Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive909

User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE

STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is basically a pusher of the POV of the viewpoint of the government of the People's Republic of China. Almost every edit done by this user is misleading, with misleading edit summaries (such as using the edit summary "ce" while censoring negative information about the PRC government or other related topics, subtle changes to the text that affects the meanings, removal of sourced content, etc. As an example, what is this?) Really, almost every single edit by this user is problematic; search the archives for previous discussion about this user. This has been a long-term issue; editors have been frustrated with this user's refusal to discuss or cooperate, or even left because of this user. Often when other editors revert POV-pushing edits by STSC, STSC reports these users to WP:AN3. STSC has been warned frequently in the past, and has a history of blocks and topic bans. I think that an indef block may be appropriate in this situation. Pinging Citobun, Signedzzz, and Ohconfucius, who are more familiar with this editor than I am. sst✈^(discuss) 12:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with the above assessment. I'm away from the computer and my phone is nearly out of battery so I’ll keep it short for now and elaborate with diffs tomorrow. STSC is a long-term, relatively low-key political agenda editor whose activity here (for years) nearly exclusively serves to parrot the viewpoint of the Chinese government. My interest on Wikipedia mainly centres around Hong Kong and this is the context in which I have encountered STSC but I know he is active in every modern controversial Chinese subject - Falun Gong, military history, etc. He censors and edits disruptively which he conceals using deceptive edit summaries like the innocuous “c/e”. If challenged or reverted he begins revert warring to enforce his edit and bullies other users by frivolously spamming their talk pages with warning templates. When asked to defend a particular edit his reasoning generally doesn't hold water but he will revert and revert until other editors are worn out. I try hard now to avoid interacting with him/her.

The only reason STSC hasn't been banned to date is that he is relatively low-key and does his work over a long period of time. But this type of agenda editing is most damaging to the encyclopedia as it is not blatant and hence not so easy to fight. Citobun (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I guess we've been very luck here up to now in not having to deal with the Wumao. Life will never be the same again as our vigilance will have to be elevated. As I'm burnt out from conflicts over FLG orthodoxy, I'll leave the Falun Gong articles up to others. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a few other examples of misconduct - a very small sample, relative to his PROLIFIC agenda editing on Hong Kong-related articles, not to speak of all his other China-related editing.

• September 2015: misleading edit summary
• August 2015: misleading edit summary
• May 2015: misleading edit summary
• May 2015: STSC makes major changes to the Hong Kong article with the edit summary "ce". The edits censor the reason behind the 2014 Hong Kong protests (i.e. universal suffrage), delete information on police abuses, delete reference to the largely peaceful nature of the protest. I reverted these edits once and STSC places a warning template on my talk page to intimidate me. I give up.
• May 2015: Misleading edit summary - removes reference to Hong Kong as having a "high degree of autonomy", again deleting reference to Hong Kong's autonomy, egregiously misleading edit summary
• March 2015: rm reference to police abuses despite being referenced to Time magazine
• February 2015: misleading edit summary
• January 2015: misleading edit summary
• November 2014: Censorship of well-sourced and widely reported material about the credibility of a pro-government group's survey, reverts again with edit summary referring to WP:CRYSTALBALL (does not apply), places personal attack warning template on my talk page while I have never made any personal attacks, again, I beefed up the sources, more censorship, I open a lengthy talk page discussion, he blanks 3000 bytes of referenced material, I gave up.
• December 2014: misleading edit summary, incomplete edit summary - placing badge of People's Liberation Army in place of the Cenotaph, low-key agenda editing, misleading edit summary, rm photo of protesters, rm reference to large numbers of protesters citing the CBC, a reliable source; totally rm reference to protests in Central and Wan Chai that shut down highways and roads and were publicised in numerous reliable sources
• November 2014: censor photo of protests, ditto, more photo censorship, ridiculous photo censorship with no distinction between impartial coverage of the protests, and actual NPOV behavior, more attempted censorship of this particular banner
• October 2014: spamming articles with fringe theories about how the U.S. government supposedly instigated the 2014 Hong Kong pro-democracy protests (1, 2, 3), censorship - Beijing's nomination committee IS what the protests were about, misleading edit summary, censorship of information cited to reliable source, misleading edit summary/censorship, misleading edit summary, misleading edit summary, misleading edit summary, unexplained deletion of protest sites, he repeatedly changed "water cannons" to "water sprays", misleading edit summary, misleading edit summary/unexplained deletions
• September 2014: delete reference to Hong Kong as a former British colony
• September 2014: changing the Hong Kong infobox to show Putonghua (Mandarin) as the "national language" of Hong Kong, with Cantonese as a "regional language". For those unfamiliar with China/Hong Kong, Putonghua is the language promoted by the national government in Beijing. Cantonese is the language spoken by 95% of Hong Kong people
• September 2014: "fixing style/layout errors" - but in fact making major changes to the infobox, i.e. changing "Treaty of Nanking" to "British occupation"
• June 2014: misleading edit summary

I dunno, I could go on. I have spent an hour compiling this but I could go on all night. This is not at all a comprehensive view of his advocacy here, and I strongly request an admin take a serious look at his editing history. It speaks for itself. As you can see, when it comes to Hong Kong STSC's edits entirely centre around a number of themes: downplaying the reasons behind the 2014 pro-democracy protests; downplaying Hong Kong's heritage as a British colony; excessively promoting Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong; downplaying Hong Kong's autonomy under one country, two systems; promoting the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison; promoting Japanese war atrocities in Hong Kong; bullying others by accusing them of personal attacks when they question his editing; bullying others through frivolous and improper use of talk page warning templates; making misleading edit summaries on a serial basis despite being warned for this repeatedly.

STSC is highly adept at working within the bounds of Wikipedia conventions, never pushing the envelope too far, but ultimately shows no respect for the concepts of impartiality and balance and is not here to build an encyclopedia. I am tired of seeing him undermine the impartiality of Hong Kong and China-related articles – his edit history speaks for itself. I am tired of him enforcing his political activism and political censorship through blunt force reverting and frivolous, bullying use of warning templates in mine and other's talk pages. It is really exhausting and I considered quitting Wikipedia back when he was censoring photos I had taken of the protests specifically for Wikipedia. Paging another potentially interested editor TheBlueCanoe. Citobun (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, other than to say that I agree with the assessments offered above. STSC is careful not to step too far out of bounds (i.e. constantly involved in edit wars, but no obvious 3RR violations), but the cumulative effect of the edits is clearly disruptive, and intended to advance some kind of quasi-nationalist agenda. I've also noted the user's tendency to try to provoke and needle his opponents, leave frivolous warning templates on others' pages, and use innocuous/misleading edit summaries to conceal clear POV edits([1][2][3][4][5]). Since one of the affected topic areas (Falun Gong) falls under discretionary sanctions, I've considered bringing this up in arbitration enforcement, but given the broader scope of problematic editing maybe this is the better forum to deal with it.TheBlueCanoe 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I've noticed that all commenters save the OP were notified of this complaint via ping, and I believe pinging like-minded editors in disputes could be construed as WP:CANVASSING. -Zanhe (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the stance of the editors I pinged; I only pinged editors who I see were involved with STSC in the past. Zanhe, I am rather surprised that you don't find STSC's edits disruptive. sst✈^(discuss) 10:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said STSC's edits were or were not disruptive. I haven't had enough interaction with him to make a judgment (but I do recognize Ohconfucius and you as respectable, constructive editors). All I was trying to say is that it's better to present the evidence here and let uninvolved administrators judge its merit, instead of selectively notifying previously involved people. -Zanhe (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No action, seriously? sst✈^(discuss) 14:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to see a statement from STSC. Also, pinging is not considered appropriate notification as pings can sometimes fail.

I was caught out once. A ping is only successful if you type in the username correctly and sign the post. If you go back and edit it to complete the ping, it won't work. However, I do see that you posted an ANI notification on their TP in any case. Blackmane (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I don't know this user SSTflyer, I have never had any interaction with him. If there's any issue with me, he should have discussed with me in my Talk page. This is just a case of childish hate campaign to discredit another user on personal or political reasons, and it's a pack of lies, e.g. "STSC has a history of blocks and topic bans", etc. I have had opponents in content disputes when I tried to maintain a balanced view in articles, and it's not surprising some of them would want to join in this. There's nothing I need to defend the way I edit in my near 10 years on Wiki; that's why I just could not be bothered to reply to these ridiculous false accusations. STSC (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This is typical. When faced with grievances over content, STSC throws around accusations of a "hate campaign" for "personal reasons" and otherwise avoids at all costs addressing valid concerns over his/her POV editing. I and others have attempted to reason with you on talk pages countless times and it goes nowhere – your enforce your POV and censorship in an uncompromising, bullying manner. Deleting photographs and well-sourced material from pages does not constitute "maintaining a balanced point of view" – it is politically-driven censorship. Citobun (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't lie, we had the 3rd opinion on the image deletion issue and the neutral user agreed to the deletion. On other issues you alone just could not accept other users who have different views from yours and you continue to hold grudges. STSC (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The outcome of that particular instance doesn't change the fact that you frequently censor images for political reasons. For example: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. Accusing others of not accepting different political views is really pot calling the kettle black. I'm not the one blanking and censoring sourced material for political reasons. Citobun (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Not at all censoring and there're good reasons for these edits. Why just brought them on here now if you disputed these edits? Up to now you still could not accept the 3rd opinion on the images in the Hong Kong articles, and it's rather sad you still harbour a long-term grudge against me based on the content disputes in 2014. STSC (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not a question of a "long-term grudge", but rather your own long-term WP:ADVOCACY. Citobun (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You have jumped on every opportunity to use false accusations to discredit other editors. I've seen this all before. STSC (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The nice thing about Wikipedia is that our respective contributions are there for all to see and scrutinize. So call me a liar if you like but your editing history speaks for itself. Citobun (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The bad thing is you abusing the system to harass other user. Other content disputants like user Ohconfucius have moved on since the 2014 Hong Kong protests but you're still Wikihounding your opponent out of revenge. STSC (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not "Wikihounding"...stop throwing around false accusations. We have interacted perhaps one time since the protests a year ago. I contribute now because I was asked to. Citobun (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one who has been throwing false accusations around on here. STSC (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

{Non admin view} The problem, in my eyes, is STSC's edits do look to be more aligned towards the mainland Chinese POV, but on the flip side of it the editors that are raising the complaint have an obvious pro-HK POV. No one comes here with entirely clean hands in this dispute as it's a clash of ideologies. My heritage hails from both sides of the border that once separated China from HK but I was born and raised overseas. I nonetheless have held a strong interest in the politics of the region and in my view this dispute is a manifestation of those differences. For example, prior to STSC's pruning, the 2014 protests in HK article was heavily laden with images. Far more than I would have expected to see for what was essentially a singular event. Some of the other image removals, with the rationale that STSC used do seem reasonable, but as STSC has a pro-mainland POV their image removal makes it look politically motivated. I don't really see the need for action, at this time, against either party except a requirement that WP:DRN be used more frequently. Falun Gong is a very touchy article and is subject to Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Anything that is viewed as violating the sanctions should be referred to WP:AE. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I must thank user Blackmane for your fair comment on this. STSC (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not an HK/mainland issue. My analysis of STSC's editing is skewed toward Hong Kong because that subject is a focus of my own editing and hence the context in which I have encountered him. The problem is that STSC is exclusively a pro-CCP activist editor. Meanwhile I have created articles such as 2015 Hong Kong heavy metal in drinking water incidents which reflects very badly on Hong Kong. Certainly everyone has a POV but I don't think mine is necessarily "pro HK", and more importantly I am not here for Wikipedia:Advocacy or to censor others.

Nobody, STSC included, has really addressed the problematic issues above – misleading edit summaries, censorship of reliably referenced content, refusal to discuss, refusal to cooperate, bullying use of talk page warning templates, almost exclusively agenda editing – that together amount to disruptive editing. If anyone is inclined to characterise this dispute as merely a simple clash of ideologies I would suggest you compare our edit histories side by side and note the differences in editing behavior. Additionally please note that STSC is active in all other controversial China-related subjects, not just Hong Kong and Falun Gong. Citobun (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Your POV is not necessarily "pro-HK" but certainly pro-British colonialism. Editors are free to choose any topic to edit and that's none of your business. STSC (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I am interested in Hong Kong history. I am not pro-British colonialism. Citobun (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I should have said... You're very much 'pro-British colonialism in Hong Kong', of course. STSC (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

No administrative issue here; there's a difference of opinion on emphasis which is quite subtle to outsiders. For example, a link to the article 2014 Hong Kong electoral reform without mentioning it as being "about universal suffrage" does not "censor" anything, since the linked article talks about suffrage in detail. Such a change to a summary on a different article falls within the realm of a copyedit and is not misleading.

What I do think needs to change, though, is when STSC is complaining about a personal attack, he should reference where he is being personally attacked, by using a diff like this (which took 2 seconds to find, so there's probably tons more), where Citobun calls him a "agenda editor". Anyway, these diffs are stale. Stop stoking the fire of old bad feelings. Shrigley (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The diffs I've listed are stale. But the agenda editing has continued, hence why the issue was brought here. Anyway, I am tired of bickering about this and don't really want to contribute further – but this has been a very prolonged issue and if it is not properly addressed I think it will keep reemerging. Citobun (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Citobun has the cheek to complain about "agenda editing" while he would invite Falun Gong editors to join him. That shows his hypocrisy, and basically he and SSTflyer are just trying to silence other editors who don't share their POV. STSC (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Falun Gong nor do I know who you would consider a "Falun Gong editor". Citobun (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I must congratulate you on that. STSC (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems that everyone here forgets the use of misleading edit summaries by STSC. No matter the POV, the edit summary "ce" should not be used when any meaning of the text has been changed. sst✈^(discuss) 15:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Action should be taken against user SSTflyer for abusing the ANI process to silence other editors who do not share his POV. His trick is to start an ANI with a pack of lies and then ping a selection of past content disputants to do his dirty work. The Wikipedia community must not accept this kind of disgraceful hate campaign with political motive. STSC (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You're the one accusing other editors of being "pro-colonialism"142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That's my response to Citobun accusing me of pro-CCP; I'm absolutely not. STSC (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

MFD's related to fair use violation claims in Timed Text

Just FYI, I WP:IAR closed an entire batch of MFD's, venue changing them to a larger discussion at WT:NFC. If you are interested in the discussion, please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair-use_status_of_Timed_Text. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

repeated removal of COI and Notibilty tags on page Thomas Strudwick

Hello When I reviewed the article Thomas Strudwick on the new pages feed, I tagged the article with multiple issues including for COI and Notabilty, but one of the editors (with a possible COI) is ignoring my repeated requests to stop deleting these tags without the necesary article improvements. The whole of the page history shows up these issues. I also suspect sock-puppetry and have requested an investigation about this on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racing25. Please can an administrator get involved here to help? Pahazzard (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no discussion on the talk page. Those tags all suggest discussion on the talk page which is pretty hard to do if you don't explain the COI issues. Notability-wise what is your concern is unclear either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, thanks for all your help. I'm lacking experience in the COI tagging and hadn't thought to write that up in the article talk page - I'll remember to do that in future. The notability guidance seems a bit whooly, and I'd rather tag it than not for at least getting consensus from other editors. There was sockpuppetry involved that has led to the COI accounts being blocked at present, so all fine for now. Thanks again Pahazzard (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Clear COI, in that Thomasstrudwick (talk · contribs) (now blocked) edited only Thomas Strudwick. The subject of the article is marginally notable; there's some press coverage in reliable sources [6][7], and they did win one championship race. So the article needs improvement, but probably not deletion. Attention from someone into motorcycle racing would be helpful. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on the history of Haiti

The following discussion is closed. 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 Savvyjack23 has been attempting to censure any mention of the Haitian genocide from the article on Haiti. I request an Administrator to help mediate the situation, and take an unbiased view at the current article.

The article in question is Haiti.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haitian STEVE (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I've reviewed the situation and agree Savvyjack23 was correct to revert your edits. I suggest you get consensus for your controversial edits on the talk page instead of keep attempting to force it into the introduction. Number 57 18:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

If this is a content dispute, dispute resolution such as WP:3O may be helpful, assuming there's been sufficient discussion on the talk page. clpo13_(talk) 18:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This is far from the truth. (As per mentioned above,) and while many of Haitian STEVE's edits in the past have also been controversial. If you look at his talk page, he has removed all the warnings he has incurred up to this point. To whom it may concern, thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing a warning is proof that the user saw the warning, and it remains in the history for all to see. So, that's a thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

3O wouldn't work because Number 57 has already given an opinion. I'd say the OP is heading for a boomerang. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:49, 20 December 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:BlackJack

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

---

Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at these edits by BlackJack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [8][9]? They certainly seem to cross the line into personal attacks: in eight years I've never before been told that I am "unfit to be an editor here". StAnselm (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Everything that Anselm has done on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) and the article itself needs to be scrutinised, including his convenient relationship with User:Reyk who seems to be on hand whenever anyone replies to Anselm. Anselm has annoyed more than one experienced editor with his condescending attitude and his over-zealous views about the BLP policy, even though he is guilty of breaching the policy himself. He does not comply with WP:AGF and, in that respect, the limit is this accusation: "Now, the fact that you now refer to a guide issued "about 2005" suggests that "Sri Lankan cricketers, 2015" is simply a made-up reference that you added to the article. Don't do that, please". Nothing has been made up as any sensible person reading the discussion would immediately agree. His attitude is disgraceful and several of his actions are completely out of order. In my opinion, he is unfit to be an editor and should resign from WP. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

What this comes down to, StAnselm, is the pure case of verifiability. Technically nothing is verifiable unless we were there at the time witnessing it, and if we *were* there at the time, then this contravenes WP:PRIMARY. Essentially we would end up in a situation where we had *no* articles on Wikipedia, because nothing is truly verifiable. Bobo. 14:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is a reignition of [10]. All this great drama is around the Article for Deletion discussion about S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer), a former first-class cricketer in Sri Lanka. This person is surely less notable in the US than (choose your favorite candidate to the next coming election), but there are some sources about him. Nevertheless it seems that at least one side of the discussion is using arguments that are not established cricket technical expression, like "forgiveness my arse" and "mendacious fuckwittery". It could be useful to remind some 'older' editors that being calm and level-headed could be more convincing than ... I don't remember the exact established cricket technical expression to use here. Pldx1 (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hint to the random passerby: use https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?project=en.wikipedia.org&toplimit=10&user=xxx before having the false impression that any of them could be a newcomer. Pldx1 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like things have cooled. I've left BlackJack a message about making sure to stay civil in the future, which I hope will resolve this thread. Prodego ^talk 18:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment(ec)- StAnselm points out that Jack's precious new sources don't actually say everything Jack claims they do, and Jack responds by attacking StAnselm's religion. That's fucking low, and any remaining inclination I might have had to extend this guy any assumption of good faith is gone. Also not a fan of the following:

• Re-creating an article that was deleted via consensus at AfD (and confirmed by DRV), with juuuuuuust enough cosmetic changes to persuade a lenient admin not to G4 the wretched thing, despite doing nothing to actually address the reason for deletion. If someone immediately renominates a kept article just to get another roll of the AfD dice, that would not be permitted. This is exactly the same thing.
• Places two warning templates on StAnselm's talk page at once, then "Look how many warning templates he has" along with a lot of associated bluster. Not to mention that placing the warning templates in the first place was silly tit-for-tat retaliation for this.
• Lots of personal attacks: 'idiot', 'You are a condescending individual whose motives are highly questionable.' , 'You are a disgrace.', 'infantile sidekick'. Took me a little while to realise this last attack was aimed at me, because I don't recall having much interaction with StAnselm before we crossed paths at the Perera AfD. Not sure if I'm being accused of sockpuppetry or what, but I think deigning to answer this allegation would give it a veneer of legitimacy. Reyk _YO! 18:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps User:Reyk could tell us his opinion about the sentence I just haven't got the time or patience to indulge your brand of mendacious fuckwittery that someone used in the aforementioned Article for Deletion discussion ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC) .

• No, but I can reveal that I have no time or patience for smug passive-aggressive fuckwittery either. If you have an issue with me, have the decency to talk to me directly instead of adopting this haughty attitude. And before you start screaming "WAA! NPA!" let me remind you that I am describing behaviour, not namecalling. Reyk _YO! 14:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Two wrongs do not make a right - making a personal attack in response to a personal attack is still a personal attack. "It's behavior, not namecalling" is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that all worked, didn't it? BJ has stomped off into retirement, which makes resolution of the original issue at this AfD a lot more difficult. Sometimes we have to put up with people like him who are brusque in manner and direct in tone because they get things done. Johnlp (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"Brusque" is quite the euphemism in this instance. Wikipedia can get along just fine without "brusque" editors, no matter what their perceived importance is. clpo13_(talk) 09:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed; if somebody flounces in response to being called out for blatant personal attacks, Wikipedia will survive without them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 23 December 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.

"Traitor" in a BLP article

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

---

GreenBeret65 and SheriffIsInTown want to describe Hussain Haqqani as a "traitor" in the lead of this BLP article. [11], [12], [13]. When I point out that it is a conetentious label, their response is that I should get the term added to the list [14]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• I removed the text from the lead. These cats better take it to the talk page: this is a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• I would also like to point out that it is well-sourced and it was added by GreenBeret65 was reverted by Kautilya3 saying it is unsourced but when i went in to check i found it to be sourced since it was removed describing it unsourced, i reverted him saying that it is sourced, if there was some other reason given for the revert by Kautilya3 then it might have been a different case but at this point i find that text as sourced and the term "traitor" not in the "Words to watch" list. Sheriff | report | 18:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  Dude, what are you even saying? --QEDK (T ❄ C) 18:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  Please point out what you did not understand and i will try to explain as best as possible, i really thought i was using English language though. Sheriff | report | 19:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of English language, the word "traitor" was used with two sources where this word is just not present. A dictionary was used in edit summaries as a justification, but that's just original synthesis. On other words: reinsert that again and be blocked. Max Semenik (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to "not to use" the exact words as in the source as it becomes copy violation and write it in your own words or am i understanding copyvio wrong? Sheriff | report | 19:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, but that's not the problem. You're also not supposed to interpret the sources and come to interpretations that aren't explicitly in them. Especially when it come to biographies of living persons. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

So, how would you interpret the text "Husain Haqqani was not loyal to Pakistan"? Tell me your interpretation because that's what the source says? Sheriff | report | 19:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

We are not censors. If someone (and they should be identified as the speaker/writer) says it, and it is their voice it can be reported as their statement or opinion. It can also be disputed if someone says to the contrary. If it is a flat statement of fact then it should not be said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If we can do something like that, and I'm not too sure, it should always be "according to xxx he was not loyal to Pakistan". That would at least need consensus between editors I think. But even then I'm not sure if it's ok to repeat accusations by third parties. The source seems to be the website of a newspaper. I think it's problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Crazy idea all, take this to the talk page of the article, where it belongs. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Source is the news piece by a major Pakistani newspaper quoting a well known commission report which declares a Pakistani citizen "not loyal to Pakistan". According to this the source becomes secondary because it is reporting a primary source and it would not be in violation of WP:RS or WP:BLP. I don't see any reason why it should not be mentioned except mere belligerence by a few editors.

By the way, i like your phone! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:27, 23 December 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.

83.220.238.225

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

---

Can someone please revoke talk page for User talk:83.220.238.225 and extend the block? This IP came up with the interesting concept of vandalizing WP:AIV by repeatedly removing the reports of their own vandalism, and is now removing notices from their talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Now revoked and rangeblocked for six months. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:37, 23 December 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.

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

MarkBernstein and insinuations

The following discussion is closed. 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 fully expected to be blocked at AIV in the thread where MarkBernstein said this. Given that I had exceeded the bright line, I had no defence in policy. If someone now wants to over-rule the decision made by Mark Arsten then I have no problem with that. However, I am fed up of seeing MarkBernstein insinuating rubbish such as he did there and I'm fed up of his soapboxing and treading of the line with his routinely acerbic comments and edit summaries. I would like someone to review the general situation, not merely that specific episode.

There are people here who can probably confirm that I live in an area that has one of the most dense populations of Jewish people in the UK, and I pretty much always have done. It really doesn't help matters when someone alludes to anti-Semitism in that context, however cleverly they word it, nor is it necessarily the case that someone called Bernstein is in fact Jewish anyway (or, for that matter, that I am not). It is this playing with words, as he also did in the same comment with regard to my supposed (but in fact entirely incorrect) association with Gamergate people.

It needs to stop and in fact it needed to stop months ago. How much more of this stuff must people take before his clever use of semantics is recognised for what it is, ie: a POV-pushing smear campaign on a massive scale where any angle will be exploited, however tenuous. I doubt that the Gamergaters are any better but I'm not affiliated with either "side" and if the only solution is to ignore the article etc then the outcome will be what it is now: a crock of shit unworthy of an encyclopaedia. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

So why not just say what you meant by "your people" and "lawyering"?Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :I am very sorry that Sitush took my remark as he did.

A correspondent has urged me that “I think it's in your best interests to withdraw your comment and perhaps apologize, because it was over the line. There is no question that you have been subjected to horrific anti-semetic harassment by gamergate, but you can't assume that everyone you clash with on that article has been sent there by gamergate HQ.”

I am at this moment very angry with that correspondent, but against my better judgment I will comply. But I do not believe that Sitush was sent by Gamergate HQ.

This correspondent has previously warned me that Situs’s displeasure is so powerful and so influential that none can withstand it. Extortion cannot be resisted in such circumstances, and here my acquiescence is demanded. I therefore meekly apologize and beg your pardon.

If you will excuse me, I have a dinner party to prepare. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(1) Hello, context please? What decision are you talking about overruling? (2) What kind of admin action do you want? Overruling Arsten's decision? Sanctions for Bernstein? Something else? Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• To paraphrase the wit and wisdom of Kimberly "Sweet Brown" Wilkins, ain't nobody got time for this! There's only one question relevant to this thread: Sitush, where can you find a good bagel in your area? Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

So this is a crock of shit also. Can't you lot see what MarkBernstein is doing even when he does it in this very thread? Useless, the lot of you. - Sitush (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sitush is correct—the linked comment in the OP and the comments above show that MarkBernstein is massively misinformed and obnoxious. Sitush may be on the wrong bus at gamergate controversy, but the smear that anti-Semitism might be involved is pathetic. Perhaps MB moves in circles where anti-Semitism lurks in every comment, but quite apart from assume good faith, the "people" comment makes no sense if interpreted in that fashion, whereas it matches the thoughts in the talk page argument which concerns those on each side of a dispute, and where "SPA" and "people" are mentioned. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 24 December 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.

BLP violations at Mo Ansar

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

---

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

Having an issue with this user at Mo Ansar, repeatly reverting to insert their negatively-skewed POV of this political commentator. Has been warned by several editors not to reinsert defamatory material like this but continues unabated, with edit summaries such as "unfortunately for you, it's the truth". Only edits this article, unless it's to insert negative POV about this person in other articles. WP:NOTHERE block appears to be in order. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A quite horrid BLP at best. I cleaned up some of the worst bits, but a lot of it is still "sourced" to YouTube. Collect (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have referenced all of my edits. Although they have been taken out, feel free to check back. I have reverted some and it has then gone back without references. I can only apologise for being new and not getting the rules right. This whole page since Dec 2015 was edited into a promo page, which i don't think this site should be used for. The Youtube channel you talk of collect hosted nothing but footage of the subject, including a recording of one of his personal phone calls. I will leave you to decide who runs the 'Driller Kay' account on Youtube.

Ivanvector unfortunately there is a lot of negative points around the subject of this page. As I'm sure you can see by the evidence that 'either he or someone close to him' edited this page to make himself look good. I have inserted many credible links and citings to my edits of which you and others have removed, however they do not breech conduct rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LutonPete (talk • contribs) 01:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

LutonPete continues to edit war ([15] [16] [17]) to reinsert improperly sourced defamatory material about this living person, despite being told that their sources are unacceptable and their edits violate policy. Asking for an admin to intervene. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:46, 23 December 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.

Yerevan Thermal Power Plant

The following discussion is closed. 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 a part of student assignement, Armanilogin (talk · contribs) and Eduard Muradyan (talk · contribs) continues to re-add copyrighted material to the Yerevan Thermal Power Plant. The issue is discussed at the articleõs talk page and at my talk page, but these editors refuse to understand the copyright violations policy and ignores the request to not restore copyrighted material or remove maintenance tgs without discussing first. Beagel (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear administration, the user Baegal does not discuss anything with us. He just deletes our work putting his own without explaining anything. We have redone our work 5 times and he does not respond in any way. He just puts the article the same way as he did before, and deletes our work constantly. IF we violate something he could at least explain us what to do. Nevertheless, he speaks with us with an offensive tone, and does not cooperate with us. We would be glad to cooperate with him and help wikipedia with its hard job. Also, you can see in his message lots of grammatical mistakes, that one more time proves his attitude. I think he has issues to my race/nationality. Best Regards, A new, but enthusiastic member of Wikipedia, Arman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanilogin (talk • contribs) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted once again and given each user a clear warning about this. Sam Walton (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It still is going on [18]. Possible evasion of block. Beagel (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

And possible sockpuppet [19]. Beagel (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When I arrived just now Armanilogin (talk · contribs) was already blocked 36h for copyvio after they continued the behavior. APEIJEQQAGHAQ (talk · contribs) was then created and continued attempting to "restructure" the article. I've indef'd that account as the loudest of ducks and semi-protected the article for 3 days to discourage further block evasion. Hopefully this will push the editors in question to discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the block of Armanilogin to indefinite due to the threats they just made on their talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Could you also block APEIJEQQAGHAQ (talk · contribs) and Eduard Muradyan (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets/meatpuppets of the sockmaster? Thank you. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 18:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@QEDK: Not so sure about Eduard Muradyan since they've been around the whole time. Beagel mentioned the possibility of a class project, which seems probable. Sam Walton (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Yeah, seems to be a meatpuppet. I think we're better off giving a bit of ROPE one last time. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 19:12, 21 December 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.

Scottywong's FCOI

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

---

• Scottywong (talk · contribs)
• CobraNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User_talk:Scottywong#Conflict_of_interest
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#CobraNet

Scottywong has apparently come out of retirement to defend CobraNet. CobraNet is currently a GA article that Scottywong created with his very first edit, and which he worked on for over two years to get approved as a GA.

Scottywong currently has a WP:FCOI with some portions of the article, being an employee of a non-notable company highlighted in the article whose publications are being used as sources.

Scottywong doesn't believe he has a FCOI in this situation, and has pointed out that he originally added the content and sources before he was hired by the company.

Scottywong hasn't disclosed his identity nor his employer, and would like it to remain so. I am not aware of him disclosing enough information about himself to make his identity apparent. He has made his employer rather easy to determine given his comments and editing given what he says here. I expect that was made in response to situations where similar disclosures where made. I'm unaware of those edits/discussions. I've not looked to see if he's made similar, coi-violating edits.

The problems that I'm having with Scottywong is that he doesn't feel he has a FCOI, he's not been following COI (especially WP:COIADVICE), and he's pushing the limits of WP:COITALK (granted, there's no evidence he's being paid to edit Wikipedia). Most importantly, his participation in the current content dispute at CobraNet places the disclosure of his employer in jeopardy, and creates a great deal of doubt that he can put the interests (policies, etc) of Wikipedia before those of his employer (especially when you know who that employer is). If he wants to keep the identity of his employer private, he should not be making the edits and comments that he has.

I don't keep abreast of how much more strongly COI has been enforced the past few years after the FCOI restrictions were extended, and have only glanced at some of the ArbCom and other discussions that led to the new restrictions. I hope editors more familiar with the FCOI changes will comment. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ronz, according to your editing history, you apparently have a determined mission to seek out the slightest resemblance, however innocent, of COI. While that is perhaps admirable, I have been following your discussions with Scottywong and it appears to me that you have practically forced him out of retirement to answer to your claims. Your relentless pursuit under the guise of polite conversation is undue and Scottywong in my opinion was wrong to even engage with you. My suggestion to you both is for Scott to relax any claims he holds over that ancient creation and let it be disfigured, even deleted, and enjoy his retirement. May I respectfully suggest that Ronz channel their efforts into helping to combat and clean up far more serious cases of organised large-scale paid advocacy such as the ongoing Orangemoody and similar issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Ronz means well but is unable to communicate (as in two-way: the output system works well, but the input system is defective). I suppose disinterested editors will have to watch the circus and try to revert any excess. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• So far the read has been more fun than watching reruns on Netflix. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Scottywong had a spotless record at Wikipedia and built really informative tools during his stay. I'm pretty sure he's had more interaction with the policies than most of us (passive-aggressive way of bringing up our horrible editor retention stats). Now, I went through the discussions you specified and the only conclusion I draw is, you're unnecessarily drawing out his past where he was made the victim, just like here. I don't know where you spotted his wrongful behavior and I don't see it now. Nor do I know what you seek out of this ANI. He had defended Kvng who has yes, held his stance aggressively, edit-warring too, that's wrong. But I don't think, that can be held against him to slam sanctions. I don't believe I've had any personal interaction with Scottywong before, so hey boy, no COI here. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 12:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Scottywong made his COI statement in May 2012. I have no interest in looking why he made it. He brought it up, not me. I am very cautious when it comes to avoiding any outing, but if editors feel otherwise, please provide diffs or the like so I can improve.

Apparently he is less that familiar with our policies when it comes to spam [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] (granted, the last two are questionable].

He's employed by a company that he highlights in the article, and reverted to retain the portion of that content currently under dispute [25] [26] [27] . These reverts violate COI. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Deleting an external link to the subject of the article seems rather stupid. Further, you seem to be hounding him, and I seem to recall where he says he does not have any COI so you really need to lay off your claims. You seem to be the problem editor here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the external links: He followed me to articles to challenge my routine cleanup of them.

He wrote, "Also, at the time that I originally wrote this article, I was not employed by the same company I am employed by now. So, when you say that I used my own employer as a source, that's not accurate. At the time that I actually wrote that article and used that source, they were not my employer. " I'm not saying his original edits violated FCOI, I'm saying the diffs above do, and he's confirmed it. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who added all that content (haven't gone through all the diffs) but the stuff restored by Scottywong does read like an advertisement, uses peacock terms and there's light puffery. I'm unsure about my stance now. But, let us not insinuate just because Scottywong has declined to provide any information about his employment, he isn't required to do so. Also, adding external links is fine, but I've barely seen anyone do so and in many cases (read: not all), it's people promoting themselves. Also, I agree with Sir Joseph when it comes to the hounding issue, take it down a notch. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 16:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Scottywong:. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 16:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

CobraNet prior to other contributions. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Revamping of article in progress. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 17:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed lede, History and Advantages and Disadvantages sections. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 18:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• I can't close this because I've already commented. However, Ronz, it appears you have not taken any notice whatsoever of what others have said, so the very least you deserve is a big wet trout for starting the thread in the first place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• Ronz' editing behaviour has been so simplistically dogmatic in the past (All ELs must perish, no matter what value they add) that I've wondered if they weren't a 'bot. Certainly they could be implemented as one. Sadly, this issue doesn't shift my opinion.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 24 December 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.

PA in Persian

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

---

Hey, this edit contains unbelieved amount PA in it. Can you do something about it? :)Ladsgroup^overleg 13:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I can translate if you want. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 13:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Google translate gives smth which is very negative against Iran indeed, but I am not feeling comfortable blocking a user based on Google translate. Do we have Persian-speaking admins?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I guess, since it's two people (three, counting me) already and we've tried it on translation sites (I've checked on a few other translation sites too, to be sure), just revdel and if anything comes up, then maybe discuss and chill? --QEDK (T ❄ C) 15:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I revision-deleted it and mailed oversight. I am still not sure about the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I've checked previously, and there are no enwiki admins who speak Persian (or at least none who advertise it on their talk page using babel. Brustopher (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I warned the user, and this is probably about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Multiple duplicate pages created by Wj887

The following discussion is closed. 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 Wj887 appears to have created multiple duplicate pages which need deleting, under the names QHT, Quantum Hi-Tech, Quantum Hi Tech, etc. I was unable to pick them out specifically because they are exactly alike in terms of content. The articles he's created have been CSD tagged multiple times but the user has continued to recreate these articles. CatcherStorm ^talk 06:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I gave him/her a final warning. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:21, 22 December 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.

Security concern

The following discussion is closed. 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 this message on my talk page; an IP accusing me of making an edit on his talk page, today. I tried to investigate to see what I might have done (by accident) and the user page shows its history with one edit credited to me, looping back to MY talk page. My contributions shows no edit to this IP user page. So this is a most confusing loop of unsubstantial accusations and misdirected history. Is this a breach in the security or some other manipulation? Trackinfo (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything. What user page are you referring to? Prodego ^talk 05:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm only seeing the IP's edit on your talk page, but nothing that looks like you (or someone faking you) editing their page. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a trap! Because the IP doesn't have a user page, clicking the IP shows his contributions, not his user page or a diff. Normally you'd expect to see a page or a diff or a history of that page but because it's an IP it's howing his contributions. Nothing to worry about. Just read the top of the page where it says it's his contributions and not a user page, history or diff. --DHeyward (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Trackinfo I created a talk page and user page. I bet it looks different for you now. --DHeyward (talk) 06:08, 22 December 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.

WillShowU

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

---

WillShowU appears to think that he can issue edicts unilaterally in Indian cinema articles, and the result is persistent disruption. I will point out that the user has been active since only November 30, 2015, made a few edits at a few different articles, but then really and hit the ground running. This is a pattern often seen among people who work in editing rings. They often do diverse editing early on to get past the autoconfirmed filters.

• Here he removes a box office value from a film article's infobox with the edict "worldwide gross is added after full run". I try to explain to him that common editing practice is to update this value as new information unfolds. There's nothing at Template:Infobox film that dissuades this. He doesn't reply.
• Here he removes the gross values from the infobox again, explaining "worldwide gross can be added at the end. Please." I warned him about that again. No response.
• Here he changes the box office value, but the reference used shows a range of 145-150. He picked the higher number instead of presenting the range. I asked him why he didn't present the range. He ignored the question.
• Here he again removes the box office gross value from the infobox, commenting "For God's Sake, listen to me. I dont have the time to take a silly thing to the talk page. We will add gross at the end, otherwise different people will come with different sources, vandalize the page or start an edit war. Please use your brain."

Editor needs to be clearly edified that this is a community project, that he doesn't get to unilaterally fabricate rules and issue edicts, that he can't edit war, and that he can't attempt WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. Between me and other admins, it wouldn't surprise me if he was a sock of someone, although I have not yet determined who yet. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I just noticed that he made this edit where he introduces content lifted verbatim from Times of India. So integrity is also an issue here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: The user is an WP:SPA having edited article only related to the film Dilwale (2015 film); might also have WP:COI somehow or be a paid editor and might need a disclaimer per WP:PAID. I have dropped a note on their page regarding this. Lets see what they reply. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In this edit, he uses the edit summary: "Remember that I am being as cordial as I can. I have explained my edits once before and if anyone has a doubt, can check that. I don't know who is retarded enough to not understand." If this is as cordial as he gets, we may have a problem. There certainly do seem to be strong elements of ownership here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And the really sad thing about this, is that he had to backpedal on his obnoxious bluster after he realized he was wrong. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaaand here's another delightful tidbit. He's unilaterally deciding what is or isn't a sufficient source for box values. If anybody changes the gross or source, they must explain their edit and give a better and more convincing source than this (not Bollywood Hungama, Koimoi etc.) The Indian cinema task force is fine with Bollywood Hungama. They're not happy about Koimoi, but it's been very difficult to enforce. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I'm convinced now that this is a sock of WikiBriefed Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• WillShowU blocked for 48 hours. If they should stop editing after the 48-hour block, as WikiBriefed did in November, I guess that would be further suggestive of sockpuppetry. Bishonen | talk 16:29, 23 December 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 range on a revert edit war

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

---

Would an admin take a look at 81.170.6.182 and , 81.170.9.201 both geolocate to the same area. Just started a series of revert wars targeted at a couple of editors (one of which is me). Ignoring warnings on the talk page. Probably someone taking out a grudge or two while on a christmas holiday with a different computer. Thanks ----Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted a few edits and given them warnings. Now to see if an admin will act. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Both blocked. 182 got a longer block as that is the currently active one. Clearly the same person using multiple IPs to edit war, making disingenuous edit summaries including some personal attacks and unacceptable slurs based on mental health. BethNaught (talk) 20:24, 24 December 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 - block evading comes back to taunt blocking admin

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

---

190.45.71.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP Long term abusive editor, currently blocked for one year, a month later comes back to taunt the blocking admin. [[28] WCM_email 19:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

[29] Diff of one year range block. WCM_email 19:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

[30] Removal of ANI notice, in case anyone complains I didn't send one. WCM_email 19:48, 24 December 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.

Caution review needed

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

---

Having reviewed multiple faulty speedy nominations from a new editor, OOblivion, I have concerns that this caution may not have been merited, especially since it was issued on OOblivion's second day on the wiki. There's nothing visible on MD's edit history to indicate one way or the other. Could someone with the tools please check. Bazj (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• This does not need reporting here. There are many ways of telling new users they are not ready for NPP. I do it all the time. Stiging them with an ANI so soon will lose them for us. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't seem to have conveyed my concern very well since both OOblivion and Kudpung have commented. My concern is that MorganDrear may have a caution on his record which may not be deserved. If it wasn't deserved it ought to be removed. Since stuff has been deleted how else (where else) can I get an admin to check it? Bazj (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

MorganDrear may remove the note anytime they want to, but it was deserved as they did remove a speedy deletion tag from an article they created. OOblivion did not do anything wrong here. -- GB fan 13:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

GB fan, Thanks, that's all I needed to hear. And apologies all round for the drama caused by what was intended to be a simple question. Bazj (talk) 13:46, 24 December 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 Randall Adhemar and IP 69.200.228.170 - Persistent addition of unsourced content and unwillingness to comply

This user/IP has been persistenly adding unsourced content to various articles and continues to do so after a final warning on his talk page User talk:69.200.228.170.

• 69.200.228.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Randall Adhemar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note that this fixed IP indeed belongs to the registered user: [31], [32], [33].

On several occasions the user has come to my talk page with walls of text, protesting about my removals of his unsourced content: archived here and currently here. On each occasion I responded that Wikipedia needs sources. He also went to user NeilN's talk page with similar complaints (User talk:NeilN/Archive 27#Calculus) and User talk:NeilN/Archive 27#Calculus_2, where he was replied to by users NeilN and My very best wishes. This user/IP seems to be convinded that given his expertise in certain matters, that their is no need for him to provide sources. With this particular edit he added—directly into the article—a typical talk page like comment, including a personal comment about me. At that point I gave him a 3rd level warning ([34]). After his next unsourced edit ([35]), I gave a final warning ([36]).

After that final warning:

• "Things that are not in question, are well-established historically and amid the scholarly community and more, do not require citation. This is a rule of scholarship."
• "I will continue to state the sky is blue without sourcing, any whatsoever"
• (large rant), responded by tps users Paradoctor ([37]) and NottNott ([38]).
• "DMDv uniformly suppresses, claims privilege to do so based on not being a scholar or having qualifications, claims wikipedia is not scholarship, notes suggest obvious vendetta, considering the much unsourced material in wikipedia"

In view of this last edit summary I decided not to reply anymore. This user seems not be interested in how Wikipedia works, he refuses to properly format talk page messages, assumes bad faith, ignores comments pointing to relevant policies and guidelines and helpful essays, attributes other people's helpful comments to me. Perhaps adminstrative action might help here? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User and IP notified on talk pages: ([39], [40]). - DVdm (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

More Dodgyness

More dodgyness, just like some previous dodgyness.
User:Nimmu23 and User:Zestmind
These two SPAs are likely the same person. Both followed the same sneaky method to introduce there adverts into Wikipedia.
Start a sandbox.

Zestmind

Nimmu23

After waiting a period of time create an article.

Zestmind

Nimmu23

Hijack a unrelated redirect.

dif deleted. (Barbara Khozam) Zestmind

Nimmu23

Move to new location.

Zestmind

Nimmu23

Change target of resulting redirect back to what was there.

Zestmind

Nimmu23

Both also created short user and talk pages on the same day as they introduced their spam to mainspace.

Zestmind [41]

Nimmu23 [42]

Is this the MO of a new shills sockfarm? Am I right in guessing these two are too old for a checkuser at SPI? Anyone seeing the like still happening? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me. I'm pretty sure a CU check will result in {{Confirmed}} (if sockpuppets). Hence, a few blocks are in order. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 07:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Duffbeerforme: The accounts are indeed stale when it comes to the Checkuser tool.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Tobibln and their long-term pattern of unsourced changes

This [43] is the last of a long record of unsourced additions of content from Tobibln (talk · contribs). The user continues ignoring the warnings left at their talk regarding the addition of unreferenced material. You may find more diffs at the user's talk. I believe other actions are now in order.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Which destination are you disputing? A quick check of Moscow Domodedovo Airport's flight schedule webpage verifies all the aiports Tobibln added. This is a nine year, 33k / 98.8% mainspace edit, drama free account [44]. Unreferenced material is allowed to be added -- a reference is only required if it's likely to be challenged. Why would someone argue about easily verified airplane destinations? NE Ent 17:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you heard about WP:BURDEN? References for start/end dates are required per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I do notice that you have made several attempts to communicate with Tobibln. I notice that User:Tobibln has never responded to you or anyone else on their user talk page or article talk page. There does seem to be a failure to respond to legitimate concerns or communication in general. It seems in 9 years this user has somehow not talked to anyone. HighInBC 18:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's just wait for their opinion here, although my major concern is that they keep introducing unsourced statements. Maybe we have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I've also noticed this behavior, and I've undone lots of his edits, like this. Looking at his contributions, I've found this old edit, where Tobibln talked to another user. So I don't understand why he's not responding on his talk page, as the user has certainly seen notifications. Wjkxy (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN says "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (wikilink original). The advice at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT includes "10. For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included." In both examples given in this thread, finding a reference to support Tobibln's addition was easy. The big picture question should be, what is more important, that Tobibln is improving mainspace by adding non-contentious, easily verifiable content without referencing it, or that they are not "following the rules"? Per Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY the obvious answer should be the former. NE Ent 12:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point here, I'm not talking about current destinations. They added an unsourced entry here [45] (i.e., the new service to Krasnoyarsk), that's the very reason of this discussion. And references should be provided, as stated in WP:VERIFY: ″All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.″ This is what Tobibln did not do. Their continuous addition of unsourced content like the one in the diff has to stop, mostly considering that they did not reply to any of my messages left at their talk and that, despite being well aware of the verififiability policy, continued with their behaviour.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Here [46] you have a clean example (i.e., not masked by current destinations that currently do not require a citation) of a totally unsourced addition made by this editor.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tobibln: you have been here almost 10 years but have never really talked to anyone in the community. We are a collaborative project, please discuss this with us. HighInBC 21:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Well this user has not edited since this post here. I would say that this is probably going to get archived without a response. I think if it carries on and they continue to fail to communicate that it should be brought back here and this thread linked to. HighInBC 15:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Jisteele

Back in October 2013 the above user was temporarily blocked at User talk:Jisteele for vandalism. It appears that this user has been up to the same shenanigans. Just go to his or her contributions here, and you will find plenty of changes in articles about towns and neighborhoods that are quite minor and not explained in an edit summary. If I am not mistaken, this fellow or girl has also been doing the same kind of edits under a different name, for which he or she has been blocked. I certainly hope you can look into this and take the necessary steps. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this IP is the same person, with the same kind of bad edits (very minor, with no Edit summaries). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wholesale reversions of Doc James edits

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

---

• 166.170.223.83 (talk · contribs)

Systematic reversions of Doc James' edits at capital punishment articles. These appear to constitute edit warring using multiple IPs, as indicated here, for instance [47]. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Where did you notify Doc James about this complaint and/or try to discuss this with him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• I just left a notice on his talk page, as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• What's going on is that the IPv4 user is warring as part of a dispute into a) whether certain articles should use the {{Capital punishment}} template and b) where on the page it should be placed. For now we can wait for a response from Doc James. BethNaught (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I have changed the title as I found it confusing. Presumably the complainant is reporting the IP, not Doc James. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, my original intent was more to cast light on the IP's edits, especially since they have emanated from multiple accounts. But given my uncertainty regarding the use of such templates, and the long term nature of the dispute, I did feel the need to rely on the acumen of others. BethNaught's interpretation is helpful. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• And thank you for changing the title, Baseball Bugs. I hadn't realized how misleading it may have been. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. Basically we discussed switching this template from a sidebar to a navbar. We gave discussion a month. All involved agreed it was a good idea here. Therefore I made the change and move the template on 150 or so articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 25 December 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.

College Football Data Warehouse

College Football Data Warehouse the website that we link to for their stats is listed by Google as actively distributing malware. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

College Football Data Warehouse is an excellent website, arguably the best for American college football historical schedules and win-loss records, etc., for teams and coaches. Unfortunately, their website security is abysmal, and the site has been repeatedly hijacked by third-party hackers for distributing malware over the past couple of years. The problem seems to affect our links to the site rather direct visits to it. You may want to speak with Jweiss11 and Cbl62, who have been in direct contact with the website's creators and maintenance people in the past. They need to take a more pro-active approach to website security, or WP:CFB is going to have to consider completely de-linking all of our articles because we cannot in good faith recommend the site to our readers or use it for linked references if they cannot address their security problems in a more effective way. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You could use WebCite or the Internet Archive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Bias in Sporting Clube de Portugal by User:SportingCP1906

(@Yamaguchi先生 and Davefelmer:)

I don't know if this is the right place, and I have complained in Yamaguchi先生's talk page, but please review edits in Sporting Clube de Portugal since 24 November 2015, before SportingCP1906 (talk · contribs) joined Wikipedia. As a Sporting CP supporter, he has been introducing blantant bias in the article, using primary sources, unreliable sources, non-notable content, and unsourced content about living people. Thank you very much. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

SportingCP1906 has also been uploading copyrighted images to Commons without permission to be used in Sporting Clube de Portugal. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I am free at the moment and I will have a look at the article. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: First of all, thanks for your assistance.

The sentence "3.5 million fans spread across the globe" in the lead is unsourced. It's a claim made by Sporting CP. The rivalries section has heavy bias, for example, it does not mention the fact that Sporting CP fans put a stand of Estádio da Luz on fire when Benfica beat Sporting in 2011. This incident is way way more notable than "In 2015, in a futsal derby, members of No Name Boys referenced the incident by showing a banner with the inscription "Very Light 96", an act which infuriated Sporting", which actually was a consequence of Sporting fans making fun of the death of one of No Name Boys founders, Gullit, before the futsal match. "Some argued that the incident of 1996 wasn't an accident, but a deliberate act to cause injury on Sporting fans", the source is not working and Record is a newspaper close to Sporting, part of group Cofina (yes, like a conspiracy. "Álvaro Sobrinho is also the largest private investor in Sporting Clube de Portugal" and "holds large investments in telecommunications with YooMee Africa and the media industry with Newshold Group", related to Cofina...), and according to Portuguese media the incident has always been described as an accident. To imply that it wasn't is speculation, a serious accusation and a BLP violation on the person who did it (he already served his time in prison), whom is still alive.

"and fans of the club were so disgusted by their team's performance that they began setting fire to their scarfs and flags", the source is from a Sporting supporters website, and the claim is doubtful since is usually made by Sporting supporters to infuriate Benfica supporters. For example, Sporting fans still commemorate the result of that match, despite Benfica won the league and cup that season.

"Sporting were heavy favorites, and at the time had one of the greatest squads that ever graced Portuguese football pitches" clearly biased. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

By user:SportingCP1906.

I don't understand the issue here, but it seems everything I write is either biased or incorrect. I do not intend to offend anyone or start a edit war, but this is very unpleasant, as I'm just completing a page that was extremely incomplete before i joined wikipedia.

First things first: I do not own any of the pictures, however, I use them as a free licence for educational purposes, and they all relate to important moments of Sporting. What I'm going to do is put the places where I have taken the pictures from. As such, people can know I'm only citing other sources for educational purposes.

Second: the person who says Record belongs to Cofina and has close ties to Sporting, but does not show facts to prove the point. So if I'm biased and I use unsourced evidence, the same should apply to the user in question.

Third: :"Sporting were heavy favorites, and at the time had one of the greatest squads that ever graced Portuguese football pitches" clearly biased. . This is from a Benfica blog, as such, is biased, but it says exactly the same as I was saying. The person in question must be portuguese, because seems to know a lot about portuguese football, as such, must have faculties to read the article. And for a fact, Sporting had a great team: Luis Figo (future Ballon d'Or Winner), Paulo Sousa (two-time UEFA Champions League winner) and Balakov, recently considered the greatest Stuttgart player of all time. Also, I say Benfica won the championship, I do not hide that.

Fourth: I talk about dark periods of the club, such as the nearly demise in 2012-13 and the 12-1 aggregate loss for Bayern Munich in 2009. Also, there are videos on the Internet proving Benfica fans set fire to the scarfs and flags. And before that I say "Benfica were at the head of the table", something not mentioned.

Fifth: Regarding the very light incident, I will had more information regarding behavior of both clubs, I do not argue with that. However, I must show this TSF is one of the most renowned radios in Portugal, as such, is reliable.

The person clearly supports Benfica, and there is a conflict of interest for both sides then. However, I'm going to keep edit and fulfill a page that deserves to be more complete. Any problem with that and I'm willing for a healthy discussion, not one that borders the ridicule.

References

You don't understand copyright. What you do is license laundering, and you don't understand fair use.

Portuguese people who follow Portuguese football know that. I don't have to prove it since I'm not editing Cofina or Record.

Blogs aren't reliable sources.

"Videos on the internet" aren't reliable sources.

The "incident" in the futsal derby isn't notable when compared to the fire inside Estádio da Luz.

If you really want to improve the article about your club, you should read Wikipedia:List of guidelines. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

As a Portuguese myself, the word Portugal caught my eye, and I am willing to help. However, I tried to go through the user in question's (user) contributions, and they're too long to analyze. Por favor, can you please provide diffs about their behavior on the article. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive user evading infinite ban of former accounts User:WaterIsland resp. User:WaterIsland95

I want to inform you about the case of the disruptive IPs 85.103.155.148 (talk · contribs) and 88.251.102.7 (talk · contribs), possibly also 81.214.42.5 (talk · contribs) used by an editor who is more than obviously evading the infinite ban of WaterIsland95 (talk · contribs) and its previous incarnation as WaterIsland (talk · contribs).
Content-wise, the disagreeements aren't huge. A recent example: the user repeatedly claimed that Finansbank was already owned by Qatari QNB Bank while the purchase is only expected to be completed by Q3/2016, as per the Financial Times source. Other edits by the user are helpful though, so the user seems to be primarily unexperienced and stubborn, rather than bad faithed.
It still happened quite some times that an edit of the user proved controversial, including a number of wrongly sourced files uploaded by User talk:WaterIsland. And whenever an edit proves controversial, the problem can't be resolved as the user proved unable or unwilling to resolve any disagreements by discussion. There is also no apprehension of Wikipedia rules, though carefully briefed on User talk:WaterIsland95.
I really did my best to draw that user into a conversation, but finally failed to get the person to cooperate. When the person finally answered, the answers were derisive rather than cooperative. I have to inform you about the case now, partly in order to protect myself from potential harassing, as the user feels offended from my discussion offers and has stated that "this was just the beginning." I guess we have to block his IP range or find any other way to deal with the problem this user poses and may continue to pose. --PanchoS (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

These three are all Turk Telekom IPs but are from unrelated ranges, hence there's no opportunity for range block. I will block the IPs for a short period and will semi-protect the article Finansbank which appears to be their sole interest at this time. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the stop-gap measure, Diannaa! I reviewed all the edits again, and have to confess that I'm not 100% sure anymore whether these are really edits by the banned WaterIsland (talk · contribs). Finansbank might also have become a honeypot for casual IP contributors, particularly from Turkey. WaterIsland has been focussed so much on Greece topics that the overlap may well be a coincidence. So while semi-protection for the article is a good thing, I guess we need to unblock the IPs. I really apologize for the noise… :/
Regarding the banned WaterIsland, we'll have to wait a few days to see if that user accepts the ban this time, after there has not been any kind of response on my notice. We might want to leave the case open for a few more days to see if yet another reincarnation pops up or not. Best wishes and again sorry, PanchoS (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree; it looks to me like WaterIsland is the only person that has been editing the article since October. I think I'll leave the blocks in place. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Anjo-sozinho on Carlos I of Portugal and related articles

User:Anjo-sozinho has for, I believe some years now shown a pattern of disruptive editing on pages concerning the Portuguese monarchy, in which he furthers the claims of a woman claiming to be an illegitimate daughter of King Carlos I and claiming to have been made an heir to the throne by him. Although these claims are highly doubtful, specially the last one. He has repeatedly insisted on adding information about this woman, who called herself Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança to various articles without consensus about whether the information was a) properly sourced and b) within the scope of the article at all. Most recently at: Carlos I of Portugal and earlier at House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. He also has caused considerable trouble on the pages of present members of the House of Braganza by deleting dynastic titles and moving the articles to names that omitted those, this because he apparently feels their claims should not be acknowledged. The articles involved were among others: Infante Miguel, Duke of Viseu, Infante Henrique, Duke of Coimbra, Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza, Maria Francisca of Orléans-Braganza, Duchess of Braganza. He must know that he has no consensus for the notability or the veracity of the claims made and he mostly refuses to seek it. There have been 3rr incidents in the past. His operations on these pages are one big exercise in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and frankly I don’t see his behaviour changing any time soon. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I have placed an EW and a final DE warnings on their talk page. If they resume reverting, I would say to please refer to 3RR for a temporary solution in order to settle this and gain admin attention simultaneously . Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Callmemirela. The thing is that he is the one adding information and I am the one who is reverting, so I feel at a slight disadvantage. But I'll get over it :-). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hebel: No problem. I am currently monitoring the situation and will be inclined to revert if necessary. But so far they have rested, which is a good thing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Here two users intend to silence the real facts by publishing lies and dynastic advertisements to promote Miguelist pretenders. Wikipedia now is it? Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Pseudohistory edits by anon user

Hi, all! Please review edits made recently by IPs

• 77.49.124.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.1.108.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.4.149.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 77.49.108.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 178.128.160.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.4.85.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

He/she might well be a sole person alternating his IP, focused on the same football club artcle (Panathinaikos F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) and the continuous removal of a certain phrase, without presenting documentation or providing inadequate/offensive Edit summaries. A similar attempt in the corresponding Greek WP article took place last summer –including far more abusive language– and it was succesfully dealt with (further information at your disposal). Although there has been a warning via User talk:178.128.160.241 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), he came back this morning to remove the said point, though it had been revised (previous version in the article by other user: 1, version by me: 2).

I'm afraid it is not just a case of Personal research, POV, edit warring or 3RR. As can be easily understood by reading a summer 2014 discussion in User talk:188.4.153.227 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (in Greeklish, but an English translation could be provided if you wish), the forementioned phrase contradicts a very recent and much disputed theory concerning who or what was the inspiration behind the introduction of shamrock as emblem of the above football club back in 1918/1919. Apart from revealing that this theory is nothing but a 2/3 year-old creation by the owner of a no longer existinging football fans web page (not surprsingly, 188.4.153.227 may be the owner himslef), he actually admits that it was "established" THROUGH its introduction in WP! A totally undocumented contibution, since all sources used now are more recent than the site's article and the introduction in WP! Furthermore, the user he is discussing with believes that these sources do copied WP – an opinion for which he was literally attacked for (who are you to say so? You have no evidence, so it's rubbish...). Needless to mention that the single interest of 188.4.153.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in WP, was again Panathinaikos FC article and especially "protecting" the hypothesis from being removed by skeptical users.

In case you need further information, please do not hesitate to ask for (my Talk page in Greek version is here). Thank you in advance for your time, interest and future actions. Merry Xmas to us all!!!

PS his/their attempt of creating pseudohistory by taking advantage of –or even exploiting– WP's expansion and popularity, will be presented via our Forum to editors of Greek version and many of them will recall last summer's incident. Let me know whether you prefer a translation of just my initiall post or a briefing of discussion's evolvment. --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Panathinaikos F.C. semi protected for one month without prejudice to what might be a correct revision. Technically , Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης you are well into a 3rr but I will not block you, but let this be a stern warning not to let it go that far again and report such issues here before it does. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not just you, but no one knows what really happened one century ago, so all views should be presented without prejudice and according to Policy. But based on last summer's case in Greek edition, I am afraid this is not what the anonymous user aims at. One month is far more than enough time for the article's paragraph to be enriched, completed and documented, following WP principles (see below post to Fut.Perf). So I have to thank you once more.

Although special attention was paid not to breach 3RR, I did made a 4th revert just minutes into the 24-h period: 23:59:35 on 21/12, 17:04:33, 23:21:26 and 23:57:57 on 22/12 (my 02:21:22 edit and last, was to alter thoroughly the phrase's meaning, with a hope that it will be accepted after having had warned him and before reporting the issue). It was a matter of confusion due to the 2-h difference between UTC and local time, but still you have plenty of right. Be sure, though, this is not my way of contributing; a Greek WP block log with a single 24-h penalty last March in more than 4½ years and 7,000 edits as a Wikipedian, speaks for itself.

• • In addition to the above warning: Stelios, please be aware that, no matter how questionable the statement about the Shamrock symbol and the role of that Irish guy may be, the statement you tried to push into the article to counter it is both (a) heavily ungrammatical English and (b) itself a piece of unsourced WP:OR. This is not the right way of handling the questionable claim. If you think the sources cited for that claim are all unreliable (I take it you consider them a case of what we here call "citogenesis" [48], and you may well have a point about that), then the solution is to form a consensus on the talkpage for removing the entire claim, not to try to neutralize it with a self-made counterargument in the article that is itself unsourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Fut.Perf! The fact is that I did not try to push, but to preserve a connected user's edit from continuous deletions by an anonymous one. This is why it is not brought back now that the latter can not remove it anymore. When I happened to notice him deleting the sentence for the first time, it came to my mind that similar incident in gr:WP. On the other hand, you are right about the statement itself appearing to be on the fringe of OR, without having citation. Which actually exists and will be added, along with all 5 theories (not just 3, as mentioned here based on club's site). It is one of these times when disruptive edits have an opposite result to the one intended, i.e providing the perfect reason for an article to be enriched and this was the case last summer in Greek WP, too :) :) :).

Before reading this discussion yesterday – far more revealing than you can guess or have you no need of imagination knowing Greek/lish? :) –, I just thought that Sherring scenario might have had some reality base, although being the least possible of all. Even now, I am only 95% convinced that it is actually a pseudohistory backed by circular reporting of initial source some WP undocumented edits. I will inform editors of Greek edition so as to join when discussion is to start. Since having no previous experience on such matters, I need further elements from you please:

1) discussion will take place in the article's Talk page?

2) who is better to start it (you, me, someone else)?

3) is it enough just to reach a consensus for retaining/altering/removing the entire paragraph or is there e.g some sort of committee to consult? I mean one that will check and provide us with an official conclusion whether we are facing or not citogenesis.

Many thanks to you both! And Merry Xmas, in case you feel this way. --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Answering your questions in their respective order:

• Yes, it doesn't require any administrative attention and thus better off on the talk page of the article.
• Anyone, be BOLD.
• No, there's no committee for such purposes. The community will discuss and preferably vote on the issue and then a non-involved admin or user will close the discussion and carry out the outcome. You might want to make it an official RfC, if you please (to get more participation, i.e.). Note, that a small discussion can be overruled but a huge RfC has much lesser chances of that happening.

Along with that, Merry Christmas to you too! --QEDK (T ❄ C) 10:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

More participation, greater number of opinions, more chances to find the truth. So, it is not just a matter of validation :). Thanks a lot, QEDK, and Merry Christmas! --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The story abt Sherring started when some fans noticed this photo with Spyros Louis from 1906 File:Spyridon Louis, The Olympic Marathon (National Historical Museum, Athens).jpg

Actually all the old officials of Panathinaikos, agree (there are old videos in the archive of ert, the national tv) that Michalis Papazoglou proposed this symbol. He used to wear it, when he was member of a Greek team in Chalkedon, Constantinople (modern Instabul). Greco22 (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hronia polla, Gkreko, kai euhomai oti epithymeis! --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Midas02: Contested WP:RM closure followed by forum-shopping

• Midas02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Alejandro Villanueva (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Alejandro Villanueva (disambiguation) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Reported by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Midas02 contacted me on my talk page[49] to ask me to overturn my closure[50] of a requested move discussion at Talk:Alejandro Villanueva.

The discussion on my talk didn't go well, so I closed it[51] and pointed Midas02 to WP:Move review.

A ping from another editor alerted me that instead of using move review, Midas02 had opened[52] a new RM discussion at Talk:Alejandro Villanueva (disambiguation).

I closed this new discussion[53] on procedural grounds as forum-shopping, and pointing to WP:Move review both in my closing note and in the edit summary.

I also left a message[54] Midas02's talk, again explaining that WP:Move review was still open, but that forum-shopping is not how things are done.

Midas replied[55] at length that I was engaged in "bullying and the abuse of admin rights", and reverted[56] my closure with an edit summary accusing me of "aggressive action".

I reinstated[57] the closure, again linking to WP:MOVEREVIEW in the edit summary and left a further brief note on Midas's talk page[58], again linking to WP:MOVEREVIEW.

Today, Midas02 has again reverted the closure[59], with edit summary "The bullying by BrownHairedGirl will stop now".

I have done my 1 revert, and that's me out. I am not used to a contested closure being regarded as bullying by an admin, but I'll let other admins decide how to proceed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Midas02 notified[60]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted to the closure again and warned him about edit warring. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately "bullying" has managed to become one of the "I Win words". (Which, in addition to the obvious, means those who use it in that fashion are trivializing actual bullying.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Good Close - You were right to close this BrownHairedGirl, and you're definetly not bullying him, he's got a case of butthurt, that's all KoshVorlon 16:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, KoshVorlon. All a bit of pity; it might have made an interesting move review.

I wonder if the editwar warning is sufficient to convey to Midas02 that it's time to use the established process? Hopefully there will now be more eyes on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Removals of AFD template by User:Shivanshsinghrajpoot

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

---

Despite multiple warnings, including two final warnings, on User talk:Shivanshsinghrajpoot, the user has continued to remove the AfD template from the Government Polytechnic Soron Kasganj article ([61], [62], [63], [64], [65]). AllyD (talk) 09:54, 27 December 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:Kisneee's repeated violation of Wikipedia policies

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

---

This user created the page Gamers_dictionary about their own project, blatantly advertising. The article was nominated for speedy deletion, and the notice was then removed by [[User::Kisnee]]. They were given various warnings on their user talk page, which were then removed. The user also insulted the two editors (myself, User:iamoctopus and User:DVdm. The talk page of the article has now been blanked. This is a repeated and deliberate attempt to prevent the article being deleted. Iamoctopus (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Page deleted as G11, indef blocked. Katie^talk 14:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Can blocked users still edit their own pages, as User:Kisneee has now added insulting messages to their user talk page Iamoctopus (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked editors can, by default, edit their own talk page. It its possible for an admin to revoke talk page access as well, but we try not to as it makes it technically harder for the user to challenge their block or request reconsideration. While the comments after block are a bit uncivil, they aren't that bad, and I'd suggest leaving them alone unless they do something more disruptive with their talk page. Monty₈₄₅ 14:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh? I just revoked their tpa, with a template telling them how to appeal. Change it if you like, Monty. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC).

I like the part where he calls wikipedians "iditos". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 27 December 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.

my screwup

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

---

Please undo my screwup move Sherpa -> Sherpa (disambiruation) and delete the latter page. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Monty₈₄₅ 18:18, 27 December 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.

David Cossgrove

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

---

With someone with more patience than me explain to the screaming IP address at Talk:David Cossgrove (and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Official_title that we will not rename David Cossgrove to Lieutenant Colonel David Cossgrove - DSO (NZ) or whatever he or she wants to match their facebook page or whatever. It seems like this is now being used as a way to retract the usage of File:Lieutenant Colonel David Cossgrove DSO (with his medals) 1910.jpg which could be in the public domain already. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor admits to being QUIX4U (talk · contribs), who was blocked as a sock puppet of Roxburgh NZ (talk · contribs). Roxburgh NZ was blocked by a checkuser as a sock of AtlanticDeep (talk · contribs). And, finally, AtlanticDeep is apparently a sock of Random-5000 (talk · contribs). It seems as though the IP/QUIX4U/Roxburgh NZ is indignant about the block for sockpuppetry and denies being AtlanticDeep. Going by the long, rambling rants left under his various user names, he seems to want to do nothing but edit the article about his notable relative (and maybe his hometown). However, even if you ignore the checkuser block, I seriously doubt that the IP/QUIX4U/Roxburgh NZ is competent to edit Wikipedia. I can't believe I wasted all this time reading that stuff. As for the photo, maybe someone with a better understanding of copyright should tackle that. The IP editor/QUIX4U/Roxburgh NZ is claiming "moral rights" per the Berne Convenction on a 115 year old photograph. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Before I was aware of the socking nature of the IP, I left a message on Talk:David Cosgrove explaining about WP:COMMONNAME, licensing rights, WP:NLT etc, and suggesting that if they have serious concens they communicate with OTRS here and on Comnmons. In any even, a photo from 1910 is almost certainly in the public domain. I have altered the current photo to make it more legible, and replaced the lede photo in the article with it. It does not seem to me that the complainant has a leg to stand on, but that's what OTRS is for. BMK (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: If, as NinjaRobotPirate says, the IP admits to being a sock of a blocked sock of a blocked sock of a blocked sock, why not just block the IP for a reasonable time (say a year)? BMK (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see all that. Well, that's different then. Given that the editing here has been for a single day and seems to have stopped, then a block isn't needed to me at the moment. I'll keep those pages on my watchlist and if the editor returns, it's WP:RBI and move on. If they wish to demand a retraction of the image, the first step would be for them to log back into the account that uploaded the image in the first place anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:50, 28 December 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.

Anti-Semitic POV Pushing

The following discussion is closed. 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 in question is 59.101.161.57. See:

• POV-pushing: [66][67][68][69]
• General nastiness: [70]

Some of the diffs are repeated multiple times, so I didn't bother to copy them repeatedly. If any admin feels that I have demonstrated a "facist idealogy" (sic), feel free to administer a boomerang.

Thanks,

GAB^Hello! 03:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And... they're blocked, ironically for edit-warring. GAB^Hello! 03:55, 28 December 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:Alvin the Almighty

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

---

Alvin the Almighty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Admiral Alvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly disrupting Wikipedia despite endless warnings and attempts to help him. An example of his disruptions is adding not useful tags to articles that don't need them, also considered as overkill (example). He also likes adding unnecessary speedy deletion tags to articles which at the end of the day, usually stay. Another of his habits are copy-pasting templates from other users' pages to his own which lead other users to need to delete it. The last example I also believe that the user who added the administrator template (User:GOFA) is an account handled by the same person since GOFA's only interactions were in a page Alvin tagged. My last example of disruption is that the user changes user comments to make him seem like 'the good guy'. He also deletes warnings and in a conversation with User:Samtar, he linked WP:ABF which is a humorous essay as a response to WP:AGF. Pinging @Samtar: @PamD: for comments. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with deleting warnings - only declined unblock requests are not allowed to be removed. Refactoring comments though is a huge no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: The part about deleting warnings are fine, however on WP:BLANKING it says: Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages... If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. In this case, the user has deleted the comments but continues to do what the users commented (not even warnings, just being very friendly) on his talk page not to do. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dat GuyWiki:Maintaining one's own talk page is righteous and is none of your business. With no proper reason, you are accusing one user as my puppet. Considering that you are a rollbacker, you should be aware of WP:What Wikipedia is Not. Yet what i see from rofl is that you are no help. WP: Assuming Good Faith, I believe you did not vandalise Wikipedia. Let's look at this then: lol. Looks like you ain't any better than me, given that i have effectively removed filth. By the way my dear little jerk, it seems that Haters gonna hate: you have a little party out there lmao huh? Last thing: Slandering in an encyclopedia may seem appealing for you child, but do that to me and you will find yourself receiving a lawyer's letter. I will better find out your address for now so that you will received that little present from me =). And i just deleted your messages in my talk page. Thank you.Alvin the Almighty (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Well I think that's made things easier (give 'em some rope eh?) - please see NO legal threats and remove yours from above. Declaring you're actively searching for an editor's address for a little present probably isn't a good idea either.. -- samtar ^whisper 14:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Alvin the Almighty blocked by GB Fan -- samtar ^whisper 14:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) FWIW I see no evidence of a block. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Block log and "You are blocked" message -- samtar ^whisper 15:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen He wasn't blocked for the evidence I gave, but for threatening me. Also, 'little present from me' I consider a bomb and 'you will find yourself receiving a lawyer's letter.' is a legal threat. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: @GB fan: What about his alternate account? I'm quite sure that he will return to editing there. I will ping you guys when and if he does. If he does, will he also be indef blocked there for block evasion? Also, his examples were horrible. He even linked me reverting vandalism on my talk page and called it 'little party out there'. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dat GuyWiki: I asked GB about that earlier, he said this which I totally agree with. Yes I would agree threatening to use a lawyer is a legal threat, but as for your concern above regarding a bomb, I don't personally believe Alvin is going to do anything that malicious -- samtar ^whisper 15:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't mean that I thought he actually would send a bomb, but just that sending a bomb is what I interpreted it with. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:54, 29 December 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.

Motion to ban Alwayssmileguys for mass promotion and undeclared paid editing

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

---

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

Dear community, I am putting forward a motion that we, the editors, permanently site ban Alwayssmileguys.

Evidence:

• A sock farm of over a dozen accounts was confirmed by a check user during an SPI.
• Several editors concluded following the SPI and during discussions on the editor's talk page that behavioural evidence indicated mass promotion and paid editing. Several articles were deleted through CSD, AFD, and the remaining were blown up as was done in the case of OrangeMoody.
• At Talk:Seattle Seafair Commodores, Myestro69 issued a statement confirming that they paid an editor to start the page. The page was started by Alwayssmileguys.
• On the talk page of Talk:RingMeMaybe (mobile application), a different editor disclosed that they had been engaged to edit the article for monetary gains. The article was created by Alwayssmileguys.

When confronted with the evidence of paid editing at the SPI and on their talk page, the editor played ignorant and refuted the evidence. This is a clear violation of WP:SOCK and WP:PAID/WP:COI. I have put this motion forward as I suspect this editor may attempt to return or engage in further sock puppetry, especially now that there is a financial implication whereby the editor has already received funds. I am pinging into this conversation other editors that contributed to building this case and dealt with this user for their input: Ohnoitsjamie, The Bushranger, Reddogsix, Deb, and Bbb23. Thank you, Mkdw^talk 04:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support community ban. Even following the CU block, Alwayssmileguys came back to harass a user who had proposed some of their creations for deletion. clpo13_(talk) 16:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Mkdw's pings of the above users didn't work because he signed it after putting in the usernames. I found out because I have the sockmaster's user/talk pages on my watchlist. Repeating the pings: Ohnoitsjamie, The Bushranger, Reddogsix, Deb.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. A month or so ago I noticed a pattern where ASG would create an article about some person, with few or no reliable sources; when I looked for more sources I found at least half a dozen instances where the subject of the article immediately linked to the brand-new Wikipedia article from their Facebook page or Twitter profile or official page - in a couple of cases, the person who was the subject of an article also showed up in AfD discussions, or removed speedy tags. While it's not unusual for fans to create pages about people they admire (which is what ASG has claimed to be doing), it not all that common for those people to find out about the Wikipedia articles within a few days (or even hours) of their creation. There is no doubt at all in my mind that this user has been involved in undisclosed paid editing. Combined with the socking both before and after the master was blocked, as well as the frequent attacks on editors who have tagged their articles for deletion, I think a community ban is called for. --bonadea contributions talk 21:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I absolutely support the ban. As the editor that created the initial Sock investigation I was surprised to see the number of socks involved, but even more surprised to see the editor deny the evidence provided by the CU. Not only did the editor deny their involvement in socking at the investigation, but at various times in the AfD discussion. reddogsix (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like they were blocked two days ago. John Nagle (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they were blocked for socking. This WP:CBAN centres more around their conduct around a conflict of interest and undisclosed paid editing. It should also be noted that they've created subsequent accounts to come back and harass editors through block evasion. Mkdw^talk 23:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Haven't interacted enough to opine on a ban, but I will note they're socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support and will be always happy to block new socks on sight. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support -- no love lost for sockmasters. GAB^Hello! 04:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Unfortunately I have had to revoke Alwayssmileguys' talk page privileges following several attempts to clear unblock requests from their talk page. A violation of the instructions on the {{Unblock reviewed}} template and process. Mkdw^talk 06:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. User has promised "I will be back !!!", which indicates to me that the user fully intends to continue the disruption. Best we get this over and done with now so that we can expedite the cleanup. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I've only briefly come across this person, almost solely via the recent AfDs opened by a sockpuppet. I figure I'll just throw another support onto the growing pile. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:32, 28 December 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.

Randal Adhemar revisited, personal attack and refusal to provide sources.

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

---

Personal attacks and persistent addition of unsourced content, after final on IP talk page User talk:69.200.228.170.

• 66.108.248.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (original, added later, see below at note 2)
• 69.200.228.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Randall Adhemar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

History:

• Unsourced content:

[71] and revert by Wcherowi

[72] and revert by me

[73] and revert by NeilN

[74]

[75] and reverted

[76] and reverted by me

[77]

[78]

• Incident was opened here on 22 December 2015: [79]: Original thread
• Replies by IP and username on user talk ([80]) and on my talk ([81]).
• Due to no reaction on wp:ANI, entry got archived by bot on 26 december: [82]: archived thread
• Removing welcome messages: on IP talk and user talk.
• More lack of AGF: "Notice: Unless bound unbreakably by community rules, as a long-term harasser, user DVdm, it's here demanded. stays away from my user pages.": Stating "Absent yourself, sir, under all circumstances, save those unambiguously required by wikipedia rules."
• Again addition of unsourced content: [83], for which I gave a third level warning—even if the IP was already been 4th level warned for same on their talk page ([84]).
• Result: wall of text on IP talk page, wall of text on NottNott's talk page, vicious personal attack, warned about the latter by user NottNott here.
• reinserting unsourced content with edit summary: "Who on earth are you--no reason, EVER has been given that you CONTINUE CONTACTING ME. And you don't know this subject--visible--but write anyway! Go!"
• vicious attack in response to last week's final warning on the ip talk page, accusing me of labeling him a stalker.

I try to comment as concise as possible to article edits and the rare comprehensible parts of his massive talk page messages, where others (NottNott, Paradoctor, NeilN) take more time to explain, but nothing seems to help, and user openly refuses to add sources. Can this somehow be stopped? - DVdm (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

DvdM (from former Adhemar), to and NielN: There was an easy way to stop the massive talk page responses: user DvDm was consintently requested, or demanded be barred from his page. This was of tremendous importance to me, because--look at the record; the latter part of this user's existence was an attempt most of the time to somehow, in ANY WAY, escape from DvDm, who was not a friend, was never invited to participate in any activities by me, and who high-handedly removed ALL content more than 1 character in length. I could not post. Queries were made of many people. "How can I escape from DvDm's constant bullying? He pulls a bunch of crap, but mostly is very single minded about sources. I have pledged to him NEVER to give a source until he leaves me alone. There has to be someone I can talk to about this. I don't like the new sourcing--people give different rules. But I have to get rid of him. He...I recognize the name, but he dislikes me to the point that whenever I'm on. He shows up, reverts my work, and starts disrupting as much as possible. He shows up on my page! He doesn't say anything remarkable. It's...like a mafia goon...letting you know he's there. It seems like he has a job, but...he won't say anything about himself. He enjoys arguments after impounding all my words. I put them back, he takes them out again. But he keeps demanding the sourcing. THe medieval and turn of the century stuff, well, you know I have a lot of those sources in my head. But I start sourcing, what then? I don't see how he has a right to just be in my online life shutting it down, never giving reasons--sometimes if I ask, and he doesn't want to answer, if I keep asking, maybe the third time he says something. I don't think he even reads it. Like...it won't make sense.

This query, many people know the answer--or, well, you remember now, yes? DVDm knows. I expressed every form of human emotion and took every range of social reaction--save warmth--in an attempt to get him to just GET OFF ME. I abjured him "formally" as I put it, three times, to begone from my life unless Quora rules demanded. But his delight was in irritating me, or so it seemed. Nothing worked. Finally, I was engaging in the practice of putting HUGE MOUNTAINS OF TEXT--all on topic, but great volume in his talk page. It was mild retaliation: if you can ruin my online life, I can start doing the same to yours. OUT! OUT! Begone" --at the last of these maybe three mountains, he threatened to call admin on me for harassment, I indignantly typed, in idle threat (I had begged, but no one ever told me of the resolution machines like administrative inquiry--he didn't KNOW I didn't KNOW, though). Something seemed to change. The next day, I was under inquiry by a secret and invisible committee....which also took over my web page here, such as it was, and created more. At the beginning, I was able to see about half of my accuser's documents, and found that they were grossly dishonest; the fact was, this person who knew the system had been mashing me up in it to no end, and he was (I assume) very afraid that I, not he, would frame the inquiry. And, unbelievably, despite the nastiest behavior and many lies--admitted by him to me privately or in documentation. If it's saved, see if you can find the calculus document where he described the incident that upset NielN for the committee. He admitts to deception there proudly. HOWEVER, was any such document ever provided the committee? IT wouldn't have supported him, except for reminding the powerful Niel of his great dislike for me.Randall Adhemar (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: perhaps moot now, in view of the last sentence of this: "I do not write under such restriction--or if I do, they pay me." and "I'm out the door permanently." Perhaps. - DVdm (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps indeed. I formerly was ...Adhemar. But there's a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall Adhemar (talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 December 2015

Comment: To any admin looking along in ANI it might look like a bomb has gone off here. As an editor and community member RA's personal attacks outlined above would constitute as easily deserving of a ban - there is clearly no net gain for him to continue editing. Unfortunately he also believes editors like DVdm and NeilN are on a hate crusade against him, so when he tries to justify himself he only creates more issues. Repeated personal attacks as outlined above are unacceptable, and if continued he should be blocked.

As a human, RA is somewhat distraught right now - he isn't thinking as clearly as another editor might. As DVdm pointed out RA should leave peacefully, and if no more attacks are made a block wouldn't be necessary. I hope in the real world he has the support network needed to see him through such a terrible condition. NottNott talk|contrib 13:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Leaving peacefully doesn't seem entirely likely. NottNott talk|contrib 14:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note 2: I hadn' realised this before, but it looks like there already was an earlier encounter with the same editor earlier this year:

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

with, for instance:

[85], reverted by me: [86]

[87], reverted by Arthur Rubin: [88],

resulting in archived talk [89]

A month later the calculus thing was resumed under the registered username at [90] and [91] - DVdm (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Randall Adhemar claims he was hacked

User says he WP:GOTHACKED, and requests to be blocked. I propose indefblocking the account and all of its associated IPs. Paradoctor (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as a WP:COMPROMISED account. The 'block from IPs' box was checked so we'll see if that catches them? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)`

In the diff he says: "...blasting messages, including stop sign graphics to confused acquaintances." How can a Wikipedia account send messages to his acquaintances? The stop sign probably refers to the missing sign here, which he accidentally removed with this edit. Looking at this, and all the edits that he has made, and at the ever growing size of his messages, it looks to me as if he does not quite understand the basic editing action of pasting text, let alone the difference between cut/paste and copy/paste. So in my opinion, this might be a case of WP-technical (and social) wp:CIR, rather than one of wp:COMPROMISED. I guess we'll see how this evolves, if at all. - DVdm (talk) 10:21, 29 December 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.

Rosecarter915

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

---

Rosecarter915 is adding copyrighted information to articles. I, and several others, have tried to warn her. But, she keeps adding copyrighted information to mainspace. //nepaxt 22:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is less that the information is copyrighted as that it is nothing but advertising for The Pavillion Agency. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. This is an undisclosed paid editor. Katie^talk 00:53, 29 December 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.

Dharmadhyaksha

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

---

Dharmadhyaksha is being completely ludicrous ignorant and rude. Please ban him from wikipedia. I am trying to make a certain article better and make more sense, but he keeps undoing my changes. He has absolutely no real evidence for his claims and he is being dirty and filthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777executionprocess777 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This Consorts of Ganesha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is the article in question. This edit summary by the OP is why WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS exists. MarnetteD|Talk 05:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't make you much of a Christian at all. In fact, the opposite. --MuZemike 05:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: OP has been blocked so if anyone else wants to close this thread that would be great. MarnetteD|Talk 05:34, 29 December 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.

Electricburst1996 editing my talk page despite many warnings

The following discussion is closed. 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 told Electricburst1996 four times to stop editing my talk page. They will not stop. Their userpage says they are a teenager with autism so maybe there is some gap in cognitive understanding but somebody please try to communicate to them that they need to stop editing my talk page. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

They've already been told to stop and appear to have done so. Sam Walton (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we kill this thread already? It's nothing more than a petty complaint against me and nothing that warrants major action. Besides, the editor who started this thread is a problematic editor and a possible sock account. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 14:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As long as you agree to stop editing my talk page. DO NOT EDIT IT AGAIN, FOR ANY REASON. EVER. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Except, of course, when policy requires. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 29 December 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.

Misplaced humor: NPA

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

---

Can we get a quick block for the vandalism SPA awarding "Barnstars of Pederasty" [92]? Clearly NOTHERE. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Never mind. Resolute was all over this. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 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.

• Can we really euthanize editors? Is that only admins, or can any of us do it? Either way, I wish I'd known about this long ago. Perhaps we should have a Death Panels Noticeboard, because I can think of at least a few editors who should be put out of their misery. EEng (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I can see Russia from my house! Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    • We have it, actually. It's called arbcom, you might have heard of it. GAB^Hello! 06:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Except Arbcom isn't euthanasia‍—‌it's murder-suicide. EEng (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Glad you guys are having a nice snicker about this, but this is an ongoing problem for a couple months now. Isn't there any technology at hand to stop this? John from Idegon (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:RAF perhaps? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that's above my pay grade, but if I can help with language used etc, ping me. I've either been hit by him (i call him the pervert barnstar guy) or caught him at least three, maybe four times. John from Idegon (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I've posted a message about this to WT:EF, as this ANI case is not the only recent example of someone adding inappropriate "barnstar" messages to user Talk pages. (I myself was hit with one a couple of weeks back...) So, let's see if an Edit filter can be created to handle this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
        • and I just got one again today. Jimmy Saville was the subject today. The guy likes to use the term "short-eye". That may be a decent term for the filter. John from Idegon (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

For the record, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FiveSidedFistagon -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone want to untangle this, um, really really really not here?

See User:Marion.Walker MD. This might be a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FrankEM/Archive sock but those socks seem to be able to hold it together more. Some samples from the talk page:

Starts: My WP User ID was just stolen and can now be used by both me and the person who stole it and so after I post all this I will never use this ID again.

Also stolen is a Tea House Admin WP User ID and Nthep you can still use your WP ID, but a group of programmers will now be using it too.

STOLEN WP User ID Nthep deleted MY post from the Tea House.

Original WP User ID https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ashton_Cable&action=edit&redlink=1

This WP User is now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nthep

=Programmer took the WP ADMIN User ID KateWishing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_tool_apprenticeship/User:YourUsername_(November_2011)&action=edit&redlink=1

This programmer has moved thousands of files, but here is 1 example. 'Another example in the 2008 time-frame https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prince_Gebauer&action=edit&redlink=1

Notice on the same page but now its 2015 because this programmer moved the files. This ID is one of the programmers favorites it seems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NeilN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%CE%A3&offset=20150928013341&action=history

Watch how he does this and notice your navigation thru the history files because the dates are rearranged by this programmer and many have been moved and destroyed, and that's a whole other subject, but its what the programmer is doing to WP. Interesting is when I copied this I copied 3 lines, and pasted it here and 2 lines were gone and then reappeared. I know why, and its not good for WP. (cur | prev) 20:10, 15 November 2015‎ Σ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,790 bytes) (+320)‎ . . (→‎Editor interaction analyzer: Derp) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:47, 15 November 2015‎ Cyphoidbomb (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,470 bytes) (+305)‎ . . (→‎Editor interaction analyzer: R) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:09, 15 November 2015‎ Σ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,165 bytes) (+742)‎ . . (→‎Editor interaction analyzer: Fixed) (undo | thank) Marion.Walker MD (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Marion.Walker MD (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It gets worse. They are continuing to copy/paste from various pages. Obviously a block is forthcoming but does anyone recognise any of this behavior? Doug Weller talk 17:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Really hurting my head reading through this (nothing do to with the fact it's Christmas) and the editor's posts elsewhere - does the editor believe Doc James has access to an account of theirs (per this edit summary)? -- samtar ^whisper 17:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently they believe that about half of the admin corps and "any editor whose name is in red" does. After looking at this I'm still not entirely sure if this is some sort of trolling or someone who's simply WP:NOTHERE, but if they're serious they have serious problems comprehending how Wikipedia works and and if they're not it's obvious trolling, so either way I've blocked (and will probably be next in line to be declared as one of those programmers stealing accounts...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}}. I'm asking for a checkuser to check Marion.Walker MD. The user is obviously a sock. She mentions Prince Gebauer and Ashton Cable, but I'm not sure if those are her other accounts. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what this user is getting at. Not sure of possible socks but likely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

 In progress.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Marion.Walker MD and FrankEM are  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). I see no justification to check Price Gebauer or Ashton Cable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Retro-redakteur.u12

Anybody wants to react to an unprovoked personal attack [93]? I first thought it is Tobias Conradi, but SPI shows this disruptive account is unrelated.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

31 hours should do for a start. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone may also want to have a look at the swath of place renames that this editor did, which I suspect are entirely neutral... (but certainly often half-baked, when the page name changed but the content didn't) LjL (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus in the topic of names of Belarusian localities. There are three different transliterations, and the community was not able to decide in favor of any of the three, so that currently we use for large cities most common names, and for others wait for a miracle. They were editing explicitly against consensus, this is why I was sure they are Tobias Conradi (who as Derianus was doing exactly the same in articles about Belarusian localities).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: You know you have the option of blocking the user based on behavior.  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Bbb23, but after they personally attacked me I do not feel I am the right person to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The account attacked you in response to your filing the SPI. Such an attack does not prevent you from taking administrative action unless you are otherwise involved. Still, if you feel uncomfortable doing so, I'll do it as the behavioral evidence is sufficiently persuasive to block, or Vanjagenije can do it, peu importe.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference desk vandal

Could some kind admin block 36.3.252.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? They've been vandalizing Wikipedia talk:Reference desk as well as removing reports from WP:AIV, which seems to be backlogged. Thanks. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

And 126.46.146.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Actually, just semi-protect WT:RD and maybe they'll get bored and stop. clpo13_(talk) 18:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The page is now semi-protected until 29 December 2015. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing reports from WP:AIV may seem to a vandal to be useful, but since admins frequently check the history of WP:AIV, it actually makes it more obvious. Unfortunately, the Reference Desks and their talk page are a frequent target for vandals and trolls. At any given time, it is typical that one or two of the Reference Desks are semi-protected, because the admins are playing Whack-a-Mole with the trolls. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This [94] was indeed sort of, erm, persistent. Many IP vandals stop after a level 4 warning, not this person. As I am not an admin, all I could do all the time was rollback (Twinkle). Of course, because it is Christmas, less people including admins are around than usual. While I was rolling back I was wondering if there is an easy way of knowing which admins are live online (or at least logged in) in case you would want to talk to them on their Usertalkpage if a report elsewhere (in this case AIV) seems to snow under under a growing backlog? I only know a few admins by name, but even then I'd have to go to their contribs-view to guess if anyone of them is online "right now"? Of course, it didn't occur to me I could also use Twinkle for a Page Protection Request (though even that means, hoping any admin is present and sees it), sorry about that, maybe it would have stopped earlier (unless I am hugely overestimating my effect on WP here lol). Well, anyway, Merry Christmas to you all, or whatever you wish to celebrate around this time of year. Poepkop (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested range blocks for IP-hopping vandals

Once again IP-users are subtly vandalizing tropical cyclone articles and abusing numerous addresses. The first user utilizes a base IP of 50.153.x.x and an IPv6 address of 2601:3c6:8000:e7c0:x:x:x:x. Given that the vandalizing is nearly identical and the addresses trace back to either Tennessee or Massachusetts, I'm assuming them to be from the same person. The second user is a returning person from the summer whom was subjected to a week-long range block. The second person's IP base of traces back to Mexico, and given the similar nature of their edits I'm assuming them to be the same person as in the linked incident. It's been spread out over several months, with the IPs mainly adding fake tropical cyclone names or altering intensities to incorrect values. Since I don't know how to do so myself, I'm requesting range blocks be implemented as these people likely won't stop for quite some time.

Thanks in advance, ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content from STH235SilverLover

Please note that STH235SilverLover (talk · contribs) keeps adding unsourced content into articles [95] after a final warning was given to them in November [96]. They should be well aware of WP:VERIFY by now.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

One more diff [97] showing unsourced changes.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Mmm, I don't know if that's truly vandalism. Maybe WP:DISRUPT?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY says "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (wikilink original). I didn't write that, I just copy-pasted it from the last "Unsourced content!" ANI Jetstreamer started about a different editor. See also yet another editor reverting Jetstreamer's unnecessary reversion of STH235SilverLover [98].

Big picture. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia intended to provide information to readers. To help maintain the quality that information, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a rule that says if unsourced content is added, and "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" should be sourced; it goes on at length to explain the nuances of that statement, including what to do about it, including tagging or removing it. Rat the editor out at ANI is not on the list: Verifiability does not exist to play wikt:gotcha every time someone adds unsourced content, and it complements, rather than supersedes other "rules" like assume good faith and is definitely subordinate to not a bureucracy. NE Ent 16:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is one of the core content policies, not "a rule" as you say. I'm not gonna argue with you. The editor in question kept adding uncited information even after he had a final warning. Let's an admin take care of this. One more thing: this reversion [99] was not unnecessary, as there were no inline citations to the claims added. A link to an article is not a citation. There seems to be more people than I imagine that does not want to accept what is unsourced and what is not.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

However, it's also a fact that, with the exception of BLPs, it's not required that sources be IN an article in order to satisfy WP:V, they need only exist, and they do not have to be easily accessable. While it is in fact good practice to reference all the things and it's true that anything not referenced can be removed, that is a fact that is often forgotten. Also, I'm in agreement with Ent in wondering how this rises to the level of something that needs to be discussed at ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Not forgotten by me, actually. I always provide citations for my edits. WP:V reads "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." It's crystal clear to me: it says nowhere not to include citations. Finally, if I took this to AIV as suggested above some admins say to take it here, as it happened in the past.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunatly "circular thataways" sometimes happen and can be extremely frustrating. (Also, as a note, the specific bit I was thinking of in WP:V is point #1 under the "original research" section, clarified in footnote 1 of WP:NOR.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Austrian Empire

Could I get a few more editors experienced in Austrian-Hungarian history to look at the edit war that has erupted in Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867)? I have full-protected both articles after extensive reverting by a number of people - there is a lively discussion on the talk page but it's being plagued by personal attacks thrown around, which makes it difficult for me to call a consensus. Note: I haven't pinged anybody to this discussion as I'm commenting on the overall conduct rather than any specific editor - please advise if I should Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Essentially Von Hebel is correct. Franz formally incorporated the Kingdom of Hungary into the Austrian Empire when Lazlo states he did (its a bit more complicated than that but Hebel's last post on the Kingdom of Hungary talkpage provides the most accurate explanation.) From what I can see the other parties are mis-construing the sources due to the sentence/syntax when translated. In context however Lazlo is unambiguous. The 'personal attacks' seem to be linked to this mis-understanding of the sources, which unfortunately is a common occurance when dealing with non-english RS'. There also seems to be a whiff of pro-Hungarian nationalism - including the KoH as part of the AE lessens it in some manner etc. If you want to call a consensus, you either need more eyes to interpret the source, or no-consensus it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

While I am not an expert on this subject matter, I will state for the record that I agree with Ritchie333's full protection of the articles (if that helps at all). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

User Only in death does duty end, I have to heavily oppose your early statement! I urge you to read the further discussion since Hebel's explanation and argumentation was disproved more times since then. I have to oppose also in the name of "other parties", becase we support to really insert uncut the source that Hebel does not support, he want's to spare the most important word from it. We have no problem with the interpretation - moreover Hungarian history experts joined the discussion - if you state that "Laszlo is unambigous", then you cannot tell Hebel has right...I have to also reject the charge of "pro-Hungarian nationalism", this is mostly used against the Hungarians or against everyone who does not support those obvious bias' that we notice. The editors participated in the discussion has zero influence on nationality or any nationalistic aim, just the pure historical facts and accuracy are concerned, that are so many times enquestioned and attacked regarding Hungary. The article was pretty good and stable for so many years, now 90% of the top important Hungary related content and section was deleted, and the citation does not represent the true content and meaning of the source that is on the edge of the debate!

I urge Administrator's also with lawyer/jurisdiction or concrete mathematics/inference theory relation to join and read the correspondent talk pages since we cannot put blindly deficient citations losing their real meaning or to avoid average thinking and just to put and alter anything so long we clearly do not cross some technical rules of editing, I mention this since also the validity of my inference was attacked, alhough it should be obvious, not even a University Degree is neccesary to understand that! Good faith and the struggle for factuality and valid content cannot be compromised! Also please check my advice for consensus, since it contains the claimed deletion of a sentence and the the corresponding source's quotation unaltered, next to the former content that does not contradict anything. Moreover a new addition - not our edit - was also worked in those version. It is a pretty generous offer since non of our advices, not even a sub-part was accepted, that is not proving me the real sought for consensus!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC))

Basically the Kingdom of Hungary, was caught up in a personal union that became an informal composite monarchy, the Habsburg Monarchy. It officially became a part of the Empire of Austria in 1804 when the former informal composite monarchy was reorganized in an Imperial State comprising many lands that kept the privileges they had enjoyed before. We can have different opinions about how much those privileges were worth under Habsburg rule, but still they were there especially for Hungary that, when it concerned matters Hungarian, was theoretically ruled by it's King and Diet rather than by the overarching Emperor. It has occurred to me since a couple of years that some people are in denial of the fact that Hungary was included in that Imperial State from 1804 to 1848. While Imperial institutions had nothing to say about matters Hungarian, the very idea that Hungary was not a fully sovereign state in that period seems to be so obnoxious to some, that they are looking for rationalizations about how the country was not a part of the overarching Imperial state. But basically, those are not in the books. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel, why you think the administrators or other participants does not read the corresponding talk pages? Hungary DID NOT BECAME OFFICIALLY the part of the Austrian Empire, as even the source you are pushing is proving that. You ruined all the related articles with your fixa idea, but you could not present any proof, moreover, you systematically remove all other contents proving the divison and you play with words and hinder important information! What you call "theoretically" is just your POW, the are the legal status and laws that only counts! Also "what is in the books" is just a groundless claim, as "seeking for rationalization". Hungarians are fed up of corruption attempts of their history. Since the source speaks about a strictly FORMAL inclusion by an ASSUMPTION, at the same time it clearly stated not any legal terms or affiliations were changed, Article X remained as well in action thus Hungary remained, as it was a Regnum Independens, a separate country. The fact the King of Hungary also rendered the Emperor of Austria title, did not change anything. I have demonsrated more times your argumentation being illogic, contradictive, unfair, non-factual. About sovereignity, de facto sovereignity is always differs from de jure sovereignity, as it is also today. Many countries had a ruler from a foreign House, or by changed titles, but it did not necessarily affected them. You have no chance to distract the Administrators, you will see!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC))

I've made another proposal at the talkpage of Austrian Empire. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I checked and answered there. Because of two major inaccuracy the proposal had to be denied.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC))

I have to clarify articles on dispute has arisen to three - all of them should be discussed in this section since the root of the problem is the same, the main discussion isongoing still in the Austrian Empire - Talk page: Hungary section - Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Hungary 1526-1867, Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. The latter I did not remove any former addition I just expanded two added sources to have unambigous clear meaning, and a section was added with a modified content, the earlier version were long years present until the same problems arisen near May-summer when the drastic an inacceptable alteration of these pages took part. I did not see any consensus on that page, still I get accusations. Anyway I urge every administrators to check those edits, just to have a clear view how destructive could be to hinder the source's original content and how misleading would be the result. Also it has a clear sight remeving entire sections on fake grounds just to hinder a lawful situation of the subject. I recommend it to everyone, and I ask a protection for the page since my factual and good faith edit's are removed or reverted, also the protecion is asked to conserve my contributions, since it is a great chance to compare it with the similar content of the other two articles - where the disputed edits remanined unharmed until resolution - so non-experts can also see the difference and to understand more the root of the problem.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC))

The conflict is now spilling over to the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 page where User:KIENGIR is now partly reintroducing text that was removed in May (by consensus). We're not getting anywhere this way. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

You refer on a "consensus" that is not present on the talk page and I have never seen, anyway it is already abolished. But what kind of "consensus" is that you make with one IP Address? I reached formerly consensus together with Administrator's, and members/representives from the corresponding country/nationality the article involved or connected to, this is a real consensus! Anyway, you added also some modifications to the article that I did not reverted or modified with a good faith, I want to really ask the Administrators how is that possible such a double measure? Like Hebel would be the authorized boss of Hungary related articles who can decide what is "consensus" or what brakes consensus...his edits are always "fair", if he does not like other edits, already there is a conflict...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC))

Based on an RFPP request, I've fully locked Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 (and have already been admonished for protecting The Wrong Version) and I've placed a 1RR restriction on the page when consensus is reached or protection expires. Since Hebel had not received the discretionary sanctions alert for WP:ARBEURO, I gave it to him. As far as I'm concerned, this dispute falls under ARBEURO, even if it's along the edges. Let's treat it that way. Katie^talk 01:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Katie, I had already seen that discretionary sanctions were a possibility.

There are basically four things bothering me about this question

a)That words like “formally”, “lawful” and “legal” are used in a way that strangely indicate things that are not in the dictionaries for them.

b)That, as a consequence of a) the article, according to USER:KIENGIR is supposed to say in one paragraph that Hungary is a part of the Empire of Austria (as the sources indeed clearly indicate), while some paragraphs later the exact opposite is stated. Which is inconsistent and OR, because it is based on editor interpretation of legal text

c)That some sourced text for the situation describing the composite monarchy (pre 1804), keeps cropping up in descriptions of the post 1804 situation.

d)Copyvio issues.

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all the articles has no connection to Eastern Europe, only Central Europe.

a) No way, everything is clearly explained in the talk pages

b) No way, this has been many times clarified, only you are the one who does not understand, how dare you to mislead Katie? I never said "Hungary is part of Empire of Austria" (as the sources clearly indicate it is just a formal membership by assumption), in other pharagraphs the lawful affiliations are mentioned, later the details while Hungary's famous status was different like other Crownland's. It is not inconsistent, not more than 90 IQ is enough to understand my professional coherent argumentation. It is based on the source's text.

c) No way, since no relations changed between Austria and Hungary after 1804, so everything is valid, anyway the corresponding source speaks clearly after 1804. The section with detailed information of course contains some earlier descriptions to demonstrate the special status, but they remained still valid after, so they are not outdated information.

d) No way, just another casus belli to avoid detailed and professional information on a bit complex situation, that is average in Wikipedia is similar cases/relations.

Is there any sanction if an editor openly distracts an Administrator? Since the cessation all of the statements Hebel made are clearly demonstrated and can be read on the talk pages. What a shame!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC))

User:Eeekster is disruptively tagging my user-created photographs as no permission

I have complained about his behavior before but no action was taken. Can I request more decisive action please? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs? BMK (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (from examing a few of the recent ones), Eeekster is tagging them correctly. All of the images I looked at appeared to be uploaded by someone other than the creator, and they were credited to the subject of the image, not to the creator (who may be the same person, but that is unlikely for photos). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about the self-portrait used on my user page. He has done this consistently to all my photographs. (Most of which aren't self-portraits). See his behavior on File:Union Square chess with spectators.jpg, File:Flushing street vendor under LIRR bridge.jpg, File:Flushing, After the Rain.jpg, among numerous others. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

One tag does not make disruption. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

All three of the images you cite in the previous comment were tagged by Eeekster in October, and have not been touched by that editor since then, after the tags were removed and replaced with an OTRS notice or a license - so these hardly seem relevant now. BMK (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying this is repeated disruptive behavior. The tags were repeatedly reinstated (edit-warring behavior) until another administrator intervened. The OTRS tags were in fact unncessary. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

They were originally licensed to begin with. (Creative Commons 3.0, self-produced) Eeekster seemed to have a problem believing they were created by me, simply because I used a full-frame DSLR, a 50mm f/1.4 lens and decent composition. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine that the problem with the self-portrait is the question of whether you actually took the picture or not -- for instance by setting up the shot with a tripod and timer and then walking into it -- or whether you had someone else take it, in which case the ownership of the image might be debateable, and you might have to show that it was a work made for you by hire. I think the "self-portrait" question is a rather trivial one, and Eeekster should not -- in general -- be tagging such images for permission, as they are de facto owned by the subject (you). There's no particularly need for Eekster to be quite so pedantic about it that it becomes an issue, unless there are reasons to suspect that something untoward is going on in general. I don't see that as being the case here - but I also don't see any need for any kind of sanction for Eeekster beyond perhaps a word to the wise or, at worst, a mini-trout. BMK (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, FWIW, I like the current image on your user page better than the previous one. BMK (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In some cases (but not to any current files uploaded to Wikipedia) I set the settings on my camera (and my lens), set up the lighting systems and off-camera flashes, and ask my friend (a fellow escort) to adjust the focus and press the shutter, giving clear, direct instructions. Who owns it then? ;-)

For the last image before that, I lost the original RAW file (plus exported JPG) when I had my laptop stolen by ex-boyfriend last year and only had the crappy local versions hosted on my escort ads lol. That's why it looks too oversharpened. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your question: under those circumstances, I think that you own it, but it might be necessary (again, if we're being ultra-legalistic about this, which I do not think we have to be) for you to provide a statement from the other person that they were acting completely under your directions, and therefore is not in any way a creator of the photograph, any more than I am a creator of a play because I assist the author and director in editing and mounting it. BMK (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree on the self-portrait aspect, we shouldn't really doubt that, but we have had issues with what is called "flickrwashing" - people will take high quality photos that are from a press agency and definitely NOT PD or CC, post them to flickr, tag them as CC-BY, call them their own, and then either they or someone else will upload those to commons, hiding the copyvio. For a new-ish editor to do offer high-quality photos, we do have some bit of doubt, and the ORTS step is merely a formality. I would hope that in the future that if you (Yanping) do contribute high resolution photos that the fact that ORTS has demonstrated you have this capability that editors should not doubt that you have the camera equipment to take such photos and this should not be a problem again. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I lost the original OTRS correspondence -- I was flooded with obligations in October and they couldn't locate all my images. My Flickr account has thousands of uploads, I have been a member since 2010, and I have my own photography website with my own domain name. I'm not that new of a member, I just haven't edited Wikipedia since high school and that was under my old male name (which I don't wish to reveal). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

We aren't going to ask you to connect your old account/name to this (zero need to), all I'm saying is that because we on WP have serious concerns about maintaining a free encyclopedia that we are vigilant to make sure that we don't mistag high-quality photos that are not free as free images. Without having the visible tenure of your previous account to go off, the combination of how these photos came to be do set off enough legitimacy alarms. But I'm fully satisified you took them, and the ones lists above are all good. If you upload more photos, I do expect that no one should give you the hassle of claiming you couldn't have possibly taken them or that they don't belong to you, now that we've got enough to go on to know it should be good. You're basically a false positive in our test during vigilance on bad uploads; it happens, I don't think Eeekster was being malicious here, just careful. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Tag + 2 disruptive reverts by Eeekster on File:Yanping Nora Soong self-portrait.jpg, despite the fact they were clearly made by me.
• Disruptive tagging on File:Flushing Main St, Kissena Blvd, and 41 Av crowded intersection.jpg
• Tag + 3 disruptive reverts (violation of WP:3RR) on File:Union Square chess with spectators.jpg
• 2 disruptive (re)tags on File:Flushing, After the Rain.jpg
• Disruptive tagging on File:Flushing street vendor under LIRR bridge.jpg
• among many others Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, these are all from October. Where are the "many others" which are more recent examples? ANd, FWIW, there's no "clearly made by me" about your self-portrait, for the reasons I outlined above -- and isn't that you in the Kissena Blvd. picture? So who took it, and under what conditions, and have you provided proof to OTRS that it was you?

You can certainly keep reiterating your complaint, but unless you've got something more recent, I'm just not seeing where you've got a case for Eeekster to be sanctioned. Perhaps others disagree with that, so I'll withdraw and allow them to comment. BMK (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This was pre-emptive because I was expecting more reverts by Eeekster (which no one took action with last time). However, if he doesn't try to tag my image as unsourced or unlicensed I won't request sanctions. Also, in my self-portrait, I am holding a camera. The lens is photographing a mirror. (d_i = d_o) The subject *is* the photographer.

The Kissena Blvd photographs are not of me, they were taken *by* me. They are street photographs. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

For the ones with OTRS tags, leave a message on my talk page here and I'll check them when I get home (I never do OTRS stuff at work). They need to have the ticket number added to them. For everything else, unless he is actually harassing you, there's nothing else which can be done here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)File:Union_Square_chess_with_spectators.jpg states the photo was originally published on flickr. Following the link, there Yanping Soong is claiming an "All right reserved" copyright. Therefore, pending an OTRS email relicensing under a creative commons license, it is a copyright violation from Wikipedia's point of view. The simple solution is simply to creative commons license the photo on flickr -- then when an editor checks the Wiki version of the photo, they'll see it's okay. NE Ent 23:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, is there a reason why you are not uploading your images to Commons, rather than to here? BMK (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to relicense all my images. I adjusted the license on one (the Flushing after the rain image) just to show that I owned it. As a copyright holder, surely I have the right to re-release images under a new license without declaring the change of license on other places that are published? The reason is that I would like to make them free for Wikipedia's use, and free for use in any derivatives and mirrors that incorporate Wikipedia, but I do not want to systematically release all my images as free (because in some cases I have plans for them), sd in some cases I get paid for licensing image use requests by certain people (doesn't involve any of the images affected).

I prefer they not be uploaded to Commons, for various reasons that I don't have time to explain right now. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

In which case you should probably label them with {{Do not move to Commons|reason=}}. The reason could be "author's request". BMK (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

See [100] — Yanping's Flickr account has explicitly said "I'm also Yanping Nora Soong on Wikipedia", and I've saved that revision with the Internet Archive. Since the same person is in control of both accounts, we have no reason to doubt that the Wikipedia account is able to upload images from the Flickr account using licenses that don't appear on the Flickr account. The allegations of Flickrwashing aren't affected by this, of course. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's a fairly simple way to find out. Upload the image on Google Images and search, check a couple of matches and see ownership (also, some of the matches will just be unauthorized copy of the original but remember to check for anyone claiming to be the original). This process is much simpler on Chrome, download the Image Search Extension, right click on image, search and voila. And, credit me when it's done. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 06:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You are of course not required to use the same licence on Flickr as you provide here. With the information on Flickr, I think it should be clear to most people that you are the same person as the Flickr account holder, so any licence differences don't matter. However it's always possible someone may miss the declaration. If this happens, I suggest you simply point out to them the Flickr declaration.

I agree that I'm not seeing anything malicious, or even majorly wrong with the October stuff. In particular, I don't quite get what you mean by [101] being clearly made by you. Considering the composition of the shot, it doesn't look so much like it was taken with a tripod. With this and the other details (appearing on other sites etc), it's understandable there may have been concern.

I have much more sympathy for the recent case [102] since as you mentioned it does look likely that it was a self portrait. So I'm not sure the tagging should have happened. Still mistakes happen and we have to be very careful about copyright issues. It would also help if you resolve at least one case of a self-portrait (possibly you already did and it just hasn't been updates), then people can go off that.

BTW, I'm assuming you understand that by freely licencing your images, you are freely licencing those images point blank. While it may not be that likely many will find them, particularly if they are only on en.wikipedia (rather than commons), it remains the case that anyone anywhere is free to use them for any purpose (including commercial) in accordance with the licence terms and it doesn't matter if they are unrelated to wikipedia. (For images with identifable people including yourself, they may also have to ensure they comply with any privacy and similar requirements.)

Likewise, while most people will respect your request not to move a file to commons (see Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for example), there's no legal or clear policy barrier (well barring ones unrelated to you, like if other stuff in the image may be copyrighted). If your image is regarded as important to other wikipedias or other wikimedia projects, it's possible someone may do so.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to make them free for Wikipedia's use...but I do not want to systematically release all my images as free I'm still a little drowsy and soon will be consuming a LARGE HAM, so I don't have time to dig for the exact policy, but I'm pretty sure this is exactly the sort of licensing that is not allowed? An image needs to be released under a free license, or not at all, with "only free for Wikipedia" not being acceptable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It depends what Yanping Nora Soong means by the statement. My guess is that she meant she is unwilling to release most of her images on Flickr under a free licence, but is willing to release all the images she uploads here under a free licence. However she feels she doesn't have the time to change the licencing status on Flickr and/or perhaps would prefer to reduce re-use. (Which isn't ideal, but isn't AFAIK forbidden provided it's clear that the images are freely licenced.) I guess she expects that most reusers would be wikipedia and its mirrors because she uploaded them here. But my hope is she understand that regardless of where she freely licences the images, she's released them under the terms of that free licence. Therefore anyone including commercial users, anywhere, are free to re-use the images under the terms of the licence (including allow derivatives). I would note she didn't mention any restrictions when she uploaded the images which seems to support this view. I do agree it's important that she does understand this, hence my question/comment above. Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I sell some images through Flickr occasionally, that's all. Most sold prints actually occur on the street in NYC, and I actually pay an investment cost for printing those prints on metal. People who discover the image through Wikipedia are welcome to use the images in any way they wish. It's not a huge issue right now because most of my photography income comes through commissioning new work, not paying for prints of existing work, and of that, most are on the street, not online. There's also the issue of different sizing. I'm very familiar with free licensing. There's also the issue of whether differential licensing can apply to sizes. I'm ready for any consequence of free licensing. It's just that people looking for stock images on Flickr are very different from people looking from stock images on Wikipedia.

And yeah, part of it is just general laziness to go back to the Flickr version of every image I upload to Wikipedia to make the licenses consistent. My wish for uploading to Wikipedia is primarily to educate, inform and inspire. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

What pretty much hits the nail on the head; Yanping Nora Soong is too lazy to update the out of date off-wiki licensing and is demanding other editors, upon noticing off wiki it says "all rights reserved," and on-wiki it says "creative commons," spend their volunteer time tracking the authorship to the point they realize it's really okay. NE Ent 15:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's really as hard as you suggest. If you visit the Flickr page and see it says all rights reserved but then check the details in the same page and realise it identifies the same author, it's clear it's not an issue. Presuming you aren't a bot, you should generally be reading a bit more anyway to get an idea whether it's possible the Flickr image is the only stolen. (E.g. you probably should look at the date on Flickr.) In fact, the authors name is unsurprisingly more prominent than the copyright details so you shouldn't really be missing it.

As for bots, do they not have a facility to ignore Flickr users already? I would have thought it necessary so we don't get false positives for anyone on Flickr who regularly steals images but who haven't been taken down.

In any case, volunteer contributions of useful user created freely images, particularly quality ones should always be welcome, and it doesn't make sense to say people can't licence their images seperately on different places since that's in some ways a key selling point (you can freely licence you images and allow people to use them in accordance with the licence while simulatenously continuing to sell them for those who want a different licence). I'm pretty sure there a number of people already doing that by selling their images on stock photo sites and stuff which is perfectly attune to both the wikipedia/media and commons licencing norms. We can and should find ways of dealing with any confusion created.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Cause of death vandal?

Any opinions about whether User:2600:100E:B109:2C5E:BC96:3D65:ACC6:319 is the Cause of death vandal? If not, most of their contributions have been unsourced, so I've deleted most of them, but if they are the CODV, then a block is probably in order. BMK (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't believe that he/she is a vandal, but he/she is definitely not competent to be editing. Most of their edits had to be reverted and none were necessary. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)-

Page move and gaming the system

User:Nymf has gamed the system in a redirect "purposely" so a page move cannot be done. After 8 years I would think he would know this is against the rules of wikipedia. The gaming article in question is Malin Akerman. The proof that it was on purpose and that he will do the same again is Nymf's talk page. The background is the following. I had asked an administrator to delete the original "Malin Akerman" redirect article because someone had made it impossible to move "Malin Åkerman." This was done. This seemed like a no-brainer move like Martina Navratilova. Nothing on the talk page on moves in 5-6 years, actress lived whole life in North America, actress self-identifies with Akerman spelling in personal correspondence, and signature, etc... so the move was made.

It was moved back by Nymf with a summary of "per talk page RM request". I thought maybe I missed a new post on the talk page so I went back to check. Nothing, so the summary was bogus. Because it was bogus I checked Nymf's edits and saw he gamed the system by making it impossible to move back without another administrator visit. I told him as much on his talk page but he seemed defiant which told me he will do this again and again (and who knows how many times he's done this in 8 years). It still seems routine to me, but obviously this is a dispute I will now have to take to the Talk:Malin Åkerman page. I have no problem with his revert, but Nymf must be warned by someone official never to do this type of gaming thing again. I've seen many a block for this in my years but an official warning will hopefully suffice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There is an old RM request that resulted in no consensus. On the talk page. Nymf probably intended to tell you that he doesn't want that move because of reasons mentioned in the old RM(Nymf partipiciated in it). It is definitely controversial to move, no matter what you think- there was a NC page move five years ago, and your bold move was opposed. Do a RM, and seek consensus. Sure, Nymf's reasoning was unclear, but please assume more good faith next time. I will talk with Nymf about his behaviour on his own talk page.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That might have justified moving it back, but the edit to the resulting redirect was clearly an attempt to game the system by making it harder for his action to be reversed, which is definitely against the rules. --Aquillion (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was no legitimate reason for this edit. If an edit subsequent to a move added redirect categories or something, that would be one thing, but removing whitespace that doesn't have any bearing on the article appearance is a clear sign of wanting to prevent a page move. Doing it to prevent an edit war is assuming bad faith given that there's no indication there would be multiple reverts. Anyways, per WP:BRD, the next step would simply be a move discussion on the talk page, since the last one was five years ago and closed as "no consensus". clpo13_(talk) 20:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The only good faith explanation for this edit was that it was accidental, but Nymf's comment make it clear it was intentional. Warnings and/or sanctions are appropriate. NE Ent 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The littlecircle can't be used in Canada where this person lives so even if the subject likes it, they would have trouble using it on documents. Both editors are being foolish spending time on this. Legacypac (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: - The little circle can't be used in Canada... - Do you have a source to verify that? - ^theWOLFchild 05:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It is the experience of many of my friends (Chinese, Indian, Ukrainian etc) that you can't get any ID with non-English or French languages on it. I went looking for written rule, which surely exists, but could not find it. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the price of eggs? That might help and will be something that will be brought up when I form a proper RM (where I want to make sure the sourcing is neat and tidy). This is only about gaming the system, purposely. I asked Nymf to fix the situation so this an/i would never see the light of day, and the response was "Go ahead." So here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The MOS clearly allows provision for diacritics but as Nymf has pointed it, it's (apparently, I don't know much) a different letter altogether. I say, that the reasoning behind not moving the page was perfectly fine but gaming the system, to make it much harder to move it, was unjustified. And, WQA to the accused, please. Akerman's referred to by the media as Akerman, only because it's easier but since she doesn't bother to use that little circle (I don't know what to call it, sorry) on her social accounts, I'd say the OP's stance is the one I'm going to lean to. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 07:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Just making sure that the warning given by editor Müdigkeit is as official a warning as there's going to be? I don't want to see him saying "well it wasn't an administrator warning so I gave it no mind" in case it ever happens again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to wait for a statement. Nymf hasn't edited yet. Neither here nor somewhere else.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

By "impossible to move", do you mean that you can't enter the letter from your keyboard? Then use the HTML Unicode point value. It's Unicode Character 'LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH RING ABOVE' (U+00C5). Enter it as Å, and it'll display as Å. --Thnidu (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Blatant POV editing

There is a block-evading IP using multiple IP addresses to continually insert pro-Israel/anti-Arab material into Wikipedia. The IP claims they are somehow exempt from WP:ARBPIA3, but that it applies to anyone reverting their propaganda. IPs used:

• 83.61.142.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.30.76.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 150.214.94.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.157.78.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.54.44.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Cool Troll Killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wolfgangmatron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• and several earlier usernames/IPs that I can dig through and find if you need

Going to ping several users that have also been involved in reverting them in case they want to add anything – @TracyMcClark, Murry1975, RolandR, and TheTimesAreAChanging:

Has been blocked on several occasions and warned for edit-warring. Needs action if possible. 220.253.153.55 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC) (formerly 203.59.211.55)

Might want to consider spi. GAB^Hello! 15:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

150.214.94.231 (talk · contribs) used the edit comment "I was editing before the prohibition in November, so WP:ARBPIA3 doesn't apply to me, but it does apply to the IP whose disruptive edit you are restoring for whatever reason" at least twice.[103][104]. That's not what WP:ARBPIA3 says; it reads "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." So all those IPs should be blocked. The non-IPs listed, Cool Troll Killer (talk · contribs) and Wolfgangmatron (talk · contribs), are already blocked. 220.253.153.55 (talk · contribs), the complaining party, is also editing in this area[105][106], which, as an anon, they should not be doing, and since they're complaining here, they know they should't be doing it. ArbCom has made it clear - if you want to edit in this area, you must register and gain some reputation first. John Nagle (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

User Unjustly Blocked

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

---

Can an administrator please review and unblock my account? I've made no violations. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamwil (talk • contribs) 10:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you can write here, you are not blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I mean blocked from editing pages.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamwil (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

What was your old username? Legacypac (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

what do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamwil (talk • contribs) 11:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as any of us can tell, you are not blocked. If you could share the error message you get when you try to edit - we could help determine what is stopping you from editing. SQL^{Query me!} 11:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Clearly not an IP block as the user can edit here (and they know about ANI on their first edit from this account), so it seems like clear block evasion. I have blocked with instruction to request unblock on original account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Could it be that this user is trying to edit a protected article? Reyk _YO! 12:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That was why I asked the question I did. SQL^{Query me!} 12:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

(←) Well now. Either there is some info unavailable to me, or this was too quick to end. If indeed the problem was they were not yet autoconfirmed, and had no idea how to communicate that, it makes no difference now. Their unblock request was denied and their talk page access removed! I hope maybe a CU confirmed a sock? Otherwise, bye bye new user. Maybe this can be reviewed more closely. Rgrds. --64.85.217.89 (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The block, while not completely unreasonable, was a little pre-emptive, but removal of talk page access seems very excessive given that their single edit to it was to request an unblock. Sam Walton (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I'm seeing: A new user says above "I mean blocked from editing pages." I read that to mean they're not autoconfirmed but it is misunderstood as block evasion. @Boing! said Zebedee: blocks as a sock but also writes on their talkpage @11:59UTC "Alternatively, if you insist this is your only account, please post an unblock request containing details of the message you get when you try to edit." Then @13:40UTC they say they are not a sock, but 3 minutes later @MaxSem: declines the request with "Pfft, you admitted it yourself with your first edit." AND removes TP access in the same edit. This editor needs attention quickly. @Hamwil:, if you are reading here, please read WP:AUTOCONFIRMED and see if that answers your question as to why you cannot edit certain pages (hint: you do not have enough edits yet). Also, it would be nice to know what page you tried to edit. Rgrds. --64.85.217.89 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I support the reinstatement of talk page access, and I'll add a new message on their talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• OK, I've added a message to their talk page and I'm watching it and will respond to any replies. But there are a few suspicious things here - the account was registered in April 2015 but made no edits until today and that was an unblock request here at ANI, and their subsequent unblock request on their Talk page says "I demand that I be unblocked immediately" which didn't help and isn't really the way a complete newbie usually responds. Anyway, AGF and all that - if a suitable explanation is forthcoming I'll be happy to unblock and offer my apologies (and would note that in the block log too). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I really do think it is possible this is a new user being confused about autoconfirm. It can be difficult to understand the difference between being blocked and being prevented from accessing a page. That being said if there is other evidence I am missing then I accept that. HighInBC 17:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've unblocked this user, per above, to allow them to reply directly here. Reblock if needed after investigation. Prodego ^talk 17:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough - I'll apologise for being too hasty. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Repeated vandalism by 96.241.164.3

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

---

96.241.164.3 has been making repeated additions of spurious information to Super Bowl and airline pages, even after several warnings. 32.218.35.213 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours for vandalism. Routine vandalism is typically reported at WP:AIV. While blatant vandalism can result in a block without a full set of warnings, the most typical course is for an editor to be reported at AIV after they have received a final (4th) warning, and vandalize again. Monty₈₄₅ 19:38, 27 December 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.

Editor changing his talk page comments a month after it was posted

The following discussion is closed. 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:Paulturtle, with this edit changed his own talk page comment a month after it had been originally posted, which is deceitful. I reverted it, and suggested that he add a new comment to upadate his thoughts, but instead he reverted it back in. An admin should tell him that this practice is contrary to the free flow of discussion on talk pages. BMK (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I would be very happy for an admin to look at the entire history of this little spat. I've already explained to Beyond My Ken that making minor alterations to old comments (to which nobody had since replied) and adding a few more thoughts, separately datestamped, about an issue which lots of people who come to that talk page choose to comment, is perfectly permissible under talk page guidelines. His high-handed, borderline "ownership" behaviour in trying to prevent me from doing so, isn't. Shouting at me in edit summaries and falsely accusing me of "deceit" most certainly isn't. You might also care to note that BMK has attempted to delete a reply of mine (somewhat curt) from his own talk page.Paulturtle (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "attempt" to delete it from my talk page, I did delete it, since you posted it after I told you not to post there again. BMK (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, you have shouldn't have done, nor should you have attempted to delete my reply on your talk page after you had falsely accused me of "deceit" (again, I'd be perfectly happy for an admin to read the edit summary on your talk page as well). Now, in the meantime I would suggest you try to calm down.Paulturtle (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, with some very specific exceptions, I have complete control over what does and does not appear on my talk page. I would suggest that you act like a mensch and restore your comment to what you originally wrote, and not indulge in an Orwellian rewriting of history. BMK (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You really do need to calm down. Stop making exaggerated accusations about my deletion of a largely redundant sentence from an old comment of mine (I note you've insisted on including a footnote of the sentence which I wanted to lose). And it's clearly not acceptable for the final word on your talk page being an uncivil and exaggerated accusation (of "deceit") levelled at another editor. And stop editing other people's comments, even if it's just formatting, even on this page.Paulturtle (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You really do need not to change your comments after the fact, especially a month later. BMK (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and please learn how to indent properly. BMK (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

From WP:TPO#Own comments:

Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post. (emphasis added)

BMK (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment @Paulturtle Any editor is permitted to revert non-admin edits to their own talk page. Just strike out the original sentence you no longer stand by, I am sure BMK probably wouldn't object to that. @BMK I don't think there is any harm in permitting him to add a separate timestamped comment if he feels it is necessary (we all feel the need to clarify/revise our thoughts on occasion), although ultimately Paul must respect your final decision. Betty Logan (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Betty. I have no objection to a strike-through (although it would be best to add a new time-stamp as well), and I actually suggested a new comment (in my first edit summary) as a corrective measure instead of deleting original content. BMK (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@BeyondMyKenActually, my original comment was time-stamped as a new comment, albeit within a single paragraph at the time, and I have kept it separately timestamped ever since. You simply tried to revert the lot, even before you started shouting, and I doubt you'd be very happy if I wrote "You are behaving dishonestly, do not post here again" under the message you left on my talk page and then deleted your reply. @BettyLogan, I can see you are trying to broker a reasonable compromise here, which is usually the best way. Leaving the original trivial sentence in, but struck out, is fine by me. We could do with some clarification about what "respect (BMK')s final decision" means. Does it mean respect his decision to accept a compromise? Or does it mean he gets to "decide" what may or may not go in the article or the talk page? The former is fine, the latter clearly isn't.Paulturtle (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User:paulturtle, I'm pretty sure Betty meant you must respect BMK's decision to remove your post from his own talkpage, per her first sentence. See WP:DRC. Bishonen | talk 09:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC).

I'd say the view of "don't change your comments from a month ago" are more the norm around here but I'd say striking it out and both sides taking a break from whatever reason this escalated so quickly is what's needed here. People change their minds on what was said all the said, just don't change it because it just causees more confusion than is helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat curiously, SocialJusticeWarriors has now started acting "on Paulturtle's behalf" it would seem, reverting the purely factual note that BMK left at Talk:Appeasement regarding the refactoring of Paulturtle's comment so late in the day. This account was created about ten days ago and appears to be showing signs of a single-purpose account. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you acting on BMK's behalf? Disagreeing with you doesn't make me a sock. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm simply restoring the accurate description of your, sorry, Paulturtle's late-in-the-day edit, which as you have been told, is contrary to guidelines. Anyway, a single-purpose account will soon be found out. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've edited a range of articles and anyway there is no rule against being a single purpose account. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Looks like a duck to me -- samtar ^whisper 12:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've no idea who SocialJusticeWarriors is and he isn't me. I do have a few other sign-ons but I do not use them dishonestly in the same thread. Please don't accuse people of sock-puppetry without better evidence.Paulturtle (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could ask him to stop editing on your behalf. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you stop editing on Beyond My Ken's behalf? SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Because, like Jennifer Lawrence, The Bee Gees and General Franco, BMK pays me huge sums of money to make sure he looks good. It's a great deal. And your excuse? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, he's not "editing on my behalf" - he's just serving to make me look petty in a discussion where I was quite careful to keep calm - I was, after all, not the one reverting other people's comments, shouting or slinging false accusations of "deceit" for trimming a single trivial sentence from a month-old comment of mine. There is a notorious character called Harvey Carter, with a long history of vexatious edits under various signons, with whom many of us are wearisomely familiar, some of whose whose antics can be seen on that talkpage. You may find that a fruitful source of inquiry. Or else SocialJusticeWarriors may be some other misguided individual.Paulturtle (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Then by all means restore the information that he has deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Despite our disagreement, I would say that SocialJusticeWarriors is not a sock of Paulturtle. Reading Paulturtle's talk page, he does not seem to me to be the kind of editor who would resort to socking. Taking into account SJW's edit summaries ("rmv petty harassment" etc.), my best guess is that this is a sock of an editor with an animus against me, possibly the same one who harassed me for several months using proxy IPs, or it could just be someone who trawls through AN/I looking for mischief to make -- but, in any event, I very much doubt that it's Paulturtle (and could even be someone trying to make Paulturtle look bad). The various possibilities are too many to justify an SPI, but old-timers will certainly recognize SJW's behavior as being eminently sock-like. BMK (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks, and I'm sorry if tempers got a bit strained last night. My money's on the constantly-banned HarveyCarter, who keeps springing up like Japanese knotweed in articles about twentieth century British history, and in articles about celebrities. But as we've both said, it could just as easily be some other prat with nothing better to do.Paulturtle (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Last night is the past, and I hope we can leave it there.

I'm not really all that familiar with HarveyCarter, but in my experience with him he expressed odd unsourced ahistorical opinions and edit-warred to keep them in articles. I don't recall him just being disruptive or harassing per se. BMK (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that SocialJusticeWarriors has been CU-blocked as a sock of DegenFarang, a puppet-master I'm not familiar with. BMK (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Against me [107]. Please act. I am not going to notify the user, to avoid real-life problems--Ymblanter (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clear attempt at creating a chilling effect. Blocked indefinitely, i.e. until a complete and convincing retraction has been made. Favonian (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 29 December 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.

Deliberate multi-year hoax at John Chivington

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

---

Please see Talk:John_Chivington#Allegation_of_deliberate_hoax_re:_colorblindness. Not sure anything can be done since multiple IPs were used and the culprit does not appear to be a regular editor. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The original IP has been inactive since April 2011, when they had a 1 month block, so no action is needed unless it is used again for vandalism. It is over a month since the hoax was last added by an IP so, again, no action seems appropriate. If we get a spate of vandalism then we can semi-protect the page but, meanwhile, it is just a matter of monitoring and reverting isolated cases (with warnings as necessary) in the normal manner. Just Chilling (talk) 23:28, 29 December 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.

DefconBot

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

---

DefconBot seems to not be working. CatcherStorm ^talk 13:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to ask the bot operator to take a look at that. Administrators can only help by blocking the bot if it's becoming disruptive or operating outside of its approved tasks. This error message, doesn't seem to warrant a block. Mike V • Talk 17:05, 30 December 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 sock

I am here with a previous complaint made by User:Snowded here. I was reverted by the user through another IP sock 78.145.96.44. They use the same edit summaries as the other IPs and had the dignity to return to the same page at Hope not Hate. The previous IPs were blocked for WP:NPA and socking if I recall properly. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP just recently tried to remove my thread [108]. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP is on the verge of entering edit war on my talk page [109], but probably will be in that territory once an admin reaches out. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please know that I added the ANI notice on their talk page. They just blanked their talk page [110]. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I filed a request for page protection for Hope not Hate. But the IP editor(s) really do need attention, especially given that they're removing ANI reports and edit warring on user talk pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Geolocate says it is the same physical location as the last two IPs who were blocked and we have a threat of sorts repeated over mutiple user pages. Thanks to User:Callmemirela for being vigilant here. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Range block requested here earlier today for those interested ----Snowded ^TALK 05:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The user has returned edit warring after a 3-hour block. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Continued addition of unsourced birth place

@Hackinghobb: has been continually changing Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, George Harrison and John Lennon birth places. These changes are against accepted consensus and without sources, despite multiple warnings. User refuses to discuss or source their claims. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, but it seems as if the guy has a valid argument that Merseyside wasn't founded as a county until 1974, so the various Beatles couldn't have been born in that county, since it didn't exist at the time. It would seem as if something on the order of "Lancashire (now Merseyside)" would be a suitable compromise. BMK (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message on the editor's talk page. BMK (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No-one was claiming Merseyside was correct? That was just suggested by User:Hackinghobb's misleading edit summaries? There are no other Liverpools in England, nor anywhere in UK. So any county is redundant. Unless there is some infobox policy convention on counties, I don't see it helps the reader at all. A county might be added in the article main body for good measure, but again this seems redundant in the case of the Fab Scouse Four. A different consensus could be established at the Talk Page if need be, if their "Lancastrian-ness" was deemed so important. So this is a just a content dispute. The contentious part is the user's lack of engagement and discussion with other editors, as BMK has rightly pointed out. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Since the dispute seems to be about whether the birthplace should just be "Liverpool, England" or "Liverpool, Lancashire, England", surely it should be possible to come to some sort of acceptable compromise, as Liverpool is a sufficiently large place that adding a county (whether Lancashire as it was when the Beatles were born, or Merseyside as it is now) is superfluous. The Royal Mail has been trying to discourage the use of counties in postal addresses for something close to 40 years by now. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you in regards to a compromise being available, but I would point out that "location" is not necessarily the same thing as "address", so the Royal Mail's preference for no county in addresses is not really relevant. I frequently come across this problem in regard to places in Manhattan, the mailing address for which is "New York, New York". That, and the well known song by the same name, have encouraged people to use "New York, New York" as a location, when it is simply a mailing address. One can say "Manhattan, New York City, New York" or "New York County, New York" or variations on those (I prefer the latter as being the clearest), but the use of the postal address (and the zip code, which is really completely irrelevant) is not the location of the place. BMK (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe WP:RSN would be a better place for this issue? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Why reliable sources? BMK (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it seems to be the same issue that affects several related articles (WP:BLPN would be a stretch, imo). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with BMK's description of "New York, New York" as just a mailing address. I grew up there, and it's common enough as a way of emphasizing the city (e.g., out of pride) or distinguishing the city from the state. The latter is one way to avoid this type of dialogue, which I've had too often: "Where'd you grow up?" "New York." "What city?" (exaggerated accent:) "I just toldja, NOO YAWK!!" --Thnidu (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• They've all been WP:FAs for eons with just "Liverpool, England", so stick to that. There's no need to get into ceremonial county, administrative county, historic county, England, United Kingdom, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe, etc., because as noted the counties changed in the 1970s or whenever. Let the FAs stand as they were. Trout the user, warn them, and block them if they persist. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

KILL! KILL! KILL! KILL! EEng (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sounding a note of caution there, EEng. But I think three ought to be enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Unless there's more than one Liverpool in England, "Liverpool, England" would seem to suffice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• This really matters, folks. If it doesn't have its own page, or at least discussions on RSN, COI, SPI and MOS by the time I get up tomorrow, I will be pissed, with a capital P, apostrophes and a hyphen. I believe it means "pool of life". I'd suggest the antagonists get one, but that might take away from the Happy Christmas I wish you all. Begoon ^talk 17:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• I've issued a stern warning and will be happy to block if this continues. I suggest this be closed. Happy Boxing Day everyone! --John (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Red herring and User:Clepsydrae

User:Clepsydrae is adding material to Red herring that is clearly opinionated original research synthesis based on material he/she saw on the fictional TV show NCSI. I attempted to start a discussion on the talk page but was immediately met with bad faith, calling me "ignorant" which has shut down communication. Given how clearly it violates OR and RS, I would like to see the material reverted and Clepsydrae get consensus for its inclusion through an RfC or other means. Any help appreciated. Thank you. -- GreenC 18:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Clepsydrae is edit warring with myself and another editor. I have used up my 3RR for the 24h and won't revert again. -- GreenC 19:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

User Green Cardamom's allegations are unfounded. The user reverted the material twice, once before I had the opportunity to add the references, and a second time after I had added the references, but clearly before ever bothering to review them. I strongly object to his/her use of bureaucratic red tape as a way to force his/her opinion, clearly contrary to the opinions of the references I provided in my edits, onto the Wikipedia population as a whole. It's actions like that which "shut down communication." There's absolutely nothing on my user talk page indicating he/she ever even attempted such communication. My first and only indication was a link to this page. Meanwhile, the sources are valid, scholarly material acceptable in any institution of higher learning (I am a university professor), and I strongly object to Green Cardamom's obfuscation of the issue and bureaucratic bullying in reverting a very simple, straightforward, and clarifying addition to a Wikipedia article. The reason for Wikipedia's existence is to learn, a process that is thwarted when a user closes their mind to anything new or different, particularly when it's well-referenced, and knee-jerk reverts the article to it's old, stagnant, and off-the-mark status. I am new to terms like "OR and RS," but I am NOT new to scholarly research, having earned my first degree more than a quarter century ago, professional associations along the way, and additional degrees since then, with honors (top of my class). Green Cardamom's behavior is NOT scholarly. It's NPOV (I know that term) and anti-learning. Contrary to his/her opinion, he/she is not the expert on the term, and has as much to learn about its history as anyone. I would like to see my latest edit stand as is, and protected from further deletion by those who are apparently married to a falsehood and refusing to examine and follow the substantiating references I provided. Clepsydrae (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

EO's explanation of the term may be useful:[111] Clepsydrae (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed, Baseball Bugs, and Doug Harper's qualified, scholarly efforts certainly support my addition to the red herring article. Thank you. Clepsydrae (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of missing link: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=red+herring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clepsydrae (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm unable to determine what, exactly, Clepsydrae is objecting to in the article as it stood. He seems to be confusing the use of "red herring" in its literal sense (a type of cured fish) with its metaphorical sense, in which the expression refers to a false lead. Both of these were referred to and dated in the article. It's unclear in what way Clepsydrae thinks the TV show NCIS refutes the previous content of the article, but I agree with the talk-page commenters that it's unacceptable as a reference. (I seem to recall that the only time I watched the show The West Wing, the president [who was supposed to be blindingly erudite] made the point that he read Chaucer "in the original Old English". That statement has always seemed to me to exemplify quite effectively the quality of TV writers' research.) Deor (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The article as it stood relies almost entirely on the [[112]] of "etymologist Michael Quinion" while simultaneously excluding the qualified research of many other, highly-reputable sources, including Merriam-Webster. True, Quinion is an accomplished scholar. He is not, however, to be considered the only expert on the subject. As near as I can tell, he has no degree at all, having merely "studied physical sciences" at Cambridge University. I have two degrees, several professional credentials as a academician, am working on my PhD, and, like Quinion, I too have a website. That does not, however, qualify me as any more of an expert than Quinion. What qualifies my additional paragraph are the independent third-party references from reputable organizations like Merriam-Webster. And again, folks, please STOP referring to the NCIS description as a "reference." I used it only as a very well-worded description of the origin of the term. The references substantiating its origins as truth, however, came from other sources I included using the references tags. The only reason I referenced the NCIS quote was to avoid plagiarism and give credit for where it was due. Again, the NCIS quote is NOT the authoritative source substantiating the origin of the term. It is merely a very good description. As such, it should be left intact, if for no other reason than as the clearest description available of the historically consistent etymology. The authoritative sources (plural) substantiating the origin of the term came from the other sources I provided. Have I made myself clear? Or will I see yet another off-target comment along these lines? Please do not fixate on what is not important. What is important in the paragraph I created is that it reminds readers that a single individual individual's opinion (Quinon) is not sufficient to counter centuries of etymological documentation to the contrary. It reminds users that one individual's blog post does NOT undermine centuries of contrary research to the contrary. Believing otherwise is, at best, "revisionist history." No! Don't do that. That's not the way academia works! My edits restore at least a glimmer of accuracy backed up by centuries of research in the etymology of the term "red herring," while providing a very good description of the still mainstream consideration of its etymology. If Quinion wants to claim otherwise, he's going to have to do substantially more than a mere blog post, and if Wikipedia users want to claim it so, they're going to have to do more than point to a single source. Again, one source does NOT constitute the "status quo" as the article as it stood (stands) wrongly claims. Clepsydrae (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Quinion's article is based, not on his "opinion", but, as he says, on research recently (at the time of his writing) published in the journal Comments on Etymology and accepted by the OED. I'd say that's pretty persuasive. In any case, you need to get consensus on the talk page before adding your material to the article again. Deor (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on an article about a phrase? Because that's very much what it looks to me like Clepsydrae is trying to do here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Regardless of the strengths of either etymologies, Clepsydrae's content is phrased inappropriately, it is more interested in disproving Quinion, than in presenting the alternative theory. Regardless also of what Clepsydrae claims above, his text is using the TV show as a ref and another dubious source to validate the TV show. The alternative theory MAY be valid, but present wording and sourcing certainly is not. Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Manualy unblocked user continues disruptions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – (non-admin closure) OP 143.176.216.29 was blocked 3 months. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat was manualy unblocked (for unkown reasons), and has now started to disrupt Islam related topics again. He also continues with personal attacks, while asked to stop those. Please read the previous reports (by tons of users) on the noticeboard and please re-evaluate the reason for his unblock (see here). He can't continue like this. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat was blocked for edit warring and unblocked because of their promise to adhere to WP:1RR (see User talk:FreeatlastChitchat#December 2015), so it's not an unknown reason for the unblock. I've also notified FreeatlastChitchat of this discussion as required. clpo13_(talk) 18:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearling that up. I had no clue this could be a valid reason to unblock someone considering the massive disruptions (not just editwars) he has caused. Anyway, please investigate him for his recent repeated or egregious personal attacks. As per wikipedia:No_personal_attacks this may lead to sanctions including blocks. He was asked to stop, but instead replied by making his attacks even more insulting. These attacks are one of many (earlier) disruptions of an Islam related topic, considering his past it should be time to make sure he stops now.143.176.216.29 (talk)

Full block (and unblock) log is here:[113] To see it, check the user's contrib's page and select "block log". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Also the comments mentioned by the OP were made days after the block would have expired so I don't see what we need to review since they would have been able to make the comments at that time regardless of whether or not there was an early unblock. I think the real question is whether or not the comments being linked to are personal attacks and if any action should take place.--67.68.23.129 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comments by FreeatlastChitchat'. I saw the editing pattern of this IP and commented on the taqiyyah discussion that he was most probably someone who logged out to troll on wikipedia so that his registered account is not hurt. I based my comment on his ability to grasp wikipedia policies even when having only 50 or so edits to his name, and his being able to use wiki jargon without ever having been involved in a situation when its sue was required. However I wanted to give him some rope instead of going straight for investigations/ANI and he hanged himself within the next 72 hours. I am not sure which part of my statement is a personal attack. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The knowledge of wikipedia-terminology can be explained (partly?) by his use of Dutch wikipedia, where he made many edits. And -if we assume good faith regarding his statements that he has no account- I can imagine your suggestion -without proof- that he was socking was taken as insulting. It certainly wasn't helpful in the discussion. I'd say his running to ANI here (with a very suggestive summary of your recent past) was out of line, and his removal of your talk page post was not helpfull. He'd better have pointed you to make either an SPI or stop the suggestions... I have given him some pointers on his tak page to get possibly unblocked ("manually" ;-)) as I think the block now (3 months with talk page revocation) is way too long and based on what I saw on NL wikipedia, he clearly is more than a troll. (That all is assuming he is not User:143.176.62.228 as is suggested by the blocking admin (@Bbb23:), which I of course cannot verify, but the editing pattern and the type of battlefied behaviour seems different). L.tak (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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

AfD needing an uninvolved admin

The following discussion is closed. 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 AfD has been open nearly two weeks, and remains contentious. Recent posts include some poor behavior. Would someone please either close the AfD, or at least hose down those who need it? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, the first AFD was closed on December 5th as Delete. The primary argument in favor of deletion was a lack of sources (most notably anything that confirmed the subject's first name). An additional source was found and the article was recreated on that basis - then renominated a day later on 17 December. Reading through the current AFD... oi. I'm tempted to close it as no consensus, lament the fact that WP:TRAINWRECK isn't a thing, and admonish every involved editor to cool it and go have tea. But a no consensus close will do nothing to sort this out, will it? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll close it in the next hour or so. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll need a little more time as I want to review the DRV as well... I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been four hours. RIP I, JethroBT. He died doing what he (presumably) loved: reviewing an AfD. clpo13_(talk) 01:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. And yes, I drastically underestimated how much I needed to evaluate before closing this one (I also had to step away while closing for off-wiki errands). I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, JethroBT, for taking the time to make a considered close and for noting the issues around unhelpful behavior. Any decision would have led to objections given the contentious nature of the AfD, so I hope that those who disagree with you can maintain appropriate decorum. EdChem (talk) 03:58, 31 December 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.

Appeal for a block

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

---

I haven't made an edit in quite some time, and you will find that all my edits are legitimate. My account was blocked and I'm unsure as to why. Could an administrator please fix this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StainlessSteelScorpion (talk • contribs) 22:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Which account are you referring to. You cant be blocked if your editing this page on this account. Amortias (T)(C) 22:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Your account is not blocked and as far as I can see it never has been. Are you using other accounts? Otherwise, perhaps you are trying to edit a protected page. Can you explain what error message you are getting when you try to edit? Reyk _YO! 22:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems that I can edit the page now, I'm not sure what happened before. Thank you for your time. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

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

---

Appears we have some block evasion going on,

If someone could deal with User:Month48522. Amortias (T)(C) 00:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: Reported to AIV. The worst part of this is that they made a typo. Haha! Amaury (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't find a good category for reporting block evasion to AIV so figured would bring it here. Amortias (T)(C) 00:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Either for vandalism or for a username violation. Doesn't really matter. Both are valid reasons. :) Amaury (talk) 00:22, 31 December 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 Two Editors

Please follow dispute resolution steps to resolve the issues. This is not the place. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Editors Sir Joseph (talk · contribs) and Debresser (talk · contribs) are ganging up to bully their viewpoints by reverting others edits without waiting for consensus. They engage in ad hominem attacks, do not engage in assuming good faith,and make sweeping dismissive comments without saying anything of substance, sometimes without bothering to read what has already been posted. They cite WP help pages incorrectly and engage in disruptive editing, as well as biting the newcomers. But most importantly, they are reverting helpful edits and accusing others of edit wars before waiting for consensus. Here: Talk:List of notable former Orthodox Jews and here: Off the derech. Lokshin kugel (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll let my edits and comments on the talk page speak for itself. I'll just say that Lokshin is acting like a SPA and thinks he owns the articles in question. Wikipedia is not a directory. I reverted, tried to use the talk page, Debresser tries to use the talk page but Lokshin fails to grasp that he can't just revert at will. I fear that if this continues a block may be in order since a SPA is clearly not out to better WIKI. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of bullying I am talking about. Lokshin kugel (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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

2601:447:4101:AE6:F006:3624:C4E2:45BD

Reported to WP:AIV by Amortias. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

---

I would appreciate an admin's (or anyone's) eyes on the edits of 2601:447:4101:AE6:F006:3624:C4E2:45BD (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly misrepresented sources on Catholic Church sexual abuse cases about Phil Donahue's role in "popularizing" the cases ([114], [115], [116]). He/she also has repeatedly put his/her point of view in the lead of the article. This appears to be a case of a single purpose editor with a personal agenda who refuses to try to maintain a neutral point of view. He/she has made comments such as "The truth hurts" and "The truth has to come out" in response to warnings. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Popped it over to AIV definitely here to right great wrongs. Amortias (T)(C) 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Folkprofessor

User:Folkprofessor warned about copyright violations on his talk page. Any further violations can result in a block. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

---

User:Folkprofessor is an WP:SPA that adds unlicensed images to the article Owsley Stanley‎ claiming they are public domain. They have been removed seven times already. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I've given him a copyright violation warning. If he keeps it up, he can be blocked. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Also, be sure to sign your talk page messages, like the one you left on his talk page. I signed it for you there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! and thanks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Continuous uncivil behavior and comments by Akbar the Great

This isn't the place. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

---

I am reporting this after getting completely fed up, I think it's time for an admin to take over from here, please see the diff for the most recent message this user left me. I completely feel insulted by his comments and feel that it was a personal attack against me. Please also see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Shams (East Pakistan), about how he accused me of political motivation for that AFD based on some of my userboxes at my user page and I feel that was a personal attack against me as well and the editor had no right to accuse me of that. After reminding him continuously to base his arguments on Wikipedia policies, he continues to personally attack me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 05:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like a good candidate for dispute resolution. It may also be good if you both try to avoid each other for a while as it seems you've each gotten under the other's skin. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I can consider seeking the dispute resolution as well for the content dispute we have ongoing at Bangladesh and A. K. Fazlul Huq (from which I have been taking a break for some time) but at this time, I am reporting his conduct. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 06:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Sheriff, I am absolutely sick and tired of this. It's the new year, take a break. Please assume good faith.--Akbar the Great (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, you are asking me to assume good faith after leaving this on my talk

What a petty editor with an abiding hatred.

Why don't you apologize and strike your comment so that I can assume good faith? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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

New user improperly reviewing articles at NPP.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Thalassaxeno is a relatively new editor (account created December 17, 2015) who has been quite active in new page patrol. They have been asked multiple times by myself and other editors [117][118] to stop reviewing articles until they are more experienced and understand what they are doing. They are marking pages as reviewed, which removes them from the queue, when they should be marked for deletion. This includes multiple copyright violations[119][120] as well as many articles whose notability is dubious at best. They have refused to answer requests on their talk page to stop so I really see no other option except administrative intervention. They just need more experience and the understanding of what needs to be deleted and what can be reviewed and marked for cleanup. Until that time happens they really shouldn't be doing new page patrol. --Majora (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have been asked to post a message here which I left on Majora's talk page earlier this morning: "I apologize that I didn't respond until now. There is no excuse for that. I also realize that whatever I say here will likely not change whatever will happen to me, but I still feel it necessary to write this, just so that I may try to make you understand my actions. It does honestly frustrate we to be told that I should hold off on new page patrol until I've made 500 mainspace edits. I think I made that much clear through my actions, although I did make a deliberate effort to follow these instructions yesterday by making more than 120 mainspace edits, but eventually stopped out of a personal sense of futility. I fail to see how a number like that could ever make a difference between understanding the rules and guidelines of the new pages section and not doing so. Furthermore, it frustrated me when you, a user who only has roughly two months more experience than I do, took authority over me when it seemed to me that you were in no position to do so(again, I am trying to explain the motivations for my actions). Most importantly, I did not trust that only ONE actual citation of my misconduct in the new pages section was really enough evidence that I was more a boon than an aid, and not the other way around, as I believe. I realize that my proceeding against your wishes and admonishment is your reason for taking such harsh action, but I beg you to consider; you gave no warning of the consequences if I did not stop; you only waited till I had ignored one message instead of taking the time to post two. I can give you my word(which is something which I never gave to Kolbasz)that I will avoid the new pages section for whatever term you see fit, if you can explain to me, without any vagaries, why I should avoid it. I believe now that it is possible to avoid administrator intervention, and if I ever break my promise you clearly have every right to proverbially sic the dogs on me. I await your response and thank you for your consideration." --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -Aeneid, Book I, Line 203 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It really has nothing to do with the length of your tenure and personally I think the 500 mainspace goalpost is a nonsense statistic. That isn't the point. The point is other editor's have had to repeatedly clean up after you. NPP needs to be done correctly to ensure that articles that have serious problems do not exist in the public for too long a period of time. The missed copyright violations are far more concerning to me than anything else. Especially considering that both the ones mentioned above had a CorenSearchBot notice on them. It has nothing to do with tenure, it has everything to do with doing it right. I have no control over what happens to you and I waited for any indication that you had even read my message, let alone any of the other messages on your talk page. Even a simple removal of the section I posted there would have at least been an indication that you knew about it. This drastic step was taken after deafening silence. --Majora (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that the two of you are talking, perhaps you (Majora) could mentor him (Thalassaxeno) to help him become better at the whole process? It sounds like he wants to help out and that he isn't doing anything maliciously. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

ARA Piedra Buena (P-36) Eleven seconds of review (that's what the barnstar on --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -Aeneid, Book I, Line 203's page says) let in a clearly erroneous statement on the ship's dimensions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

That has now been corrected. There was apparently a transcription/template error. Mistakes happen. But somebody doing a review should have caught it, I think. If you are doing new page review, one can't just Rubber stamp them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have never mentored anyone before but if that is acceptable to Thalassaxeno that is fine with me. If they are unsure of how to handle a particular new page or are confused about specific guidelines Wikipedia has they are welcome to ask. I tend to hang around IRC as well so if they want to get immediate answers there is that option too. Like I said, I only took this course after hearing nothing at all from Thalassaxeno and seeing them continuing to review pages. I too believe that they aren't doing this maliciously, it just has to be done right. That is all I ask. --Majora (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I would really appreciate being mentored. I would like to know at what point it would be possible for me to return to the new pages section, but I fully understand that I am not ready for it. I will likely return to using the random page function to find pages to edit, and will make mainspace edits. In any case, I am glad that all parties involved have been so understanding. I have also been writing out the bases for a few articles I am hoping to post, although I probably won't be back for a few days. Happy New Years. --"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" -Aeneid, Book I, Line 203 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Just as a note, you'll want to have your user name in your signature. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Future of Food

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

---

Could someone close this? As Schmidt (snarky bugger, but also correct) pointed out, there's decent sources, and I concede that "Keep" is the right decision. There's been no delete votes, and I've withdrawn the nomination. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:18, 31 December 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.

Composcompos12

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

---

Composcompos12 has an obsession with dumping the contents of his nursing textbook into any vaguely associated template. He has a fixation for adding the logo of a Filipino nursing school as if it applies to ALL nursing schools ([121],[122]), and Snow's Cholera map at a scale where it's no more than a QR code [123][124][125] and with adding an "above" section to templates, almost invariably containing redlinks.

RHaworth's attempts to alert him to wikilinks led to a rebuke and a threat, "if this is really world you enter my yard, I will use my hunter rifle blow out you head.".

Slack about logging in to repeat his clumsy edits. When called on it in an edit summary he doesn't deny it, just calmly reverts. It's happened so often (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that it's impossible to tell whether he genuinely forgets to log in (despite the warning you get when you edit while not logged in), or whether he's using it for sockpuppetry with plausible deniability.

A block seems unlikely to have any effect because he doesn't care whether he's logged in or not.

I've reached the point where I need to carefully view the edit history of any topic (or more pointedly, ant template) in this area for fear of accidentally hitting WP:3RR. I'm unwatching them and leave it to community to decide how to deal with this incompetent, arrogant editor who refuses to learn or collaborate. Bazj (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked indef for the totally unacceptable "...blow out you head" remark, but have not looked at the other problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:RHaworth wasnt just drawing his attention to wikilinks, he was editing the guy's user page. of course he got annoyed. hes obviously not a native english speaker and i think he could be cut some slack. the full comment made is clear he wasnt threatening anyone "if this is really world you enter my yard, I will use my hunter rifle blow out you head.but we are in wiki, so I will flag you as vandals." with anything more than a vandalism report for messing with his user page. he got trolled by someone messing with his user page, and he took the bait. this seems unfair. Zachlita (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In no way, shape, or form is it ok to insinuate that you would murder another editor for their edits if the events took place in the real world. Blaming it on a language barrier is irrelevant - you don't make comments such as those to anyone regardless of your irritation. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

agreed. but he didnt threaten to murder someone. as per stand your ground laws etc, saying "if this was the real world and you invaded my property, i would shoot you" is a sad but acceptable comment. read around his poor grasp of the english language and you will see there is no threat. the threat he made in regards to someone editing his user page, was to report them as a vandal Zachlita (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not an acceptable comment to make to a fellow editor on a collaborative project. Ever. Composcompos is free to make an unblock request if they would like to clarify their remarks, however I would have blocked them if Boing! said Zebedee had not.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

it might have been a better idea to talk to him, and ask his opinion before banning him. ive lost count of the number of times a non native speaker has sounded offensive to me in real life, and when i took 30 seconds to clarify the true intent found that it was far less offensive. shame people dont take that time on wikipedia. i guess if he had been a long standing editor there would be a 500 paragraph report before an indef block was considered. i guess as hes a non native speaker and only been here 2 months, its not worth admins time to actually work out what he meant. Zachlita (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

They are not banned, they are blocked. Previous attempts to talk to the editor have led to them simply blanking their page. If their grasp of the English language is so poor that they cannot express their concerns without comparing one single edit to their talk page (which corrected the templates used there) to trespassing and insinuating they would shoot someone in the head with a rifle in the real world if they did such a thing, then they should not be editing here. It appears that you have had your own issues with civility in your week long Wikipedia life (at least with this account), so I can see that your judgement may be clouded.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

from your comments above, compos and myself are not the only ones with civility issues. you are unable to deal with someone disagreeing with your opinion without making comments about clouded judgement. chill out, i was defending someone i thought had been dealt with wrongly, there is no need to make this some personal drama. this wasnt about me, neither was it about you. Zachlita (talk) 17:34, 31 December 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:Debresser

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

---

Hello, could some admins get involved here please?

There has been some kind of editing conflict going on on Ottoman Palestine. This has been a redirect for years, but was recently tagged with a disambiguation tag. Whilst, for everyone who knows a thing or two about dab pages, this page isn't one, neither in the way it is formatted, neither in the content it proposes. Something of which some users involved in the discussion are quite appreciative [126].

Now, the problem is that this change is highly disruptive as this page has more than a hundred links pointing to it. Sticking a dab tag on there means that this page is now ranking at the top of the "links to disambiguation" page to be cleaned up list, and will go into tomorrow's monthly cleanup list, drawing all kinds of editors who will start tearing up those links. In the current circumstances, with a page that was disrupted only recently, without a clear consensus on what needs to happen to it, this is unacceptable.

Both User:BD2412 [127] and myself ([128], [129], [130], [131]) have been making edits to get this point across, but have been reverted aggressively by user Debresser who doesn't seem to be bothered by his lacking knowledge of dab pages and the problems he's causing.

What's more unacceptable is his behaviour, including intidimation, menacing, and even a racial slur:

• "you will establish consensus first, or risk being reported", stressing will as if I was the one who was at the heart of the disruption [132]
• Comments such as "you will stop or be reported", "You come with an opinion and state is as a fact", "Bogus claim about policy", "Reply to aggressive editor, who is hereby warned to abide by consensus and not wave the flag of non-existing policies" [133], [134], [135]
• Again threats on my page of being reported, and even a "WP:ARBPIA" violation (not even sure what this has to do with it???) [136]
• To top it off, even a racial slur, "Why are you Dutchmen so obstinate" [137]. I'm not even Dutch, but this language is completely unacceptable. You German, you Englishman, you this or that is completely out of the question.
• Just scratching the surface, I've noticed he has been showing similar behaviour to other users, User:Moonraker12 [138], Neutralhomer here [139], User:Drmies involved as well, etcetera
• ... Forgot to mention I'm on my last warning, and "my ass is off to WP:ANI"... well, I guess it is now [140]

I believe I depleted my fair share of reverts here, so can I ask the admins to enforce some decisive action here? For one, the dab page needs to be reverted to a state where it will not be causing any harm for as long as the edit conflict lasts. And needless to say nobody, including myself, needs to be confronted with menaces or borderline insulting slurs. --Midas02 (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User informed, but I've just noticed he was already involved in another ANI procedure just this morning. --Midas02 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to Midas02 decided to start this post, because I had warned him repeatedly, that if not the spirit of the season, I would report him. He makes edits to Ottoman Palestine, in the beginning apparently not aware of the discussion on the talkpage, and later in defiance of the consensus there.

Per WP:BOOMERANG I propose he should be blocked for a day or two, to bring home the point that WP:CONSENSUS is not something that should be ignored. Not to mention the fact that he is edit warring and seems oblivious of the good advice at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

As to the phrase "Why are you Dutchmen so obstinate". I explained in my reply there, that I am Dutch myself, and that this was meant humoristic. I am not to be held at fault for Midas02's lack of humor. If he doesn't appreciate it, he can remove it from his talkpage.

This is basically a content dispute. I am aware of the workings of disambiguation pages, but disagree with Midas02, who thinks erroneously that the fact that a page shows up on a to-do list is reason to make incorrect edits to the page. Edits that propose to do things that do no need to be done, should not be done, and are against consensus. I have explained this in both my edit summaries and on the talkpage at Talk:Ottoman Palestine#Redirect. Unfortunately, Midas02 has turned a content dispute into behavioral one, by ignoring consensus and edit warring.

Legitimate warnings are not attempts at intimidation. I they were, every state could be accused of intimidating its citizens. This is nonsense. My warning, both in edit summaries and on the talkpages were geared towards getting Midas02 to understand that he can not edit against consensus and he can not edit war. These are important points, that if an experienced editor can not abide by them, he shouldn't edit on Wikipedia. That is policy.

But me no buts, Midas02 ("but I've just noticed he was already involved in another ANI procedure just this morning"). I see you have quite a lot of warnings and WP:ANI posts on your talkpage as well, including warnings for edit warring, so this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Please also note that that post was summarily closed. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

looks like a content dispute with drama regarding debressers tone. threatening to take onwiki action is fine and his comments fall the right side of civility rules. i suggest dealing with content issues on the article talk page or dispute resolutionZachlita (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) After reading through the talk page it looks as if Midas02 simply jumps into a discussion which had formed a rational and reasoned consensus and threw a spanner into the works by making disruptive edits against consensus. Midas02 can and should raise whatever issues they feel appropriate at the article talk page but I see no good reason for this ANI report - they started editing against consensus while a discussion was ongoing and without consideration of the prior discussion and got called on it. I suggest strongly that they withdraw and close this complaint. Right now they have done nothing to be sanctioned for but, based on the tone of the complaint, they seem in danger of digging a hole which will lead to a BOOMERANG. Best for all that that un-needed drama be avoided. Jbh^Talk 16:21, 31 December 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.

sockpuppetry and edit-warring by jordandlee

Resolved

This involves both edit-warring and sockpuppetry, from a very new user (about two months) who has apparently ignored and rejected all advice.

I've been copyediting on Philadelphia Phillies since around June 19 of this year (2015). On December 22 I made four consecutive edits, the last of them consisting of a couple of minor wording changes. The next day Jordandlee reverted the last one, in § 2008 World Series Champions, with no edit memo. I asked him why on his talk page; and seeing that he was a very new user, I requested advice from Sir Joseph, who I saw had had talks with him before (November 2015 — December 2015).

Jordandlee replied on my talk page:

Please pay attention to your edits. Your contributions to the Phillies' page were very careless. Also, there was no need to bring other people into our most recent disagreement. Also, I undid your other edits because, they did, indeed, have many grammar mistakes. Jordandlee (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This was inaccurate in every way. I replied there that in accordance with WP:DR I was taking the discussion to the Phillies talk page, and did so; see there (§ 2008 World Series Champions) for details.

(Everything after this point is in Talk:Philadelphia Phillies#1980 World Series.)

He replied with false statements about my edits* and complaints about interactions with another editor, demonstrating his own ignorance of Wikipedia policies and standards†:

Thnidu recently added and took out a couple of paragraphs to the 1980 World Series section of this article–and I undid them using †my second account, Jorduf. The problem with his/her edits is that *they were not about that subject and what was taken out was. Yet, for some reason Materialscientist undid my revisions. If anyone can explain to me why they are doing that, it would be very much appreciated. Jordandlee (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

In reply, I quoted and cited the guideline against multiple accounts, urged him to seek help, and pointed him to the Help Desk. He denied my accusations. I itemized the evidence against him, in detail and with links; he rebutted with an insult. Meanwhile he (as Jorduf) thanked himself (as Jordandlee), further demonstrating his sockpuppetry.

This novice user has been warned repeatedly, first by Sir Joseph, then Muboshgu, and now by myself, and has failed to show any learning or contrition. I request that he be banned.

--Thnidu (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Just starting to look into this, but he does seem to admit both accounts are his here. SQL^{Query me!} 11:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

And here. SQL^{Query me!} 11:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That being said - I don't see him using the second account to support itself on talk pages, or to skirt 3rr. Just because someone has more than one account isn't necessarily grounds for a ban. I honestly don't see anything actionable here - but I am pretty tired. SQL^{Query me!} 11:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I think you are right. Doesn't seem to be any actual sock puppetry going on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The "admission" didn't come till after misuse to conceal edit-warring. In looking through the page history to analyze and document Jordandlee's behavior, I had seen "Jorduf"'s edits with no idea that they were by the same person, despite his claims that

I make it quite obvious I am the same person by stating so, and VERY similar usernames.

That refers to

("and I undid them using my second account, Jorduf").

In fact, until then he had done nothing like "stating so". That was his first mention anywhere of multiple accounts, not disclosed anywhere until well into my exchanges with him. See Talk: Philadelphia Phillies#thn-counterevidence. And that's on top of, and in support of, his edit-warring. --Thnidu (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Misuse to conceal edit warring? They've made 3 total reverts to thar page between 2 accounts. There's no evidence that they tried to hide this and they came out themselves that the accounts are theirs. There's been no illegitimate use of either account shown in any evidence you have provided.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Diffs
The more I've looked into this, the more I see that it isn't primarily a matter of sockpuppetry so much as persistent edit-warring.Here is a still incomplete list of diffs. I can't work any more tonight; tomorrow I'll pick it up again.

I'm collating the diffs for all his edits, starting from his Contributions page and then working through the Revision History of each article he's touched. I haven't gotten to his alter ego Jorduf yet, but there aren't that many there.

Besides Philadelphia Phillies, he's handled Menorah (Hanukkah), Hanukkah, Baseball field, and Peter Bourjos; the big list is in the last of those, which I haven't finished processing. Most or all of the Phillies documentation is above or referenced above; I'll get that into this list after Bourjos.

For each article, the diffs are in chronological order, and unrelated sets of edit and reversion are separated by a blank line. The comments in square brackets are mine.

Menorah (Hanukkah)

• 21:36, 1 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (It is a chanukia, not menorah. I just don't know how to change the name of the article.)
• 21:42, 1 December 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee to last revision by 78.147.130.162. (TW))

Hanukkah [These are all on the same terminological points as the diffs in Menorah (Hanukkah).]

• 20:20, 28 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (Proper terms)
• 20:22, 28 November 2015‎ BethNaught: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee (talk): That spelling is acknowledged, but the article is called "Hanukkah" so we should use that. If you want to change that, file a move request. (TW))
• 18:14, 29 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (A menorah and Hanukia are two entirely different things (look it up before changing if you don't believe me). Also, 'sundown' is the proper term.) [Undid the reversion]
• 20:02, 29 November 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted good faith edits by Jordandlee (talk): No, you are incorrect. If you have a concern, use the talk page. The page uses hannukahmenorah which is correct. (TW))
• 21:33, 30 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (USE OF PROPER TERMS! DO NOT UNDO! A menorah is NOT the same thing as a Hanukia.) [Undid the reversion]
• 21:34, 30 November 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee (talk) to last revision by Samsara. (TW))

Baseball field

• 21:32, 21 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Fixed punctuation errors) [Changed commas to em-dashes: "Previously, —and more dangerously, — the plate was made of stone..."]
• 17:23, 30 November 2015 Sir Joseph: (→‎Home plate) [Reversion, dashes to commas.]
• 19:59, 30 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Fixed punctuation) [Redid commas to em-dashes]
• 20:00, 30 November 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Warning track: Turned dash into hyphen) [In a different sentence; actually, hyphen to dash]
• 21:42, 30 November 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted to revision 693134844 by Sir Joseph (talk): Rv, to more grammatically correct version. (TW)) [Reverts Jordandlee's previous two edits. In the second of those, at 20:00, Sir Joseph's hyphen is unquestionably correct: it is in the suspended compound "college-" in the phrase "college- or professional-level play".]
• 21:41, 1 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Sir Joseph, please stop trying to undo everything I do. There is a reason why I change it.) [Commas to dashes again, undoing the reversion.]
• 21:46, 1 December 2015‎ Sir Joseph: (Reverted 1 edit by Jordandlee (talk) to last revision by Sir Joseph. (TW)) [Dashes to commas]
• 01:09, 2 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (→‎Home plate: Use of correct punctuation ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA'S GUIDELINES) [Undid reversion again, commas to dashes]

Peter Bourjos [This list is incomplete, and I haven't finished annotating the ones here. They're are concerned with the timing of Bourjos' move from the St. Louis Cardinals to the Phillies.]

• 19:59, 2 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (Phillies)
• 20:02, 2 December 2015‎ Jordandlee: (More Phillies)
• 20:13, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎top: it's still 2015 on my calendar)
• 20:13, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎St. Louis Cardinals (2014–present))
• 20:14, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎References)
• 20:14, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎External links)
• 20:15, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎top)
• 21:51, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693473355 by Muboshgu (talk))
• 21:52, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (Undid revision 693486357 by Jorduf (talk) Yeah it's still December 2015, we don't know if he'll make the Phillies roster or be cut/traded before the 2016 season.)
• 21:59, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693473647 by Muboshgu (talk))
• 22:03, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693486518 by Muboshgu (talk))
• 22:07, 2 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (Undid revision 693469794 by 64.9.4.8 (talk))
• 22:55, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (Undid revision 693487401 by Jorduf (talk) Seriously? Quit it.)
• 22:55, 2 December 2015‎ Muboshgu: (→‎top)
• 00:56, 3 December 2015‎ 71.229.45.29: [No edit summary. IP editor undoing Muboshgu's last edit; it has to be Jord/Jord.]
• 00:59, 3 December 2015‎ Muboshgu m: (Reverted edits by 71.229.45.29 (talk) to last version by Yankees10)
• 03:00, 3 December 2015‎ Jorduf: (adding Phillies)
• 03:24, 3 December 2015‎ Yankees10 m: (Reverted edits by Jorduf (talk) to last version by Muboshgu)

Good night. I'll be ba-a-ack! (tomorrow). --Thnidu (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

So not a sock but an edit warrior now? Yep, certainly seems to be some editwarring. I notice for instance that on the Philadelphia Phillies He's edit warring with you and you are edit warring against him.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

His notice was sockpuppetry and editwarring. As someone who dealt with him I can feel his pain. While I'm not sure a block is the right answer, I think a mentor/warning might do the trick. It took an almost block to get him to the talk page. He does not seem to want to dialogue and could use a basic course on how to Wiki. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The evidence of sock puppetry is half ass. He thanked his other account. A warning against edit warring for everyone will suffice. The appropriate place to take sock puppet allegations is WP:SPI. There's a tendency of new users to edit war, it certainly helps to have older users to lead by example and not themselves edit war. It probably also help to also remember not to bite the new comers.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with -Serialjoepsycho-, you were being very hypocritical. As both of you, Sir Joseph and Thnidu, long time editors, told me what to do and not to do, then you immediately proceeded to do them. I'm just wondering how long I have to be editing before I'm allowed to edit war, like the two of you. Jordandlee (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jordandlee: Perhaps you might explain the purpose of your alternate account?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I did so on the Phillies' talk page under the section '1980 World Series'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordandlee (talk • contribs) 01:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@SQL, Serialjoepsycho, Sir Joseph, Muboshgu, and Jordandlee: Please see the latest exchange between Jordandlee and me at Talk:Philadelphia Phillies#1980 World Series. He now understands why I suspected sockpuppetry, and I now understand that he had no such intention and why he was so argumentative about it. That being so, I withdraw the complaint of sockpuppetry.

Serialjoepsycho, I hope you see now that my suspicion was not "half-assed" but reasonable at the time. Also, if you look at the diff list above you will see that most of his edit-warring was with other editors than me.

Looking again at our last exchange on the Phillies talk page, I think Jordandlee has calmed down, and I know that I have. Jordandlee, I hope that you will read those bits I recommended there, as well as looking through the WP: Help area and getting more familiar with how we do things here. For myself, I don't think there's any point now in finishing that diff list.

And with that I think we can close this issue. Jordandlee sees the necessity of considering others' view of a situation, and hopefully will be less quick to dismiss an opposing opinion.

Happy New Year to all, and to all a good night! --Thnidu (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As this is resolved I'll simply keep the answer to that question to myself.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

COI and BLP issues at an article

Due to the nomination for deletion of M.A.M. Mansoor, bulk of new users and IPs are running COI at M.A.M. Mansoor and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.A.M. Mansoor. Now, they start to attack me/us as racist(s) (See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/M.A.M. Mansoor). I am a Wikipedian who contribute for better encyclopedia instead of own policies. I have reported to sock puppet investigation too at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riyazifarook. Before the COI increase (already started), admin intervention is appreciated. Thanks. --AntanO 06:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for the duration of the AfD to put a stop to obvious socks and meatpuppets attempting to !vote in the article itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about the AfD either, AntanO. The obvious socks will be ignored by the closing admin. I've removed the attack on the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC).

Request for the removal of vandal account intended to slander me

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

---

I noticed earlier today that someone has made an account using my real name and is using it to vandalize certain pages on Wikipedia. As the account is made using my real name, I will not be revealing which account it is here, although if there is any way in which I could contact an admin in private to have the account removed, I would be very appreciative. Again, the person who made this account is using my real name in an attempt to slander me, and I could face serious consequences if someone mistakes this account for me. The user account hasn't been active for several weeks, but nevertheless it is still a threat to me.

Any help is appreciated,

Asm20

@Asm20: The best way to handle this is to contact the oversight team via email using the link at the top of the page Wikipedia:Oversight. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you very much for your help. I will be contacting the oversight team shortly and will hopefully have this matter resolved as fast as possible. -- Asm20

Usually they are very fast (within minutes). -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Community Ban Proposal

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

---

I am proposing that the community definitively ban Starship9000 for cross-wiki abuse, endless socking, and persistent harassment.

For previous ANI complaints, see here: [141][142][143].

Some of the many, many instances of socking can be found here -- there are far more than just these listed ones: [144].

I have prepared what I believe to be a comprehensive list of socks (named accounts) here: [145]. It totals 42 socks.

See here for cross-wiki abuse resulting in indefs on wikiquote and commons for socking, as well as global locks: [146][147].

And finally, for long-term harassment of users (including me and Andrewman327, although there are likely others), see the user talk page histories here (the sock names are very distinctive so you can probably tell which they are): [148][149]

Overall, the user has wasted the valuable time of countless admins, checkusers, and stewards who have worked diligently to stop his abuse. Furthermore, harassment of other users by means of socks (the ones in the SPI are just the tip of the iceberg) is unacceptable, period. The user was previously described (in the links above) as immature, and having serious WP:IDHT problems; the flagrant socking and cross-wiki abuse compounds things further.

Since I will not bother to recount the whole case, I will quote the lock request by Andrewman327, which sums it up nicely:

"When I first encountered Starship9000, he appeared to be innocently ignorant of Wikipedia rules and I believed that he had the potential to grow into a productive editor. Several of us offered support and Go Phightins! adopted him. He promptly blew off his adoption exams and I was one of several editors who supported a voluntary one year Wikibreak. He refused to take a voluntary break and continued making improper edits. Since the block took effect, he has started vandalizing a number of other Wikimedia projects and engaging in good hand-bad hand sockpuppetry. His sock IP is currently blocked globally and his account is blocked on every project where he is active. I have two concerns that justify a block: 1. Wasting admins' time on each respective project; and 2. I am concerned that he will keep skipping from one project to the next doing exactly the same thing, and I'd rather not have to follow him to WikiBooks et al like I've tracked his vandalism spree across English Wikipedia, Simple Wikipedia, WikiQuote, Commons, WikiSource, and WikiNews. He is indef'd on WikiQuote and his editing history is sufficient to justify indefs in all of his other projects as well. Andrewman327 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)"

I have grown frustrated with the seemingly-endless stream of socks on my page, and my patience is certainly exhausted here. This is getting old.

Thanks,

GAB^Hello! 00:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like his account is locked globally. Have they semi protected you page?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, for now. GAB^Hello! 01:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The only thing that can be done is if you have evidence that the sock is his or that they are a sock then they can be blocked. He's jumping ip's. That's very easy to do. Can't do anything about that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Backlog at RFPP

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

---

There's a bit of a backlog at WP:RFPP. Can one or two admins please stop by? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Administrator User:Jehochman's conduct at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence

The following discussion is closed. 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 number of editors, including Mattbuck, ChamithN, Elizium23, Callmemirela, Only in death and myself have complained about Jehochman's conduct at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence, noting that his threat to block editors if they reverted him on a matter that is not even a WP:BLP violation was inappropriate, and that he has since created a chilling effect of sorts at the talk page, as though his opinion holds more weight than others.

Minutes ago, he also engaged in WP:Personal attacks against me at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence and at at my talk page. I correctly named his proposals at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence. He then came along and acted like I was misrepresenting him; he edited my post. As seen here, here and here, I again noted which proposals were his. He then responded with the "obnoxious" WP:Personal attack. After that, he removed my comment and essentially called me a WP:Troll. After that, he claimed I was making personal attacks on him and that I was immature. After that, he called the setup "a bogus vote" because I noted which proposals were his. After that, another administrator, The Rambling Man, came along and supported the removal of my note. After that, Jehochman removed his "a bogus vote" complaint. After that, he removed the second option, which was indeed his proposal. I don't find this appropriate WP:Talk protocol in the least. Jehochman made that first proposal, and I or someone else should be able to note it in the heading or via text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment it seems pretty clear to me that Flyer22 has gone full tilt here, I suggest some time out from the subject matter. A reappraisal of what constitutes WP:UNDUE in article space would be a good idea too. This is boomerang territory I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• The whole episode is a fake "scandal", and deserves at most one sentence in her article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there some particular reason why you feel it's necessary to label proposals? RFC proposal for wordings in articles should generally be based on discussion rather than just whatever some random person comes up with. I'm not sure how well this happened in this case, but concentrating too much on the person who first came up with the wording (if there is a clear authorship) seems weird. It's not like this is (or at least it shouldn't be) an arbcom like discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a WP:RfC yet. As for naming the proposals, it's common to do so, whether it's a WP:RfC or not; I also think it's clearer, and so I don't see an issue with it. The discussion took place first, and the voting for specific wording came afterward. Jehochman made it seem like I was attacking him, trolling, etc. when I simply noted who made the proposal; I did that first with a heading for all involved, including myself. I then pointed to the matter with a note regarding Jehochman; yes, my note had an annoyed element to it, but this is because he made it seem like I had committed some grave offense. Instead of replying to that full-on, I replied the way I did. To act like I was putting words in his mouth by simply noting with a heading who made the proposal, and to then escalate the matter by changing my posts and with name-calling, was completely uncalled for. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Part of what was completely uncalled for was for you to speak on his behalf. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Noting who made the proposal is putting words in his mouth and "completely uncalled for," even considering that such a setup is common on article talk pages? I beg to differ. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And after he told you to stop? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see what right he had to tell me to stop, as though he owned the talk page. I can't comment in the first proposal section to note that Jehochman made that proposal, not even if I were to make the comment without an annoyed tone? That's not how Wikipedia works. And whatever the case, I ended up stopping anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I didn't re-add his name as a heading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Either you stopped or you didn't. Clearly you felt empowered to continue to do what you wanted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't re-add the heading; I re-added notes once, citing WP:OWN. There's a difference. I stopped after that. Enough said. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, after being asked to stop, you re-added the notes. You were asked to stop. You didn't. Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, per my "22:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)" post above about rights and all, I re-added the notes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's that common outside certain areas (particularly extremely large discussions like arbcom) none of which apply here. I wouldn't say it's clearer either, if anything it complicates matters since it concentrates on the people involve rather than the proposals. Plus it also ignores the fact that the proposals should be at least partially based on discussion so don't truly belong to anyone. The note in particularly seems fairly problematic especially after it was pointed out to you that you were calling something Jehochman's proposal which they didn't consider theirs but you continued. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Then we disagree; it's common and helpful in my experience. And noting that the suggestion was Jehochman's is clearly not something I see to be a problem. Also take note that, per below, the latest person to restore the note was not me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

But it was not Jehochman's suggestion, so why do you keep insisting it was? This seems a very serious issue if you are unable to differentiate between proposals someone makes, and proposals someone includes as part of an RFC because they believe previous discussion suggested some may want them, particularly since you have appear to have significant experience so should understand how RFCs are supposed to work. Also if it's common, can you provide several examples from the past month in similar circumstances? Should be trivial to do so since it's common. P.S. Serious misbehaviour by others in concurrence with you doesn't excuse your misbehaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not Jehochman's suggestion? Then whose it? And if it is his suggestion, which it clearly is, how am I in the wrong to note that he made that comment? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It was the communities, as I already said. That's how RFCs are supposed to work. They aren't supposed to be just inviduals adding their own random suggestions, but the community discussing and coming up with the best options to be subjected to further discussions. And yes, it is seriously wrong to call something someone's suggestion when it isn't.

Edit: You seem to be linking to the wrong thing. I was discussing the suggestion you called Jehochman's second proposal but you seem to be linking to the first proposal which is irrelevant to my recent points. As I already said, you shouldn't have labelled the first proposal Jehochman's suggestion either since it's unnecessary, concentrated on the individual and goes against the point of RFCs but at least in that case you seem to be mostly correct in that the proposal was partially originating from Jehochman. The second proposal is however far more serious since you were incorrectly labelling something as Jehochman's when it wasn't theirs.

Edit2: Can you at least provide an example of someone else who re-added the note to what you called Jehochman's second proposal? I can't find it.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I call Jehochman's first proposal his proposal because it is his proposal; calling it the community's proposal is not a sound argument since various members of the community disagree with that proposal and Jehochman's views on the matter. I don't consider anyone's comment my comment simply because the person stated it on a Wikipedia talk page; and I highly doubt many other Wikipedians think that way. As for the second proposal, he was the only one to suggest that we exclude the material altogether; that suggestion belongs to him and to him alone. I don't see Lapadite77 claiming I did wrong by putting Lapadite77's suggestions/proposals under a heading. Stating or implying that I was wrong to label a comment/suggestion as Jehochman's when it is indeed his is not a sound argument. Furthermore, it is the least offensive thing that happened in this situation. And yet you are complaining about that? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the WP:RfC wasn't a WP:RfC at that point. But I disagree with you on that labeling aspect anyway, per what I stated above. And as for restoration of the note, I was speaking of the first one; this is the edit I meant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Tempest in a tea pot. Jehochman is totally correct to remove their own name from headings they didn't create. I don't see anything in the diffs or in page history I would characterize as a personal attack, disruptive, or actionable on this board. It doesn't appear Jehochman has used admin tools to affect the pagespace (a page in which the admin seems to have no editing history) or the talkpage. I might not have threatened blocks myself, but shielding articles about living humans from disruption and undue BLP material would rank high on my list of wikipedian tasks and always within an admin's discretion. User:Flyer22 Reborn's attempt to personalize this dispute is regrettable and reflects badly on them, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

In what way was he completely correct, given what WP:Talk states and the WP:Personal attacks he clearly issued against me? I don't see anything he's done at that talk page as befitting an administrator. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Are we talking about a genuine abuse of an admin position, or a petty stamping competition between editors over content? (in other words, reverse your latest "claim", do you honestly think that "he's done something at that talk page which isn't befitting an administrator"?) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anything inappropriate in any of the diffs linked, or any of the other comments from Jehochman that I've seen. Saying that you were being obnoxious is not a personal attack, and is probably a fair description of your repeated attempts to attach his name to proposals he may have added, but may not support. Jehochman could have been more clear what "will be enforced with blocks" in his initial comment, but he left what I consider a quite satisfactory explaination on the talk page, and so far as I can tell he has made no such blocks. Prodego ^talk 22:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Flyer22, I suggest you drop the stick with all dispatch and take a couple of weeks off that article. You seem to have become deeply emotionally invested in content that several others say is giving undue prominence to a minor event. That's not great, but then to come here howling WP:ROUGE shows that you are in danger of losing the plot. Chill. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

By linking WP:ROUGE are you implying that Flyer is seeing red? EEng (talk)

Prodego, you and I have different definitions of what personal attacks are. But that's not surprising, given that what is or isn't a personal attack is commonly debated at that policy's talk page. JzG, you know that I greatly respect you; so I will heed your advice. But I will also note that various editors have disagreed with Jehochman that what he removed at that article was undue weight; the hack incident also was not a minor incident, and it received mainstream coverage from respectable publications. I also assure you and others that I did not become "deeply emotionally invested in content"; I became deeply annoyed by Jehochman's actions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And he became deeply annoyed by yours. So at least one of you needs to walk away. Now's your opportunity to show some class... Guy (Help!) 22:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Looks to me like the material was appropriate to include in the article, though phrasing and tone are legitimate grounds for discussion. However, that didn't happen, and Flyer22 Reborn is being bullied, both there and here: Words like "bogus" and "obnoxious" ([150] and [151]) shut down rational debate, they don't solve the problem. Things have escalated and gotten personal. As usual, Flyer22 Reborn is standing up for respectful and appropriate treatment of topics involving women; then she gets attacked, and then when she defends herself she gets threats of blocks and suggestions that someone "take a wikibreak". That's all simply ways to shut down constructive discussion. That said, Flyer appears to have (understandably) gotten kind of rattled by all the WP:BAITing that's going on here and was casting a bit wide of a net. I suggest everyone back off here and ratchet down the drama. Montanabw^(talk) 00:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Like I said before, this behavior from Flyer is unacceptable. The editor in question clearly has not changed their tune from their previous 'retiring', and should get a swift boomerang here. --Tarage (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course, my naming Jehochman as the editor who made two proposals, which are two proposals he in fact made, and then reverting him once is unacceptable. Meanwhile, Jehochman threatening to block editors who disagree with his skewed view of WP:BLP and calling me obnoxious, disruptive and essentially a troll and immature is perfectly acceptable. The last time you commented on me, you were wrong, and you're wrong now. I never retired, by the way. If you are going to keep tabs on what a terrible editor I am, learn to keep better tabs. I also suggest that you read up on WP:BOOMERANG; that goes for any others not understanding that essay as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Bolding your text doesn't make it more true. It only makes you look obnoxious. I know what WP:BOOMERANG says. Just because you disagree with me does not mean I don't understand it. You are not all knowing and always right. I think perhaps you should retire again. You can pretend to be whoever you want to be, but your editing record is your record, and you can't run away from it just because you want to be reborn. Quite frankly, you are toxic. --Tarage (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

And looking further into this, you didn't even bother letting Jehochman about the ANI. Someone else had to do it for you. This has bad faith written all over it. --Tarage (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to bold my comment to make it any more true; my "01:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)" comment is true. I also have no need to run from my record; several administrators, including the WP:CheckUser who blocked me once and then unblocked me (should I WP:Ping her to this discussion?), support me on what I state about that record. Your record, on the other hand, judging by your talk page? Wow. That you want to speak on things you know nothing about to try to get me sanctioned and/or an artificial boomerang is quite sad. You are an editor with a grudge trying your best each time to get me sanctioned and/or to run me off. Keep trying; you'll need the luck. I've done much for Wikipedia. What have you done for it? Either way, I'm done indulging you in this discussion. Oh, and there was no need to notify Jehochman; he already knew that this thread was going on via his discussion with me on my talk page and the WP:Ping above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Could someone provide a diff of the alleged threat to block editors? NE Ent 01:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit summary at [152] is "WP:BLP enforcement. Will be enforced with blocks if necessary. Discuss at talk page." I'm guessing that is what's referred to. It seems to precede the talk page argument, as The OP in this thread suggests. Begoon ^talk 02:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ] (well, not really; it's just that Begoon beat me to commenting): Since no one else has linked to it, here is the diff-link, with the following commentary: "WP:BLP enforcement. Will be enforced with blocks if necessary. Discuss at talk page." I took that comment as a threat, one that created a chilling effect, which is why no one reverted Jehochman despite the talk page discussion showing that a number editors disagreed with him. I know that threat is why I didn't revert him; I don't need another administrator blocking me, even if the block is later overturned. Certain editors already don't know how to comprehend my block log appropriately, which is why I also note my block log at the top of my user page/talk page. After having been at Wikipedia for so long, I've seen enough chilling effects at this site to recognize one. And that was one. That discussion was soured for me right from the start because of that comment. Only in death felt so strongly about the comment that he stated, "Jehochman if you continue to issue threats I will take you to straight to Arbcom for misuse of tools while involved in a content dispute. Gain consensus to remove it and desist from threatening other editors." Others can obviously disagree that the comment was a threat and argue that it did not create a chilling effect, but I know otherwise. Certain editors have also told me via email that they didn't revert Jehochman due to fear of being blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPADMINS, reverting edits believed in good faith to be BLP violations, and discouraging further editing prior to clear consensus being formed is what administrators are supposed to do. The fact the the edits are not BLP violations -- because they are not "unsourced or poorly sourced" -- doesn't mean Jehochman is being abusive, just that they're being mistaken (which is perfectly okay per WP:NOTPERFECT). This is not to say the material should be in the article, per WP:UNDUE it probably shouldn't. On the other hand The Rambling Man's reversion of Flyer22's comments [153] is unwarranted. On the other other hand, WP:BLPADMINS also says it less clear cases possible BLP violations should be discussed here at WP:ANI, so there's nothing wrong with Flyer22 opening the thread for further input. NE Ent 03:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

And in the gripping hand? BMK (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've gotta hand it to you. That's way funnier than what I was gonna say. EEng (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Flyer on this matter. I reviewed the material in question and see absolutely nothing in violation of a BLP or undue. What I do see, however, is a much larger pattern of administrators making controversial content deletions without consensus, and then threatening to use their tools to support their undiscussed changes. This was the exact same thing admin John did on the Barrowman article a few years back, resulting in my eventual block. Flyer, I suggest that if you don't want to be blocked by unscrupulous admins misusing the tools, you stick to discussion on the talk page. The community consistently talks out of both sides of their mouth: on the one hand, they say they are against bullying and the use of admin tools in a content dispute. On the other hand, they allow admins to threaten regular editors during content disputes and often look the other way when a block is issued. The admins involved in this dispute either aren't familiar with the encyclopedic nature of the incident or are deliberately misinterpreting it to argue for deletion and threaten editors who disagree with them. Flyer is correct here, and the admins are once again in the wrong. Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this dispute and don't want to get involved; as such, I have no opinion on this specific matter. However, it's unfair to categorize all the administrators by essentially saying they all misuse their tools or they're all in the wrong. There are plenty of great administrators out there and there are also ones that a person will run into conflict with. It's just the way it is, but to say all administrators are bad is, again, unfair and unwarranted. Amaury (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• An admin should never threaten the tools on an article where they are themselves involved. If you are involved, you are a civilian and your banhammer must be set aside; isn't that a bright-line rule somewhere? Montanabw^(talk) 08:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  Not only does WP:BLPADMINS override this rule, but WP:INVOLVED says "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary". It is always good practice however to get other people involved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  Moreover, he didn't threaten to use any tools he has himself, he merely noted that edits to BLPs should take extra special care and that blocks can be (and often are) handed out more liberally in such editing conditions. Jehochman didn't say "stop or I will block you", and it seems that some are deliberately interpreting his note just for a better and more juicy story. If people can't read properly, and see threats behind every comment, perhaps this isn't a safe environment for them after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  Don't be ridiculous. Since no administrator is ever required to block an editor, the only way someone can make the statement "Will be enforced with blocks" if they themselves are willing to impose the block. NE Ent 15:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  I'm not being ridiculous. In fact the only person being ridiculous is you. I have often told individuals that they run the risk of being blocked if they continue with their behaviour but have blocked precisely zero of them. You need to get a grip on the reality of the situation I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• We are here to write pages, not to feud. Please set aside personal conflicts and focus on the article. All comments at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence are welcome. Keep in mind that this is a BLP and that adding unsourced material or edit warring must be avoided. As I explained already my statement about enforcement by blocks was a warning to prevent edit warring and to encourage discussion on the talk page. I foresaw the possibility of somebody blind reverting and wanted to raise the possibility of blocks so they would stop and think. Any editor can warn that blocks may be used to enforce policy, not just admins. So far that's exactly what happened. No blocks were needed. Only one person was warned (and not by me) to stop reverting pending discussion. A few editors have come here and spun things, but if you ignore the spin, the bottom line is that more editors are needed to help form consensus. Lastly, thank you NE Ent for notifying me of this thread. The original poster failed to notify me. Jehochman ^Talk 13:41, 2 January 2016‎ (UTC)

• Are you (Jehochman) saying you would not have blocked if what you saw as a BLP violation continued? NE Ent 15:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Jehochman, you are saying that you didn't know about this thread even though I WP:Pinged you when I replied to you on my talk page and was clear that I would be reporting you here, and even though I WP:Pinged you above? When someone tells me that they will be reporting me at WP:ANI, I find the notification highly redundant. I don't need to be notified when I was already told what would be happening. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The "ping" thing assumes that the user has notifications enabled, which is not a safe assumption. For all the verbiage you've expended trying to justify this BLP violation, how much extra effort would it have required to actually post a notice on the user's page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Jehochman does have the ping enabled, and he began the discussion on my talk page. Am I to assume he didn't check back to see what I stated with or without the ping? I don't. I also haven't a clue what BLP violation justification you are referring to; I wasn't the one claiming a WP:BLP violation. Quite the opposite. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Notifying with a post on user talk is mandatory, since the ping system does not always work, and sometimes people shut it off. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If I had thought you actually needed notification, I would have notified you. I figured you were ignoring this thread, expecting a WP:BOOMERANG like various administrators do when reported at WP:ANI. And after all, a WP:BOOMERANG was promised to me on my talk page. I've also been known to ignore a case expecting a WP:BOOMERANG, including recently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope there won't be any boomerang. In the future just notify anybody you report. There is a template listed in the edit notice of this page that you can use. Notification is more certain. Some people don't take pings or get lots of them. Ignoring this page is often a good idea, though I generally respond as a courtesy. Jehochman ^Talk 14:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Jehochman, if there is ever a need in the future, I will notify you on your talk page. In the meantime, it seems we are in agreement that it would be good to put all this drama behind us and focus on the content dispute at the article talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's an unsolvable disagreement between us, and the ongoing talk page conversation seems to be productive. If you are satisified that your concerns have been reviewed and addressed, you could ask the thread to be closed. Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Jehochman, a little advice from me too. You tend to be rather smug when you feel you have "won" an "argument". This will come back and bite you, again. Truly. I suggest not bothering with "the last word" lest you be seen as an arse. Regards. Begoon ^talk 14:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anybody has won or lost. Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue Wikipedia wins when strong disagreements about content and behavior are steered into civil discussions on talkpages resulting in page improvements. Enough reasonable argument has been made for me to change my initial position, though I continue to hold no evidence of actionable behavior has been presented in this thread. It's time for a close. Nothing to do here for an admin. BusterD (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Urgent: I can't get "rollback all" to work

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

---

We need to rollback all the "contributions" of 46.233.116.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as soon as possible, please. Just take a look at them... Why won't the "rollback all" script work? Does anybody have an alternative? Bishonen | talk 19:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC).

lol. HighInBC 19:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I am striking out my laughter since it is apparently unwelcome. I hope this helps. HighInBC 21:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

They were talk page creations, so mass rollback won't work. I've nuked them (Special:Nuke). --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized there was nothing to roll back to as soon as I'd posted, Bongwarrior, thanks. HighInBC, I do what I can to avoid you, and I think it's in pretty poor taste for you to answer me at all unless there's a pressing need. A little more pressing than that. That's even without evincing your unpleasant sense of humour. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC).

I remember disagreeing with you a couple of times but I thought that was ancient history, years ago. When I responded the revisions were already deleted. I was laughing at the content of the deleted posts which was a bit silly. There is absolutely no reason for you to take it personally, my laughter was unrelated to you. I really don't have it in me to hold onto grudges from years ago so lets be friendly to each other okay? HighInBC 20:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

As a response, "lol" didn't help - just saying'. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No help was required, the situation was already resolved. I did not realize that Bishonen would respond so negatively, if I had known that would happen I would have laughed silently instead of out loud. If you read the posts that "urgently" needed removing you will see that it is rather funny and had about 0% chance of being taken seriously by anyone. I did not know that laughing at funny vandalism had gone out of fashion here. HighInBC 21:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Rangedblocked for running a vandalbot across multiple IPs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Intimidating remark

Please take a look at User talk:Legacypac where an IP editor just made a threat of disruption. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for a while. Acroterion (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional eyes on the Miss Earth series of articles would be appreciated given these comments to my talkpage:

IF YOU WILL NEVER PUT BACK ALL THE INFORMATION YOU DELETED IN WIKIPEDIA especially in MISS EARTH, EXPECT DANGER TO YOUR ACCOUNT!Miss Earth and... Legacypac recently defaced all the biggest information about article of "Miss Earth". Most of the information was shortened and all the important details turned into summarization. Legacypac is now considered by fans of Miss Earth as a big threat in providing correct and precise information.

The topic has a long history of commercial promotion, sock and meat puppets, SEO link building campaigns and editors who appear allergic to anything we call a RS. Forth vandal acct targeting me in about a week - my work must be annoying some people with a non-wiki agenda :) Legacypac (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Persistent hoaxing

There's a persistent hoaxer hitting Sausage Party pretty hard. If you look at it, the last two weeks worth of edits have been nothing but people reverting vandalism. The IP is repeatedly hitting several BLPs with the same hoax, including Michael J. Fox, Tommy Chong, Ray Romano, and Adam Sandler filmography. If you take a look at 101.186.148.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 180.216.24.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) you can see some of the scope. I filed a request at RFPP for Sausage Party, but it looks like this requires too much research to act on. Example diff: [154]. If you click on this, you'll see that Adam Sandler, a high profile American actor, is being added to the article and sourced to two existing citations. Neither mention Sandler (or any of the other actors added in this edit): [155], [156]. Further Google searches reveal no coverage of this casting, either. Several people been reverting this vandal off-and-on, and Materialscientist has blocked a few of his IPs. However, he just comes back under a different IP address and reinserts the hoax. I think we're going to need to semi-protect at least the film itself, if not a few of the actors' articles, too. The most recent, and currently unblocked, IP address used is 180.216.27.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I will alert this one on his talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for 3 months. Btw WP:RFPP is backlogged now, we could use some help in cleaning it up.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also blocked the last IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also semi-protected Eddie Izzard, Michael J. Fox, and Tommy Chong for 2 weeks/1 month--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Style changes after final warning: 188.222.58.239

In this edit User:188.222.58.239 changed the spelling of an article from American to English after a final warning about unilateral changes to spelling had been added to the IP editor's talk page. Editor edited Determination of the day of the week, a calendar related subject, before the warning, and the edit of concern for this thread, to Equinox, is also related to calendars, so I conclude the same person is using the IP address before and after the warning. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Previous incident with this IP was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#User:188.222.58.239. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 h--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Help with cleanup

I came across the article for Smart Boys as an A7. It was a film so it didn't qualify for an A7, but a look showed that it was created by a sockpuppet of User:Gantlet, who was blocked in 2010 and was evading said block. A look at the article creation history for this sockpuppet (User:Rajeshbieee) shows a whopping 900+ pages. Many of these appear to be for barely notable films. This search engine is likely the best way to look.

Each of these pages need to be gone through and if they don't assert notability or have some glaring errors, be deleted as a page created by someone evading a block/ban. This will be a massive undertaking and I'd appreciate anyone that wants to help with searching and tagging. I'm not going to delete all of them without doing at least a cursory search for sourcing since some of them might pass GNG or some variation thereof. Still, the temptation to just delete them as creations by a sock is strong and I feel that the best way to avoid doing a massive, possible detrimental deletion would be to go through these one by one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Without yet looking at the articles, they should either be mass-deleted (assuming nobody touched them after the sock), or we need a coordination page similar to CCI pages, otherwise it will be a lot of time wasted.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I brought this up at WP:INDIA and @Sitush: said the same thing. I figure that this is likely the easiest and possibly best outcome here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If its 900+ pages someone other than socks must have definitely edited them. I prefer a coordination page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree, where would be the best place to coordinate this? -- samtar ^whisper 12:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Does not really matter; For instance, WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've very basically put together blocks of ~50 articles to be checked - is this the best method of splitting the work? -- samtar ^whisper 12:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I though about asking a bot to add there all the titles (possibly split into blocks) and then posting individual progress. See how it is done at WP:CCI, e.g. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Proudbolsahye.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that would have been so much quicker D: feel free to do that Ymblanter and scrub my manual attempt :) -- samtar ^whisper 12:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a bot. Let us first see if someone could help us just seeing this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to ping you to AN/I @Cyberpower678: do you think you could assist with this given your bot expertise -- samtar ^whisper 13:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just run a quick Python script to generate a list of all the titles at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee; it's pretty basic, but it's on Wiki, rather than elsewhere. Feel free to revert if you want something with more detail. Harrias ^talk 14:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, Harrias could you modify your script to insert a line every 50 articles saying "Block x" (x=x+1) so it can be divvied up? -- samtar ^whisper 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We can do it manually I guess. Thanks Harrias--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Labs seems to have gone down, as it does intermittently, otherwise I'd be happy to run it again. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You've probably already done what you want to do here; but if not, you could use this tool. The output can be downloaded as wiki markup and pasted wherever you want it (that's how the CCI listings are generated). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think people should slow down here. While User:Gantlet was blocked in 2010, that was only a 35-day block, and had expired when most if not all of the articles involved were created. Gantlet wasn't blocked again until this month. Their recidivist socking apparently went undetected for too long, but that alone isn't grounds for summarily purging their contributions. G5 isn't retroactive, and I fear it looks like the articles need to be examined individually and taken through standard deletion processes as appropriate. Or have I missed something? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Note that the deleted article Smart Boys was recreated by a new user Omkaaram. Whoever wants to pursue a SPI investigation, this is probably a good case. (The article itself has no issues).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This is going to be a mess. I did a spot check of some of the items in the first 50 entries at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee. Maybe 75% of what I checked is definitely deletion-worthy. However some were not. Brianhe.public (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• I like the coordination page - I'll get started on some of these right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79, Ymblanter, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz raises a good question about G5 eligibility. As the admins involved in this mess, how do you see this? If an article is problematic, should I G5, or send to AfD? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

    I would say unless it is a brand new (clear block evasion) creation and does not fall under PROD/speedy criteria it should be sent to AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I have no true issue deleting these as G5, but I will hold off at this point since I do see some valid points brought up as to why G5 wouldn't entirely qualify here. I'd argue that we should give G5 a little wiggle room here since this will potentially mean hundreds of articles flooding AfD or PROD, which would be more time consuming than if we were to just G5 them as a sock creation. I'd say that this should only apply to articles that are obviously non-notable and cannot be redirected to a valid target like a director filmography. Anything that seems like it could potentially be notable (ie, two usable RS) should go through the other avenues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Basically, AfD is usually overwhelmed with candidates as it is and we have a person here who has created 900+ articles. If even a fourth of that goes to AfD, that means that there will be over 200 articles going to AfD. Some of these articles are very quickly checked, so this could mean dozens of AfDs open within a short period of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm running across a new issue. One of the creations by the sockpuppet includes a year-by-year discography for a composer with 1000+ film credits. Many of those films do not appear to be immediately notable, so this means that these pages (spanning from 1976 to 2015) will likely require just as much in-depth inspection as the sock articles. Some of the film pages were created by the sock, but some weren't. I don't know that we need to have a complete discography for all of Ilaiyaraaja's work, even if we were to compile the pages by decade rather than by year. Thoughts on this? There's a merge request at Talk:Ilaiyaraaja discography, if anyone wants to give their input. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), Ymblanter; after reading your thoughts, it seems to me that this would be a reasonable place to invoke WP:IAR, and tag non-notable creations of this author with G5, so as to avoid flooding PROD and AfD. Unless there are any serious objections to this, I will switch to doing that shortly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • That strikes me as a very bad idea. IAR is rarely if ever validly invoked to justify out-of-process speedy deletion. And G5-ing articles that don't meet G5 requirements will be disruptive for editors reviewing those speedy nominations. If there's no issue about the factual accuracy of Ilaiyaraaja's credits, I don't see why the article needs to be scoured of non-notable items. We have many musician discographies which list nn albums/sinbles/songs, and many author bibliographies which list complete works, not merely those notable enough to have individual articles. Notability standards don't apply within articles, and one of the appropriate functions of an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic and appropriately complete. Biographies don't mention only notable children, parents, and spouses, after all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment I'll note that we do not have a written mechanism for reversal of G5 at the moment. There's a current discussion at WT:CSD about the fact that G5 is technically a zero-tolerance rule. G5 the whole lot of them would be in line with policy, keeping or restoring articles would generally be done under IAR. However that first requires us to determine if G5 is applicable here which is a different matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Hullaballoo, part of the issue with this particular composer is that his credits are 1000+ films long. This is separate from the albums he's released, which are listed on the main discography page. The list that the sock created appears to be any film he composed music for, regardless of the length of the contributed work. This means that he could be the main composer for the soundtrack or he could have contributed one piece of music - we have no real way of confirming this with some of the movies, as many of them are fairly old. At some point this goes beyond being a discography and at some level becomes an issue of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even if we condense this into pages by year, this means that we have at least 5-6 pages that just list films that he composed music for. I'm aware that we do have composer credit pages, but those are for people whose works are a smaller amount, usually under 100 credits. This guy has thousands and churns out a good 20+ soundtracks a year at the very least - he did about 40 in 2015 alone. At some point we have to ask if having a complete listing of every film credit is really worth it, given that the pages for this guy will run the risk of being mammoth chunks of information with little to no true encyclopedic value other than being complete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone have an idea on what we should do as far as the idea of G5 goes? I have no problem with doing all of the G5s myself, if it comes to that, as long as the pages have been checked over to ensure that we're not getting rid of a valid page. If no one has any truly major objections, here's my proposal: once we complete a section, I'll go through and check to see which pages were tagged as not meeting notability guidelines. I'll check the page and the sourcing, then if it fails, I'll delete it via G5 so that it's not a huge mass of PRODs or AfDs waiting to be handled. Both arenas are usually swamped with entries with relatively few admins monitoring them (relatively speaking) so putting them through those avenues only delays a problem that could be dealt with right away. I'm aware that this process will likely take months to complete, but I'm willing to do this. I just want to make sure that this is relatively acceptable so that I don't get in trouble for doing this. I'm not endorsing an outright deletion of each page (although I can see the merit in doing this), just saying that I don't think that the pages should have to sit in PROD-land for a full week when we could cut through the red tape and deal with them faster. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• This would be fine with me, though I think in practice we are looking at the articles rather slowly and do not really flood PROD and AFD--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  User:B.Bhargava Teja seem to be a sock of the blocked user; they recreated Apne Apne which I spediied several days ago, adding there the same copyright violation. Whoever is familiar with the style of the blocked user may want to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  They were tagged as a sock of User:Bhargava Krishna but there was no SPI as far as I can see.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist96

I've tried my best and continued to engage User:Terrorist96 in what I hoped would become a meaningful discussion at Talk:Liberland, but they've instead told me that I have a 'personal problem', that I'm 'undermining' an article, that I'm not being constructive and threatened me to leave. diff

We've been here before over a month ago - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Terrorist96 ARBMAC violation.

Surely this apparently routine level of casting aspersions and acting as if one owns an article is below the acceptable standard of behavior?

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Tried your best? Just like how you tried your best to find the flag of Liberland used in a news article before you unilaterally decided that it should be removed? evidence. You start a 'meaningful discussion' by removing something so innate to an article as the flag of a country? And if you don't see what's wrong with that, then it IS a personal problem. I'm not gonna waste my time and explain to you that the flag of a micronation is in fact relevant information to be included in the country infobox template. Yes, your edits have been disruptive and undermining, consisting of solely removing relevant information rather than adding information. Asking you to contribute constructively or leave is not a threat. Please look up the definition of threat. Using such words to try to paint a picture in your favor doesn't help your case when any neutral party can see that there was no threat to you. And yes, we were here a month ago, because you were adamant at removing the infobox from the article. We had an RfC and the consensus was to keep the infobox. Since you lost that argument, you're now back to undermine the infobox as best as you can without removing it. In order for me to cast aspersions, it would require a lack of evidence. I've laid out the evidence. And to accuse me of attempting to 'own' the article is laughable. How about you provide proof of that, lest you be accused of casting aspersions? Terrorist96 (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• The relevant discussion is at Talk:Liberland#removal_of_trivia which frankly is a terrible section title and is going to cause friction when worded as it was removed "for obvious reasons." I also don't see anyone actually linking to the MOS style section, just people stating it past each other. Terrorist96 (I'm not particularly with the username either) is not being civil either but it would be better if people actually slowed down and explained their thoughts rather than simply stating that "it's obvious" and "per policy" to remove stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I used the phrase "for obvious reasons" because we've been having a discussion for several months about these various items, and after two RfCs there's still no consensus that the three specific elements I had removed were worthy of inclusion (I have specifically looked at the discussions and haven't found a very coherent argument in favor of keeping them, most of the time people were talking about other issues). Surely at some point we need to apply WP:NOCON. Granted, it's hard to pinpoint the time some of these things became contentious, but because the article was created relatively recently, and has been the topic of AfD and protection because of disruptive edits literally within the first week of its existence, we can't assume that any of it is really settled matter. In any case, the thing that needs to be observed is that TDL has been arguing a similar position (opposed to mine), and they haven't been grossly insulting. That's the kind of behavior that should be promoted, unlike that of Terrorist96. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The two RFCs seem to relate to the infobox and to "promotional elements". If you want to be vague and claim that it's been discussed thoroughly, fine but I can't figure out the prior discussions since it's long arguments in all directions all around. When I ask for a specific citation to the MOSFLAGS section that's at issue, I get "it's the only section that's relevant" with no further explanation and people now stating that they agree (with what I don't know). It's no wonder the discussion hasn't gone anywhere for months, no one wants to be specific. As I stated there, a number of other micronations have flags and the like so I don't get the objection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the main reason the discussion is so vague and opaque is that this is completely uncharted territory for the encyclopedia. There are apparently no definitive reliable sources on micronations that we can rely on and just simply reference and be done with it. We're literally constructing what we think should be encyclopedic coverage of a new concept as we go along. How do you think this issue should be approached? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it uncharted territory? A brief glance of Template:Micronations shows a number of articles that have been around for years, most of which I believe have their flag. Now, that's not a particular great reason to have the flag there but at least people should be consistent and either remove them all (per MOS:SOVEREIGNFLAG or whatever because they aren't really considered countries or other various reasons). Besides, of all the issues with that topic, the flag and coat of arms are the least of my concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, my appeals to the spirit of WP:V/WP:RS have been consistently argued against or sidestepped. Do you really think I'd have had more luck convincing people if I had appealed to MoS, which has less weight?

I'm saying it's uncharted because despite the existence of all these policies and guidelines, many of these micronation articles are covered in this dubious manner, and yet more tend to appear whenever someone starts a new project. Liberland is actually great as far as WP:GNG is concerned, but we also had Principality of Ongal and Kingdom of Enclava this year, and who knows how many others. It's hard to argue for consistency in the face of so much inconsistency. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want Ricky, you asked a specific question, you got a specific answer. KoshVorlon stated the part of MOSFLAGs he thinks applies, I stated that would be the relevant section but disagreed that it did apply (as did TDL) you still seem to be at a loss. If you look at the history of the talkpage, it has a common theme which is of Joy wanting to remove perfectly valid and sourced information under some sort of misapprehension that having a micronation article on Liberland is somehow promoting it. Now above she thinks its 'uncharted territory'. No its not, there are plenty of micronation articles which has been explained and referenced repeatedly to Joy on the talkpage. Its neither vague nor opaque. Terrorist96 may be getting a bit short, but he is not the only one getting fed up of going in circles over and over again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

How about a flat which section do you think applies? Not you saying "KoshVorlon believes that the only relevant section applies", just a flat "this section says X." There's seven sections to MOSFLAGS along with at a half dozen subsections. I'm just wandering in and I have no zero idea what people want and that's after having read multiple pages with two RFCs (which no weren't all about the flag) and just various disputes. There's disputes in that section alone about a lack of references, about whether it was the "novelty phase" or whatever that was (refer to both the historical considerations, non-sovereign states sections of MOSFLAGS) and then there's the whole flags as icons issue. Is the problem that it's a micronation? Is it the lack of sources? Is it the actual one? It seems like it's now "a flag is an icon" so no matter the sources, no matter the nation's status, it wouldn't be included. Ok, but it's included on pretty much every major country article so if you think MOSFLAGS doesn't support including it here, fine. People keep arguing but when pressed, it's all "the only section that's relevant" and "per MOSFLAGS" and you finally respond that you hate the entire infobox so do you want the flag separate like how Tomás Cloma does it? As I said, I don't actually get what people want and I understand fully why people are disagreeing there when people keep moving the goalposts in response. I get some people think this whole thing is a joke and don't want it treated like a real country (I lean that way) but that doesn't exactly resolve any issues here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Striking this. I don't care. If you think rounds of "it's the relevant section" and "the whole thing should be removed" is helpful, that's on you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. There's plenty of precedent for dubious coverage in micronation articles already. So people logically assume that Newton's First Law applies and that there is organic consensus to keep things as they are. And then when an even less conventional new country project is started, they just keep applying the same kind of window dressing on its Wikipedia article. And then when I challenge that, I'm the bad guy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to demand a change based on one article and I think it's fair for them to disagree based on the inernsia already here. A proper discussion would be at MOSFLAGS about micronations since it's a broader topic (assuming we haven't already had it). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with you if it was one article out of a consistent set of N articles. But it's actually one out of a fairly inconsistent set. For example, the flag of Sealand has actually flown at that platform presumably since the '70s. I can imagine numerous boat travellers in the region have come across it, so it merits explanation. The flag of Liberland was just invented this year, and its physical appearances have mostly not been seen by any appreciable number of people. Surely that's a meaningful differentiation? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a speedy deletion of article of a living person

I am requesting a speedy deletion of article of a living person David A. Bray as I am the subject of the article. While I have not been involved in past edits of the article, I have monitored them. Personally I never thought I rose to the level of warranting one and would prefer not to be involved in such debates. If it is possible to request a deletion review and courtesy blank upon completion, I would prefer not to be a topic of a Wikipedia article unless required. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northernva (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I'd prefer not to matter honestly. Is there any chance for a living person to request a speedy deletion and and courtesy blank upon completion out of a right to personal privacy? Or is there a Wikipedia version of the right to be forgotten? Thank you for your consideration. Northernva (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This issue is under discussion at WP:COIN (permalink). – Brianhe (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Brianhe. Northernva (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This is strange. Over at WP:COIN, it's been established that someone created a modest sock farm and created three articles about computer science researchers, all of which are rather favorable to the article subjects. That looks like COI editing. David A. Bray passes the usual tests for notability; he's a high-level Federal official with long articles about him in Forbes and the Huffington Post. He has 114K followers on Twitter.[157]. There's nothing particularly unfavorable in the article; it's rather positive. This seems inconsistent with a request for deletion from Wikipedia. I'd suggest that Mr. Bray mail in an ORTS request (see Wikipedia:Contact us) to establish that they are in fact who they claim to be, and the ORTS team should confirm this. In the presence of sockpuppeting, I'm reluctant to assume that someone claiming to be Mr. Bray is in fact Mr. Bray. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so I'm not the only one wondering about that... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

John Nagle's course of action makes sense to me. BMK (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 Confirmed through OTRS. Have requested it be deleted to remove personal information and recreated as a stub if appropriate. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful. From Bray's comments on the article talk page, the problem seems to be not the current state of the article, but the history. Previous versions of the article had much more personal information.[158]. The reason there's so much personal information is that the article subject self-published a book-length autobiography in 2002.[159][160] He apparently regrets that now. He's not yet notable enough that he has to have an article. He's chief information officer of the FCC. That's two levels below the FCC commissioners. Anyway, the article is at AfD, and arguments are moving towards deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. We can wait and see how that goes. John Nagle (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• This could be a textbook example of how much better an article subject serves his goals by asking calmly and giving reasons, instead of the usual legal bluster we get from subjects unhappy with their coverage. EEng (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Similarly, it's a good example of how we (who know the rules) could better steer an article subject (who doesn't), away from the path of confrontation, rather than being reactive and confrontational ourselves. Offering to work with, or help people who are confused or upset seems like a productive thing to do. Begoon ^talk 16:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks by SICDAMNOME

The following discussion is closed. 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 was hoping this warning would convince SICDAMNOME (talk · contribs) from making personal attacks. But so far there are at least four personal attacks by SICDAMNOME: [161], [162], [163], [164]. He/she has a very confrontational and non-collaborative response if someone challenges his/her unsourced edits. Sundayclose (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Followup

Can I request a WP:REVDEL for these, please? Elizium23 (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Suit yourself, but when lowlifes talk to me that way, I wear it like a badge of honor. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to live by WP:RBI and quite frankly, I'd rather not have profanity staring me in the face when I browse page histories and the like. Un-archived this discussion in the hopes of some admin attention. Elizium23 (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Revision deletion, profanity in the edit summaries might qualify, but the admins will have to decide. However, the verbiage certainly serves no encyclopedic purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

They clearly qualify under WP:CRD #2 as grossly insulting and degrading. There's one on my talk page as well as that edit summary directed at me. Elizium23 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

They seem to want the original complaint closed, so I've started a secondary section as per standard procedure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done - deleted the edit summaries for two that were RD2/RD3 worthy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Revdel

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

---

Erm, could we revdel this? It's over two years old and Google translate says it translates to "(Redacted)!!!" in Korean. I've reverted it but would still like it revdel'd. TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 12:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Done, also removed the translated version above. -- GB fan 13:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

HoorayForAmerica

The block under WP:SOCK and subsequent unblock requests being declined under WP:NOTHERE stand. I recommend the standard offer be made in 6 months if this editor wishes to come back to editing. See expanded statement below for more detail. Mkdw^talk 22:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

HoorayForAmerica (talk · contribs) (a username possibly in violation of policy?) has been blocked for a second time as an obvious sock of a yet to be identified editor. HoorayForAmerica repeatedly asks multiple editors for a thread to be opened here so that "uninvolved administrators" can weigh in. Well, here's the thread. Doc talk 00:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I'd support a block per WP:NOTHERE. Seems like they are a troll and probably a sockpuppet of someone. And canvas people to get themselves unblocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• @RoySmith: the previous block was removed presumably due to lack of evidence, or possible evidence to the contrary regarding sock puppetry. May I ask what evidence you are basing your block on? I admit given the overlap in names and content area that there is a strong quacking sound, I am wondering if there is anything more? HighInBC 01:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

We can get blocks made for socking without identifying the sock master? What is the correct way to request that cause I'd like to put a couple annoying ones in the drawer. Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

We can block using the essay WP:NOTHERE. It's the new wildly popular trend. Blocking a blatantly obvious sock without a named master shouldn't be a stretch. Doc talk 01:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

To expand a bit - the NOTHERE essay includes sockpuppetry as a reason to block. No SPI is therefore needed to block a suspected sock account. The user is "not here to build an encyclopedia", and that's all the reason needed. We went over this at a recent RfC, and the essay was deemed to be more than good enough on its own.[165] Admins need only to use that essay as a block rationale. End of story. Doc talk 03:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is clearly not a new user. New users don't find their way to DRV a few hours after creating an account. We're not here to play games. We're here to write an encyclopedia. No regrets about my action. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• I will add to what RoySmith says by quoting the sock puppetry policy which states Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, which would include WP:DRV. This means that if this is an alternate account(and I have not researched the situation enough to say that it is), then it is not a legitimate alternate account. I would like to see the user make a disclosure about which accounts or IPs they have used in the past before they are unblocked. While it is hard to track down one's old IP, surely they could dig up some old diffs by looking at the articles they edited. HighInBC 03:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• This user is now requesting a temporary unblock to participate in this discussion. I see this as trying to game the system, as they demanded this thread was opened, and are now trying to exploit it to get an unblock. They're clever, but definitely not new. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

  Not particularly clever. And discussions by proxy are a waste of everyone's time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC).
  

  I see little harm in letting them participate in this discussion. I don't see what they gain in this request other than being allowed to have their say here, if they edit anywhere else a reblock would be swift. HighInBC 03:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support block; oppose unblock to discuss - All one has to do is page through this editor's contributions to see quite clearly they they are obviously a sock: by the third or fourth edit, they're referring to G5 deletions, something no newbie would know about -- and their fairy story about editing as an IP is just that: the IP they provided had 3 edits in 2007; there's no possible way that that IP could pick up all the Wikijargon and Wikipolicy knowledge this editor throws around in that short a time, and if they edited as another IP -- well, then they're just lying to us, again. The multiple unblock requests show definitively that the editor has nothing pertinent to say in their defense, so the community can decide this without their "help". As someone said above, we're not playing games here, we're supposed to be editing an encyclopedia, not wasting our time on useless socks. The door has been closed, that was the correct thing to do (thanks, @Roy Smith:), let's keep the door closed, and lock it while we're at it. BMK (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• I'm neutral on this. I originally blocked as a sock, unless based on the CU report and was rewarded by a second DRV against my closing. It's a NOTHERE block here not a sockpuppetry dispute. If the editor can explain something that they are interested in doing here than isn't restoring the You-Know-Who mess, then perhaps an unblock could be ok. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor mentioned an interest in OSU as well. I'm support an unblock at this point. Would there be an objection to an unblock with You-Know-Who topic ban for say a month? It'd fall under American politics 2. I'm for a lot of chances here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how the blocked editor, wanting to be unblocked, mentioning a possible subject to edit when pressed to do so, makes a whit of difference at all. We are being played here. BMK (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

For crying out loud, read the editor's goldarned talk page "Oh, I just looked up this policy, and I don't think I have to do X." The ease of navigation around the site, the understanding of policy, the smooth oiliness of every response - Gadzooks, a sock, a veritiable troll! BMK (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If this account accepted a topic ban on You-Know-Who it would demonstrate a willingness to participate as a non-SPA. Knowing, of course, that their edits would be monitored as easily as any of ours can be. I would be interested to see a positive response from HFA on this one. Doc talk 07:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support block, oppose 'discussion unblock'. User is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. Allowing them to game the system for an unblock won't change that fact. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the good explanation. Can unidentified Sockmaster socks apply to IPs as well? Cause it's amazing the IPs that show up with no edit history in weird places like AfD, Deletion Review, edit warring over templates, spouting policy and engaging in revert wars. Legacypac (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Listen up, everybody. Any admin can block any account (whether IP or named) by just simply listing NOTHERE as the rationale. There is really no further obligation to explain exactly which part of NOTHERE applies. Are we all clear on this? This was decided by the community, and is therefore non-negotiable. Doc talk 07:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Doc any block for any reason is negotiable. The only thing that consensus added to policy is that it is a common reason for blocking. HighInBC 16:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Correct. If the editor is WP:NOTHERE, it doesn't matter if its a sock or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: I am new to this and of course not an admin (could be one day in maybe 20 years or so) but have questions/concerns. Doc advocates in comments that anyone can be blocked at anytime (are we all clear on this) for no reasoning other that "nothere). His comment about NOTHERE (an essay and apparently "...the new wildly popular trend.") indicates without the necessity of discussion. Invoking "nothere" would seem to include discussion and consideration of the 10 indicators as reasoning, and the 9 indicators in considering Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia#What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not, not just simple invocation (no obligation of explanation as stated: "There is really no further obligation to explain exactly which part of NOTHERE applies."), would mean we can edit out all the silly 19 examples shown to reach a conclusion, and just "get rid of them".

If that "slope" were to be one we are traveling, like another editor above, and can pass admins consensus, I will be back shortly with a list. I get tired of editors ignoring all policies and guidelines invoking "ignore all rules" without reasoning rather than as an exception (except "I can't hear you") in a deliberate attempt to push "nothere" to the limit. If we can use it to win a witch hunt, then I might be interested, except I could see future fallout.

In this case: The defendant was accused of being a sock I imagine with good reasoning, then apparently was checked by CU, and now AN/I.

So what am I missing? Is he a sock: Of Kingshowman or Destroyer of Sophistry and Falsehood or another (?) (as apposed to highly suspected and not confirmed); a sleeper or a duck? Did he accidentally fall into a hole with the He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named issue and so "must be hanged"? Is he gaming? Is he an "old hand" that got permanently blocked or someone that did edit a few times then quit? It might be possible (lacking clear evidence of nefarious intent) that he can be provided a short noose (oops rope) knowing if he is one of the above someone will catch him, if someone has not yet slapped the horse awaiting him to fall and stop wiggling. I would Support letting him hang himself as opposed to a lynching party that could kill off a valid new(er) editor by suspicion alone. Otr500 (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to address a few things in this discussion before closing. HoorayForAmerica was not unblocked because a checkuser was inconclusive. They were unblocked because the admin who initially blocked them cited Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman but no behavioural evidence or notes were discussed at this SPI regarding HoorayForAmerica. When a CU determines there is no technical connection two or more accounts, that does not rule out sock puppetry. Many people are able to access dynamic IPs through VPN, mobile devices, hotspots, public WiFi networks, routing their IP, and so forth. The initial blocking admin openly stated they did not properly evaluate the behavioural evidence and it seems like it was a decision made on the spot. They correctly responded to the unblock request from another reviewing admin, me, and unblocked the editor accordingly. RoySmith blocked HoorayForAmerica a second time under WP:DUCK as a sock which is an valid criteria when evaluating behavioural evidence. As someone familiar with the SPI process, I'm including to agree that the behavioural evidence is very strong against HoorayForAmerica. They demonstrated an intimate knowledge of the bureaucratic process of Wikipedia including {{help me}}, {{admin help}}, {{ping}}, {{unblock}} citing very specific points of policy not typical of normal unblock requests, WP:AFD (mentioned in their first edit summary), how to use edit summaries, WP:DRV, WP:ANI, WP:SPI, article standards including WP:RS and WP:V, article and user talk pages, using wikilinks and changing the visible overlay wording, how to remove speedy deletion notices (their first edit), citing WP:AGF, as well as how to correctly sign their messages. I've spent a lot of time dealing with newcomers to the site at WP:AFC, the IRC help channel, and answering help me requests. Even if they had lightly edited Wikipedia in 2007 using an IP, their clear knowledge of a wide array of processes at Wikipedia is not indicative of a newcomer. If indeed their attention was drawn to this article from Google News, as they have stated, considering the lifetime of the article before it was deleted, they would not have had the time or opportunity to become familiar with all the policies and processes mentioned above. This evidence rules out WP:NEWCOMER and WP:BITE.

They also edited the article Donald Trump and Fascism, an article that had been the subject of sock puppetry. In an SPI investigation, this would be enough under WP:DUCK to result in a block, especially the repeated removal of the speedy deletion templates from an article in contention, their only two edits in the main space. The rest of the time has been spent at several user talk pages or DRV and AN, wikilawyering to a very advanced degree of understanding. While some of us may chalk it up to frustration, they've failed to adhere to advice to let processes run their course as was evident by multiple help me and successive unblock requests, pointing towards their battleground mentality which is covered under WP:NOTHERE. It's important to note that WP:SOCK and WP:GAMING also fall under NOTHERE. I've reviewed the discussion above and it would seem that the editor is being doubly charged here and not one or the other. I'm closing this discussion as I've only acted administratively in this case and previously in favour of this editor. Mkdw^talk 22:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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.

---

The implicit assumption here is that no new editor is capable of following obvious wikilinks, RTFM and comprehending guidance wiki editors have spent a lot of time trying to make understandable -- in other words, we only want new editors of average to below average comprehension and attention to detail. NE Ent 02:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. To me, it's not like we can't reblock later. The antics aren't exactly sneaky. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You're making the implicit assumption that this editor was blocked on only their quickness to proficiency when in fact the entirety of their situation was evaluated. So in other words, nothing remotely close to that conclusion was alluded to nor would the same conclusion be drawn with another editor who showed immediate proficiency. Further, Ricky81682 as an administrator, you're able to unblock the editor. I am not here, at ANI, to review an unblock request. Rather, merely to review the discussion and close it where I determined a large enough consensus for the block to remain intact. Mkdw^talk 04:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again NE Ent chimes in saying we're not seeing the forest for the trees. We've done some grave disservice to "dumb down" our potential new editor pool. Absolutely untrue nonsense. No focus on the facts of this particular case. The discussion was closed. Are you going to reopen it, NE Ent? Or just move on? Doc talk 05:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Mdkw states "I've spent a lot of time dealing with newcomers to the site at WP:AFC, the IRC help channel, and answering help me requests." Data indicates there were five and half thousand new editors in November. Many did not require assistance at any of those venues; the point being meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn from a skewed sample. The fact remains Wikipedia has an extensive help system, prominently wikilinked. Most of the "disruption" has come about because of the block. The forest is human knowledge is increasing exponentially [166] and the number of wiki editors is flat. If we block every overly clueless new editor per WP:CIR, and every overly clue full new editor as "obvious sock," then we'll regret it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of Wikipedia's life. NE Ent 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Then it's probably a good job we don't block every overly clueless new editor per WP:CIR, and every overly clue full new editor as "obvious sock", eh? Unless you're basing that on a skewed sample? You spend a lot of time in meta areas, for instance, as do I. Perhaps, just perhaps, what we see here is very far from what happens to the average new editor. I suspect it is, you know, while not denying that what you say deserves some thought.
For instance, we seldom see here the good new editors scared away by the bad "patrollers", or the good new editors encouraged to stay by a kind word. Or those who stay and just edit because nobody bothers them. Etc - rinse and repeat. Discussion for another place, though...Begoon ^talk 13:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet HoorayForAmerica used 4 {{admin help}}, an {{edit request}} and a {{help me}} request. Seems to me if you're talking about sample groups, HoorayForAmerica would fall exactly into the category I'm referring. Maybe you haven't spent a lot of time assisting newcomers but help me requests are not necessarily a sign of cluelessness. I find it ironic that you're criticizing me for making broad assumptions (about one editor) yet you're making even larger generalizations about all newcomers. In fact, I still use {{admin help}} for example. Again, I point your attention that no conclusion was drawn merely because of their proficiency but the entirety of the case. Using individual cases to make political statements about the direction of Wikipedia is neither the place nor fair to the individual. Editors blocked for sock puppetry and WP:NOTHERE are not suddenly unburdened by these policies because an editor wants to simply welcome newcomers. Of course the community wants newcomers, but not at the cost of ridding the project of key protective policies. This discussion has moved further and further away from the actual case points and more about a being a soapbox for NE Ent's personal views. Unless the case is to be re-opened, then there are other avenues to discuss attracting and retaining newcomcers. Mkdw^talk 16:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Talk page abuse by blocked Rulerottar

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

---

Blocked Rulerottar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is abusing his talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well, let's hope that's the only thing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Category talk:Boxing

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

---

Persistent vandalism by IPs:

• [167], Random Vandalism
• [168], As Above
• [169], As above
• [170], Accuses other editors of Vandalising
• [171], Personal Attack on User:Antandrus
• [172], Another Personal Attack

Could these IPs be blocked possibly? TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 16:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw this at RFPP earlier. The PAs on Antandrus have been oversighted. I hate to protect talk pages but nothing constructive has ever been added to this one. Katie^talk 19:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's long term abuse. I periodically block his T-Mobile ranges when he rants a lot. Ten years of this now. If you're curious you can learn about his history here (page deleted by Jimbo in a failed attempt to get him to leave us alone). His off-wiki harassment has been severe enough to land him in jail twice this year. I stay on top of it. Antandrus (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

There is likely to be trouble ahead

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

---

An editor exposed as a sock puppet starts an RFC to remove image galleries on any article related to an ethnic group. Unbelievably a number of editors jump on this, on the basis that these "are more trouble than they're worth" the RFC is closed by Sandstein that there is a consensus to do this. Now its passed as a consensus, so a group of editors have decided to embark on a campaign of removing them from articles. On the vast majority of articles theses have been entirely uncontroversial, running around slapping the tag WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES, they're energetically removing all the galleries. A lot of editors are going to disagree and having never even been aware of this RFC are going to kick back causing revert wars all over the place. This was a bad close in my view, the policy on consensus is really clear, Wikipedia:Consensus "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Please can saner heads put a brake on this before it causes a whole boatload of unnecessary drama. WCM_email 02:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I join the above initiation (but I took part in the voting process). The RfC was aimed at avoiding OR and edit warring. However, now it is quite clear that the "consensus" did not help. Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have not seen many RfCs with so many participants; I think it will be hard to argue that this was a select group. (Granted, u/Universe may attract an even bigger crowd next time.) I congratulate Sandstein on their close; at the same time, I don't think it's a good idea for folks to go around changing as much as possible as if there will be less disruption if we wake up in a composite-ethnic-image-infobox-free-world. Pinging Iryna Harpy, just cuz I can. Goodnight everyone. Drmies (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Closer's comment: As RfC closer, my job is only to determine the consensus, if any, that results from a discussion. Because Wee Curry Monster doesn't argue that the consensus I found wasn't in fact the outcome of the discussion, I'm not sure how they come to the conclusion that this was a "bad close", or what it is that they are here to complain about. As to how the RfC was set up or is being implemented now, I'm not involved with that and can't comment on it. But speaking generally, the RfC was properly advertised with a RfC tag, ran for 30+ days and saw a great number of editors participating, so I'd say that it represents the global consensus that local consensus by the editors of individual pages can't override, rather than the other way around.  Sandstein  06:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Drmies and Sandstein. I started reading through this RfC with a view to close it but it ended up being far longer than I had time to read; it had, in my view, more than enough participants to disqualify it from being "among a limited group of editors". Close seems sensible and reflective of the discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Didn't know about the RfC but there has been a similar local consensus relating to caste etc articles for years, seemingly based on the same arguments summarised in the close here - see User:Sitush/Common#Montages. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Wee Curry Monster, I think that if you read some of the discussion in more detail, you'll discover that the rationales for removal that were expressed were more advanced than "more trouble than they're worth". While the editor who started the RfC was indeed later found to be a sock, the decision to start an RfC was a collective one as a result of this discussion. It was clear even before the start of the RfC that opposition to these montages extended far beyond Hahun/Iaaasi. I also personally completely reworded the question and am happy to take responsibility for it. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sandstein Your summary of the discussion is accurate, however, your suggestion that its a global consensus is flawed. It was a group on a wikiproject and many editors were completely unaware of it, hence it could never represent a community consensus. I fully agree with Drmies that we shouldn't run around changing things on the basis of the RFC, since it creates conflict where previously there were none. One of the first results was to remove the gallery from Japanese people, [173], identified in the RFC as a good example of how to use image galleries. The article is poorer for its removal. WCM_email 12:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• WCM, sorry, but that's not really what I said. I think mass removals will cause unrest, and causing unrest is rarely a good thing--but I didn't say that the RfC needn't be acted on or something like that. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As it turns out, the RfC was (and still is) advertised at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, in addition to the global RfC tag. One can't get much more public than that. I'm quite satisfied that the outcome reflects Wikipedia-wide community consensus and is actionable as such. Whether you (or I for that matter) agree with the outcome is, I'm sorry to say, not relevant.  Sandstein  12:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually think there's a good case for trying to implement the consensus as quickly as possible. If infobox galleries are removed slowly, then there will still be a large number that editors can point to and say "that article has one, so why can't this one too?", and this will result in more edit warring. A swift removal helps to avoid that. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see your point, Larry. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Any significant change in practice causes dissent among those who were not participants in the change discussion. This should NEVER be a reason to not implement the change. The RfC was properly listed, advertised, allowed to run 30 days, and closed by an uninvolved administrator. WCM, you've inverted that status vis-a-vis this RfC and Wikipedia:Consensus. This RfC IS community consensus on a wider scale. If this were a handful of editors from a particular project, you might have a case. It isn't. There is wide consensus to remove these galleries. People fought (and HARD) over placeholder image removal. People fought over the spoiler warnings being removed. It is likely people will fight over these galleries being removed. C'est la vie. Once the new consensus is put in place, and enforced, things will quiet down and the new normal will take hold. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka above states that the RfC was aimed at reducing edit warring but concludes that it has not helped. Apparently to prove that he has engaged in edit warring at Hungarians intended to retain the array there. Giving up on adding it to the infobox, he has now simply plopped the array into a gallery in the middle of an article already bloated with images (74 on a page of 50k). This gallery suffers from the same POV and lack of standards discussed in the RfC and appears to be a work-around to avoid consensus. Thus we have an editor who warns that the consensus will not stop the disputes and making sure of it by continuing the dispute himself. This goes directly against the spirit of the RfC consensus. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is a facepalmingly bad move on the part of @Borsoka:. While the RfC relates to infoboxes, simply transporting the problem into a gallery in the article ignores the spirit of the RfC. Serious, seriously bad move. This is no better than someone removing a gallery of non-free images from an infobox, and someone else putting the gallery of non-free images back into the article further down in its own section. This has to stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Laszlo Panaflex and Hammersoft, would you please read the discussion about the implementation of the well established consensual policy here before making uncivil remarks? Borsoka (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific as to where in that extensive discussion that consensus approves of simply moving the array into the body of the article? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I refer to my previous message here: [174]. Borsoka (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Borsoka: My comment about your actions was not in the slightest bit uncivil. I'm sorry you have perceived as such, as nothing of the kind was intended. I don't know you. To my recollection, I've never interacted with you before. I've no reason to have any opinion about you. I didn't comment on *you*, I commented on your actions which violated the spirit of the RfC. It's quite clear they did, and I stand by my comments. It was a bad decision to take that action, and I sincerely hope you see the error of it and correct your mistake. The issue of the galleries is not a game of Whac-A-Mole, where we fix it one place and it pops up in another. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. I understand that I am said to have made "facepalmingly bad move" but I am a good guy. :) I sincerely hope that you will understand that I have not broken any policies: in my world, if the Parliament passes a law which prohibits trading with alcoholic bewerages, that law cannot be applied in order to punish trading with non-alcoholic bewerages. I also sincerely hope that you will understand that you are talking about a problem ("what kind of pictures can be displayed in an article about an ethnicity") that was not resolved by that strange "consensual" decision. Borsoka (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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

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

---

OmegaBuddy13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [175][176][177][178]. jonkerz ♠talk 15:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Bishonen | talk 16:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

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

Folkprofessor

The following discussion is closed. 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:Folkprofessor has been warned not to add copyrighted images to Owsley Stanley, but has done it now eight times, he needs to be blocked. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#Folkprofessor. He is an SPA only adding copyrighted images to the article. The ones he loaded to Wikimedia Commons have all been deleted, now he is adding symbols. There already is a properly licensed image used in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. Next block might be indefinite. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Problematic 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.

---

Requesting a nuke on User:sadda14. Lots of edits that all contain personal attacks on multiple editors including myself. TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 16:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

sadda14 is a sock of Voda9, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Voda9 Bazj (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Indefblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Do we want to Revdel some of their edits? TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 16:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Malicious edits

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

---

• AnOnionForWilly (talk · contribs)

All edit summaries will need to be scrubbed. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Editor Noel darlow / 90.199.44.240

Disruptive editing, User:Noel darlow has continually removed facts and their supporting inline citations/references and inserting unsourced and unverifiable material in its place which contradicts the sources within the Crown Estate article. This has been occurring over the past year and a half (here, here, and here) where an editor adds an inline citation and Noel darlow simply removes it. Has refused to work collaboratively in improving the verifiability of the article with editors in removing over 20 inline citations without prior consultations on the Talk page, despite at least five different editors attempts and proposals to improve the page. Additionally, the editor has not once made any mention of what they are specifically against, nor has the user ever attempted to work collaboratively by building on other's edits, but instead seems to exhibit signs of WP:OOA such as responding to other user's attempts at adding verifiable information to the article with only "I'll edit the article as appropriate". The user has removed verifiable information and their supporting citations by inserting non-verifiable and contradictory information on six different occasions to date.

This continuously and "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable" is in contradiction with WP:DDE. The user has also reverted and reinserted unverifiable and counterfactual information three four times over the past two days in contravention with WP:TRR (its spirit if not its letter).

User trackratte edited the page inserting roughly 13 inline citations based on the best possible reliable sources (in this case House of Commons Committees, the Crown Estate's own publications, Parliamentary Reports, Legal explanatory notes accompanying legislation, British Government publications, and sources from Buckingham Palace, amongst others) in an attempt to improve the article as the lead was completely unverifiable in that it lacked any citations or sourcing. This is user trackratte's first involvement with this article, and has no prior formed opinions regarding the article subject prior to conducting cursory fact checking as the article lead was lacking any references. In finding that the sources directly contradicted the opening sentence, and that the opening sentence had no supporting citation, user trackratte began further research, editing, and adding verifiable sources.

User Noel darlow removed all of the material along with all of the inline citations, putting in its place unsourced material which directly contradicts with the sources.

User trackratte then initiated a conversation on the Talk page, outlining a variety of the sources concerning the critical issue of ownership.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crown_Estate&type=revision&diff=697368041&oldid=697302863 User trackratte then restored the verifiable material inline with step one of WP:DDE ("Do not attack the author who you suspect is disruptive. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material.") in order to continue improving the article and adding verifiable sources, making a further 9 edits and adding roughly 8 more inline citations.

User trackratte added further information to the Talk Page, describing the root cause of the issue, and explaining Wikipedia policy and how it is disruptive to actively remove verifiable information (WP:DE: "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources"), and how inputting unsourced information which is blatantly contradicted by verifiable and official sources is not inline with WP:NPOV.

User Noel darlow again removed all verifiable information and supporting inline citation once again replacing it with unsourced, non-verifiable POV information without further engaging in the Talk.

User trackratte restored the last verifiable version in order to continue improving the article] inline with WP:DDE step 2 ("If sourced information appears this time around, do nothing; if not, revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage."), making a further 12 edits and adding a variety of inline sources, bluelinking to wiki articles containing critical conceptual information, and various copy edits for clarity and readability inline with supporting citations.

User Ninetyone joined the conversation on the Talk page stating that "it looks like Trackratte is doing a good job in sourcing the claims and they've obviously got the facts right so far", and adding a proposed copy edit to Trackratte's latest edit to improve the article's clarity and readability.

User Noel darlow for a third time reverted all changes without engaging in the Talk page with either users trackratte or Ninetyone, for a third time removing all verifiable material and supporting references, and re-inserting non-verifiable POV material in contradiction to Wikipedia policies (WP:TRR "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block." and WP:DE "editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable source"). User Noel Darlow removed roughly 18 inline citations, a substantial amount of verifiable fact, and reinserted their own personal views without any sourcing, substantiation, or coherent argument on the Talk Page beyond their not liking it.

Looking at the user's previous contributions within this article, this is not the first time this editor has shut down other user's similar attempts to improve the article by reverting and removing verifiable citations which conflict with their own POV, and seems to exhibit signs of WP:OOA such as telling other user's attempts at clarifying the article with "I'll edit the article as appropriate".

According to WP:DDE step three, if "the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information: Revert, and request an administrator via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Subsequently, I have followed policy and have requested an administrator, and will have reverted the editor's reinsertion of unsourced information as another editor has also begun collaboratively working on the last sourced version which User Noel Darlow has removed. I want to make it clear that my last reversion is being done inline with the explicit direction of the steps outlined to take in WP:DDE and as such I have followed steps 1 through 3 in order and subsequently understand my last restoration of sourced material as not falling under the rubrique of WP:TRR. However, in line with TRR and DDE, this will be my final revert to allow User Ninetynine and any other editors to continue to collaboratively improve the article, and I will reduce my involvement with the article in awaiting admin response.

User Noel darlow has for a fourth time removed over 20 inline citations and inserted unsourced information, some of which is runs completely counter to the sources. This also cuts off another editor's proposal, which was building off the sourced version.

A User "Once again have removed" verifiable information and cited references.

As I clearly explained the relevant policies pertaining to the wholesale removal of sources to User Noel darlow in the talk page and the how "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable" is against WP, I do not believe that ignorance of policy can be an excuse in this case. I therefore propose that the user receive a topic ban from the article for a suitable period of time as deemed appropriate by an administrator. trackratte (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact Trackratte has refused repeated requests not to proceed with his own POV without attempting to resolve our differences first. Once he/she did engage in Talk he/she failed to consider points raised and simply attempted to push his/her own opinion as fact without any real discussion. This disagreement is about presenting a clear explanation of Crown Estates ownership and thus mostly concerns the opening paragraph(s) and nothing else, despite what has been claimed in the complaint. I'd like the article to be locked while differences are resolved in Talk. Basic issue is that the reality of ownership is (counter-intuitively) NOT well-explained by literal, legal technicalities and the general fog of tradition and ceremony which inevitably surrounds a monarchy. Trackratte has not grasped this yet but I'm sure he/she will - if he/she is instructed to engage properly with other editors rather than reaching for the shotgun at the first sign of disagreement. Noel darlow (talk) 01:39, 1 January 20 moi16 (UTC)

PS: The technicalities deserve to be mentioned too, of course, although not at the expense of a clear statement of the practical reality. Crown Estate ownership causes massive confusion Noel darlow (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC).

Noel, you refused to respond to to my request that "If there is a specific point which you find lacking, or a specific source you find lacking, bring it up here", but instead you simply continue to remove all sources and insert unverifiable and counterfactual information in its place, and this is not the first time you've done so. As as far as I can see going back, this is your sixth time removing sources and placing unverified information in its place, despite five different editor's attempts over the past year or so. For example, here, here, and here. trackratte (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And I do not have a POV for this article, I added content inline with verifiable sources, ever sentence I added had one or more verifiable inline citations. Your removing over 20 inline citations and replace the material with non-verifiable and unsubstantiated information in contradiction to the sources you continue to remove is what is at issue here. This compounded by your unwillingness to build on the material collaboratively with other editors. To note, over my twelve and a half years as editor here, this is the first time I've had to resort to ANI. trackratte (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

There is every opportunity that our disagreement can be channelled productively to improve the quality of the article but first you'll have to engage properly with other points of view. I think it's reasonable to expect to thrash this out in Talk first and only then start editing the article.

The POV (IMO) is an over-emphasis on technicalities, symbolism and tradition. A monarch without real power inevitably becomes surrounded by a fog of irrationality and this seems to be the fundamental problem. Of course the details and traditions are relevant but I think they have to be handled carefully because they can easily obfuscate and obscure the practical reality of state-ownership. It is possible to be technically correct and yet wholly wrong.

I intend to reconsider my own opinion on how best to draw a line between reality and tradition - and in fact I'll be discussing this tomorrow with an individual who has advised governments and committees at Westminster, Holyrood and Stormont on issues relating to the Crown Estate as well as other matters. I'd respectfully ask you to do the same.Noel darlow (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, and your attempts at portraying it as so is a red herring, since on six different occasions and with four or five different editors you have always simply reverted their constructive edits and attempts at adding references, instead of collaboratively and constructively building on their edits to improve the article. In its place, you have simply continued to tell other users off, revert, reinsert unverifiable information, and remove all added reliable sources. Your behaviour is the only issue at play here, not the article's content. trackratte (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Help!

Help Required with User:heyilickbigtits. Rquesting a Nuke and Talk Page Access Revoked. Thanks, TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with by User:HighInBC. TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 19:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done HighInBC 19:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC. Just after the talk page access was revoked for "h" this previously blocked editor Sharazjeth (talk · contribs) returned making the same kind of attacks on Titusfox. IMO talk page access for "S" should be revoked whether they are socks or not. MarnetteD|Talk 19:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry SwisterTwister. I had to reopen this to report the new attack. MarnetteD|Talk 19:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

More edits by Sharazjeth (talk · contribs) show that they are WP:NOTHERE if nothing else. HighInBC seems to be offline so of any other admin could remove talkpage access it would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 20:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. CIreland (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you CIreland MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

As he said, this may be a long night. Wait until tomorrow to close this thread. TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 20:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Here Little Irish Fellow (talk · contribs) is the latest one. Courcelles has blocked them but the talk page access needs revoking and the attacks deleted. MarnetteD|Talk 22:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Also done. CIreland (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like they're all User:Evlekis Socks. Open another SPI? TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 10:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editor: User:Calicutspecialist

User:Calicutspecialist has continually removed facts and their supporting inline citations/references to the article, Parvathy Nair. The editor has refused to work collaboratively in improving the verifiability of the article with other editors and has continued to make disruptive edits to the page for close to a year now. The editor's main aim is to keep the page as they wish - with no regard to any of Wikipedia's precedence on actors, while they also continue to ignore rules suggested on Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

• The editor's edits only comprise of articles close to the actress (her article, her films, her awards etc) [179]
• Under the ridiculous excuse of "its avoidable in filmography .. we gave so much importance to this one scene movie in her career graph", the editor has used his own self-believed precedence to remove several films from her filmography - reverting (or re-editing) the page to reflect his wishes over 50 times.[180]
• The editor refuses to co-operate with editors who seek to talk about the issue, as seen here [181] and delivers threats when he feels they can't revert any longer. They also remove warning template and fail to make necessary changes [182].

This persistent reverting has gone on for too long. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no discussion opened on the talk page, it's generally a lot easier to discuss content disputes on the talk page, rather than in edit summaries or here at ANI.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question blindly reverts either way. Regardless of any previous discussions. His excuse for removing sourced films is merely "its avoidable in filmography .. we gave so much importance to this one scene movie in her career graph". It's been like talking to a wall for months. Editor 2050 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, yet another blind revert. [183] even after several warnings. Editor 2050 (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

186.137.35.183

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

Since early December, this anon IP has been continually violating WP:FILM consensus and Wikipedia MOS on a small number of animated-movie articles, by repeatedly reinserting the puffery of non-notable awards, which by consensus developed over months means awards from non-notable groups without Wikipedia pages, suchas the Phoenix Film Critics here and here and most recently, yesterday, here. He also overlinks the names of nominees in awards lists (for example here)after being warned that this violates MOS.

He was given two warnings on his talk page, not to mention in edit summaries, and refuses to discuss his issues despite my suggesting on Dec. 20, "Please take your concerns to the article's talk page.

Between myself and other editors, the bulk of his non-constructive edits has been reverted, taking up multiple editors' time. It might be simplest to have only registered editors on this page, but it might be more important for anon IP's recalcitrance and his refusal to engage in dialog addressed. Thank you for any help. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

(Self?) promotional editor who won't be deterred

Looks like HighInBC blocked all of them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

User:Vforvampist, who claims on my talk page to be porn performer Brooklyn Lee, has been editing for less than three hours. They have a promotional username related to the website they are promoting (vampist.com, NSFW site). They have repeatedly added promotional content to the Brooklyn Lee bio, violated 3RR in an effort to replace all the images in the article with promotional photos from her website, and posted a string of abusive comments to my talk page [184], topping them off with spurious vandalism templating. Their behavior is bad enough, but their familiarity with Wikipeadia practices (both in terms of templating and their use of standard phrases) makes it very likely that the account is not a new user, but a publicist/paid editor who's been here before. I see no reason they should be allowed to continue to edit, and certainly none to allow them to employ a username promoting the porn website. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

My rollback was reverted too... [185]. Serious ownership issues here. JMHamo (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted Vforvampist and gave them an EW template. I doubt that would be enough, though. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I was left with this lovely edit summary filled with personal attacks [186]. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

They have just created another account in order to continue the edit warring. Sam0cortex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

And another one Falconorangina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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

User:Patrickbrien

The following discussion is closed. 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 new editor repeatedly submits a blank draft, User:Patrickbrien/Www.defence.gov.au/army/General Patrick John Leo Brien, at AFC. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Patrickbrien. The decline notices recommend discussing with the reviewer or going to the Teahouse, which this editor has not done. (I don't know if this editor is really in Australia, where it is night, or if this is a joe-job. Either way, it is disruptive editing.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

While biographies of generals are usually considered to pass notability, autobiographies, even of notable people, are discouraged, and non-biographies, sub-stubs that don't even have a lede sentence, are useless. I will let administrators decide whether a short block is needed or whether another warning, this time from an administrator, is sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

One of the submissions was from User:49.199.164.245, which does geolocate to Australia. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: At this stage I'd say to just template warn, as you did for the IP, and watch the page. If this user submits the blank draft again I'd revert them rather than go through any reviewing process, and give them a higher template (e.g.{{uw-test3}}); they could just be making editing tests, but it is unacceptable to keep doing this in a way that wastes other users' time. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, after a little looking, I don't believe there is a General Patrick John Leo Brien, if any real content is added, it is probably a hoax. -- GB fan 20:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I semiprotected the page, pending the conclusion of the MFD. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

AlkReadEditView historyautomated edits

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

---

Err this user is making very short articles about people and deleting user talk page archives! Someone do something.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 00:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's User:AlkReadEditView history. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 00:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Can someone stop this guy, like now! Stalking my edits, impersonating me on his user page and blanking my archives. SlightSmile 00:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije blocked the user temporarily, but post-block the user kept on making a mess at his talk page, so I've blocked him indefinitely without talk page access. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Requested range blocks (again) for serial vandals

Copy/paste of previous request that was archived before anyone addressed it; issue still continues

Once again IP-users are subtly vandalizing tropical cyclone articles and abusing numerous addresses. The first user utilizes a base IP of 50.153.x.x and an IPv6 address of 2601:3c6:8000:e7c0:x:x:x:x. Given that the vandalizing is nearly identical and the addresses trace back to either Tennessee or Massachusetts, I'm assuming them to be from the same person. The second user is a returning person from the summer whom was subjected to a week-long range block. The second person's IP base of traces back to Mexico, and given the similar nature of their edits I'm assuming them to be the same person as in the linked incident. It's been spread out over several months, with the IPs mainly adding fake tropical cyclone names or altering intensities to incorrect values. Since I don't know how to do so myself, I'm requesting range blocks be implemented as these people likely won't stop for quite some time.

I'm honestly getting quite tired of having to make sure I double check my watchlist (>5,000 articles) every day for these serial vandals. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Range 50.153.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses): This is a very busy range, with over 2600 edits from the start of October, of which only 332 were to articles with "Hurricane" or "Typhoon" in the title. So there's too much collateral damage to consider a range block.
• Range 187.151.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses): too much collateral damage, no opportunity for a range block. This range has not been used by the vandal since November 8.
• Range 187.198.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses): too much collateral damage, no opportunity for a range block. This range has not been used by the vandal since October 25.
• How to do it: For regular IPs, I start with the template {{blockcalc}}. Go to a sandbox, and place the list of IPs inside the template, and it will calculate the range for you (see an example of output here). Then, go to https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/index.php? (alternate: https://tools.wmflabs.org/rangecontrib/) and plug in your range to look for collateral damage. For super busy ranges, change the start date for the output so it doesn't take so long for the results to come up. I don't know how to calculate ranges for IPv6, I always ask the worthy admin @NeilN: for help -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Shame...guess I'll have to keep plugging along with this guy then. Hopefully the IPv6 one will have less collateral as it seems to be the one they're using more frequently these days. Many thanks for the response and insight on how to do this myself! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • And thanks Diannaa for linking that, I'd misplaced the rangecalc tool. Cyclonebiskit - if it keeps up page protection might at least help stem the bleeding? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Page protection won't help much, sadly. One person targets articles at random and the other seems fixated on Pacific typhoons (with a strange focus on ones named Carmen...). But given the relative infrequency of the latter vandal, protection really isn't warranted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I tend to use the {{blockcalc}} template, but I also found this tool, https://tools.wmflabs.org/blockcalc/, and this one, http://www.nativeforeigner.com/calc/, which can be used to calculate ranges for both IPv4 and IPv6. No idea how to check for collateral damage on IPv6. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
      • @Diannaa and Cyclonebiskit: 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (yes, really!) possibilities in the best IPv6 range (2601:3c6:8000:e7c0::/64), I can't say how many are used or assigned from the tools I have available to me. Mdann52 (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, I guess that settles it. We'll just have to shut down the internet, it was fun while it lasted . The user showed up again this morning and shows no signs of stopping, but hopefully they'll just get bored of this childish game eventually. There's a dedicated site for making up fake hurricanes and what not, so not sure why they're intent on putting that info here but oh well. I'll just have to adopt prowling my watchlist into my daily routine since a range block is clearly not feasible. Thanks again to all for replying! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
        • It is common for a /64 IPv6 range to be allocated to a single user by an ISP. It would be best to check with someone who works with blocking IPv6 ranges, but there should be no impediment to blocking a /64. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Shhhhwwww!! editing based on personal preference, not established guidelines

There is person who goes by the username "Shhhhwwww!!", which ironically, doesn't exist, at least the text is red when you click on his username. He's been making random edits on the Filipinos article, and reverting my edits based on "personal preference" of images, not historical significance. He has a history of making random edits, that are inaccurate.

First quote on his revert, "please do not edit the pix without commenting first, they are organized by gender, historical era and aesthetics, don't add statues or full body pics because they do not appear to be recognizable", next quote on revert", on the talk page for the Filipinos article, there was no established rule, ruling out "images of statues" for famous people. Secondly, I did put an edit note. Next quote from his edit, "avoid statues since they are interpretations of appearance not the actual one. photos that obscure the face should also be avoided".

Overall, his username just sounds suspicious. I'm reporting this here, before an edit war ensues, because if I revert his edits, even with explanation, it's going to result in an edit war.

PacificWarrior101 (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

his edits look like good faith edits. but they are generally wrong. ive reverted a few Zachlita (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@PacificWarrior101: Please provide links to the revisions in question.

Note to outside observers that this conflict relates to an article's ethnic group image array. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Discuss-Dubious: Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filipinos&action=history. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

• There us now a Request for Comment filed at the talk page for the Filipinos article. This may be a more productive way of solving the issue. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised and perturbed that normal and reasonable edits need to be discussed here BEFORE they have been raised on the article's own discussion page. Surely the more collegiate way to proceed would be to discuss what rules of thumb the for gallery (if any) should be adopted there first? In the abstract and although it hints at possible "ownership" issues, the edit comment of "please do not edit the pix without commenting first, they are organized by gender, historical era..." seems sensible, but the devil will be in the detail, as usual. And I really think that, without pertinent and powerful evidence to the contrary we should assume good faith where usernames are concerned. When I last looked, there was no actual requirement to divulge identities, bona fides or construct user pages on this English language project... BushelCandle (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Does this statement seem sensible, "don't add statues or full body pics because they do not appear to be recognizable". Nowhere, in either Wikipedia or the "talk page" of the Filipinos article does it ever "prohibit" the use of statues and images, further proving my point that the other user reverted my changes out of "personal preference"....because he doesn't like statues or certain images. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

User:Chrisbospher

This user has edited my comments twice despite being warned. The first time they edited my comments are here [187] I warned them here at 23:25 [188] and yet you did it again at 23:52 [189]

They are a brand new account trying to get a bunch of medical videos deleted on commons. [190] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The user is clearly someone with an axe to grind against the makers of the videos. Chrisbospher's approach is interesting in that it is ultra civil and respectful, but the user is only here for one purpose—to have the extremely useful medical videos deleted. Consider the edit summary in Chrisbospher's first edit: "Osmosis has existed since 2013, and there is no affiliation with Khan academy. A few months ago, when Dr. Desai joined them as CMO, who was previous at Khan Academy. Framing this as an education initiative when it's for-profit is wrong." That shows an impressive degree of background knowledge. However, the user has only made three edits at enwiki, and they were all within one forty-minute period, so there is not much to do other than monitor the account. If anyone here understands rationales used at Commons for deleting media, particularly with regard to a concern that the first two seconds of a video shows the URL of the creator, please have a look at the deletion request. The claims of "free advertising/marketing tool" are obviously over-the-top, but is there a policy with regard to a brief credit in a video? Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This is really a Commons issue. But a nice solution would be to bring the files into a video editor, clip the logo from the beginning and the "Like us on Facebook" stuff at the end, and re-upload. The file licensing permits this, of course, or it couldn't be on Wikipedia or Commons. (I tried doing this with OpenShot on Ubuntu, but there's a codec incompatibility and it's not working.) John Nagle (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Made at User talk:Timtrent by an IP editor. Probably not credible.

dalai llama ding dong!!!! 68.228.72.192 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC) fk you you pedo. I am a kid. Don't attack me or I will get my parents to sue you. 22:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 22:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked for personal attacks -- samtar ^whisper 22:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Ohnoitsjamie

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

---

Please can someone tell this guy to dispense with the sarcasm and WP:BITE. His attitude is revolting and it's clear he's full of himself. A classic case of admin power going to someone's head. Disgusted 82.132.214.226 (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

IP, I'm not sure how much substance this report has seeing as Ohnoitsjamie seems to have been having some issues with IPs lately. However, you are required to notify editors about discussions here, so I've done that for you. -- samtar ^whisper 08:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Samtar :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where Ohnoitsjamie has been uncivil or violated Wikipedia policy. Unless you can provide any diffs or direct evidence, I'm inclined to take no action. Even if he did, what want us to do? Just ask him to stop? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

There you go. Resolved. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

• Recommend closing this as the IP has not edited wiki since September, and failed to provide any diffs, and Ohnoitsjamie has been asked/told to "Stop it". Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Jonjon893 is back

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

---

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Jonjon893 (talk · contribs) Now editing as Jonathan Sydel (talk · contribs). Previous account got blocked for disruptive editing and is using this account to do the same thing. If anyone could please block this account, be sure to also hardblock the underlying IP address where it's coming from as well. Wikipedia has not been a user-friendly environment here as of lately. 50.29.199.144 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the link out of the section header and changed them for ease of access for admins looking into this. MarnetteD|Talk 23:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• You need to file this at WP:SPI and present diffs to support your claims as it isn't immediately obvious to the casual observer that this is a sock of that specific user. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by ****

The following discussion is closed. 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 view this as a legal threat:

“ No, there isn't any alternative, and given the nature of the criminal harassment that this particular troll's activity have become, I really don't give a f*** about what some people on that talkpage are saying. ”

User:☼ 15:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As we have many lady readers, the remarks have been sanitised a bit. All the best. 92.31.95.206 (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A look at User:☼'s edit history appears to show that they haven't edited since 2014. I think the poster might be referring to comments by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive. -- The Anome (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a legal threat at all. Do you have a diff that suggests that this is? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The poster is a banned user, previously reverted by an admin here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Post-closure commentary resulting in a WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That close was quick. Bugs has many blocks for personal attacks. Can we have a link for his claim the editor is banned? 92.31.95.206 (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Previously posted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Bugs is referring to an unlinked claim by the miscreant, who incidentally cannot be mentioned because of an edit filter, just like Favonian. Can anyone point to the registered numbers, authorisation and confirmation that these filters were set up by edit filter managers? 92.31.95.206 (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Future Perfect is an admin and you're an IP-hopping troll. Guess which one of you I consider credible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Another personal attack, entirely unbacked by evidence. 92.31.95.206 (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Please stop (both of you). Either re-open the ANI thread if there are questions or if discussion needs to continue officially, discuss this in another place that is appropriate, or drop it. This is not the appropriate manner to discuss ANI issues. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC) To anyone who may be interested, the IP-hopper here is a persistent ref desk troll who's been at it for months, if not years. There is currently a discussion (yet again) on the ref desk talk page as to how to handle the troll without penalizing sincere users too much. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC) The one good thing about the troll bringing his beef here is that it puts more eyes on him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC) And by the way, he's now broken the 3-revert rule, on the language ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 ANI discussion is CLOSED. Follow proper procedures, please :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It may not be a legal threat, but it sure is a personal attack: “ The vandal in question is a criminal harasser, every edit of his on this project constitutes a continuation of that harassment, and people who persistently obstruct dealing with him are not much better than the harasser himself. ” - User:☼ 20:10, 6 January 2016. The preceding edit summary, by the way, was go f**** yourself over a comment, addressed to one of our most respected contributors, which read F*** off, troll. The asterisks are mine - I don't think it is right that people like Bishonen and Krakatoa Katie should have to read this stuff in a family encyclopaedia. On a related matter, the following two entries appear in the log: • 21:31, 6 January 2016: 213.123.216.179 (talk) triggered an edit filter, performing the action "edit" on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Actions taken: Disallow; Filter description: Prolific socker IV • 21:29, 6 January 2016: 213.123.216.179 (talk) triggered an edit filter, performing the action "edit" on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Actions taken: Disallow; Filter description: Prolific socker IV There seems to be much cause for disquiet here. Why is the filter not identified by number? Why are managers allowed to make scurrilous allegations in a public log without having to notify anybody? When these filters are triggered the editors are not blocked (probably because blocks are reactive to damage to the encyclopaedia, i.e. saved edits). "Prolific socker IV" is set to "disallow", yet the IP was immediately blocked. This appears to be gross abuse of the tools. 86.136.230.3 (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 66.94.202.246

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

---

Mulitple, months-long complaints by multiple editors regarding prolific IP editor making incorrect and unsourced changes across articles. See User talk:66.94.202.246. Requests to use edit summaries and similarly engage with editors over these issues have been ignored to date. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Unexplained changes, no response to notes, warnings going back months--not good on a collaborative project. I stopped short of rolling back their edits. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Latest change on Soque River - spam or not?

The following discussion is closed. 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 changes made to the article Soque River by 166.172.58.194 appear somewhat dubious to me. Could an admin advise me on whether to Undo, or do it for me if appropriate, or provide further guidance? Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit hinky, yeah. I could find no other information about that "legend", and so removed it from the article. Of course, if there were a source out there, it might end up added back in. But finding a source for a native american legend about a guy named "Scott" seems unlikely. In the future, you should feel free to question such edits on the article's talk page or add a {{cn}} to the iffy statement - this wasn't quite an incident, as such. Good catch, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Randysokofelet

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

---

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

I came across a request on Jbhunley's talk page in which Randysokofelet asked for an AfD to be created on their behalf without linking to their user account, which is quite unusual. In other words, they want Jbhunley to nom the article for deletion as though it was his idea. Jbhunley rightly asked them to go away, and so the editor has placed the same broken English request on a few other users' pages, some of which I watch. The page in fact was already at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tornik (peak). It was speedy closed when the nominator was confirmed by CU as a sock of Parkirovskieng, along with a few other accounts in the thread. Randysokofelet came along not long after that, and wants to pursue deletion of the same article without being identified as the nominator. Do you hear a loud quacking noise? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

At a bare minimum, it's poorly constructed canvassing. But yeah, there's quacking. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Good grief, this user's still trying this? Blocked, as obvious sock is extraordinarily obvious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal attack in user space

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

---

Writegeist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists in using his user page to present a personal attack on Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He seems unwilling to stop doing this. I think this violates WP:NPA, WP:WEBHOST, and probably WP:BLP. I could be wrong about that. I invite further review. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be anything to be concerned about. (IMO) Mlpearc (open channel) 00:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Which part of that is the attack? I don't see it. HighInBC 00:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing that revisions prior to your diff went a bit further. Seems like they toned it down once reverted. HighInBC 00:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No personal attacks there now, or in the one "Guy" reverted as an "NPA." The previous version of the page [191] was 100% factual. That honest discussion about someone as influential as Wales is not permitted on Wikipedia was long ago established. But it continues to amuse.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:BLP apply to Jimbo just the same as everyone else. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep; thank you Bushranger. Dan Murphy, you may think that everyone but Jimbo is being oppressed, but blah blah. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for discussion--that's why God invented Twitter. You may discuss Jimbo's this or that in the context of maybe some article or something, if he is involved, if it's relevant to us writing an encyclopedia. If Writegeist wants to write up a hit piece in violation of NPA, BLP, etc., they can do so on Wikia, which I believe has no rules. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I will say this, however: that I wasn't made "Wikipedian of the Year", but some government official was, is a crying shame, of course. I think Jimbo does not like me very much or I would have gotten that award; next time, let him consider giving it to Rosiestep or some other deserving editor. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Who the fuck do you think you are to lecture me or anyone else about what is appropriate? Rules? Here? Spare me. It's a mobocracy. Jimmy Wales is both a WMF board member and a figurehead of some influence at this website. He talks a lot of bollocks about free "knowledge" and human rights and democracy. And it turns out that the Kazakh Wikipedia, which he's been heavily involved in bigging up, has been controlled by Kazakh government operatives (including a Kazakh govt propagandist that Wales unilaterally declared "Wikipedian of the Year") from the word go. An enormous amount of discussion goes on at this supposed encyclopedia, your breezy false claim notwithstanding. And commentary upon the powerful figures that drive this phenomenon is more than appropriate. As for "BLP" and "NPA" and whatever word salad sycophants want to throw around: What "Writegeist" wrote is 100% true. The truth is neither a "personal attack" or a slander on a living person. Wales, meanwhile, has lied repeatedly in this matter and you are among his enablers.Dan Murphy (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you write for Wikipediocracy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you own a skateboard? What does that have to do with anything, Bugs? Since you obviously don't read the message board, I will be the one to inform you that Dan has more or less separated himself from us, for which we are all poorer. So please drop the ad hominem bullshit. Thank you. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I read Wikipediocracy and I find it informative and useful. I just wondered if he wrote for them. Your comments don't make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm sparing you, since I think you have a Twitter feed and thus have way more power than me. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• You need to better inform yourself, here. Writegeist is was challenging Jimmy on his talk page over some misstatements Jimmy had made. Rather than acknowledge he'd said something non-factual, Jimmy called Writegeist a liar and asked "Who will rid me etc." The personal attack, here, is Jimmy, the actual liar in this pathetic affair, calling Writegeist a liar. Writegeist has as much right to mouth off about Jimmy, who falsely called him a liar, as Bishonen does about Jimmy calling her toxic.

I'm sure Jimmy doesn't hate you. In fact, I think you're his kind of guy. He might even listen to you. If you want to do something useful, warn Jimmy about personal attacks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't say he hated me, Anthony. Bringing Bish up here is a nice diversion, as if the world falls apart in neat little camps and I'm on the other side. Next time you think Jimmy crosses the NPA line, feel free to bring it up here; I was going to check if you had warned the Walesmeister, but I couldn't find it among the 1422 edits you made to his talk page. And while we're on the topic of NPA--didn't you rake me over the coals in a certain recent election about the f-word? Suggesting it alienated female editors or something like that? It was unprofessional? I'm looking forward to your commenting on Dan Murphy's use of it, for him to ponder over dessert. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bish thing is the perfect analogy. That's why I mentioned it. Nothing else. Not a diversion. Just trying to get your mind around what's happening here.

(You didn't just use the f word. You and a couple of droogs mocked, in sexualised terms, a user who identified as female. And you still haven't got it that that was way out of line. Pity.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

(non-involved editor) Dan, I would suggest you calm down and not throw swears around like that. Your post above can come across as a personal attack toward Drmies and the rest of your post definitely comes across as a personal attack toward Jimbo Wales. It doesn't matter whether it's the truth or not. Amaury (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm as calm as a cucumber, kiddo. Wales called "Writegeist" a liar the other day, completely at odds with the evidence that "Writegeist" was telling the truth. Was Wales blocked for "NPA?" I think you know the answer to that. Enjoy playing Wikipedia. Off to dinner.Dan Murphy (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Bon appetit, Dan. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Calm as a cucumber? Mmm. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Ohnoitsjamie

WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry, not able to do that. He protected his own page, and likely had good reason. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please could ohnoitsjamie's talk page be unprotected so I don't have to burn a sock? 81.153.48.169 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat from User:Clarkenorman

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

---

Please be advised that User:Clarkenorman appears to have made a legal threat with this edit, when he wrote, "'... will proceed, as will possible slander action regarding FROM THE WORLD OF SKIING—Celebrations of Australian skiing history underway'] no longer mentions or links to the Kiandra region, at all. So, this doesn't qualify as a reliable source on that topic." at User talk:Clarkenorman#Please feel positive—You have shed light on the history of skiing in Australia —User:HopsonRoad 02:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It qualifies, and it's also curious that there is a 3-year gap between his previous edits and the most recent. He must retract the legal threat or he'll be indef-blocked. But also check and see if his complaint has merit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's pretty inept, but it's a legal threat alright. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Folkprofessor

The following discussion is closed. 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:Folkprofessor was blocked at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive909. As soon as unblocked he went right back to Owsley Stanley and removed the image for the 9th time. Time to lock the article and block his account and IP address. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

On a related note the image is now at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 January 7 where the user in question is suggesting that the image is a copyright violation of a newspaper photo.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Since it's under a non-free license already that's inappropriate above and beyond the fact it's a blatant attempt to "win" his dispute. Combined with the fact he broke WP:3RR here on ANI attempting to remove this section, he's been blocked for a week - if that doesn't resolve his determination to edit-war and be disruptive, the next block should probably be indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

...furthermore in closing that PUF discussion I noticed that Folkprofessor first tried not just to nominate the file at PUF but to remove the fair-use information in an attempt to make the file appear that it was being freely used and, thus, deletable at PUF [192]... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing a section about oneself at ANI warrants more than a one-week block, imo. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The first one was 31 hours and this one is a week. If he resumes, I expect they'll either indef him or give him a long enough block that he'll move on to other things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent Vandalism by User:Herman Jaka

The following discussion is closed. 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:Herman Jaka has removed facts from George Town, Penang and, using terrible English, edited the article based on his own point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakaidiot (talk • contribs)

Comment: OP is a new account (today) with 3 edits, so is likely a SPA -- samtar ^whisper 07:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Most likely Polopaladin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) since he reverted to his sock's version. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have been following User:Polopaladin contribution since a long time ago as an IP user. While he may accusing me of doing vandalism, you can see his contribution on George Town article who inserting a large bias and promotion contents. Beside that the user also have breaching WP:SOCK many times when other users warn and blocking him indefinitely, he will create another account. Hope this help, regards. Herman Jaka (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Bias ? Can you please tell me what element of bias is present ? Can you also please check the references ? These are not merely bias. Besides that, Herman Jaka did not notify or give any reason as to why a user's account was repeatedly blocked.Jakaidiot (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It is vandalism when a user simply deletes facts and says the facts are biased. It is also vandalism when a user blocks another user without notifying or giving any reason.

Fine. I am giving up on this matter. Let this page go to some Indonesian who does not even know what he is writing about. Go on and write all your 'facts' out, Herman Jaka. My 'facts' are all fantasies and bias. Seems that a Malaysian has no right to even write something about his own country these days !

There are other avenues for more factual discourse. Wiki is not one of them.Jakaidiot (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You want a proof? Here is some of the proofs: [193], [194] Is this what you call "Malaysia article deserve proper academic respect" for what I just see on your conversation with User:Molecule Extraction and User:Samtar, CKCKCK, bego amat loo, tumben!!

“ After decades of neglect and bias by the ruling Barisan Nasional, the successes of the new Penang state government, especially in greatly cutting state debt, successfully attracting one of the highest investments in Malaysia and in enhancing George Town's appeal as a clean, artistic historical city, have further raised political tensions between the Malaysian federal government and the Penang state government. The Barisan Nasional-led Malaysian federal government has, in turn, intensified its bias against Penang, notably by denying financial assistance for the Penang Transport Master Plan and George Town's further development. ”

“ Like Singapore, and unlike other Malaysian cities, George Town still officially retains most of its colonial street names. Most streets in the city centre were built and named during British rule, and the original English names are still in general use by most local Penangites. ”

You also say to me for "reason as to why a user's account was repeatedly blocked". See in youself to why you continuosly making WP:SOCK

• User:Polopaladin
• User:Polopaladin03
• User:Polopaladin04
• User:Jakaidiot, should really get a block as very offensive because you just using my name and say "idiot".

Regards. Herman Jaka (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. 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 at Arabian Sea

The following discussion is closed. 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:2407:4000:2:222:69a5:ae:4ce:6f27 has continually tried to made POV/vandalistic edits to Arabian Sea, changing the name of the sea in the text to Persian Sea. Despite being reverted 6 times by 3 different people, and with warnings being added to his/her talk page, the edits still occur. A block and/or article protection are requested. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threats, or at least language, at COIN

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

---

Not sure if this crosses the NLT threshold. But it mentions various legal terms like libel. Brianhe (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Why does he post libelous information?" is a personal attack rather than a legal threat. Should be blocked though.

• Blocked for harassment. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Speedy Keep of Jonathan Mitchell

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Mitchell_(2nd_nomination)

It seems that most of the editors support "keep" and the person that made the nomination, KrazyKlimber, has only created his account because he doesn't like the page and tried to post personal information about me and was reprimanded by an editor at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KrazyKlimber. Most editors see no problem with the page. To get more people editing it, I would like the notification removed as soon as possible. If I recall, he tried to delete it again under an IP address a few months ago, so I would like some deletion protection if possible. Ylevental (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I've nac'd it - I see CombatWombat42 reverted a previous nac today as it wasn't a snow close as given. This is however a speedy keep as it does not appear the nominator has even read the article (point 3) and a bit of point 2 (although a single delete vote was given by CombatWombat42) as they're clearly a SPA doing this to be disruptive -- samtar ^whisper 16:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And I blocked KrazyKlimber as an account registered for the sole purpose of personal attacks or harassment. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks JzG -- samtar ^whisper 16:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Samtar your speedy keep is categorically incorrect. Are you accusing me of being a SPA? Because I've had an account for longer than you. Point 2 definitely does not apply as "no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion as an outcome of the discussion" is NOT TRUE. Point 3 Also applies, as I believe the deletion has merit. Leaving the delete there for the required 7 days is the appropriate thing to do. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not accusing you of being a SPA - I accused the nominator of being a SPA, which they've now been blocked for. Point 2 does not apply, no, which I even stated above by pointing out a single delete vote had been cast. Point 3 applies in my opinion, but as always I'm open to correction -- samtar ^whisper 16:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right on Point 3 - and the block reinforces that. Point 2 is not applicable as such, and no one is suggesting any shenanigans on the part of CombatWombat. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There is *no* reason not to keep the deletion discussion for the required 7 days. It in no way stops people from improving the article. There is a reason AfD's are required to stay open for 7 days. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, wonderful, drop it - you've reverted the AfD closure and I imagine it'll stay open (and close as delete) -- samtar ^whisper 21:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Support speedy keep closure; bad faith nomination, WP:SNOW. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah wonderful I see it's been closed again -- samtar ^whisper 21:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

AfDs are not required to stay open for seven days if it's clear that they will fail; that's why the snowball clause exists. However, a snowball keep is not the same thing as a speedy keep. —C.Fred (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point; WP:SPEEDY is a more appropriate rationale in this case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Conflict in editing

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

---

The user User:Gala19000 continuously reverses my changes even I use reliable sources and ask the user to use talk page. The user doesn't use talk page. The user also deletes tags. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey%E2%80%93PKK_conflict&action=history Ferakp (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Obvious legal threat

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

---

Not sure what our policy for IP's making legal threats is but User:2605:E000:B1D2:3900:B407:84AF:9F0A:1B50 has made a pretty obvious one right here in their edit summary [195]. Amortias (T)(C) 22:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the legal threat, the IP has a valid point—Kathy Westmoreland is a totally unsourced BLP and probably shouldn't exist. ‑ Iridescent 22:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by obvious sock of 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.

---

Diff [196]. Almost certainly EnglishPassport who was blocked for previous legal threats. Keri (talk)

Also an attempt at outing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, discussions around whether content is libel (or not) does not constitute a legal threat. With that said, the socking is obvious and the nature of their comments problematic. I've blocked the anonymous editor for 72 and rev-deleted the edit (and will report to oversight). I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 RevDel

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

---

Would an administrator please RevDel this edit? Thank you. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- GB fan 12:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Rasoul Montajabnia

Two articles Rasoul Montajebnia (the original) and Rasoul Montajabnia (forked with corrected spelling: je vs ja) probably need admin intervention. —teb728 t c 01:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume both names refer to the same person, and are simply alternate transliterations from the original Arabic. I see both versions in widespread use by various sources. I think I'd go with the ja version, because that's what the Tehran Times uses. Assuming nobody objects in the next day or so, I'm going to restore Rasoul Montajabnia and make Rasoul Montajebnia redirect there. Then, somebody who knows the subject matter better than I do can merge whatever content makes sense. I also note that our own article(s) are the top two hits for either spelling. That's usually a red flag that this person really isn't notable at all, by our standards. If somebody want to pursue that line of reasoning, AfD would be the right forum -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd just move Rasoul Montajebnia to Rasoul Montajabnia. The new article is a mess, while the original is less so. Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Also did a history restore of the target, to preserve the attribution history of both forks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned AFDs

It looks like an edit conflict problem or somesuch at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 20 has resulted in Articles for Deletion nominations for Rafiq Sabir, Terminal Voyage and Ken Giami (and maybe others?) getting orphaned. I can't quite figure out what happened - it looks like they were relisted on 20 December but were soon after accidentally removed from the 20 December log. I have attempted to de-orphan them by reinstating them in the Dec 20 log and updating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. I don't know if this is enough so am bringing it to your attention here also. BC108 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafiq Sabir as keep, and will have a look at the other two. Normally, a procedural relist is fine if it's only been a few weeks - and that adds them to the current log, where they will get more eyes. Now, find a 6 month old AFD that we missed? Depends on the debate, I guess, but a No Consensus or a Procedural Close would work. In this case, you did fine. No worries. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Giami as Delete. Seraphimblade, meanwhile, kept Terminal Voyage. Crisis averted. I wonder if we can get the bot to add orphaned AFDs like this to WP:BADAFD? Hmmm... UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A bot to catch orphaned AfD's sounds like an excellent idea to me... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for sorting it out and for the advice. I like the bot idea, if its feasible to do. BC108 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot I (talk · contribs) already grabs redlinked AFDs, Closed AFDs where there's still a tag on the article, Closed AFDs listed at CAT:AFD, AFDs for untagged redirects, and others - all of these are listed at WP:BADAFD (watchlist please, kthx). Usually, it will actually fix some syntax errors and auto-transclude AFDs missing from the log. That's part of what surprised me - maybe it missed these because they were old? Or it didn't trigger because they had already been transcluded (sort of)? I dunno. If it happens again, perhaps we'll track it down. This was such an odd circumstance that it's probably not worth a huge bug hunt in the code. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Potential doxing

On the article page found [[197]], an anonymous editor sent an email containing PII to Spartaz. Spartaz then claimed that he forwarded the email to ArbCom and posted a notice on the AfD talk page as seen. His refusal to provide the evidence presented against those accused, as well as an accusation that assumes canvassing and bad faith, concerns me for the safety of any potential PII that was provided. As a military member, any PII collected against me or made up about me has a large security risk, and it's a deep concern that Spartaz is either going to leak - or has already leaked - any given PII. I am requesting ArbCom assistance in ensuring that doxing does not occur in this incident. Thank you. Lithorien (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what anyone can do without seeing the evidence, and all the arbitrators being admins, they're able to act on the situation quite easily. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC) I attempted to expand my answer but ended up editconflicting with you. See below for the expanded message. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I came here because I don't know where else to go. I'm pissed off and scared that me or my family could be threatened all because of trying to weigh in on an AfD on Wikipedia. I'd love to see admins weigh in here because if there's going to be active doxing because of, as far as I can tell, hurt feelings and being upset that not all the arguments on something are going one way, I need to consider leaving the project. Danger to me and my family is not worth editing here - but I'm also concerned that that's what the anon, and potentially Spartaz, want. To run editors off. Lithorien (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what anyone can do without seeing the evidence, and all the arbitrators being admins, they're able to act on the situation quite easily. Given Spartaz' comment about you having been inactive from mid-October until mid-December (two weeks before the AFD happened), I don't see why anyone would object, per se, to your participation at the AFD; it's not as if you're making your first edits to projectspace or making your first edit since August. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

To respond to your additional comment: my point is that the arbitrators, after looking at the email in question, can quite easily deal with the situation, and attempted outing is routinely treated severely; see this previous incident, for example. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Sorry to be making such a large fuss about this, it's just ... yeah. Not a good place to be in, you know? Thank you for responding, however. Lithorien (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I fully understand. Were this an on-wiki thing, or were I privy to the email, I would block immediately if it's as you describe; it's merely that I've not seen the evidence, so I shouldn't be taking any action. The victim of the "previous incident" left Wikipedia almost immediately while talking about starting a new account, a privacy-related Wikipedia:Clean start (and unlike most clean starts, this was not an attempt to avoid community scrutiny), so if you're giving serious consideration to leaving the project, you might consider doing this. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That policy about a clean start is interesting. Depending on the outcome of this whole thing - or perhaps regardless of - I am strongly considering taking that option. I won't make a decision while there's a pending accusation (as I understand, I can't, per that page) but it's a good tool to keep in the toolbox. Very much appreciated. Lithorien (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, Steven, your userpage links to your website. You can't link to your website where you identify yourself and then complain about some alleged doxing. If you are concerned that there is a "security risk" because you are a "military member", don't link to your website. Better yet, stop being involved with GamerGate and "incel" before your commanding officer figures out what type of folks you hang out with on the internet and decides that you are the security risk. Nasal Ant Horn (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Seriously? Of course I link to my website. My name and history aren't a major concern because I never give specific details. When people claim to link me with another person off-site, then it is a security risk because now they're delving into specific aspects of my life that aren't made public. That's the concern. As for your comment about what I choose to be involved with, well, that's your opinion. Mind you, I had never heard of "incel" before the AfD page, so make your conclusions from there. In short: General identification =/= specific identification. Lithorien (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's see...over a year of inactivity, then suddenly appears here and makes this sort of comment...yeah, it's not like there aren't red flags all over that, nope, none at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It's ineffable, isn't it? You'd think an unusual user name like that would be a pun, or a play on something, or an anagram even, but really, who cares? Obvious sock is obvious, as we say... Begoon ^talk 12:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Fairly confused what you're saying here. First you say you're concerned over outing. Then you say one of the problems is the information hasn't been made public. But it hasn't been made public precisely because that risks outing. While I can understand concerns over your inability to respond to allegations based on info you cannot see, if you're concerned about outing, why on earth are you asking for the info to be made public?

Also why do you say there's a lack of AGF and an assumption of canvassing? Spartaz didn't initially say there must be canvassing or there was clearly something wrong. All they said was if there is credible evidence, forward it to me and if I believe it has merit, I will forward it on in accordance with the privacy policy. In fact they even said perhaps it was a joe job when hey hadn't receive anything and there was mo further comment. Once they received what they regarded as credible evidence (albeit not of all the original named parties), they mentioned their concerns over what they'd received and forwarded it on. Without knowing what was in these emails, it's impossible to say but there's no intrinsic reason to believe there wasn't AGF or that there was a presumption of canvassing. AGF isn't a suicide pact and the evidence may very well be credible as they say. Note also, they never said there definitely was canvassing. But rather that they'd receive what they regarded as credible evidence of canvassing and until the issue was resolved, the discussion shouldn't be closed. And they also suggested those possibly involved clarify how they got the article.

Personally I would have suggested the IP forward the info themselves. And I also would have suggested that Spartaz was more circumspect, e.g. saying they'd received credible evidence of canvassing but refusing to say who was involved leaving it up to arbcom. Albeit mentioning the discussion should not be closed would also be okay. And it would still IMO be acceptable to suggest anyone who did receive off wiki communication disclose that it happened and explain. But this is more of a matter of fairness and reasonableness given the difficulty created when people are named but can't actually see the evidence and in any case risk outing themselves if they did want to respond in a manner beyond saying I came here by X and wasn't canvassed. (As although that's all that was asked, it may not help much.) It's not a matter of AGF or presumption of canvassing. If anything, it's somewhat the opposite since you're saying "if you say you came here by X we have to accept that, at least until arbcom does something since the statement can't be challenged given he privacy of the evidence"

Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, if you're saying you want the evidence to be presented privately, that's still not okay. It's possible not all people named are actually participants and it's possible it would identify whoever brought this up in the first place. Arbcom will I presume share whatever they feel can be shared if you wish to discuss it with them. Again, Spartaz is doing the right thing by letting arbcom handle it. (Even if as I said, they perhaps shouldn't have revealed who appeared to be involved. Although that's always a bit tricky since it then affects everyone, and in this case is further complicated by the fact people had already been named by the IP.)

Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack by an IP on myself via edit summary

With this particular edit, which was an attempt to restore a PROD tag that had previously been declined, the editor (an IP user) issued a personal attack on me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._B._Stoddard&oldid=698247281 I was doing nothing more than removing a PROD which had been applied contrary to policy. At the very least, the edit summary needs to be blanked. IP in question is User talk:184.13.0.107 Thanks. Safiel (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The article was created by a user who's been indef'd for almost 3 years. Maybe he's come back to haunt Wikipedia under an IP address. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I take it you are talking about the edit summary in this dif. If it is, it does not meet any of the criteria for revision deletion. The closest would be RD2 but it says "not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations." This is not anything out of the ordinary. -- GB fan 23:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Note I am not asking for a deletion of the revision, only the edit summary. In any event, if you look at the edit history of the article, it is pretty clear which particular user, me, the IP was referring to with his personal attack. Safiel (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I understood what you were asking for. It still falls under the revision deletion rules and personal attacks like that do not qualify for removal. -- GB fan 00:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like typical low-life talk, which is over-tolerated here. But I have to wonder why the IP is not currently blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably because no admin has seen it yet. Though frankly, I consider this smug pile of garbage to be worse than foul language. By a large amount. What we have there is yet another "custodian" who clearly isn't paying any attention to what he's doing and thus shouldn't be doing it. And if he wants to argue that he's doing it right, that's even worse - see WP:COMPETENCE. He should have taken the following into account.

• The fact that the article is under the remit of WP:WikiProject Qworty clean-up
• The dire quality of the article, with a two year old and a six year old tag on it
• The prior prod, which was reverted by an editor who hadn't edited for 2 and a half years previous and hasn't edited since, and is most likely a Qworty sock.
• The AfD, which was closed as No Consensus on three votes, with all of the Keep votes being blatant Arguments To Avoid.

And then, he should have attempted to improve the article (which he most likely would have failed to do; the reason there aren't any sources in the article is because the subject isn't notable). Alternately, he could have minded his own business or decided to go with IAR (either would have been fine) and allowed the PROD to expire and the article in turn to be deleted. Yet, he didn't. He misapplied policy and then got loud and rude when confronted. Only then did I call him a mean name with a swear word in it. 184.13.0.107 (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Which, no matter what another editor, admin, or even vandal may or may not have done, is never acceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

CIVIL isn't a policy, it's an essay that no one pays attention to unless they're using it as leverage to win disputes (or, apparently, try to silence an IP from bringing attention to a garbage article and an inept editor). 184.13.0.107 (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"This page documents an English Wikipedia policy". Unfortunatly the usual suspects constantly try to tear it down, but that doesn't mean it isn't an essential part of the project, or that it is optional. ("WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to me" is, in fact, the single biggest issue the encyclopedia needs to deal with - by enforcing it, regardless of who flounces as a result. But that's getting off topic...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The article in question has been nominated for deletion here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from User:Oncenawhile on Southern Levant categories

Several months ago, I reported an incident of User:Oncenawhile making sweeping category removals from WP:ARBPIA articles. The result was a message from User:Georgewilliamherbert that "This topic area is very sensitive for obvious reasons and widespread use of HotCat like this is at least subject to enhanced scrutiny. I left the current ArbPIA alert for the record, but this can be closed if the two of you can discuss constructively in talk." Despite this notice, Oncenawhile is once again arbitrarily making sweeping HotCat removals of categories from WP:ARBPIA articles. Specifically, removing the category Category:Southern_Levant from a wide range of articles several days ago and then arbitrarily removing articles from Category:Buildings and structures in the Southern Levant today (while proposing to have it deleted - which is in and of itself ok, but forms part of a larger picture). All of these edits are contradicting previous discussions. It is worth mentioning that Southern Levant and Levant are the common terms used to describe the region in academic discourse.

The recent edits are as follows: 1, 2 3 4 5 6789101112131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 25.

The previous report can be found here which describes Oncenawhile making strange edits such as replacing "Southern Levant" with "the region" and mass-removing Southern Levant categories via HotCat.

Additionally, he's been directing personal attacks at me, here where he passively aggressively calls me a polemicist (while also insulting my intelligence) "I don't think Drsmoo is a polemicist, at least not consciously." and here where he accuses me of being Islamophobic for reverting his removal of "Antisemitism in the Arab World" from the sidebar of "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries". It is abundantly clear that this editor isn't interested in editing constructively with regard to the Southern Levant. He mass deletes categories, is told not to, and then does it again months (sometimes years, he has been at this for about 5 years now) later. Drsmoo (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that he was prevented from removing categories etc. In general, it is clear that you to aren't going to agree, perhaps it's time for DR. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that he immediately pulled the islamaphobia card on an article that's critical of the muslim world really speaks volumes.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

He was advised that sweeping HotCat category removals in ARBPIA articles are subject to enhanced scrutiny, he then waited 3 months and did it again, contradicting previous agreements. In the discussion, it was agreed that Archaeological and Geographical articles should stay in the category, yet he's again mass removed geographical articles from the category. Drsmoo (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if all the edits are like this, but the first 4 diffs seem to be exactly as advised at WP:SUBCAT, namely removing a parent category when a child category is appropriate. Zero^talk 02:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Another example of the kind of pernicious editing regarding the subject is how he originally claimed that History of the Southern Levant and History of Palestine were separate subjects here and therefore suggested that an article for the region under the name History of Palestine should be made in addition to the History of the Southern Levant article. Then, two years later, he claimed that Southern Levant and Palestine were in fact the same region, and that Southern Levant was a redundant content fork and should be deleted, directly contradicting what he originally claimed here. This deletion request went through with only three editors commenting on it. After the deletion, an admin, Sandstein had the History of the Southern Levant page redirected to Southern Levant. Yet a year later, Oncenawhile changed the admin's redirect from Southern Levant to History of Palestine here claiming it to be a "better redirect." This editor has an absolute vendetta against the academic term Southern Levant and has been attempting to have it marginalized and minimized on wikipedia while using stealthy means whenever possible. Drsmoo (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence that "Southern Levant and Levant are the common terms used to describe the region in academic discourse". A Google search for the term "Southern Levant" finds just over 100,000 examples, nearly all of them relating to prehistoric periods. A Google Scholar search produces just 10,000 results, all related to prehistoric periods. Why do you believe that this is relevant to articles relating to contemporary history and politics?RolandR (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Google is not a reliable source. Archaeological research is conducted in all of the countries removed from the category within the field of Levantine Archaeology. Ie https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-archaeology-of-the-levant-9780199212972?cc=us&lang=en&. The issues at hand are repeated mass changes to ARBPIA articles and duplicitous and hostile editing. Drsmoo (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a very strange report. The nominator and I have been having a constructive discussion on this at Category talk:Southern Levant. Prior to my recent edits I wrote a talk page message which pinged him here. Everything is being proactively discussed. I don't understand why the editor felt it was appropriate to claim ARBPIA violations. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There was only a discussion four months ago after you arbitrarily removed Southern Levant from dozens of articles. It was suggested that you engage in dialog. It seemed that we HAD come to an agreement, as the page wasn't modified for four months, only to have you again go back to removing Southern Levant from dozens of pages, along with proposing to have an associated category deleted at the same time. Your editing behavior on this subject, random breaks of 1/3 of a year or several years, is not commensurate with collaborative editing. Nor, btw, are personal attacks. Drsmoo (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If I had any nefarious intentions I would not have notified you before my edits. How do you explain why I bothered to notify you? I am actively trying to gain your trust, but your suspicions appear to run very deep. I promise you if you take a cold shower and come back and look at all of this you may realize that you have misinterpreted and overreacted on a number of recent occasions. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll allow the passive aggression and condescension of the above message to speak for itself. Obviously posting a notice seconds before abruptly editing 22 ARBPIA articles in seven minutes, 3 months after the conclusion of the discussion is not collaboration. Drsmoo (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you at least accept that I felt this to be a reasonable method of collaboration? I inform you, I use HotCat to make the edits in a clearly labelled fashion, and then you have the opportunity to revert the ones you disagree with. Which you have now done with 9 articles. It is just more efficient, because we don't have to discuss the 13 that we both agree with. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks, overwriting an admin's redirect and constantly removing links and references to the region across wikipedia is not reasonable. You've already stated the Southern Levant to be ["a neologism coined to serve a political purpose"] and I have yet to see you make any edits related to this subject that weren't either deleting links to it, deleting images from pages, or trying to have categories and articles related to the region deleted. Drsmoo (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Mass spamming and modification on Tunisia related articles by Helmoony

The user Helmoony is mass-spaming and changing "Tunisian arabic" mentions to Arabic in articles that was in place since several months. After the debate in Wikiproject Tunisia in september, it was finally agreed with the admin Huon to grant the mention of Tunisian arabic for the names of people and places. Could you please do something about it ? Thank you.Zangouang (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi did really you read Huon statement ? « Given that we have reliable secondary sources such as that Libération article unequivocally stating that literary Arabic, not Tunisian Arabic, is the official language, we should use literary Arabic in official contexts, for example for the state motto. The use of Tunisian Arabic is obviously on the rise, but I don't think it's sufficiently common yet to be widely used for historical contexts such as, say, the spelling of Bourguiba's name - I have not seen a reliable published source that uses the Tunisian Arabic spelling for him. For biographies of living individuals matters are somewhat more complicated and may need to be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on how reliable published sources most commonly refer to that person. Given the discussion above I see no reason at all to provide Tunisian Arabic transliterations without published sources backing them up. That's original research. Huon (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)  » in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tunisia/Archive_2015.

- By the way it's just an opinion. Can you show me the conclusion ? And as I've shown to you it was a discussion based on opinions from the same user (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Exacrion) - Also, one of the reviewer suggested to me to review all same articles. [198]

- I'm not active here. I'm a sysop in Arabic Wikipedia so I don't have time review my wachlist in other languages.

- The list to be changed is here. Do what ever you see usefull in enwiki. --Helmoony (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you're an Arabic speaker who's salty about Tunisians wanting to assert their cultural independence. What's this argument to you?142.105.159.60 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Three editors are adding OR and patent nonsense to several articles about the former Hesse Grand Ducal family

The following users are adding wp:OR and WP:patent nonsense to several articles on the subject of the former Hesse Grand Ducal family:

Royal Government von Hessen in Exile, a page that has been nominated for speedy deletion

• here

• here and subsequent edits

• here

Royal Government von Hessen in Exile, a page that has been nominated for speedy deletion

Royal Government von Hessen in Exile, a page that has been nominated for speedy deletion

• here and subsequent edits

• here and subsequent edits

• here and subsequent edits

• here and subsequent edits

• here and subsequent edits

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I should also note that the owner of the "Royal Government of Hessen" Facebook page put up a post asking people to come to Wikipedia to contest the deletion of their Wikipedia article: "Right now, we need your support. I ask of you to go to our wikipedia page and click the "contest deletion" button under page issues. Then locate the talk page and type "do not delete"." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• The apparent hoax article above has now been deleted. If this continues, please report to WP:AIV.  Sandstein  17:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• And then there also seems to be this by user: Eric02098. This was way in the past though...

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

An IP has been removing content from the (now closed) AfD page. See this and this (both edits have been reverted). The same IP also made this edit to House of Hesse (also subsequently reverted). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Above comment by Notecardforfree is about user:2600:380:A26E:55D1:83B9:D78F:B019:F06C. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"Crown Prince Clint"... "King Terry"... Consulate located Newburgh, Indiana (pop. 3000)... Hilarious stuff. Reminds me of Patrickdene and his "Cornet Royal Family". That Facebook page is comedy gold. Keri (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the offsite canvassing to push this, I've semiprotected House of Hesse and salted Royal Government von Hessen in Exile for a month (along with semi-ing the closed AfD page) so this can, one hopes, blow over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive behavior and edit-warring by User:Legacypac

The following discussion is closed. 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 the last few months there has been a concerted attempt to clean up Longevity related articles. Various relevant discussions can be found at Talk:Oldest people, Talk:List of the verified oldest people and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. User:Legacypac is a more recent contributor to this topic but has repeatedly carried out multiple edits (such as consolidating multiple articles) either without discussion or while discussion is ongoing. Despite requests from both sides of the discussion this user has continued to edit in such a fashion. These edits (omitting a few) are a prime example of disruptive bahavior: [199], [200], [201], https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696466509], https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696634187], [202], [203], [204], [205], https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696717136] and [206] resulted in this this rather petty edit summary. A more recent sequence [207], [208], [209] resulted in Legacypac initiating a sockpuppet investigation against the reverting user (the result of the investigation was that it was completely unfounded).

Another user has recently joined in the discussion and their edits reflect the issues with User:Legacypac. See [[210]], [[211]], [[212]], [[213]] and, unfortunately, [[214]].

It appears to me that this users contributions on this topic are not only unnecessary but their behavior and attitude is in fact disruptive and is impacting on the resolution of the current discussions. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Without looking at the specific diffs provided concerning Legacypac, I will note for the consideration of other editors who may wish to comment here that the "oldest living people" area of Wikipedia has long been a WP:walled garden in which the regular participants vigorously resist any changes made by editors from the outside and have promulgated their own unique standards for what is and is not acceptable in the way of sourcing. The entire subject area is in dire need of a shake up and a good cleaning out, and possibly a block or two or three as well. Some thought should also be given to shutting down the WikiProject, as being detrimental to the improvement of the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The wall of that garden has been reduced to a picket fence with several gaps, through which Legacypac is attempting to drive a bulldozer. And FYI, I have suggested shutting down the project on more than one occasion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a pretty new participant in this topic. The overlapping super old people lists (5 layers deep in some cases) and serious inconsistencies between lists took a lot to understand, but we are making progress condensing things down to something that can be maintained going forward. If anyone is really interested I can provide diffs of SPAs and vandals who don't like any efforts to consolidate and rationalize. It's pretty brutal. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree on one thing: that these merges and moves are contentious and should require requested mergers and requested moves discussions, not unilateral actions. Nevertheless, I think the prudent place for these discussions is WP:AE if people want to request sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• We need more comments on Super Old People topics from experienced uninvolved editors, not campaigning like [215], [216] and [217]
• Before commenting on this ANi interested editor should read the vicious attacks from people opposed to the cleanup [218] [219] all edits by this vandal created just to attack me [220] and this vandal also created just to attack me [221] with such gems as (User:Legacypac is the most evil person in the world, not is the most evil wikipedian in the world). A threat [222] refusal to accept strong evidence of socks or topic banned editors and disruption on AfD [223] just a a few recent examples.
• The editor that started this thread has reinserted duplicated info 3x into the article that they complain I edit warred on when I moved out all the info 1x (to a very closely related article) and redirected again after it was restored. [224]
• Even after starting this tread Derby is busy reverting changes by other editors without discussion. [225] even with threats of ANi [226].
• Far from avoiding discussion or acting without following process, my delete/redirect success rate at AfD [227] on Longevity articles appears to be driving some editors into very uncivil behavior. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Legacypac has a history of concerted backstabbing, ad homien attacks, harassment, and divisive behaviour that demonstrates a clear pattern that is by no means limited to his tendentious behaviour regarding the entire suite of longevity articles. This user is fast becoming a net negative to Wikipedia and if spared the block hammer right now, is advised to significantly moderate his presence on Wikipedia or expect to be blocked without warning or another long drawn out discussion at ANI. I will be returning to normal duty on or just after 4 January at which time I will be happy to provide numerous diffs that will turn the air blue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Take your drive by slander away please. There is the matter of your uncivil behavior when questioned nicely on why you acted as an Admin to close a edit warring report that you did not read and tell an editor they were not aware of the 1RR template they were edit warring over. [228]. Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually Kudpung you are required to provide diffs at the point you make accusations or your above statement is entirely an unsubstantiated personal attack which needs to be backed up or struck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, adding threats with the purpose of creating a chilling effect is a reason for a block, Kudpung. Be careful when you want to follow the chilling road. The Banner talk 00:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Back to the actual point here, I agree that Oldest people merger discussion isn't going smoothly. I believe the pages are protected to stop the forced mergers but there's now both a straw poll and a separate RFC created on the subject so I'd ask an outside admin to merge them just for simplicity. Otherwise, while the AFDs and prods are a bit much, I don't find them particularly disruptive outside of the chaos regarding the Oldest people article at the moment. Given that Alansohn has edited here for a decade, the SPI report looks like witch hunting (which has been a recent problem in this area) so I would ask for some outside view on it too. DerbyCountyinNZ if the Oldest people page is under control, is there anything else that's a problem at the moment? The AFD discussions are all heated no doubt though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The Alansohn issue was already actioned by an Admin. While not found to be a Sockmaster, there IS socking going on all over the topic, and he did improperly remove my comments about an obvious sock. I'm not planning to pursue that uncivil behavior at this time, but if he takes action against me as he keeps threatening to, it will be dealt with then.

That leaves User:Kudpung's inappropriate conduct here. So which admin will step up and block him? If Admins are allowed to just say any slanderous threatening uncivil thing they want with no evidence then regular editors should also be allowed to say anything they want without fear of sanctions. Admins should not be above the rules. Legacypac (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think all around the sockpuppetry allegations are fruitless and not productive. I doubt there is actually sockpuppetry here, more like WP:MEAT-puppetry which is a different issue. I really doubt that it's only one or two editors involved here with multiple accounts, more likely a group of people told to come here and voting the same way, at which point they vanish for months at a time. The single working one was a topic-banned editor socking to return and we don't have a lot of those cases anyways. As to Kudpong, I'm too involved in this area so I'll leave it someone else but frankly, attacks with a "I'll be back on Monday with evidence" won't cut it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

By the same token we shouldn't block an admin for something that a "regular editor" wouldn't be blocked for. Is there a pattern of behavior here? Why is a warning insufficient? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing a clear consensus developing by editors not to merge, and Legacypac doing all she/he can to make the merges happen. On that note, can we get Oldest people reverted back to [229] this version? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:The Bushranger I've had minimal interaction with Kudpung so I believe this attack is the result of being one of three editors User:Johnuniq, myself and User:Viriditas that called him out on an obviously incorrect 3RR close [230] and [231] preceded by [232]. He also made unsubstantiated allegations about User:Viriditas in that event [233] which appeared quite baseless when I looked into them. (I recall it was User:WWGB who was using inappropriate language but I'd need to do more digging to show those "f-ing" diffs and we are not talking about WWGB's conduct here anyway). I took the issue as far or farther then I felt I could, knowing that holding an Admin to account for acting badly is pretty much impossible. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm responding to the ping above. I'm trying to focus on minimizing drama and conflict in 2016 and I would encourage everyone to join me by closing this thread. Haters gonna hate and all that. HNY! Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

BMK's analysis is spot-on. I'm with Viriditas, please shut this thread down with no action and here's to less dramah in 2016. David in DC (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be entirely fair to Kudpung, who has indicated he is on a wikibreak, but might like to return to expand on his remarks in a day or two. Perhaps we should wait until then? Begoon ^talk 16:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not doing anything is going to result in this issue festering, unless you see a clear consensus to merge the articles then this needs to be dealt with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The merger of the two overlapping articles has become very convoluted with many editors trying on both sides to effect one alway or another. If Kupung is allowed to just post unsubstantiated harassment against editors that take them to task for a bad Admin action, then we all can post this kind of garbage with impunity. He was on a wikibreak before he posted here, so that is no excuse. Legacypac (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Everything has been restored to status quo before all of the reverting began. This combined with the full page protection expiring has led me to a close with no action opinion. Yes things need to be fixed, but this isn't the place to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur. I am now closing the discussion. Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Heads up

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

---

My friend is constantly bragging about an army of "socks" he has been amassing for sometime, and claims he intends to use them against this site in a "co-ordinated strike". He even laughed when I said I was going to report him, and encouraged me to do so as it would "allow him to brag and won't make any difference anyway". Please be prepared as this could happen imminently and he must be stopped! 78.40.158.52 (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Heads" up -- here they come!

*sigh* I'm glad you're taking this seriously. I have further information if you want to hear it (e.g. I know some of the accounts he uses). If you're not interested then close this thread and I won't bother warning you again. 78.40.158.50 (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can specify certain accounts and highlight their editing similarities, please do. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Conflict of Interest - American Film Market 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 everyone, I'm a film buff who's also done some freelance writing in film industry periodicals. I just started editing Wikipedia a few months ago. However, I noticed some suspicious behavior when I tried to add a few details to the American Film Market page.

Seeing as I read a great article about the AFM awhile back, I decided to use it as a source to add a number of details to the entry. I even added a picture I took. I was surprised and frustrated to see my handiwork quickly undone by a user called JonathanWolfWiki. Even the picture I added was gone! Apart from the annoyance of seeing edits I took a long time to write deleted, I wasn't even given a reason (which I was always given in the past; for example, I've often made mistakes when citing sources).

I thought there might be an error, so I undid the edits. However, I now see my revisions have been undone again by a user called Jennaflower. I don't understand why my edits keep getting undone! Rather than spend time and energy I don't have to undertake an edit war, I find myself in the unfortunate position of having to alert the mods.

This is the page after my edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Film_Market&oldid=695193433

This is the current page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Film_Market&oldid=698599196

Seeing as the article is a stub, I thought my additions would be welcome.

I'd like to add one last detail. Prior to posting here, I performed a quick google search. As it turns out, the profile JonathanWolfWiki is tied to Jonathan Wolf, a Managing Director of the AFM. I can't understand why he wouldn't want to include my edits apart from a desire to control all content that goes on his organization's entry, but that's not how Wikipedia works, and completely in conflict with the spirit of a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

AlviseFalier (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This is on the wrong Noticeboard. Take it to WP:COIN. I am closing this discussion. Chesnaught555 (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Text from deleted articles on talkpages and in a sandbox

The following discussion is closed. 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 wonder. Should patent nonsense that was earlier deleted from articles Lado Enclave, or has been in articles that have been deleted themselves Lado Kingdom be allowed to sit on user’s talkpages like here, here and here, or even in a sandbox like here? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering that unattributed copying within Wikipeida is WP:COPYVIO? Almost certainly not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Well these three persons wrote that stuff themselves and actually, it's one person. And he made those texts quite alone. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"It's socking, then." Or, judging by the account-creation dates on the logs, they may have forgotten the password for the first and just made a new account - but not two. Anyway, this is a WP:NOTHERE case and patent nonsense, so I'm applying the mop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And the mop has been applied. It appears that (over a period of close enough to 10 years!) whoever was behind this nonsense created a string of accounts, one after the other, abandoning prior accounts for new ones. Whether this was genuine serial-socking to evade scrutiny/appear to be multiple people pushing the nonsense, or a case of not being able to remember passwords, is impossible to say, but either way all four accounts I found are now blocked as WP:NOTHERE in case they attempt a return to one, and the nonsense sandboxes deleted. For the record, the accounts in question were Okuonzi (talk · contribs) (2005), Ronald . Lulua (talk · contribs) (2007), ORIJORU (talk · contribs) (January 2013), and LADOKINGDOM (talk · contribs) (July 2013). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Celebrity breast size

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

---

Should Wikipedia list celebrities' breast sizes? A couple of editors have ganged up to make sure that Ariel Winter's breast size is featured prominently in her Wikipedia article, despite the fact that (1) she is underage and (2) she has publicly said she is uncomfortable with media reporting on her cleavage. Would it be similarly okay to list Justin Bieber's penis size?203.59.20.130 (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity or not, that's not information we need to have here at all. It's on par with giving out peoples' home addresses or phone numbers, it's just personal information with no encyclopaedic merit. GRAPPLE ^X 11:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hell no! Nobody wants to hear (read about ) Justin Beaver anyway! KoshVorlon 12:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

(Personally I do not find it encyclopedic but...) This isnt really the same situation as the 'large natural breasts' editor - its a bit more nuanced in Arial Winter's case. As an actress continuously on a TV series from a very young age, like it or not any significant physical changes will get press time. From the gossip rags to the fashion magazines that cater to her celebrity. In her case she had a quite high profile breast reduction which was commented on and discussed by others and herself in the press. Now if this is encyclopedic or not is a content discussion for the talk page, but if Justin Bieber gave interviews where he discussed the problems of having a large penis, and that his was operated on to make it a more normal 6 inches, you can guarantee that would be in his wikipedia article. The article used as a source for the information was a Glamour interview. So perfectly useable to source the information, but may hit UNDUE. It was covered by sections of the press that cover celebrity 'news'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on the talk page, which is where it should have been discussed first as contentious material. (Or failing that, the BLP noticeboard) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with OID that this has been discussed enough in the news media (and by the subject herself, e.g. [234][235]) to warrant actual consideration. Personally, I don't think it rises to the level of something that should be in an encyclopedia article, but that's more of a talk page discussion than an ANI discussion. Dragons flight (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• An article in Glamour does not make something "Well reported and commentated on", to cite one edit summary--and even if a million tabloids and gossip magazines write it up, that does not make it encyclopedic. I'm disappointed that editors think this is somehow notable because a publicity machine and a gossip industry have made it notable. There are BLP concerns here, UNDUE concerns...I thank the IP for bringing this to our attention. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless an actress is known as a "sex symbol", putting that type of personal info in the article seems inappropriate. Contrast that with Pamela Anderson, where it makes sense to discuss it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Commenting on people's body part sizes is both dehumanizing and irrelvant, except in unusual cases such as people for whom their breast size is deliberately a major part of their public image. -- The Anome (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that I've protected the article for a week, seeing the edit-warring over a BLP issue. I believe the concerns as expressed by the 203.* anon above, Baseball Bugs, Anome and others are serious enough to make removal mandatory under WP:BLP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No. As the OP mentioned, if we did this, we'd also have to do a similar one for men... quite frankly a ridiculous suggestion as many people are indeed uncomfortable with this information being published about them. Also, let's be honest here, it is highly likely that something like this will be vandalised. Vandals are going to see the humorous side of articles like this, so really it isn't worth the risk. Also, as I said before, it's a ridiculous idea. Not being uncivil. Chesnaught555 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Bacon, bacon, everywhere...

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

---

Picture courtesy of Kelapstick, who takes orders for Bacon Explosions.
I'll take ten. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk)

SSTflyer has been adding the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon to a whole lot of articles, on the basis of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon#Scope. This includes everyone whose surname is Bacon. I know that Project members can add their templates to pretty much any articles they want to (presumably they want to improve all the articles of Bacon people) but this seems to be going too far. What do people think? StAnselm (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely going too far. --Golbez (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wait, what? If a project wants articles to be tagged within their scope, there is nothing wrong with tagging these articles. sst✈ 15:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

What puts Albion Fellows Bacon within the scope of "improving Wikipedia's coverage of Bacon"? The word 'bacon' does not appear on Albion's page outside of her name. I don't mind you tagging everything in the project's scope, but it's quite plainly not in the project's scope. You need to change the scope to, I dunno, "improving Wikipedia's coverage of anything involving the letters 'b', 'a', 'c', 'o', and 'n', in that order and generally adjacent." --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that it's pretty much just a categorisation of the article's talk page, I wouldn't think it's worth caring about—it doesn't impact the article negatively, and has a (small) chance of driving improvement efforts towards any of the tagged articles. GRAPPLE ^X 15:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If they can put it without logical reason, surely it can be removed just as easily. --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I can perform a mass rollback of my WP:BACON tagging right now, if that is what the community wants. sst✈ 15:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• As one of the early members of the Bacon group, I would like to state for the record that I agree with StAnselm. We can't spread the bacon jam that thinly. It is true that I've written up Bacon people for the Bacon cup, but the rationale we used for that competition does not extend to this issue. I'll ping Kelapstick, just to make sure--and will insert a picture indicating his credentials. Golbez, I strongly suggest you stop anagrammatizing and reread Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, which should teach you only to wonder at unlawful things. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• What the fuck is this doing at ANI? Can you people please get some perspective? EEng (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

---

To prevent wasting any more time on something as minor as this, I have just rollbacked all my WP:BACON tagging to people with the surname Bacon (a total of 54 articles). I hope that everyone would be satisfied with this outcome. Thank you. sst✈ 16:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. I sure wish we'd finally do the sensible thing and just get rid of the entire wretched gimmick of "Wikiproject tags" altogether. They are entirely useless. Wikiprojects should keep track of the articles they're interested in by means of lists kept in their own project space, and nothing else.</ceterumcenseo> Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 only account

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

---

Please block Edits articles recent contributors edits articles recent contributors (talk · contribs)... Vandalism only. JMHamo (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Galleries of Ethnic groups

User:71.246.159.32 is massively undoing all deletions of galleries of ethnic groups that have lately been done per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. See his contributions Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit summary seems to reveal a certain lack of constructive attitude. Would anyone object to a bulk revert? Favonian (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Moot point. All their reverts have already been reverted. Favonian (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This User:71.246.159.38 sock however still seems to be active! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean this user:71.246.159.32 sock doesn't seem to be banned yet. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I just blocked User:Ethnic image gallery vandál. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it my imagination or is there a lot of logged out editing/socking going on at various venues in the last few weeks? Doug Weller talk 15:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not your imagination. Katie^talk 16:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

People must have gotten new phones for christmas. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Those Kindle Fires were only $35. I wonder if my daughter, a longtime Wiki fan, has found her way in--she got one of those machines. Is the vandalism related to Percy Jackson? Kate Bush? Drmies (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Q: Why is it that we allow unregistered IP editing again??? Carrite (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Because WMF is wedded to "that anyone can edit!" meaning "no account, login, or anything required", when even TVTropes requires a login, to the point of taking overwhelming community consensus for sign-in-to-edit and going "lolnope". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Previously warned user mass-moving articles without consensus

User Highflier9 (talk) has just mass moved a number of rugby- union related articles (contributions). Moving without consensus appears to be a pattern by the user, and they have been previously warned about this. Propose that they are blocked and that all the moves are undone (I see that this process has already begun since I started this edit). Greenman (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

User:PokestarFan is WP:NOTHERE - WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK

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

---

Hey there. My concern is over the editor PokestarFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has had a few run in's with the mop, and has been blocked before, mainly over copyvio issues, and some WP:CIR issues. User has logged all blocks here. A look at the user's edit count shows us that, as of Jan 8 2016, they have made 12 mainspace edits, and ~270 userspace edits. The user seems primarily focused on using their userpage and talk page as a webhost / social media-esque site, and the user definitely seems like they are WP:NOTHERE - I raise this issue mostly because the user has not shown Competence, having a few blocks under thier belt, as well as perhaps overusing {{helpme}} privileges. Yet even after these blocks, the user is very clearly not here. The user has also been warned about this behavior in the past. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm reviewing the user's activity now. Nakon 03:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Even though I'm an Arbcom member, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor.

• Because of the huge number of watchers at ANI, the cost in editor time just to glance a new thread is measured in (literally) hours. Thus one of my pet peeves is ANI threads that should have been posted to other noticeboards or (my special pet peeve) raised one-on-one. This matter is the polar opposite of a serious, urgent matter. It should have been handled by contacting a random admin. EEng (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This random admin left the editor a note. I agree ANI isn't for this, but I think the foxes editor just didn't know where else to go (well, they could have talked to the editor, of course...). Drmies (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @EEng: - I apologize. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am not super familiar with the communities attitude to some places. I posted here since, to me, it seemed appropriate. It is clearly listed above that this is a board "for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.", which I believe this was. I didn't think contacting some random admin was appropriate either, but rather posted here so that one interested and relevant to the issue would reply. I will keep this in mind in the future, however, and I am sorry again. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I really should have directed my grumpiness not at you, but at our failure to (somehow) make clear to people how to handle minor stuff like this. Perhaps a more effective edit notice? Or here's another idea: maybe every post to ANI should require get a "second" from at least one other editor (or maybe even from at least one admin?) before being posted here. EEng (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• allthefoxes, next time just post on EEng's talk page. Not only do they know a thing or two about Wikipedia policy, they also have lots of time on their hands. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, shouldn't you be cabaling with your fellow Arbcom-ers? EEng (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked User:PokestarFan indefinitely, as it's clear the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Nakon 04:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello

:EEng, do you have a legitimate comment here? Nakon 04:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You clearly don't, based on your abusive attempts to contribute to our voting. Thanks, Nakon 04:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Postscript from 8 May, 2016 - Please disregard these comments and refer to my more reasonable comments here before forming any opinions on EENg. Nakon 03:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Problems on Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad-Kashmir articles

User:سعد علی خان Is pushing POV on the Gilgit-Baltistan article, replacing either the flag of India (or a depiction with no flag at all) on the navbox when it comes to Jammu and Kashmir (which is in India) he also adds info on the religion stating 100% muslim on the article and the Azad-Kashmir article: here here here and here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Also at Punjab, Pakistan [236][237][238]. General Ization ^Talk 19:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked this user for 48 hours, which overlapped this ANI thread. I don't know if additional sanctions are requested here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the reported user immediately launched a tirade against Bbb23 on his userpage, stating "Bbb23 your act is shameful and why are you showing so pro india behaviour? I am editing right but if too man people fight with me at the same time and then block me than it is not fair. What kind of nuterality you people are showing ? you people are just showing anti Pakistan and proindia behaviour shame on you people"

I seriously doubt a short block will change his behavior, he's obviously here solely to push his POV.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor Noel darlow / 90.199.44.240

Disruptive editing, User:Noel darlow has continually removed facts and their supporting inline citations/references and inserting unsourced and unverifiable material in its place which contradicts the sources within the Crown Estate article. This has been occurring over the past year and a half (here, here, and here) where an editor adds an inline citation and Noel darlow simply removes it. Has refused to work collaboratively in improving the verifiability of the article with editors in removing over 20 inline citations without prior consultations on the Talk page, despite at least five different editors attempts and proposals to improve the page. Additionally, the editor has not once made any mention of what they are specifically against, nor has the user ever attempted to work collaboratively by building on other's edits, but instead seems to exhibit signs of WP:OOA such as responding to other user's attempts at adding verifiable information to the article with only "I'll edit the article as appropriate". The user has removed verifiable information and their supporting citations by inserting non-verifiable and contradictory information on six different occasions to date.

This continuously and "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable" is in contradiction with WP:DDE. The user has also reverted and reinserted unverifiable and counterfactual information three four times over the past two days in contravention with WP:TRR (its spirit if not its letter).

User trackratte edited the page inserting roughly 13 inline citations based on the best possible reliable sources (in this case House of Commons Committees, the Crown Estate's own publications, Parliamentary Reports, Legal explanatory notes accompanying legislation, British Government publications, and sources from Buckingham Palace, amongst others) in an attempt to improve the article as the lead was completely unverifiable in that it lacked any citations or sourcing. This is user trackratte's first involvement with this article, and has no prior formed opinions regarding the article subject prior to conducting cursory fact checking as the article lead was lacking any references. In finding that the sources directly contradicted the opening sentence, and that the opening sentence had no supporting citation, user trackratte began further research, editing, and adding verifiable sources.

User Noel darlow removed all of the material along with all of the inline citations, putting in its place unsourced material which directly contradicts with the sources.

User trackratte then initiated a conversation on the Talk page, outlining a variety of the sources concerning the critical issue of ownership.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crown_Estate&type=revision&diff=697368041&oldid=697302863 User trackratte then restored the verifiable material inline with step one of WP:DDE ("Do not attack the author who you suspect is disruptive. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material.") in order to continue improving the article and adding verifiable sources, making a further 9 edits and adding roughly 8 more inline citations.

User trackratte added further information to the Talk Page, describing the root cause of the issue, and explaining Wikipedia policy and how it is disruptive to actively remove verifiable information (WP:DE: "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources"), and how inputting unsourced information which is blatantly contradicted by verifiable and official sources is not inline with WP:NPOV.

User Noel darlow again removed all verifiable information and supporting inline citation once again replacing it with unsourced, non-verifiable POV information without further engaging in the Talk.

User trackratte restored the last verifiable version in order to continue improving the article] inline with WP:DDE step 2 ("If sourced information appears this time around, do nothing; if not, revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage."), making a further 12 edits and adding a variety of inline sources, bluelinking to wiki articles containing critical conceptual information, and various copy edits for clarity and readability inline with supporting citations.

User Ninetyone joined the conversation on the Talk page stating that "it looks like Trackratte is doing a good job in sourcing the claims and they've obviously got the facts right so far", and adding a proposed copy edit to Trackratte's latest edit to improve the article's clarity and readability.

User Noel darlow for a third time reverted all changes without engaging in the Talk page with either users trackratte or Ninetyone, for a third time removing all verifiable material and supporting references, and re-inserting non-verifiable POV material in contradiction to Wikipedia policies (WP:TRR "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block." and WP:DE "editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable source"). User Noel Darlow removed roughly 18 inline citations, a substantial amount of verifiable fact, and reinserted their own personal views without any sourcing, substantiation, or coherent argument on the Talk Page beyond their not liking it.

Looking at the user's previous contributions within this article, this is not the first time this editor has shut down other user's similar attempts to improve the article by reverting and removing verifiable citations which conflict with their own POV, and seems to exhibit signs of WP:OOA such as telling other user's attempts at clarifying the article with "I'll edit the article as appropriate".

According to WP:DDE step three, if "the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information: Revert, and request an administrator via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Subsequently, I have followed policy and have requested an administrator, and will have reverted the editor's reinsertion of unsourced information as another editor has also begun collaboratively working on the last sourced version which User Noel Darlow has removed. I want to make it clear that my last reversion is being done inline with the explicit direction of the steps outlined to take in WP:DDE and as such I have followed steps 1 through 3 in order and subsequently understand my last restoration of sourced material as not falling under the rubrique of WP:TRR. However, in line with TRR and DDE, this will be my final revert to allow User Ninetynine and any other editors to continue to collaboratively improve the article, and I will reduce my involvement with the article in awaiting admin response.

User Noel darlow has for a fifth time removed over 20 inline citations and inserted unsourced information, some of which is runs completely counter to the sources. This also cuts off another editor's proposal, which was building off the sourced version.

A User "Once again have removed" verifiable information and cited references.

User Darlow has for a sixth time removed all verifiable information, and is now edit warring with what appears to be four different editors.

User Darlow has for a seventh time removed verifiable information and their supporting references, despite seven different editors' attempts to insert verifiable material over the past year or so.

Darlow same thing for an eighth time now.

As I clearly explained the relevant policies pertaining to the wholesale removal of sources to User Noel darlow in the talk page and the how "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable" is against WP, I do not believe that ignorance of policy can be an excuse in this case. I therefore propose that the user receive a topic ban from the article for a suitable period of time as deemed appropriate by an administrator. trackratte (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact Trackratte has refused repeated requests not to proceed with his own POV without attempting to resolve our differences first. Once he/she did engage in Talk he/she failed to consider points raised and simply attempted to push his/her own opinion as fact without any real discussion. This disagreement is about presenting a clear explanation of Crown Estates ownership and thus mostly concerns the opening paragraph(s) and nothing else, despite what has been claimed in the complaint. I'd like the article to be locked while differences are resolved in Talk. Basic issue is that the reality of ownership is (counter-intuitively) NOT well-explained by literal, legal technicalities and the general fog of tradition and ceremony which inevitably surrounds a monarchy. Trackratte has not grasped this yet but I'm sure he/she will - if he/she is instructed to engage properly with other editors rather than reaching for the shotgun at the first sign of disagreement. Noel darlow (talk) 01:39, 1 January 20 moi16 (UTC)

PS: The technicalities deserve to be mentioned too, of course, although not at the expense of a clear statement of the practical reality. Crown Estate ownership causes massive confusion Noel darlow (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC).

Noel, you refused to respond to to my request that "If there is a specific point which you find lacking, or a specific source you find lacking, bring it up here", but instead you simply continue to remove all sources and insert unverifiable and counterfactual information in its place, and this is not the first time you've done so. As as far as I can see going back, this is your sixth time removing sources and placing unverified information in its place, despite five different editor's attempts over the past year or so. For example, here, here, and here. trackratte (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And I do not have a POV for this article, I added content inline with verifiable sources, ever sentence I added had one or more verifiable inline citations. Your removing over 20 inline citations and replace the material with non-verifiable and unsubstantiated information in contradiction to the sources you continue to remove is what is at issue here. This compounded by your unwillingness to build on the material collaboratively with other editors. To note, over my twelve and a half years as editor here, this is the first time I've had to resort to ANI. trackratte (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

There is every opportunity that our disagreement can be channelled productively to improve the quality of the article but first you'll have to engage properly with other points of view. I think it's reasonable to expect to thrash this out in Talk first and only then start editing the article.

The POV (IMO) is an over-emphasis on technicalities, symbolism and tradition. A monarch without real power inevitably becomes surrounded by a fog of irrationality and this seems to be the fundamental problem. Of course the details and traditions are relevant but I think they have to be handled carefully because they can easily obfuscate and obscure the practical reality of state-ownership. It is possible to be technically correct and yet wholly wrong.

I intend to reconsider my own opinion on how best to draw a line between reality and tradition - and in fact I'll be discussing this tomorrow with an individual who has advised governments and committees at Westminster, Holyrood and Stormont on issues relating to the Crown Estate as well as other matters. I'd respectfully ask you to do the same.Noel darlow (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, and your attempts at portraying it as so is a red herring, since on six different occasions and with four or five different editors you have always simply reverted their constructive edits and attempts at adding references, instead of collaboratively and constructively building on their edits to improve the article. In its place, you have simply continued to tell other users off, revert, reinsert unverifiable information, and remove all added reliable sources. Your behaviour is the only issue at play here, not the article's content. trackratte (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to discuss possible changes in Talk and attempt to reach some kind of agreement BEFORE making changes to the article. That is a reasonable request. My aim is to preserve the quality of information in the article and in particular to give due emphasis to the distinction between ceremony, tradition & symbolism and practical realities. You may not be aware of the immense confusion which this can cause. This issue will only be resolved by discussion not by making unsupported, knee-jerk complaints.Noel darlow (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet, the opening paragraphs, at least, were discussed and you didn't voice an objection to a proposal made by a third party. You just reverted the change that made the opening follow the proposal, along with simply removing valid sources for no expressed reason. (Unless your opinion on the invalidity of the sources is the reason.) I can see why trackratte is getting frustrated. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

So you agree that we should attempt to seek agreement before making changes to the article? That's what I have repeatedly been requesting. I'll look forward to discussing this with you. Noel darlow (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a straw man response in place of one that addresses the point of my remark: you don't articulate any objection in the discussion, you make evasive comments, if any at all, and revert. You're now edit warring with three different people. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about User: Kashmiri

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

---

There is concerned about actions that are being taken by Kashmiri (talk · contribs). Most suspicious is the number of languages that Kashmiri operates in, including Russian, Hindi, German, Malayalam, English, Polish, French, and others. It would not be surprising if Kashmiri has a conflict of interest, i.e., troll hired by political opponents of article subjects. This user now seems to be seeking revenge after he was unable to reopen a non-admin closure following our discussion here. The closure was made by a former administrator whose edits Kashmiri reverted without prior discussion.

1. Kashmiri has removed the sole source from a biography of a living person (Łukasz Rzepecki) that I created.
2. Kashmiri has added unsourced information to another article (Edmund Janniger) that I created.

Kashmiri was involved in the failed AfD for Janniger, arguing delete. It appears as if his recent edits were an attempt to make the subject appear less notable for any future renomination. The AfD for Janniger included delete !votes that may have been from external sources. Kashmiri frequently introduced deliberate factual errors into the AfD debate.

-- Cachets687  19:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. Your only contributions to-date have been populating Wikipedia with profiles of Law and Justice party representatives, so I am not surprised that you see conspiracy everywhere [239]. How did you find out that your political opponents are specifically interested in Malayalam speakers? (By the way, people from big cities sometimes speak a few languages you have never heard of, see?)

On a serious note, when adding references to articles please make sure that the linked source indeed contains the claim you are trying to substantiate. In this particular case, the article you linked to Łukasz Rzepecki not only did not support your assertion but not even mentioned Rzepecki. It was an article about an entirely different person, unrelated to Rzepecki. My removal was fully justified, and you should normally appreciate my improvements to the article you created, instead of reverting and taking to ANI. Still, I do understand you are a new editor here, so I excuse you calling your behaviour (including calling me a troll).

I have been editing Wikipedia long enough to sense any sort of promo. Your articles contain a certain degree of promo, or unsourced information aimed at making the subjects appear more important that they are. That happens, esp. with new users, and as you can see a few experienced editors already started improving your articles. WP:MOS will be a good place to start for you, much better than ANI. — kashmiri ^TALK 20:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

To date, I have written about young leaders from Law and Justice, KoLiber, and Kukiz'15. I think it is natural that Law and Justice gets coverage since they spectacularly won the presidential and parliamentary elections. It is surprising that in relation to Law and Justice you use the term "conspiracy everywhere", which is unfounded and indicates bias. I found your remark about me not knowing people from "big cities" disparaging. —  Cachets687  20:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's natural and therefore nobody, hopefully, objects to the articles on new Polish MPs, from whatever party, that you have added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri (talk • contribs)

Of course also you had to see conspiracy in my editing, or at least I fail to comprehend your suggestion of me being "hired" by "political opponents" of the Polish right-wing parties. Why can't it be that I am just an editor with views and experience differing from yours – and not some secret agent hired by opponents, special services, Russians, masons, etc.? Why does the first assumption have to be that of "conspiracy"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri (talk • contribs)

Your comment that my supposed "political opponents are specifically interested in Malayalam speakers" relate to my expressed concern that you contribute in Russian, Hindi, German, Malayalam, English, Polish, French, and other languages. I do not have political opponents. Please do not make personal attacks. —  Cachets687  20:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we are now writing at ANI. What sort of incident you'd like to report? Because this is not the correct place in case you had content disputes. Can you please specify any particular edit, in any language, that you think merits bringing up at ANI? A discussion on my identity, languages or allegiance should better be placed on my Talk page. — kashmiri ^TALK 21:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 request

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

---

Please unblock user:jeffwang. I read the blocking article at wp:block and it said that an editor other than the blocked editor can request a block review and that is what I am doing. And it said the request should be made here. I think the editor should be unblocked because the block has been unduly long in relation to the primary reason for the block which was poor communication as far as I can tell. Also it was their first block. BlueBonnet 20:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest WP:BOOMERANG. This is the third time this editor has opened this thread. Jeffwang has not edited since 2012 and has never requested an unblock. I don't know if BlueBonnet is a sockpuppet as they had not edited since 2012 also until just recently. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of poor communication, BlueBonnet, please explain why you did not even attempt to discuss this with the blocking admin(s) first (ANI guideline), or alert him that his action was being discussed here (ANI requirement). DMacks (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I consulted the article about blocking which said to put a review request here and didn't mention consulting the blocking admin, I will do that later today. BlueBonnet 21:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I propose a CheckUser on this user. Would confirm whether or not sockpuppetry is the case here. Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

For requesting review of a block? BlueBonnet 21:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Especially as this is the second time in a few hours that BlueBonnet (talk · contribs) has made this request (and which the blocking admin already commented on); and BlueBonnet also removed the sock tag from jeffwang (talk · contribs)'s page. Everything's not necessarily better with BlueBonnet on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

My other requests were deleted without opportunity for discussion. BlueBonnet 21:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What was stopping you from asking the blocking admin directly? And what's your personal interest in that other user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I read the page about blocking and it said to put request for review here so that is what I did. The blocking admin has been notified now. I don't have any interest in the other user. I just would like to see an unduly long block removed. BlueBonnet 21:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What led you to it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Checkuser would not be useful here, CUs can only go back 90 days (I think it's 90, it's definitely not four years). And as everyone else has said, if jeffwang wants to appeal the block, the instructions are right on their talk page, which they still have access to edit. Then again they were blocked for refusing to discuss anything ever, so I think probably it would be a bare minimum for this user to actually use their talk page properly and appeal the block properly before we would consider unblocking. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The jeffwang spi case looks indeed weak or unclear at best (unless it concerns contributions to a deleted article which are therefore no longer visible). It looked more like a single instance of editing while logged out. Any question on the potential connection of BlueBonnet and jeffwang are inappropriate, BlueBonnet has stated he is not the other account, and editors cannot be forced to disclose their RL friendships and connections. A SPI (and checkuser) will always be an option should any suspicion of sockpuppetry arise. The case merits a closer look IMHO. — kashmiri ^TALK 21:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like the sockpuppet tag removed as it was just one instance of editing while logged out to ask about the block. It was the wrong procedure to ask about the block but not sockpuppetry. I removed the tag once and was reverted. Is there a proper way to discuss removing the tag other than just doing it? BlueBonnet 22:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This would be the right place to discuss removing it, and the answer is you cannot remove it. Jeffwang used an IP to edit while blocked, which is block evasion and a violation of our policy on multiple accounts. And block notices may not be removed while an editor is blocked. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

He was allowed to ask about his block, he just should have done it on his talk page rather than somewhere else. And he wasn't trying to deceive. He was blocked and asked about the block, it was clear who it was. Labelling him a sockpuppet seems harsh and nitpicky. BlueBonnet 22:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not "he just should have done it on his talk page rather than somewhere else". It's he's only ALLOWED to do it on his talk page and not anywhere else. Anything else is block evasion and is, in fact, a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

He was informed of that and did not do it again. OK to remove the tag now? BlueBonnet 23:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are you so concerned about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor wasn't perfect but was a legitimate editor. I just hate to see his page marred with the block and sockpuppet accusation. Seems unwarranted to me. I do not know this editor, just someone I became aware of back when I actively edited. BlueBonnet 00:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Are actually in contact with this user? The tag cannot be removed. An admin just explained to it to you. My God. And yes. Please explain to us why you are so concerned about this? The user was blocked for not communicating and committed sockpuppetry. How is this bad communication? Editing while logged out is sockpuppetry no matter what. That merits a block. Also, if the user wanted to be blocked, they would had requested a block on their talk page in the past 4 years. They haven't. I don't understand how this block is not necessary or is done in bad faith. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The volume of words in this thread compared to the significance of the underlying issue is making by head hurt. Lots of concern about What The Rules Say, but it's missing the point. (Also not quite right; Callmemirela, there is no policy against editing while logged out.) We have all these tags and logs to make a sort of collective memory about actual cases of deception and abuse, not to keep track of one edit from 2012. (Why is there even an SPI about that? Sigh.) No, the block wasn't "bad faith", but it's old and stale and the tag doesn't matter anymore.

BlueBonnet, please don't do this again; if you have a question about a block, first ask the blocking admin, and explain what you're interested in. Digging up old blocks at ANI when you yourself haven't edited in years makes people wonder what you're doing it for. Obviously, jeffwang is not getting unblocked unless he himself makes an {{unblock}} request.

The mountain is actually a very tiny molehill. Now everybody go write an article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 repeatedly committed BLP violations

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

---

At [240] a Romanian IP has committed his third WP:BLP violation. Please block the IP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It has been blocked for 48 hours. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:  Done. Please note that privacy-related matters shouldn't be posted on ANI. Instead they should be addressed to the oversight team through the means listed here. (Be sure to read the red box on the ANI edit page.) Best, Mike V • Talk 21:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Mike V • Talk 21:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnism (4th nomination)

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

---

Due to an apparent bug, this isn' t showing as unclosed in the numerical count on WP:Articles for deletion. Not, I fear, an easy close. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. It was closed in 2006 so why would it need to be shown as unclosed? --John (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The original title link was to the first discussion, it's now been altered to the current discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, been feeling a bit under the weather today. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it. I closed it as "no consensus"; I could see there were strong feelings on both sides but I could not see a good consensus to delete there. I hope you feel better. --John (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Debresser (relist)

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

---

Sorry, this is a follow on to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#User:Debresser:_highly_disruptive_editing.2C_intimidating_and_aggressive_behaviour.2C_and_a_racial_slur which was correctly closed without action.
However, it did miss the vital point: WP:1RR violation on Ottoman Palestine

• [241] (27 December 2015)

1. [242] 29 December 2015
2. [243] 29 December 2015

• [244] (31 December 2015)

Editor is aware of sanctions applying to this dab 1. due to them giving a warning to another editor at this revert [245] " 1. This should indeed be discussed. 2. IP edits are forbidden in the latest WP:ARBPIA sanctions." and 2. their comment at the previous ANI.
Now that's history, but a 2R is over 1RR, and there's about 8 reverts in total. My point is, ANI was closed with "see what happens", Debresser continues to edit war and WP:OWN:

• [246] (3 January 2016)
• [247] (4 January 2016)

(just outside 24hr). Warning given [248]. Edit warring under the brightline is still edit warring (see below) ...and insult editors / CIVIL / ad hominem [249] "redhead nominator started bulldozing into the discussion" [250] "redhead nominator..(snip)" "edit warrior" [251] on the two dabs and their AfDs (to clean up this mess). For 1RR this is extraordinary. Clearly consensus at the Talk:Ottoman Palestine from dab project editors is being single-handedly rejected by User:Debresser, who is refusing to reach consensus which just continues the edit warring despite consensus these aren't valid pages. Instead of well meaning dab project editors being abused in this way, 1RR and continued OWN has not been addressed. Instead, editor retaliates with [252] disruptive warning after WP:LISTEN. Widefox; talk 16:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

1. The issue is related to disambiguation, and has nothing to do with the IP-conflict.
2. I edited this article on December 29,[253] December 31,[254] January 3[255] and January 4 (after more than 24 hours),[256] so I can not possibly have violated even 1RR, let alone 3RR.
3. I find it hard to assume good faith from an editor who edits since 2006 (!) and says that 4 edits spread out over almost a week are a 3RR violation?!
4. If I am in violation of 1RR, then so is Widefox: [257], [258], [259], [260]. Actually , that is a 3RR violation!
5. I even don't count this mistake edit,[261]] and the fix,[262] which just come to show that this editor is too trigger happy.
6. My edits are to preserve the consensus version, as establish on the talkpage before User:Widefox came along, much like with User:Midas02 in the post above.
7. Widefox is being controversial and polarizing on the talkpage.
8. Widefox ignores the fact that there is a consensus, and that the forming of a new consensus is under way at the talkpage, and this is not the time to come along with edits that he thinks are best without first establishing consensus.
9. Widefox is trying to circumvent the discussion on the talkpage, which is well attended, by nominating this disambiguation page at [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ottoman_Palestine|Afd]]. I would call that "out of process" and think the Afd should be procedurally closed.
10. In addition, Widefox is poisoning the well at Afd, by mentioning this WP:ANI post there, as though that would be a reason for deletion. I propose that an admin scrap that comment (and my reply to it).
11. Widefox has not violated any hard prohibition, but is generally disruptive with 1. trying to circumvent consensus forming by posting me here 2. trying to circumvent consensus forming by using Afd 3. being controversial on the talkpage.
12. I have warned Widefox on his talkpage about his behavior,[263] and he deliberately chose to make another edit to the article after that.[264]

My advice would be to tell Widefox that he should calm down and be a more amiable editor. He has much experience and can contribute positively to this project, should he so desire. Debresser (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Widefox has violated 3RR (or 1RR which he claims applies) and is being a general pain in having an intelligent discussion on the talkpage, I propose by WP:BOOMERANG that he be blocked for 24 hours. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my reverting, I have only recently seen this may be considered 1RR, so will refrain from now on. It is that easy. Widefox; talk 17:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You violated 3RR just now! Debresser (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The logic that your 1RR violation is somehow dependent on 3RR for me is clearly "look the other way". Misrepresenting 3 edits as reverts is not even factual. Widefox; talk 18:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Much like the report linked above. This looks like an editor parachuting in and editing against local consensus, this time starting two AFD's on the subject as well!. I also see an attempt to sanction an editor who responded to this needlessly aggressive editing for 1RR (I assume under ARBPIA) while the one calling for the sanction seems to have violated 3RR! In this case I support the BOOMERANG block for edit warring based not only on the 3RR but for using AFD to try to win an argument when there was ongoing discussion/existing consensus at the talk page is still not good when combined with the whole situation. Jbh^Talk 17:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC) - On inspection the claim in #4 above that Widefox violated 3RR is incorrect. My apologies for not looking at the history myself. Debresser should strike their claim as well. Jbh^Talk 20:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Which local consensus would that be? Four (Three, comment by Midas02) dab project editors saying the dab needs cleanup? Projects do ask for help from others, and that's what you get! Going block us all now? Taking it to AfD when nobody is replying/addressing the elephant in the room that they have primary topics and fail WP:TWODABS so should go to wider audience with all editors pinged. Normal day at dab project. Any limited local consensus on the talk cannot override the wider consensus at WP:MOSDAB and AfD. Even if Debresser considers themselves right, clear edit warring and WP:OWN is not acceptable. They turn out to be wrong too. Widefox; talk 18:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

But local consensus can decide how to best apply the WP:DAB and MOS:DAB guidelines, which, as I have pointed out in the discussion already, specifically allow for certain exceptions. That is what the discussion is about, and you should really start following normal procedures for consensus forming, instead of edit warring and Afd nominating. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

1. User:Jbhunley, you have made a travesty of my previous complaint by failing to know the existence of WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB, and the fact that editors are merely trying to make sure these policies are respected. It is not a problem that you don't know these policies sufficiently well, but it is a mayor problem that you step in here, assuming a certain level of authority, and you haven't. For that reason I'm asking you respectfully to step out of this discussion and for some senior admins to step in.
2. The second part of the complaint, both mine and Widefox's, is about Debresser's extremely aggressive behaviour to just about anyone he comes across. I have been the subject of intimidation, abuse and slander for merely trying to make him understand certain policies apply, Widefox is now subjected to the same. By ignoring that, admins are merely confirming that this behaviour is apparently acceptable. As I've put it in my wording: "nobody, including myself, needs to be confronted with menaces or borderline insulting slurs". This user's talk page shows that he apparently can't spend two days on Wikipedia without getting into vicious fights. And seems to be proud of it as well. He should have been on his way to a permanent ban a long time ago. So I suggest some senior admins get their head out of the sand and start dealing with this. --Midas02 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Debresser you not only ignored / argued with all dab project editors (while at the same time asking for how it works), but actively refused to let dab project in by insulting/dismissing those that arrived. That local consensus at the talk was ignored, by your refusal to LISTEN to guideline based arguments / OWN and reverting those that came along like me and the last person that brought you here for your behaviour. Widefox; talk 18:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:Jbhunley can you back that 3RR claim with diffs? If not can you withdraw it please. Debresser, your links show different edits, that's misrepresenting edits as reverts - please either provide real 3RR diffs or withdraw. Also, the concept of admonishing/blocking dab project editors because they somehow shouldn't be parachuted into fix dabs - it's what the project does! Not everyone knows MOSDAB and TWODABS, but when folk don't listen and edit war, the discussion should be widened, which is what each of us have done. Widefox; talk 18:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

My "seems to have violated 3rr" is from point 4 above. Do you dispute them? Jbh^Talk 18:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you check them? 3 edits and 1 revert? You serious? You're going to have to point out what you consider 4 reverts, so I know what you mean. I agree with User:Midas02 that long-term edit warring and repeated blocks of Debresser are still ongoing. Clear wikilawyering doesn't detract - why the repeat disruption / OWN. Widefox; talk 18:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jbhunley, did you pull up the 4 diffs in #4 above? There is no way the second one is a revert, it is the addition of an AFD tag. I haven't looked closely at the others but two others don't appear to be reverts either. -- GB fan 18:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Jbhunley I have to second Midas02's call to either explain yourself or strike and withdraw. I would appreciate an explanation of your comments here and at the previous ANI. Guideline/policy based arguments pls. Time to either provide diffs or withdraw that 3RR, and explain about this and last time pls. Widefox; talk 19:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

FFS ec x3 slow down. ok 2 strike 3rr. will comment more later Jbh^Talk 19:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Other than my mistake with the 3rr, which I qualified at the time and said is ok to strike - editing on my iPad is slow and positioning in the edit window a pain or I would do it now - what do you claim I have to answer to either of you for? I would say that attitude and the request to drop out of this ANI because I am critical of your behavior simply shows I am correct in my opinion that you have an overly aggressive attitude on this matter.

I suggest, again, that the question of the DAB be addressed at the talk pade and now at the two new AFDs and everyone take a breath. Jbh^Talk 19:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Debresser I've dated the 1RR violation diffs clearly showing the 1RR violation. The point being 1R or 3R is not a right per policy. Continuing after being taken to ANI before, and now a repeat with another editor, when's it going to stop? Which of those 12 points in reply is actually factual? Care to strike the 3RR is that for certain isn't, which casts doubt over all 12. Also, more 3RR disruption refactoring my AfD comment removing content:

1. [265] which was repeated despite being told not to per contested WP:REFACTOR "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted":
2. [266]
3. [267]
4. [268]

• [269] (resume edit warring)

User:Jbhunley Maybe there's something in the issue when a second editor brings exactly the same issue to ANI? There's a difference between BOOMERANG and ad hominem / shooting the messenger. When you say "attitude" can you explain/diff. The OWN has gone beyond normal Talk & AfD . As I said, I welcome scrutiny and your input but this could have been seen last ANI, and can now this disruption can be prevented from another time. Widefox; talk 20:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You say I have problems with WP:OWN on this article, when I edit once every few days, and you made 6 edits in one day?! Plus ignore the talkpage discussion?! Plus try to circumvent the discussion by Afd?! I think it is you who for unclear reasons seems to feel he needs to own this article, or just gets the kicks from edit warring for the sake of edit warring. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit is not refactoring, as I explained in the edit summary. It is a grouping of notes (same way as on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Israel, where these two notes are also grouped together), and has no effect whatsoever on the discussion. There is no reason not to allow this improvement, unless you want to be WP:WIKILAWYERING about it, and I strongly feel you are overreacting to a good and logical edit. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason was given to you at the time WP:REFACTOR "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted". Changing the edits of another editor isn't refactoring huh? Really? You don't need to explain more, didn't you see it's contested and should not be reverted per above / edit summary / 3RR warning etc? Widefox; talk 02:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not if there is no reason to contest the edit except for the fact that you dislike the editor. As explained there, this is a net improvement with no downsides. Debresser (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Contested is contested. There's no basis in WP:REFACTOR for that assertion. I get to decide if a refactor of my edit is contested, and as it is, you should revert, which I did for you. You must also AGF. Edit warring to the 3RR bright line is not a "right", and leaving it a day and restarting [270] is pure gaming the system. Editors can be blocked before failing 3RR, and also for such edit war gaming. Widefox; talk 02:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Widefox: Per your request - The last ANI was titled User:Debresser: highly disruptive editing, intimidating and aggressive behaviour, and a racial slur was what I would expect from a troll "racial slur" really?? I was surprised it was from an experienced editor but that kind of hyperbole makes me think there is an attitide problem and is not going to get the poster much credit unless they can show a HUGE problem. They did not and it was closed with "Now I know why I don't patrol ANI much. This whole thread is over-the-top, including the subject header, the OP's statements, and Debresser's response. Go back to the Talk page and work it out. Even before Midas02 jumped in, it looks to me like it was a work in progress. " and discussion continued at the talk page. (Describing the mentioned behavior as "menacing" was a bit OTT too. [271])

As far as the lack of discussion about TWODABS it looks loke you first brought up the matter at 05:09 3 Jan there was some civil discussion going on between Debresser and another editor [272] Rapidly the conversation has degraded to you responding to Debresser with persistent behavioural issue - a complete lack of WP:LISTEN and WP:CLUE, in which "rubbish" is shorthand for "edit warring CLUEless disruption against consensus" but that seems to be about the ongoing question about DABMENTION however it is still active discussion about whether the page should be a DAB and I feel it illustrats'attitude' as you requested. It looks like you got back to TWODABS at 0853 4 Jan but you nominated the article for deletion, as you say for lack of discussion of TWODABS at 0900 4 Jan - a very short time for 'lack of discussion' to be a good reason particularly when you were in a discussion about a related topic. Looks like using AFD to solve a matter under discussion at the talk page when, at best, you gave 28hrs for the other editors at the page to respond. Maybe you do not see that as an issue but considering how heated the conversation between you and Debresser was and that there were several editors who had been recently active who had not commented it looks like a tactical nomination to me. You might not have intended it to be but that is what it looks like to me because, as you note, it preempts the discussion at the talk page. At best I see two sided that need to relax a bit but this does not look much more ANI-worthy than yesterday's ANI. Jbh^Talk 20:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I fixed one of the 4 diffs above. 2 of those 4 edits were additions of dab-templates, and are thus partial reverts of the undo which restored the general {{dab}} template. The 4th edit was a straight revert. The 2nd edit was adding an Afd tag, which I have to admit is indeed hard to construe as a revert, although definitely not an okay edit under the circumstances. We could add the two edits (mentioned above as well) which were claimed to be an honest mistake, both straight reverts as well, which would make 5 reverts. Not sure I want to go there. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You might try to argue that addition of the templates are partial reverts but I wouldn't buy it. The other two don't count as they were an obvious mistake. Even if someone were to count them they would count as a single edit as well as the addition of the AFD tag and the edit between them as they are all consecutive edits by the same editor (edits at 1902, 1903, 1400 & 1501 on 4 Jan). I do not see a problem with nominating the DAB for deletion. -- GB fan 20:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@GB fan Please read Wikipedia:Reverting, where you'll notice that a partial revert is well-defined, and those were partial reverts, which count as reverts in all revert restrictions. I have seen this rule in use many times here on WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm ignoring the bad-faith 3RR, and attempt to portray normal AfDs with wide notification as anything but run-of-the-mill from now on as I've given Debresser enough time to provide revert diffs or strike and neither was done despite admitting there's only one revert - that red herring just underscores the disruption here.

The full quote of the previous ANI close for exactly the same behavioural issue (exemplified by the false accusations above of 3RR and 11 other "don't look here") "...In any event, if you can't work it out, administrative action may be taken, but for the moment none is warranted.--Bbb23". It didn't work with yet more editors, four of us, it's back here. Widefox; talk 23:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jbhunley it's a false balance when ignoring four editors saying the dab needs fixing, and one editor repeatedly OWNing it, while reverting IP editors for a sanctioned page. Double standard of the Debresser. The problem with ignoring it last time, is that another uninvolved editor (me) is here saying the same thing. There's only one common denominator here. Four dab project editors are all in agreement it needs fixing, the AfDs have started in agreement (1 delete each). It does nobody a favour to portray that as an edit dispute when it's OWN, does it? Widefox; talk 00:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

More edit warring: there's 3 reverts with the edit summary "Use my last revert right" (emphasis own) on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Palestine, desipte warning given [273], none of which are allowed per WP:REFACTOR "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted". I don't take kindly to others removing my comments, and taking that to 3R when it shouldn't happen at all. Widefox; talk 00:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Widefox: What I can see is it is an edit dispute with disputants on both sides that seem to have an issue with remaining calm when in disagreement. Maybe that is a long term issue, maybe not. Just as a for instance, and why I saw then anti-DAB editors to be problematic, the issues about TWODAB and mention of the term in the targets could have been addressed by simply going to sources to see if those topics are referred to that way and by reading the thread to see that there were three possible DAB's. Not to mention the question, brought up by one editor, that Ottoman Israel may refer to the same area (I do not know but it seems like it would be easy to look up). Discussion about that rather than the arguing would have been productive. Those issues were being explored before the first ANI was filed but I saw none of the DAB project editors who showed up show any interest in why the editors on the talk page thought a DAB was the right thing. Rather I saw quotes of WP:POLICY while ignoring that the very policy being quoted recognized it was not always applicable - plus two ANI reports, at least one of which was solidly over the top, to push the point home. Maybe Debresser has an OWN issue but I would probably have responded poorly when editors who are brand new to the topic show up and start saying this must be without taking the time to look at why the initial decision was made and addressing that as well.

Maybe you and the DAB project editors are 100% correct but whether you are or not I for one saw no inkling of an indication that you'all considered that the people who had previously been discussing the matter, and who seem to have a grasp of the topic, might have a point as well. Jbh^Talk 00:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I welcome your comments at the AfDs/talk User:Jbhunley. I thought the same as you to start with, but I checked, and that's when I realised this is just a TWODABs failed dab (hence cleanup tag, now AfD). Please see the discussion and participate there. I repeat - portraying as an edit dispute with me ignores the consensus, and the previous edit dispute put down to the previous gnome (all this is just normal gnome editing, nothing dramatic or content disput-y as seemingly portrayed), and the ANI close - it's back here. When editors aren't LISTENing to the consensus of four dab specialists and the guideline then blunt becomes useful, eh? Any sign of an end of this edit warring? Dabs have a little warning when editing, they aren't a normal edit dispute area, but more a highly style conformant one based on MOSDAB, which the debate at the talk fails WP:CLUE. When a dab fails the dab do's and don'ts simple guide but someone still OWNs that mess, that's when it's a bigger problem. Widefox; talk 01:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see that - I will never understand what people choose to edit war over cf the fuse/fuze dispute at Plasticine - and I would like to discuss the actual issues with you at the talk page before I sound off at the AfD. (You will note I have not expressed an opinion there yet.) You should note I added a third page to Ottoman Palestine based on the talk page. From what I understand from what you and the other DAB editors were saying what is needed to show those are appropriate for the DAB page is to demonstrate that all of those areas are referred to Ottoman Palestine in the sources. (Well in the articles but the sources need to show it before the article can) Do I understand that correctly? Jbh^Talk 01:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes content issues surface at the dab level, but as the dabs just slavishly follow the articles, those content issues are offtopic there, as they need establishing in the articles first (DABMENTION says as such, and another dab editor has repeated in their "WP:OR" comment): OK what's wrong with those two entries I will reply on that dabs talk (as offtopic here). In reply to your question of timing - this dab page can be boldly reverted to the PRIMARYTOPIC redirect, and should have been. A speedy for dab with 1 valid entry would have been contested, and until fixed we have incoming links from the PRIMARYTOPIC. There's no second ambiguous topic per the AfD. Widefox; talk 01:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Clearly both sides have arguments, and they are being discussed. What is not acceptable is edit warring in the middle of an ongoing discussion. What is not acceptable is circumventing a discussion by opening an Afd (which was not one of the option being discussed, and is pretty ridiculous as a "solution"). Debresser (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Another 3RR violation by Widefox: [274], [275], [276], [277].

As I explained in this edit summary, and on this discussion, Widefox is edit warring with me only because it is me, while there is nothing wrong with the edit itself. Debresser (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I repeat my call for a block, perhaps even more than 24h. We have Widefox edit warring with almost a 3RR violation on Ottoman Palestine, now here again on this related page. He bulldozers into an ongoing discussion, edits without consensus, proposes Afd to circumvent that consensus forming on the talkpage (not to mention that even if the article should not be a dab page, it certainly should not be deleted and his proposal was ill conceived either way), polarizes the discussion with unhelpful comments and general uncivil behavior. I think 48 hours will help him cool off and come to his senses. Debresser (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Just now I say he continues with his unilateral edits to Ottoman Palestine: 3 more edits.[278] It is unbelievable how he doesn't get the point that it is his editing without first establishing consensus, in the middle of an active discussion, that provoked all of this. A clear case of an editor who is not fit to edit this article. I propose to consider wider sanction against this editor. Debresser (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The two dab AfDs are unanimous for deletion with Debresser the only dissent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Palestine Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Israel. The false balance argument above is against consensus in all places. The unfounded accusations are a weak defense of the Debresser OWN problem. Widefox; talk 23:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jbhunley care to revisit your comments about AfD etc now it's clear just how wrong the dabs are per guideline and consensus, to the extent that they could have been just reverted or (moved then speedy deleted) rather than taken to AfD anyhow. This mess is solely one editor OWNing against consensus. Also, all these false accusations above should be stricken, and taken into account as part of the disruption. Widefox; talk 00:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary: Considering in Debresser's edit summary (above) they consider these dabs under WP:ARBPIA sanctions, the 3R, OWN, behaviour needs admin attention (2nd ANI on it). They've been previously blocked many times for 1RR ARBPIA, 3RR, and refactoring talk - all of which are reported again here. Widefox; talk 00:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Incorrect claim #1: I do not think this article to be under WP:ABRPIA, and have not said so. I just raised the possibility that some may say it is. In either case, the issue at hand is not related to WP:POV or WP:ARBPIA at all, but is rather a behavioral issue.
2. Incorrect claim #2: The consensus at Afd is not unanimous, although a majority says the page should be redirected instead of being a disambiguation page. Also note that Widefox proposed deletion, which is not what the consensus is going to.
3. If 1RR would apply, then he has violated it repeatedly, while my edits were several days in between or at least 24 hours.
4. Since Widefox has written his summary of events, I would like to do the same:
5. Widefox has violated 3RR once for sure, and came close to violating 3RR a second time, or did violate it a second time, depending on interpretation. In general, he bulldozered into an ongoing discussion and started to make edits, then when he saw that he couldn't dominate the discussion (oh irony of accusing me of WP:OWN), he decided to circumvent the discussion by opening an Afd.
6. All claims in this summary have been substantiated with diffs, see above.
7. Widefox has shown with his edits and talkpage posts, as well as with his post here, that he is not aware that his actions are violations and/or are detrimental to community editing. I firmly believe a block is the only thing that will make this clear to him. Debresser (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Debresser's own edit summary to revert an IP edit due to ABRPIA. Logically, either they a) stand by what they wrote and thus believe sanctions apply or b) they didn't believe what they wrote and made a deceptive edit summary. Either way, it's clear case of OWN, and now LISTEN. Attempting to BOOMERANG with false evidence just underlines the behavioural issue. The AfD contested refactoring edit warring is still ongoing (see 4Rs above)..We all have to abide by policies and sanctions, however many edits and previous blocks. Widefox; talk 02:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What is "false evidence"? The diffs don't lie about your 3RR violation, general edit warring, jumping into discussions by editing the page first and talk it over later, opening two Afd's in the middle of a discussion, and now again reverting my edit for no other reason than that it is me who made it. You have not been able to show even the slightest violation from my side. The one who is not listening here is you. Debresser (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Simply, there's no consensus for Debresser's claims (at AfDs and allegations here) and is repeatedly brought to ANI, due to (in their own words) a "right" to 3R and an offense is the best defense of BOOMERANG with long-term edit warring (threatening it for each person who finds their behaviour unacceptable). That gaming the system and behaviour is not conducive to collaborative editing. Widefox; talk 11:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to make an impression as though I am not here, because I do think this report is very important, but I have no idea what Widefox is talking about, and why he continues to post on my talkpage as though he has a leg to stand on, although I have asked him to stop posting on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Portraying this as between two editors is a false balance ignoring:

• Debresser is against consensus in all places (most clearly at the AfDs)
• Has been asked by two editors to strike the 3RR allegation, but has yet to do that at ANI, and at all places repeated (afDs, their talk etc)
• According to Debresser it's everyone else but him, but repeatedly being brought here indicates the opposite - that logic is WP:LISTEN.

(BTW Debresser [279]: attempts at BOOMERANG but will be ignored from now on. Debresser can you explain why you simultaneously don't want someone to post on your talk page (link?), give them a Talkback to it [280], and have an open question? [281]. This failed attempt at BOOMERANG is just bad faith, I ask for them to be collapsed by an admin here/struck as offtopic. Widefox; talk 13:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You decide that WP:BOOMERANG will be ignored against you? That is rich. :)

I have already pointed out who is not listening, and fail to understand why you keep repeating yourself.

Yes, I will be happy to explain why I don't want "someone", by which I assume you mean yourself, to post on my talkpage. Because all you do is paint my talkpage with standard warning templates, while 1. there is already this discussion, so I am not clear what you want to achieve by posting on my talkpage 2. I find your standard warnings offensive, in view of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars 3. You are so wrong about all of this, that I find it disgraces my talkpage to have you post your misconceptions there. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Even when brought here by two dab editors, Debresser is still edit warring over AfD refactoring against WP:REFACTOR [282]. There's about 10 disputed refactors/reverts (listed above, plus [283]). Considering previous blocks for this, seems a long-term, ongoing WP:LISTEN Widefox; talk 01:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Still edit warring [284]. Widefox; talk 09:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Widefox still continues to edit war, including the 3RR violation mentioned above: [285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290]. It takes two to edit war, Widefox, and you are still not LISTENING. Debresser (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Debresser is still ignoring consensus at all places e.g. the consensus of WP:REFACTOR, where you're meant to revert yourself when contested, but instead denies the fact it is contested [291] "Not contested." and persists to edit war [292]. Removing/refactoring/changing chronology of comments when two other editors have objected to the refactoring (editors shouldn't have to keep checking to see if their comments have been removed by refactoring even though this latest refactor is the tail of the disruption: contested removing my comment [293], contested removing another's comment [294]). It is BRD not BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. I have multiple comments of support on my talk and dab project, and consensus at the AfDs. This is not a dispute between two editors, but between consensus at all places and Debresser. Going against consensus has consequences, repeatedly going against consensus on all these things can, and should lead to another block to put a halt to this disruption (per above). User talk:Debresser details three failed attempts to BOOMERANG three editors in five days. There's no sign of an end to this WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Widefox; talk 11:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

1. If anybody is displaying WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, it is the two editors who tried to report me, when they themselves jumped into a discussion with edits to the article instead of talkpage posts. As I said before, this type of behavior seems to be rampant among editors at WP:DAB. :) No, but seriously, let's just remember all that Widefox did, 1. jumping into a discussion by editing the article 2. circumventing the discussion with 2 Afd's 3. claiming the Afd's go as he wants, while in one case the consensus is not to delete at all 4. reporting me for reverting his redheaded edits 5. claiming I am edit warring while he violated 3RR at least once (and I stress "at least") 6. reverting a perfectly good edit only because I make it. And after all that he says I have a problem with WP:BATTLEGROUND.
2. Every few days he comes up with something new. He started with a 1RR report, which he couldn't make stick. In the mean time he violated 3RR himself. Then he came up with WP:LISTEN, which I don't see any support for. That is what discussions are about, to express all points of view. I have the right to disagree with him, just as much as he has the right to disagree with me. So far, no discussion has been closed, so I am perfectly within my rights to disagree. Now he came up with WP:BATTLEGROUND, because I think WP:BOOMERANG applies. What can I do that he is guilty of several violations and bad overall conduct, and per WP:BOOMERANG should be blocked for those violations (see previous point for a list)?
3. I need to add another revert to the six above: [295].
4. I have no idea what "comments of support on my talk and dab project" Widefox is referring to, and what these comments are in regard to. I doubt any of them supports his 3RR violation(s), or his endless reverts of a perfectly legitimate and logical edit of mine at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Palestine.
5. What this all comes down to in the end, in my humble opinion, is a failed attempt by an editor from another WikiProject to push through his opinion, and vengeful and petty attempts to push through his opinion anyways and make sure I will never again dare to oppose him. Well, I just won't roll over and play dead for him. I repeat my proposal to block Widefox for 48 hours for bullying, out of process actions, and 3RR violation(s), as well as general edit warring and being an unpleasant fellow editor. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 for user:Xx236

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

---

Xx236 (talk · contribs)

This is related to this incident, which seems at least partially based on WP:POV issues. This user has obviously a strong bias leading to disruption, and I hereby propose the following:

Xx236 is topic banned from all pages relating to Poland, broadly construed. This may be appealed at WP:AN after 12 months, or to the Arbitration Comittee

Reasons: This, this this this and this

--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing disruptive here that would warrant any such ban proposed against this Polish editor by German named user above. One of the links goes to edit by another editor, the other is question about proper term "racist, racialst or antisemitic", one is valid concern about use of biased sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, could you please tone down your anti-German rhetoric a bit? Since when is it a priori forbidden for a "German named editor" to criticize a Polish user? Dorpater (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There might be a personal bias due to topics involved and difficult relations at the moment. It is not forbidden of course, but a more uninvolved editor would be preferred, especially since Müdigkeit is engaged in the same discussion Xx236 is and thus proposes to ban somebody on the opposing side of the debate he is in engaged in.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

On the opposing side? Well, on the opposing side of a move without a proper RM procedures even when it is clear that there are valid arguments against a move.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change the name of the article, discuss it on talk page instead of proposing bans for people you disagree with.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Chesnaught555 (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Duck

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

---

Block for an obvious duck is needed. Evading current block. Jim Carter 06:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 for user:MyMoloboaccount

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

---

MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs)

Obviously biased editor with strong opinions leading the disruption. I propose the following:

MyMoloboaccount is topic banned from all pages relating to Poland, broadly construed. This may be appealed at WP:AN after 12 months, or to the Arbitration Comittee.

Reasons: This this this this and this

--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems the user above is proposing topic bans for everyone he engages in debate with.This was posted literally moments just after I contested his edits calling to ban another user and added detailed information about demographic in Lebensraum article based on scholarly sources[296] As to the links about German-Polish relations, since Poles were discriminated in German Empire why is this given as reason for any ban? Is Mudgkeit contesting this? Since Müdigkeit is directly engaged in debating and editing articles with people he propose to ban, it just seems a way of winning argument.In any case if he wants such strong bans the proper channel is to go to Request for Enforcement AFTER debating the issues he has concerns with and topics. Not trying to ban users he disagrees with. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I am more concerned that your edits seem to change these articles only in one direction, the direction you have a strong opinion towards.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about ? What other direction to you want these articles to go to? In case of Lebensraum I added on research regarding demographic of territories Nazis annexed from Poland[297]. In case of German-Polish relations I added on discrimination of Poles under German Empire and Prussia. Is your view that this is not correct or that there is some other demographic data you want to add? I am sorry but it would help if you would be clear. Discuss articles and changes first, before trying to ban other users. Also this is not the proper venue to ask for such wide ranging bans. I am happy to discuss changes you want on the article discussion pages.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I want articles to go to the directions supported by reliable sources with the appropiate WP:WEIGHT. Editors with obvious strong opinions endanger WP:NPOV and should not edit in that area in biased manner. Or in other words, what is wrong is that you try to remove material you don't like and insert (sourced or not) material you like without trying to balance the views according to WP:WEIGHT because your primary interest is not neutrality, but rather an article that suits your view.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

to go to the directions supported by reliable sources

Czeslaw Madajczyk is a renown scholar of Nazi atrocities "German Professor of History at Stuttgart University, Gerhard Hirschfeld, President of the International Committee for the History of the Second World War, in his obituary praised Madajczyk as an "eminent historian, whose scholarly work on 20th Century Polish and European History has been widely acknowledged and respected" and who, through his work, enhanced greatly the understanding of German occupation policies and different experiences of people under Fascist oppression. Hirschfeld referred to Madajczyk's research on Generalplan Ost and German war plans and the Soviet massacre at Katyn as "milestones of the historiography of the Second World War".[1] Polish historian Andrzej Friszke described him as a great scholar whose work on German occupation of Poland is fundamental.[3] German historian Professor Karl Schlögel from Viadrina European University called Madajczyk a great historian that described the horror of German rule in occupied Poland.[4]" "trying to balance the views". Please explain what you mean by that? Is there any reliable source claiming Nazis didn't annex Polish territories. I am sorry but your haven't explained what is wrong with Madajczyk or describing in detail the demography of the regions they annexed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 are we doing with IP vandals these days?

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

---

See: 69.126.2.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 7 edits to 5 pages in past 24 hours. 2 Warnings, along with welcome template added to talk page already. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 18:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Report them at WP:AIV. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Will do. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 19:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Same thing as we always do here. AN/I is not synonymous with "notice board for criticism of how we manage vandals", so do as the previous editor said and take it to AIV. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

WTF are you on about? I'm not "criticizing" anything. So... relax. - ^theWOLFchild 19:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The title of this discussion proves that you are criticising our current system of managing vandals. Mind your language too. If you want me to take you seriously, don't say "WTF are you on about?". Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to argue with you over this, so take it to AIV and I will close this. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It "proves" nothing. I only asked a question. I wasn't aware of AIV. I'll mind my "language" when you get your shitty attitude in check. My very simple question was already answered so we didn't need you jumping in with your accusations. Like I said, you need to relax. Not everything is about you. - ^theWOLFchild 19:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't report an hour and half old IP vandal to AIV, you ignore it because they've had their fun and have moved on. NE Ent 19:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You mean "day and a half"? It's clearly someone who knows their way around and are definitely WP:NOTHERE. - ^theWOLFchild 19:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hour and a half since last edit. NE Ent 20:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Problem is solved. Now any non-involved editor or admin may close this. - ^theWOLFchild 20:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There are various ways to handle IP vandals. One is to revert the vandalism and see if the vandal reverts it back. If so, then he's still active and an AIV report is more likely to be taken seriously than if it's been hours or days since the IP's last activity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Intentional violation of WP:RM by user:Volunteer Marek

The following discussion is closed. 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 27 December 2015 I created an article titled Polish constitutional crisis, 2015. On 4 January 2016 user:Volunteer Marek (VM) appeared, deleted large parts of the content [298] and claimed that the actual topic of the article is a crisis of the Constitutional court and not a constitutional crisis. I started a discussion about the scope (Talk:Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015#Constitutional crisis vs. Constitutional court crisis) of the article on 6 January and asked for a WP:RfC on 7 January.

Without any actual discussion about a move user:Staszek Lem moved the page to Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 on 8 January [299] I restored the initial title (analogously) on 8 January 7:56 [300] VM moved the page again at 8:12. I contacted both editors [301] [302] and asked them to find WP:Consensus according to WP:RM#CM (and restored the initial title analogously).

VM than created a section on the talk page titled "article name" on 8 January [303]

On 9 January 12:59 user:MyMoloboaccount moved the page [304] claiming "this is a dispute about Constitutional Court not about Constitution" (which is actually the unresolved dispute). I restored the initial title (analogously) and asked Molobo to find consensus according to WP:TITLECHANGES. On 9 January 16:01 VM moved the page again. None of these editors has even tried to use WP:RM for this obviously controversial move. This is not about the contentual justification of these moves, it's about the sheer, intentional ignorance of WP:RM and the outcome of WP:Rfc. All these moves were done within hours without even trying to find a broader consensus (giving other editors the chance to participate). Especially VM continued to move the page after I asked him to use WP.RM instead. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest this is the wrong venue. Have you considered the dedicated dispute resolution noticeboards? (WP:DRN, WP:3O, etc.) I can't really see how an admin can help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There's three editors who think the article should be under "Polish Constitutional Court crisis". Then there's is ONE editor, Herkus, who thinks the article should be under "Polish Constitutional Crisis". And that one editor, Herkus, is trying to obstruct moving the article by demanding that "consensus" be reached. Welllllllllll.... three editors out of four pretty much is consensus here, so it's hard to see how either Herkus' demands for "consensus" or this posting to AN/I have been made in good faith. This is WP:GAMING, pure and simple.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It' not about the content, it's not about whether the move is justified or not (after an appropriate discussion). It's about the way VM intentionally ignores WP:RM. It is pretty clear that this move is a controversial one and it is pretty clear how such move should be dealt with. If the final result of a proper discussion within an adequate timescale is to move it, I would be completely fine with it. But VM ignores an ongoing WP:RFC, he ignores WP:RM and WP:TITLECHANGES ("Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged....Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made") to push his own POV. He creates "facts on the ground" without even trying to use the normal procedure. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh please. You ignore clear WP:CONSENSUS while at the same time demanding that any action be postponed until "consensus" is reached. Which *is* in fact a textbook disruptive delaying/obstructionist tactic. A pretty clear cut case of bad faith gaming and wikilawyering. I mean, you can't demand "consensus" and then complain when that consensus is reached just because it doesn't happen to please you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and there's no "ongoing RFC" related to the article title so please, really, stop making stuff up and misrepresenting the situation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Off course, there's an ongoing RfC [305] and consensus to move a page is not reached within 32 hours when backed just by your closest friend. WP:TITLECHANGES is absolutely precise about controversial moves. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an RfC on the article's talk page; however, it is not about the article's title. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it's about the scope of the article, which would directly influence the "correct" title. The disputed content is for sure not part of the Court crisis but it is part of the broader Constitutional crisis. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What happened here is really not good. First this removal occurred while the page was on its original title, and then, after the material in this article had been narrowed down (and that had not been discussed out properly), the article was moved to the title that did only fit the not removed content. Forced down without a proper move request despite being contentious. --Müdigkeit (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that Herkus is not following here the consensus of the editors involved.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It is consensus that a contentious move (a move that is likely to be contested, or is contested) has to be requested by a proper move request.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This a debate about constitutional court so it is not a controversial move.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. It has been objected to, on reasons that the previous name was based on sources, so it isn't uncontroversial. Stop disrupting the normal procedures.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Under your interpretation a single editor can bully their way through by "being the first mover" and then sabotaging consensus by always disagreeing. Herkus asked for consensus. He got consensus. The article was moved. He didn't like it. He came here to WP:FORUMSHOP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your tactic below of requesting topic bans for anyone who disagrees with you. It's pretty obvious you have an obvious and also a problem with Wikipedia's policies on WP:CONSENSUS. WP:NOTHERE? 19:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, where are the article title conventions you based that on? Surely not WP:NC? The sources name it a constitutional crisis. Not a Constitutional Court crisis.--Müdigkeit (talk)

Is there any chance of having this somewhat silly thread closed? In light of Müdigkeit's WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour (as evidenced by the closed threads below), this is not the appropriate venue for further discussion. Erhem, perhaps a warning should be issued to Müdigkeit. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• As I said before, this is not an issue for admin intervention, so please either resolve the issue through proper discussion on the article talk page or take it to another noticeboard. Closing.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Thomas.W removing Findagrave links and the place of burial from 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.

---

This content dispute should be continued at WP:RSN. No administrative action required. De728631 (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

User:Thomas.W is removing Findagrave links with a message to see his talk page "Rv repeated spamming of links to findagrave.com (see user's talk page).) ", there is nothing there concerning it. Has there been a ruling to remove Findagrave links instead of migrating them to Wikidata? I cannot find anything on the issue and the blacklist does not contain Findagrave. Did I miss a ruling? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Find a Grave famous people is a page I have seen that is related to this issue. DMacks (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That concerns migrating biographies from FAG to Wikipedia. I think it would be covered in blacklisting, where we ban sites from being used in Wikipedia. At one time blocked NNDB then unblocked it, because they were adding their links to Wikipedia.

• "findagrave.com" is a privately owned ([306]) money-generating ([307]) user-contributed/user-generated ([308]) website. Anyone can add information to the site, all you need to do is create a free account there, and with 400,000 members/contributors ([309]) there's no way they can check the information. Which means it's not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards and can't be used as a reference. I took a look at it after noticing that Wikihil123 has been adding Findagrave as a reference on close to a hundred different articles over the past few weeks, which I saw as active spamming. Especially since they refused to stop even after having been told on their talk page to find reliable sources. The links in addition to that that I have removed is only a tiny fraction of the total links there are to findagrave.com from here (see findagrave.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 ), and were links that had been added as both refspam and external links, in some cases with multiple links to them on the same article, including 2-3 links on short stub articles. Which IMHO fits the description of what constitutes spam... Thomas.W ^talk 22:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It is not spamming to add in missing external links. We have spamming controlled by our blacklist and your proposal to blacklist FAG was rejected, so it is not spam. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Basically Find-A-Grave is "a wiki that anyone can edit" and, therefore, not a reliable source. It can be added as an external link, as long as it isn't used in excess (one link per bio to the specific person). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

1 user likes this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur and have routinely remove anything that uses F-A-G as a reference for something in articles with one external. As an external link is fine. I am leery of using F-A-G as a reference for where someone is buried. F-A-G is sometimes wrong. I however have left many of those references intact. IMHO where someone is buried isn't noteworthy in most cases....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I was just looking at WP:EL, if Thomas.W description of the site is accurate, I think it would fall foul of a few of the 'do not link' guidelines. Essentially any useful info there will either be in the wiki article if reliably sourced. If it can't be reliably sourced, why would we link to an unreliable website which adds nothing? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It is not a wiki, it does not use the underlying wiki software, its used MySQL. Not everyone can edit, anyone can create an entry, and other users can suggest corrections which are accepted or rejected by editors before the corrections display. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• I can add that there's a template ({{findagrave}}) that can be used, but only under certain circumstances ("Care should be taken when deciding to make a link to the Find a Grave website. While photographs of gravestones provide useful information, the biographical and other additional details may not be reliable. If there are fully reliable sources which may be used, then the Find a Grave link should not be used, or should be removed in place of the more reliable source."). And in case anyone wonders what I base my claim that Findagrave.com can't be used as a reference on, Wikipedia's rules say "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (my emphasis) in WP:Verifiability, which is a policy, while WP:Identifying reliable sources, a content guideline, says "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such aswikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.". Thomas.W ^talk 23:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment "Care should be taken" is not synonymous with "must be deleted". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Findagrave.com is a reliable source for locations of cemeteries and pictures of grave markers. It's not necessarily reliable for text information, especially as many of their bios are taken from Wikipedia, which by definition is not a reliable source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Or in RAN's case, not on Wikipedia, as he cannot create new articles here, but he can there. See Arb Enforcement, there is a request there re him and findagrave now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your first sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Sorry worded badly. RAN has contributed content to findagrave and is restricted from linking to it. So it is hardly surprising he is annoyed that someone is removing links he is forbidden to replace. See enforcement request for more detail. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I am only restricted in linking to one's that I have created. Nothing restricts me from undoing his removal of links. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• • • • • • OK, I see. And I'll concede that Findagrave is a questionable source for text information, hence it's not of much use as a "reference". But it's totally fine as an external link, for information about headstones and cemeteries. If this Thomas guy is removing Findagrave links from the external links, then he's in the wrong, and should be compelled to cease that activity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
            • Well when links contain the editor's work? Bit dodgier. But see my reply above to WilliamJE if it's valid as an EL. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
              • If he had simply quoted the source material used in Findagrave, instead of linking to the Findagrave page, would it have been acceptable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                • Depends, assuming the info was sourced and in the wp article, it would make it pointless to use it (FAG) as an external link... I don't really understand why people are linking or using it as a source at all. The bios can't be used to reference content, and it's prime reason, the grave location, will either be available in an RS or not available. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                  • That's not what I asked. The book cited in the Findagrave article looks like it would be considered "reliable" for direct use in Wikipedia, so the claim that the Findagrave article is "unreliable" would be false. And I say again, Findagrave IS reliable for grave locations. No other external link is needed for that info. Having said that, this particular Findagrave entry is of no particular value to any Wikipedia artice - not because it's "unreliable", but because it adds no new information - it lacks burial information, which is the whole point of Findagrave's existence. It's only value as an external link would be if the author had looked in public records or obituaries to find the burial info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                    • Ah right. Well technically yes as long as the base source was fine the findagrave article would probably not be unreliable in that sense. But if we were using anything from the book we would use the book, not findagrave. If we were not sourcing anything specific, the book should be in a further reading section, rather than EL'ing findagrave. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                      • There's no reason not to have an external link to Findagrave, IF that link indicates burial information. Since the example you cited lacks that info, it's of no use as an external link, and certainly not something I would add to an article. The editor needs to track down the N.Y. Times obit and see if the burial place is given, as would normally be the case. Then it could be useful as an external link, though much more so if someone provided a picture of the grave marker - which, as I said, is the core purpose of Findagrave. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Fully agree with Baseball Bugs. Findagrave is a good source for gravestones, dates of birth/death and cemeteries. As such it provides very valuable information and shouldn't be removed when used in that sense. Also, there is no explicit guideline against using that site, so users should be stopped from behaving like vigilantes (there's similar behaviour going on regarding the football website transfermarket.com). --Midas02 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
      • One cautionary note: Findagrave is not necessarily a reliable source for dates. Even if a date is on a headstone, there's no guarantee it's accurate. Probably accurate, but not absolutely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Meh – even with birth and death dates, you have to be careful: I've done Find a Grave enough to have found headstones with completely wrong dates for either birth or death. I generally agree that it's fine as an 'External link', especially to establish the current burial location. But I'm not sure I'd try and get any other info from Find a Grave, aside from perhaps the identity of the spouse(s)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Findagrave is no better than an open wiki. It should never be used as a source. - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Wrong on the first point, and it is totally fine as an external link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
            • Why wrong? That anyone can suggest a correction doesn't stop anyone from making the initial entry. And I never mentioned external links (although I don't like to see it there either, I specifically said "source"). - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
              • The first point is wrong because "no better than an open wiki" is untrue. But if you're OK with it being an external link, then no problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                • So you are still not answering my query. And you are now making an assumption also, which seems rash given I said "I don't like to see it there either". - Sitush (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                  • I'll try again: You said "Findagrave is no better than an open wiki." That is not true. Your second point is not to use it as a source. I would concur with that unless someone wants to post the subject's burial info. But an external link should be sufficient for that. And if you have a problem with it as an external link, I don't see why. It's reliable for grave markers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                    • So, your first answer was "wrong on the first point", your second was "is untrue" and your third is "not true". No explanation regarding why = no answer to my query of "why wrong?". As for grave markers, well, I can name one relative who used it and had a headstone cleaned up only to discover that it was for someone else who bore the same name. An expensive mistake, that was. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                      • Untrue because it is not an open wiki. It can't be edited by everyone under the sun, like Wikipedia can - it's much more restrictive. The text can only be edited by the page owner, and by contributors of pictures. Text edits can be requested, but the page owner has to approve them. As to the error you describe, did you eventually find the real headstone? Was it in that same cemetery? One mistake does make for "unreliable". If it did, nothing would be reliable for anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
                        • (edit conflict) Just to clarify, "Page Owner" is not the same as "Site Owner". Anyone who adds a page (and as I wrote above anyone can add material/pages), becomes the owner of that page/article, and can then prevent others from correcting errors, which in effect makes it potentially even less reliable than a site where anyone can edit anything... Thomas.W ^talk 06:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• My point was to say that you should migrate the data to Wikidata, there is a field exclusively for a Findagrave ID number. This issue is independent of using FAG as a reliable source to show which cemetery someone is buried in, and whether it can appear as an external link. The issue with any source is whether they publish corrections when they are pointed out, this is called editorial control. If we required sources to be correct 100% of the time, we could not use the New York Times. The print version has a paragraph of corrections from the previous day, and online articles have the corrections explained at the bottom of each article. The article I am reading now says : "An earlier version of this column misstated the percentage of mutual fund money invested in indexed mutual funds at the end of 2014 and 10 years earlier. It was 15.6 percent at the end of 2014, not 18.5 percent, compared with 8.9 percent — not 9.8 percent — a decade earlier." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• The other problem is that User:Thomas.W is removing both the link to Findagrave and the underlying information that the person in question is buried in that cemetery. If he thinks the attribution is in error, he should be replacing the incorrect cemetery with the proper cemetery, and not removing the information completely. He is doing it because he does not find Findagrave reliable, in his gut, in a truthiness way. If he has an alternative source showing that Findagrave is wrong, then fix the error and source it to that new reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The example cited for me a little ways up happens to have no burial info. I'd like to see an example of one that does have burial info but Thomas removed it anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

i was trying to use find a grave as a reliable source for information. it has information on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihil123 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 10 January 2016‎ (UTC)

One I restored has a photo of the tombstone and has an image of the person, where we do not have an image of the person in Wikipedia. I Guess we are here to decide if all should be restored, unless they are incorrect, I have not seen any evidence presented that they have provided incorrect information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the consensus at WP:RSN has been that Find-A-Grave is not a reliable source. Therefore it should not be used as a source, full stop. As an external link should be fine - there's even a template for that, as I recall - but that is a content dispute and is not an issue for ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

These WP:RSN links (#1, #2) are highly relevant, and support that Findagrave should not be used as a source, and only under special circumstances added even as an external link. Thomas.W ^talk 07:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what it says: "As an external link: Nota bene Rarely. Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images and location information of graves. As a reliable source: Almost never. It should never be cited if it is a circular reference to Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I rarely show up for these kind of "who shot John" debates at ANI, but Thomas W., The Bush ranger and others are 100% correct: Findagrave.com is NOT a reliable source. This particular user-contributed source has been repeatedly discussed, and has been specifically and repeatedly rejected as a reliable source. Anyone who continues to add content to Wikipedia articles in reliance on Findagrave.com, after receiving a warning that it is not a reliable source per WP:RS, and after removal of that content by other editors, should be subject to being blocked for violating our policies and guidelines and for tendentious editing. Spamming non-reliable sources into the "external links" of dozens, if not hundreds of articles, and adding content to the same articles based on the same unreliable sources is a bit more of a problem than a simple "content dispute." It's a violation of core policies for which I believe this editor Richard Arthur Norton is still subject to editing restrictions for similar violations and problems on a mass scale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:01, January 10, 2016‎

• @Dirtlawyer1: A bit of clarification is needed to make sure than there are no misunderstandings, by "this editor" I assume you mean Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), the OP, and not me, the user mentioned in the section header, because I have never been under any restrictions of any kind, ever. Thomas.W ^talk 08:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Clarified, Thomas W.; see my edit above. As noted above, Findagrave.com has been determined not to be a reliable source. I see absolutely no reason why we should be adding external links to every FAG entry for every which there exists a corresponding Wikipedia biography. Period. We are, in effect, recommending FAG as a source by linking to it from the "external links" sections of our articles. That's makes no sense whatsoever. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Couple of remarks. 1. The above is about adding Findagrave as an external link, not for using it as a single source of information. I don't even believe I've ever encountered an article using that site as a single source. 2. As far as I'm aware, there is no formal guideline against the use of Findagrave data. As such, the suggestion that it wouldn't be reliable per WP:RS is an interpretation, which will not necessarily be shared by others. If you believe it should be disallowed, energy would better be spent in creating a formal guideline (see WP:CITINGIMDB) 3. I'm wondering if this case is then not any different from IMDB which also fails some of the WP:RS criteria, but which doesn't stop editors from referencing it as an external link, or complementary source, in articles. And for those articles where IMDB is used as a single source of information, a template was devised ({{BLP IMDb refimprove}}) which should alert the reader and stimulate the addition of better sources. --Midas02 (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• No, putting stuff in the external links section is not "recomending...as a source". The whole point of the external links section is to add links to additional detail that are not useable as sources but are still useful to a reader. Find-A-Grave can fall into that category even though it should not be used as a source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Can Dirtlawyer or Thomas.W show that one of the Findagrave entries that was removed was incorrect. That would go a long way to prove the premise that Findagrave is an unreliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• FAG is even less reliable then Wikipedia because anyone can add pages then protect them from correction with basically no oversight. IMDB is also pretty bad - for example it's entry on Candy Carson credits her with a movie her husband was in. Legacypac (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think they are useful and should be usable. Many times they are the only source for information on gravesites and cemeteries (which are usually linked in their articles about the palls). Often they have information and photos not available anywhere else. This is their business. I find it ironic that a wiki based organization like wikipedia sniffs at the 'unreliabiltiy' of FindaGrave. I don't see why they can't be seen as corroborative (and therefore cumulative) of matters that are already reliably sources. And I think that there use as an external link helps our readers. The need for the link and the reliability of any article ought to be done individually. An a priori rule throws out a lot of babies with the bath water. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to determine whether a source is reliable or not. That should be done at WP:RSN. If nobody has further complaints about behavior, then this can be closed as "no admin action necessary". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

In almost every case, Find-a-grave fails WP:ELNEVER because its pictures are copyright violations. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the wrong place. Would seem to be a positive aid and should not be dismissed as being "unreliable". — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Start a discussion at WP:RSN if you think it's a reliable source -- and good luck with that. My point is that using it as an external link is contributory copyright infringement and contrary to Wikipedia's legal policy. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty desperate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Desperate? Not me. Take a look at WP:EL/P#Find-a-Grave (admittedly an essay)? It says the site is rarely acceptable as an external link and almost never as a reliable source. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You say it is a contributory copyright infringement. Of what? Headstones? This discussion was preemptively closed, and I want this untoward and unsupported accusation retracted and redacted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Agree with 7&6=thirteen that it would be useful if this thread wasn't be closed until claims of "copyright infringement are better explained. That essay just says "Some pages contain copyright violations"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is unclear about what I wrote. Most of the pictures on the site are copyright violations. Yes, even the images of the gravestones, because there is no freedom of panorama in the United States.

But the closer is right -- there's no need for administrative action here, so if this discussion must be continued, it should continued elsewhere. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There actually is a copyright process in the United States. If someone publishes (in any form) without availing themselves of a legal copyright, it is in the public domain. We are not talking about taking pictures of copyrighted works, i.e., sculptures. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not exactly true at the moment. The current US copyright law holds that copyright is inherent in any copyrightable work (and like The Bushranger below, I very much doubt that your plain everyday gravestone is copyrightable) when it is created, it does not have to be "published" (whatever that is these days), it does no have to have any copyright notice on it, or be registered with the Copyright Office, or anything else -- although having a plainly visible copyright notice is helpful in protecting one's copyright in court. In the past, copyright notices were required, as was publication and registration, and the lack of a proper notice could lead to loss of copyright (remember Ace Books publishing The Lord of the Rings in paperback without permission to do so when Houghton Mifflin mistakenly published the books in hardcover in the US without a copyright notice?) -- that is no longer the case. BMK (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:MShabazz, sorry to keep discussing here instead of over at WP:RSN, but who would own the copyright of the gravestones? The monumental mason, the cemetery, the family of the deceased, or someone else? (I, and many people I know of, have photographs of the gravestones of ancestors buried in the US and probably don't know they are copyright protected). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Calling headstones "sculptures" is pretty desperate. Although it's an implicit admission that the site is reliable for pictures of those headstones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess that makes it a reliable breach of copyright, rather than an unreliable breach. Perhaps. Sometimes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Those pictures are reliable only if we're sure the headstone is for the correct person, and we can't use the site to verify that it is. - Sitush (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And someone "could" post a picture of Sarah Palin and claim it's Tina Fey. That's user input that's less reliable than pictures on Findagrave. Do you demand the same level of scrutiny for celebrity snapshots posted by users? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright...on...gravestones...*head asplode* No, just, no. A gravestone is a simple geometric shape with standardized lettering on it. Not copyrightable, not copyrighted. Now, a big fancy custom one with some super-fancy design may have that design copyrighted, but your bog-standard gravestone? I'd highly expect any judge faced with a copyright claim for that would only not toss the plantiff out on their ear for contempt of court because they would be laughing too hard to do so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Need admin assistance to revert a page move done without consensus...

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

---

Hello, I'm not certain if this is the right board to post this on, but I need an admin to assist with the reversion of an unauthorized page move.

The page New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany was recently moved to New Year's Eve sexual assaults and robbery in Germany without consensus or even any prior discussion on the article's talk page. Because the old title still exists (as a redirect page), I am unable to manually move the page back to the previous title.

There is currently a requested move underway atTalk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults and robbery in Germany, but as I noted in my point of process there, the page should be moved back to the previous title as soon as possible, and then another RM started to see if there's consensus for a different title. Consensus shouldn't be required to undo a move which was made without consensus, and leaving the page at the current title prejudices the discussion. -Helvetica (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Helvetica: Probably the best venue for requests like this is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests – specifically the "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" section. Hope this helps... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! -Helvetica (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Message to Ohnoitsjamie

One way or another this isn't appropriate for here. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:30, 11 January 2016 (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. Please could someone with authority request that ohnoitsjamie provide a mechnaism for IPs to get in touch with him (e.g. an alternate talk page)? This certialy used to be the convention if not the rule back in the days of yore if ones talk page were protected. And I should know, I was once on arb com. 86.138.29.104 (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC) If there's a need to get in touch related to a particular article or topic, you can ping them from a relevant topic page. Alternatively, you're welcome to return to your account that "used to be on ArbCom" and message from there. ~ RobTalk 03:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible block evasion of KrazyKlimber as IP 101.182.100.189

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

---

Both users make repetitive edits of similar articles, both say "blogs are not reliable sources". Both are from Australia. Is there anything that can be done about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=KrazyKlimber&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.182.100.189

Ylevental (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Arvabhi attempting to usurp Premier Badminton League to Indian Badminton League

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

---

Arvabhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempting to usurp Premier Badminton League to Indian Badminton League. Arvabhi just paged moved Premier Badminton League to User:Indian Badminton League. Arvabhi has been changing the content of Premier Badminton League to Indian Badminton League repeatedly. Best to check Arvabhi's edit history as diffs may be rapidly out of date. Jim1138 (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

14.140.220.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Appears to have been making similar usurping attempts to PBL as well and is currently blocked.

Indian Badminton League appears to have rebranded themselves as Premier Badminton League around November 2015. Jim1138 (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This needs dealing with in some way or other – unaware of this posting, I've filed a request at WP:RFPP. The page needs to moved back from User Indian Badminton League to Premier Badminton League, and some sort of stop put to this disruption. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks as if Materialscientist has sorted this. All done. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Or rather, not: disruption continues, from IP 14.140.220.84. Range block? Also, Talk:Indian Badminton League needs to be moved to Talk:Premier Badminton League – it got left behind in the sort-out. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

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