he's somebody else by talking about himself in the third person all the time? Again the claim of block evasion without filing at SPI, and "yesterday's thread" was proved to have been filed by a Dutchman. F P blocks immediately after commenting and half an hour later 5 albert square semiprotects for "block evasion" without filing at SPI. 49 minutes later JzG archives. The same names keep coming up over and over again. Protection expires and on 7 June the IP is back commenting on text messaging and removing someone's duplicate post. That evening an IP posts on a different subject. Future Perfect reverts with the comment rm block evasion (apparently same troll as a few days earlier). He blocks, and without filing at SPI names another editor who he claims is evading a block. Exactly what Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry was desysopped for doing. The same issue is raised on 8 June. F P hats, using the words "trolling" and "block - evading". Next morning the text - messaging IP follows up, deploring a personal attack on Jimmy and highlighting Barek and F P's misbehaviour. On 13 June the same editor challenges 5 albert square and follows up with a post about Hillary Clinton. Seven minutes later F P reverts both posts citing "block evasion". He does not go to SPI but blocks. The obvious thing for F P to do now is admit he is wrong, apologise and lift the block. If he doesn't do that editors can decide what to do about it. 5.150.92.19 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Other editors have decided by hatting the thread. Amortias (T)(C) 17:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Amortias, Future Perfect at Sunset hatted it. He's not "other editors", he's the subject of the complaint. This place is getting like FIFA. 79.78.35.136 (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC) I was including myself in "other editors" as I also believed it was a waste of time. Amortias (T)(C) 18:21, 15 June 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:Wikimandia

The following discussion is closed. 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 3RR. See here. --92slim (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring should be reported at WP:3RN. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Related discussion has been started below, looks like this will be dealt with at ANI after all, probably in the discussion below though. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:47, 14 June 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 Dmcq at Climate change denial

The following discussion is closed. 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 Dmcq refuses to cease and desist from posting forum-like comments comprising pedantic instructions about searching for sources, and misrepresenting my comment, etc., instead of discussing the actual sources and statements posted and quoted directly in relation to article content, including the five listed in this thread, and the seven here. The disregard of the sources would seem to demonstrate that he is not editing in good faith. I had early mentioned NOTFORUM to him when he attempted to introduce a general discussion source and an off-topic quote[325]. A comment from an IP also had to be deleted for the same reason[326]
He has disregarded prior discussion on the Talk page related to the issue at hand, and it edit warred to keep the latest of such condescendingly pedantic comments on the Talk page[327][328] even after I deleted it[329] as violating WP:NOTFORUM and posted a warning on his UT page, meeting with an invitation to open this thread. I had earlier warned him about the disruption here.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

They are searching for particular terms like 'neoliberalism' and 'market fundamentalism' and then want to put those terms into the lead. The terms are not supported by WP:WEIGHT, and I do not think finding sources using a particular term confers much weight to the term. I have been trying to show how to do it properly and avoid the bias but they just want to discuss their sources - and even then ignore what I show about the terms not being in any way major in them even. You can see the problem by their quote from their latest source [330] as supporting putting 'market fundamentalism' in the lead: 'Very little, however, has been written about how market fundamentalism has, from the very first moments, systematically sabotaged our collective response to climate change.' Dmcq (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NAEG, Content dispute aside, Ubikwit's behavior says "boomerang applies" Although this is not AE, note that Ubikwit, Dmcq, and myself are all aware that DS applies to this article. Assuming Ubikwit has found good RSs that should be given serious consideration, competent editors need the social skills to build consensus around their opinion. Faced with disagreement, there are any number of tools available, everything from

• posting drafts of article text to talk instead of edit warring
• crafting neutral polls and RFCs
• using WP:Third opinion
• for interpersonal spats, going to WP:Mediation

Ubikwit often takes another approach, as I think regulars on this page are well aware.If any admin wishes me to take time to post examples, I'll comply, given 2-3 days. His behaviors led to a

(1) Jan 2013, Arab/Israeli subject topic ban, then

(2) Sept 2013, Tea party topic ban, then

(3) ____ 2015, Likely topic ban related to American Politics and even while this case has been pending the climate pages are blessed with his acrimony. Oh joy.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC) updated with e/c re ubikwit(below) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I had a long reply, but NewsAndEventGuy sums it up better than I had. Ubikwit's behavior seems more the problem, but regardless, this is a content dispute in an area where an admin has the authority to use a heavy fist, so I recommend that it be taken to content resolution of some sort instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for kind words Dennis, and although DR is a lovely fantasy, check out Ubikwit's reply when I suggested that yesterday

NewsAndEventsGuy: "I'm thinking the two you might be well served by utilizing WP:Dispute resolution or alternatively a self-imposed temporary interaction ban. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit: "Why would you suggest that? An editor is ignoring Talk discussion and sources in order to push a whitewashing POV obfuscating the policies promoted by the "right-wing" (or "conservative") think tanks under criticism in the sources and the article, and mischaracterizing (sic) my edits as vandalism, etc. That is conduct on the verge of meriting a misconduct report. The notion of an interaction ban is ludicrous, and the editor in question is not engaging in a GF content dispute. Meanwhile, you are an editor involved in the underlying content dispute. Here, more specifically, since the piped link you'd complained about has been removed, it is obvious that the concern you raised has been met, and the text revised accordingly, and that is what one would assume you'd be commenting on in this context.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC) (full quote, except paragraph breaks omitted)

As Ubikwit has already shat upon dispute resolution options as well as the other editor's good faith, I see little reason to think that compelling his DR participation is worth anybody's time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

(edit conflict)Perhaps this does rise to AE and DS, but I'm not sure about that, and it is more involved to post there, so this will stay here.

NAEG has also made some unproductive comments, but fortunately the disruption on the Talk page in this matter is confined to a single thread. I have informed him that the issues were related to conduct, not content per say, as Dmcq has been engaged in a meta-discourse trying to dictate editing practices, and ignoring sources, etc.

The call for a BOOMERANG is ludicrous, as is the raising of unrelated matters. NAEG's ardor here is somewhat unusual.

Here are a couple of other diffs regarding Dmcq earlier in the thread[331][332].

NAEG did mention AE, here in response to my comment, here to Dmcq proclaiming his agenda.

The disruption has to stop.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Are you making that statement after having read the relevant thread in its entirety?

I've just posted a couple of diffs, to make it easier, showing where he misrepresented both my edit and the source.

This is not a content dispute because he is refusing to address the specific sources, and instead attempting to dismiss them on fallacious grounds. He has also ignored the progression of the discussion from using "neoliberal" to "right-wing" (as opposed to "free-market" or "conservative" as too general) to "market fundamentalism", which NAEG had no objection to, at one point, though it appears that he has changed his tune here.

Regarding the actual content dispute about "neoliberal", for example, please see this edit "add re: neoliberals, with quote" , for example, to the article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• My humble opinion is that if Ubikwit thinks posting the single thread link here is helping them, a WP:CIR block is required. That thread shows Ubikwit's inability to engage with what other editors are saying. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ubikwit, I've read the thread and even went back and read the policies, since they can change from time to time. To continue down the path you are going, you need more of a consensus. You need to go to DRN, start an RFC, do something except edit and talk. Looking at the talk page, if I had to decide who was the most disruptive, unquestionably it would be you, although I don't see anything that has yet to rise to the point of needing admin action, but that is where you are heading if you don't change tactics and get outside opinions. This is not an ANI issue at this time, it is a content dispute, and the burden is on you to get the consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:@Jonhuniq: This is a good faith complaint about perceived misconduct in a non-good-faith content dispute.

I've already posted the diffs above (at least to my comment), but I want to post the text and brief explanation. The diffs relate to a total of five sources, two with quotes, that I posted here and here, beforehand.

It most certainly does matter. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize things and make them readable, not duplicate authors' own specialist in--clique lingo and confuse the audience. That you have found one description in a source does not change that more uses are made of other words in those sources that are simpler and describe the situation better, and in fact just looking at the first source in the article neoliberal is just used once whereas the terms I put in were used numerous times. If you really feel the urge to stick in things like that do it in the body of articles and not the lead, the lead in particular is supposed to be readable. Dmcq (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV instead of trying to dictate to others how to edit.
I've posted a small number of the numerous sources that use "neoliberal", and they do so because it defines a more specific set of specific principles and policy recommendations than the overly broad, general description of "free-market". Calling the term in--clique lingo and claiming I intend to confuse the audience is problematic. Making negative comments on other editors motivations is a violation of WP:NPA.
You have also misrepresented the fact that I have posted five sources above, not one, and three of them are peer-reviewed academic publications. Do not misrepresent other editors edits, as that is a violation of WP:TALK. Moreover, you have misrepresented the first source I presented, as the term "neoliberal" is used about ten times in the book. That is also a violation of WP:TALK.
Note that I have made some edits to the body of the article characterizing two think tanks as neoliberal, also based on scholarly sources, and I have added to the article on neoliberalism itself the concise summary of policies promoted by them according to the HP piece.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As I mention, it appears that he misrepresented the fact that I'd posted five sources (among many), not one (or "one description in a source"), and fails to address the multiple respective descriptions therein, which is anything but "collaborative". Note that the use of neoliberal in this context is widespread, and I have introduced new material in the related articles where it was missing as well as sources, such as nine academic publications listed in this thread.

From where I stand, Dmcq's editing is obstructionist. With regard to WP:TALK

*Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
*Be precise in quoting others.

My understanding that such comments as that posted above were a violation.
I don't think I'll have anything more to say on this.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you find a solution but you're missing the larger point; you are the one wanting to add material that is arguably contentious, thus the burden is on you to get a larger consensus. This is no different than any other article, it is how Wikipedia works and you should know this by now. The squabbling and gnashing of teeth is a waste of time, but is not actionable at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I don't want to belabor the issue, so feel free to close this thread. I would like to note that the main point of contention had been about the use of "neoliberal" in the lead, whereupon there was a move to the more focused term "market fundamentalism", which seemed to have weak consensus, as implied by NAEG's edit summary referring to the "piped link". At any rate, others can sort that out, as I don't intend to engage any further for the time being, having posted ample sourcing, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang for Ubikwit

It's unclear if Dennis' statement that there is nothing actionable includes my request for Boomerang sanctions on Ubikwit. Certainly, I think there is a large problem and the climate pages have abundant diffs that don't appear here. In addition, its sort of mind blowing that this has unfolded as arbs have hinted a site ban might be appropriate (see proposed descision on the American Politics 2 case. At any rate, since the thread was not closed, I'm going ahead with an explicit subsection heading to request discussion and explicit response on the boomerang counterpoint. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• My comment about no action being needed was for all parties. As Ubikwit concedes there is a consensus counter to his preference, I'm going to assume that means he won't revert his prefered edits back in. It never really was an ANI issue, so I'm still opting to not take any action and let it be handled on the talk page of the article, as a simple (but loud) content dispute. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis is correct. In consideration that this has been deemed to be a content dispute, I've contributed all that I reasonably could at this point, and will leave the material in question for others to consider and comment on in relation to the sources I posted. Filing this thread was the last effort I make to remedy the situation, because it is now officially a content dispute, one with respect to which I have basically exhausted my efforts and available time.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So you still think I'm someone with an agenda to oppose your well sourced edits that back your position. I didn't know about all those disputes and bans - surely they give you some pause for thought? I wish there was someone who could command your respect and who would explain things to you, any future effort on my part is obviously futile. Dmcq (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's clear a topic ban is looming based on Ubikwit's user page and the AP2 ArbCom. There is very little downside to implementing a community topic ban until AP2 is decided. --DHeyward (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• • BTW, "boomerang" is not an official function, per your summaries, there is no need to hold open a discussion simply because someone utters the phrase. Reopening just to speculate, without adding any evidence or insight, isn't particularly helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I did offer that there is little downside in topic banning him until AP2 concludes.Here you can see the proposed decision. Here you can see Unikwit expects it. What is unseemly is that an editor requests that Ubikwits behavior be examined and with hardly any comment, its closed a few hours after that request because Ubikwit request it be closed. Holding open the discussion to give time for others to examine does no harm and we are not so bureaucratic that we require NAEG to file a separate request. My proposal for a topic ban until AP2 is decided is both short term, relevant and serves the encyclopedia by preventing an escalation of disruptive behavior as the decision grows near. If he is not topic-banned by arbcom, an ANI sanction can be lifted with hardly any ill effect. --DHeyward (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I like your thinking: ArbCom's gonna do him soon anyway, so what's the friggin' difference if we do him now? That sounds equitable. BMK (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Making false accusations is a personal attack. Put up (some evidence), or shut up. I find the participation of you and SBHB here to be an interesting demonstration of the toxic group dynamic plaguing the related articles. Your statements without substantiating evidence here are the parallel to your statements on article Talk pages without support from sources, just like SBHS. Gee, what a coincidence!--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever accusation you imagine I made, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future. There still is, of coiurse, no downside to topic banning you until AP2 is decided. --DHeyward (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC).

Nope. What's passing is a topic ban from "any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people." In a recent clarification case with very close parallels to this one (even the same specific articles), Arbcom ruled that climate change is not "politics" for the purposes of such a topic ban. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Climate change is not politics??? In what universe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In Arbcom's universe. Around here, that's the only universe that counts. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, we never ruled that climate change is or isn't politics. Climate change itself is under discretionary sanctions. It's clearly possible to discuss the scientific aspects of climate change without intersecting with politics at all. Or without intersecting with American politics, which was the issue being discussed (not its intersection with politics, say, in the UK). No one on ArbCom in that discussion suggested that there are no aspects of climate that relate to politcs.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 05:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And it would be a difficult argument to make that Watts article is anything but political. He's not a scientist and all his criticism of science is done in opposition to regulation. Criticisms revolve around his funding derived from political groups. It would be like trying to argue that there are aspects of Al Gore's view on climate change that are so narrow as to escape American Politics - he may agree with the mainstream scientists but it doesn't mean that his involvement is apolitical. There are certainly intersecting articles that have much larger non-political areas (i.e. Michael E. Mann is not entirely political, nor is Judith Curry) but Watts is not one of them. --DHeyward (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a behavioral dispute and not a content dispute. Witness the fact that both editors who accept the findings of the scientific community regarding climate change and those who reject those findings have had enough of Ubikwit's tendentiousness. The latter have been a bit more vocal in calling for an immediate topic ban, but my reading is that there is a consensus. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting comment. Why don't you and DHeyward provide some evidence to substantiate your fabricated claims of tendentiousness. I note that you made a single comment

That's not quite right either. I'm acquainted with a number of prominent deniers, of which only a very small minority (one, maybe two) are "backed by industrial interests." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

in the relevant thread based on an assertion of personal expertise, with no support from sourcing, despite numerous reliably published statements that refute the inane statement you made based on an assertion of personal knowledge. That was certainly a tendentious assertion. What were your motivations for wanting to negate the sources claims that deniers are funded by industrial interests.

Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as blocks and bans...

• And I just noticed that the source Nigelj mentioned in the comment to which you responded also includes mention of "market fundamentalism".

  In addition to reversing the thirty-year privatization trend, a serious response to the climate threat involves recovering an art that has been relentlessly vilified during these decades of market fundamentalism [bolding added]

  --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It was just an offhand comment, as implied by my edit summary. I didn't expect a sort of Spanish Inquisition. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

It's simply disingenuous of you to accuse me of tendentious editing when you are one of the editors making a circus out the editing environment there by inserting stupid, insipid comments based on your purported personal experience, while attacking an editor that presents scholarly sources to support his proposed edits and rebut nonsense statements like yours.

You launched the "inquisition" by making your unsubstantiated allegation.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ubikwit is edit warring on Neoliberalism also, Huffington Post blogs and other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, [333] [334] [335] [336] [337] [338] [339] [340] [341], but when I tried to stop the edit war Ubikwit told me to fuck off [342] and reverted again [343], still pretending that Huffington Post blogs and other wikipedia articles are reliable sources, and reverted this notice [344] and this notice [345] [346] [347] Spumuq (talq) 10:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the most disruptive attempts I've seen to make a point.

The editor was apparently trying to win a content dispute by exploiting this unrelated thread.

His assertions about a "conspiracy theory" are unsupported nonsense, and he has refused to take it to the FRINGE notice board. Other editors, invcluding NAEG, who will probably change his tune again, have pointed that out. The text is sourced to a peer-reviewed academic publication, etc.

Somebody block Spumuq for disruption.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I tried to close this per last closure, but now this has escalated a bit with a new editor getting involved and Ubikwit apparently continuing in an aggressive way. However i would still close this, unless editors keep on escalating. prokaryotes (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This is terrible, Ubikwit edit warred on Neoliberalism, it was rejected on the Neoliberalism talk and on the noticeboard, when I reported it Ubikwit told me to fuck off and reverted three times to remove the report and close this thread, this is not fair, why should I be blocked for reporting a problem? Spumuq (talq) 10:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Prokaryotes:, I haven't read through the detail of this thread but feel free to close it again if you wish. Ubikwit and Spumuq, you are both on three reverts, any further reverting in this thread and I will block you for disruption. The same applies in the Neoliberalism article - seek consensus on the talkpage and stop edit warring in the article itself. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Talk page consensus is against Ubikwit, and it was rejected on the noticeboard, but Ubikwit added it again [348], I did not revert again but Ubikwit did after the warning, then Ubikwit reverted this edit warring notice three times, [349] [350] [351] this is so wrong. Now Ubikwit has won their edit war, and put their text in the article, and ignored discussion and consensus, and reverted so much, and Ubikwit wants to block me for being "disruptive" because I report their edit warring, this is terrible. Spumuq (talq) 10:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

{{Ping}|Prokaryotes}}, @Ubikwit:, and @Euryalus:... non-admin closure by either Ubikwit (a climate change editor who is the subject of discussion) or Prokaryotes (a voluminous climate change editor) are not appropriate due to conflict of interest. See WP:BADNAC. Whoever closes this, it should be someone who is not a subject area regular. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is Ubikwit allowed to edit war to close a report about his edit warring? Spumuq (talq) 10:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine,  Doing.... Give me a few minutes to untangle the thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is Supdiop removing notices too? [352] Is it because Ubikwit is on 3rr to remove his own edit warring notice? Spumuq (talq) 10:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• As an escalating block, I've blocked Ubikwit for two weeks. I tried to give every opportunity but it seems it was cast aside. Regardless, if the warring continues, considerably longer blocks and/or DS will be used. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:00, 15 June 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:Indech's personal attack

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

---

I left this user a comment on his talk page and we engaged in a civil discussion. I even agreed with him [353]. However he went ahead and posted on another user's talk page [354] the following:

"Queridão, como vai? Eu vi que você tem ajudado bastante com as edições do artigo Brazil at the 2015 Pan American Games. No começo, eu não entendi por que você estava tirando as subdivisões que eu tinha colocado, mas depois eu percebi (mesmo sem olhar no manual de estilo) e passei a adotar a sua maneira. Agora tem um comédia lá discutindo comigo que tem que deixar tudo como o artigo do Canadá (que não está tão bom quanto do Brasil). Você pode dar uma olhada e me dar uma mão com esse pentelho? Valeu! "

This is in a totally different language (which I believe violates a wiki policy, I left a warning on his talk page). The kicker is the above translates to the following: how are you? I saw that you have helped a lot with issues of Article Brazil at the 2015 Pan American Games. At first I did not understand why you were taking the subdivisions that I had placed, but then I realized (even without looking at the manual style) and spent adopt his style. Now has a comedy there arguing with me you have to leave everything as Canada's article (which is not as good as in Brazil). You can take a look and give me a hand with this brat'? Thanks!

I am not gonna be personally attacked like this without some sort of action being taken against this user. It is uncalled for. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Sportsfan1234, you hadn't agreed with me at that point. I was upset, because of the way you intervened in the article I was editing, and without any warning, reverted many of my edits, without the politeness of discussing it with me on the first hand. Furthermore, you then posted in my discussion a message with a cocky tone "Oh, can you do as say? Thanks" sort of message. Quite an attitude. Now I see you're spying on me and translating messages that doesn't even concern you. It doesn't have your name in it, so how could you call it a "personal attack"? Is qualifying your attitude as that of a brat "an attack"? And finally, how can I know you really agreed with me if you posted it afterwards? How do I know you were just building yourself a case against me, since I didn't do what you told me to? Indech (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if my post came off as cocky, that was not the intent. When I first posted that comment I was referring to the multiple differences (not the ===) on the articles between Canada and Brazil. I was following to the best of my knowledge WP:MOS, which you pointed out to me in that one instance was wrong so I went ahead and removed it for Canada's article (and the others when I do get time). I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, but merely pointing out how I was going about editing the article. Its definitely a personal attack, because it is clearly directed at me. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you know what? I'm sorry as well, since I let my self behave emotionally rather than objectively. I shouldn't have been harsh. Yes, it was uncalled for. Ok, shall we get back to work? And could you please stop stalking me? Thanks! Indech (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable if Sportsfan 1234 closed this AN/I himself, on the condition you both learn to respect each other and collaborate? That would be an easy, quick solution.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup I would like this to be closed. I do except the apology and hope the editor can show me where ever I am wrong, instead of resorting to name calling. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:31, 15 June 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.

JackETC abuse

The following discussion is closed. 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 received a message on my talk page that was incredibly rude and abusive from User:JackETC,

Titled: Rude C*nt the message read as follows "Don't delete the streak on Jack Frost's page mate, no one gives a fuc* about your opinion you fgt." [355]

I removed one of their contributions to Jack Frost (footballer, born 1992) as it was nowhere near notable, see [356]. This is not the first time they have been uncivil and abused another user, they left this message on The-Pope's talkpage in April [357].

This user often contributes information that is nowhere near notable and then abuses people when it's removed. They have broken one of the main policies of Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Civility) and in my opinion should be blocked for their behaviour. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't abuse you, not once did I swear I covered all the swear words....... and The-Pope's can actually take someones abuse unlike you... grow up and stop being jealous, I am a valuable contributor and make way better edits then you.. JackETC (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Your section heading was "Rude C*nt." That's pretty abusing and swearing. Plus I have no idea what you did here for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Using stars and shortening words does not excuse you from what you were insinuating, and your response shows that you cannot act with civility. Flickerd (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 24h per [358]. Not even close to acceptable. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Competence

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

---

Competence continues to be an issue for User talk:Futurewiki. This editor was brought to ANI here, and twice before while using the name Dragonrap2. There seems to be no learning curve. For example, they created of an article by the wrong title, then created a redirect to a more appropriate name here. Countless test edits, such as here. After thousands of edits, has no concept of how to add a reference, such as here. Any help would be of benefit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the linked previous ANI complaint, Gene93k identified Futurewiki as a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked account, 123lilbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It looks like nothing happened after that. There's arguably enough quacking to call this a duck: 123lilbrad socked as Dragon Lil Brad and Dragon Rap221, and Futurewiki socked as Dragonrap2. All of the accounts seem to edit Louisiana pages. I'm not quite sure why nobody ever filed an SPI against him as a sock of 123lilbrad. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nor am I. I do not follow this editor's work too closely but he is quite prolific and a very high percentage of his edits seems to be ill-considered or otherwise requiring cleanup. JohnInDC (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Gene isn't an admin (although he should be), but regardless, we need more links here, the past ANI and such. I see no mention of Futurewiki in the SPI archives of 123lilbrad [359] and it is obviously too stale for a CU to get involved. Proving CIR alone is often difficult, I might mention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Speaking of CIR, I went though a dozen edits, picked the article randomly and found: [360] (copyvio?), [361], [362], [363] (why is there a "song of the year" section??), so yes, there is a valid CIR issue concern. Someone who has thousands of edits shouldn't be doing this stuff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

With this user, it would be much more practical to list the useful edits they have made. It would be a short list. Most of his edits have been a word in an infobox, where he almost always inserts his POV description of what type of community he thinks it is rather than its legal description. See the edit history of Fairview Alpha, Louisiana for numerous examples. He created an article on a region in Louisiana apparently he made up. It was so poorly written as to be nearly indecipherable. It's deleted and the name escapes me. His writing suggests we are either dealing with a young child or a DD adult. He needs to be indeff'd for CIR. Following the warnings on his talk will give ample evidence. Not in a position where I can copy diffs right now, sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to see a block with only a few votes, so hoping this stays open long enough to show a solid consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to indef block Futurewiki for CIR concerns

I think the proper way to go is to let the community decide in a formal fashion. I'm proposing based on a number of edits that I have viewed that make me believe: While the editor may have the best of intentions and they edit without malice, they lack the ability to participate in a productive fashion for reasons unknown. The amount of cleanup and follow up required by other editors exceeds the amount of positive edits made by Futurewiki. This isn't something I propose lightly, but spending only 5 minutes looking at contribs makes it obvious in my eyes. They may appeal the indef block in 6 months.

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support after looking at Dennis' diffs and some random others. BMK (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support a block for either this or sock puppetry, as above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per DB and way too much personal experience cleaning up after Futurewiki. John from Idegon (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Editors spend too much time cleaning up after this editor, and time hasn't helped. JohnInDC (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Update - He has been indeff'd by Shirt58 for non communication. John from Idegon (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• • I just wrote an essay on this, Wikipedia:Communication is required. This wouldn't change the current vote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:37, 15 June 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.

Difficulties with a particular IP User

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

---

• 89.242.202.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jason Isaacs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I spent the past few days editing and cleaning up the biographic article of actor Jason Isaacs only for one very belligerent IP User at the address of 89.242.202.34 to revert my edits, automatically and without discussion nor reading the reasons I very clearly provided next to each edit prior to doing so. The same user also utilised my own Talk page to needlessly attack me, referring to me as a "troll", in addition to ranting at me in capital letters. My cautious attempt to undo their obviously vandalistic reverts resulted a severe misunderstanding which led to my own account being blocked for 24 hours whilst the IP User received only a warning. Given that the user made no fewer than 4 reverts in approximately one day (well over the rule of 3) that effectively undid all of the careful edits I had spent several days making, not to mention their repeated abusive messages to me, I am highly surprised that they are still permitted to edit. Can somebody who is available please look into this matter as soon as possible, as I would like to continue with my work on the page (in spite of having to re-write every single one of the multiple edits I made) undisrupted? Many thanks in advance, Basic Bicycle Basic Bicycle (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, RR420 also reverted 12k of your edits and YOU reverted him with no explanation. You seem to be deleting mass quantities of sourced article, you have to expect people will revert you some when you do that. You've already been blocked once for edit warring, and you barely have 100 edits. When you take something to ANI, we always review the behavior of all parties. Are you sure this is a battle you want to take on? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've left Basic Bicycle a comment on Talk:Jason Isaacs. While I concluded last night that Basic Bicycle's intent looks to be 100% good faith (note also that I believe that IP 89.242.202.34's and RR420's were also in good faith), I also agree with Dennis Brown that making too many big changes like this too fast (esp. at a fairly high profile BLP like this) will often engender controversy, and it's better to broach the subject on the Talk page first... But, beyond that, this looks to me like pretty much 100% content dispute, so I don't think there's anything here for Admins at ANI to act on, so I'd suggest a close to this thread. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Update: A WP:SPI investigation related to this has been opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aurora Prince. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: The original filer of this ANI report, Basic Bicycle has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Aurora Prince as per the SPI report mentioned above (as well as for substantially disruptive editing at Jason Isaacs). So this one can now be closed by another uninvolved editor... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 15 June 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:Schadow1 is clearly not here

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

---

Schadow1 started out as a nearly promotion only account. He was mainly interested in promoting his blog, www.s1expeditions.com, through WP:CITESPAM, [364] [365] [366]. He also operated a sockpuppet User:Philippine Adventurer to promote himself further, including creating a page about himself through the sock, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ervin Malicdem, adding himself to Wikiquote [367], and various lists [368]. This sock puppet was also abusively used to try to turn consensus to his favor in a discussion about his blog as a source on Talk:Mounts Palay-Palay–Mataas-na-Gulod Protected Landscape which led to the SPI and the decision to remove links to his blog which was endorsed by administrator @Huon:. A number of editors took part in the removal of the spam including myself, @RioHondo:, and @Whpq:. After the SPI block by @Mike V: he comes back, declares no wrongdoing [369], he says that we are censoring him, and refuses to accept that he was spamming Wikipedia. This is followed by a number of pointy edits removing various information he says relied on his blog sources on May 20th between 20:10 and 20:12 UTC. This is followed by rude comments to RioHondo. [370]. A few days later it is also followed by continued spamming of references to his blog [371].

This behavior is sufficiently bad enough to justify an indef block on its own, but what really bothered me was his most recent edit. [372] This edit not only says he does thinks Wikipedia's COI policy is hypocritical, but also includes a link to a very disturbing blog post he has written , titled Wikipedia - Handling of Facts and a Delusional Sense of Community. [373] This worst bit of this is an edited version of my user page [374] with the caption "A deletionist's user page in Wikipedia brandishing deleted pages and awards (barnstars)". Weirdly, it includes @UninvitedCompany: crat stats box next to some of my barnstars and infoboxes, the image is somewhat blurred, but it is clearly identifiable as my user page. He also calls myself, and editors indirectly working on COI editing issues in Wikipedia, "keyboard warriors" and our behavior "predatory". It is clear from that blog post he intends to continue his pattern of disruptive behavior, deception, and harassment.

Based on the evidence above I am requesting an indefinite block of Schadow1. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I didn't realize sock puppeteers were ever allowed to come back at all; at any rate, I support an indef. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I see he continued spamming after the initial block. His sentiments on the WP community and its rules rightfully belong to that website, his personal blog. And I have no issues with that. So if he limits his promotional writings to his User Page and his blog, i'm sure we'll have no problem with that. But promoting in main space is shameful, it has to stop. Just so you know, Im kinda a newbie here too, having been editing on and off for only a few years. I joined in 2012 and I can't say I know all the rules yet. I've contributed several articles but not once have I encountered any of these issues. That's because I write about things that interest me, but I have no personal interest or personal gain I want to achieve on those writings. That's the main difference between you and us. As much as I would want to continue to assume good faith in your writings, you already blew it when your head got bigger with your personal bio in main space? And all those edits linking to you and your genius blog, might be worth looking, but is still a blog. You don't have to be a veteran wikipedia writer to know that this is unethical, that this is not allowed.--RioHondo (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with his anti-Wikipedia blog post. It seems to me a well-written criticism (not a crazy rant or anything alarming) about WP policies by someone who does not get what WP is and what it is not and therefore does not understand the policies. He took the time to blur the usernames on all the screenshots as well, which seems to me he was putting those up in good faith. Personally, I would suggest blacklisting s1expeditions.com domain if possible and see if that solves the problem. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 User blocked Name represents an organization. According to the linked webpage, Schadow 1 is an organization, not an individual, an as they have been promoting said organization as well an indef block seems justified. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:05, 16 June 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:Internetwikier

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

---

This user is a single-purpose account, whose interest is focused exclusively on one institution – the United Synagogue, a union of orthodox synagogues in Britain. She has edited two other articles at Wikipedia, but those edits were intended specifically to support her particular grudge against the United Synagogue. Originally she tried to add to the article an extensive section relating to a letter by a disgruntled blogger criticizing the synagogue for its pro-Israeli positions. See, for example, this revision. In an RFC suggested by administrator User:Dweller, editors agreed that the material was inappropriate and it was removed.

Internetwikier then added material suggesting that the United Synagogue was the object of criticism for its position. For this, he relied entirely on a three-word quote from the Iranian state radio; he added other references, but none of them mentioned United Synagogue. Every attempt to edit the article or to introduce other material relevant to controversy surrounding the United Synagogue (if there is such controversy) has been reverted by Internetwikier. See this edit as an example.

Internetwikier's posts to the talkpage have been more in the style of outraged tirades than of reasoned discussion of the issues facing the article. It has been pretty much impossible to conduct serious review of the article there.

I would like to suggest that Internetwikier be topic-banned from any articles having to do with British Jewry. If in the course of the next few months, she proves to be a disciplined editor who abides by Wikipedia's policies, she could be reinstated.

Note: I have referred to Internetwikier as a female, but I have no idea as to the gender of the editor. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ravpapa: I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, this is true. I am also a specialist in the area of international politics and, for what it's worth, Cybernetics. The accusation of 'single-purpose' account is symptomatic of my early contributions to Wikipedia, nothing more.

There is nothing is my current contributions to the United Synagogue website that is against Wikipedia rules. I am more than happy for any user to contribute and indeed alter any text that I submit. However, what is not correct is when editors decide to alter direct quotes from a website to 'clarify' what they mean when my submissions makes patently clear that my contributions are direct quotes.

As I mentioned in my comments when reversing the changes that have been made to 'improve' the direct quote, if the direct quote is not to other editors liking then they need to request an amendment to the original source material or find new sources that better clarify an institutions viewpoint. There is no possible way that a Wikipedia contributor can submit unverifiable qualifiers to direct quotes for which they have no possible way of diving the speakers 'original intentions'.

This is a direct quote and as such must be quoted directly.

This seems simple enough to me.Internetwikier (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have not been party to the dispute, but for various reasons this article in my watchlist and I have been watching from afar. I would like to back up Ravpapa's complaint.

Internetwikier started editing around the time of the 2014 Israel-Gaza War with a Wikispace rant about the United Synagogue: [375][376]. His or her edits thereafter basically consist of similar negative sentiment toward various British Jewish and Zionist organizations, with a particular emphasis on the United Synagogue, where his or her edit warring resulted in temporary page protection which he or she denounced as "censorship" and other such talk.

Arguments on the talk page seem to consist mainly of long and intemperate soapboxing about Israel and Zionism and paranoid rhetoric about "the Zionist-propaganda machine", Fox News, and "US Neocon world views" (a personal attack on bobrayner [377]).

Since there is basically no constructive edits in his or her entire edit history, I would advocate a block instead on grounds of WP:NOTHERE. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@AnotherNewAccount: This is a direct quote - why alter this a pretend that the quote says anything other than it actually does on the original sources webpage?

If you wish to add new sources, please add them.

Personal attacks are unwarranted as I am quoting DIRECTLY from the organizations' website. If they had an issue with the content then they clearly would not have produced the material and worded it in such a way as to be ambiguous. Internetwikier (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I find Internetwikier's edits problematic. For example,

• 'The United Synagogue was among the groups encouraging its members to lobby MPs. Its pre-Yom Kippur message to congregants led on the issue. The Board of Deputies issued a "call to action" on Monday, saying there was a risk of a "significant PR victory for anti-Israel, anti-peace groups".' [378]

seems to have been turned into:

• "...by formally advocating that United Synagogue members put pressure on their local MP to not support the motion to recognize Palestinian as a state and that United Synagogue members instead suggest that their MP add support to Pro-Israeli and Pro-Zionist organizations, such as Israel Advocacy UK, We Believe in Israel and the Jewish Leadership Council." [379]

Suggest the editor focus on something else. [380] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Although professing to be an uninvolved editor NeilN's is clearly not disinterested. While he contributes no sources, quotes or extra material to the conversation he objects to the inclusion of extra material and references provided by others.

Extra references have have come to light ( www.borehamwoodshul.org/aboutus/files/BESNews609.pdf ), produced by those affiliated with the organization, yet you provide no justification for not including it. This needs to be addressed. Internetwikier (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am interested in making sure what sources actually say isn't distorted. And any interpretation of a primary source (i.e., "President of the United Synagogue, Stephen Pack, took a political stance on Palestinian statehood...") needs to be sourced to a secondary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• wouldn't this article as edited by internetwikier fall under WP:ARBPIA? I checked their talk history and there have been no notifications. That might be a way to start. Otherwise I would support a topic ban per WP:NOTHERE. holy cow. SPA indeed and seems to be one note POV pusher making this kind of editorializing edits and this, and on talk, this kind of thing and this. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Now notified. [381] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• We already have a surplus of POV-pushing, source-misuse, and personal attacks. We don't need any more. This should be stopped. bobrayner (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to hear from StevenJ81 and Mutt Lunker who have been editing this article and its talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to say much, because I know my own biases, too. I will say this much:

• I offered to set up a sandbox page to try to create a consensus around some reasonable accommodation to Internetwikier's point of view. Whether I like it or not—and I'm not afraid to admit that I don't—I felt the sort of information that Internetwikier wants to put on this page was likely to show up somewhere, eventually, because it was likely to have at least some coverage in some reliable sources. So what I wanted to do was to try to create a space where the critique of United Synagogue might be aired, but in a way that is proportional to its importance within the overall context of the full range of United Synagogue's activities. And everyone seemed to be satisfied with this approach. Nominally, even Internetwikier agreed.
• But I didn't create the sandbox page instantaneously, because of real life. (I warned everyone at the time that I would not be able to get to it right away.) And before I knew it, Internetwikier had started editing the United Synagogue page again. I would have assumed that s/he would have allowed some time for everyone to work on this, but apparently that was not to be the case.
• Additionally, Internetwikier took the perspective that s/he was entitled to write whatever s/he wanted, and that it was entirely up to all the rest of us to make up the articles' balance, if we saw fit. That may be one way to create a NPOV, but it's not much of a way to create consensus.
• Frankly, I walked away, about six weeks ago, because I know my biases. I had really been willing to bend backwards to give Internetwikier some air time. But I just couldn't take it any more. It was clear to me that User:Internetwikier has absolutely no interest in creating an unbiased encyclopedia article. Internetwikier is only interested in her/his perspective, and only wants to edit the article on his/her terms. There is no interest in consensus, and if there is any interest in neutrality, it's technical: the rest of us are invited to "neutralize" her/his edits.

To conclude, my offer to create a sandbox is no longer on the table. Internetwikier is simply not interested in working to create consensus on a neutral article. I can't speak one way or another to the issue of WP:NOTHERE. But I do think that Internetwikier has no business editing this page or related ones. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe it would be instructive, in light of the opinions of the few editors here (who admit that they have a 'bias' yet who fail to provide primary or supporting secondary sources in support of their own bias), to compare the United Synagogue page NOW with what it was, and what it had been for a very, very long time proceeding my intervention last June 2014.

There is a clear night and day difference between the United Synagogue page of today with that of pre-July 2014 simply because the editors in question here, who object so vehemently to my contributions, comprehensively failed to pay the United Synagogue wiki any attention whatsoever - to the point that a clearly pro-United Synagogue wiki-editor had copied and pasted vast chucks of the the United Synagogue official website and passed this off as 'objective fact' about the institution in question.

Leaving aside my clear disappointment with the lack of interest paid to this page entry before July 2014 it is also apparent that the wiki-editors in question who have chosen to 'undo' my contributions display, and admit to displaying either in person or from their listed areas of interest of their personal pages, a pro- Christian, Jewish Zionist or US perspective. This is necessarily problematic such perspectives imbue the writer with a set of beliefs that they deem to be unquestionably objective fact.

It is for other editors to merit the 'quality of my contributions', and I will indeed be making sure that Twitter users who have a range of political and historic backgrounds are now drawn to this wikipage to add their own (arguable better) edits, but what can be deduced without a shadow of a doubt is that none of the editors here have produced even a scintilla of insightful commentary or a shred if evidence for their objections to my sourced points. There are literally no entries from anyone who has any sources for their opinions, except mine. Why is this?

Also worth noting is the clear bias against any news organization who doesn't conform to the narrow world view of politically right-leaning US foreign policy. The clear hatred for an Iranian news agency is a litmus test for the impartiality and objectiveness of the editors who have objected to its inclusion into the category of 'permitted source'.

It is not, and clearly can not be, my responsibility to provide sources and evidence to the contrary that many people believe that being a religious organization and espousing a direct political opinion on a nation state is PROBLEMATIC. With the separation of Church and State, the 'norm' in 21st Century Europe, such a stance by a religious organization merits explicit mention and inclusion in a wikipage. Again, I repeat, just look at how far this page has come since July 2014. Readers can now , quite rightly, see that The United Synagogue has an overtly political active, Pro-Zionist, Pro-Israeli viewpoint that pervades its every public mention of Israel and Palestine. To hide this fact, despite my 'poor quality entries' is to engage in explicit deceit. Internetwikier (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

StevenJ81, thanks for coming to ANI and offering your experience. Internetwikier, I just wish you had a better understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSPIRACY.

As for as politically right-leaning? Usually Wikipedia gets accused of having a liberal bias and I've frequently seen Wikipedia accused of being pro-Israel, anti-Israel, pro-Muslim or Islamaphobic. Wikipedia reflects the editors who contribute to it and the reliable sources they can find to support their arguments and governed by generally accepted policies, guidelines and principles. It's a social and cultural construct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Internetwikier, Liz has it exactly right with regard to NPOV. Also we try to build content progressively related to references made in what are considered to be WP:RELIABLESOURCES in Wikipedia as considered to be relatively more reliable in general than sources that may have developed less of a reputation for fact checking. Please also make use of reference at CITING SOURCES. On various occasions looking at your citations I found it difficult to see how the citation related to the content that you had added to the text.

Please also consider WP:TALK#USE which states "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity.." While WP:Original research does not carry weight in Wikipedia it may be helpful if you can explain how you developed your views.

The most major thing that I considered to be an issue on the TP was the WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics adopted by both sides with Dweller, StevenJ81 and Technical 13 providing a potentially balancing approach throughout.

A search on site:www.theus.org.uk/ regarding zion, zionist or zionism developed a large content in regard to a controversial issue which deserves report. I sympathise with Internetwikier's desire to see this covered but don't consider the manner with which this has been pursued to have been appropriate.

Internetwikier please do some soul searching and respond to these issues. GregKaye 06:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye I appreciate you calm, measured comments. I will take on board your suggestions. I would ask that Wiki Editors here help the community to understand why relevant and non political additions to this website are continually removed (I would say censored) but leave that to the individual admin to take a look and see if I'm misspeaking here: I for one am lost for a justification for the continued removal of the Registered Charity No. of this organization and its physical address (Registered Charity No 24255; Executive Offices: 305 Ballards Lane, London N12 8GB; Tel: 020 8343 8989). Please assist the community here. Internetwikier (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Internetwikier Various editors have commented on edit warring and adding unsourced material. Even the seemingly moderate StevenJ81 has questioned the validity of your contribution to the mentioned pages. I have mentioned battle ground tactics. One route you could take is to say how you view the situation and to give any relevant reassurances regarding any potential change in approach. I appreciate comment so far regarding taking things on board. GregKaye 08:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I see. For the record, let it be noted that those editors who have made comments on edit warring are one and the very same editors who have undone my contribution 3 times in a row, rather than they themselves taking to the talk page to look for consensus or writing on my talk page first. As I am relatively inexperienced to WP and they are not, surely it there is a point to be made that trying to enforce others to adopt best practice, without doing it themselves, is a wholly self-defeating tactic on their part.

Specifically on 'edit-warring' it is no so much a question of me adding un-sourced material as the material I add being deleted buy other editors which appears to be exclusively motivated by a desire to remove sources simply because RT News/Press TV has the audacity to print articles that these editors do not agree with, claiming that the aforementioned organizations are not reliable sources of news. Are we really going to censor any output of RT News and Press TV because they're the United States' boogieman of the day?

Wikipedia 'represents consensus' and as such hotly political issues represent a challenge to Wikipedia as sometimes there is no consensus, rightly or wrongly, to be found (Wikipedia apes real life in that respect). However I am not attempting to force anyone to agree with what I believe in nor am I removing any other contributors material - I encourage other too add material to 'balance' by assertions. If it matters to anyone out there, and you appear to suggest that it does matter, then MY personal opinion is that if a religious organization blurs the distinction between religious body offering spiritual guidance to the flock and political lobbyist designed to promoting a racist, inaccurate version of a historical narrative that is 1) deeply divisive and offensive, 2) controversial 3) not independently referenced and, for me the most worrying, 4) behaves in flagrant violation of the rules of a UK registered charity which, according to the UK Charities Commission states that:

Charities can campaign to achieve their purposes. But a charity can’t A) have a political purpose, or B) undertake ::::::::::political activity that is not relevant to the charity’s charitable purposes

then, yes, I do believe that this irresponsible and deeply partisan behavior should be documented publicly on Wikipedia. I would hope that you all too would share these modest goals and hope you can suggest ways of helping me to achieve this in fair and 'balanced way'. (Edit unsigned by Internetwikier, 07:03, June 7, 2015‎)

@Liz: Since you invited me here, I'd like to make sure you see one more comment I will make here. Then I'm going to un-follow this page, because as happened when I was previously working on Talk:United Synagogue six weeks ago, I no longer feel I can participate constructively; it is upsetting me too much.

Internetwikier is repeating a pattern here. Initially, s/he is happy to "take on board your suggestions" about handling things in a measured, balanced way. S/he is a good writer, and knows how to say the right things to suggest s/he will stay within the rules. But soon enough an agenda clearly emerges:

• "MY personal opinion is that if a religious organization blurs the distinction between religious body offering spiritual guidance to the flock and political lobbyist designed to promoting a racist, inaccurate version of a historical narrative ..." (emphasis added). I'm a big believer in WP:AGF—including, early on, assuming so with Internetwikier. But that is such a strong bias that I do not really see how Internetwikier can possibly contribute constructively to this page.
• "A charity can't ... B) undertake political activity that is not relevant to the charity's charitable purposes." I think the United Synagogue itself would argue that what it is doing is entirely relevant to the charity's charitable purposes. But unless Internetwikier can find a reliable source that says that US is undertaking political activity not relevant to the charity's charitable purposes, then Internetwikier's proposition on the subject is WP:OR, and has no business here. And if Internetwikier has such a source, quote it, and let it speak for itself.
• "... I do believe that this irresponsible and deeply partisan behavior should be documented publicly on Wikipedia." Again, this is an incredibly biased and partisan point of view in and of itself. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. There are many, many places that Internetwikier can go to express an opinion, try to document and report partisan behavior (sic), and so forth. But that's not the proper purpose of Wikipedia, until and unless the facts are firmly established and of encyclopedic reliability.

If anyone is asking me, the article as it now exists covers the topic appropriately. It devotes a small, but non-trivial, amount of space to the subject of United Synagogue's support of Israel and Zionism. This is reasonable in view of the fact that Israel advocacy is just one piece of what the United Synagogue does—again, not a trivial piece, but not the majority of what it does. Then about 60% of that small section speaks about what US does, and about 40% is devoted to critique of what it does. Again, I think that shows pretty reasonable balance.

I just started writing "I'm not sure why Internetwikier needs to add more along these lines to the article," but actually, I do know why: Internetwikier has an agenda, and wants to expose what s/he sees as racist, irresponsible, partisan behavior. So I welcome Internetwikier to do so—in a journalistic setting, not in an encyclopedia.

I'll add one last thing: If Internetwikier is really so concerned about improper behavior under UK charities laws, s/he can write to criticize charities that encourage members to support Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Somehow, I don't think we're really going to see that very soon. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban
So, on June 5, Internetwikier was given notice of discretionary sanctions. The very next day, internetwikier invoked Godwin's law on the United Synagogue talk page. That is about enough, right? Propose topic ban from Judaism and Zionism, broadly defined. If an admin wants to do that via DS, more power to them. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC) (struck due to sound of wind whistling through empty streets Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC))

@Liz: @GregKaye: @Jytdog: @StevenJ81:

1) You don't have to do any searching all to find the following articles linked from Google when entering 'british zionist organisations charitable status'. These fist page links alone are enough to demonstrate the controversial and glaringly obvious 'hidden' agendas these 'charities' hold by promoting political and racial viewpoints that are contrary to the terms of the charities commission. You've even got an example of an organization stripped of its status for pro-Israeli Arab-bashing!

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/asa-winstanley-uk-charity-with-mossad-links-secretly-denounc.html http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/charity-commission-attacks-gaza-convoy.html http://www.stopthejnf.org/israel-charity-registration-shows-charity-commission-failed-to-protect-public-interest/ http://www.bradfordpsc.org.uk/?p=64 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3541746.stm

2) FWIW we have already written to the charities commission so your suggestion StevenJ81 was a good one, but 9 months too late.

3 )As for Liz's '60% this, 40% that nonsense' how do you propose passing that off as encyclopedic quality editing? You can only add a little more information about a particular facet of an organization, up to a certain percentage, so that it 'represents the % of what the organization does in the real world!?' How on earth would you go about calculating that? And how would you know? And why would we trust your 40% guesstimate anyway?

No. Instead, how about the rest of Wikipedia contribute content based on where their area of expertise lies and if you don't have anything to add to the page, you know, to get the %'s up or down as you see fit, you just accept that fact and move on?

The controversial truth is that the US.org.uk have themselves decided that their raison d'etre be all about Israeli self-promotion and political Zionism that underpins it. I didn't decide this, nor, as you can tell, do I think it's particularly helpful and constructive in promoting religious tolerance (notice I didn't say race here as 'Jewishness' is not a ethnic category, ethnos being another unhelpful divisive artificial categorization notoriously co-opted and misused for political gain, but I digress). If Zionism and pro-Israeli propaganda permeates 100% of everything they do does that then mean, according to Liz's equation, that the page should be 100% about Zionism and Israel? Or is it only about website coverage? Or working hours spent on pro-Israeli issues? I'm sure you can see from my highlighted suggestions that this is problematic and not useful. You basically need to add more content yourselves if you want to 'dilute' our efforts to highlight Zionism within the United Synagogue. Internetwikier (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Internetwikier to whom are you referring when you write "we" and "our"? (e.g. "FWIW we have already written to the charities" and "And why would we trust your 40% guesstimate anyway?" Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the percentages were my writing, not those of @Liz. And clearly, I'm not looking to measure this like we measure flour in a cup measure. My suggestion was more along the lines of "Israel advocacy/Zionism is only a portion of the activity of United Synagogue, so it should only be a portion of the article" and "that portion of the article is more or less evenly divided between description and critique." There's no "equation involved." Cut it out. What I am suggesting is that you are giving undue weight to a portion of the United Synagogue's activities. That's it. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: "Israel advocacy/Zionism is only a portion of the activity of United Synagogue, so it should only be a portion of the article" is an opinion based on what source exactly? Have you been to their website, read their material, watched their youtube output?

I asked you in all honestly because I can assure you that you won't go for one page of content or 30 seconds of video footage before reference is made to Israel. Does that sound like it's 'only a portion of their activity' if reference to Israel is found in almost every article they write / speak about? Be honest. Internetwikier (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested sanction: Topic Ban

1. (Language originally that of @Jytdog, but I concur.) On June 5, Internetwikier was given notice of discretionary sanctions. The very next day, Internetwikier invoked Godwin's law on the United Synagogue talk page. That is about enough, right?
2. (own language) In the section above, I have made a clear case that Interwikier's point of view is so biased that this user cannot contribute in a productive, balanced way on this page, or on any related page.

Therefore, I propose: Topic ban from Judaism and Zionism, broadly defined. I believe this remedy is available via DS, but I will be happy to start any mechanism available to make this happen. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regretfully, I'd support that. Internetwikier seems unable to edit collegiately or without bias. --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regretfully my a*se! How about you add some balancing material yourself if it is so important that this page appears balanced - although I'm sure Godwin would also like the page on Hitler to paint a balanced picture too, eh?

That modern day Israel has enlisted an army of PR representatives in the British Jewish establishment has been documented fully. Balanced material would say that you add reasons why this is not 'bad', per se, not that you just deleted the material that said that this is so. Internetwikier (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you quite understand the actual meaning of Godwin's Law. Perhaps read that first, and then understand how your editing correlates. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}

Ok, please someone block this user, before they get out of hand with their ranting.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• support use of DS or community topic ban, whichever comes first. User is using up all the WP:ROPE they've been given here, which has been very generous. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - if my block proposal is not adopted. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I see no reason for a broad topic ban. This is the only article where Internetwikier has shown his pugnacious editing style. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Ravpapa: Would narrowing a ban to British Jewry, broadly defined be narrow enough? There seem to have been a couple of things at other pages related to British Jewish organizations, if I recall correctly. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support time limited ban with the hopeful intent so as to "guide" Internetwikier to also adopt the editing of other topic issues. After reading through the page I think that, while "pugnacious" seems to me to be a bit strong, it none-the-less tackles a central issue with this editor. Please can editors give recommendations to IW of relevant guidance to consider. GregKaye 10:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Greg, part of the problem is: we've tried. I've tried (see above). You've tried, I know. We've tried to suggest guidance and policy, to offer a sandbox for hands-on, constructive engagement, to give recommendations to IW. Ultimately, IW takes the position: "I can write what I want if I have reliable sources, and the rest of you are responsible for providing content and volume to balance it if you think it's necessary." It ignores certain pieces of policy and guidance (WP:consensus, especially, and also WP:undue and WP:BALASPS and the "discuss" of WP:BRD) and then shoves the rest in people's faces (WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:Balance). IW does not want to listen. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There is also the aspect of WP:CENSOR. I agree that there should be a collaborative approach with built in patience that IW woefully seems to lack at present but, beyond those issues, there is a case for adding reliably sourced content within encyclopedias especially when an option is given to other editors to add other content that they think will suit. If IW is topic banned, editing other topics, which would be something that would be largely new to (I think) him, may be the route to a breakthrough. Maybe not in which case he would be on a relatively straightforward path to another ban.

As an alternative I could suggest a topic ban that he can appeal after a short time period but only on proof of constructive editing within other topic areas. If, for instance, Dweller thought this was unrealistic I would be happy to withdraw the suggestion. GregKaye 19:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternative sanction: Indef block

WP:NOTHERE.   AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference one way or the other between this and my proposed sanction. I would certainly support this approach if the community and/or administrators think it preferable. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC). [Addition:] At this point, I prefer the other sanction. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I would still like this to get the attention of an administrator. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Currently not justified. --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Update: INDEF block per NOTHERE applied following this unacceptable edit. Internetwikier is welcome to explain in an unblock request how they will attempt to change their way of editing, from utter non-neutrality to something more encyclopedically acceptable. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive renomination at AfD

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

---

On 10 May 2015, the article Brian Armstrong (diver) was nominated for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Brian Armstrong (diver). This generated considerable debate both for and against deletion, with good-faith disagreement about whether the amount of coverage by The Learning Channel, the Columbia Star and ABC constituted "significant coverage from sources independent of the subject". After being twice re-listed, the discussion was closed after more than three weeks on 3 June 2015 as "no consensus" and the article was kept.

A mere 12 days later, Wikimandia has renominated the article at WP:Articles for deletion/Brian Armstrong (diver) (2nd nomination) without providing any further rationale beyond what was debated in the first nomination. This is contrary to WP:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion, which states "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome."

I believe that the correct procedure for disputing the closure should have been deletion review and I raised my concern in the first place at Wikimandia's talk page. As can be seen, despite this being the only occasion I've raised this question with him, I received an uncivil response ("You still seem to not understand ...", "stop pestering me)" that indicates he neither accepts the Wikipedia policy, nor intends to amend his actions.

I therefore request admin intervention to (1) strike the renomination; (2) explain to Wikimandia our policy on renomination and deletion review; and (3) warn him about the potential consequences of his breaches of policy. --RexxS (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• My experience with AFD (2000+ of them) has been that if it is closed as "keep", then waiting a few months is expected, but if it is closed as "no consensus", it is pretty much fair game. Not necessarily a good thing to renom so quickly and I don't think it is good practice, but policy doesn't seem to bar it so I can't justify taking action on it. No Consensus is not the same thing as keep. The article is kept because that is the default state when it was nominated, ie: no action is taken because there is no agreement. That is very different than a keep. And DRV is only when you dispute the rationale and/or conclusions of the closer, not when you disagree with the consensus or lack thereof, so that doesn't apply here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• The first AfD was closed as no consensus - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Armstrong (diver). Note closing admin's comment that notability still was not apparent. I did not create the original AfD but participated in it. Two of the people One person who argued strongly for keeping the article was his friend in real life (who made the article in the first place); I feel the the "keep" arguments did not come close to demonstrating notability, and that these kind of vanity articles are not beneficial to Wikpedia. This is why when I saw the AfD was closed as no consensus, I renominated it; I don't feel that is in bad faith. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with renominating an article for deletion that was closed with no consensus, nor is there any kind of guideline that says a certain period of time must pass. I explained this to RexxS's at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Armstrong (diver) (2nd nomination) after he left a comment about the renomination being disruptive and in bad faith. He then immediately left this message on my talk page, again saying I was being disruptive, and insisting I close the AfD. This is why I again explained the AfD was not closed as kept, therefore the guideline he was pointing to did not apply, and asked him to please stop pestering me to withdraw it. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Dennis. After a keep close, it is now considered necessary to wait for a few months unless there is some significant reason otherwise; after successive keep closes the necessary interval greatly increases, but these repeated attacks on consistent keeps are fortunately much less common than they were 5 years ago.

It is different after no-consensus. In principle,they can be renominated immediately, but that is rarely wise, unless the reason for no consensus was lack of people commenting. If the reason was an intractable dispute over the applicable policies and guidelines,I usually advise waiting about a month at least, in order to give people time to think again & to give consensus a chance to develop--in practice, doing it sooner tends to give the same result & will therefore not accomplish its purpose. Waiting only 12 days is not necessarily a good idea, but it is not against our practices and is not abusive. And if DRV were appealed to , the result would almost certainly be, just renominate it again. DGG ( talk ) 13:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your insights, Dennis, but how do you square up the distinction you make with "users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page"? Are "no consensus" closes somehow less in need of improvement than "keep" closes? DRV is described at Wikipedia:Deletion policy #Deletion review in these terms: "If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion was improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review." I see nothing there that constrains it to only disputing the rationale and/or conclusions of the closer. Why would our policy differ so significantly from your view of it? @Wikimandia: I see Animalparty and you arguing for deletion or merging; and Gene Hobbs, Hithladaeus, Pbsouthwood and me arguing to keep. But you assert that "Two of the people who argued strongly for keeping the article were his friends in real life" - Who are these two people? Gene clearly knows the subject, but who else? and how did you reach that conclusion? --RexxS (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • • For whatever it's worth, I've met the old user:Orthogonal once. I know one Wikipedian otherwise. In my "keep" rationale, I mentioned knowing about the dive shop culture around Wilmington as a form of background knowledge. That's because I lived in the Research Triangle Park for a decade. I do not know, have not known, and do not intend to meet anyone involved in these debates, and I'm pretty sure they feel likewise. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it had been two but it was the original article creator. I never thought you were one of the friends, Hithladaeus. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• • • My view (and DGG's from what I know of him) are the same as policy. Reading a single sentence doesn't give context. DRV isn't for when you disagree with the outcome, it is for when you disagree with the process used in reaching the outcome. It isn't a review of the merits, it is a review of the process, and has always been that way. "Reasonable amount of time" is intentionally ambiguous to allow flexibility. The merits in the previous AFD isn't a bar to renominate when it is closed as "No Consensus", btw. As for context, you are leaving out the most important part in your quote above: "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again." The page wasn't kept as a "keep", it was kept as a default action. No action. Punted. As I explained, those are two very different things. No Consensus != Keep. The rules are very different for each. Now, if this was done multiple times, then you have a case for a pattern of behavior that is not conducive to building an encyclopedia, but you can't show that with a single instance of renom'ing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clarifying your comments, Dennis. You seem to be saying that if the page is kept because of a "keep" closure, editors should have a reasonable amount of time before the article is renominated for deletion, to give editors time to improve the page; but if the page is kept because of a "no consensus" closure (even after considerable debate and two re-listings), then editors shouldn't have any time to improve the page. With all due respect, that doesn't seem to make much sense to me. --RexxS (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Pedantic observation with no opinion on best practice: Policy says "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept", not "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept as a 'Keep" (my emphasis). In the case in question, after the debate concluded the page was kept. Mr Potto (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

RexxS, I think you're right to say "You seem to be saying" because what you say next is not what Dennis was saying. You write, if the page is kept because of a "no consensus" closure (even after considerable debate and two re-listings), then editors shouldn't have any time to improve the page. No one, even those who argued for deletion, is saying that editors shouldn't have any time to improve the page. What they are saying is that if an AFD is closed with a "no consensus" decision, there is no requirement to wait to renominate it. Because there is the possibly that an article can be renominated doesn't mean that it should be renominated, just that there is no official reason to reject the act as being too soon. You might see this as a distinction without a difference but I think a big one exists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• • • • There are reasons why immediately renominating an article after a "No Consensus" closure makes sense. No participation, events change, misunderstandings in the last AFD, etc. Other reasons are rather thin but it is still acceptable. As it stands, the policy is intentionally lax in this area to allow flexibility. If someone abuses this to disrupt the article, that is a different issue. A single renominating doesn't usually qualify as disruption, as we assume good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes. When you renominate after a "keep", it can only be because you disagree with the decision — "the first decision was a keep, but here's why they were wrong". Renominating after a no-consensus close is generally done because you want to get consensus; it's not particularly different from just relisting the original nomination. It's often not good to renominate as soon as the first one's closed, but that's simply because you're less likely to get participation from uninvolved people: as long as you're doing it in good faith with decent reasons, I can't think of a situation where it would be disruptive to renominate a no-consensus close. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree with User talk:Mr Potto- not pedantic, just accurate precision of language: the result of the AfD was effectively to keep the page in article space by the very fact that the opposite choice that could have been taken to remove it was not. It was a decision not to delete it, rather than a decision to keep it. But in an arena inhabited only by the two options, acting in one way has a concomitant result in another. Or something like that _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• It is quite pedantic to beleaguer this point. In the context of Articles for Deletion, "kept" specifically refers to the outcome of the AfD, where the three options are 1) Keep (page should be kept) 2) Delete (page should be deleted), 3) Closed with No Consensus (no action will be taken). Thus, when an AfD is closed as kept, it states at the top, "The result is "Keep." As has been pointed out by very experienced editors familiar with AfD, "no consensus" is not the equivalent of "keep" in any way. If this is really truly confusing to so many people (and I don't see how it is, as this may possibly be the first ANI reporting someone for renominating an article that was closed as no consensus... I feel honored to be part of something truly historic), then the text of the guideline should be edited to make that perfectly clear. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:58, 15 June 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.

173.182.136.41 on Fifty Shades of Grey (film)

The following discussion is closed. 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,

173.182.136.41 have repeatedly introduced factual error on Fifty Shades of Grey (film) ([382][383]). When I reverted his vandalism of the page, he reverted my revert and posted the comment "Your lying chinese editors have no brains just like your lying british editors they own.". I believe this constituted unacceptable personal attack and request that administrators consider banning the user for vandalism and improper behaviour.

Thanks, — Andrew Y _talk 22:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Links: 173.182.136.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, not this person again. The IP has been doing this change since early February with two other separate IP address: 184.162.146.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 207.134.235.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They began changing American movies and whatnot into British things sine January [384] [385] [386] [387] [388] on other articles. However, they have merged to a Fifty Shades of Grey related article, such as Dakota Johnson [389] [390]. They took a break and returned adding factual errors on the film's article [391] [392] [393] [394] (using 207.134.235.81). They moved IPs and started vandalizing and edit-warring again using 184.162.146.227: [395] [396] [397] [398] [399]. They returned in April after those edits and resumed vandalizing once more: [400] [401] [402]. They were consequently and finally blocked on April 8 by Materialscientist. And now they've returned with bogus editing again. After using an IP locator, I discovered the three IPs are from Canada: two from Montreal and one from Toronto. Callmemirela (Talk) 23:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Completely unacceptable grammar, more like... Carrite (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Sounds like a job for an edit filter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• • I agree that an edit filter might be the way to deal with this. I'm not going to block at this stage as it seems the person in question IP hops fairly frequently, so a block won't achieve much and would run the risk of collaterally blocking someone else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC).

• Semi protect the article for a time? Blackmane (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. I'm a little surprised that it wasn't already, given how often the main page was/is vandalized. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• This looks to be the fourth time it'll be protected. Prior protections have been for months at a time and vandalism has recommenced once it was up, so I'm giving this a year this time around. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• • If this continues at other articles than those being protected drop me a message, an edit filter shouldn't be difficult to set up for this user. Sam Walton (talk) 09:32, 14 June 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 made on politician's BLP

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

---

Today I ran across these two diffs [403][404]. Another editor reverted the first, and I reverted the second. I placed a {{uw-vandal4im}} on the IP's talk page, after which the IP felt it worthwhile to insult me [405]. I don't care about the insult (WP:NPA is an unenforced policy anyway, and insults are rampant on the project). But, the threat? I recognize that it is very likely an empty threat, but how do we handle such things? I know we have a procedure for people indicating they intend to commit suicide, but threats? Is there a procedure? Addendum; while writing this the IP has once again made the threat [406]. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC) (and again)

The account has now been blocked [407]. Is there a procedure for further action or no? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The policy on suicide threats says that emergency@wikimedia.org should be notified of threats of violence as well as of suicide threats. Report it and let the WMF prioritize. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This is probably one someone should contact the appropriate authorities on pronto. Better safe than sorry. Likely just a guy blowing off steam, but not the way to go about it and the IP should understand that once he cools down. Randy Kryn 18:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Another IP from a different block is now making the same threat. Semi-protection is in order, as is notifying the WMF. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I semied the article for three days after I saw the second IP pop up to ward off further disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

WMF has been notified. User:109.144.191.252 needs to be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

...and is blocked [408]. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violation

The following discussion is closed. 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 May user Timbouctou was ARBMAC topic-banned from all topics related to Croatia. He appeared to ignore the sanction completely and on the same day edited several articles about Croatian sports, movies, music etc. That resulted in a warning by admin Future Perfect at Sunrise, who applied the topic ban in the first place. Despite this the user again ignored the ban and over the past several weeks has extensively edited a wide range of articles pertaining to Croatian events, places, politicians, and sports: [409] --Potočnik (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

One could argue whether "Croatian sports", "Croatian movies", "Croatian music" are "related to Croatia." The unwarranted, entirely arbitrary and insanely wide scope of my topic ban was result of a troll expanding his trolling habits over to ANI. I have no reason to believe this report is anything different. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked one month. --John (talk) 13:18, 17 June 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:DHeyward bullying me on a talk page

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

---

I asked a serious question on Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. Bruce was her middle name originally and William was her first name. Did Jenner change her first or middle name to Caitlyn? A user named DHeyward insists on bullying me by constantly removing my question. DHeyward should not be allowed to harass and troll people. Alheertyour (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Third edit master of templates, reverts and ANI. Serious question? No. WP is not a forum to ask questions that have obvious answers. --DHeyward (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If Jenner was born "William Bruce Jenner", he then decided at some point to go by "Bruce Jenner". Whether he changed his name legally or not is almost irrelevant, because he was a public person and that was his public name. Now, that individual has changed genders and is "Caitlyn Jenner". If we happen to come by her full legal name somewhere, whatever it is, we can put it into the article, but, again, it's fairly irrelevant, because as a public person she presents herself to the world as "Caitlyn Jenner". The question of which part of their name they changed is pretty silly: they were once "Bruce Jennery" and are now "Caitlyn Jenner", that's really all that matters. The rest is pedantry, from which I also get a slight whiff of ... attempting to discredit this person, by opening up the possibility that her "legal" name is "William Caitlyn Jenner" or "Caitlyn Bruce Jenner". I'd say that DHeyward is right, and the question you're asking is not worth being asked. BMK (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BMK and DHeyward and have warned the OP not to do it again. If this recurs let me know. I think it is ok to archive this now. --John (talk) 13:10, 17 June 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.

Hogenakkal Falls Location Dispute

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

---

Hi All,

This is the incident i want to bring it to light , some miscreant administrators of Hoggenkkal page are misusing their privileges to update the page as per their knowledge and reverting edits of majority people with credible information, and they are not updating the page even though complete proof is provided to them and suppressing freedom of speech and information by blocking,reverting and finally responding with irrelevant information on talk page.

I Hope wikipedia will consider this issue and look into the matter as the freedom information is at stake due to miscreants from that page. Please find below the issue and resolve it as soon as possible as the region Hoggenkkal falls is integral part of Karnataka from many centuries.

Page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogenakkal_Falls Change Location from Tamilnadu to Karnataka Proof : https://www.google.co.in/maps/place/Hogenakkal+Falls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthick1980 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

NOte. Google Maps should not be used as a source. Use a Govt source instead. @Karthick1980:. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I am the "miscreant administrator" who blocked this account for ignoring the seven references placed in the article and repeatedly changing this without any discussion and just blanking any warnings. And the "irrelevant information" I posted is to refer him to past discussion on the same as well as the numerous references inline. —SpacemanSpiff 15:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Your desysop is in the mail, miscreant "Spiff". I suggest you transmogrify into a slug the size of the Chrysler building and stop messing around. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with the good doc: ::And before I forget, this used to be the work of the community banned Naadapriya(not notifying as he has stopped using that account a few years ago) which is how I first got to this page. I haven't been around for a while, so not sure if there's anything to track on that front currently. —SpacemanSpiff 16:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

So, when did you become the admin of the Hogenekkal Falls, SpacemanSpiff? On a serious note, should the article be semi-protected? And I believe this section can be be closed. The matter is merely a content dispute, not worthy of ANI. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've never protected the article as I usually just blocked the socks, but the article has a protection log longer than many of the India articles, and I'd say for good reason. If semi-protection is removed, it'd just go back to the territory wars.—SpacemanSpiff 16:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think Spiffy owns the falls--his family basically controls the area, which is how I got to be named "honorary Tamil". It's not a content dispute, really: someone messing with the article in a way that contradicts what the references says, that's behavior. I've had a quick look at their edits and I think that if Karthick1980 continues this particular dispute in the article they deserve an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for confirming that wiki is not a credible source of information, update whatever you want and block whoever you want..!! Now on wiki is completely blocked from our network..!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthick1980 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 17 June 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.

Disturbing edits by user:Schaengel

Collapsed 2 images. Which photo is better is a content dispute which should be dealt with on the article talk page, not here. BMK (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Is this image a better image illustration for the Basilika articel then the newer one? I think no. Obviously is distorted, the foreground is disturbing, it's less sharp, is has less resolution and the ensemble of fountain and church is IMO not suitable for a church articel. My proposal that is rejected without reasonable argument from Schaengel

Schaengel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) declares articels of Koblenz to his property and reverts my replacement of this high quality image File:Koblenz - Basilika St. Kastor Westfassade.jpg of Basilica of St. Castor and supplyes instead this two images of him (File:Koblenz_im_Buga-Jahr_2011_-_Basilika_St_Kastor_01.jpg and File:Koblenz_im_Buga-Jahr_2011_-_Basilika_St_Kastor_02.jpg. This is not only an content dispute because Schaengel refuses a factual discussion and reverts me in all wikpedia projects. Very poor behaviour and at expense of the article quality of the illustration. On German wikipedia a admin has already rebuked his notorious editwar behaviour. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• You need to provide more diffs of him reverting you here, or other behavior. The images you provided could be argued either way. As for other Wikipedia projects, that is outside the scope of the English Wikipedia, we have no authority there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The diffs you can see if you look at his contribs, but ok. He reverted me in four articels [410], [411], [412], [413], some also twice. The reverts in other WP projects are not to punish here but show the range of his behaviour. Schaengel is not willing to argue, either in the German Wikipedia (home) nor here. So this is a real problem. The replaced images are from many objective standards very high level compared to his images, he will notoriously save for "his" Koblenz articels. --84.174.225.45 (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC) // forgotten to login --– Wladyslaw (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again, we don't care about the German Wikipedia. Most of us don't speak enough German to use the evidence anyway as we would have no context. As for the reverts here, you both have been reverting each other. I haven't seen where you have once approached them on the talk page of the articles. Before coming to ANI, you have to attempt a dialog with them. ANI is the last resort, not the first. At this stage, it is nothing but a content dispute, verging on an edit war in some areas, and no one has tried to discuss yet. We do NOT settle content disputes at ANI, ever. Go discuss first. WP:BRD is a good read for both of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, that's a little parochial, and we do have some people here who know some German. While it is true that behavior on dewiki is beyond our authority, if there have been sanctions against him there, that is legitimate for this wiki to use as corroborating evidence of a pattern of behavior. Wladyslaw, it would help if you added a link to any formal sanctions or rebuke on dewiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but what exactly is the problem? The diff links of his revert took place here at en.wiki not at de.wiki. He is not willing to argue with me. So if you don't think that his behaviour at en.wiki is harmfull I am very surprised. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That said, Wladyslaw, you do have to try to engage him on the talk page(s) explicitly first, as Dennis has said. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please look here [414] (do not editwar, use the discussion page, Schaengel reverts all over all wikipedia projects to save "his" images, next revert and I will tell this to an admin), I already pleased him to use the talk page, without positive result. He reverted me again. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As I read it, Wladyslaw is saying "he's causing problems here [gives examples], just like he did at de:wp". He doesn't seem to be asking for sanctions based on Schaengel's actions at de:wp. Nyttend (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the diffs that Wladyslaw links, together with their page histories, I agree with his assessment of the situation. It looks like Schaengel's acting to protect his image from getting replaced — other than reverting people who remove his image, he's not made any edits since May, so I'm confident that he's not explained himself anywhere or attempted to discuss on a talk page. Moreover, he's reverted an IP address, too; while it may be Wladyslaw's, judging by the similarity between it and Wladyslaw's 84.174.225.45 up above (also note that Wladyslaw and Taxiarchos are the same person), it's clearly not a case of him stalking Wladyslaw: he's simply acting to protect his image. Finally, Wladyslaw stopped after one reversion on most of these pages, and Schaengel's version is the current one on all of these pages (except Koblenz, where another user restored Wladyslaw's), so I think we ought not consider him guilty of edit-warring. I've left Schaengel a final warning for ownership on top of the warning for edit-warring that someone else already left for him. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me write more carefully, Wladyslaw. Nobody here is saying that what the other user was doing here was right. One question here is: are you responding in the right way? Or is what you're doing just as much a problem?

• You cannot rely on edit summaries to ask the other user to talk to you. You have to go to the appropriate talk page and open a discussion there. And you have to notify the other user of the discussion, either with a ping, or preferably with a note on the user's talk page. Until you do those things, we can't help you here.
• Dennis suggests that you read WP:BRD for further information about that. I agree.

If you've done all that, you can come back for help.

• What Dennis was saying is that we do not impose sanctions on users because they also behave badly on other wikis.
• My response to him was that behavior on other wikis can be used as a factor when we impose sanctions on users because they behave badly here.

But we can't do any of this until you go through the steps I said above. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

[ec with Wladyslaw] StevenJ81, please note that Wladyslaw already tried to engage at Commons: see the page history of Commons:User talk:Schaengel. Schaengel's response? Simple reversion. This is not someone who's interested in collegial editing: it's someone who doesn't want his image to be removed, to the extent that he'll oppose the other guy's featured picture nomination when everyone else is supporting it. When someone's doing the same thing across nine WMF wikis, and someone addresses it on one, there's no need to address it on any of the other eight. When you edit-war on nine wikis, and you reject discussion when asked, it's clear that you'll not stop unless you get your way or unless you're forced to stop. Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait a few days if Schaengel is writing s.th. at the talk pages. Weegeerunner already reverted him in one of the four articels. If he didn't bring s.th. reasonable against my image proposal I will replace the images as I already did today. If Schaengel will revert me again I'll tell you again and than it's clearly again what is clearly (for me) already now, that Schaengel only will force his "ownership" on the articles. Thank to all for your help. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Nyttend. I don't actually disagree with you, but on a technical issue Dennis is right. We technically can't act here because of behavior there, if you will. Once Wladyslaw makes a single, by-the-book effort to engage Schaengel here, it becomes much easier to add in Schaengel's behavior everywhere else to throw the book at him. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with your first statement, but not with your conclusions. The parties have already interacted in a public manner; requiring interaction here before sanctions would be rather excessively bureaucratic when the guy's pretty obviously breaking our policies and demonstrated his disinterest in collegial editing. Schaengel has been edit-warring and demonstrating page ownership here, to an extent that ignoring his current warnings will mean that he deserves to be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're allowed to make that call. I'm not. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

And, let me add, then we could probably go to the stewards and establish a cross-wiki sanction, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I can´t believe what I read here. The wikipedia really doesn´t need any autors anymore. I will consider to leave, I can´t be part of such less esteem in my article work. --Schaengel (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to avoid misunderstanding. My intention wasn't that Schaengel will be punished. I guess the words of many users here had stopped his notorious reverts. Maybe he had a bad day and I will not overrate his behaviour. My proposal to Schaengel: switch off the PC, I will not revert you and not edit in "your" articels. Take a break and return in a few days and will find a solution. But this assumes that your are willing. I hope you understand this and will not be miffed. Maybe we can close this for today. This [415] should be uptaken as assistance and good will. It's up to you if you revert this and leave or take part in a matter that is ruled and suggested to have a good basic. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If it cant get any worser, then there is the last kick off ... please stop talking so much sh... --Schaengel (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it was my last but serious try. If collaborative work and discourse is "shit" in your feeling I have n.th. to say anymore here. Really breathtaking crude aspects of you. If you are not willing to discuss you have to leave. In this case your work and participation here can only be due to a big misunderstanding of the project scopes. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh I know that I am right. Its a big show what are you doing here at all channels, and most of the time you are talking with yourself. The german wikipedia looses so much authors ... now you know why. --Schaengel (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't talk to myself, I make documentation of the reasons for the image replacement I did. And you inculpated my to be not polite to you because I did't talk to you. Now I am talking and try to make reasonable why I repleced the pictures and all this is also not right to you. Did you really know what you want? The fading of authors is a complex problem that has multiple reasons. It has so multiple reasons that one person by oneself can't be responsible for that. Not even you that exhibit a very dubious behaviour. – Wladyslaw (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No you tend your ego. Thats why your are playing this big show, thats why you need an award for every of your photos. This is so embarrassing. --Schaengel (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A good question is also: why didn't you revert Weegeerunner but only me and why did you revert me all over all wikipedia projects? This I call a big show. Now your true face come out and the level of your input here is falling down to personal insults. I think the time is good now to make come true what you have already announced. Goodbye. – Wladyslaw (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Beside of this: no, I don't need an award of all my images. The fact is: I have donated far more then 6000 images and many articles. Only a small quote of the images may receive an award. There are photographers that are much more better than I am and they have many more awards I ever will receive. But out of your words it seems that there is speaking enviousness and distrust. Do you really need to act so? This is really embarrassing. – Wladyslaw (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: At this point you certainly have my support for whatever sanctions you deem appropriate to impose. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again, you haven't discussed the images on the talk page, you've only talked passed each other and about each other here. Fortunately, Taxiarchos228/Wladyslaw has started a discussion at Talk:Basilica of St. Castor, and I would strongly suggest Schaengel join in that discussion, as the issue appears to be a legitimate one. Not doing so and going back and starting to revert again and again....THEN we have the basis for edit warring / disruptive behavior, and at that point, valid authority to take action to prevent disruption. Schaengel, I just started a new essay due to another editor, but it would equally apply to you: WP:ENGAGE. I think it might be worth a read. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Violations of WP:YESPOV on Somali pages

In the aftermath of the departure of User:Middayexpress, I've been working to restore a more NPOV (precisely, WP:YESPOV) view of issues on several Somali pages. WP:YESPOV states that "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." This means that material that happens to disagree with anothers' point of view should not be removed, because it decreases the completeness of coverage.

The Puntland Maritime Police Force article particularly caught my eyes, as I hope to encourage another user driven away by Middayexpress's POV-pushing to return to editing this and other articles. I reintroduced content based upon United Nations Group of Experts' reports to the PMPF article, and became entangled in reverts with User:26oo. He repeatedly removed these reports on the basis that their content was in some way prejudicial or biased. I advised him that edit warring was not the fashion that this encyclopedia handles these cases, and he told me that he was not concerned with the welfare of this encyclopedia [416]. This raises the question of whether he is not here to build an encyclopedia. I told him that the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard was the proper manner of disputing whether sources were unreliable, and he he just continued to try and tell me that the UN Group of Experts' material was undue [417]. Thus in addition to ignoring YESPOV he is distorting the meaning of UNDUE. He has also changed User:Cordless Larry's signature to another user's signature ([418]), though this may have been some sort of mistake.

The community has recognised that Somali articles have been suffering from POVpushing for some time, with its topic banning of User:Middayexpress. Unless we thoroughly implement WP:YESPOV on these pages we will be continuing to allow violations of WP:NPOV. I would request that User:26oo be warned about the importance of adhering to NPOV, and if s/he is not here for the benefit of the encyclopedia, that s/he be counselled that continued editing here is probably unwise. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06 is either lying or misconstruing much of what transpired. It's all in the page's history. I reverted large blanking of sections which Buckshot06 said was twisted.1 I asked them to go to the talk page to discuss the trimming down of the sections because it was wholesale removals that were well referenced and balanced. The user responded with what he referred to hostile 'blunt' talk in my talk page saying that "things have changed around here". At this moment I do not understand what he is referring to. After I reverted the blanking, the user removes unbalanced/redundant material in a more amiable approach. I proceed to do the same. During this time, we came to an understanding regarding another page called Corruption in Somalia (refer to my talk page).

Afterwards the user introduces WP:UNDUE material in the introduction which they didn't do previously. This summary is not balanced as per the material in the article. So I removed it until the user either balanced it or we come to a consensus. (talk page Refer to talk page) The material he introduced was clearly in a bad faith given the strategic locations on the article and previous history of removal. The user has no previous edits on the article so reffered them to a third opinion already given in which the same situation is being tackled. It is then that Cordless Larry makes me aware of the fact that user Middayexpress who was a very active member of WikiProject Somalia has been given a topic ban which is why the blunt quote about things changing around here made sense. The material in question however has absolutely nothing to do with that user and was not introduced by that user. Cordless Larry also suggests that the material can be balanced rather than removed altogether which was what was happening however the user is intent on bulldozing his UNDUE material.

The user is using Middayexpress' retirement as an excuse to introduce new material without balancing it. The allegations about Cordless Larry's signature is also untrue. I merely copied and pasted another user's article because I didn't want to type it out and one of the pastes is next to his signature which was by mistake, not replacing it. It was meant to go in my paragraph not both places and I didn't notice it. If you check the talk page's history/time I remove things by accident when I refresh too so it's clumsy not malicious. I also apologized for that, in any case. It's a complete non-issue.

In regards to me not caring about the encyclopedia, I said this; Past run-ins you've had with [other] users do not concern me nor the well being of the encyclopedia.1 So that's also false. 26oo (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This summary clearly demonstrates that User:26oo doesn't understand what YESPOV means, as he continues to say that that YESPOV material is 'undue'. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A summary in the introduction is supposed to be balanced as per the material in the article. How can you just take one side of the coin and put it in the introduction, it makes no sense. United Nations questions/alleges/asserts... needs to be due. It's not even a major part of the article yet you insert it in the introduction as if it summarizes a large article like that. Can't you see that your material is clearly in bad faith? There is not even a section regarding legality. You mention Middayexpress, a faulty signature and YESPOV as if I'm the one pushing the undue material. 26oo (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, you have replaced my signature again, and this time also deleted an important part of one of my other comments explaining why I objected to your removal of sourced material. Can you please stop doing this? You didn't paste another username next to mine, you replaced it both times. I'm trying to help facilitate consensus on the article talk page, but that's not easy when I keep finding my comments attributed to other users or deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's another lie. It was fixed 3 minutes later edit fix. Buckshot06 made a comment before me [edit conflict] before the page updated so Wikipedia removed it when I submitted, hence why it's fixed 3 minutes later. There's no need to divert attention from the subject, admins can check the history page. It's an edit conflict, not my fault. Your involvement has been reverting back to newly introduced UNDUE material. Your only productive input was suggesting balancing the paragraph. (Refer to talk page). This is a classic case of Wikihounding. 26oo (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of lying, 26oo. That edit didn't fix your deletion of part of one of my comments or your edit to my signature - see the diff. It wasn't fixed until I did so this morning. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

With reference to your comments above 26oo, it's a little irrelevant for this discussion where I started to introduce new text. You'll see that I've done so in the body of the PMPF article in my most recent changes. Please concentrate, for this discussion, on why you believe it is appropriate to continually try and remove one, referenced, point-of-view, which only happens to be from a worldwide IGO with specific responsibilities for international peace and security - a WP:THIRDPARTY. (To address your specific order-of-editing concern, the reason why I was readding material in small chunks was the fact that battleground editors in other Somalia articles had consistently removed large edits I made. The specific place in the article had very little to do with it). Buckshot06 (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right, there's one from 6th and one from the 9th. I'm not intentionally replacing them, it's the edit conflicts as I copy and paste names, that's why I tried to fix them. My apologies. I'm not sure why you think it's necessary to bring it up as it's malicious. I think it's an attempt to move the goalpost. It would be a very strange way for me to try and undermine a person. 26oo (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I only raised it here when you did it for a second time. I wasn't interested in raising it in this discussion the first time, but when it happened again it started to seem that you were doing it deliberately. If it was an accident both times, then fine, but please be more careful in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Cordless Larry. I will be more careful and preview before I submit. 26oo (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06

• An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. WP:BALASPS

• The strategic input of UNDUE material in the introduction, as well as using WP:Weasel such as "ostensibly" is not correct and should be balanced. That's the whole issue here. If it does not accurately sum up the contents of the article, then it has no place in the summary. Also, as pointed out in the talk page, the credibility of the UN Monitoring group has a third party has been questioned given the recent resignation of one of its members for unrelated advocacy. I suggest that we should balance the paragraph and summarize the contents of the article. 26oo (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Buckshot06 has been canvassing with HOA Monitor and has admitted to have limited knowledge on the subject matter.1 The editor goes on to say that they will follow the lead of HOA Monitor. On the subject, a third opinion was given on HOA Monitor's biased edits but Buckshot06 is now using him to push the UNDUE POV. He is adding WP:WEASEL as well as out of date references from 2012 which is before the deployment of the PMPF.

• I'll follow your lead initially, because my knowledge of the PMPF is currently once-over-lightly; basically I get the impression that it was a private force of the President, or some such. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

He is continuously adding UNDUE material, using WP:WEASEL as well as out of date references. 26oo (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's canvassing, 26oo. Canvassing involves notifying someone of a discussion in the knowledge that they will provide support. Discussing how an article can be improved on a user talk page isn't the same thing. This is essentially a content dispute as far as I can tell, so should be resolved by discussion on the article talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what's being done. HOA Monitor has a history of trying to push UNDUE material and a third opinion was given, check above. I'm not sure why you'll deny this, "You have two editors saying here that it is valid" refer to the talk page. He says that two users agree and thus must be pushed after the canvassing. HOA Monitor did not even mention the introduction (which is the whole reason we are having this discussion), his concerns are regarding Somalia Report which accurately should be removed and I've done and stated so. Please refer to the talk page before you make any conclusions. 26oo (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that Buckshot's posts on HOA Monitor's user talk page precede the current discussion on the article talk page, so I don't see how they are canvassing. I suggest you continue to discuss the content dispute there. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

And all I am saying is that, Buckshot06 sought the influence of a user that has a negative track record on an article Buckshot06 never edited, before inserting UNDUE material. That said, yes it's being tackled on the talk page. 26oo (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

To address 26oo's immediate concern, yes, User:HOA Monitor and I are considering editing and changing a number of Somali-related article, and chose to discuss potential actions before we started them. Such things occur every day all over the site, and are entirely uncontroversial.

What's more important is that User:26oo continues to demonstrate here a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV: it simply doesn't matter if the material is 'negative' or 'positive', what matters is that it is based on WP:Reliable Sources, and is presented based on how important any piece of data is to the general picture, depending on who is trying to put it across. He has three editors, HOA Monitor, Cordless Larry, and myself telling him on the PMPF talkpage that the Group of Experts material is germaine, a Reliable Source, and WP:THIRDPARTY, yet he continues to argue, here and elsewhere, that because it is 'negative' that it somehow has less weight. I would ask him whether he can draw our attention to any WP rule about 'negative' material, because we continue to draw his attention to THIRDPARTY and YESPOV with very little apparent result. This makes me wonder, given his earlier insertion of untruths in 2009 [419] re Galkacyo, his block for edit warring in 2013, and his earlier admitting 'that [neither other issues] nor the well-being of the encyclopedia concerned' him [420] whether he is not here to build an encyclopedia. I have over and over and over again tried to convey to him that 'negative' does not make WP:UNDUE, but he simply does not seem to comprehend this, nor what WP:YESPOV actually entails. I remain increasingly concerned about this user's motives for editing this site. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with negative or positive. It has to do with creating a balanced introduction. There's no need to bring up an edit from 2011 which has nothing to do with the subject matter. You've already tried to smear me in your first post on the ANI when you were insinuating I was vandalizing Cordless Larry's signature, an error which he understood.

You've understood that the item is unbalanced in the introduction so you moved it to the overview, which is great. However now you are using WP:WEASEL, to push an out-of date reference in the introduction, before the deployments. Also Cordless Larry is right, we should stay on the talk page from now on, I'm not sure this is the forum for that.26oo (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo I take exception to your assertion that "HOA Monitor has a history of trying to push UNDUE" material and challenge you to substantiate that. My previous attempts to edit Somali pages were repeatedly blocked or reverted by Midday Express, who has subsequently been topic banned. In what way does that constitute WP:UNDUE? On the contrary, I find the page places undue weight on Puntland government statements and -- until I pointed it out -- a paid propaganda outlet named Somalia Report. Introducing credible third party sources is intended to redress this imbalance. I find your attempts to exclude content that you object to, including UN reports, very similar to that of Midday and am beginning to share Buckshot06 questions about your motives for editing this site.HOA Monitor (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No need for soapboxing, I'm the one who removed Somalia report, so I don't know what you are on about. Take the discussion back to the talk page. 26oo (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If you have little interest in WP:NPOV and as you do not seems to understand what UNDUE actually means, you have repeatedly pushed allegations of 'bad faith' which bear no resemblance to WP:AGF's actual wording, the correct place is very much here, 26oo. Your repeated attempts to remove solid THIRDPARTY sources in favour of involved govt sources like Puntland and paid-propaganda Somalia Report, makes me wonder. User:HOA Monitor, User:Cordless Larry, and I would all like to assume good faith in your contributions, but we are beginning to find this quite difficult. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole reason there's a content dispute is because you are deliberately adding UNDUE material, there's no need for projection. You are also tampering and inserting opinions into referenced text on other pages too i.e Somalia. I'm the one who removed the solicited Somalia Report text and I moved the section about UN bodies to support. So you are incorrect about me removing things. Cordless Larry has an evident bias throughout the talk page and inserts his opinions without reading the talk page. He assumes things I am not doing multiple times throughout the talk page. He also incorrectly assumed I was removing things from the page when I wanted a balanced introduction per content, he also backed off of that agreeing the removal of the 'overview' section. Content was moved to establishment and support.
User:HOA Monitor is claiming I am removing the NYT article, which I actually expanded, contrary to his claims on the talk page. 26oo (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, you're presenting my comments out of context. When I said "I'm contesting your assertion that material from 2012 doesn't belong in the article", I wasn't assuming that you were removing things, as you put it. I was just responding to your suggestion that "As such, it has no place in the article, let alone in the introduction". Cordless Larry (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, for the millionth time, negative does not equal UNDUE. UNDUE states that 'Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.' You are continually trying to introduce non-THIRDPARTY material, which has less weight than the United Nations reports, as shown by their THIRDPARTY status, intergovernmental status, and consensus of support on the talkpage. What you're consistently trying to argue is that the minority view has equal status, which, given that they are Puntland Govt etc, does not accord with THIRDPARTY. This is simply not WP:UNDUE. Because of banned users like Middayexpress, a lot of Somalia-related pages are completely dominated by unsupportable minority views. These do not reflect THIRDPARTY, NPOV sources. UNDUE is not an argument you can use. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry. I said it has no place in the article if unbalanced. I simply wanted to point out that the report is before the force was deployed, as acknowledged by the very source Buckshot06 provides.

Buckshot06, your edits are in clear bad faith as you say in this summary that cameras weren't looking. Not sure what to make of it other than clear bad faith. I'm not saying two sides have an equal standing, that's ridiculous but you tamper with your own sources as shown in the link above. 26oo (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say 26oo that you do not appear to understand what WP:Assume Good Faith means. I am trying to improve the encyclopedia by introducing more reliable, WP:THIRDPARTY sources (such as those that report the force is for internal security, and they have not reported the internal security operations they've been on). You are denigrating THIRDPARTY sources in favour of WP:QS sources who have Conflicts of interest. Thus I would instead argue that you are not showing good faith in trying to improve the encyclopedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who has no good faith and tampering with your own sources i.e 1. You also removed content calling it WP:CIRCULAR when I've shown the original source on the talk page (edit). On the ANI, you pretend to act in good faith but on the talk page and page's history there's tons of bad faith. 26oo (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I won't dignify the nonsensical charge of 'tampering with my own source' with an answer. Would you kindly, again, define what you mean by 'bad faith'? We're introducing THIRDPARTY sources, while you're defending WP:QS conflict-of-interest sources. Who's trying to advance a more reliably-sourced encyclopedia here? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You are tampering with it, look at the link above. THIRD PARTY is ok but per source. You insert your opinions into referenced text which are not in the source. Here is your opinions in the edit and summary from PMPF article. Now you are removing things because you don't like them even after I proved it was not WP:CIRCULAR, as Cordless Larry even recognized. It's all in the edit history, no need for projection. 26oo (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary section break

As noted on my talk page, it would be helpful if the editors who are raising concerns regarding 26oo's conduct could provide diffs to demonstrate each of these concerns. The comments here from several editors in good standing are certainly serious, but this matter appears to require some specialist knowledge to be able to assess the issues around the references being used and removed, and diffs would greatly help in stepping admins and uninvolved editors through the concerns. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict-POV pushing by IPs. IPs pinging me unnecessarily and AHLM13 being made a scapegoat.

User:39.47.50.14 is tagging me with nonsense facebook request(giving me red notifications) and Kautilya3 constantly with fake accusations.

Kautilya3 disagrees with my edits most of the times1, 2. But the IP User thinks we are POV pushing along Human3015. The user previously edited Kashmir conflict with IP 39.47.121.0 . 115.186.146.225 has joined along with other users for POV pushing in Kashmir conflict. I want to stay away from that article talk page from now and that IP shouldn't ping me, mention me again in that discussion.

Whenever someone sees a suspicious sock account with anti-Indian sentiments, they are tagged as suspected socks of AHLM13.

The IP User 39.47.50.14 mentioned about this discussion which included Pakistan Commando Force. Maybe he was trying to frame Mar4d. Blocked editors come back with IP socks.Cosmic  Emperor  09:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Administrator Please check me for all these allegations if i am guilty please punish me but also investigate CosmicEmperor Human3015 and Kautilya3 for offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users ; after reading that plus all indo pak & kashmir relevant Wiki articles edit history; Apparently Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor are doing so and are providing each other back up to avoid 3 revert rule of edit warring. I say sorry if I hurt someone but i think i have not done so; please see in detail discussion on election 2014 here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict. Please also guide me how can i refer to arbitration committee because they have protected the page and converging to deny consensus. 39.47.50.14 (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again baseless accusation from this IP User. Kautilya3 is the one who gave me this warning. Kautilya3 always tries to be neutral. I shouldn't have commented on Nangparvat socks.Cosmic  Emperor  10:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• The IPs 39.47.153.210 (talk · contribs), 39.47.121.0 (talk · contribs) and 115.186.146.225 (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserted a current news item into the lede of Kashmir conflict, and they also recruited Faizan (talk · contribs) into their project: [421], [422], [423], [424], [425], [426], [427], [428]. The IP's came over to the talk page only after the article got put under semi-protection by NeilN. Another IP 39.47.121.0 then made an argument which I conceded and incorporated the news item at the level appropriate for the lede. There the matter should have ended. However, some combination of these IPs and yet another 39.47.50.14 (talk · contribs) have been arguing for their preferred version of the text, which essentially seems to mean that all mention of India should be eliminated and all mention of Pakistan should be glorified. At the same time, they have been casting aspersions on all the editors who reverted their edits. No great harm has yet been done. But it is likely that the IPs will edit war again once the semi-protection lifts and things might get acrimonious. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

All the IPs are from the same city.

Faizan was brought like this:

IP request on Faizan's talkpage

Faizan joins.

Ip users involved in Kashmir Conflict gives names for facebook then other Ip mentions the name on talk page.

According to my view the statements can be added to Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 not Kashmir conflict.Cosmic  Emperor  11:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

All these editors should be using the dispute resolution noticeboard where they will be forced to focus on content and not each other. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what I did! I added the statement to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014. I did not participate in the edit-war, and instead started the thread for discussion at the article's talk. The text was bowdlerized by Kautaliya, and it's inclusion depends upon the consensus at the article's talk. Faizan (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Middayexpress's external canvassing

Regulars at this page will probably remember that Middayexpress recently received a topic ban from all Somalia-related articles. During the course of the discussion about the incidents that led up to this, Middayexpress announced their retirement from the site and also stated that they intended to attempt to publicise the dispute in the media. I've been keeping an eye out for any sign of this publicity, and just discovered this post, written by someone claiming to be Middayexpress, on SomaliNet Forums. The post mentions AcidSnow as a contact point for new members joining the site (I'm not suggesting that AcidSnow has done anything wrong here, and indeed he/she has been pretty much inactive since Middayexpress quit). I found this worrying: "Another advantage is that one gets to see the actual inner workings of Wikipedia. That includes identifying any vandals or detractors, which one can then do something about". It sounds like Middayexpress might be planning to engage in WP:OUTING, unless I misunderstand the comment. Note that "ajnabi" means "foreigner". Further down in the thread, Materialscientist and Buckshot06 are mentioned by other posters. I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about this, but I'm flagging it so that administrators are aware. It sounds like there might be more to come, however: "On the point of wiki detractors (including who they are and what they've attempted to do), there is a lot more I would like to write. But first I'd like to field any questions Somalinetters may have". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt see that you reopened a discussion here. I have mentioned previously that Acidsnow and the other users are possibly friends at ANI. They all do not care for reliable sources. They edit articles by backing their own original research as clearly seen here [429]. The ban should include acidsnow and it needs to be broadened to east african related articles. I already have the support of User Hadraa [430].

Here are some evidence of meat puppetry:

The users Acidsnow and Midday are found backing each other on various talk pages Talk:Walashma dynasty Talk:Harar Talk:Adal Sultanate

Midday backs Acidsnow here [431]

Acidsnow asks Midday to check out the article on his 3rd revert here [432]

Midday reverts inorder for acidsnow to avoid 3rr [433]

The Walashma page has been targeted by a sock since Middays topic ban [434]

Midday jumps in to defend Acidsnow on my ANI post [435]

Another issue to note is Acidsnow keeps restoring original research into articles as seen here, [436]

I have taken this to various noticeboards, Fringe, No original research etc to halt their behavior all to no avail. Most uninvolved users are reluctant to pitch in on the subjects at dispute, but its clear that the tag teaming has been successful in POVing articles. Zekenyan (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm in the middle of going through a long list of users to see if any edits sync up; depending on what I find, I may or may not take the results to WP:SPI. In the mean time though it shouldn't be too much of an issue, I placed a 1rr restriction for the pages under the umbrella of the topic ban precisely so that any attempt to coordinate off site would end up choked off early. Of particular note in that case it that it may make an investigation into any sock or meat puppets easier, since they would have to coordinate openly in order to get around the 1rr mandate. As far as off site material goes, in my opinion, what they say off site shouldn't automatically result in an onsite security rush. We have freedom of speech and expression, if Middayexpress wishes to exercise it then he is free to do so. Rather like Hiemdall, all we can do is watch and wait to see what will become of the action. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on Midday himself threatening to alert "horn of africans”. The current ban is not affective. I propose the current topic ban be amended to “east african related articles and include Acidsnow. Zekenyan (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to identify any puppetry, TomStar81. I agree that we can't and shouldn't rush to secure everything; we just need to keep an eye out for suspicious editing and any attacks on Materialscientist and Buckshot06, given what is said about them on the forum. I'm concerned about the apparent outing threats, but will keep an eye on the forum thread so that I know if and when it happens at least. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

just want to say that i agree with Zekenyan about acidsnow and after having a long experience with him and midday will stand for what Zekenyan says ,p.s good job in lining up all there conversation.Hadraa (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This is all an interesting chain of events Cordless Larry. Anyways, despite the baseless accusations presented by both Zekenyan and Hadraa (oddly enough, he himself was already proven to be a sock of the banned user Muktar allebbey by multiple users) I am in no form or way a sock puppet. This has already been disproven multiple times and to suggest it again is simply pathetic. AcidSnow (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Its not baseless when multiple users accuse you of meat puppetry. Shall I refer to the previous thread? Zekenyan (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's only you and Hadraa whom belive so. In fact, Hadraa is a a sock himself, so that only leaves you. What "previous thread" are you refering to? AcidSnow (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple editors have said you are following Middayexpress here [437] Its abit too late to act all innocent and you continue to include original research into articles. Based on the evidence above im sure BrumEduResearch and Spumuq can agree. Zekenyan (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"Multiple"? Haha, it was only bobrayner! More importantly, his reasons for this claim were simply baseless. He even refused to respond back to me when I called him out. Anyways, I have yet to added any original research so please stop claiming so as it's simply a WP:PERSONALATTACK. AcidSnow (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, behave yourselves. Remember, we are all innocent of any accusations until proven guilty. That AcidSnow (talk · contribs) seems to share a similar mindset with Middayexpress (talk · contribs) only proves that two people who edit on this site happen to share a similar point of view on the matter, not that one user has multiple accounts to prove his point. In the absence of proof to the contrary, we are obliged to assume good faith. Moderation, gentlemen, in all things. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

While User:AcidSnow and I disagree on a number of content issues, I feel compelled to say that I've seen no evidence of him being a sock of Middayexpress, and indeed he's one of the more moderate Somali users here, in reasonably good standing. I do not believe that the attacks above on him are justified by any WP rules, and I believe they constitute WP:Personal Attacks. I would back User:TomStar81's views about the importance of moderation (fanaticism here only leads to edit-warring, bans, and blocks). Buckshot06 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry, Buckshot06, and TomStar81. This discussion has quickly lost it's orginal purpose and has become a slander page against me. AcidSnow (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

first of all stop accusing me of someone that i am not ,second of all i used my real email to prove a point that is a Chinese document was a forgy so for the last time i have to be notifit about the case and stop acussing some one of what he is not .Hadraa (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

here are the copies of my email that i have but on line and like you can see i took out the ip address and name for that is private and contain sensitive staff , and you can use any sort of photoshop to write in any name or ip address you want its easy so don't be fooled and the hollow argument was a bout a fraud and forged that was used and i pointed out what it was you can see on again what is so easy like to write a person's name on a blank place in a letter is so easy icj 1 icj 2 like you can see ,and again i am not muktar like they accuse me of and i am tired of saying this again and again thanks

to show you what i meant here is a copy of the same email with the name of [Steve Jobs ] RIP (1955-2011) has the receiver of the email as stevejobs@hotmail.com,example of name fraud

so you see its easy to fill the blank with any name like muktar alebey or AcidSnow or any name you want.and stop your personal attacks against me and when did i ever say you are a sock of middy. again i took out the ip address and name for that is private and contains sensitive staff .Hadraa (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we please keep this on topic? I'm not sure what this e-mail business is about, but I started this thread to highlight Middayexpress's comments on an external forum. If anyone has firm evidence that AcidSnow is a puppet for Middayexpress, then they should present it, but I am in agreement with Buckshot06 that although they may share a POV, that's as far as it goes. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Attempts to discredit me by User:Montanabw

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

---

Because of an issue we had over a year ago, User:Montanabw seems to be seeking to discredit me by suggesting that instead of following established guideline WP:NOTRED whilst Wikignoming, I infact wrote it!

User added this text to essay Wikipedia:Navigation templates despite opposition from User:Izno, and then suggested with this edit summary that the addition was necessary as I was using it to edit war. This is backed up by this edit on the talk page.

Wording was retained despite Izno's protest, as a couple of other editors had agreed on the wording, but when I came across this yesterday I removed it, as with my own disagreement with the addition, there was no clear consensus. However, I thought the addition of the exact wording from WP:NOTRED was a fair compromise (although that guideline had been altered without prior discussion about 6 weeks ago! (see Wikipedia talk:Red link#Nav boxes NO red links) but this didn't seem to be good enough.

User has continually suggested that I wrote the guideline, or am re-writing guidelines to fit my agenda [438][439][440], that I am on a "one-man crusade", and has even tried to enlist the help of another user that he is well aware I have had disagreements with in the past to further their cause, whose own responses to the situation are also borderline bullying.

Conduct seems to be exactly in line with that described at WP:POV RAILROAD. Thanks for your attention. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Without time to look at diffs, I remember that it was (a year ago) about the question if red links in navboxes are beneficial or forbidden. I think an RfC on this question would be a better idea than examining user conduct. I believe that red links of important related topics can be beneficial, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is about the conduct, not the content or the guideline. That is for elsewhere. This kind of behaviour needs addressing, especially as the user is doing exactly what I am being accused of and then hiding behind a smokescreen. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was decided somewhere, can't remember where. If somebody could kindly dig up some diffs I think we have a very valid case to ban Robsinden from editing nav boxes. It is disruptive when an editor is working through red links and this editor prevents them from working on something because of red link paranoia. User:Montanabw and User:Lady Lotus I believe had also had run ins with this editor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a case where a user was working through some redlinks in a navbox. This is regarding User:Montanabw's behaviour towards other editors. Yours has much to be desired also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(And I think you're referring to the inconclusive Wikipedia talk:Red link/Archive 3#No Red Links). --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Would someone who wants to waste time on this please work out whether Rob Sinden is quietly working away on content that he maintains, or whether he is methodically removing red links from navboxes in topics maintained by other editors. If the latter, please close this with a warning to the OP that they should collaborate with people who maintain content, and should not imagine that their preference regarding red links is of such vital importance that it should be imposed on others. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you think all publishing houses should sack all editors and copyeditors too? This isn't my preference, it's the preference of the guideline. I'm just doing a bit of housekeeping. But whatever your opinion of WP:WIKIGNOME-ing, the issue here is that User:Montanabw is changing the guideline to fit their agenda, then telling everyone that that is what I'm doing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Observations: (1) This is a content dispute. (2) Izno's revert of Montanabw cites WP:NAVBOX, but that guideline allows and even encourages redlinks in navboxes (it even notes down below that the problem with Categories is that [unlike with navboxes] redlinks cannot be added to Categories). Robsinden, while you may not have "written" the guideline[s], you are certainly edit-warring over it/them, in controversion to the more general WP:RED guideline, in order to attempt to enforce your personal preferences. I agree with the above poster that an RfC is more appropriate to this situation(s) than alleging attempts to discredit or to POV Railroad. Focus on edits, not on editors; content, not people or personal behavior or style of discussion/interaction (unless it is egregious, which Montanabw's clearly isn't). I see Montanabw's actions as simply pointing out that, contrary to general practices as she sees them, you have been either cherry-picking, and/or edit-warring over, guideline wording when it comes to discussing your preferred navbox content. These are not attempts at discrediting, but rather stating the facts as she sees them. I see nothing here that warrants ANI, unless both sides/parties are examined in detail, and that might require ArbCom, since a few guidelines and a few articles/templates are involved. Far better to stick to RfCs. Anyway, this is how I see it, based on the diffs provided. I think all sides need to focus on content instead of editors, and use proper dispute resolution. EDITED TO ADD: I totally agree with Johnuniq. Softlavender (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A point of order, as I don't want this to be about a content dispute, but I am not editing in controversion to WP:RED, which states: "Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes [...] since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles." Also, your quote from Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates regarding the disadvantage of category is in relation to navboxes and lists, so you've misread this when you think it explicitly refers to redlinks in navboxes. You'll notice that redlinks are mentioned as one of the WP:CLNT#Advantages of a list, not an advantage of a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:RED is an editor-invented guideline not a legal enforcement. I've proposed a revision of it here if people like Montanabw and others would like to comment. Please stop wasting everybody's time and do something useful towards writing content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A point of order, as I don't want this to be about a content dispute, but I am not editing in controversion to WP:RED, which states: "Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes [...] since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles." And guess who added that wording to the guideline less than 24 hours ago, and is edit-warring to retain it? Yep, Robsinden. I've reverted it now, as it seems that what Robsinden alleges that Montanabw has alleged is actually true -- he is re-writing guidelines to suit his personal preferences. Re: WP:NAV: so you've misread this when you think it explicitly refers to redlinks in navboxes; nope, as you admit, it refers to navboxes and you can't deny that. Lastly: I don't want this to be about a content dispute; and that is your problem-- you want to disparage the editor who disagrees with you by bringing her to ANI and making it into a behavioral issue. Unfortunately, the behavioral issues seem to be on your end, in my opinion, and this ANI thread may boomerang on you. Trying to get your way in a content dispute by skipping all DR possibilities and going straight to ANI is generally boomerang-worthy. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Umm, that wording was actually removed on 29 April without prior discussion. I did document this in my initial post, but you clearly didn't bother with that. It had been there for approximately 5 years before that. I merely reverted the change. See, already User:Montanabw's accusations are being fallen for by editors who don't want to believe otherwise. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I did document this in my initial post ... No, you didn't. See, already User:Montanabw's accusations are being fallen for by editors who don't want to believe otherwise. No, we are reading all the diffs you provided and noting that you are trying to turn a content dispute into the indictment of one editor who disagrees with you. You haven't provided any evidence that Montanabw did anything wrong, and you are edit-warring and bringing another editor to ANI instead of using normal dispute resolution in this clear content dispute -- which by the way has many more involved editors than simply you and Montanabw, so fixating on her is another thing that's not appropriate here. Softlavender (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines are flawed and should be more used more flexibly - and that is for the long-term benefit of the encyclopaedia. There are those who cannot act with even the smallest deviation from the guidelines (which are not rules or policies), regardless of how unhelpful those guidelines are to readers or editors, but they are best ignored if there is a benefit to the encyclopaedia, which there undoubtedly is here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, whether the guidelines are "flawed" is irrelevant. The issue here is not the guideline, but the actions of an editor. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If you've had your POV ignored for the long-term benefit of the encyclopaedia, I really don't see a problem: you are one of the more disruptive editors I have come across on here, so if you have had a minor taste ofyour own medicine, you may just learn a lesson from it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, could some passing admin close this relatively pointless set of accusations? An RfC has been opened on the matter, which is probably the best place for attentipon to focus, rather than the ever-tiresome dramah boards. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I really hope a non-involved admin can look at this seriously and look beyond the issues regarding guideline disagreements and properly into User:Montanabw's accusations and conduct. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good, I'm sure they'll spot your edit warring and warn you against your close violation of WP:3RR.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 17 June 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.

Continued accusations and harassment by User:Beyond My Ken toward IP.

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

---

User:Beyond My Ken seems to have decided that any IP advocating for removal of an instance of "best known for" phraseology is a sock for Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. After I made a "best known for" removal edit and stood by it for lack of a source, User:Beyond My Ken immediately sought to bully an "outing" out of me and has continued in that line. He launched a campaign of accusation, trial (by him), conviction (by him), and sentencing (by him), constantly threatening to "get an admin involved" (whatever that would entail). He reverted anything the IP (which was me) did with nasty comments and accusations in the unchangeable edit summaries. He seemed to believe that his "conviction" of me for "block evasion" entitled him to delete anything I did without discussion. See User_talk:71.174.213.3 and the histories for Sons of Liberty and Talk:Sons of Liberty.

At one point, it became clear the matter is better discussed on the talk page (vs. edit reversions with barbs in the edit summaries). User:Beyond My Ken there began a campaign to strike out any of my comments on the talk page. At this point an IPV6 popped up and began simply blanking any of my efforts on the talk page with no edit summaries. I gave warnings to the IPV6 about disruptive editing in preparation for requesting a block.

The IPV6 then continued with the same M.O., hopping to two other IPV6s. At one point, the blanking was with the cooperation of User:Beyond My Ken (half by the IPV6 and half by Beyond My Ken). Later, a brand new user (User:Deleteroftrolls) "popped-up" and continued with the same M.O., accusing any reversion of (his) talk page blanking as trolling. Timing of the first appearance of the IPV6, the subject of his convictions, and the strength of his convictions suggest (via WP:duck) that it may be a sock/meat puppet for User:Beyond My Ken. The additional new "pop-up" user User:Deleteroftrolls and should also be investigated as possible sock/meat of the IPV6s and/or of User:Beyond My Ken.

Even after the original dispute about sourcing the "best known for" phrasing was resolved, user:Beyond My Ken has continued to harass me on my talk page. At this point I would find it almost bemusing were it not for the downright seriousness of the attempted outing, bullying, and continued harassment user:Beyond My Ken has conducted.

I am requesting:
1) Blocks for the three IPV6s (or at least the first one).
2) Investigation of User:Beyond My Ken's harassment, with censure if it's determined to be justified.
3) Investigation of possible sock/meat puppetry among User:Beyond My Ken, the three IPV6's, and the new user User:Deleteroftrolls.

The blanking IPV6:
User_talk:2600:1003:B842:999E:0:25:5445:6301
The two IPV6s that the original IPV6 hopped to (presumably):
2600:1003:b85e:4c27:0:47:5b17:3301
2600:1003:b849:3552:0:36:50c1:e401

71.174.213.3 (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• The IP's birth on June 14, with full knowledge of Wikipedia and a mature editing style, as if from the head of Zeus, lead into investigating their identity
• The IPs identity with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP seems incontrovertible on behavioral evidence; the match is precise, as detailed on the IP's talk page
• The "Best known for IP" is blocked through 2018, so any edit by a sock of that IP is block evasion
• I welcome a CU on myself, which would show that the IPv6 is not me, nor is Deleteroftrolls; I have no idea who they are, but suggest the possibility of a Joe job
• Checkuser needed

BMK (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser comment: I checked User:Deleteroftrolls and didn't find anything which links it to another account (though I didn't check too deeply). I haven't checked a technical connection to BMK as checks of one's own account (such as to prove innocence) are not granted (see WP:CHK#Grounds for checking), and I don't feel there is enough evidence to link BMK to Deleteroftrolls. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. BMK (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The possibility of a "Joe Job" is reasonable. After the way he's treated me and the way he sometimes gets up to talking to others, I can certainly imagine others wanting to make him look bad. I can also imagine him simply doing a great job of covering his tracks. But regardless, after the checkuser fails to give evidence for such wrongdoing, the real focus should be the bullying: continued accusations, attempts at outing, continued harassment and taunting on my talk page, strikes and blankings of talk page material, etc. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the rest, the Best Known For troll is from South America, this is a Verizon IP (and not a proxy) from the US. Unless they've moved or are travelling, it may not be them (even though it does look amazingly similar). Black Kite (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Amazingly. People move, and I don't believe we've heard from that person for a while. My eggs are totally in the behavioral basket. BMK (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And people also, amazingly, aren't always right when they reactively accuse someone and then slander them all over town. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe not always right, but they usually are. They weren't born yesterday. And you had best lose the "slander" comment, lest you be blocked for legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You've gotta be kidding. You've a lot of gall to threaten like that for me calling his slander what it is. Calling it slander is not a threat of legal action. What could you possibly be trying to achieve with useless peanut gallery commentary like that? If you don't have something useful to say, just stay out of it. Beyond My Ken sure was right when he called this a "drama board". 71.174.213.3 (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You've got a particular "tell" that confirms you've been here a long time under many different guises. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You and Beyond My Ken need to be specific with your "he seems like someone else" accusations. You can't just declare that one person has the same style as another, or simply declare there's some sort of tell without specifics. That's just more useless and threatening inuendo, and it's just more abuse, and it's slander, and it's off topic distraction. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No "innuendo" here, no "he seems like" extemporizing, I'm saying straight out that you fit the behavioral profile of the "Best known for IP" to a precise "T", and should be duck-blocked on that basis.

Just curious, has this "the best defense is a good offense" strategy of yours worked well in the past, or do you just get blocked anyway? Oh, wait, I forgot, you're an inexperienced newbie editor who is being inexplicably picked on by deranged long-term editors. Sure, anyone can see by reading your comments above that you know nothing about Wikipedia's processes and have never edited here before June 14th, when you made your first edit. BMK (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's stay focused here.
The topic of this section is the abuse made by User:Beyond My Ken toward a fellow editor. Whether that fellow editor was an experienced or inexperienced IP; or whether that fellow editor was a "logged on" type; or whether that fellow editor was or was not someone else matters not a whit. The editor as it happened was an "experienced IP" which, while perfectly allowed and perfectly expected by Wikipedia policy, is apparently offensive to some users. User:Beyond My Ken chose to attempt to out the other editor, to revert/strike the editor's good-faith discussions on a talk page, and to continue to harass the editor even after all was said and done. And, to continue to accuse with vague arguments and no actual specific evidence that the editor was actually some other heinous troublemaker half a world away. All this because the editor chose to not cave in to User:Beyond My Ken's initial attempts to to push the editor around. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No, actually, the proper focus of this thread is: are you the "Best known for IP" or not, since everything flows from that. If you are, then you are not a "fellow editor" in good standing, you are a long term abusive troll - and your sttempts to Wikilawyer things to your advantage are simply more damning evidence of your status. BMK (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG judging by the linguistic style and editing history, I would say BMK is correct in identifying this IP. Its not unheard of for this IP coming to ANI seeking sanctions pretending to be an innocent party. The ISP evidence is not definitive, usually its Verizon in Chile, I have seen the guy travelling with UK, Canadian and US IP used (you could almost track the flights home on one occasion). The WP:DUCK is strong with this one. WCM_email 11:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello WCM. I see you've been involved over on that "BNF" page. Do you think you might be a little jaded or cognitive bias'd to be a little pre-geared-up to perceive a match? Just a thought. Maybe you can give a second look? But anyway, even if I was the South American (which I'm not), I still wouldn't be deserving of the incivility served up by BMK in this process. Nobody is. That's what this is about. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys. I looked at the page for the "Best known for IP" and it's pretty clear to me that the South American IP is characterized typically by "Nothing but abuse and foul-mouthed vitriol when approached, and continuous after blocks had expired suggesting no willingness to change". It should also be well understood by you-all that The South American is not the only person in the world who has made "best known for" edits, and that many many are executed fully-civilly by others who aren't him -- me being one of them I do say. I'm stunned that BMK has continuously asserted (ad nauseum) some sort of "pattern match" without citing anything specific. As it turns out, if you compare my actual history (not BMK's imagined history) to the South American's patterns as described in the "Best known for IP" page, you would see quite a difference. It's very stark in fact, more so the deeper you get. That and the IP location data says there's no duck here. BMK seems so motivated to convict me of being that South American guy that he even has accused the South American Guy of moving to the U.S.. By the duck standards as they seem to be be interpreted by a few above, we would also be convicting BMK of sockpuppetry based on what the IPV6 and Deleteroftrolls did so "coincidentally" even though the checkuser found no evidence. I'm not looking for that. I'm just looking for a fair shake. BMK's frequent repetition of his vague "pattern match" doesn't do it, look to the specifics. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record 71.174.213.3 is now posting [441] messages [442] which are WP:CANVASSing. MarnetteD|Talk 13:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is very familiar. The behaviour, the canvassing, and of course the long ANI posts about how unfair people are being to him for preventing block evasion. It is trivial to change IPs, you don't need to move locations to appear to come from another country. In my opinion this is the same person. Chillum 14:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we are seeing ghosts with this one, or he's doing an excellent job of using different phrasings and speech rhythms. I know it's hard to see that as evidence, but one of the reasons I spend so much time tracking and blocking socks is because I have a knack for recognising that two different pieces of writing are by the same person. I don't think that's the case here. On the other side, I've been pretty aggressive recently in blocking the webhosts he uses to wander around as well as his domestic Chilean providers, so people should be on the lookout for him popping up in new and different places. That still doesn't mean that this is him.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Amazing how often its true. -OberRanks (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Has the IP done anything in his 5 days here besides edit-warring and engaging in all manner of denials about his true identity? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The main giveaways from a situation like this are that the "new user" typically ALWAYS has deep and extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy pages and always somehow happens to just "stumble upon" ANI posts, AfD pages, or other discussions which otherwise would be very hard to find without a detailed and in-depth search. -OberRanks (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Guys, is this seriously happening? What was even the point of performing a WP:CHECKUSER if you had already made up your minds about this user and had no chance of exonerating him as a sock? Also, the behavior that you are claiming uniquely identifies this guy is anything but. Are you saying that you wouldn't expect an innocent user hounded on his page like he was by BMK to write "the long ANI posts about how unfair people are being to him for preventing block evasion." This is literally saying that defending yourself from banworthy accusations is indicative of behavior that will get you banned. For more information about this kind of reasoning, read The Trial by Franz Kafka. Even if you don't think BMK was out of line, seriously give this IP the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith. Let the IP off with a warning. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Congratulations - on your 20th edit ever, you happened to come across this ANI page, happened to find this thread which is in the middle of the page, happened to be familiar with sock puppet policies, ban procedures, check user requests, the fact that we use abbreviations for users (BMK), and of course spoke up in defense of this "other" ip address who is so unfairly being persecuted. So are you saying you are not the same person who posted the previous comments? I'm not saying that you are either, just that when you add up all the circumstances it certainly seems like you are. -OberRanks (talk) 16:52, 17 June 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.