Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Conduct of Dan56

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

---

Dan56 (talk · contribs)

Topic ban requested.

User repeatedly violates WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, is stubbornly Wikilawyering, and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he willfully pushes his view without considering other editors' input.

• AGF: [3], [4], [5], [6]
• Recent edit warring, & WP:POINT in article editing (in the first diff, he disruptively removes [while I was still improving the section] reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: [7] + my response: [8] + [9]; [10] + [11]; [12] + [13] + [14] + [15]; [16] + [17] + [18] + [19] (←linked to Wikiproject discussion in which he said himself recently it was only a guide)

I'd addressed his behavior in article and talk page with a cordial message on his page, asking him to stop disrupting and start working collaboratively.

I know I have a disadvantage here as Dan56 has promoted many GAs or FAs (reading over ANI, that apparently tends to give you automatic pardon of Wiki guideline violations), but this user has a history of eschewing collaboration, of disruptive and tendentious editing, pushing POV, OWN attitudes, WP:battleground, disrupting editing to make a point, not assuming good faith, genre warring, accusing others of what he is exactly doing or has done, and many editors have called him out on his behavior and editing practices in the past, on various article talk pages (particularly RfCs). Dan56 evidently is not interested in changing his behavior as he feels his promotion of GAs absolves him of any responsibility for his actions and that he's potentially answerable to no one (as his unsanctioned acts would lead him to believe), evidenced, recently, here and here. Most of my encounters with him have been on the band Garbage's articles, at which he arrived about 7 months ago after being canvassed by another editor (who possibly didn't know about the policy then) in a content discussion, and where he willfully employed the same editing tactics and violations he's still willfully and freely employing.

Please see see this relevant RfC here, which is the (recent) source of this dispute, and where much of the aforementioned is evident further. Dan56 does not appear to want to contribute to a collaborative, disruption-free environment at this band's pages, where he has quarreled with me and engaged in all the aforementioned countless times. My request is a topic ban for this band's articles. What he's contributed (e.g., copy edit of reviews, date formats) (by essentially shutting out others, really) can just as easily be and have been contributed by myself or any of the other editors watching the article. And, as I pointed out in the RfC, If Dan56 had actually bothered to give me a minute or two to copy edit and fix issues and continue improving and augmenting the article, as opposed to just reverting and disrupting constructive edits none of that would occur. Of course, that appears to not be in his nature, particularly for these Garbage articles, for which he, going by all prior indication, has a bias against. --Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77 is personalizing a dispute which stems from my involvement at Talk:Garbage (album)#Album genres and the subsequent RfC for those genres, which didn't go Lapadite's way exactly, partly because I was invited by Andrzejbanas to weigh in and sided with him. Last October ([20]), I began cleaning up and expanding a section at Version 2.0 and have been involved there since. My recent revisions to Lapadite's edits were justified by guidelines I don't feel he can fully grasp at the on-going RfC, where he canvassed two of his recent collaborators at other "Garbage" articles to weigh in. Lapadite argued for his version of the article by drawing comparisons to other stuff in the RfC, so I dont believe he had any intention to drastically trim and properly paraphrase the quote farm he added to the article in question. The section in question is essentially complete, considering the notability of the reviewers and the viewpoints researched, so this is appears to be another attempt at creative control. Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Did I mention Dan56 had a history of accusing people of things, never admitting he has done anything wrong, and creating striking lies and misleading statements which are easily refuted by the actual, readable evidence? In that Garbage album RfC, which one can readily see, toward the end, editors called him out on his intentionally misleading tactics (for which he took 0 responsibility for and ignored the comments, and which he again similarly employed in this recent RfC, which I commented on). I created a new poll, because the other was corrupted by Dan56's tactics and lies and more useful content had also been included in the article, with an updated proposal based on recent article edits, and it went smooth and successfully. Exactly the opposite of what he claims here. This accusation - "this is appears to be another attempt at creative control" - and the hypocrisy is utterly laughable. As you can see, in accordance with my report, Dan56 does not believe he does anything wrong. All of the aforementioned, articles and diffs linked, speaks for itself, regardless of how Dan disregards and reinterprets his actions and assumes of others'. If one were to bring all the editors that have called out Dan56 on his disruptive behavior and editing practices throughout various articles they would all agree with this. I don't link to past talk discussions not directly pertaining to this dispute because it may be tacky and doing so might be interpreted negatively but I have no problem doing so if asked. This is far from a personal dispute or vendetta, which I don't care for. You can see my cordial message on his page, and after that Garbage album content dispute he linked, I had very amicably discussed with him on his page some content matters on another article; unlike him, I don't hold grudges and I'm not here for battlegrounds and disruptive practices, only to improve articles. Dan56's presence at this band's articles has been continually disruptive as his POINTy, POV-pushing, OWN, Wikilawyering, NPOV/Stick to sources-eschewal, genre warring (a significant issue during that album article discussion he linked) and lack of collaboration inhibits progress. For instance, If he hadn't disrupted improvement of that article's section (specifically the start of my constructive edits which, as I said in the RfC [contrary to what he too claims here] were far from finished) that section would've been completed right soon and without the need of all that came after it. Of course he credits the current version (which needs a checking of sources and copyediting for POV, cherry picking, sticking to source) to his mighty self, since, liked I stated above, he shut editors out and steamrolled his edits, and while RfC had just started. Again, this isn't the first time here Dan56 inhibits or significantly slows down progress here, takes ownership of an article and disregards collaboration, in the process perpetuating an environment of only disputes (as I remarked near the end of the current RfC I linked: "Is there an RfC that's not a battleground with you? To which he replied, "that's cute and all".). I strongly believe a topic ban is best. --Lapadite (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to file a report here. I recommend including only good evidence in the form of diffs. This thread will likely be closed, by someone else, accordingly. Or do you expect an admin to jump in and block the user per this report? Doc talk 08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I expected admins to comment on ANI and consider the irrefutable content in all the links provided. Why do you think I should file a report there instead? That page says it is inactive, and the topic dispute isn't limited to RfC conduct, it also, and primarily, regards editor conduct on this band's articles, hence my request of a topic ban, and not another kind; WP:TBAN →"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia.". --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another tendentious edit, which I partially restored. --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another tendentious edit and reversal of copyedit/improvements, demonstrating again WP:OWN, POV, and Wikilawyering issues:

I copyedited, as edit summary details: [21]

He wrote, in another section on the talk page, at 10:08: [22] and 2 minutes later, made the following revert (including restoring of his tendentious, NPOV, undue weight-violating ratings replacement [mentioned in the first "Another tendentious edit" diff above]): [23]. The pre-copyediting version (his) that he restored is in many respects cherry picking, giving undue weight, and not sticking to source.

My response to his talk page post: [24])

I sincerely hope what has been provided and continues to be provided (obviously, again Dan56 has no plans to change his habits here) is more than enough to see why I, with reason, request a topic ban for Dan56, due to his considerable, disruptive OWN issues on this band's article, his complete disregard for collaboration, his consistent tendentious editing, knee-jerk reverts of improvements he disagrees with, violations of WP:PRESERVE and all else aforementioned.

Can any admins bother to tend to this thread? All that continues to happen is disruptive and more disruptive editing from Dan56. Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinging a couple of editors, spotted while skimming ANI, that I believe are admins, to see if maybe this could start getting some attention (sorry if you're not one): Drmies, Stalwart111

I understand what Lapadite is saying, as some of my debates with Dan56 were similar in the past, but unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully, where he can come off as rude or abrasive, not its not really bad enough to warrant a block. Unless it starts escalating to personal attacks or hounding, I think a better approach would be to just keep starting discussions or RFC's, to come to a consensus that combats the WP:OWN issues. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the disruptive editing guideline mentions some "tread the line" behaviors these kinds of editors may engage in such as: "Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article". Dan56 doesn't do blunt personal attacks, although others may disagree, and this isn't a report on personal attacks nor a proposal to ban him from editing Wikipedia but a request for a topic ban, to rid of his considerable, still ongoing (after 7 months) pattern of disruption at this band's articles, his considerable OWN and WP:POINTy behavior, and considerable disregard for collaboration. He's still doing it, still reverting. And presumably this guy has many editors not wanting to speak against him, perhaps admins. Pretty much every other thread at ANI has several comments. This is just ridiculous. --Lapadite (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

More tendentious editing: [25] --Lapadite (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Part of Dan56's tendentious edits, is (first mentioned above) the constant replacing of a positive score with a negative score in the album ratings box (which already contains 10 review scores). It has been called out and explained multiple times on the talk page, noted how it's not only tendentious, but violates WP:UNDUE and WP:PRESERVE, but Dan56 keeps restoring it. There's also the persistent claim that reviews that agree on some element of an album are virtually incompatible in that regard in a reception section; summaries of reviews can't include similar opinions, unless of course for something that contradicts positive notions. Any admin's care about this pattern of disruption, OWN and tendentious editing? Seriously, this article would've been completely improved by now if Dan56 hadn't gone (and still continue) on a disruptive, tendentious crusade. --Lapadite (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this thread still open? Dan56 does like to ram a point home when he thinks he's right, the problem with that of course is that sometimes he is right. He's been very helpfully sorting out the "critical response" sections to numerous album articles to the extent that when I start improving one for WP:ALBUMS/500 I look at that and think, "good stuff, Dan's done it". With that in mind I'm just reluctant to come down like a ton of bricks on him. As others have said, he's never crossed the line into personal attacks, so all I can really advise is to just stick to the article and forget about who's saying what. It's the only sane method. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't pretend I've read all of this thread, but I'm not at all surprised to see Dan56's behaviour become the subject of another discussion. Just over a year ago, I talked GabeMc out of opening an RFC/U on this user, when Gabe and several others were fed up with him, and, although I could be wrong, I believe this was the near-miss referred to in a subsequent RfC on Dan56, in August 2014. I chose not to have any input into that discussion either, but the references there to Dan56 being so obviously pro-Robert Christgau and overly controlling of article content were all too familiar. My direct contact with Dan56 has been limited mainly to tedious discussions about album genres at Talk:All Things Must Pass and Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#"Heavy metal album"; I've seen numerous, similar discussions going on over the last year or two – for instance, at Talk:Crime of the Century, Talk:Are You Experienced (can't access the archive for that page), Talk:Sgt. Pepper's – but, quite honestly, just the sight of his username is enough to ward me off, unless I consider speaking up really important. Ritchie's correct when he says that "sometimes he is right", but at the same time, Dan56 behaves as if, by divine right, he must be so at all times – there's no element of compromise, nor any awareness that he might be making working on music articles a miserable experience for others. He drives editors away from the encyclopaedia, I'm convinced of it – and I can't help thinking that's fine by him, if he alone is left working on album articles here.

Doc commented above that Lapadite needed to supply specific diffs rather than launching an unsupported attack. I don't doubt that that's the correct way to proceed, but I sympathise with the frustration that Lapadite seems to be expressing. As Sergecross73 says about Dan 56: "unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully …" So, by and large, everything appears correct per the letter of the law but (I think) at the same time he's continually falling foul of the spirit of Wikipedia – pillars four and five, as I understand them.

Dan56 is the only editor I've ever felt the need to watch, and for all the wrong reasons. I see him constantly laying down the law with new editors and regularly removing the protests that arrive on his talk page, when those editors are not time-wasters but have a case to present. He initiated the removal of terms such as "favourable", "mixed", "unfavourable" from the album reviewer ratings template without (as far as I can see) posting any notice at all on relevant project pages such as Albums or Rock; if those terms have to go in favour of recognised scores and ratings, then fine, but anyone proposing such far-reaching changes, you'd think, would want as broad a consensus as possible. A select few were similarly invited to a proposal on alphabetising album articles' personnel sections (after which Mudwater and I put the word out to a wider audience). To me, along with the other actions mentioned, these are examples of how this user wants to – and does, unfortunately – dominate album articles on the encyclopedia. I don't have bad feelings towards anyone on Wikipedia but I think admins need to address this behaviour. I said to John around the time of an episode in March 2014, it's not just about looking at diffs and specifics, it's about the entire way this user conducts himself on Wikipedia. That's the problem, that's why a thread like this gets opened, and it's why there'll be another one about him within six months. And as I've mentioned, there are other conflicts concerning Dan56 (the January 2014 episode) that don't even get the attention they deserve. JG66 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you hit the nail on the head JG66. That is precisely the grand problem. My frustration is exactly because this concerns a longstanding pattern and is far from the first time Dan56 does this on this band’s articles - which I discussed above. Dan56 certainly has had numerous disputes with other editors on other articles regarding this kind of behavior, and he does immediately delete all objections and warnings he gets from his page, sometimes mocking the editor that leaves a message or asserting his ‘status' (e.g., here and when I left him a disruptive editing notice in September of 2014. I’d actually mentioned a few of those past disputes, admittedly inappropriately, out of frustration, in that Garbage album talk page (inside the “off topic” shell) he linked in his post here. If what admins need is more proof of Dan56’s pattern of disruption I personally and perhaps others would have no problem linking several examples there and elsewhere. But like I said before, this is a topic ban proposal for this bands’ articles as my own interactions with Dan56 have mostly been there, and his constant disruption, disregard for collaboration, and POV pushing there is intolerable at this point. The problem is Dan56, as usual, might temporarily stop his overtly tendentious disruption and then start up later after ANI thread is closed, but especially if objecting editors leave the article. Like JG66 said, It will certainly reemerge, again (like it did months after the last album dispute); editors like Dan56 who don’t get sanctioned for their disruptive actions never learn and change; obviously they'd have nothing to learn from since, as they mask POINTy, OWN and tendentious behavior largely through Wikilawyering and 'status', hiding behind it and professing no wrong doing (others are at fault and personalizing), they normally don't see consequences, beyond a ‘don’t do it again’ slap on the wrist. In fact, the lack of consequences only reinforces that behavior. I’ve personally stopped improving this particular article, at least temporarily, as I find it futile; only thing I'm still doing is restoring Dan56's tendentious, POV edits/his inability to stick to source when it doesn't suit his bias. Like JG66 mentioned, Dan56 likes to appropriate an article, shutting out others who object to his editing practices, wanting to be left to his own devices. Other editors in the past have noted how he edits tendentiously on articles of artists he does not like, but he also edits tendentiously on artists he does like (for example, the reception section of this album - an article he wrote, and fixed after much FA dispute [ironically, concerning things of which he has accused others]). You can see this in his comments in both talk pages initially linked here. I don’t know how many more diffs from this particular article are needed; figured I’d linked enough and was already tired of linking as the thread received no comments. The page history is plenty evidence of how much revert/restoring happened there as a result. Much of that has been linked here, as well as the talk page discussion.

In the recent RfC that I'd linked, the three editors that responded clearly want nothing to do with the dispute, understandably. At the start of the RfC you can see that one editor noted the inappropriateness of removing the initial reviews I’d added from the album ratings box ("simply removing everything Lapadite added seems drastic"). I'd be shocked that anyone would agree with Dan56’s egregious behavior unless they’ve agreed with Dan’s POV editing in the past. That he may be “sometimes right” - everyone is at least “sometimes right” at some point - does not remotely null or invalidate his history of disputes and disruption, disruption at this band’s articles, or any he makes in the future there and elsewhere. --Lapadite (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

More, under false pretexts: [26], [27]. For how long would this need to go on? 5, 10 revision history pages? Lapadite (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan56 apparently went on overdrive instead; More again, this being the first of multiple edits largely of the same nature as previous ones and as described above (his edit summary merely repeating what I stated in the previous edit): [28]. Restored by me here, with some fixes and additions on further edits. --Lapadite (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Action needed here; proposal

• Dan56 was the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56 in October 2014, which (despite the stricken participation of a sock) was closed by Beeblebrox with findings that Dan56 be reminded of WP:COPYVIO, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN.
• AN/I threads involving Dan26 after his RFC: [29], [30]

This is a complex case that I think is headed to ArbCom if it doesn't get resolved here. I have observed Dan56 in many places (he's difficult to miss if you work on any music articles) but I assert that the primary sources of his conflicts on Wikipedia are: plagiarism, music reviews, and music genres. I will attempt to concisely demonstrate that Dan has continued to exhibit problems with WP:COPYVIO, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN pursuant to these three items since his RFC, and then propose a remedy in an attempt to avoid ArbCom.

You haven't concisely demonstrated anything. If anything, you've barely inspected what flimsy evidence you provided below. Also, the second AN/I thread you cited above was opened by a frustrated, genre-warring IP, since blocked for being the sock I suspected. You're building a flimsy case just to draw more attention to me, simply to have some action done to me. Also, since my RfC, I fixed the close paraphrasing issues at Talk:Of Human Feelings and performed source checks before I reopened its FAC. I haven't exhibited any problems with WP:COPYVIO since then. Dan56 (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I last interacted with Dan56 directly at this FAC where 3 different editors expressed concern about plagiarism and close paraphrasing in his writing. I was surprised by his aggressive and uncivil response to such concerns, and to my own concerns. By the second nomination, I had given up dealing with him and so had anyone else who initially offered constructive criticism. He then asked for it to be withdrawn, saying it was "tainted" because he believed one of the objectors to be a sock. Rather than conceding that Rationalobserver had any legitimate objections to his nomination, he accused her of being a sock with a grudge against him who was only opposing his nomination out of spite. He succeeding in getting Rationalobserver blocked as a sock of Jazzerino (talk · contribs), which was later demonstrated incorrect. However, Dan56 edit warred to maintain a note in the second FAC nomination calling Rationalobserver a sock. I will note that Rationalobserver will not be commenting here because she actually agreed to an interaction ban with Dan56 to demonstrate that she wasn't here just to harass him. I will also add that I thought it was sneaky that Dan56 opened this second nomination and notified several editors, but specifically did not notify the editors who opposed the first one.

The situation at Xx (album) demonstrates that the plagiarism problem has continued despite the RFC, and demonstrates how Dan56 reacts to normal constructive criticism in this realm.

I stand %100 by my suspicions and what I had to say on that matter, a matter which I did not provide the deciding evidence but @Mike V: had, who then offered this cryptic explanation as to why that decision was overturned, NOT that it was "incorrect"--it'd be great for the purposes of this insulting thread that you get your facts straight about the situations and disputes you decide to use as "evidence" here, because I feel you're painting an inaccurate picture of that situation in broad strokes. I find it equally dubious that you pretend to forget I responded to what you claim as finding "sneaky" at that FAC page. You're forcing me to explain and discuss a dispute I've been warned not to, so it's incumbent upon you not to misrepresent it. Btw, you do realize I have an open FAC for Of Human Feelings where I "reacted to normal constructive criticism"? Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Music reviews

One of the constant sources of conflict for Dan56 is his interminable addition and removal of music album ratings and reviews to suit his personal opinion, many times with a fixation on Robert Christgau. Lapadite77 provided diffs above for recent conflicts involving reviews and ratings at Garbage-related articles. I'm concerned that Dan cherry-picks and promotes/demotes sources to back up his preferred vision for how the reviews and rating should be reflected. Here is a good example of his removing a source he doesn't like under an unclear and disingenuous edit summary. You would think he was simply adding Newsweek and NME, but he is also removing a source he has argued against without clear rationale or consensus. These are clear WP:OWN violations post-RFC.

I'm tired of having to defend myself against this type of nonsense. Being as active and involved as I am means you're going to butt heads with some fancruft and POV-driven editors from time to time, but I'm offended by your accusation that I add or remove ratings or reviews based on my personal opinion--on one hand you say I'm fixated on Robert Christgau, yet support Lapadite77's assertion that I have a negative opinion of an album (article) which Christgau gave a positive review of? I addressed and explained my role in this "Garbage-related" dispute already in my comment above on 3 February. Furthermore, your above example demonstrates what a flimsy case you are making--did you bother to read anything at the article's talk page where the review sources were being discussed?... because that edit was made when I made a case for a source I had originally added be removed in favor of obviously more notable sources per MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception. Either make a close inspection of this dispute--that article's talk page, each editor's edit summaries and arguments--or don't bother slinging vague accusations of ownership at me when the same could and should be said about the other guy (WP:BOOMERANG). The burden is on you to read through Talk:Version 2.0#Revisions to Critical reception and the corresponding revisions made to the article during that discussion, if you're to introduce it here as some kind of evidence of disruptive editing made on my part. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This, for the record, is emblematic of the ownership issues exhibited by Lapadite77 on Garbage-related articles, articles I hardly care about, with the exception of Version 2.0, whose Critical reception I took upon myself to improve and expand starting last October, with (take a guess)... positive reviews! ([31]) But then I continued my research and found reviews not to the liking of Lapadite77. Dan56 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Music genres

Again for anyone editing music articles, you will see Dan56 all over your watchlist because he reverts anonymous and established editors who attempt to alter the genres on any article he watches, without any rationale or explanation. This is well-documented in his RFC, and he has continued the behavior despite the RFC findings. You needn't go further than the first page of his contributions to find him reverting genre changes calling them vandalism ("rvv"). Most of the time he's changing one unsourced genre to another. This violates WP:BITE (calling people's good-faith contributions vandalism) and WP:OWN (attempting to control the genres on large selections of articles without sources or discussion).

Untrue. Also, the link you provided is my revision restoring the genre sourced in the body of the article. With what I've contributed to Wikipedia, including the improvements I stand by at Version 2.0, I deserve for my accusers to get their facts straight rather than relying on their impression of isolated disputes I've been involved in. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solutions

We need some help here. Beeblebrox, since you closed the RFC, perhaps you can be of some assistance in putting this to bed. I don't think any progress has been made since the RFC. Therefore, I propose the following:

1. Dan56 is required to solicit an independent plagiarism review for any article he's developing before nominating it for either GA or FA status.
2. Dan56 is prohibited from editing reviews or ratings on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status.
3. Dan56 is prohibited from adding, removing, or changing genres on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The genre warring too characteristic of past dispute at the album Garbage article. I support the proposed solutions, especially the second and third. However, Dan56 could just use the 'preparing article' as a pretext, augmenting the OWN and WP:POINT issues. --Lapadite (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Dan56 characterizes the aforementioned as "isolated disputes". Let's see, a scan through the ANI archives of the past year also brings up: [32]; [33]; [34], where an editor who initially disagreed with the OP of the report said:

"All that said, I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Wikipedia doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers ... I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Wikipedia is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers. Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly)."

and [35], where Dan56 is reminded: "I see the changes as improvements, albeit minor ones. Just because the article is an FA, does not mean that it cannot be improved or changed for the better. Please remember it is a collaborative project, repeatedly templating good faith editors is just not good practice and often invites a hostile response." --Lapadite (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Both the report and the ANI threads you are referring to involve editors who were found to be sock puppets or IPs evading a block--Harmelodix and 5.81.225.225. Just like in your research for the articles you edit, you haven't critically assessed the sources for the case you are trying to make and instead are relying on making a lot of noise with weak evidence in hopes that whoever makes a decision on this matter wont carefully look through it. Dan56 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan's insubstantial, retaliation claims shtick was addressed in the talk page here, where he first professed them. On that note, again the start of more disruption and WP:TE of the same from Dan56, likewise just mimicking my previous restore edit summary (mentioned in above section). Does he care, think he's at fault in anything, or believe he will see any real consequences? Clearly not. He is still reverting what has already been called out for multiple guideline-violations or cleared up on the talk page. Given the nature of some of the content in this subsection created by Spike Wilbury, I'd remind that after the first disagreement and dispute with Dan56 at this article he too accused me of Wikihounding (addressed here), as previously noted in the first post of this ANI thread. --Lapadite (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Shtick"? That's cute, you used a word from the Newsweek review you've removed numerous times without explanation. And on that note, the start of more "disruption and WP:TE of the same" from Lapadite77, who is still reverting after having been called out for multiple guideline-violations or cleared up on the talk page. Given the nature of this insulting thread, I'd like to bring up the fact that Lapadite made these edits here while editing had grown hot and tempered between us at Version 2.0. In any case, I've opened multiple RfCs now at the article's talk page, because Lapadite is showing little civility or competence concerning the guidelines his edits are violating. Dan56 (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It is clear Dan56 is merely repeating exactly what I've said to him regarding his gross guideline-violating behavior and edits, on talk page and edit summaries, and projecting exactly what he's been accused of doing. Everything is on the talk page and page history, and detailed above. Dan56 opened two more RfCs (with multiple misleading statements, unsurprisingly) and restored his WP:TE, WP:POV, possibly WP:OR edit again, which was questioned and challenged on the talk page; one of his reverts states: "unexplained removal", which is not the case and is something one of the editors quoted above from a past ANI questions Dan56 on *. It is beyond clear, from all that has been discussed and linked, how much WP:OWN is exhibited, and how disruptive, biased, and uncollaborative Dan56 is; particularly at this band's articles. He has been called out and warned multiple times on various talk pages and ANIs before, and, looking through ANI, edit warring, and SPI archives, Dan56 appears to been been blocked multiple times in the past for disruptive behaviors, largely edit warring. It is clear he has not learned and has no plans to. Nor does he appear to have read the entire ANI thread as I pointed out more than once his lack of ASG and baseless accusation of Wikihounding, which, like I'd said. and linked, was addressed on the talk page.

* An editor's comments from a past ANI thread are relevant here again:

I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Wikipedia doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers ... I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Wikipedia is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers. Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly)."

--Lapadite (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No one has questioned what Lapadite calls my "WP:TE, WP:POV, possibly WP:OR edit" other than Lapadite himself, who has been the one accusing me of tedious or tendentious editing at Version 2.0 since the content dispute began. After I had opened the first RfC there, he canvassed other editors who had worked with him on other "Garbage-related" articles ([36], [37]). His most recent "unexplained removal" that he is referring to is his removal of text expressing criticism of the article's topic from The Times and NME magazine, a removal he did not explain in any way, either in an edit summary or at the talk page. I don't understand why he continues to refer to the sockpuppet case of Harmelodix, who was in fact found to make tedious GNOME-like edits at good/featured articles I had either created or promoted. Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this thread, it's nothing new for a disgruntled editor whose edits have been disputed to accuse those disputing his edits of disruptive editing and edit warring at an ANI thread. In fact, Lapadite's done it before, here and here, where he accused Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) of ownership and edit warring at, you guessed it, a "Garbage-related" article. Before Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) invited me to a discussion at one, I had no interest in Garbage articles. I regret having the idea of improving Version 2.0 because of having to interact with such fan-fueled ownership on the part of Lapadite, but all this crap he's flinging at my character and motives doesn't obligate me to bow out. Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

More projecting from Dan56, like I noted at the beginning of the ANI, throwing out accusations and (laughably) claiming things of which he is guilty. How predictable; randomly citing the two times I've posted on ANI - one seeking resolution on an article tag dispute after reverts of by two editors who were uncivil, the other, reporting an editor's edit warring on an article, as one can clearly see. On the other hand, one can see from all aforementioned part of Dan's history of being the subject of ANI and other disputes, regarding various articles and various editors, as well as his block history. Obviously Dan56 is "disgruntled" with and inconvenienced by having another ANI report on him, and the possibility of actual consequences, such as a topic ban or the aforementioned by Spike Wilbury, which then won't allow him to freely and persistently subject others to his WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:EW disruptive behavior on selected articles. See how he's continued engaging in all the aforementioned while the ANI is opened, but arguably to a less degree than before the report; I can imagine his drive after it is closed if nothing were to come of it. More WP:TE from Dan56, also misrepresenting a tag: [38] --Lapadite (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO, Lapadite's only concern in this thread is removing my presence from Version 2.0 so he can develop that article to suit his preferences (WP:OWN), by any means necessary. Dan56 (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And again, which is, in actuality, precisely Dan56's concern and source for being "disgruntled" at this ANI and his retaliation claims. --Lapadite (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

In reference to Lapadite's accusation that I "misrepresented a tag", he is not being truthful. this diff clearly shows he added a "failed verification" tag without good reason, to which I responded in my following revision and removed the tag. He then added a different tag, albeit with the edit summary "Undid revision by Dan56", and is now falsely accusing me of misrepresenting it. He added a "failed verification" tag, and I responded to it in my revert. Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan56 lies and misleads again; The actual order is as follows: I added the 'failed verification' tag (6:02), changed it to the appropriate one (6:49), then many hours and edits later, Dan56 removed the tag, misrepresenting it as the old one that was replaced (19:28).

He's also edit warred again, whilst violating BRD during another RFC he opened: [39], [40], my talk page comment --Lapadite (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Also, you removing my original addition of prose from NME's review and then choosing to revise it after I had restored what you'd reverted doesn't make your revised version the original. Dan56 (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Responding to Dan56's initial edit, which was replaced by the one above; Another frankly pathetic projection of what Dan himself has been called out on multiple times, by various editors. Dan56 also said this on the talk page. Notice how he also sidestepped evidence of his lies. Dan56, re the above, you need to respond on the talk page, not here. That is not the case at all, and I suggest you read WP:BRD thoroughly. --Lapadite (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That Wikihounding accusation Dan56 made and linked to (as did I initially) on articles Coexist (album) and Xx (album)? Now, Dan56 has reverted the two edits made by me which he formerly agreed with → revert #1 , revert #2. Did I not mention the retaliation, hypocrisy and projection of his own behaviors? --Lapadite (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Problem is, ANI is for incidents, not behavior. The RfC on Dan, mentioned above and available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56, was railroaded by a sock, but as closer Beeblebrox mentioned, there were legitimate concerns there, and a shortlist of recommendations. We've done away with the RfC/U process, of course, and I don't know what it is replaced with, but RfC/Us were precisely for these kinds of situations, for patterns of behavior that indicate disruption of one kind or another without crossing the boundary of CIVIL, for instance, or EW. I'm not familiar with the editor who filed the claim here, but I am with Ritchie333, whose opinion I value, and JG66 has a slew of GAs and doesn't seem to have fallen off a turnip truck. Dan56, I strongly urge you to make a substantive comment here, not just a repartee of an individual comment by Lapadite. Because it is possible that an admin in a foul mood comes by here and says, hmm, yes, longterm issues of OWNership and favoritism of this source over that, BITEyness of new editors, borderline edit warring, canvassing and copyright issues, hmm already suggested by an RfC going back a half a year and still happening--perhaps some action is warranted. I'm not going to be that admin since I think the good outweighs the bad, and you do a lot of good stuff around here, but sheesh Dan, please address the actual criticism. You may not want to be a teamplayer, but you simply have to be. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Drmies. The problem is that, Dan56 merely getting just another slap on the wrist, another "be a team player, don't do it again". As he has shown and actually implied himself countless times, he has no plans to change his disruptive editing practices and behavior. The conglomerate of evidence presented is unequivocal, the long pattern of disruption and disputes unequivocal, the number of editors in the past speaking out against Dan56's behavior unequivocal, and yet because Dan56 has promoted some GAs and FAs (I'm sure given his history, appropriating articles himself) or has some admin connection, there's hesitation? If this were an IP, or a new editor, they would have been sanctioned, blocked or topic banned right quickly. I've edited collaboratively with multiple editors from various Wikiprojects who've written and promoted multiple GAs and FAs and have never had any problems with any of them; they actually work collaboratively, are civil and uphold guidelines, and don't hide behind some 'status' to go on doing as they please where they please. 'Status'/WP accomplishments doesn't and shouldn't give one a free pass for such egregious editing behavior. WP:HERE, WP:NOTHERE. Drmies, ANI appears to be the only place to report this, something that isn't remotely an isolated incident. See Dan56's hypocritical, laughable, projecting claim above: "IMO, Lapadite's only concern in this thread is removing my presence from Version 2.0 so he can develop that article to suit his preferences (WP:OWN), by any means necessary" - speaks volumes. I mean what more is there to say, beyond more corroboration and more links? Admins either disregard (thereby implicitly validating) this long pattern of WP:DIS, WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:POINT, WP:BITE, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:Wikilawyering, WP:HOUND, not WP:AGF (e.g., [41]; [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]), WP:POV, WP:GWAR +, or they actually decide to take long due action. --Lapadite (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite, I don't know what to tell you. I'm somewhat on the fence and since I participated in the RfC I'm hardly uninvolved, even if I did know what to do here. This needs more eyes, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Dan56 - I will say again what I said six months ago, and what User:Drmies alluded to four months ago. There is a counter-intuitive aspect to extremely possessive involvement with articles or with the characterization of their genres. You have been so heavily involved in some articles that you risk losing the ability to be involved with them at all, because Wikipedia does not allow an editor to assume ownership of articles. A common response to article ownership attitudes is a topic ban, and you risk being topic-banned from music articles. I warned you of that six months ago. I won't make the proposal to impose that ban at this time, but I don't see a positive or collaborative response by you, and I am likely to support a proposal by another editor to impose a topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This thread has gone on for more than a week, and it is time either to consider a topic-ban or to close the thread with one final warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You might find an uninvolved admin by posting on AN. Sadly TParis left us--that's one fewer admin who wasn't afraid to jump in and cut Gordian knots. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, is it appropriate to post this on AN? The noticeboard says: "If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead." I think, if uninvolved admins aren't available and this is unresolved then ArbCom would be the final step. --Lapadite (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Lapadite77 - Yes. Yes, I will explain. Your reading is correct that this board is for specific issues and disputes, and this is a specific issue or dispute; but User:Drmies was suggesting that a request for formal closure of this thread be posted to WP:AN, not that this thread be restarted on AN. This thread has gone on for more than a week, and is getting nowhere. You are continuing to dump about Dan56's article ownership, with which I agree, and about Dan56's copyright issues, which I haven't looked at, but have not taken the time to make a formal proposal. You are just venting, and are continuing to engage in personal attacks. (Yes, it is still a personal attack to say that an editor is lying.) At the same time, Dan56 is continuing to restate his issues with the editing by other editors and to say that there are other bad editors who are worse. Since you, Lapadite77, won't make a formal proposal for a topic-ban, this thread is just wasting pixels. What is now needed is a request for formal closure of this thread, which has degenerated to just two editors dumping on each other. It probably will end in another final warning to Dan56, and it should also end in a warning to you, Lapadite77, about accusations of lying. This thread needs formal closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Right: AN is the place to find a sucker admin willing to read this over and close it. I do think that Robert McClenon has a valid point, that this is devolving into little more than namecalling: "more heat than light" is likely a phrase used by a closing administrator, and that's kind of a shame. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmies; Robert McClenon, I'd hoped you had read the entire ANI thread as I did formally request a topic ban, and direct evidence (Diffs) was provided of Dan56's lies. I was not asking if the thread should be reposted on AN but if it would be appropriate to ask for admin input there on an ANI incident (I'm not familiar with it). This has gone on for however long it has gone on because no admin has cared enough to do anything about it. The reason there's been a "back and forth" here is precisely because Dan56 has decided, instead of giving a substantive response, to throw out baseless accusations and retaliation claims; and I respond to such, otherwise normally a lie unanswered to is a lie confirmed. So you're suggesting because nothing has been done, that it should just be closed, with a warning for both of us? Another warning for Dan56, and a warning for me for bring up editing abuse by an editor that has been the subject of numerous similar disputes, from various editors? It's just another confirmation that regardless of how much evidence provided, however many diffs, points laid out, specific action requested, ANI is essentially useless and editors like this are given free will to do as they please, disrupting where they please, driving editors away, as I'd been suggested by others. Very constructive to Wikipedia. Dan56 has restarted edit warring and POV pushing on the article in question (Version 2.0) - e.g., removing positive reviews from reliable sources and refusing to provide verification of a citation/source he found online and didn't access himself - , and without discussion, without waiting for Rfc response, anything: [47]. So the expected thing is: edit warring continues, and nothing happens? --Lapadite (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I see that you, User:Lapadite77, did include a request for a topic-ban in your post above that was too long, difficult to read. You buried it in there with a dump. If you had provided a heading requesting a topic-ban, you might have gotten Support comments, but you expected that everyone would read its whole length. In a fairer world, we would have read it, and you wouldn't have posted it, and you might have been blocked for the accusation of lying. (Even if you know with 100% certainty that Dan56 is making incorrect statements, can you read his mind to know that he knows that they are incorrect? If not, saying that he is lying is a personal attack.) I have taken the advice of Drmies and requested closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I'm not familiar with proper protocol here. You're right it was muddled in explanations. I'll add it to the heading for what it's worth. I see you had already requested closure on AN. --Lapadite (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), unless you take a considerate and meaningful look into whatever disputes or "evidence" brought up in this thread, including the pathetic example posted under "Music genres" which I exposed in my response to it, then I don't feel the need to dignify this thread any longer. If you're interested in editors who exhibit ownership attitudes, then refer to this AN/I thread below, where Lapadite has responded by throwing the same accusations (WP:OWN, tendentious editing, etc.) at Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs). Dan56 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan56 is misrepresenting again. Homeostasis isn't a random editor that reported me, Homeostasis was with Dan56 in the past dispute at a Garbage article, doing the exact same thing Dan56 was doing (all in the links provided here), albeit to a lesser degree there (Dan56 really had it covered). He was reported by me for edit warring for tendentious editing on another of that band's article in October 2014 (which was linked here and in the report below). I haven't had any interaction with him since; he's disgruntled about this report (which he mentions), and the only thing he's doing is retaliating, accusing me of the things Dan56 is reported for here using the same links used here, sticking up for his likeminded ally there, and engaging in 'character assassination'. Like I said there, just a baseless retaliation report; And that is the kind of thing that would warrant a warning for the editor who posted it. --Lapadite (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

^ An absolutely ridiculous and misrepresenting summation of events. I was never "with" Dan56, I merely opposed Lapadite77's proposal here, since then I've stayed well clear of this mess. Here is the bogus edit warring report Lapadite filed against me in October (nothing to do with "tendentiousness", like he's trying to suggest). As you can see, it was dismissed as "no violation", that still didn't stop him complaining to the closing admin. I'm surprised @Robert McClenon: and @Drmies: have reacted to Dan56 the way they have. If you actually delve in to what Lapadite is posting, you'd see some serious skewing and misrepresentation of the entire situation. The links Lapadite77 posted here to demonstrate Dan56's "long pattern of WP:DIS, WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:POINT, WP:BITE, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:Wikilawyering, WP:HOUND, not WP:AGF" were in fact Dan reverting genuine vandalism. At least he attempted to post some diff's this time. He usually just calls you "tendentious" and accuses you of Cherrypicking, OWN, NPOV and OR without ever providing a diff. Lapadite77 has a seriously unhealthy attitude towards contributing to Wikipedia, and this entire situation stems from it. He has a huge "me-against-the-world" mentality. Instead of discussing something decently, he immediately accuses opposing editors of all sorts of things - pick a WP:, any WP: - and has demonstrated Badfaith and lacked Civility at every turn. And despite FOUR separate RfC's at Talk:Version 2.0, he is still edit warring there. Action of some kind would be appreciated either here or here, because the level of disruption [48] is ridiculous. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What a joke. One can see just how biased Homeostasis is when he deems my recent linking of Dan56's continued overt edit warring at the Version 2.0 article (again clear POV-pushing, and tendentious editing, such as removal of positive reviews from reliable sources, refusing to provide verifiable citation/source, as stated in the diffs there) to be evidence of edit warring on my part, not his. He has not and does not at all disagree with Dan56's tendentious editing and OWN behavior, nor his edit warring (which he himself has evidently engaged in in the past) at that bands articles of course. See how he, like Dan, just repeats the exact language I've used in my report on Dan56 on the baseless accusations fest in which he's instilled himself. Unlike what he claims, Homeostasis is not remotely just a random editor that stumbled upon the rfc from that Garbage (album) dispute linked and "merely opposed" a proposal from me on that article (which was, unlike what both have claimed, and as one can easily see toward the end of it, successful); we had had a disagreement before, and he showed on the talk page of another of this bands articles that he has a bias against that band. That was the subject of the edit warring report I opened on him in October 2014, which he calls "bogus" as the admin that closed it deemed the edit warring no violation because it was a 'content dispute'. In the Garbage (album) talk dispute he and Dan56 linked, he had accused me (out of all the other editors there) multiple times of being an IP that was making unwanted edits on the article. If admins care for this particular, involved dispute from Homeostasis, I have no problem providing the diffs for all I've mentioned. Until then, this is merely a pointless, redundant, vendetta-driven series of ranting posts from an editor that has nothing to do with this particular report but is just disgruntled that Dan56, whom he supports, is being reported, by me. As Robert McClenon had suggested above, this is the kind of thing that does warrant a warning for the editor. --Lapadite (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur's Alternative Proposal

Since this thead is way over the TL:DR threshold, I suggest we reset it with some basic ground rules.

1. Lapadite77 come up with a short and concise posting explaining the problem, what supporting documentation they have (diffs only, no editorializing), and what resolution they seek from Dan56.
2. Dan56 responds in 1 section without cutting up Lapadite77's comments explaining what mitigating circumstances may be present.
3. Both "disputants" then step back and not post unless specific questions are directed at them (probably via {{U}} pings).
4. The community at large reviews the issues at hand and decides what the best way to resolve this dispute that has passed over from content to conduct disruption.

Please feel free to comment, but I'm frankly sick and tired of raging back and forth with no resolution. Hasteur (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of report - In an attempt to gather from months of exceedingly disruptive pattern of editing culminating on the article in question, Version 2.0 (an album from the band Garbage), primary points are presented in the following:

·Proposal – Topic ban for Dan56 (talk · contribs), from Garbage articles, or, as proposed by others, from editing/reverting music reviews, ratings and genres on music articles.
·Reason – repeatedly and willfully violates multiple guidelines and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he deliberately pushes his view whilst disregarding other editors' input. Long-standing violations of WP:OWN, WP:POINT, WP:DIS, WP:TEND, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:NPOV, WP:COLLAB, WP:BRD, WP:WAR, WP:GWAR, WP:AGF, WP:LAWYERING, WP:HOUND (Dan56 has also been denounced for WP:BITE and WP:COPYVIO in the past, pointed out by an editor who commented here, Spike Wilbury), and zero indication Dan56 has ever had or has any plans to change (WP:HERE, WP:NOTHERE), which he himself has implied more than once (e.g., [49], [50], [51], [52])
·Some diffs (far too many to list all, but not opposed to presenting more if asked) – largely taken from posts throughout this thread:

• AGF: [53], [54], [55], [56]; adressed here and here
• "Hounding": [57]
• WP:TEND, WP:POINT, WP:POV, Cherry picking, edit warring, in article editing (in the first diff, disruptively removes [while I was still improving the section] reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: [58] + [59] + [60]; [61] + [62]; [63] + [64] + [65] + [66]; [67] + [68] + [69] + [70]; [71], [72]/[73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]; [83], [84], [85]; [86] + [87] + [88], [89]; [90], [91], [92]; [93] + [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]; [103]

Talk page where 'discussion'/lack of collaboration took place: RfC sections, and the section above them. Past band album article where the same, all of the above behavior (including genre warring), was exhibited (about 7 months): 6th - 7.2 sections

Summary of the above sections of this report — Diffs are spread out and generally contextualized throughout this report. Dan56, in response and throughout out a back and forth, would repeat the same language and points I did in my report in retaliation with inaccurate accusations (which he also did in article diffs, some linked above). I called him out on lying/misrepresenting in the following, with evidence (which he then sidestepped, changing the subject): [104] → [105], [106], [107]; [108] → [109] → [110], [111] → [112]. Dan56 accuses me precisely of what his motives evidently are: [113]; [114]. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) - an editor that has nothing to do with this report, but is involved and entirely biased as (a)he had participated with Dan56, supporting his WP:TE, POV editing, in a past dispute at one of this band's articles, (b)has had prior disputes with me regarding the same issues at this band's articles, (b)was reported by me for edit warring through persistent, repetitive WP:TE on one of this band's articles in October of 2014 - then began making 'character assassination' posts on me on ANI, using the same language and points I did in this report through inaccurate and baseless accusations against me, because he is disgruntled Dan56 is reported, by me in particular, for doing doings he's supported at this band's articles.
I can provide more diffs or further explanation/clarification of anything if needed. The Version 2.0 revision history along with its talk page revision history is notable.

Spike Wilbury created a subsection above further elaborating on some of Dan56's past disputes and initiating a proposal; JG66 also commented on Dan56's history. An admin, User:Drmies, commented above, but said they are/were in some way involved therefore will not make a verdict. User:Robert McClenon, who commented above, asked on AN (February 2) for an uninvolved admin and closure.
Pinging editors that have publicly commented on this report: Ritchie333, JG66, Spike Wilbury, Drmies, Robert McClenon, Hasteur. --Lapadite (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Come on, really? Does that response really strike you as "short and concise"? You're shooting yourself in the foot every time you write a massive wall of text like that - you're scaring away people because they don't want to search through all of that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sergecross73, Concise means brief but comprehensive; all the relevant, primary points of the report were summarized above, succinctly. Are you telling me admins are unable to click on diffs and read the subsequent two short paragraphs? That this report is invalid or useless because there are too many parts to the issue? Like other editors above remarked, this is a complex, perennial issue, and it can't be summarized in just 2 or 3 sentences or a few random diffs. What was said by other editors in the report I believe needed to be summarized as well in order for it to be a concise representation of the report, of the issues presented. Sergecross73, you're an admin, why haven't you at least commented on this matter? Lapadite (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm telling you we're all volunteers here, and like all writers, you need to to write to keep the interest of the reader. People's eyes just glaze over when you write these excessively long entries. You're writing to humans, not machines. Humans who have time and motivational constraints. Write me off all you want, it's pretty obvious you're going about this all wrong, or this discussion wouldn't be running past the 2 week mark now. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Just asked why you hadn't commented on it. I don't know how any of this is interesting really, or could be presented interestingly. Nothing in this section is 'excessively long' though; there's a Proposal statement, a Reason statement, Diffs linked, and then two short paragraphs. I gather that editors here simply don't care to pay attention to the points and diffs given, disregarding the obvious fact that this isn't a one-time incident warranting two or three diffs and sentences. Do ask yourself, if this were an IP being reported for long-standing disruption would this have gone on as long? --Lapadite (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you missed my point. Maybe sub in "attention span" for "interest" and you'll get what I'm saying a little better? Anyways, I did respond to you, 2 weeks ago, when it all began. I don't like or approve of Dan56's interactions with others, but based on past precedent, it still manages to fall on the side of what we tend to tolerate. It falls more into "rude" than outright personal attacks or being uncivil. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I get what you're saying. I'm saying I see no way to trim the summary without leaving out pertinent points representing the ANI report. Sorry, you're right, I see that you did comment (didn't see it when I skimmed through the thread). This report wasn't and isn't at all about personal attacks though. I'd said myself, agreeing with your first comment, that Dan56 "treads the line" carefully in his disruptive, tendentious editing, even if he does fail to assume good faith many times, as linked above. That's the problem I see, that this deliberate "tread the line" behavior over however many months is tolerated here without consequence merely because he isn't overtly uncivil. The only thing that will follow is more tendentious edit warring from Dan56 (which has continued), disregarding guidelines and others' input. I'm sure when he's the subject of another dispute/report again, he will again be implicitly validated through lack of action. --Lapadite (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that this "is not about personal attacks" is exactly my point - much of the time, action isn't taken until things have escalated to that point. Like I said, I certainly don't personally like Dan56's actions, and I won't stand in the way of anyone who wants to take administrative action against him, I just don't think anything warranted yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but with the best will in the world, all my brain can parse is "blah blah blah Dan56 blah Dan56 blah blah WP:WALLOFDIFFS Dan56". If things are that bad, and the RfC hasn't had any effect, then the only thing left that I can suggest is an Arbcom case. I'll reiterate that I've never really had a problem with Dan and his ability to stop an album infobox going from "Category: Rock" to "Category: Rock, Art Rock, Experimental Rock, Weird Rock, Shoegazing Rock, Uneasy Listening, WP:GARAGE Rock" is very much appreciated. Actually, having had a look at Version 2.0's history, an interaction ban between Dan56 and Lapadite77 might be another answer - if they both work away from each other on something else, it'll stop this thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes you said in an above section that you personally don't find Dan56 to be disruptive because you've agreed with some of his edits in the past. I do find it interesting that you deliberately disregard "wall of diffs" here. Regarding your genres claim, Dan56, as discussed on this ANI thread, has genre warred multiple times on music articles (including this band's), and the genres presently in the infobox of Version 2.0 (6) were all added by Dan56; I haven't touched the infobox of that article. If the reaction to all disputes on Dan56's disruptive editing on music articles he takes ownership of is some interaction ban between Dan56 and the editor that reports him then that is troubling. The implication here is beyond troubling: Dan56 shows no wrong doing in 7-month long OWN, tendentious, disruptive editing at this band's articles, and the editor reporting him is only ranting incoherently and should be IB'd so Dan56 continues doing as he pleases. --Lapadite (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lapadite: I have to echo the message from some of the recent posts. I was intending to jump in after Sergecross73 a few hours ago, but … well, blink and it just keeps growing. You've had some support in this thread, and you know that, but you're continually shooting down any potency in those arguments with your repetition of the situation. I'm sure I said something similar to GabeMc early last year: by buzzing around in everyone's face, you're actually running interference for the other guy. If people welcome Dan56's input with an album article's critical reception or genres, for instance, as mystifying as that may be, you can't hold it against them here.

Someone above mentioned that an admin might just come along to a thread like this and take some drastic measures against the user in question, perhaps as a result of his past record. (I think I've got that right – it's hard to find the message now.) They might do, or they might not. Or it might happen in the near future, in which case this thread should be a contributing factor. So, really, what's important is that in the next dispute involving Dan56, someone, particularly an admin, can refer to this discussion and glean something useful. People build their reputation and perhaps this is just another block, but I worry that the more you write, the less effective this whole thread will be. (So please do not feel the need to reply to this message!)

Anyway, where's that turnip truck …? JG66 (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

JG66, I do feel the need to reply to this one, because my comment: "I do find it interesting that you deliberately disregard "wall of diffs" here" does not say "you should not welcome Dan56's input on an album's article". That is not what I mean to say at all, and I resent that implication. Richie333 said: "all my brain can parse is "blah blah blah Dan56 blah Dan56 blah blah WP:WALLOFDIFFS Dan56", hence my comment. "So, really, what's important is that in the next dispute involving Dan56, someone, particularly an admin, can refer to this discussion and glean something useful." - Yes, and like I've already said, that is expected result every time; another warning, another, etc. JG56, I've just responded to editors' replies, clarifying where I feel is needed; no harm meant. Thanks for your input though. This thread was posted a week ago on AN for an 'uninvolved admin' to assess and close it. Just waiting for that to happen. --Lapadite (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77 hasn't even specified what topic he thinks Dan56 should be topic-banned from. It presumably has to do with music, but he or she hasn't specified the scope. Both for that reason and because Lapadite77 hasn't even been concise when Hasteur suggested being concise, Oppose a topic-ban (on something). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Did in the ANI, but it's specified now at the beginning of this section. --Lapadite (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the diffs, but if copyvio is an issue then a topic ban is not a remedy but more of a bandaid. An I-ban solves nothing. What is needed is examination of the allegations and then sanctions or exoneration depending on findings. Given the lack of interest here, as it requires a detailed look, I recommend a case request at arbcom. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Chaulin humberto tuteto

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

---

• Chaulin humberto tuteto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User keeps creating problematic articles, then removing the various deletion templates that come as the result of problematic article creation.

• Removal of AfD templates: [115][116]

• Removal of PROD templates: [117][118]

• Restoring article after AfD result was to convert article to redirect: [119].

I seem to recall the user removing speedy delete templates, but I believe those might have disappeared when the related articles were deleted. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• As Chaulin humberto tuteto has been blocked numerous times in the past, it is evident that he has not learned his lesson. Therefore, I recommend for him to be blocked indefinitely. - Areaseven (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Minor nitpick: It's not against policy to remove a {{prod}}. "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." the template says. Kleuske (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A valid nitpick. Given the other behavioral matters, specifically his removal of AfD templates and CSD templates (which I can't find b/c I don't have access to deleted articles), what I'm painting is a portrait of an editor who submits sub-par content, has a personal interest in keeping it up, so he removes templates to support his personal preference. The user has not discussed any of these removals, nor has the editor participated in any of the AfDs. They're avoiding consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• The user also refuses to add sources when editing [120][121] in spite of numerous requests on their talk page to do so. The Toy Story 2 content linked here seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding about what sort of content is noteworthy and deserving of inclusion. Reruns of an English language film on Spanish language network Telemundo does not qualify as noteworthy, particularly when there is no context to explain significance. WP:TVINTL discourages this for TV shows, and MOS:FILM#Release seems to discourage it as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• The user has also made an unapproved redirect of an article: [122]. - Areaseven (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• After reviewing User:Chaulin humberto tuteto's editing history, I agree that their edits are problematic. And their persistent failure to discuss or communicate is the ultimate disruption. I have a placed a 3-month block on the account -- with some slim hope that they might begin to communicate with other editors. Should they return and continue the same behavior, I would have no problem extending the block for an indefinite period due to issues of competency. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User:C.Syde65 Loves Me!

Hi

Can we block as impersonation of User:C.Syde65. Amortias (T)(C) 22:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I left the {subst:ANI-notice} template on their talk page. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely. Nakon 22:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Is an obvious sock of someone but I cant find the SPI to add it to the list of. Amortias (T)(C) 22:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A list of the other sock-puppets belonging to this user can be found here. They've been causing trouble for me and a couple of other editors of the Sims wiki. Since then, they have tracked me and another Sims wiki editor down here on the wikipedia. They have also tracked me down at ModtheSims, and various other wikis that I contribute to, including my test wiki.

I've already had to report this user to wikia staff. I can block this user and their sock-puppets on my test wiki, and I can add them to my ignore list at ModtheSims. But other than that, this is a situation which I am unable to deal with alone. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You should file a sockpuppet report and get a checkuser involved, so that the underlying IP can be blocked. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already reported him to wikia staff, and his IP addresses have been blocked across the wikia network, along with some of his accounts on wikia. However I don't know whether this affects his ability to edit in the wikipedia network. Also from what I've seen, 1) he probably edits from more than one IP address, 2) his IP addresses are dynamic, or 3) wikia staff have not disabled his IP range to the point where he is unable to edit while logged in. Who knows? I guess we'll just have to block each account of his that comes along. It would be tedious, but according to a message I got from wikia staff several months before, it does eventually help. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#Persistent harassment, sockpuppetry, and vandalism by long-term disruptive editor and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#Persistent harassment, sockpuppetry, and vandalism by long-term disruptive editor - Again. This user has been at it for months, if not years. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 03:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at these links, I see I am the third user to suggest filing at WP:SPI so as to get a check-user involved. Perhaps there's the possibility of blocking the underlying IPs or doing a range block. We can place blocks that prevent anyone from creating new accounts from a given IP or IP range. Blocks placed at Wikia have no effect on this wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but I unfortunately don't feel quite ready to file a report at WP:SPI myself. I thought that blocks placed at wikia would have had no effect on this wiki. But it would be good to have a range block here, since what they're doing here is more annoying than what they're doing on wikia. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: Blocks on Wikia have zero effect here on Wikipedia because Wikipedia and Wikia are two different websites hosted on different servers.

As for the SPI, I may file one myself when I have time. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 12:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I realized that, although I hadn't really given this fact some real thought until now. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The user's IP range was blocked from editing the Sims wiki. I repeated this action on my test wiki. It seems that they're still able to edit from their IP addresses while logged in, which creates the impression that they're managing to get around the range blocks. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's because it's Wikia, not Wikipedia. Remember that they're two different websites. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 13:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I know. What I was thinking was that maybe if Wikipedia blocked his IP range, then it might stop him from disrupting us here. What he's doing here is far more annoying than what he does on wikia. Because it's obvious that if he tries to disrupt me on my test wiki, I'll just block him, and if he tries to disrupt anyone on the Sims wiki, one of the admins will block him. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 19:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

An IP range block doesn't stop people from using proxies on a different range to bypass the block (proxies are, by the way, strictly forbidden here). Secondly, I'm not sure if you truly understand the severity of the situation, as this user is being more than just annoying. A number of their revisions had to be hidden due to legal issues. I did send an email to legalwikimedia.org but got no response.

Oh, and can you please stop mentioning your test wiki? Like, nobody cares what you do on your own little corner of the web. What matters more is what happens here. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 22:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• @K6ka:, @C.Syde65:, Found this: K6kaAndC.Syde65AreSexy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I do understand the severity of the issue. My biggest fear was if they were somehow able to trick wikia staff into believing that we were impersonating them, not the other way around. The account "C.Syde55" was globally disabled because I asked wikia staff to do it. Think what might have happened if the imposter had beaten me to it.

The user is being more than just annoying, but as long as nothing they do works, and if the really bad things they do get removed from the public eye, it can't be fatal, can it? I wasn't fully aware that IP proxies were forbidden here. I know I shouldn't mention my test wiki, but I felt I needed another reference. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: Wikia Staff aren't stupid. Since you have 1. No history of cross-wiki vandalism and 2. I've reported numerous sockpuppets to them already, you will not be blocked yourself if someone shows up with a username similar to yours, unless you openly disclose that said account belonged to you. A CheckUser will most likely prove that the account doesn't belong to you. If you have not been socking, that's what the CU will prove 99% of the time.

Again, saying that this isn't "fatal" isn't understanding the true severity of the situation. The issue is not physical abuse, but mental abuse and online harassment, which often flies under the radar. We have reached a point where I have had to send an email to Wikimedia's legal department. How is that "if nothing they do works [...] it can't be fatal"? The issue here is not a user going on a murdering spree, but the user cyberbullying online users. Cyberbullying is not okay, and it should not be taken lightly. Mental and emotional abuse takes time and is not immediately evident to other people, and even less so over the Internet. Someone that doesn't show any symptoms now could show those symptoms ten or fifteen years in the future. We're here to show this user that cyberbullying is not okay and what they're doing right now will have consequences. Annoying? Yes. Serious? Absolutely. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 15:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/K6kaisasockpuppet. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 18:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm just not easily shaken by cyberbullying, since I've trained myself to let it bounce off me, or otherwise just ignore it. I still understand that cyberbullying is not okay, and I wholeheartedly agree on the idea of trying to show this user that cyberbullying is not okay, even if they know it already.

So there's no chance of me being accused of being a sock-puppet. I thought that might not be the case, but all the same, I couldn't help but feel a little concerned. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 19:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sam Harris (author)

Note: Previous AN/I thread

Could an admin please visit this article and determine if temporary page protection is necessary while a BLP dispute is resolved? One editor appears intent on repeatedly re-inserting contentious, negative "opinions" about the living person simply because those opinions were found in blogs, op-eds, books, etc. Over the objections of several other editors, the editor keeps reverting any attempt to bring the content into BLP and NPOV policy compliance. When the problematic content was moved to the Talk page for discussion and dispute resolution, he re-inserted it again without addressing concerns. The subject of the article is a vocal critic of religion, most recently of Islam, so it doesn't help that this is a current event hot topic. This one editor has spent the past week inserting various forms of insinuated racism, bigotry, warmongering, Islamophobia, Jewish tribalism, academic dishonesty, right-wing ideologue fascism, etc., with no regard for impartiality or balance.

Disclosure: I'm one of the involved editors at the article. While there have been no technical violations of 3RR, there is still edit warring, and the ratio of productive discourse—to—reverting is not encouraging. And now there appears to be personal sniping. This matter is also related to the above open issue, but since no one reads the top half of this noticeboard anymore, I thought I would renew attention by requesting a single specific action: temporary page protection. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I also want to point out that concerns have been made about that user's behavior just this morning in that previous thread. Despite being warned just a few days ago the personal attacks and defamatory comments have yet to cease and an administrator hasn't responded. You can view those concerns in the update section.LM2000 (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Bulleted list item

I've noted this WP:FORUMSHOPPING thread and have no qualms about indicating that it is yet another iteration in a continual string of disruptive, POV pushing WP:GAMING in relation to the content dispute described by Xenophrenic.

This is increasingly looking like something I'm going to have to bring up with ArbCom.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, it's kind of ridiculous for you to accuse Xenophrenic of WP:FORUMSHOPPING when you brought the current debate on the Sam Harris article to this noticeboard first, don't you think? With regard to Harris article, I see one editor pushing a biased POV and one editor being disruptive by working against consensus and making spurious claims of bad behavior by other editors. That editor is you, Ubikwit. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jweiss11:} Don't you think one thread is enough?

You and I are obviously on the opposite sides of the content dispute, and you and Xenophrenic have been editing that page since long before I arrived (not the case for LM2000). Accordingly, you and Xenophrenic might be partially responsible for the promotional bloat of primary sourced text in the article, but you are certainly responsible for excluding critical material while including all sort of vacuous praise from like-minded atheists, etc. That is an inverse form of POV pushing, because the end result is that you and Xenophrenic and other people trying to exclude reliably sourced criticism in violation of NPOV are skewing the article. Remember, it was you that deleted a Political section including RS material related to characterizations of "right-wing neoconservative policies" and "the national security state" and replaced that section with a "Social and economic politics"[123]. I have already indicated to you in a very civil manner that you have a competence issue with respect to the article, yet you persist in trying to push your ill-informed POV at me while conflating religion and politics, disparaging academic sources and professors of history and theology, etc. I'm through talking to you per WP:DENY. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I've made a lot of edits to the Sam Harris article, but they have be mostly of the maintenance, copy-editing variety. I'm not responsible for any of the bloat in the article, nor am I really reasonable for writing much, if any, of the substantive content.

Xenophrenic made it clear that he has created this thread in an attempt to renew attention to the issue since it may have been buried here. Whatever the case, you are evading the hypocrisy of your WP:FORUMSHOPPING accusation. Your claim about my competence is ridiculous. I am very well-versed with Sam Harris's work and its criticism. I understand that some people like to treat religion and politics as if they are two entirely different animals, but it is a fact the religions in questions here are political and that the politics of religious people are informed by their religious beliefs. More generally, just because different departments on a college campus tend to reside in different buildings, that doesn't mean the things they study are actually disparate. And we're not beholden to honor that academic silo-ing in every section of every article on Wikipedia, particularly when the subject is a person who has made criticisms of religions that focus in large part on the real-world, political impact of religion. I deleted the "Political" section because it was a poorly-defined, redundant concoction that you designed to serve as repository for an unbalanced assault on Harris that includes defamatory commentary. The consensus of involved editors at the article seems to agree with my assessment and action.

If anyone lacks competence, it's you with regard to your poor understanding and application of various Wikipedia principles, e.g when you claimed that my talk page commentary constituted original research—an utter contradiction in terms—or just now with your FORUMSHOPPING accusation, of which you either lack the sensibility to understand or the intellectual honesty to admit your hypocrisy. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I had NAC'd this because a request for arbitration was opened, but since that seems to be headed toward being declined (5 decline votes at this time), I've re-opened it for further community comment. BMK (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I've withdrawn the request for arbitration. Is there any way to combine this thread with the related thread that preceded it[124]?
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to cut and paste that very long thread here. Links should be sufficient. BMK (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed another disturbing comment by Xenophreic that I missed

Wikipedia policy will not allow you to advance your "Harris hates Islam because he's Jewish" narrative in that manner. By way of example: suppose I found a source on a blog who claimed Ubikwit traffics in child pornography, and I placed that information into a BLP about Ubikwit. When you inevitably complain and deny it, I assure you "the source was used as opinion and the statement attributed" so you must leave it in your biography. I'll even supply another source who agrees with the first source. But you are welcome to insert a denial after it, of course. Sounds like there should be a Wikipedia policy against me being able to do that, don't you agree?[125]

That kind of analogy is simply unacceptable. It is uncivil and represents a battlefield mentality. The fact that there was no BLP violation in the quote had already been determined on the relevant BLP/N thread[126], and the assertion that I was advancing a narrative of "Harris hates Islam because he's Jewish" is a personal attack.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you found a source which said "Willis Warf says George Gnarh is a pedophile" - would you find it remotely usable as a source for a claim in Gnarph's BLP "Gnarph has been called a pedophile"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not presume to speak for me in your edit summary. Your hypothetical scenario is not analogous, so it is curious that you would repeat the personal attack in order to try to defend Xenophrenic's grossly insulting and offensive post, which needs to be revdeleted.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As I did not "repeat the personal attack" but you were the only one who "repeated the personal attack" I m a tad bemused by your post supra. And I believe if you want something revdeled which you iterate, there is a logical disconnect. Collect (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

My question to you, Ubikwit, was absolutely civil and in no way a personal attack. If you find the analogies disturbing, then they have served their purpose in conveying to you how offensive some of your edits and proposed edits are. You have repeatedly argued to insert the caustic opinions of a few critics into a biography of a living person, with disregard for Wikipedia policies:

• On the other hand, do you think Hussain claims Harris is racist? We could easily add that back based on statements like (insert opinion piece calling the subject a racist) [127]
• The Aljazeera article does include a fairly detailed examination of the indirect implications of racism, though, in terms of discourse analysis. (insert opinion piece in which the writer says he doesn't want to discuss the subject's racism, but his bigotry and irrational anti-Muslim animus). [128]
• The article in the Independent is a definitely news piece that serves as a secondary source for all of the above. and yes, Hussain characterizes Harris as promoting "scientific racism", as is emphasized in the article in the Independent. (insert quote from The Independent saying that someone accused the subject of racism) [129]
• Reliably published statements of both Hussain and Lears support the association of ideas espoused by Harris with scientific racism. ... It really doesn't matter if you don't like that. It is not a BLP violation to include those characterizations with proper attribution. Retract your personal attack accusing me of smearing, etc. [130]
• As I've pointed out, since Harris is not published by peer-reviewed academic presses, which are generally considered the highest level of sources on Wikipedia, when he makes outlandish, bigoted, war-mongering statements, he is likely to be subject to severe criticism by bona fide scholars in the fields that his popular works relate. [131]

You inserted the contentious opinion that Harris is Muslim-bashing because he is Jewish here, and simultaneously edit-warred to categorize the avowed atheist as "Jewish". That's not a personal attack, that is substantiated fact. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am upset over the ArbCom forumshopping exercise and other examples of tendentiousness from one editor at this point. 40,000 characters cumulative edits on Sam Harris' BLP alone (much of which is essentially refusing to admit he has no support for his edits, so he keeps adding them in, over and over and over). 24,000 characters on noticeboards in 3 days. Over 60,000 characters on the SH talk page in under one week. When an editor hits over 120,000 characters in under a single week without apparently managing to get any support from other editors, I suspect "tendentious" is applicable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom as forumshopping, that's funny.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what it was. Collect (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Does an administrator want to touch this issue? DGG expressed surprise that this has been able to go on as long as it has. Ubikwit has already been warned in the previous AN/I thread but the behavioral problems have not subsided. Just to recap: we have now had two threads on AN/I, two RfCs, one declined ArbCom case, one BLP/N thread and nobody has voiced support for Ubikwit's edits. He edit-warred and attempted to reinsert contentious material into the BLP 16 times. There is a detailed account of Ubikwit's bad behavior personal attacks in the subsection of the thread linked at the top, this was compiled after Robert McClenon warned him. Ubikwit has failed to interpret basic policy correctly; besides the obvious DUE, BRD, CONSENSUS and NPOV issues, he accused Jweiss11 of WP:OR for critiquing his comments on the talk page. He has also claimed that practically everybody on the talk page is lacking WP:COMPETENCE. After previously being warned here that this was a content dispute in the first thread, he took this to ArbCom where it was declined for (among other reasons) being a content dispute; then he projects his WP:FORUMSHOPPING onto others.LM2000 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The topic involves current events involving religion, violence and a bit of contention. That alone will ward off a lot of volunteers from getting involved, but it isn't as bad as some of the issues above. Anyone? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources and other editors

First of all, I was not warned in the above-linked AN/I thread, so LM2000 is simply repeating the lie to that effect from his statement at the request for arbitration statement[[132]]. @Robert McClenon: suggested that the thread be closed with a warning to me before I responded to the concerns and posted more details about a couple of problematic editing issues. The thread was not closed, and calls for a BOOMERANG ignored. Xenophrenic continues to flaunt WP:SUMMARYSTYLE with respect to the lead, as can bee seen in this edit[133] reverting to his preferred version including [[WP:PEACOCK|peacocky}} paraphrasing based on a one-off comment in a non-mainstream source, and a self-serving one-off quote from a primary source. The mainstream view is obfuscated by the text. Jweiss11 (talk · contribs)'s disposition toward advocacy on this article is revealed by the contradictions in his statement at the request for arbitration[134], which I briefly characterized in relation to his repeated removal of criticisms based on the political ramifications of Harris statements[135] because he doesn't like them. Regarding Collect's allegation of forumshopping at ArbCom, note that @NativeForeigner: has indicated that he would be willing to look at this in that forum should the community processes fail to resolve the dispute[136]. So I'm back here at AN/I working through the community channels, but the request was not seen as frivolous, just premature. I should hope that there would be some input from uninvolved admins here soon on this second AN/I thread.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Three uninvolved users told you that you brought a content dispute to AN/I, Robert McClenon described your behavior as a "tantrum" and suggested you receive a strong warning. He also gave you a warning on your talk page regarding your behavior on BLP issues. You acknowledged the warning but denied any wrongdoing and continued to edit war and dump massive amounts of contentious material into the BLP.LM2000 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You are arguing semantics. That first AN/I thread should have been a wake-up call and unfortunately it was not.LM2000 (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The statement I made in requesting arbitration is here.

@LM2000: An alert regarding discretionary sanctions is not a warning. Your comment at ArbCom read, "Robert McClenon described the scene as a "tantrum" and ended up giving Ubikwit a warning", which seems to link the comment in the AN/I thread with the "warning" per the recommendation made early in the thread.

Xenophrenic continues to attempt to divert attention from his disruptive POV pushing by making false allegations about long-ago resolved content disputes, but here is further context. First, Jonotrain inserted the Sayeed quote, as follows.[137]

According to Greenwald, Harris relies on this view of Islam to justify torture, anti-Muslim profiling, and the Israeli occupation. Greenwald sees the double standard in Harris' writings as a symptom of Islamophobia: "...he [Harris] and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism." Theodore Sayeed, another critic of Harris, also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."

Second, When I moved the quote to the Political section, it was prefaced by the following text, which presented a balanced view of the debate in accord with NPOV.

Writing for Truthdig, Harris stated

It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism."

On his blog, Harris states

I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible.

He then says "if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state".

Third, I replaced the text with the following quote[138] after the BLP/N thread, even though that thread found no BLP issue with it.

In a Mondoweiss article praised by Greenwald, Theodore Sayeed stated, "Any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics".

Fourth, it was me that removed the racism allegation from the lead[139], even though there are a number of sources supporting the allegation with respect to statements on profiling, etc. that Harris has made. The I started this thread[140] and commented on Steeletrap (talk · contribs)'s UT page[141] after Steeletrap re-added it to the lead[142]./br>--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Attempts to dismiss peer-reviewed history book

Xenophrenic attempts to dismiss a peer-reviewed book by a career academic published by an academic press.[143]

@Second Quantization: does same, making incoherent claim about paraphrasing, misunderstanding NPOV and RS.[144]

Refusing to get the point, SQ continues to push ill-informed POV; apparently, he couldn't take the time to check the links I provided to Palgrave’s website, asserting that the title of the book was “controversial”[145]. [146] [147]

Finally, SQ falsely accuses me (“No offence”) of BLP violations, because he doesn’t like what the RS say (aside from the fact that he mischaracterizes my edits), but refuses to take claims to BLP/N. WP:NPA. [148]

Xenophrenic comes back and insinuates that Lears was calling Harris a Nazi, attempting to dismiss another source by an professor of history, and grossly misrepresenting my edits at the same time, while also stating

That is fine information for the Positivism article, and I don't disagree with Lears' assertion that there were elements of positivism at the core of social Darwinism, scientific racism and emperialism in the nineteenth century. I'll work to paraphrase it if I ever edit that article and see a need to introduce that information. [149]

An RS/N thread had to be opened to prove that the book is a peer-reviewed monograph.[150]
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind so much having to repeatedly correct Ubikwit's misrepresentation of sources, it's part of the job as a volunteer editor. I should not, however, have to keep correcting his misrepresentations about what I've said or done:

Xenophrenic continues to flaunt WP:SUMMARYSTYLE with respect to the lead, as can bee seen in this edit

Yes, check the edit and see that it was a simple BRD revert with a note directing you to the Talk page where that text was already being discussed - no flaunting involved. You are welcome to criticize my edits all you want, but you need not outright lie, Ubikwit.

Xenophrenic continues to attempt to divert attention from his disruptive POV pushing by making false allegations about long-ago resolved content disputes, but here is further context.

No "false allegations" cited by you in your comment, I see. That is typical. The issue you partially described was indeed long-ago resolved when it was discovered that you had taken a Harris quote out of context by cleverly omitting his disclaimer to the reader that the quote you repeated would sound "paradoxical" and that he was actually still "undecided" on that issue. And the BLP/N thread did not support your use of the Mondoweiss text.

Xenophrenic attempts to dismiss a peer-reviewed book by a career academic published by an academic press.

You need not outright lie, Ubikwit. Anyone who reads my response, which you linked, will see that rather than dismiss the source, I asked: What content, specifically, were you intending to use from the book to improve the Sam Harris article? Could you propose some text here? I did point out that the book was a critique of atheism written by a priest, and had never been cited, but rather than "dismiss" the book, I urged you to continue with your proposal to use the source.

Xenophrenic comes back and insinuates that Lears was calling Harris a Nazi...

Again with the lies, Ubikwit? That one is so blatant, you didn't even attempt to substantiate it. Your Lears piece does the insinuation. Here is exactly what I said about it from the article Talk page:

here is my understanding of Lears' assertions in the most basic terms: New Atheists demand reliance on science instead of religion → this strikes Lears as a form of "positivism" → and by the way dear reader, positivism also played a part in "social Darwinism", "scientific racism" and "imperialism" in the nineteenth century, and resulted in the 20th century Nazi use of eugenics → (cue ominous music here). Lears deftly avoids directly accusing the new atheists of racism and imperialism, but still manages to execute Godwin's Law.

Lies don't work, Ubikwit. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think your statement about what I said is utterly bizarre (you do know that people can click and see what I wrote right?). This has been your approach in some of the things I have noticed:

1. You get a book that agrees with your point of view.

2. You don't mention it's written by a priest (in the discussion or the article) or that the book is just published. The book is also clearly for a popular audience as anyone can see from skimming it, it is not a normal academic monograph, even if it is peer reviewed (books for a popular audience are peer reviewed too).

3. You choose to include the most inflammatory statement you can find in the book and provide no context at all in the wikipedia article.

Further,

4. ... and accusing someone of denialism (rather than say just being bad at history) in your title is controversial.

Also, separately, what's most bizarre is that you seem to see no issue with adding statements which attempt to link someone with racism by association. Including that quote by Lear is clearly problematic. Second Quantization (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

deliberately violating an apparent RfC consensus

Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#RfC appears to me to show a clear consensus. Six editors !voted against using a source which was used for: Theodore Sayeed also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."

This edit re-added the source [151] and added claims in Wikipedia's voice (changes bolded).

Some commentators have asserted that Harris's criticisms exhibit prejudice and intolerance, while others have praised his unapologetic directness as long overdue. After the attacks on the World Trade Center, Harris broadened his critical focus on Islam, which has resulted in death threats. Some critics equate his focus on Islam and advocacy of policies such as profiling of Muslims and support for torture with Islamophobia. Harris and others have said his critics misuse the term in an attempt to silence criticism.<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/08/religion-atheism] "Sam Harris, torture, quotation", Andrew Brown, The Guardian, August 8, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-mungai/sam-harris-profiling-muslims_b_1466349.html]End of Profiling: Letter to Sam Harris, Letter to Sam Harris, Michael Mungai, Huffingtong Post, July 1, 2012</ref><ref>[http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/sam-harris-in-full-court-intellectual-mystic-and-supporter-of-the-iraq-war]Sam Harris in full: court intellectual, mystic, and supporter of the Iraq war, Theodore Sayeed, Mondoweiss, Septemeber 4, 2012</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-stedman/sam-harris-racial-profiling_b_1472360.html] Sam Harris, Will You Visit A Mosque With Me?, Chris Stedman, Huffington Post, July 2, 2012</ref>

Note the fact references include the disallowed Sayeed source which we had a specific RfC on, an Andrew Brown commentary labeled as such, a HuffPo "blog letter" from Michael Mungai, and a nice screed by Chris Stedman also a HuffPo blog letter. The other refs added are [152] found through a google search for "Sam Harris" and "bias" but which unfortunately does not make the claim the editor wished for, and [153] (Aside: I love the really useful quote in it "Last question, Chris. Something on a hopeful note. You’ve been a reporter who actually has lived in the Middle East and actually talked to Muslims and seen them first hand. You have this rich tradition of learning Christianity, Christian morals, Christian ethics and seen the rise of the American Christian fascist movement. What can be done, on a global scale, perhaps, for Muslims and Christians – well intentioned ones – to wrest away the control of their religiosity and religions by self interested political individuals, like the ones you’ve mentioned. What can be done to reclaim the faith?") a pure blog post by Wajahat Ali. Patheos fails RS as it is specifically " the premier online destination to engage in the global dialogue about religion and spirituality and to explore and experience the world's beliefs." Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_182#Patheos.com, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_167#Patheos_blogs each finding that the blogs are not RS, but depend on if the persons are notable. In the case at hand, the answer is "no".

So we have deliberate violation of apparent consensus, and use of a source specifically disallowed, and use of sources for contentious claims made in Wikipedia's voice using "commentary" and editorial opinion columns. I suggest that we have a problem here. Collect (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

• The RFC is specifically centered around the quote from Sayeed, which Ubikwit did not restore in any form. What's the problem? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sayeed was not notable per most (5 of the six) opinions at the RfC. Collect (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • If you want to achieve consensus to leave out the citation, you should start a new RFC that asks that question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • If you wish to start a debating society as to whether when 5 out of 6 people say the person is not notable whether that conversation is not actually part of the RfC but should be made a separate RfC to establish that it is the opinion of 5 out of 6 of those people, then that is a wondrously byzantine argument. Cheers Collect (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's readily apparent where the byzantine arguments are coming from. What is the policy for people that know the rules but feign ingnoramance?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet another revert at [154]:

Retains blog post from Patheos for which the apparent quote from a notable person would be "I mean Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, asks us to consider carrying out a nuclear first strike on the Arab world. He has a long defense of torture. Christopher Hitchens is an apologist for pre-emptive war and also speaks in the crude, racist terms that Harris uses to describe 1 billion people – one fifth of the world’s population." which is used as a cite for an apparent claim of fact "After the attacks on the World Trade Center"(ref). As a source for that phrase, the blog fails, but it seems primarily centered on a quite inadmissible opinion of Hedges which would not be allowed in any BLP except absolutely cited as the opinion only of Hedges. It offers no actual support to the phrase for which it is used as a cite. It also reinstates the two HuffPo blog posts which do not actually support the claims of fact made. Adding specifically problematic sources to any BLP, after one has been told they are problematic, I find troubling indeed. Collect (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect, you took Sayeed to BLP/N, receiving a "no BLP violation". Now you are asserting that it is not RS?

And the column of Andrew Brown (writer) (also on the editorial board) and the individuals with official blogs on Guardian and Huffington Post are not RS for opinion?

You failed to wikilink Chris Hedges, who is also (block)quoted by Greenwald in the Guardian

"They're secular fundamentalists. . . . I find that it's, like the Christian right, a fear based movement. It's a movement that is very much a reaction to 9/11.[155]

. Hedges' book (academic press)[156] might be a good source, and here's another interview from Salon[157].

And the Patheos interview was not used to source "bias". I eliminated "bias", using "prejudice" instead, because there's a peer-reviewed source by an academic, quoting "Dr. Peter Slezak is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of New South Wales".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I need help: A user is harassing me.

There is a user that continuously harasses me. This user has been giving me a very hard time recently (I refuse to give the username publicly; I will discuss with the helper who offers themselves to help me), and I request this user to be blocked or properly given a strict warning for several reasons:

• This user has been putting up campaigns against me to multiple people / makes biased statements. This user tries to campaign that I should be blocked for having a 'battleground' personality and putting up criticism that seems wrong (to him).
• This user has been stalking my account (I don't know if it is 24/7, but whatever I do, this user almost all the time interferes against me either by talking negatively about me among other people or revert edits with poor reasonings).
• As a follow-up, this user also does disruptive reasoning (I presume just towards me). Everything I do, this user tries to undo it, and wants to do so.
• This user has been reverting my warnings (literally, he wants me not to touch his talk page at all) on his talk page not to harass me in a very offensive manner. I told him not to do disruptive editing twice and not to stalk me, and this user reverted both, saying that he wasn't going to talk to me. Even though this user states that he has right to his talk page, he is ignoring my warnings and continuously acting against it. It is also the reason of why I am not notifying this user that I'm on an attempt to report him.
• As a follow-up, however, this user still believes he has the right to come into portals that I'm related in, and as usual, put up campaigns against me.
• This user was talks about me without notifying me in any way, and I find that as an unwanted attention, and therefore, harassment.

It would be great if anyone helped me settle this user into either properly warning this user or block him. I am mortified, and I need help here. HanSangYoon (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Related unresolved thread: I am here to report a Sock Puppet Account ―Mandruss ☎ 09:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

To facilitate this, the editor he's accusing of "harassing him" is me. In the thread Mandruss is linking to, I wondered if this kind of thing crosses the line into a "personal attack". I would appreciate an admin looking in to this, as I feel this editor has crossed lines here, and I would like to see this resolved. But it's getting to the point that several editors now don't dare edit or revert anything this editor has done, lest he haul them up either before WP:SPI (which he's already done with three long-standing editors), or WP:ANI (as he's trying to do to me here). --IJBall (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have only requested an investigation; nothing wrong there, Mandruss. HanSangYoon (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

User:HanSangYoon, you have removed another user's comments and I would suggest that you restore them. This was either malicious or more evidence of WP:CIR, neither looks good for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

So, what should I do here? – Should I restore my comment? Or should I leave it deleted as potential "evidence"? TIA... --IJBall (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, do you not notice that the 'harassing' one I'm referring here is IJBall? One of my reasons of why I request this user to be blocked is because he is stalking me; should I leave his spam-like comment around as usual? This user likes to ignore and delete my warnings, and so I can't just get rid of his spam message. That's just plain ridiculous on my side, Mandruss. I do not want this user to stalk around of what I'm doing. But why am I being ignored of my help request? HanSangYoon (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If I was more active and had more time, I'd block HanSangYoon myself. Honestly, if this hasn't stopped by tomorrow I might be persuaded to dust off the ole block button. What needs to happen next is one of the editors in conflict with him needs to start a subsection here requesting a block or some other administrative action for HanSangYoon. Keep it simple, state the problem clearly, and provide diffs clearly showing the competency issues and edit warring. AniMate 14:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot understand your logic of why you would want to block me. After all, I'm reporting a stalker, and you're simply saying that I should be blocked for no reason...pity. HanSangYoon (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for WP:BOOMERANG sanction

I have clearly made the case for the OP's WP:Incompetence in two threads including an earlier one on this page. The user is showing very poor editorial judgment, failing to adequately defend his actions, and being extremely obstinate about the whole thing. I see multiple editors strongly opposed to his actions and none supporting. Failure to respond to such opposition is disruptive by definition. I have not been around for any of the supposed edit warring, but the preceding alone should warrant some boomerang action, and I feel it's a day or two overdue. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Admins can feel free to look into the OP's "charges". But his recent campaigns against other editors (e.g. here, and at WP:SPI) is troubling, to say the least, quite aside from the WP:CIR issues that Mandruss references. --IJBall (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thirded. I tried to extend the olive branch and help HSY fix up with some of his other projects that were unprofessional like Template:Busan Metro Line 1. However he still will not compromise and insistent that his bland pictures replace quality pictures that other editors have worked hard to make. One minute he is begging for help on something the next he is stubbornly challenging seven other editors that are all opposed to his changes.Terramorphous (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Opposed. I was simply making edits when IJBall and Terramorphus came in to undo my edits without a proper explanation. I tried discussing with IJBall, but he was simply under denial and deleted my comments immediately (even warnings not to harass me at here and here), while Terramorphus acts without discussing fully. I tried to conversate with these users, but they don't seem to even consider it importantly. IJBall's campaigning against me is a type of bullying (as it harasses me), and as an administrator quoted, "IJBall showed a high level of incivility in this case. He accused HanSangYoon of incompetence numerous time both here and at the ANI. That is not a good practice at all. Competence is required, but it is not inherited. IJBall, if you find out that the user is acting wrongly, try to help him, to teach him, and not to accuse him of being ignorant or dishonest. Acting like that only makes the situation worse." ( -Vanjagenije; evidence is here). IJBall has also been previously criticized by another user that he "shabbily treated" me (evidence is located in the same page as given).

With Terramorphus, the undoing of metro stations became a pain in the neck as I requested for him not to revert but to discuss, and he simply ignored my advice and went on to continue reverting the edits (which goes against the Wikipedia policy of necessary revertings and explaining (at least). Terramorphus not only refused to discuss, but also sent a challenge of getting me into trouble as a replacement response. These two editors has been very obnoxious to my contributions, and rather I'd like to point these two users out that they're the one that's causing me trouble. On top of that, I request an IBAN on IJBall (instead of a block, actually). HanSangYoon (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@HanSangYoon: You have not adequately explained how, in an article about a train station, a photo of a sign can be better for the infobox than a photo of the station. Infoboxes should illustrate the article's subject to the best extent possible with available images, and these are not articles about signs. I don't even need to point to a guideline that says this; it should be intuitively obvious. It should not be necessary to "discuss" this concept one article at a time.

You have consistently disregarded the attempts of more experienced editors to provide advice and guidance. An editor with about 900 edits should be capable of deferring to the judgment of multiple editors with thousands of edits each. You are not. Most experienced editors are willing to forgive the mistakes of newer editors and to provide assistance. When the newer editor repeatedly and defiantly refuses to accept the guidance, the desire to help them ends.

You have removed another user's comments on this page, citing as justification the fact that they removed your comments from their user talk page. This shows that you do not understand talk page policies at Wikipedia.

All of this, combined, points to WP:IDHT, failure to respect WP:Consensus, and WP:Incompetence. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I may not be a hardcore Wikipedia article editor as you said, but I do am a mature human with lots of common sense; seeing bunch of users trying to reason that they're more experienced in editing article truly makes me facepalm, first of all. Even if I was an experienced editor (which I'm not), I'm sure my usual personality of being strict on format is not gonna change, and I hope you're not trying to question my personality here. I have seen Wikipedia for more than a decade, and as a 'experienced Wikipedia user' (as in using it), I know what I want for articles that I edit. I'm pretty sure you're tired of my blunt and fixed attitude, but that is just me, after all. If there's someone who could properly cooperate with me, then I'm willing to fix my attitude FOR that cooperator. Take the otherwise, then it won't go well with me. That's that. No battleground attitude, no issue.

And let's see about the platform views that you're trying to get rid of. London Undergound, NYC Subway, Seoul Jihachul and Tokyo Chikatetsu. I am pretty much a huge fan of subways. The common thing of these four huge metro system is that in their encyclopedia pages, they show their station mark as the title image. You have the red-blue roundel for London. Seoul and Tokyo takes their modern style of placards, too, from rounders to hangar signs. New York? They take the track view image WITH the placard (black square). I like the formats of putting in placards because it shows UNITY. It shows standardization of the metro system, and boy have I repeated this multiple times. Of course, there will be people not agreeing with me, but then what am I? I have a special connection with subways, and my strong opinion is nullified? It makes absolutely no sense to me that my own contributions for the better should be taken down by some another user who doesn't seem to have a legitimate reason to back their actions up.

That's why I was so fired up with SecondaryWaltz and IJBall in the first place. I criticized Secondarywaltz because of the strange follow-up that occurred with the revertion, and with suspicion, I tried to put up a report on him, and because I did the right thing for myself, I was bombarded with negative users, finding it beyond ridiculous of how misunderstanding these users are.

And not trying to be disrespectful, but you seem more and more biased as I explain more and more of my position in my own issue. You may be a professional editor, and I respect that. But what I do not respect is the wrongful position you are currently standing at. I've shown you the best reasons of why the Wikipedia policy and my contributions cope with each other above. But why is it ignored? I've proved myself, and sometimes sure, they reply well. But at the end, they either just ignore the discussion or say something totally unrelated, which rises my impatience with these users. The two users that I criticized above are examples (and I also explained it well, too). I believe they were doing disruptive editing, and so I tried to show them of what I thought of their actions that outraged me. And I guess that's what you see as a disruptive editing...on my side.

You can look into talk pages or records of me hotly discussing about these placard sign images, and my reason for why the images should be up (if gathered) is abundant. Therefore, my position on the issue that escalated in the beginning is the same: Platform images should be up there. Doesn't matter if it contributes little, cause it still contributes something. Deleting that isn't the policy in Wikipedia (as I explained), and on my side, the one who should be 'getting the point' is the one who cannot fully continue the discussion I tried to resonate multiple times. HanSangYoon (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments are full of holes, and they continue to show a closed-minded ignorance of Wikipedia editing concepts (see WP:Other stuff exists for example), but I am through wasting my time arguing with you. If I hadn't seen that thread at the Help Desk a week ago, I wouldn't be involved in this or even aware of it. This noticeboard seems decidedly uninterested in this, and I've learned to avoid being a lone crusader on things like this; it just doesn't pay. I'm going to pretend I didn't see the Help Desk thread and let the rest of the community deal with you as they see fit. Best of luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You started this discussion, but I'm not sure what you actually want. Do you want to ask administrators to block HanSangYoon, or to warn him, or what? I agree with you that HanSangYoon is acting disruptively, but I don't think he should be blocked just for making wrong editorial judgments. @HanSangYoon: In the future, if other editors revert your edits, you should calm down and try to discuss that with them on the article talk page, or on the WikiProject talk page, or on their user talk pages. You should not make the same or similar edit again unless you reach a wp:consensus with other editors. You should not report them to administrators, WP:SPI, or anywhere else. You should not accuse them of stalking, bullying, harassing, etc. Just calm down, and try to discuss the issue with them. So, my advice to you is to immediately stop accusing other users, and to take time to read WP:CONSENSUS and especially this page. I call on you to promise here that you will not make any contested edits in the future without reaching consensus first, and that you will not make accusations against other editors just because they do not agree with you. I believe that is the only way to save yourself from being blocked, as otherwise you are very close to that. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: I would be satisfied if this user would do three things.

• Reverse all of his additions of sign photos.
• Agree to follow WP:BRD procedure from this point forward. He may try his sign photo additions again, but if his edit gets reverted, he must not re-revert unless he first gains consensus for the change in talk. It will be his responsibility to start the discussion. If he is unable to get consensus after making his best argument, the sign photo stays out. He should understand that endless, circular WP:IDHT argument will not be tolerated.
• Agree that other editors may be watching his activity for awhile to be sure he is honoring his agreement, without accusing them of stalking.

If the user cannot agree to all three items, then I'm requesting a one-week block, during which time I and possibly others will reverse his sign photo additions. If he then returns and starts this all over again without following BRD, he should expect to return to this page, this time as the subject instead of the OP. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's probably not your intention, but that comes across as "Please block him so we can undo all his work and then get him blocked again when he comes back". You might want to moderate your position a bit here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: My intention is to turn the clock back to a time before all of this user's disruptive activity. A reset, if you will. My hope is that no block is necessary, not once, let alone twice. If necessary, I'm willing to do the reset myself, but I don't want the possibility of edit warring while I'm doing it; hence the need for the block. I hope I have clarified my position. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Opposed again. I believe my edits were rather contributive, not disruptive as Mandrus's claims. I have been adding information and describing well of why Mandruss's criticism against me is excessive above. Also, to Vanjagenije, I have already said that I am the one who discusses with users who revert my images and contributions. It's them who either run away from the discussion, or suddenly talk about something else, totally unrelated. Mandruss showed an example of one right now, claiming that my explanation was 'full of holes' (which I strongly disagree) instead of actuall countering them. And for what reason am I being close to being blocked for? These unreasonable criticisms truly angers me. There is no reason to get rid of them, and it also breaks several Wikipedia policies. I stand by my defense. HanSangYoon (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S, I was/am/will continue to discuss with people before doing reverts (as Vanjagenije said). Such warning should be towards the other side, not my side. Disruptive editing isn't what I'm doing. It's what they're doing. Reverting my contribution with lack of reasoning...it's really angering.

• HanSangYoon, please read WP:BRD. If someone reverts your bold edit, discuss your proposed edit on the talk page. Don't edit war or get angry, just deal with it and try to come upon a solution. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@ColonialGrid:, I have followed the bold edit of whenever I have doubt, I edit. I contribute. I try to have consensus and discussion, and it's the users on the other side that either ignores it and pushes with their edit warring, or all of a sudden, talk about something else to cut off the the discussion. What was I supposed to do? I dealt with so many obstacles these users placed in front of me, and I truly had enough. These users needs to be aware that I have good faith, and their offensive actions of condemning whatever I do threats my good faith. I face palm whenever I get warnings of criticism from people, in which sometimes it seems ironic. HanSangYoon (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose formal sanctions, but strictly warn the user about ownership behaviour in articles and paying heed to consensus in talk page discussions. HanSangYoon wishes to contribute images to LA Metro articles, but discussion has determined that the images are unacceptable, either because of poor quality or incorrect context. There seems to be agreement that there should be images, but that better ones should be found. Rather than accept this result HanSangYoon has battled on the talk page and elsewhere insisting that the images must be their contributions; if not these, then other images they will collect in the future. That is inappropriate. HanSangYoon: Wikipedia values your contributions but you do not own them, and sometimes the community decides to go in a different direction. Some other alternatives were suggested to you (such as submitting the images to Commons, which you have done) but you cannot insist that your images (and/or only your images) must be used in any article. Continuing to do so is disruptive, and you will be blocked if you refuse to listen to criticism and cannot contribute constructively. Ivanvector (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the user should be very strongly admonished for suggesting that another user's argument is racist, with no shred of proof. Completely unacceptable. Ivanvector (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Medeis hatting and deletions on the ref desks

Dear all, I am requesting that User:Medeis be banned from removing or hatting anything on the reference desks. I have problems with her other contributions, but this is by far the biggest, and the only one that really warrants a solution. (Note: I believe Medeis has previously said she is female, hence the pronoun "she"). Her removals and hattings are objectionable to many people, and take up a lot of time on the ref desk talk page. Every time I read the talk page, there is another long thread about something she has removed. This costs an inordinate amount of time, and always results in a deluge of words, and a lot of tension. The latest example is this:

• First deletion: [158]
• Second deletion: [159]

Furthermore, the edit summary for the first deletion said: "I am not a holocaust denialist, nor a believer in conspiracy theory: {{WP:DENY]] this is not he first trolling by noopolo)". This contains the accusation of "trolling", which is bizarre and unsubstantiated in this case. The question by Noopolo strikes me as incredibly legitimate, and very interesting. What's more, it was answered well, with posts that I found highly informative. I have for a long time wanted to know the nitty gritty of these things, because I trust that holocaust deniers are wrong, but I think it is better to be armed with facts, and whilst I can consult the articles, ref desk posts give me a pithy initial summary, for the sake of a quick overview.

Another problem here is that Medeis claims to be following Bold, Revert, Discuss, as witness this diff: [160]. I do not see anything resembling BRD here - Medeis has been bold twice in quick succession, not at all the correct procedure.

The thread on the ref desk talk page is becoming very long. Furthermore, all these problems seem to cause enormous tension among editors, but they always seem to start with Medeis. Some people agree with her deletions, so I say, if so, let them take the lead. Consequently, because of the enormous amount of time constantly consumed by Medeis, I request that this user be indefinitely banned from hatting or removing posts on the ref desks. This is the only sanction I request, and it would not stop her from requesting hatting or deletion on the ref desk talk page, or contributing to such discussions.

Note this previous attempt to deal with Medeis, just one among many: [161]

Thanks all, IBE (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

When did you last participate in a ref desk talk page discussion on these issues? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing problem on the reference desks for a long time. μηδείς/Medeis deletes or hats questions or discussions that they decide are inappropriate, even in the face of overwhelming consensus that the material in question should be allowed. I do not understand why this has been allowed to go on for so long.

There is zero downside to topic-banning μηδείς/Medeis from any modification of another person's comments. The reference desks are full of trustworthy people who can and will deal with those comments that really need to be removed or hatted, such as asking for legal/medical advice. We simply do not need μηδείς/Medeis as the self-appointed sheriff of the reference desks, constantly making contentious closures. The word "loose cannon" comes to mind. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There has been ongoing debate for many years about when or if to hat/delete, and in fact there are ongoing discussions about it right now at the ref desk talk page - which is what that talk page is for, don'cha know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe further research is needed. Forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

I support the proposal to deal with Medeis in this manner. What we have here is an editor who pops up with an assertion that some IP editor is some well-known miscreant - and without evidence or discussion either deletes, hat or harasses that person. Medeis is trying to take the role of an Admin, without going through the necessary hoops to gain that status and without understanding the mechanisms by which sock-puppetry is dealt with. I'm quite sure that this is well-intentioned, but very often (at least half the time), the community consensus is that Medeis is incorrect or has overreacted. That causes yet another huge debate about her actions to break out on the talk page, typically resulting in widespread condemnation of Medeis' actions. This is evidence (IMHO) that this is a case of WP:DISRUPT that should be dealt with accordingly.

However, (as I've frequently stated) the underlying issue is that the reference desks do not have a simple, comprehensible, set of guidelines as to what to do with problematic posts from possibly dubious editors. So it's hard for the community to say "Medeis: You broke rule 27(b), please don't do that again." - or "Admins: This is the 23rd time Medeis broke rule 27(b), please apply a topic ban." Our inability to get the community to get into a goal-directed discussion about a decent set of guidelines, despite the evident relish in fighting each action on a case-by-case basis, is puzzling and extremely frustrating to me.

So while I definitely support dealing with Medeis, she is just the outlier in a spectrum of confusing responses to inappropriate questions at WP:RD. If we had those clear guidelines, then an admin would have taken action a long time ago.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, all very pertinent, Steve, but you have said before that the problem is that people disagree on the interpretation anyway. (I hope I'm not misinterpreting you, but somewhere you said to Medeis, when she advanced a similar-sounding idea, that you disagree with almost all her hattings.) The point is that people always claim to be following certain rules (as interpreted by them), so I don't see how to get a single set of effective rules in place. We would need a competent authority to carry them out, and the devil here is in the detail - deciding what counts as this or that problem (per your flowchart on the ref desk talk page) is (I believe) a big part of the problem. If you want to revise those guidelines and include the concept of some kind of chain of command for more drastic actions (a bit like the suggestion of letting only admins hat or delete) I'd be interested. At the same time, let's remember it's complicated in its own right, and should be discussed as a separate proposal. This one is only about one editor, and you have summed up my reasons very neatly, better than I could have put it. IBE (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

All of this needs to be handled on the ref desk talk page. Dragging it here is nothing more than grandstanding. There are a few different areas of conflict:

1. There is a rule against giving professional advice. Medeis errs on the (sometimes extreme) side of caution. If there is disagreement about it, that's what the talk page is for. Where it gets complicated is the involvement of users who range from not going to the extreme, all the way to disagreeing with the rule itself.
2. Random trolling is another negotiable matter for the talk page. There's a risk of "feeding the troll", but generally there's consensus on obvious trolling.
3. Banned users are not allowed to edit. Again, there are persistent arguments which seek to ignore that rule. But again, that's negotiable. The complication comes with editors who are less experienced in dealing with banned users and are unwillingly to show good faith toward those who know the M.O. of these users. And then it gets messy and annoying, as all the back-and-forth does nothing except feed the banned troll.

You can talk about rules and guidelines and decision trees every day and twice on Sunday, but none of that fixes the core problems I've listed above. If you're going ban Medeis for executing the "Bold" part of BRD, then you should also ban the users who insist on the "R" part as well. The solution would seem to be to decide on when to bring a hat or deletion to the talk page. This does not belong on ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Our guidelines say we don't engage in debate or speculation, but the first two diffs provided above start with "I am not a holocaust denialist but..." whereas me saying their are certain editors who show up only to criticize me and a few other editors (and I am not talking about the person with whom I am engaged in an IBAN) isn't even a matter of dispute, it's an observation by me. The problem in general is that we come to conclusions on the talk page that trolling should just be deleted without comment, because a talk page discussion draws more attention. Then, when that opinion is followed, someone complains there was no discussion and the cycle goes around and around.

As for myself "acting like an admin", I am not the only person who follows the guidelines about removing material by known block-evading trolls, etc., and I follow consensus of the desk when an edit I make is reversed. See, for example, this thread on people with Autism and Down's Syndrome where I suggest half way down the thread that the person may be trolling us, only at the end for him to admit it and mock us, before I then closed the thread.

The ref desk needs objective rules that apply equally to everyone. Some of those rules already govern all of main space, no BLP violations, No professional advice, comments by banned users may be removed on sight. Other issues are judgment calls and I do not reverse them when consensus is against me at the talk page. If one of them is to be that only an admin can hat or delete a discussion, that's fine with me. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - Per Baseball Bugs. I can begin imagine (but will not make) a good-faith (though not necessarily good) case for 1rr on the refdesks, but Medeis usually does removals or hatting that needs to be done. Sometimes overly cautious? Yes. Disruptive? That's certainly an "it takes two to tango" deal here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see your point about "it takes two to tango". A large number of people have expressed their dislike of Medeis' hatting. You give no examples about what constitutes being merely "overly cautious". I said in my OP that it is one editor consuming a huge amount of time from excessive hatting/ removal. The case I gave is a classic example. There is nothing resembling excessive caution there. It is just an absurd reaction to the question, containing as it does an unsubstantiated accusation of trolling by Medeis against Noopolo. Perhaps there is a history there, but nothing was offered as an explanation, other than the characterisation of "trolling". I see no "tangoing" and have never had any desire to engage Medeis in confrontation. Neither have a number of editors who have used the legitimate processes to deal with another editor. My claim about wasted time by many editors amounts to exactly that complaint, that we desperately don't want to tango, but we don't want the nuisance caused by a single outlier either. If you believe in the hattings, I said that it would be fine for others to take the lead. This doesn't look like an attempt to tango, I feel. IBE (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If BRD is followed, Medeis hats or removes, it is reverted, Medeis might choose to discuss, no one is forced to discuss, and the hat/removal fails for lack of consensus. No one's time is "wasted" unless they choose to "waste" it, beyond the time it takes to perform one undo (about 15 seconds including the editsum). Medeis says that she follows and respects this system and I haven't seen anyone bring proof that she does not. Sorry but your argument is full of holes. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I gave the example in the original post. Two removals, in quick succession, and a direct claim to be following BRD. But I might have messed something up, so please quietly alert me to a blunt error, if I have made one. IBE (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I wondered whether I should say this, but I decided it was so obvious as to be unnecessary. We don't drag people to ANI for one or two (or even three over a period of time) lapses of judgment. Show me a pattern of misbehavior, please, where BRD has been violated in hatting and removal. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If you think this is only a few instances, spend some time scanning the ref desk talk page archives for the past five years. Or just google /reference desk talk medeis delete/. You can also or restrict to inurl:wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk, etc. E.g. here [162] [163] are a few hits, and I especially like this one, [164] where Medeis goes off in ALL CAPS about how a question is an "invitation to debate", when in fact it is a question about specific citable historical facts, asked by a well-established and productive editor. Here's a talk thread about bad hatting and deleting by Medeis from 2013 [165]. This archive has lots of Medeis not acting like a pleasant team player [166] I have better things to do than google trawl for every time Medeis has caused disruption based on aggressive policing, but if you're genuinely curious, WP and google have all the history you need to get the example behavior straight from the source. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been under the mistaken impression that BRD has been in place at the refdesks. Taking in all of this discussion, it appears that's not the case. You can't fault Medeis for the fact that there have been no clear rules; that is the fault of the community. I'm proposing the use of BRD and Medeis has made a very clear statement below (02:59, 23 Feb) that she will abide by BRD if it is accepted. If the rules are clear and Medeis breaks her own promise to follow them, THEN you have an ANI case. Not until then. That should be all that is necessary to end this discussion now. And Medeis is spot on when she conditions her promise on application of the BRD rule to everyone. If you bring her back to ANI for BRD violations and she can show spotty or selective enforcement, the case should be thrown out. That is the only way this can work. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Its use is inconsistent. Also, BRD is not the way to deal with a banned user. As has been said numerous times on the ref desk talk page, by various users, removal of questions by banned users should be as low-key as possible. The newer users need to show good faith in the editor doing the removal, rather than arguing about it as too often happens, thus feeding the banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pro-tip When someone says "I am not a <thing>" and then starts to argue about said thing, they are probably not being 100% honest. While Medeis is cautioned not to edit war or ignore consensus I think the whole ref desk area is a bit permissive of trolling. Oppose topic ban and 1RR restriction, our rules against edit warring can be used to keep this in check and frankly the idea of cutting these thing off early should be considered per WP:DENY. Chillum 18:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1RR mentioned by Ian.thomson. It seems this is something regularly brought up at the refdesk talk page and has made its way to ANI at least a couple times in the past. Each time -- of those I've seen and/or were part of -- there seems to be a great deal of support for the idea that Medeis should exercise more caution in hatting and/or that his/her aggressive hatting is disruptive. Unfortunately, as far as I've seen anyway, Medeis is persistent in defending his/her actions, so I'm not sure what good more cautioning could possibly do. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that Medeis dedicates a lot of time to the refdesk and hats appropriately a lot of the time, so a 1RR seems like a good solution to prevent the more disruptive instances of hat-warring without preventing hatting in the first place. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I do not support 1rr, I only mentioned that as the farthest I could see this going. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose all Support 1RR - As Rhododendrites states, Medeis does a lot of good work and 1RR seems to be a good solution, a second revert in this type of situation would be questionable at best anyway. Further discussion has changed my mind. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It can very easily be questionable both ways, however. If we are going to go with 1rr, I'd at least suggest that it's under the stipulation that it must be more than one user who reverts Medeis, not the same user over and over. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1RR She treats any topic she find distasteful as a troll and hats or deletes it. Imagine if we did that with Wikipedia articles. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This is simply untrue StuRat and here is an example where SemanticMantis hatted you because he didn't "like" your comments on tax policy. I [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=next&oldid=647749876 uncovered your comment leaving only the argument between SM and yourself hatted, since your original point was relevant. How does that amount to my hatting things because I dislike them? What evidence do you have of that? μηδείς (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Others have already provided numerous examples on the Ref Desk talk page, for years now. StuRat (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - I think at most a stern warning from someone scary with an admin hat is warranted here. Maybe also a trout or possibly even a rather smelly mackerel (The Mark of the Mackerel), though not a whale. Anyway, first and last warning. On a side note, for the purposes of keeping things from being chaotic, can we !vote (or is this a vote?) on one thing at a time? I'm not even sure if we're saying 1RR for Medeis or for the whole refdesk (the latter ought not to be discussed here). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Adar 5775 19:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The community already has a version of 1rr, in that I don't rehat discussions when my hatting is questioned and there's no consensus for it on the talk page. No evidence has been provided otherwise, which is what would have justified bring this here now. But what about cases like this, where my long attempt at engaging with a question was twice hatted, and I removed the hats 12. Would that be a violation of 1rr? Would any actually banned user like Light Current and Bowei Huang or the IP from Toronto who eventually went to my talk page asking me if, as a negress, my intelligence was substandard be allowed to restore a personal attack I deleted? Would I have to come running to ANI every time something like this occurred to get it rectified? And why are we talking about this sanction out of the blue if there's no evidence above of a current problem? As for being consistent in "defending my actions", even if that were true, it amounts to saying I'm guilty because I defend myself. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I would Support Medeis' proposal that only admins are allowed to hat or delete RD threads. We have several admins who are active on the reference desks, so there wouldn't be a problem with lack of coverage. However, this rule would need to be strictly enforced, even for the most egregious violations - is the community prepared to apply such a restriction? If so, let's make it official. Tevildo (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose admin-only closure - Yes, we have admin coverage, but it's still kind of like letting admins be the only persons who can remove vandalism from articles. I could begin to consider the idea that admins are the only users who can delete threads that have received responses, and that admins are the only persons who can re-hat de-hatted threads -- but I'm still not suggesting that. Quite frankly, there are a number of refdesk users who are bad at spotting trolls and love giving them attention (hell, I'll even admit that I'm not entirely innocent there). Restricting others from dealing with trolls goes against WP:DENY, WP:BOLD, and WP:IAR. We don't need rules saying you can or cannot remove a thread if that rule is going to enable trolls and punish those who remove trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose admin only closure, support disallowing Medeis to revert when someone reopens her closures. That seems to be the reasonable solution. We should not create situations where admins are allowed to do things that normal users technically can also, but then only allow admins to do. If and when Medeis closes a thread in good faith, if it is reopened Medeis should not close it a second time. That stops all edit wars, and would really remove the locus of the problem. Medeis closes threads in good faith; the issue is the repeated closure of those threads after others disagree. If consensus supports Medeis, others can reclose a reopened thread. If consensus does not support her, she should not be reclosing them. --Jayron32 00:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would support Jayron32's proposal if "someone" were changed to "anyone". In default of Medeis' threshold for hatting being voluntarily aligned with that of the community (which, IMO, is unlikely to happen), we need to find a method of minimizing its disruptive effects. Would it be considered too inequitable to have a simple "Medeis is not permitted to hat or delete anything" rule? If, as I suspect, it would, allowing any user to revert her misjudgements in this area seems like an acceptable solution, but only if it's understood by all concerned that such reversions are not open to subsequent discussion, and, of course, that it doesn't apply to hatting or deletion by users other than Medeis. SteveBaker's proposal for an unambiguous set of rules might be theoretically superior, but generating those rules isn't going to be easy. Tevildo (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Mandruss and I just edit conflicted, so other than emphasizing that the same rules should apply to everybody (assuming disruption is disruption no matter who does it, Tevildo), I will let his statement below stand for mine. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thankyou, Tevildo, for a very fair comment. The reason for singling out Medeis was given in my first post here, announcing the ANI. It is because of constant misapplication of the rules, and overzealous hatting/removal, costing enormous time. No other editor costs us this much time. Hence I claim that there is nothing inequitable going on. It would be the same for anyone who acted this way over a long time. It is also a minimalist suggestion, designed to counter only the specific problem. IBE (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Seconding this rationale. Exceptional behavior merits exceptional treatment. Minimal changes are best at this point. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support BRD at the refdesks - where a hat/removal is the B and the hatter/remover is the one responsible for starting D if they feel it is important enough to pursue. If the D feeds some trolls, so be it; there is no perfect solution. If Medeis already follows this system, causing no more "disruption" than one revert per problem thread, then this ANI complaint would appear to be without merit. I think a clause against thread double jeopardy would be necessary; if a hat/removal attempt failed, that thread would have to be immune from further hat/removal by the same user, regardless of what happened in it later. Again, not perfect, but better than unlimited bites at the apple. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose all as not having any sufficient necessity. unhatting takes but a moment if one is concerned, and there is no strong argument for any punishment for the behaviour which annoys some editors. And I am tired of some of the same folks seeking the same remedies on a monthly basis - all it is, is drama for the sake of drama at that point. (Drama gratia dramatis) Collect (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no "drama for the sake of drama". The "same remedies"? No, I think different ones. Can you substantiate this? If I knew about a previous attempt at this remedy, I would not have filed this post. My suggested remedy is a minimalist one, and I have never heard of it before. You are welcome to be tired of us, but there are many of us, and it is because of outlier behaviour, which does not seem in keeping with the need for consensus. Unhatting only takes a moment, but people will rehat, and that causes a nuisance, as I said above. Some of us find the hatting more than vexing, because we can sense the willpower behind it, a feeling that is borne out by later developments, including rehatting and insistent, illogical debate on the talk page. The thread about holocaust deniers, which I linked, is a classic example, including accusations against people for being IPs, and claiming that the thread consists of nothing but debate. It is these later developments, and the sense of a lot of willpower by a single editor, against community consensus, that is causing us extreme annoyance. IBE (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose admin only closure. There are plenty of legit closures by other editors, like duplicate Q's. Just because one editor doesn't know when to close a Q doesn't mean all should be banned from doing so. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't delved into the whole history of thread-hatting and removing in recent months, but the removal of this particular question strikes me as completely appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Its appropriateness was for BRD to decide. I'm defending Medeis in this thread, but I don't defend that particular case because it violated BRD. For now, BRD/consensus is the best available solution to this problem, and it needs to be observed. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Support preventing Medeis from deleting/hatting posts on the ref desks. Asking nicely, trouting, etc, has proved ineffective, though I do wish that would be all that was necessary. Most every time Medeis does hats/delets, at least one other regular user disagrees, and a bunch of arguing ensues (sometimes it is me who argues about Medeis' shutting down threads). I see this as very disruptive, and often times troll feeding, despite the intent. We have plenty of other users who make deletions/removals that are not contentious. Medeis should let them handle it. Since asking hasn't worked in the past, I suspect sanctions will be necessary to stop this pattern of disruption. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Topic ban for Medeis, Medeis often has good and useful responses. Often times not, but that behavior can just be ignored, while hatting/deleting disrupts the desks for everybody. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that we are only discussing topic-banning μηδείς/Medeis from hatting or deleting other people's comments while allowing her to do everything else she normally does, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that, I thought "topic ban" meant banning from the ref desks. Now stricken. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Admin-only closure - mostly just because I honestly think deletion causes far more strife than any trolls. Trolls hate AGF, good referenced answers, and being ignored. Deleting is none of those. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I very nearly ignored this, but I'm alarmed at some discussion above that sounds like a back-door plan to introduce some sort of policy, or unneeded admin oversight, at the Refdesk. The only thing wrong on the Refdesks is when people try to play admin. Dumb, incomprehensible, or troll questions can easily be ignored; they're just "roughage" and no real problem to anyone. Either you waste your time answering or you don't. Is it bad for Medeis to play admin? Yes. But not any worse than when anyone else does. Whoever comes in with big plans for reform this, ban that, enforce this, block that ... they do nothing but harm. So make your decision about Medeis personally as you see fit, but please don't mess with the Refdesk. Wnt (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wnt hit the nail on the head. There is zero downside to topic-banning μηδείς/Medeis from deleting or collapsing other people's comments -- there are at least a dozen well-respected users who are doing that without the controversial decisions -- but all sorts of potential downside to changing how the refdesks work just to deal with one disruptive editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

So, Guy, what you are suggesting is that rather than BRD, I should bring every request for closure to an admin board? What exactly are you pointing to as a problem here? Wnt's opinion that the medical industry (see his comments on testosterone) is a monopolistic scam are well known. Where have I acted according to our medical disclaimer, then refused to accept consensus when my action has been reverted? Where is any evidence for this entire thread so that uninvolved admins can observe it? μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe what some people are suggesting is that they'd prefer if you didn't care at all about (micro-)managing the desks, and limited your contributions to the reference desks to answers and questions, but not hatting and removing (and, to a lesser degree, not adding mid-thread comments on a question's appropriateness or a querent's sincerity). The reason some editors are suggesting this lies in the number of your interferences that have irritated (and sometimes been reverted by) a number of regular editors. The fact, that you don't mind adding opinionated comment when you so see fit has added to some contributors' irritation (or resignation). I find it hard to understand how you couldh't have noticed this by now. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're saying some ref desk regulars would rather not enforce the rules against professional advice, for example, then you're right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait, are you telling me that editors working at the Reference Desk are okay with giving out professional advice, even when they have no professional credentials? This really opens up problems for Wikipedia and does no service to readers who come there with questions. There should be no shoot-from-the-hip answers to medical, legal, business or career questions that come up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No, this isn't the issue. Most of us are happy with the current guidelines at WP:RD/G/M. The problem is with Medeis' hatting and deletion of "trolling", as she perceives it: her standards of what constitutes "trolling" do not match those of the majority of Reference Desk regulars. If Medeis would restrict her actions to medical and legal advice as defined in the guidelines, the problem would be greatly reduced (if not entirely eliminated). Tevildo (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not that simple. There are also editors who are perfectly willing to allow banned users to edit. And when an experienced editor recognizes such a user's M.O., you get some editors exhibiting bad faith toward the editor who recognizes it, and start talking about starting an SPI, which is a fool's errand and only feeds the banned editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Well, yes, Tevildo, this is exactly the issue raised above. Liz, we have various editors who argue regularly that a question is "interesting" and that if it had been worded in some other way it wouldn't violate our ban on giving professional advice. We recently had a discussion Snow Rise started at the reference desk talk page about whether licensed veterinary advice was a violation of the Wikipedia:General_disclaimer even though the opinion that veterinary advice is forbidden has been consensus since at least 2007.

We have three issues here. (1) A total lack of evidence that I have recently or materially violated BRD, or am acting in bad faith. (2) A significant number of contributers here who think that questioners who can be "ignored" (although they never are) who never disobey policy, only regulars following policy that is a problem, and (3) a "content" dispute over posts which certain people would rather settle by limiting my editting rather than having a set of rules that apply equally to ("at least a dozen well-respected users") all.

The solutions are twofold: an objective set of criteria, and equal application of those criteria to all, including those who ask at the desks, and those who work there. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"Re: "So, Guy, what you are suggesting is that rather than BRD, I should bring every request for closure to an admin board?", No, I am suggesting that you get out of the business of deciding what stays and what goes. You are really, really bad at it, and there are at least a dozen people who are good at it who should be allowed to do -- well -- what you are doing -- badly. You would still be allowed to call for something to be deleted or hatted. You would still be allowed to answer or ignore questions. You just wouldn't be allowed to do the one thing that you suck at. How many different editors have to take you to ANI before you get the point? Just stop, now, voluntarily, and save us all another million words of debating. --07:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. In mainspace, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, when followed and enforced, do a pretty good job of protecting articles from editors whose edits do not improve the encyclopedia. Can they be gamed? Absolutely. Anything can be gamed (and whatever Medeis's shortcomings, I don't see deliberately gaming the system as one of them, in any case). We don't selectively exclude editors who agree to observe BRD, no matter how bad their judgment. Medeis has agreed to observe BRD provided it applies to all, a perfectly reasonable expectation and condition.

What is the absolute worst case result of this proposal? What is its maximum downside? Well, zero discussion is required to simply allow a disputed edit to fail for lack of consensus. Medeis can open a discussion, but no one is forced to participate in it. If she then hatted or removed every thread on every refdesk, and if every such action were inappropriate, the time cost would be less than 15 minutes per day, the time it takes to undo approximately 56 edits (8 threads times 7 desks). That's your worst case, and one that we would obviously never approach. We have already spent more time in this discussion than we would likely spend reverting Medeis in a month.

We need to take a collective deep breath, stand back, and give existing processes a chance to work as they were designed to work. As far as I can tell this has not been tried consistently and evenly at the refdesks; correct me if I'm wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep citing the disclaimer, at strongest, the disclaimer should be taken to say "We aren't claiming this is professional advice". A disclaimer would be something like "Enter at your own risk", which would mean, you assume risk by entering; it would not mean, "People inside will prevent you from entering, and are obliged to do so", or whatever. I'm not even saying your general point was/is wrong about the issue you are referencing, but please stop citing a disclaimer as if they were rules - or, if that is how Wikipedia really means them, let's rename the page, because that's not what a disclaimer generally means.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction on μηδείς. Boldly hatting is fine and there is really no evidence of disuption or edit warring. Relegating a simple task such as hatting to "no big deal" admins is ludicrous. Close/ --DHeyward (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Reluctant support for TBAN or one-revert limit for Medeis, with regard to hatting discussions and removing the edits of another contributor - As one of the RefDesk contributors who has argued most stringently for a cautious and restrictive approach to the professional advice issue, I appreciate Medeis' general concerns and I have no doubt that she takes these actions in good faith and, in each case, in manner that she believes to be consistent with policy. That being said, this ongoing and highly disruptive situation demonstrates that she lacks to the ability to respect the general consensus of her fellow contributors with regard to these circumstances. It's all well and good to say that, in any given scenario, she seems to be acting within the spectrum of good-faith, if toward the extremes, but we long ago passed the point where she should have started to recognize the situations in which she was adopting a WP:SNOW position. Even if she is absolutely certain her interpretation of policy is in the right, and that she's acting in the best interests of the project (and never had cause to doubt that she is acting from this frame of mind), she seems to lack the ability to see (or at least accept) when she is about to take an action in these contexts which is in essence identical the last dozen which the consensus of her fellow editors found to be excessive/in error. The fact that she cannot see that there is nothing to be gained by trying to force her standard approach to these situation, aside from a great deal of wasted energy on the part of numerous contributors, is problematic in the extreme.

Again, I share many of Medeis' priorities here, but if my actions were the subject of a half-dozen separate talk page discussions, wherein they were generally being regarded as excessive by a large number of other editors, I'd be moderating my approach some, especially if said actions were in the vein of altering other contributor's comments, which is a behaviour that editors are by and large meant to be avoiding outside of great necessity. It's true that the standards in question here are open to some degree of interpretation, but that does not in itself stop Medeis from recognizing when her perspectives are out of sync with the significant majority of her fellow editors and adjusting her approach accordingly. The fact that she has gotten considerable feed/push-back on this particular issue, via numerous discussions and is, if anything, pushing the boundaries in the same area with increasing abandon, suggests that she will not stop on this issue unless she receives an unambiguous mandate, unfortunately.

Thoroughly oppose (policy-inconsistent) suggestion of admin-only closures First off, since no one else has pointed this out, I think it needs to be recognized that we, the small collection of editors in this discussion, do not have the authority to implement such a ruling to begin with. The standards which govern when it is acceptable to close down a discussion or to alter the contents of another editor's contributions are the subject of broad community consensus and we are not allowed to create idiosyncratic approaches to these situations which limit or modify those standards in a given space without soliciting broad community discussion to reach a new consensus and alter the relevant policies accordingly (regardless of whether said change in policy applies to all areas of the project broadly or just specific scenarios/spaces). Deciding to apply a unique standard to our area of operation is not allowable and is a notion that ArbCom has already had disabuse several WikiProjects of in recent time; going down that road here is not only a non-starter, but likely to amp the drama up another few notches. Nowhere on the project, that I'm aware of, have these actions been regarded as the sole purview of administrators.

But even putting aside the fact that this procedurally not allowed, I don't see the utility either; the vast, vast, vast majority of our contributors at the Ref Desks who have occasionally hatted a problematic discussion do so only on rare occasion and without creating a ruckus. I dare say a majority of these actions are found to be in the best interests of the project and consistent with our guidelines and are not reversed. Medeis' suggestion of "fine, but if I can't do it, then the standard should be shared by all and no one should be able to do it" does not hold water to me, as this discussion is meant to consider whether her behaviours in this regard are problematic, not whether such actions are ever appropriate from editors without admin privileges; policy and the community consensus clearly say that they sometimes are, but that these actions should be approached with intense caution and reservation. For the rest of our contributors who, by and large, observe that restraint, these actions are not problematic and I don't see the point of throwing the baby out with the bathwater here (again, if we were even empowered to in this discussion, which we are not). Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 08:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Support 1RR for ALL editors, not just singling out / scapegoating one. But make an exception when the edit summary is WP:DENY, which telegraphs the removal of comments by a banned user or perennial troll. That type of removal should NOT be reverted. Some discrete discussion (probably off-wiki) could be had with the user who removed it. Arguing about it on the ref desk talk page is counterproductive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Singling out is exactly what this thread is about. There is no scapegoating, it is a simple fact that Medeis has dozens of times deleted/hatted things inappropriately, and many of us find that to be disruptive. It especially disruptive since it is an ongoing pattern of behavior. It is even more disruptive because all polite requests to stop doing that have been ignored. If one of my students acts up in class, I deal with that student, I don't change the rules for everyone else. It's really simple. Most of the ref desk regulars do not have multiple complaints about their behavior, and Medeis does. This outstanding behavior is exactly why Medeis is being singled out. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Even so, if you impose 1RR on Medeis, and not on the other editors, it IS scapegoating. The original complainant here hadn't even commented on the ref desk talk page recently. It's grandstanding, an "end around" play. In short, it's a bad-faith complaint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, another editor pointed out some typical debate-seeking questions from a Toronto-based troll, or "Toron-troll". Dollars to donuts, someone will revert my hatting on some ridiculous grounds. And if they do, those folks should be sanctioned for it. Their lack of vigilance does not serve the ref desk well. Medeis sometimes over-vigilance doesn't really bother anyone except the troll enablers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you know what scapegoat means. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, putting aside for a moment why you think all editors should be held to the same standard we are trying to apply for one editor who is particularly disruptive in this area, you need to understand that this is just not an option that we are empowered to mandate here. Wikipedia already has standards which govern when the average editor can and cannot perform actions like hatting and removal of another user's comments. The editors in a given content or discussion space are simply not allowed to create unique rules governing such behaviour that apply only to them in their favourite space. In order to affect that change, you need to seek broad community involvement the alter the relevant policies. We cannot simply decide to change the rules on our own, whether it means make the rules more permissive or more restrictive. That's just not the way Wikipedia works. We obey the same rules as the rest of the project and only in cases where policy says as much do separate rules apply to separate spaces. Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 18:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to call to everyone's attention to Wikipedia:Help desk, where we manage to get by just fine without any self-appointed sheriffs deleting questions that they don't like. these include:

• Legal threats/BLP issues: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 February 5#request for correction of errors and defamation
• Misplaced vandalism reports: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 January 12#"Sickle"
• Misplaced content disputes: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 December 20#"HANDS UP" FALSE NARRATIVE
• Requests for medical advice: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 December 1#Audio illutions
• Questions written in other languages: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 November 24#لماذا تم حذف صفحتي؟

What few content deletions we have are 100% uncontroversial and generate zero drama.[167] In all other cases, the question gets answered, even if the answer is "You are in the wrong place; the right place is X" or "That's not a question Wikipedia can answer".

Perhaps western civilization won't collapse if μηδείς/Medeis is banned from deleting questions/discussions that she doesn't like... I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear! SemanticMantis (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think this thread should be put to bed. It's especially objectionable when we get sarcastic remarks like the immediate above that offer no evidence of edit warring on my part to be met with "hear hear" by SemanticMantis who calls for sanctions against me for hatting, yet here he closes part of a thread he doesn't like even after participating in it himself.

For those uninvolved admins unfamiliar with the so called toronto troll, the user's MO has been start threads about "why do blackk people..." "why do Jewish people..." and then segue into offensive material. I've never (I believe) found it necessary to hat that user, but one can look at the question https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Medeis&diff=prev&oldid=583257615 "How does it feel to be a negress? Do you find it hard on yourself because your race genetically has average 85 IQ?" on my talk page from a bit over a year ago. This is the kind of user whose Ref Desk questions we are told should be ignored, rather than deleted or hatted.

I'd also like to point out to uninvolved admins this archived discussion "[https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_111#my_stuff_keeps_getting_deleted My stuff keeps getting deleted" where a now indeffed user complains his edits about making water come out of his mouth by inserting water up his anus were hatted, Tevildo repeated the recent decision that such trolling should be deleted without comment: "these things only work if we _delete_ the offending content and _don't_ have these endless post-mortems about it". I did only then delete the thread, but User Wnt, who wants me sanctioned above, called us "the ethics trolls" and proceeded even further against consensus to answer the question not on the ref desk, but the talk page.

I'd also like to point out to uninvolved admins there's currently 33,000 bytes of discussion going on at the Ref Desk about hatting, etc., with all sorts of rancor, none of which accuses me of any wrongdoing, and in which I have not participated since I am under inquest here.

I'd also like to point out that the IP from Toronto who asked me about my intelligence as a negress has apparently returned here with a race baiting question about how dangerous Sweden is because it allows mixed race dating, yet SemanticMantis unhatted another post on the same board as part of his dispute with BBB, while I remain silent.

Before getting into TLDR, let me summarize. There's no evidence of my edit warring or acting in bad faith. The rules call for hatting or deleting certain questions. Those rules can be changed or borderline questions discussed if necessary; content disputes don't belong here. There's a 33kb discussion about this elsewhere. We simply need clear rules that apply equally to all. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC) μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you think this is about edit warring just shows that you don't get it and likely never will without being topic banned from deleting/hatting other people's comments.

Snow explained it better than I could in his comment above:

"As one of the RefDesk contributors who has argued most stringently for a cautious and restrictive approach to the professional advice issue, I appreciate Medeis' general concerns and I have no doubt that she takes these actions in good faith and, in each case, in manner that she believes to be consistent with policy. That being said, this ongoing and highly disruptive situation demonstrates that she lacks to the ability to respect the general consensus of her fellow contributors with regard to these circumstances. It's all well and good to say that, in any given scenario, she seems to be acting within the spectrum of good-faith, if toward the extremes, but we long ago passed the point where she should have started to recognize the situations in which she was adopting a WP:SNOW position. Even if she is absolutely certain her interpretation of policy is in the right, and that she's acting in the best interests of the project (and never had cause to doubt that she is acting from this frame of mind), she seems to lack the ability to see (or at least accept) when she is about to take an action in these contexts which is in essence identical the last dozen which the consensus of her fellow editors found to be excessive/in error. The fact that she cannot see that there is nothing to be gained by trying to force her standard approach to these situation, aside from a great deal of wasted energy on the part of numerous contributors, is problematic in the extreme."

"Again, I share many of Medeis' priorities here, but if my actions were the subject of a half-dozen separate talk page discussions, wherein they were generally being regarded as excessive by a large number of other editors, I'd be moderating my approach some, especially if said actions were in the vein of altering other contributor's comments, which is a behaviour that editors are by and large meant to be avoiding outside of great necessity. It's true that the standards in question here are open to some degree of interpretation, but that does not in itself stop Medeis from recognizing when her perspectives are out of sync with the significant majority of her fellow editors and adjusting her approach accordingly. The fact that she has gotten considerable feed/push-back on this particular issue, via numerous discussions and is, if anything, pushing the boundaries in the same area with increasing abandon, suggests that she will not stop on this issue unless she receives an unambiguous mandate, unfortunately." (quote from snow, 08:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC) )

μηδείς/Medeis, do you have any response to the above? Do you deny that it is an accurate description of the situation? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to call me Medeis, the Greek letters are simply to make it easier for me to find my comments. Rather than answer your rhetorical lawyering (since expecting me to argue endlessly is a trap) I would ask you how you respond to Ian.thomson, Inediblehulk, Mandruss, Chillum, Mlpearc, Flinders Petrie, Baseball Bugs, Collect, Liz, DHeyward above, and even SteveBaker (who properly argues for clear rules for all) above? (That's rhetorical, so please don't.) I will point out that the Ref Desks are not talk pages, and they are under the same restrictions as mainspace; BLP, etc. I'll also repeat that I am happy to follow the same rules as everyone else, assuming we adopt 1RR or deletion by Admins only, or keep the BRD status quo. μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Evasion noted. I won't bother you with such questions again. I think the reader can easily figure out whether the above is an accurate description of the situation, and further comments by me are unlikely to change any minds here. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Croatia

Hi. I am involved with this article and the ongoing dispute in which User:Director has pursued a curious position for years now, whereby the list article includes various offices in various states in its scope, with little regard for verifiability. I told him that back in 2011, to no avail. He has continued to advocate this position, with no improvement with regard to WP:V, and recently engaged in an edit war with User:Timbouctou over it. User:Tuvixer also chimed in with a few reverts of their own. Once they finally got off the edit-war-wagon, there was still no resolution to the issue - the article remains in the state where its basic premises in the lead section are not supported by any references, and the page history is littered with insults. This has gone well beyond a simple content dispute and into an unambiguous violation of numerous policies.

On the Talk page, when I recently tried to say something, I was summarily needled by User:FkpCascais as if I was condoning this whole process by not intervening in an issue where my intervention would be seen as a trivial violation of WP:INVOLVED. This whole exercise in ridiculousness really needs to end. I'm hoping another admin can intervene instead of me and dole out some bans and blocks that are apparently necessary, because I'm not seeing that any further discussion is going to be preventing further blatant violation of Wikipedia policies, behavioral or content.

For example, I'd give:

• a month-long block to both Director and Timbouctou for the egregious and persistent violations of the edit warring policy, coupled with WP:OWN, WP:POINT, WP:DE, WP:CIVIL, ... violations
• a ban to Director on the topic of the Croatian head of state, broadly construed. Not sure about the duration, because it's been 3-4 years since this started - I don't think it's likely that a short ban would accomplish anything substantial, but it does seem fair to at least try something other than indefinite.
• a final warning to Tuvixer with regard to WP:EW
• a final warning to FkpCascais with regard to WP:DEPE

And that's just for what I saw they did at this particular article. I noticed there have been some disputes on other articles, but I haven't had the time or stomach to analyze it all. There could well be grounds for even stricter sanctions. TIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The citation that Socialist Republic of Croatia and Republic of Croatia are the same state and the same country can be easily found in the Preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia. I was going to find all citations necessary and put them on Talk page of that article, but now I see that we have come to a time where it is implied that fear should be the guide in editing certain articles. I don't know if that is what Wikipedia was intended, but I will still find the citations, and with your permission User:Joy, put them on talk. Not today, but during next week. Now rule by fiat and martial law is in place on those articles, which is sad and dangerous. That is all from me. I hope no user will be banned, of course if they stop edit warring. Maybe to protected the article for a month, so we can all resolve this on the Talk page of the article, what do you say? I think that is the best solution, because banning users will just make it worse and allow one user to edit the whole article without any consensus. So I think the article should be protected for a month. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The edit history on the 17th Feb makes intersting reading. WP:25RR anyone? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not indeff blocks all-round, while we're at it? Yeah, you can tell old Joy here is WP:INVOLVED..

Timbouctou and I don't get along, that's an established fact (we had an interaction ban). And the knee-jerk edit-war really is inexcusable, I don't pretend otherwise (in fact I said so myself earlier in a pretty amiable chat with Timbouctou). But the thing is - this report is about the article, not me or Timbouctou: there is no edit-war over there now for days, and we are discussing the issue amicably, with several editors contributing their opinions - and its not looking like it'll turn out the way Joy wants. Claims of WP:V violation are opposed on the talkpage as unfounded, and the proposed changes to the article do not have consensus. Last I looked, three users (myself included) currently oppose any changes - this is not a clear-cut issue, at the very least. And as Tuvixer in part points out - this is a political, left/right dispute at its core.

What this really looks like - especially the topic ban - is a means for Joy to circumvent user consensus, and get his way content-wise. The topic ban is especially suspect: I do NOT consider myself the owner of the article nor do I in any way adopt such a stance - but I hope I am allowed to point out that I did pretty much write the thing up (alongside many other officeholder list articles). Now I'm to be topic-banned essentially on the basis of one bout of edit-warring? And that's justified and fair? Nah. That's Joy removing me from the picture over there (ironically while citing DEPE).

So in summation: yeah, I screwed up - big time. I should not have edit-warred, its a silly, stupid, childish thing I did, and I'm ashamed of it - even more so for being around here on Wiki for so long. I blew my top. I apologize, throw myself at the mercy of the court, and plead temporary insanity :).
What I do not like, however, is this one incident of my reverting Timbouctou's recent changes (against consensus mind you!) being blown out of all realistic proportions, turned into some kind of "pattern" - so that it can be used to permanently get me out of Joy's hair. -- Director (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sanctions are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. Seems kind of pointless blocking anyone for edit-warring five days after the incident. Not to get into the idiocy of the meritum here, the whole thing started with Direktor flipping out and provoking an edit-war with the exact purpose of drawing attention from admins to use it to his advantage in a content dispute. The "consensus" he talks about regards his wholly original view of the chronology of officeholders on one of the articles he passionately owns (there are dozens of others, but who cares - certainly not admins, that's for sure). The issue has been raised before, several other editors tried to reason with him over the past several years, and this (uninterrupted edit-warring) seems to be the only way of making him participate in a discussion (I think all my previous blocks were because of him on articles he owned and continues to own). He simply doesn't hear anything, instantly throws hissy fits and throws insults right and left against whoever is "against consensus", or as he calls it, the "longstanding version of the article". In short, he is not here to edit, he is here to censor other people's edits. And has been doing that for years. Tuvixer is a relatively new addition to the project, an editor with WP:COMPETENCE issues who does not hide the fact he is here with a political axe to grind, and who learned all he knows about Wikipedia from following Direktor's lead (currently his obsession involves edit-warring over the description of Ivo Josipović's profession and similar bullshit). I guess that's the thing with trolls - to fight one, you have to become one, but if you don't fight them, they just multiply. And I'm just too old for this shit, including the bureaucracy which is required to fight vandals who only need a mouse click or two to cause damage to articles. Where was this promptness and eagerness to help when I was dragged to ANI three times over the past month or so by two puppets on an unrelated article? There are veritable psychopaths up in here but getting them blocked would require like 300 hours of my time compiling evidence, posting diffs, reporting to 17 different noticeboards and enduring 900 pages of rants and essays, explaining the gist of Balkan politics to admins who earned their mops via exemplar and thorough editing of articles on Pokemon. So excuse me if I decide not to follow this thread any more. I have better things to do with my time. Direktor certainly does not. 15:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Timbouctou (talk)

Yes, I flipped out - you remained perfectly cool. In every sense of the word. Of course :). And even though I basically wrote the entire thing, I'm not there to "edit", only harass and censor. Only a WP:OWN-addled, "flipped-out" madman, or some "troll" or other, could possibly oppose that small article being split into three or four non-notable fragments... -- Director (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Beat me to it. I could start a thread about an admin not being competent that would get looked at pretty quickly, with plenty of mutal back-slapping... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the window closed on any chance of the (exceptionally strong) remedies you are seeking here days ago. If you had brought the matter of the edit warring here or to 3RR as it was happening, I can't imagine either Direktor or Timbouctou would have escaped a block (after-all, the situation speaks for itself). But at present there discussion ocurring on the page which (while still well short of the collaborative spirit we might want to see there) is at least meeting the basic demands of WP:C and seems as if it might work out a reasonable compromise solution. Forestalling that with blocks seems counter-intuitive. Mind you, being familiar with some of the parties here and the history involved between them, I can well imagine that this could slip back into incivility again (and I trust you'll keep us informed if it does) but at the present moment, don't you think it makes sense to try to give this unlikely truce a chance to bear fruit with regard to the content? Snow ^{I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles} 17:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite see it - there's been no change to the Talk page in the last few days, nor has there been a substantial change to the article. I just don't see the potential for a resolution when nobody has actually backed down from their prior unhelpful stances. Rather, it appears they've just backed off into their corners as if we were in a boxing ring. Classic WP:NOTHERE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If I may add, it seems to me that we've allowed the normal editorial process to effectively be taken hostage by these incidents. The chance needs to be primarily given to policy-abiding editors, not to any and all of them indiscriminately. Have a look at what User:Tomobe03 wrote in that Talk page discussion, and what, if any, was the response to his arguments. It seems fairly clear to me that they have been dissuaded from actually working on improving the article. A person who has made huge contributions to a gazillion good articles, including many involving Croatian politics, suddenly won't edit this one list article. Admin effort should be spent unclogging these kinds of stoppages. We shouldn't be enabling them by pretending we don't see this kind of an elephant in the room. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh stop grandstanding, Joy. Nobody's there atm. But Tomboe not being there obviously means he's been "taken hostage", while others not talking means they're WP:NOTHERE as part of an elaborate scheme to avoid the indeff blocks or whatever else you so solemnly proposed? The difference seems to be whether or not they agree with your apparent views on the issue. Nobody's being "bullied" there, and you really seem to be doing your best to blow out of all proportion what amounts to little more than a half hour of craziness... -- Director (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You're just continuing to prove my point that preventative measures against further shenanigans are warranted. (When's the next half hour of craziness scheduled?) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess logically we can best determine that by looking at when the latest occurred before this one. When was that?

And that's the point, of course: with melodrama you're trying to turn this into a "pattern" of some sort, and paint the most productive editor at that article as "disruptive", based on his opposing a change that you openly support ("he has continued to advocate this position [in this dispute I'm shamelessly misrepresenting]"). -- Director (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Productive? The list article we're talking about mainly consists of an unreferenced list. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to contact Timbouctou yesterday, directly on his talkpage, to see what his current position is; he has not yet responded: I'm "WP:HERE", not in any "corner". And there's been much discussion since the edit war... The last thing that happened is I pinged FkpCascais and Tuvixer on whether any changes at all are necessary, Tuvixer replied "leave it as it is".

As far as I can gather at this point, Tomboe and Timbouctou want to split the article into three(?) other articles, FkpCascais wants to split the wikitable in the article into two sections (which I don't really mind), while Sundostund, Tuvixer, and myself oppose any changes. Feel free to interpret that for me? I personally call that "no consensus after a decent response", and want to remove the opposed tags from the article... but that's me. -- Director (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You're continuing to present this is as a rather frivolous content dispute about the editorial notion of scope, and ignoring the glaring verifiability issue. That's just another proof that you're continuing to be disruptive and that preventative measures against this are necessary. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

During the past week I have not edited (at all) simply because RL stepped in. The issue at hand is verifiability. I'm not bent on applying one formula or another to the article, rather applying verifiability policy to the material presented. It appears that opposition from Director stems from asserting ownership over the article - they explicitly refer to several articles as "my stuf" (referring to themselves) copied from this particular list (see [168]) - claiming consensus or lack thereof somehow invalidates WP:V (see [169].--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Joy. This is a "frivolous content dispute about scope". Exactly. That's my opinion. Because regardless of whether all those republican heads of state constitute "presidents" in a general sense to your satisfaction - if we want the article's scope to include them, we can. And that was the scope since the article's inception in times past beyond memory. Moreover, all those people had the title "president", formally. I think its really strange for someone to demand "sources" and cry "WP:V" in order to allow the article to continue listing (e.g) the "President of the Presidency of Croatia" alongside a "President of Croatia".

I'm not going to further argue against these vague assertions. It's just meaningless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tomboe is latching on to a truly pathetic, out-of-context fragment of a sentence, in brackets, where I refer to the general set up of a wikitable which I used in several list articles, and wonder who has copied it to the Slovene list article. But maybe its a window into my psyche? Who can say, really...

As regards the rest - yes, if we want the article to continue to list Yugoslav-era presidents over there (as opposed to creating fifteen political POVFORKS), we're free to do that. -- Director (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Angelo6397 move-jacked the Ron Henley page

• Angelo6397 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ron Henley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, the page about the chess grandmaster and businessman Ron Henley is well established on wikipedia, and was created back in 2005. Recently Angelo6397 (talk · contribs) hijacked this page by moving it to Ron Henley (chess), an edit which he marked as "minor", then editing the resulting redirect with details about a Filipino hip hop musician. Several chess-related articles link to Ron Henley, so I moved the new article to Ron Henley (musician) and tried to move Ron Henley (chess) back to Ron Henley, but this was not allowed by the software. As an interim measure I set up Ron Henley to redirect to Ron Henley (chess).

I need some admin help to move the Ron Henley (chess) article back to its rightful place at Ron Henley. Also, please explain to Angelo6397 that hijacking articles in this manner is absolutely unacceptable. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, a WP:BOLD move of an article is not in and of itself a problem. It only becomes a problem if an editor makes a lot of Bold moves that are bad choices, contested, and have to be moved back, or if the moving editor starts move-warring, or moves it again against a talk page consensus. Then it's worthwhile dealing with the disruption that's being caused -- but a single Bold move is not a matter of concern, however annoying it may be at the moment. BMK (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: I'd suggest you place {{db-move|1=Ron Henley (chess)|2=response to this [[WP:ANI#User:Angelo6397 move-jacked the Ron Henley page|ANI thread]]}} if this is noncontroversial. (I think it should be restored too, but others might not agree.) OR, we could keep it as it is, and add {{redirect|Ron Henley|the musician|Ron Henley (musician)}}. Either way seems fine to me. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The other Ron Henley is a Filipino rapper. It doesn't appear to me that either is the most obvious target for "Ron Henley", so I've converted Ron Henley from a redirect to Ron Henley (chess) into a dab page. This, of course, can be undone as the result of a RM discussion BMK (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That works. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the talk page of Ron Henley is directed to Talk:Ron Henley (chess) and I'm not sure how to break that link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone seems to have fixed that problem. BMK (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not happy with Ron Henley pointing to a DAB page because several wikipedia pages were already pointing to the page for the chess player. Moving the page to Ron Henley (chess) should never have been done. MaxBrowne (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's a valid complaint. The number of links is not great, but it's more than a handful, so rather than sit here and change them by hand, I've moved the current disambiguation page (Ron Henley) to Ron Henley (disambiguation) and changed Ron Henley to a redirect to Ron Henley (temp) which redirects to Ron Henley (chess). The bot should come by fairly quickly and fix the double redirect, so that all links to Ron Henley will go to Ron Henley (chess). Then the dab page can go back to the main page and the linking problem will have been fixed. BMK (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The bots usually pick up on the double redirects pretty quickly anyway, but I've left a request at AvicBot to do this one. BMK (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The bot that handled it did not do what I've normally seen done -- that is, it just changed that article title levels without fixing the double redirects at the level below -- therefore, I did the changes manually myself. I've also undone anothher editor's changes of the disambiguator "chess" to "chess player" because it fucked up everything I had just done. BMK (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The musician seems non-notable or barely notable, and the article about him is badly written. I'd go back to the chess player on the main title, with the musician as "see also" or AfD. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he is non-notable, but that gets taken care of with one of the deletion processes. In any case his non-notability wasn't immediately apparent to me -- he's got a major label release -- so as long as he's got an article (however poorly written), this seems like the best arrangement. If his article goes away, that's a different story. BMK (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NMUSIC calls for more than one such release. I agree that the musician article shouldn't be deleted without normal process. I'm saying that between the two articles, it looks to me based on the musician's marginal notability that the chess player is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and therefore the musician article (if it's not deleted) should get a hatnote rather than a dab. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for that mistake, I thought it was non-controversial. As I searched in Google, there are 515,000 results when I search Ron Henley as a rapper, and as a chess grandmaster it only results about 50,000. So I think that's a large margin. I'm sorry if I'm wrong and for the mess I made. Anybody can revert my actions freely. Thanks! -Angelo6397 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's contested, but not necessarily wrong. That remains to be seen. BMK (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't also think so that it is eligible for RfD. He has almost 100 million YouTube channel views, he also has 3 major album releases and including 1 EP that is popular here in the Philippines. -Angelo6397 (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how the procedure works formally but the next step is to decide (through concensus) what Ron Henley should point to. Internet hits aren't everything, published books and videos must count for something too. We need to decide, should it point to one article or the other, or should it point to a DAB? BTW there's another musician called Ron Henley, he was a member of the Liverpool Five. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Where would a conversation like this happen, MaxBrowne? Liz 15:45, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

The easiest thing would to have it on one of the two "Ron Henley" article talk pages, and put a link to it on the other article talk page. Also, put neutral pointers to the discussion on the talk pages of all Wikiprojects listed on both article talk pages, and list it on the contested moves section of WP:RM. I think that would cover it. BMK (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

To avoid confusion as @MaxBrowne said there is another musician with the same name. I moved Ron Henley (musician) to Ron Henley (rapper). It's like this article --> Abra (rapper). -Angelo6397 (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect and disambiguation muddle

A network of redirects and disambiguation pages has become very muddled and I fear it will take someone with admin tools and a clear understanding of the system to fix it. It's arisen because of Bolterc's desire that AAP should redirect to Aam Aadmi Party (that's a fairly new Indian political party which has recently won a landslide victory in the Delhi state elections). As a result of several changes in the last couple of hours, we now have:

• AAP disambiguation a disambiguation page which lists about 30 articles
• AAP (disambiguation), a redirect to AAP disambiguation
• AAP a redirect to Aam Admi Party
• Aaaap a redirect to Aam Admi Party
• AAAAP (disambiguation) a redirect to AAP
• Aap (disambiguation) a redirect to AAP.

Can anyone set all this to function normally? NebY (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

AAAAP (disambiguation) tagged as R3, that should shift one of them. I'll take a look at the others. Amortias (T)(C) 21:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Aaaap also tagged as R3 4 to go. Amortias (T)(C) 21:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed a few of the tagged pages, please let me know if any other administrative action needs to be taken with regards to the articles. Nakon 21:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bolterc has been a disruptive nuisance from the outset, has been blocked previously and has had both the caste and general India/Pakistan discretionary sanctions warnings. They don't seem to be learning a thing. - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I spotted this through CSD. I've moved the dab page back to AAP, and have protected it for the next week. I'll do some more tidying up of the various redirects. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, my apologies. I can't see the sanctions notices, although I could have sworn I did only 15 minutes ago. They've been a nuisance nontheless. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Bolterc has made one constructive edit. But they're determined that Aam Admi Party should begin by saying that "AAP redirects here" (because their opponents' article says "BJP redirects here") and not say "for the Pakistani political party, see Aam Aadmi Party (Pakistan)" (because that "maligns" the Aam Aadmi Party), so they keep breaking things. NebY (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the Election Commission of Pakistan website. The party in discussion here is a namesake party which was not even given a symbol to contest elections. http://ecp.gov.pk/Misc/Parties-with-Symbols.pdf Bolterc (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If you don't think the Pakistani party is notable then the correct course of action is to take that article to WP:AFD. As long as it exists, the disambiguations that existed before you got involved would appear to be correct. It is no good complaining that "Modi Bhakts" ("Modi admirers", a reference to the main BJP opposition party at the moment) are manipulating the articles. - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You have now AfD'd the thing but have done so incorrectly. I've tried to fix the mistakes but I too seem to be hitting problems (see this attempt in the log entry.) I've become far too reliant on WP:Twinkle but hopefully someone can sort it out. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I have fixed the AfD nom now. I note that after yet more disruptive editing from Bolterc, Aam Aadmi Party has now been full-protected by RegentsPark. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I've protected it for the very short term and would prefer not to see a longer term protection. Bolterc, I suggest changing your approach, your current one is not working and will end up with a block. And that is never helpful. --regentspark (comment) 17:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You are nonsense. You are the one contributing to caste articles and the person who added the hatnote is a veg supporter obviously caste worshiping people. You guys are bjp supporters whether you admit it or not. Bolterc (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a BJP supporter. I am not even Indian and have never voted in the country where I do reside. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ya seems Legit. This is like Dummy Wells claiming i have no idea or nothing to do with illegal use of Copyrighted images on Quora. Bolterc (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean by that comment. Can you please explain why, after Mike Peel kiboshed your efforts to create AAP (disambiguation), you have today created Aap (disambiguation)? - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, You want to get me blocked. Try things. Bolterc (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Aap (disambiguation) was deleted on 20 February 2015 by Bkonrad. You recreated it and it was deleted again on 22 February by Nakon. You have now recreated it yet again. Why is that page so important to you that you would jeopardise your ability to press for the deletion of Aam Aadmi Party (Pakistan)? NebY (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

PM of India is a Criminal accusing AAP as naxalites, but people voted against the corrupt criminal. In a similar way some of the editors are trying to put AAP as a party of Pakistan Origin. On Wikipedia the hatnote has made the visitors of Aam Aadmi Party page misdirected to the pak fake party page. Check my comment on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aam_Aadmi_Party_(Pakistan) Bolterc (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a serious case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and lack of competence going on here. Blackmane (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. There has been a bit of name-calling but perhaps this is the clearest demonstration that we have a POV pusher here. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about your rules and corruption within administration. My question is why did you allow in first place the hatnote on aam aadmi party page to be added? Will you allow the same if a pak guy creates a party with name similar as some american party. Why not add those hatnotes as well. Remove hatnote or prove the pakistan party's originality. How many votes did they get in the pak elections? Prove or remove hatnote. Bolterc (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said at the AfD, where you also raised a false argument based on a 2013 source, these parties were not formed until 2014. To the best of my knowledge, the last general election in Pakistan was in 2013 and thus they have quite likely not yet contested even one constituency unless they have been involved in a by-election or some regional assembly election. As I also said at the AfD, there are plenty of parties whose name is similar but who operate in different countries; in such circumstances, dabhats are valid. It seems that you are simply not listening or not understanding, although you are very free with your accusations regarding the conduct of others. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what is valid here. Wikipedia is misdirecting the new visitors who wants to learn about AAP to some wasteland which i strongly believe the hatnote maligns the name of the new hope party of India on the Internet search market. There is proof of those stats. We will see. Bolterc (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

PortugueseManofPeace and Akafeatfausty (unresolved)

PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Akafeatfausty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are obvious, newly created sock puppets, specifically vandalizing articles I edited.

The nature of their edits is exemplified by nonsensical and bogus edit summaries, such as "Visible anchor, mentioned an impt point with source but tangible" [170] and "Grammar check" when just removing spaces and a line break [171] and "incorporating some changes from Kristina451" [172] when he has incorporated nothing but has simply reverted my edit, and "Fix verb tense" when re-adding the same falsehood to the article that I pointed out on his talk page before. [173]

PortugueseManofPeace and Akafeatfausty are making identical edits, like replacing the term "high-frequency trading/HFT" with "predatory". [174] [175] Akafeatfausty also uses bogus edit summaries, like claiming to make an edit according to the "Last version as per talk page" when there is nothing even remotely about that on the article's talk page. [176] All within hours. Kristina451 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The socks have now simultaneously restored their vandalism. PortugueseManofPeace from 03:10 to 03:12 UTC, and Akafeatfausty from 03:15 to 03:18 UTC. Please block indef and roll back their edits. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I met Akafeatfausty (MelissaHebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) on #wikipedia-en-help ^connect discussing an incident on WP:COIN#Kristina451_and_High-frequency_trading regarding Kristina451. Kristina451 has been mass-undoing revisions from:

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

David Adam Kess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

under all kinds of nonsensical reasons claiming a lack of references, while he/she seems very happy to approve any kind of references or lack thereof that smear the reputation of a specific group of traders. We noticed that Kristina451 claims to be a "professional trader", which probably indicates a personal reason for his/her strong POV and marginalizing behavior against this particular group. We agreed to insert a few true statements into these articles to see if Kristina451 repeats this pattern of flagrantly undoing revisions so long as he/she could keep often false content that was accusative towards high-frequency traders.

For example, in Quote stuffing, Akafeatfausty made the correct call that Citadel LLC is a hedge fund and according to Bloomberg [177], Citadel Securities LLC is a brokerage firm and investment bank, not a high-frequency trading firm as Kristina451 puts it. Kristina451 reverted Akafeatfausty's changes without even bothering to truth-check those statements just because in that sentence, Citadel Securities was being accused of market manipulation and this was another chance for Kristina451 to smear the reputation of high-frequency trading.

I would say this experiment was a success. I think Kristina451 should be spending his/her doggedness, reference-checking skills and wit towards the betterment of other Wikipedia articles, and not waste so much of his/her time on such a juvenile way of smearing the reputation of his/her personal competitors.

PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to clarify that David Adam Kess and 190.10.199.189 are unrelated to this incident. MelissaHebert is obviously another sock related to the socks PortugueseManofPeace and Akafeatfausty. Kristina451 (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned, Akafeatfausty is MelissaHebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from what I can tell, maybe she didn't want to be known by her real name? You can check our IP addresses if you like. We divided the labor so I was monitoring Flash Boys, Virtu Financial, High-frequency trading and Front running because those were longer and I was more familiar with editing while Akafeatfeausty volunteered to do the rest. There's no overlap between our edits because they're on completely separate articles, why I would need to sockpuppet on completely separate articles? I could have handled all the articles by myself if I wanted to. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you know how to use other IPs and therefore mention it can be checked. But it does not have to, the behavioral evidence is crystal clear. Kristina451 (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You know what behavioral evidence is crystal clear? You obsessively policing every single sentence in every single article that mentions high-frequency traders. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

focusing on a particular topic or aspect is not an issue in and of itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The socks were signed up in short succession: MelissaHebert on 21 February 2015 at 09:18 UTC, PortugueseManofPeace on 21 February 2015 at 23:01 UTC, Akafeatfausty on 22 February 2015 at 22:56 UTC. The first edit was made by MelissaHebert. A rather interesting first edit for a 'new user', a COI filing against me without notifying me about it. [178] The ploy obviously was to try to provoke me with the other two socks to somehow 'show' that the COI filing was justified.

I think it is time to end this. While this ANI was open, almost certainly the same person responsible for the three socks above created another sock [179] that tried to impersonate David Adam Kess on my talk page and signed with David Adam Kess, who I still think is not involved in this incident. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've caught you red-handed trying to undo all these factually correct edits, such as the one on Citadel Securities LLC, out of your personal spite and conflict of interest. Now you're trying to divert attention from your own wrongdoing with this conspiracy theory about sockpuppeting. I suspect you're the one who created this Shazam puta character yourself to try and falsify a case against me. I'm not surprised:

Upon closer look into your history,

1. Your first edits were of promotional content to an IEX article, which appears to support your agenda against high-frequency traders. This was flagged by MrBill3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

2. Your next edits were of promotional content, which was flagged by Sophie.grothendieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for WP:COI and harassment, which led to WP:functionaries intervening to remove your violating harassment.

3. Then you went on a long hiatus and came back to revenge report Sophie.grothendieck on WP:COIN although it was months since this user last made an edit.

4. Then you went on a mass-undoing spree against David Adam Kess, whose edits seem valid, just because he didn't share your anti-high frequency trading position.

You have a history of dragging everyone into your childish disputes, each time ending with intervention from administrators and functionaries.

PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• You now made it apparent that (you) the puppet master is Sophie.grothendieck. This also explains your untrue claims that you have a history of making, for example here [180] on my talk page. You also created dozens of other socks (I maintain a list of them), most of which are stale. I think the 'whole thing' needs to go to SPI. There is however something that can be handled right away. Kristina451 (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You're really grasping for straws here aren't you? Think about how ridiculous some of your claims sound.

- Why would I create another account immediately after you have accused me of sockpuppeting just to post on your talk page?

- Why would I need to create an account just to notify you of edits on an article? You're already aware of these edits, seeing as you have filed a report on this noticeboard and that I've been replying to you.

- Why would I need to impersonate David Adam Kess or Sophie.grotendieck? I've already talked to them on their talk pages and they can speak for themselves.

- Why would I create another account to edit completely separate and unrelated articles? Yoshi and Brian Lee?

- Why would I create another account to complain about you if I had one that existed for a longer time that apparently had a successful complaint about you?

- Why would I create another account 6 months later to out you after you started vandalizing these sites? Sophie.grotendieck seems to have been active during this period and could have done that himself/herself.

Please show us your conspiracy theory list so we can do an IP check and get these ridiculous accusations overthrown. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to take some (simple) action

Please block these obvious, recently active sock puppets per WP:DUCK and the comments above:

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

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

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

Shazam puta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This would finally allow me to move on with article work. For obvious reasons, I am reluctant to get into content disputes with socks here at ANI. If any established editor wants to know why the sock edits should be undone, please feel free to ask any question. Thank you, and I hope this will get resolved soon. Kristina451 (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrators, I want to bring to your attention that Kristina451 deliberately edited this section to remove evidence that I presented which demonstrated that Kristina451 is Shazam puta. Look in the revision history for this section for proof. I think I just caught Kristina451 red-handed again and he/she obviously wanted to hide this. For your convenience, I have readded the content that he/she removed below:

PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: You'd think that you would at least try to make this Shazam puta character more convincing. Here's what you posted on my talk page two days ago.

Hello, I'm Kristina451. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to High-frequency trading because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Here's what you posted on your own talk page using your Shazam puta account.

Hello Kristina451. I am Shazam puta and really just wanted to take the time to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to High-frequency trading because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Contrast this to what I wrote on David Adam Kess's account recently:

Hi, I am PortugueseManofPeace. Thanks for your editorial work on Wikipedia! There is an incident on the administrators' noticeboard discussing how Kristina451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing your contributions on the High-frequency trading article that I would like to notify you on.

It doesn't require much semantic analysis to realize that Shazam puta has your writing style, not mine. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You have added this in between my comment and have changed text I wrote. Stop doing that. Add it at the bottom and it is fine. Just so you know, you are comparing the text of a canned template that I posted to your talk page. Kristina451 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Kristina451 background

I did a further search into Kristina451's background. It appears that during the last WP:COIN investigation into Kristina451, she claimed to the administrators that she was genuinely interested in editing the IEX article and that her account name was not created to harass Sophie.grothendieck. This turned out to be a huge lie:

- It appears that the functionaries forced him/her to change his/her account name just in case he/she was genuinely interested in editing rather than harassing Sophie.grothendieck. However, after the name change, he/she clearly lost interest in editing the article because he/she lost purpose of harassing Sophie.grothendieck and immediately stopped editing.

- Kristina451 waited a long time for the functionaries' attention on him/her to die down before coming back. When she returned, her first edit Sophie.grothendieck was to file this probably false report on the administrator's noticeboard to harass Sophie.grothendieck again.

This seems to be a violation of the good faith that the functionaries have shown Kristina451 and displays that his/her intention was to harass people rather than to edit articles. I believe that Kristina451 is just repeating his/her pattern here and trying to harass David Adam Kess and myself instead and he/she is repeating her lie that she wants to go back to editing articles. Please don't fall for this. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• You are making it more and more clear that you are Sophie.grothendieck. Kristina451 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

See above.

You're really grasping for straws here aren't you? Think about how ridiculous some of your claims sound.

- Why would I create another account immediately after you have accused me of sockpuppeting just to post on your talk page?

- Why would I need to create an account just to notify you of edits on an article? You're already aware of these edits, seeing as you have filed a report on this noticeboard and that I've been replying to you.

- Why would I need to impersonate David Adam Kess or Sophie.grotendieck? I've already talked to them on their talk pages and they can speak for themselves.

- Why would I create another account to edit completely separate and unrelated articles? Yoshi and Brian Lee?

- Why would I create another account to complain about you if I had one that existed for a longer time that apparently had a successful complaint about you?

- Why would I create another account 6 months later to out you after you started vandalizing these sites? Sophie.grotendieck seems to have been active during this period and could have done that himself/herself.

Please show us your conspiracy theory list so we can do an IP check and get these ridiculous accusations overthrown. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You edited Brian Lee with your 'Sophie.grothendieck' account [181]. The obvious reason for your socking is to avoid scrutiny, and to try to disguise that you are involved in the high-frequency trading (HFT) hedge fund called Domeyard [182]. This easily explains all your HFT related POV pushing. Kristina451 (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory gets fresher by the day! You invented a Shazam puta and now you invented a Dome Yard on your talk page, you aren't very creative with names aren't you? Who are you going to associate me with next? There is no HFT point of view in Akafeatfuasty's or mine if you actually bothered reading my edits and truth-check.

[Kristina451's version] Nanex critcizes vocal users of high-frequency trading

[Akafeatfuasty's version 648283904] Nanex critcizes vocal users of high-frequency trading and dark liquidity

[Kristina451's version] HFT firms make up the low margins with incredible high volumes of tradings,

[My version 648385500] HFT firms make up the low margins with incredibly high volumes of trades,

This actually shows that you're mass undoing the revisions without any discretion, which shows that you are the one with an WP:COI here, which is what Akafeatfuasty alleged in the first place on #wikipedia-en-help ^connect and that's why I was helping her! PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

I am evading a block but not a sock for which I was blocked Self Reported

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

---

I started an SPI about an article I came across that was around since 2006 and deleted and salted after a few attempts by User:RGloucester and some new accounts like User:Jobrot which is a SPA that states they are "noob" but then first edits in December 2014 in a discussion to delete the article using very sophisticated alphabet soup. Clearly not a noob and the edit analyzer shows a remarkable number of edits with the above sock master even though the sock only has a few hundred edits of which most show up in the edit analyzer with RGlocester who avows to be a Marxist on their talk page. The subject cultural Marxism in an modern American use does not say nice things about Marxists or cultural Marxists. It was nominated for deletion and theatrically argued for deletion by RGlocester and then a new SPA shows up arguing for the same thing out of no where. I do acknowledge it may be a meat puppet recruited by the sock master but a meat puppet is to be treated the same as a sock per WP:SOCK. I was accused of pretending to be new by Chillum but he fabricated that and accused me of being a sock and then blocked block me based on his ridiculous claims. I previously argued against User Talk:John Foxe for COI and his previous use of a sock. That will demonstrate that I always use an IP to edit and not what Chillum falsely accused me of. And John Foxe edits on behalf of Bob Jones University a very politically conservative fundamentalist school. That demonstrates I go after both extremes of the political spectrum. Cultural Marxism in an American sense reflects a conservative use of the philosophy. It was a valid article with 9 years of existence that was salted for Marxist ideological reasons. It is the worst case of WP:PUSH I have ever seen and a complete failure by involved admins. One reasonably would question if they had COI or in my opinion acted foolishly. If you got the time look into the salted SPI about RGloucester and check out the case I made. It demonstrates meat puppetry at the best and a sock puppetry in the worst. The edit analyzer and Jobrots contributions are very clear. It needs to see the light of day and not be immediately salted without examination. Again a foolish or malicious move by an editor. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "I am evading a block". This is an important point to be clear on. Sam Walton (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My cellular IP changes all the time and I never know when as it used by millions. But I went back to check on a SPI I started and found that the last SPI had been deleted quickly. I went to see what happened by looking up a contentious article that existed for 9 years and was deleted based on ideological push. I noticed my notice of an SPI to other editors involved in a lengthy and heated deletion discussion (names I got from the deletion record) were deleted by User:Chillum. I also noticed he falsely accused me of being a sock for starting a SPI. So here I am squawking about it and evading his block, although unknowingly when I first started editing today. I turned myself in, but showed the reason I was blocked as well, as Chillum has attempted to bury that. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

172.56.6.142, what specific action are you seeking here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The deletion of the Cultural Marxism article has been discussed to death. I don't believe it's fruitful to debate over whether it was "salted for Marxist ideological reasons" or "It is the worst case of WP:PUSH I have ever seen and a complete failure by involved admins". Particularly given that none of the 3 closers of the AGF were Chillum or RGlocester. Also, one of the results of that long discussion is the article is at Draft:Cultural Marxism. You should instead be worrying about bringing the draft up to a standard acceptable to the community, presuming you're allowed to edit. Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Further, I have deleted a copy of the article at Talk:Cultural Marxist [183]. It's clear by comparing to [184] that a lot of the content originated from the older article. Please remember our copyright licences require attribution. If you are going to be copying and pasting (regardless of whether you modify it) content to other locations, you should be properly attributing it to the original article so the original contributors can be properly attributed, and as I said above that is currently at Draft:Cultural Marxism. (Although if Cultural Marxism was attributed, at least you would have made a good faith effort to attribute.) See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more info. There should also be a good reason why you are copying and pasting the content around. In this case there is none since any article development should happen at the draft article. I would like to think 172.56.6.142 is simply unaware of the draft article, but I'm fairly sure [185] is the same editor with a different IP. Yet the content was added to the talk page [186] after they edit the draft page. This seems to suggest the reason they edited the talk page rather than the draft page was because they weren't getting their way in the draft page and were hoping they could target an area with less attention. I would of course be willing to WP:AGF, if they have good explanation why they copied content to the talk page of Talk:Cultural Marxist rather than continuing to edit the draft article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Finally, the orange box when you edit and the red text in the box before you edit are quite clear that you need to notify edits on their talk pages when bringing them to ANI. None of User talk:RGloucester, User talk:Jobrot, User talk:John Foxe or User talk:Chillum seems to have been notified and I did look for deleted messages. I have notifed them for you, but failing to do this basic step isn't generally a good look for any ANI complaint. Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• A fine example of confusing wiki lawyering. I self reported and stated my reason for block evading because I was falsely accused and blocked for properly initiating an SPI. The sock subjects were informed of the salted SPI as were several other editors related to the deletion that the meat or sock puppet first appeared. Do your home work. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What specific action are you seeking here? NebY (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Who cares about the SPI? There isn't a requirement to inform people of opening an SPI and I never said anything about the SPI since it was irrelevant to the points I was making. There is a requirement to inform people when you open an ANI discussing them, and you cannot assume people will know that you are opening an ANI on them because you previously opened an SPI which was deleted. (Frankly that's ridiculious.) And I still can't see any evidence you informed people who you discussed in this ANI, the fact you appear to have evaded the point on not informing people when opening this ANI suggests you did in fact fail to do so. Or perhaps you simply have problems understanding simple instructions (like the orange box when editing this page and the instructions in the page header) and my comments which I felt were clear enough that I was referring to ANI (particularly since I didn't say SPI anywhere before this comment). Either way, this strongly suggests to me your complaints are without merit, without having to even look at the SPI (I'm not an admin so I can't). I don't get the relevance of your other points to my comment. Are you referring to someone else? It may help if you are specific as to who you are referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read the title. I self reported for block evading because I was banned for starting a SPI. I care about the SPI because I got blocked for starting one and accused of being a sock by Chillum. Chillum never specified any sock in particular nor did he start a SPI that I am aware of. He just tossed an accusation as a way to justify blocking me, that is what is known as a convenient excuse. It has no merit and I am here for that reason. If he never blocked me I would not be here. Do you understand That? 172.56.8.117 (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. The SPI was completely irrelevant to my original comments which were concerning your failure to notify people despite opening this ANI thread on them (and other stuff, none of which related to the SPI), which the orange box when you edit, and the red text before you edit make clear you need to do. The SPI was irrelevant to my points, and so you mentioning that you informed people when opening the SPI was irrelevant, and not something I cared about, or I'm guessing anyone else. If you truly care about the SPI, you should be giving yourself the maximum chance people will actual pay attention to you. That means you should be doing what you are required to do when opening the ANI. And it also means you shouldn't be mentioning irrelevant stuff like you informing people when you opened the SPI when someone mentions that you failed to do the basic task of informing people when opening the ANI. (It also means you should be concentrating on the SPI, not how the deletion of the cultural marxism article was some great evil which is what a lot of your original comment appeared to be about. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, but my guess is that the IP is confusing the AfD for "Cultural Marxism" with WP:SPI, and likely some of the talk page from the old article where this was discussed. The AfD was closed by 3 admins, and then deleted. Afterwards, a redirect was created. There were attempts to restore some of the talk history - but in the end: The whole thing was a huge mess. Note that there is now a "Draft" at Draft:Cultural Marxism, and a great deal of discussion there. I think what happened was that this editor had his IP address changed, was mistaken either for another editor, or as someone attempting to avoid scrutiny, and an IP was blocked. It appears to be a T-mobile IP, so perhaps part of the confusion is the changing IP addresses, and it's become a vicious circle in him/her trying to explain the situation. — Ched :  ?  14:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No confusion between AFD and SPI. The action I am seeking is 1. Look at the reason I was blocked, it is clearly for initiating a SPI. 2. look at the SPI I initiated which was well laid out and then quickly closed and salted. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you link to the initial block and SPI report so we can assess the situation objectively? --Jayron32 14:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is my edit summary which is now missing the SPI investigation but clearly shows I informed the parties and those affected by the meat puppet. [187] SPI summary User:Jobrot claims to be a Noob on their user page: [188] Jobrot first edit 8 Dec 2014 was to a heated discussion to delete and article that existed for 9 years: [189] On the same day Jobrot starts using wiki technical jargon of why the article should be deleted. Clearly not a noob and demonstrating the clearest example of using deception to avoid being caught as a sock or for meat puppetry which is treated the same as a sock per WP:SOCK. I edit analyzed every editor involved in the AFD review because of comments made about new accounts, etc. Only one showed a remarkable similarity to Jobrot and that is User:RGloucester. [190] Of 529 total edits made by Jobrot nearly all are linked to RGloucester who claims to be a Marxist on their user page. Jobrot is editing as a SPA and only in closely related Marxist articles to the deleted Cultural Marxist article. There is no way Jobrot is legite and clearly a meat puppet. The facts speak for themselves and I was banned for doing my homework and starting a SPI. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) For admins: [191] - for non-admins: [192] submitted by: 172.56.15.36 — Ched :  ?  14:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - OK - the first thing I'll note is that you (IP 172) can NOT go around calling editors "paranoid" and such. Not seeing anywhere you impersonated Chillum though, so I'm not sure where that came from (we'll have to hear from Chillum for that I suppose) — Ched :  ?  15:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment 2 - OK, I've looked about as much as I intend to absent further requests by others:

1. NEVER speculate about mental health issues of another editor: (see: WP:NPA)
2. I don't really see anything in regards to John Foxe issues seem to be addressed in other venues.
3. I don't really see enough in the SPI to validate a block of either user, although I agree that ...
4. Jobrot is a new account seemingly devoted to the topic of Marxism, but that's not a violation of policy
5. Jobrot has more knowledge of wiki than is expected with the amount of experience that account has: BUT - again absent other evidence of wrongdoing, there's nothing blockable there either. WP:MEAT and WP:SPA may apply to some extent, but not to the extent that anything is actionable.
6. I think Chillum may have been a bit quick on the trigger with the original block, and a bit more WP:AGF would not have hurt.
7. The second block was valid because the first IP was blocked, so indeed it was block evasion. However, given the circumstances I'm in favor of overlooking that.
8. You're (IP 172) not blocked at the moment, so perhaps best to just take this all as a learning experience, and visit another topic for a bit until the fires of this die down. I understand your frustration, but I feel you've gone as far as you can in regards to pointing out issues on the Marxism topic and similarities of agreement between the other two editors.

That's just my two cents worth after having a look around. — Ched :  ?  15:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for acknowledging the SPI had merit. 1. It should of been looked at by more people and not quickly salted. 2. The analyzer does not lie about interactions. 3. Chillum admits to smoking herb on his user page and I am unsure of his mental state or whether he was under the influence at the time but I saw his block as either paranoid behavior or malicious behavior. Because I am an IP I know many have biases towards IP's and as a result exhibit paranoid behavior towards IP's. That was lesser than malicious although it may have been done for that reason instead. 4. Jobrot clearly is not legite based on their clear deception and jumping in a very heated discussion on their first edit while claiming to be a noob and then using all kinds of wiki tech terms on their first day editing. If anyone should of been blocked as an obvious sock it would be Jobrot. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to participate in this discussion (so admins feel free to blank anything I've said, if it's not allowed) - but the reason I appear to have become so quickly versed in wikipedia "alphabet soup" as the accuser puts it, is that I've been editing as an IP for substantially longer than as a registered user. The idea that I jumped in a very heated discussion on their first edit while claiming to be a noob and then using all kinds of wiki tech terms on their first day editing is a misapprehension. I walked in... from considerably further away... and I read the signs as I went. --Jobrot (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Then why do claim to be a Noob which clearly you are not. Not even close. And that edit analyzer shows almost all your edits are with one other editor, no one else comes close. That is very strong evidence of a meat puppet. 172.56.16.85 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I originally blocked this IP after they engaged in edit warring and disruption at the cultural Marxism draft page/talk page using multiple IPs and also filed a frivolous SPI report. Our sock puppet policy does not allow the use of alternate accounts to file complaints against other users. Disruptive edit warring and political rants while changing IPs is also a violation. I blocked the user for multiple violations of the sock puppet policy, their interpretation of the reasons for the block seems cherry picked and over simplified.

The IP is mistaken about me deleting the SPI, another admin deleted it likely because it was ill formed and without merit or evidence.

Never said you deleted it. It is about you unfounded accusation that I am a sock. It is not my fault you do not understand that by now. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The user came back under another IP, proceeded to impersonate me on several user talk pages by repeating my warning to him to other users including a copy of my signature[193][194][195][196]. This gave the appearance that I had left block messages to all of these users accusing them of using multiple IPS. At least one user thought I was accusing them[197].

Nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No one impersonated, enough with the paranoid behavior. I highlighted Chillum's unjustified block and brought Chillum under scrutiny. It was reposting what you said to bring you under scrutiny. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I blocked that IP for block evasion. The users stated position is that they will use their dynamic IPs to evade block and encourages a range block in the hopes of collateral damage, I think that clarifies if this user is acting in good faith. Not what I said. Another lie of Chillum, I said You could at least block my current IP and all the other one for a least a year or permanently. That would be screwing some other unfortunate sap who just wanted to edit anomalously and highly unlikely ever affect me after tonight due to the thousands of IP the carrier randomly assigns. I was pointing that out so you did not do another knee jerk reaction that would screw millions. I made my point and it was effective and likely the only reason you did not do a knee jerk range block. I was taking care of others and being a smart a$$ to Chillum who blocked with the accusation I am a sock. Again Whose Sock am I supposed to be? Where is the investigation? 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I am blocking the reporting IP for block evasion, a short block as the user has made it clear that he is using a shared dynamic IP range and they intend to evade further. I think that since this user seems only interest in certain topics it will be easy to recognize them and that a range block is not needed. As always I welcome scrutiny of my actions. I would gladly lift the block on this user if they stopped switching identities regularly to avoid scrutiny. I suggest they create an account, I did not put an autoblock on this latest IP. If they are able to behave under that account in such a way that does not result in a fresh block then I consider the matter settled. Chillum 16:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC) What subjects would that be? Again more nonsense by Chillum. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC) That is a manipulative way to force editors to register, I am glad you are no longer claiming I was logged out to post as a sock as you did in the original block. That is why I brought this here. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) The user appears to be trying to re-created deleted and salted content - Draft talk:Cultural Marxism --Jobrot (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Chillum you a liar and a blatant liar at that. No one impersonated you, as made clear I reposted your comments on other pages involved and made my comments. There was no edit war either as no one exceeded WP:3RR. You are fabricating to cover up your unjustified block for starting a SPI. I entered a SPI and you blocked me. You continue to lie and are you not one of the "neutral" admins who deleted and salted the article. It seems you are abusing your admin privileges to abuse and silence dissent. Your an obvious liar to anyone who looks at the record. I do my homework and you just go about abusing editors. The admin who looked at you said you did not assume good faith. I thinks it is much worse than that. 172.56.16.85 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I will leave this to another admin to resolve, it is clear this user will keep evading their blocks. It seems they are taking my response personally so another admin handling it may diffuse the situation some. Chillum 18:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I've just blocked 172.56.16.85 for block evasion. If they carry on with this, the edit filter awaits. -- The Anome (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Not to mention violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV (speaking of "blatant"). Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I am glad you brought that up. Is it civil to accuse someone of being a sock and then block them without evidence? Whose sock am I supposed to be? 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I suggest you take a read of Wikipedia:Edit warring again. There isn't any requirement to break 3RR for there to be edit warring. Note I'm not commenting on whether there was edit warring, simply that the claim "There was no edit war either as no one exceeded WP:3RR", fails from the get go, and is actually another one of the several things which suggests your complaints lack merit. For the same reason and more, I also strongly suggest you tone down your language. It's not helping anything. To be blunt, it'll probably be best to drop the SPI. Several editors have suggested that there wasn't enough evidence to merit action. Regardless of whether it should have been deleted, there's no point making a big deal about it. If you want to have any chance of continuing to edit the draft cultural marxism article, you really need to start editing more constructively with others, regardless of whether you believe them to be socks when there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate they are. (Note the socking issue is basically irrelevant to the AFD. It had quite a few participants, even if your claims are correct about the 2 alleged socks, the chance they had a significant influence is very slim. This doesn't mean socking is acceptable, simply that even if the wrong decision was made in the AfD as you appear to believe, the purported socking was surely only a minor component.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC) The AFD was nearly tied to keep or delete. Socks had a big effect on the outcome. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Once again, you need to reread stuff. This time the closing statement Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination). None of the 3 closers said the AfD was nearly tied. Actually, this is incredibly unlikely since if it was nearly tied, then it would almost definitely have ended up as no consensus rather than delete. If you don't understand how WP:Consensus, or WP:AFD works, perhaps you need to re-read those as well. They aren't a vote so numbers being tied may not indicate the outcome is close to tied. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Given comments like "it is what you can expect from an avowed marxist as marxists are nothing more than sophisticated thieves and you can never trust a thief"(referring to Jobrot/RGloucester on my talk page[198]) I am retracting my above offer "I would gladly lift the block on this user if they stopped switching identities regularly to avoid scrutiny". I don't think this user's strong opinions and attitude are compatible with a neutral point of view. Chillum 18:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC) That is after you blocked me not before so it has no bearing on your original decision to block. I was perturbed at your abuse of me for being an IP. Apparently Chillum has no clue as to how cellular IP's work. That is his problem not mine. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I'm involved as an editor at the draft cultural Marxism page, so I'm not going to take any steps in this case as an admin. I see some priority in getting a solid, scholarly article on the "cultural Marxism" meme, following the recent controversy, etc., with the article. If I weren't involved in that way, I might have considered reducing the length of the original block if I'd been asked - it seemed a bit harsh for the behavior up to that time. In particular, the SPI was without much merit (the two users concerned have very different styles and modus operandi), but evidently sincere. Also bear in mind that this editor was not the first on the talk page to delete large chunks of material by others. The excuse used on both sides was that the material took the form of political ranting and that talk pages are not forums for political discussion. That's true, but the material by the people on the other side has been almost as bad in that respect. I wish everyone there would calm down, stop pushing their pet POVs, and concentrate on producing the best possible (neutral, informative) article, since it will be exposed to scrutiny from the community at some point. (I actually think the current version of the article is pretty good and would be fine in article space.) All that said, this editor has come here with a culture warring mentality and has been increasingly uncivil. Having seen how they interacted with User:Chillum, and now some of their language on this page, I now don't have a lot of sympathy. It would help if they would create an account, establish an identity here, and try to get along with others by editing articles in a neutral, incremental and civil way. Although they have a strong point of view, they actually do seem to have some relevant knowledge that we could use. But if they are here to use Wikipedia as a battleground in a culture war, I don't think there's a future for them. Metamagician3000 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Increasingly irate for being blocked after starting a SPI and being accused of being a sock and then blocked. Again WHOSE SOCK??? Their is no merit to Chillum's accusation it is just a convenient excuse to abuse and block an IP because they are an IP. Very cultish behavior in my opinion. People are free to edit without harassment to become registered. Treating IP differently and insisting they register is harassment. I know, I have dealt with it for 10 years here. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Enough group think. Bottom line is Chillum blocked an IP for starting an SPI and he keeps fabricating lies to justify it. He accused me of being a sock. Well whose Sock??? That is the hole in Chillum's thinking and easily proves his maleficence. His behavior was either paranoia, inability to handle admin duties, or maliciousness. You decide. Hot off the press is the events of the fiasco posted here: [199] Look it over and it will be clear there was no edit war or sock as he accuses with no evidence. I have always been an IP and I am not easily pressured to join because of relentless requests (kind of cultish behavior). Here's an article to consider creating the Cult of Wikipedia. Chillum considers abusing IP's to be acceptable behavior and he lacks integrity. He has lied and repeated his lies and I have pointed that out quite thoroughly at the above link. I will not stand for his lies and abuse, Chillum must be someone special in the real world, kind of like the comic guy on the Simpsons. Of course I do not mean to offend Comic Book Guy. 208.54.32.236 (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I've removed a bunch of comments from the IP above which were either inserted in the middle of someone's signed comment. Or were inserted between signed comments, which may be fine, if the IP had bothered to sign, but they didn't. See [200] for what was removed. This created a very confusing thread where it wasn't clear who had written what. Ignoring the block evasion, the IP really, really needs to learn how to participate in wikipedia discussion (like signing comments, and not inserting their comments in to the middle of someone else's signed comment), if they want to continue here. I did this manually because when I tried to undo one of these changes, the most recent one, it couldn't be done. I think I got everything though. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I reinserted my responses in the ANI I started.172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC) And I reverted you. If you want any chance for your comments to stand, fix the issues you've made. Don't expect anyone else to fix your mess, particularly when you're a block evader. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Thank you for signing. There's still no excuse for you inserting your comments in to the middle of others signed comments though so I've reverted such comments. Please fix that issue if you want your remaining comments to stand. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC) When the IP is blocked, will some revert the IP who is still insisting on inserting their comments in to the middle of existing signed comments [201]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Would some please look at the four times User talk:Nil Einne reverted my comments. He is clearly edit warring at ANI even after I put a warning on his talk page. 172.56.8.117 (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Comment, I dont know if this IP editor is way off base here but the circumstantial evidence he posted on my talk page certainly seems to warrant a checkuser. Would it be kosher for me to file it on his behalf? WeldNeck (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Feel free to file if you think that there is enough evidence to conduct the checkuser. It looks like there might be from my read of the discussion. Mamyles (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Does evading a block count as a "good faith" act? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC) The user is on a dynamic IP shared by many users, I doubt a CU will show much. To clarify it was the use of multiple IPs while edit warring, posting political rants and posting frivolous reports. It is not relevant if they have an account somewhere, and the technical evidence is unlikely to reveal concrete evidence against a user given the changing nature of the IP. The relevant parts of WP:SOCK are Editing project space and Avoiding scrutiny. If you look at all of the IPs this user has used then it is behavior that would not be tolerated by a regular user if they had not been engaging in evasion of scrutiny. Chillum 15:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC) If you meant a CU against RGloucester/Jobrot then you can try. I personally did not think the complaint had much evidence at all. Chillum 15:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Okay I am seeing the IP has posted about 20k of comments on your page, more than was in the SPI. I am tired of reading this users very long posts but if you see evidence then I see no reason not to proceed. Chillum 15:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Note I have unblocked the original IP based on the fact that they are changing IPs. This should be seen as unblocking the IP not the user. Note the most recent incarnation was blocked for disruption here by another admin. Chillum 15:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC) WeldNeck: If you mean you want to start a SPI on Jobrot/RGloucester, I don't think it's appropriate to initiate a SPI on behalf of a blocked editor who can't seem to learn basics of how to collaborate and discuss, particularly when they already tried once and it was rejected and deleted due to I believe insufficient evidence (even if they have more now). As always the case with blocked editors, anyone including you is free to initiate a SPI (or whatever) on their own behalf using material a blocked editor has presented to them. This means they will be taking responsibility for it, not the IP/blocked editor. Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC) BTW, Chillum, I'm not sure if you saw the IP's insertation of comments in to the middle of your comment above [[202]]. I haven't bothered to revert now that there are more people here, but if you want to I think you're completely justified. I've tried to convince the IP they shouldn't be doing this, but to no avail. Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I think the evidence should be viewed for what it is and I was taking the temperature of other editors to that end. Do you think it has merit? WeldNeck (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Einne I saw that, and I reverted/moved the comments a few times. If this editor wants to switch ips and mangle my comments all day then then is not much that can be done short of semi-protecting this page. If it becomes disruptive to the noticeboard someone may decide to do that but no need on my account. I have reverted it again because this thread is already unclear due to the changing IPs scattered contributions and my posting being mangled makes it far less clear. Chillum 16:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC) WeldNeck I don't think it has merit. Post the SPI if you think it has merit but only if you think it does. Don't post it because this IP thinks it has merit. Chillum 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the tip. Ill go over it again and be doubly sure before (if) I do it. I dont want to feed a troll and encourage hsi behavior but if it has some merit I'd hate to write it off when they obviously spent so much time on it and reached out to me. WeldNeck (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC) While I'm not a checkuser in any sense, if it's any help, I just went over evidence for awhile and could not substantiate the SOCK claims. I personally wouldn't file a case. Mamyles (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Note Chillum has deleted many of my responses and repeatedly block me so I can not reply. He even changed the title. Bottom line is Chillum originally blocked me for starting a SPI that had a basis and called me a sock as an excuse. Whose sock am I supposed to be? Having a cellular IP that changes when it wants is not a sock. If I turn off my device like when I go somewhere or go to bed changes the IP. Chillum has tried consistently to misrepresent this even though it is clearly spelled out above. If he still cannot understand cellular IP's well it ain't my fault as I have pointed it out several times. Chillum is putting on a show here as he is trying to save face at my expense. I cannot say what Chillum's true original motives were but based on his deceit now it is malicious. He may have originally been paranoid of IP's earlier or just feels it is ok to abuse IP's and treat them like crap. Chillum is now twisting things and deleting my earlier responses because I put this here to put his actions under scrutiny. I could easily disappear but I do not take abuse well. Now he plays catch 22 if I defend myself and point out his maleficence I am evading. Well so be it then. Yeah I made it easy for Chillum to block me again but I turn of my device and have a new IP in 5 minutes, and I will continue to evade his block to edit the ANI I started. Chillum is trying to hide the evidence.172.56.38.47 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Your IPs are being blocked for block-evasion. Get a clue. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC) This IP is mad, and that fact that his nonsense is still being entertained in this forum is beyond belief. Block him and be done with it. RGloucester — ☎ 18:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC) He has been blocked like 5 times. Chillum 01:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Determined but you can call it whatever offensive poison the well tactic young can think of. Your comments say more about you. Are you nervous because some have talked about opening a SPI on you and know you are back to cast aspersions??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.38.47 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I have no need to cast aspersions about you, as you do that well yourself. I think it is fairly obvious to anyone that looks that I'm not related to Jobrot in anyway. That's what the SPI clerk said about your report, if you may remember. It is quite clear that you are just another in a long line of sock-puppets that has dominated this discussion from the moment it started, egged on by Mr Wales. Please cease and desist. You can't win. RGloucester — ☎ 18:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC) "Egged on by Mr. Wales"... uh-huh. BMK (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)− Section break (for readability) IP, I don't think that vowing to continue block evading on purpose and assuming that everyone here's out to get you since you're an IP is going to help your case. Take a deep breath and step back- I'm sure people will be more willing to read your comments if you do so. Thedeadlypenguin (my primary acc.'s talk) 23:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC) The Remain Silent Don't Say Nothing Bad About an Abusive Admin has Never Worked ANI I started to have my actions and Chillum's actions scrutinized Note I transferred the below comments from my comments with Wildneck I started the ANI so others could look at the block I received for starting a SPI. Chillum blocked the IP I submitted the SPI with. I have a cellular IP and it changes frequently, that is how cell towers serve many customers. Chillum specifically said I logged out from an account and was a therefore a sock. What account did I log out from, what evidence was there? Did he start a SPI on me? No he just used a convenient excuse to block me. It was malicious at best. I believe he has a low level of respect for IP's and was not AGF. He has made up lies after that to defend his block. He says I edit warred. That is a lie. Show where I did that? The only thing I have done is turn off my device for 5 Minutes to get a new IP to respond to the ANI I started. Why did I start it? So his actions and my actions would be scrutinized. I could of walked away but I am tired of the abusive atmosphere here towards IP's. I will stand my ground on this one. I started the ANI and I will participate in it and see it out. The hell with the catch 22 when you have been maliciously abused by an admin. 172.56.38.47 (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Hey WeldNeck, I left a post at Jobrots page and I am no longer seeking a SPI. It has plenty of merit but if it is a sock or meat puppet I like Jobrots attitude better than the sock master. It could be a friend or even a sophisticated sock but it is no longer my intention to pursue it. My main concern is the abuse from Chillum and all the lies he has been telling to cover his tracks. He makes up stuff or misrepresents it by twisting the facts. His reason he posted on the account he blocked is that I was editing logged out and a therefore a sock. I have nothing to log into as I will not register due people like Chillum. Besides that it would be ok to log out to start a SPI if they thought they would face retaliation and considering User:RGloucester is involved that would be likely. It is your call about the SPI but it does not matter to me anymore. There are so many editors with sock accounts and friends battling for them what is a couple of more. 172.56.8.17 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC) If you feel the evidence is strong enough to warrant the SPI then go for it, I certainly think there's something to it. Just because everyone does it doesn't mean we should let people get away with it. WeldNeck (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I think the abusive atmosphere here by some admins towards IP's does much more damage to the project and I have to pick my battles. I originally started the SPI which was deleted and then Chillum who was deeply involved in the article came along 5 hours after I started it and blocked my account here: [203] Chillum wrote: Per our sock puppet policy undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Logging out to file a complaint against another user qualifies as such. It is clear from your knowledge of events that take place well prior to your edit history that you have prior history here. It is also clear you are using more than one IP to edit war and act disruptively at Draft talk:Cultural Marxism. If you wish to appeal this block please log into your regular account to do so. Chillum 17:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC) What account did I log out from? Having knowledge makes me guilty? Having cellular service that randomly changes IP's is now a crime? Discussing on a talk page about a bias and push in an article is now forbidden? Reinstating my deleted comments 1 time is an edit war? Making false allegations about someone who is an IP is accepted practice? What is troubling is User:Chillums amount of lying to cover up after I self reported myself at ANI to get the matter scrutinized. The evidence speaks for itself but so do the reactions. It seems there is little accountability for admins abusing other editors especially the IP editor. There is probably a process to take this higher/further but very few know about it and are willing to go there. The catch 22 of being abused and then being blocked so you cannot make a report without being accused of evading a block is severely flawed as well. I have let enough admins know so at least their is more information about it. Thank you WeldNeck for looking into the matter of the original SPI. The evidence is strong and I believed it deserved more attention. I would of been ok with the SPI going nowhere after the process which was very short and deleted, why? The clear abuse of someone who started a SPI has become a bigger issue for me. I did not even know about Chillum's block until I went back the next day to look at the SPI. My IP had already changed when I turned on my Cellular device. Chillum has tried to use my changing IP as evidence. That has no merit as cellular networks continually change IP's to allow more people to use the network than they have IP's allocated for. Take your cell phone for example (same type of network) and google "my IP" and then turn it of for awhile or go somewhere and google "my IP" again and it likely changed. The bigger the population of people the more likely it will change faster. I could of said oh well to Chillum's block and went on about my business and no one would of known or cared. However there are people out there who use an IP that does not regularly change (unless they unplug their modem over night) who have been targeted by an abusive admin and I stood up for the community. It is possible Chillum thought I fell into that category and would be an easy target to abuse. Maybe he acted maliciously due to his involvement in the very controversial Cultural Marxism AFD. Maybe he has an dislike of IP editors or is paranoid about them. I do not know his reason and it does not matter so I fought against the abuse and false allegation. I forced the issue rather than just walking away which would of been easy. I knew I could fight him at ANI as blocking my IP is pretty much a waste of time unless admins are willing to go nuclear and range block millions of cellular users. That is unlikely to stop someone who has other access and knows how IP's are assigned. I pointed that out to Chillum on his talk page in a smart a$$ way to prevent such a meat head move on his part that would do a lot of collateral damage. I was successful in preventing that. I have been very determined and sometimes a little to much of a smart a$$ towards Chillum as he has been towards me. Chillum's lying, false allegations and twisting to cover his a$$ did not bring out the best in me at all times. However as an Admin Chillum is the face of Wikipedia and he needs to exercise better judgment and that is my reason for not ignoring it. 172.56.32.8 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

More Discussion

172.56.0.0/18, in case any admin is interested. 199.47.73.100 (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Now this IP is using my password reset form over and over. Not going to work, my e-mail is plenty secure. Unless someone is going to take action against me perhaps this can be closed and we can just quietly revert, block, and ignore? Chillum 15:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could someone please block...

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

---

Furan Mulatar (talk · contribs), who is spamming multiple pages, both in article and in userspace? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so that's how NUKE works. Cool. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

The Mighty Jingles

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

---

Could I get some more eyes (preferably admin) on this page? Apparently the subject mentioned it in a media outlet and it is now being swamped by vandals. I've filed a RFPP but no one has responded yet. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by Javalenok

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

---

User Javalenok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues personal attacks after final warning:

• PA on article talk page ==> warning by user Johnuniq: [204]
• response to Johnuniq ==> formal 1st level warning for NPA: [205]
• restored PA on article talk page ==> 3rd level warning: [206]
• "Go fuck you self, owner" ==> final warning: [207]
• "Exposing your misbehaviour... So far, go fuck yourself." after final warning

Not the first time. - DVdm (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on the ongoing nature of the attacks, the given warnings, the likelihood of it continuing, and that the attacks are part of a content dispute and are likely to have a chilling effect on our neutral point of view I have blocked this user for 48 hours. Our editors should not have to put up with abuse just because they have an opposing point of view in a content dispute. Chillum 17:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Persistent copyright violator

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

---

In August last year Sosonet91 added copyright material from a cakeentertainment.com page (which carries a clear notice, "© Copyright Cake Entertainment") to the article Angelo Rules, and then, after I removed it, added it again. I left a talk page warning on each occasion, the second time with an extra note to say that I would request a block if it happened again. Today the editor again added the same content. Block requested until such time as the editor can demonstrate both understanding of our copyright policy and intent to abide by it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked. Thanks for reporting -- Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Forged signature, editing other people's comments

IPV6 address from Belgium pretending to be an IPV4 address from Canada[208] and faking the posting time for good measure. Not sure what to make of this or whether any action is needed but I thought I should raise a flag. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

2A02:A03F:12DA:D300:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk · contribs) Add link to this users edits as they might need examination for accuracy. One of the edits uses a blog as a source. MarnetteD|Talk 01:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And now he is editing other people's comments.--Guy Macon (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

And again. (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(...CHIRP... ...CHIRP...)

Four IPV6 addresses used so far:

• 2A02:A03F:12DA:D300:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk · contribs)
• 2A02:A03F:1221:E100:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk · contribs)
• 2A02:A03F:12E6:5500:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk · contribs)
• 2A02:A03F:12DD:D700:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk · contribs)

And (what a shock!) he is also a spammer.[209][210][211] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, I have no idea what is happening here. Some IP user added a comment with a fake IP signature and a fake date from two months ago. I have no idea why anyone would want to fake a name and date. I responded to them and they wanted my comment and their comment deleted. I cannot imagine why - the question was fair enough and maybe other people would want to see it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that he is experimenting with using an IP-hopping proxy to spam Wikipedia and thinks that by forging his IP address and posting date and deleting your comment pointing out that he forged his IP address he will be able to avoid detection. What he doesn't realize is that his ham-handed attempts to hide his activity make him stand out like a sore thumb and will no doubt result in his favorite proxies being blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

COULD WE PLEASE GET SOME ADMINISTRATOR HELP HERE??? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Guy Macon. I've semi-protected the article for now. Sam Walton (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Because he has pretty much announced that he is going to keep on spamming the Camgirl page,[212] might I suggest a temporary rangeblock of [ 2A02:A03F:*:*:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E ]? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Because of spam at at Camgirl[213], Camgirl is now semiprotected.[214] Of course there are plenty of other potential spam targets such as Erotic photography,[215] but one can only hope that he tumbles on to the fact that every time he spams it gets reverted[216] and gives up. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting delevopment at User talk:Guy Macon#Blocking... --Guy Macon (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy, regarding your comment #above, "he has pretty much announced that he is going to keep on spamming the Camgirl page", In that diff he's just arguing, which is what we do here. Don't we routinely delete people's IP addressed when they inadvertently disclose them and ask for deletion (or "oversight" or "rev del" or whatever you call it?) And isn't that what this person seems to be trying to achieve. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Lion101010 on Mandodari

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

---

WP:PERSONAL attack on Mandodari page:

• [217] "You will loose your head Redtigerxyz be careful I am warning you."
• [218] "Wats up Redtigerxyz you are alive only because you are a woman."

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

User anyway has been given a 4im. I think a block is in order. Clearly not here to built the encyclopedia. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've indefblocked them, per the above. -- The Anome (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Kostanay and User:Rinice

I am afraid I need some advice since I am unsure what to do. User:Rinice yesterday started to post big chunks of text to Kostanay. They have no contribution outside this article. The first one was copyvio, I reverted it and warned the user. They continued, adding latge pieces of text, which were recognizable as machine translation from Russian (some words were not translated and it was clear they are Russian). I think this is copyvio as well, but I can not find anything since there is no source. I reverted this as well. Today, they continued. I tried contacting them on their talk page in English and in Russian, but they never respond. Suggestions to proceed are most welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have placed a final warning on the user's talk page. Any further copy vio should result in an indef block. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. But how can we prove it is copyvio? Only their first edit was directly copied from elsewhere. For other edits, I can not find the source of the text.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Mr Ymblanter, my editing is not a copy-pasted text! As for my interest in the theme - it is a project of our university as we want to present more information than the page contains. I don't understand why you keep reverting my editings, because all the information is taken from our local archives and newspapers that is why I cannot give you direct links. I'm not guilty if other people from Kostanay might have used a resembling information. I live in this city, so, please, don't blame me in the lack of competence! It is I who need an urgent help here, as the interface of Wikipedia turned out to be not very convenient at all! And we thought that it is a free encyclopedia, open for everyone who CAN include something interesting ang new! But in practice I see only those people who suppress any beginnings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinice (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rinice: I'd suggest you learn on how to cite the information you use. I believe you are looking for the template that is used for books and such (Template:Cite book). If you need, use {{helpme}} on your talk page followed by your question. Hope this helps! -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is great that you use the old information to improve the article, but please note that old newspapers are likely to be copyrighted, and adding even translated text from them would be copyright violation. The only way you can add material is to add your own text (written based on the sources, but not repeating them literally and not even closely paraphrasing them).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Great! I see you won't be against the nonsense then (maybe, you are not in trend, but there occur plenty of mistakes in Wikipedia, because 1. people do not know what they write about, 2. they make up things by themselves. I've understood, you don't want any changes here at all. Local chronicles are the most trustable source, and even a well-processed work is a violation of somebody's rights. It is impossible to write completely different facts for history, for example. According to your logic all historians just copied info from each other (actually they did, if you haven't known). Of course, I will try to invent new things. But, please, try and PROVE that my last editing was taken from somewhere else, or I'll make a petition to your director. Good wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinice (talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

At this point, my communication skills fail. May be someone else could try?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And where is the proof I've asked you about??? If you give up quickly, you admit that this site does not have any responsibility for reliability of the facts which it contains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinice (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, may be you indeed should make a petition to my director. Sorry, I just failed to communicate to you in a manner you understand.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User insists on creating foreign language articles at en.wiki

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

---

Rameshpoonia1 (talk · contribs) has created many times an article in Hindi (and at least one in Arabic) that are essentially translations of the en.wiki page Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology. The user has been warned about this activity on many occasions (just look at the history of his user talk page.

In response to one of his latest creations of this type of article, I made a request at his user talk page (see here) for him to stop such activities, and to respond to the talk page warnings he had been given. I included the {{Contrib-hi1}} template so that, if he is unable to communicate in English, he would at least receive the Hindi request to stop trying to create articles in Hindi. His response to my request was to blank his talk page, and to continue to create the Hindi language article.

It has become clear that this user has no interest in listening to the advice he is being given, and that a block (at least a temporary block) may be required to call his attention to the matter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If I kept posting English articles on the Hindi Wikipedia, even after they asked me in English to stop, they'd be completely justified in blocking me on the grounds of WP:CIR. I'm more open to an indefinite, but easily appealed, block, simply to prevent further disruption. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The user has not edited since the AN/I notice and the CSD A10 tag being applied to the article. He may be getting the message. I'd like to wait one more edit to see how he proceeds before blocking. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If you'll look at the history of the user's talk page and his deleted contributions log (I'm not admin, I can't look at that, but I'm sure there's a fair few deleted contributions), you'll see that prior A10 warnings have proved ineffective. Perhaps the AN/I warning will be sufficient. I'm not sanguine about that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, The user has 24 deleted edits. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My lack of optimism has been validated. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Since they have started back up without response, I've blocked the account from editing until they respond to other editors' comments. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:DISRUPT by M.Bitton

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

---

Hello,

Please, can someone do something to prevent M.Bitton (talk · contribs) from further disruptive editing and edit-warring?

As shown on the previous ANI request, M.Bitton's edits were largely made of putting back controversial versions of articles, as previously edited by Historian Student (talk · contribs) (or by his multiple socks). That even made me believing that M.Bitton was one of Historian Student socks, which is obviously not the case. Thus, the sole explaination is that M.Bitton is a disruptive editor (as stated by Weegeerunner on the previous request : a "common case disruptive editing") who doesn't care about other people's opinions or about Wikipedia's policies.

Btw, note that he's doing a mess on Algerian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), while being reverted by multiple editors who clearly disagree with his edits (actually, putting back an edit made by Historian Student) and describing another user's edits as "BS". So he made 14 reverts on many contributors' edits in Algerian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since Feb.17th [219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229][230][231][232]

Note that he also edit-warred about the "Algerian War" subject on List of wars involving Algeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article where he also deleted sourced content while describing his action as "deletion of original research" on diff's comments (post-Feb.17th edits only) : [233][234][235][236]

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

+while I was writing this request: [237][238][239] (+kind diff's comment on that last one) --Omar-toons (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Had thrown this at WP:3RR before found this. Seems to make more sense over there but will leave it to someone else to decide which one to close. Amortias (T)(C) 23:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I blocked this highly-disruptive user for one week; I also fully protected the page for two days as this seems to be an ongoing issue involving more than one user (although perhaps an SPI would be warranted for M.) If this page protection is obstructing any immediate improvement to the article let me know, but looking at the history it seems like the majority of the editing going on is content disputes and edit warring. I think a two day lockdown of the page is a pretty minor action, but a positive one. Swarm ^X 23:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Think this has already been to WP:SPI here[240] and no connection was found. Amortias (T)(C) 23:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. Swarm ^X 23:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Jantzen7

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

---

• Jantzen7 (talk · contribs)

Should this guy get the benefit of the doubt after the second blanking of Talk:List of hentai anime?[241][242][243] They are clearly not here to contributed to the wiki. —Farix (t | c) 02:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on this, I'm going to go with "No"... --IJBall (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As hilarious as I find that diff, I'm gonna go with "no" as well. User indeffed. Swarm ^X 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Sigh, User:Pagesclo again...

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

---

User:Pagesclo (formerly blocked user User:Craftdraw) is once again mass moving pages. Since it is a topic area I am not familiar with, I have no idea if it is justified or not. More indicative of the user's general attitude is this edit. While minor in itself, the edit summary ("revenge edit") says it all; User:Pagesclo reverted my edit simply because it was my edit. I have tried communicating with this user on previous occasions, with no response. The user is disruptive and unwilling to engage, is constantly moving pages without consensus, and is prone to template-spamming articles. I don't like asking for people to be blocked, and can't recall the last time I did so, but my patience is wearing very thin... Simon Burchell (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

For info, previous posting from ANI archive at Disruptive editing by User:Pagesclo and User:Pagesclo... There are others. In the "Disuptive editing" linked incident, the most recent, the user never responded here. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also just noticed this current sockpuppet investigation. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User account has been blocked as a sock of User:Madere etc. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Deletition of an article that was put for submission

Good day,

I wrote an article and submitted it for checking in September 2014. It was rejected because of some content issues, and I was requested to make changes and resubmit it. I did, and resubmitted it, then it was rejected again in January by some more minor content reasons. Last week I fixed them and resubmitted the article...
Now it was rejected and deleted (!) because of unexplained Copyright issues.
This is the message I got:

 17:39, 20 February 2015 Cryptic (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Silverray123/sandbox 

 (G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page: Draft:Stormy Atmosphere) 

The copyright issue never came up at two last times, and nothing was added to the article since then, few things were actually removed, so unfortunately I cannot understang why it suddenly came up this time,
especcially when I can assure you that all the rights are reserved to the band the article is about, nothing was taken from anywhere else (like albums pictures, band picture, names etc.)
Yes I am a new user and don't have much experience, but unfortunately the answers I've got so far were rather partial and therefore not helpful... Especially last time when the work I put so much effort in was just thrashed...
So I would really appreciate an explanation, because I really want the world to see my works and continue contributing to the Wikipedia knowledge base...

Thank you in advance,
Silverray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverray123 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In general, if you have questions about an administrator's actions, it is best to contact them first. Draft:Stormy Atmosphere was deleted by @RHaworth: with the summary "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://progresja.com/events/mike-terrana-usa-2/?lang=en ". Indeed, portions of the text of the draft article are copied word-for-word from the linked webpage. For details about Wikipedia's copyright policy, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just because the copyright issue didn't come up in previous reviews doesn't mean it wasn't a problem. It is simply because the previous reviewers didn't check to see if there was a copyright problem. —Farix (t | c) 15:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Aren't user sandboxes generally not deleted except in extreme cases? -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The draft was deleted for copyvio. The user sandbox page was then deleted because it was a redirect to a deleted page (the draft). Both perfectly standard actions. Bencherlite^Talk 12:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikihounded by "newcomers"

Hello,

Since M.Bitton and Historian Student's multiple socks have been blocked (1 week for the first, indef. for the second's socks), some "new contributors" appeared, whose only contributions were to revert my edits using the same edit summaries and putting back the controversial versions previously made by M.Bitton and Historian Student and repeating the disruptive behavior that characterized both Historian Student (talk · contribs) and M.Bitton (talk · contribs).

These "new comers" are Ms10vc (talk · contribs) and Sidihmed (talk · contribs), plus an edit from IP 148.163.92.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Wile Ms10vc is obviously not a sock but just a disruptive editor (he participated for months on the French Wikipedia where he had been previously blocked for personal attacks against me (edited: my bad, he was blocked 2 times for personal attacks but not against me... really sorry!) and disruptive editing (edited, Omar-toons (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)), and seems that he wants to start the same thing here), Sidihmed is clearly a sock (but who is the sockmaster? then, how could an SPI be opened without knowing if it is Historian Student or M.Bitton?).

Btw, I ask admins to block these accounts or, at least, to semi-protect the articles that were targeted by Historian Student and his multiple socks as well as by these two "new comers":

• List of wars involving Algeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Moroccan Wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ahmad al-Tijani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tijaniyyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sand War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Morisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ottoman Algeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regards
--Omar-toons (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sure. But Omar-Toons, one of the best ways to combat disruption is article improvement. Just saying. I'm not familiar with User:FAIZGUEVARRA, who's been active on one of those back in 2011; something to look into perhaps. Please ask DoRD to run CU on Sidihmed and the other, whom I've already blocked. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Wait. Old timer alert. Who was that joker, a few years ago, doing all this stuff on Y-chromosomes and haplotypes or whatever? This edit has a bunch of that sciency talk. And Omar-Toons, this edit, which I think you endorse on the talk page, seems to remove really reliably sourced content, rather than stuff that's "devoid of meaningful information and pointless". Dougweller, do you have an opinion to offer? Drmies (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Drmies, I can't recall. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• See also: WP:ANEW#User:Omar-toons reported by User:Chemsdine-badouri (Result: Nominating editor blocked) (and I have also reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian Student). Bencherlite^Talk 19:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

My bad, I'm confused: Ms10vc was effectively previously blocked on FR.Wiki for personal attacks, but actually not against me. Also, Drmies blocked him for sockpuppettry, but I don't think that he's a sock (as said before), but just a disruptive editor.

For Morisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I found that the section was irrelevant, but we are still discussing it (the IP user removed it before we actually got a consensus, but that's another issue). Actually, I think that some information that it contained could be copied to a section to create that could deal with socio/cultural matters. As I just wrote: that subject should be discussed more and more...

For the FAIZGUEVARRA thing, this vandal didn't show up for more than 3 years, I don't think that he's linked to that... but that's juste my (h) opinion...

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard Thomas (author)

An SPA Wickerkat (talk · contribs) has padded out, since 2011, the Richard Thomas (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article to ridiculous extent, essentially putting Thomas' entire CV in the article. I removed most of it earlier today, and Wickerkat has restored it. More experienced judgment calls would be desirable. I also believe there are problems with BLP sourcing and the like, but I haven't looked too hard. Choor monster (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A blue-linked WP:NOTAMAZON would be useful here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted it and left them a note about unsourced information. The additions removed included direct links to the purchasing pages on amazon, large amounts of unsourced BLP additions and WP:MOS issues all over the place and external linking issues that I stopped counting when I got to 20. Amortias (T)(C) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I should point out that published fiction is normally its own source, and that there were references (but whose quality I did not check too seriously) in the SPA version which I removed, leaving the article without any references. Clean-up is needed, but perhaps the SPA has to get the message first. I should also point out I may have removed too much (some of the awards I deleted might actually be of interest and be sourceable) but like NeilN, giving up is a lot easier. Choor monster (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Will have to see how it goes if they're willing to discuss inclusion of the material properly sourced thats one think but blanket reinstating advertising and unsourced information to a BLP needs to be kept watch of.Amortias (T)(C) 18:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Not giving up, the article first has to be drastically trimmed, then built up properly again if sourced properly. Book lists should contain notable works, not every single thing the subject has written. The editor also touched Stephen Graham Jones which was in similar shape, including a copyright violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The books do not need to be individually notable. See WP:LISTN. Choor monster (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is balanced by WP:NOTDIR. I agree the entries do not have to be notable enough to have their own articles but for authors with many works, we should be using something more than "it exists" as an inclusion criteria. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You stated before, "Book lists should contain notable works", and that was what is incorrect. Either the book list is appropriate, or it isn't. Actually, nothing about NOTDIR suggests author bibliographies are inappropriate. Meanwhile, I am opposed to short story lists in general (I am agreeing with the rest of your sentence). The most notable writers, where RS's hang on their every word, yes. The rest, no, because of WP:UNDUE. Choor monster (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I welcomed the editor and left them a long note, then went hunting for sources. I've added what I could but wound up nominating the article for deletion. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note that from the last few edits to their talk page, Wickerkat is actually the author himself. Blackmane (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• As the OP, I will comment that Wickerkat/Richard Thomas has been completely co-operative, there is ongoing discussion on his user talk page, so if there are no objections, I will non-admin close this discussion tomorrow. Thank you everybody. Choor monster (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Likely POV-forking of Lhasa

(The subject title may not be completely fair to Aymatth2 (talk · contribs), but I can't think of a better way of characterizing it. Also pinging Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) and Zanhe (talk · contribs), who had been involved in the discussion there.)

These users (largely Aymatth2) and I had been engaging what I thought had been good-faith, if heated, discussions about 1) splitting Lhasa into two articles and 2) what the proper names and the scope of those articles should be. (See the discussions at WT:CHINA#Category:Lhasa Prefecture.) Neither side has been able to convince the other, apparently. But I would like neutral administrator(s) involved in the matter now because it appears that POV-forking may be occurring - as just within the last couple days, Aymatth2 disclosed that he had been writing a separate article in his user space (which he is free to, of course) and planning on then moving it into the main namespace as a completed article. (See the postings toward the end of the discussion - specifically the quote of "I take it that when I request a move into mainspace of the draft article on the prefecture-level region you will either vote to merge it into Lhasa, or after seeing what it looks like you will support the move.") This, as I have been arguing, would disrupt the naming convention formed by years of consensus at WP:NC-ZH and should not be done. I don't disagree with splitting the Lhasa article (and I don't think there is any dispute from anyone else). I disagree with the manner that he's going at it - by proposing a disruption of the naming convention and not addressing the counterarguments.

It sounds to me that this, while not vandalistic behavior nor POV-warring in the classic sense, nevertheless is effectively POV-forking. I've quoted the criteria of POV-forking to him and hoping that he would reexamine this. However, as I said, I am hoping that neutral administrators can get involved in case my own judgment is being clouded by the argument (which is likely) and also see if there is some other way to resolve the matter. Aymatth2's contributions are valuable. But I think in this case I want to try to end/moderate the dispute before I have to effectively argue that good contribution should be deleted because of POV and disruption of consensus as reflected in the naming convention.

Again, help is wanted for my own sanity and the sanity of all those involved. --Nlu (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"POV forking", yes, is quite a ridiculous accusation. I think you have to look at how large the Lhasa reigonal area is and how feasible is it to cover it all in the main article. The city alone, especially historically has enough to be said about it, let alone decent information on the economic practices etc of the wider region. I agree with Aymatth2 that it is practical to have both. I would encourage the same for any city in China with a wider regional area. It really is like saying you can't have an article on New York State itself, only New York City. I'd have Lhasa as the main settlement article and Lhasa (prefecture-level city) for the overall regional area with hatnotes putting each in context.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have not yet started an article on Lhasa Municipality, but plan to do so in my user space in the next two or three weeks. I will then formally propose a move to mainspace. I have discussed this on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China page, and find no valid objection to slightly changing the scope of the article on Lhasa to focus on the well-known small city, with a separate article describing the 13,000 km² municipality that surrounds it. Any concerns can be brought up in the requested move discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I have never opposed a split. I have, and I think with good reasons that neither you nor Aymatth2 addressed, opposed the naming and scope as proposed. Therefore, the comparison to the New York city/state situation is not apt. Moreover, one of my main objections is that "Lhasa" (as a "small city") is poorly defined. New York City is well-defined as the five boroughs. That makes the situation completely different, actually. Regardless of the merits, though, it is still POV-forking. POV-forking is not the same as, "Everything that is written is/will be trash." In fact, it is often that that is not the case - that the POV-forker's position has substantial merit - that led to the POV-forker to be ardent enough in his/her position to conduct POV-forking - just as what Aymatth2 is doing here. I trust that what Aymatth2 writes is not going to be trash. But it's the failure to address the substantial merits of the opposing position that makes it POV-forking. And note what you are saying here: "I would encourage the same for any city in China with a wider regional area." That is exactly the reason why it shouldn't be done. If extended in this manner, it would destroy WP:NC-ZH's geographical naming consensus such that it would no longer be usable. It would fracture the naming scheme into a jumbled mess, if this logic is followed. --Nlu (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Nlu: Forking is not the issue. The requested move would combine putting the article about the municipality into mainspace with focusing the Lhasa article on the small city. Is your concern that a requested move of this hypothetical article if approved may upset the project naming conventions? This is a strange incident report. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  I would say that it's an unusual incident report. It's both a report of your behavior (as a highly productive editor but in this case I feel questionable) and my own behavior. I wanted to get neutral parties involved before it get any problematic on both of our parts. --Nlu (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Nlu: If I have been impolite at any stage in this discussion I apologize. Diffs would be useful. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  No apology necessary. As I've noted, I feel that the questionable behavior is potentially both ways, and that's why I want neutral parties involved. But I would like substantive responses. Effectively, it still comes down to that I am not hearing, as far as I am concerned, any substantive response to my main points of 1) this situation is not unique to Lhasa and that there is no compelling reason to break up the naming convention consensus (which you did not respond to but Dr. Blofeld did, I'll concede - but I find his response to be a horrendous one given the implications that effectively destroy the naming convention) and 2) there is no verifiable, definitive definition of "Lhasa" (as a small city) other than the potential PRC definition of it as coterminal with Chengguan District, which nobody in the discussion (perhaps myself included) liked as a verifiable, definitive definition of "Lhasa." The good theory of a "small city article" for Lhasa is, until such a definition can be rendered, practically fatally flawed in my opinion because if there is no commonly-accepted definition of "small city of Lhasa" (and none was given throughout the discussion by you or by Dr. Blofeld) then the article is necessarily going to be original research and POV-oriented. I've offered up the possibility that such a definition may be obtainable from the Tibetan government in exile - but until that occurs, there is none. (No PRC official site that I can find contains any such definition (although the Lhasa City government site that I gave a link to hints at one - and for that matter, ROC governmental sites, having effectively disavowed control of mainland, including Tibet, doesn't contain any such definition (and as I noted, has not for decades).) These are points that I'd like to see addressed, even if there is no agreement with me. A non-response is not a response, and throughout the discussion, I am feeling that I am making cogent points that I am fully aware that not all will agree with - but then effectively end up talking to a wall as neither you nor Dr. Blofeld respond to them. It is very frustrating. It has led to potentially questionable choice of language on my part (which is why, again, I'd like neutral parties involved), not to mention stress and frustration at the lack of response. I think anyone reading over the entire thread in WT:CHINA will agree that effectively we're talking in circles. I am admitting that I may have some fault in it. I do believe that my points still deserve better than a non-response to my substantive points and a response of, effectively, "I'm going to do it anyway" and "I don't care what you think" and "I'm going to ignore whatever negative consequences you bring up because I think they're not negative consequences." --Nlu (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• WP:POVFORK is not relevant to this situation, because there is no attempt to promote a POV here. Trying to label this disagreement as such is a profoundly unhelpful escalation. Kanguole 01:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  The reason why I think it is a POV-forking are this - based on the descriptions given at WP:POV fork (and again, note that the definitions don't require that the POV fork be junk or be done with bad faith - and I don't think that Aymatth2 writes junk at all):

  1. "Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. (In this case, the POV is "the prefecture-level city of Lhasa" is not really "Lhasa.")
  2. "It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance[.]" (In this case, nobody is disputing that it may be a good idea to split Lhasa; it is, however, in my opinion (which I realize may not be agreed with - which is part of the dispute) approached without balance (in this case, the two main objections that I had above that are unaddressed and dismissed in a dismissive manner (is that redundant?)).
  3. "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title." (In this case, it dodges the WP:NC-ZH consensus that, for proper styling and consistency reasons, the articles with the names of the prefecture-level cities should refer to the prefecture-level city. And, as I was objecting a few weeks back, in effect, an existing redirect is being converted into a content fork. And the last sentence of the portion I quoted effectively anticipates the situation that we are in now: that a naming dispute is being dodged by the creation of a new article.)
  4. "The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article." (That's exactly what we are having here.)
  5. "Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article." (This is, based on the tenor of the discussion, not going to be adhered to - while this description largely refers to a situation where something is being praised/attacked rather than what we have here, the description is still apt; the POV being advanced is, "Anything other than the small city of Lhasa is not really 'Lhasa'" (and note that we still do not have a proper definition, even in this discussion here).) Indeed, the tone is (in not as impolite terms, but still comes down to) "I don't care if I can't define 'Lhasa'; it's not the prefecture-level city; and I'm going to create an article that defines the prefecture-level city as 'not Lhasa' whether you like it or not, and no matter what it does to the naming convention.") This is disruptive, even if there is no intent to disrupt. And it is POV that is non-neutral. A neutral POV solution would be not intentionally creating a substantial deviation from the naming convention. It would instead address the issue of the history/culture/urban development within the article itself or within a daughter article that properly acknowledges that there could be several definitions of "Lhasa." It certainly wouldn't simply disregard (whether it ultimately deviates or not from it) the analogous situations with other prefecture-level cities.

  I don't see how why this is not POV-forking. Indeed, it seems to fit POV-forking's definitions quite well. Again, that doesn't mean that material that is being written is junk. But it is a POV fork to dodge the naming convention. --Nlu (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  There is a difference of opinion on whether or not the article should be split into two articles of different scopes. The argument is about naming conventions, while the essence of POV-forking is that the purpose of a fork is to avoid the NPOV policy. That is quite a serious accusation, and trying to recast different views about naming and scope as misconduct of that sort is very inappropriate and needs to stop. You need to find a way to get more editorial (not administrative) views on the original naming issue. Kanguole 09:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  @Kanguole: With all due respect - and perhaps your voice is the type that needs to get involved lest that I get overly heated on this - I think if you read the thread in question on WP:CHINA, you will see that that has exactly been what Aymatth2 and I have been trying to do, and that the situation is deteriorating because I am feeling that Aymatth2 is not at all responding to my concerns and perhaps the feeling is mutual. Dr. Blofeld's lack of incivility (an example is shown below with his accusing me effectively of being a PRC puppet) hurt the discussion rather than help it. It requires intervention. Call it editorial or administrative, it still requires intervention. --Nlu (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Kanguole Basically Nlu is arguing that we cannot have a separate article on the Lhasa regional unit from the city itself purely because the PRC constitutes Lhasa officially as a "prefecture-level city". What he's not seeing is that from an encyclopedia development view point just one article on a major city and the wider rural area of 13,000 square kilometres is not a feasible way to cover it. Lhasa should cover just the city and Lhasa (prefecture level city) article should overview the entire region. As I say it's much like thinking you're not allowed an article on new York State, all the info about wider rural practices must be covered and mixed in with the urban info on New York City. The naming, if that is genuinely Nlu's primary concern is a minor issue at best and can quite easily be settled by hatnotes, whatever we call them. As I say I think Lhasa should cover the city and Lhasa (prefecture-level city) should cover the region, as that appears to be the official regional type.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Nlu: Mount Nyenchen Tanglha is 7,162 metres (23,497 ft) high. The Pangduo Hydro Power Station generates 599 GWh annually. Reting Monastery in Lhünzhub County was founded in 1057. The article on Lhasa is mostly about the small city, as it should be, and does not give this type of information about the broader area. It is bizarre to say a proposal to add an article on the region would be an attempt to create a POV fork and an incident that requires administrator intervention. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  @Aymatth2: This is still not a definition. It points to what is in it, but not to the extent. (Plus, it's also not defined by a particular verifiable source or sources.) Is "Apple headquarters and its surrounding areas" a proper definition of Cupertino, California? You might say so, based on the analogy above. I don't. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nlu, have you actually been monitoring what Aymatth has accomplished to date for Lhasa regional articles? It's the best work I've seen done regionally in China for quite some time. WP:China is lucky he's spending a lot of time on this. Just let him get on with it eh? Your excessive concern about territory here just looks to me as if you're thinking "Oh no, tremble tremble, what are PRC going to think, I might be shot for allowing this, this is terrible". I think it's quite clear in sources what is referring to the city and the wider region, we don't need to define the exact boundaries anyway. The PRC obviously have a rough idea that the urban area constitutes 53 square km though, so there is actually some official boundary in existence. Whatever we call the article, a hatnote and the actual content of the article should make it crystal clear what we're doing anyway and no reader is going to worry about it. This is totally inappropriate for ANI, an admin please close.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your New York analogy is broken, because New York City and the state are not the same; if we want to use the New York analogy, Lhasa is New York, and the New York City analogue is Chengguan District. Dr. Blofeld, what do you mean by "an article on the region"? Tibet Autonomous Region#Administrative divisions makes it look as if there's no regional intermediary between the city and the autonomous region. WP:NC-ZH says The default naming pattern is "X Class", e.g. Taihang Mountains, Hai River, Fei County. Articles for provinces and cities can leave out the class name, e.g. Liaobei, Beijing. Since the page requires the city article to be at Lhasa, and since the city embraces 30,000 km², not just the little urban core, can you explain how Lhasa should cover the city and Lhasa (prefecture-level city) should cover the region is in line with the naming convention? The convention must be followed, regardless of contrary discussion at the talk page, and administrative tools need to be used if it's repeatedly violated. Nyttend (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is inappropriate, Dr. Blofeld, and you know it. And this is the kind of dismissive behavior that I'm talking about. The lack of any verifiable, non-original research definition of what "Lhasa" (the small city) is is a real problem with the five pillars of Wikipedia, not the "five pillars of PRC." (Specifically, this is not-NPOV - with the OR prohibitions part of being that - and you, throughout this discussion, have been at least borderline uncivil and now have gone into full-blown incivility; I feel that Aymatth2 (and admittedly, possibly myself) have also bordered on it due to the lack of intervention, which is exactly what I'm trying to get.) This is an attack based on ethnicity/national origin and is entirely inappropriate. (As I've said, I'm from Taiwan; but had my view points been expressed by an editor from the PRC, it would still be inappropriate.) Again, this kind of thinking is why exactly this is a POV fork. This kind of thinking underlined the unilateral efforts to break the WP:NC-ZH convention - which was reached by Wikipedia editors, not imposed by the PRC or any other government. Again, POV forking. Not with bad intentions. But POV forking nonetheless. And this kind of thinking taints the otherwise valuable efforts to contribute. --Nlu (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Nlu:. Officially, for census purposes, metropolitan Lhasa consists of the six urban neighborhoods of Chengguan District, Lhasa. It has sprawled into towns in Doilungdêqên County like Donggar and Niu New Area. Many reliable sources such as Interpreting Urbanization in Tibet talk of the city in this way. We just have to follow the sources. There is no original research needed, no biased point of view. There is indeed a relatively compact built-up area surrounded by a huge and thinly populated area of mountains and grasslands. It is quite standard to describe two such areas in two articles. If the project naming conventions do not allow for that, an exception can be made. But this is not the place to discuss the question – the planned Requested Move is the place for the discussion. There is no incident here that needs administrator attention. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounds very similar to Honolulu vs. Honolulu County:

    Honolulu County (officially known as the City and County of Honolulu, formerly Oahu County) is a consolidated city–county located in the U.S. state of Hawaii. The City and County includes both the city of Honolulu (the state's capital and largest city) and the rest of the island of Oʻahu, as well as several minor outlying islands, including all of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (islands beyond Niihau) except Midway Atoll.

    For statistical purposes, the U.S. Census Bureau recognizes the approximate area commonly referred to as "City of Honolulu" (not to be confused with the "City and County") as a census county division (CCD).

  • --NE2 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, quite similar, and it would be unfeasible to bloat the Honolulu main article with bloat about economic practices and geography of the entire island wouldn't it? For encyclopedia development purposes we have two areas of focus, one on the urban area itself and one on the overall wider region.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Chaldean Catholic Church article

sock rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:C.Fred and User:DoRD are abusing and violating their roles as Wikipedia editors, and I believe these two editors may actually be the same person or are working together to enforce their personal point of view on several Wikipedia pages. This issue needs to be investigated. These two editors (we will assume they are two people for the sake of this notice) are confiscating certain pages associated with the Chaldean people (and Chaldean Church) and will not allow anyone to make edits to these pages which do not match the personal point of view of C.Fred and DoRD. As you will see from the pages, “Chaldean Catholic Church,” “Chaldean Christians,” “Chaldean Neo-Aramaic,” “Tel keppe” and “Raphael Bidawid" are a few examples of pages related to the Chaldean people/Chaldean Church, which are being hijacked by these two editors and they are abusing their authority in this matter. The issue at hand is these editors C.Fred and DoRD have a personal point of view (which is politically motivated) that members of the Chaldean Catholic Church (or Chaldean Christians) are ethnically Assyrians, not Chaldeans. Members of the Chaldean Catholic Church have attempted to update these pages with correct SOURCED information, but C.Fred and DoRD are using underhanded and dirty methods to stop any changes to these pages which do not match their personal point of view. I believe C.Fred and DoRD are advancing their personal point of view in this matter for political reasons, as the Assyrians are trying to steal Chaldean towns away from the Chaldeans in Iraq. The unethical methods used by these editors include: 1. Deactivating the account of anyone who changes the pages with sourced information that does not match the personal point of view of C.Fred and DoRd. For example, Suraya90 was deactivated by these two editors for updating Chaldean pages with information not matching the point of view of these two editors. 2. Locking the Chaldean pages mentioned above so that no one can edit them with information not matching the personal point of view of C.Fred and DoRD. For example, see the history behind the “Chaldean Catholic Church” and “Chaldean Christians” pages. Members of the Chaldean Catholic Church added correct updates to these pages and included TEN sourced references, many of these sourced references were from leaders of the Chaldean Catholic Church. Who would know who its church members are better than the leaders of a church? But, since this update does not match the personal point of view and political agenda of C.Fred, C.Fred removed the updates and locked the pages. 3. C.Fred continues to block any IP address which updates these Chaldean pages with information not matching C.Fred’s personal point of view. The following IP pages were blocked from editing for this reason. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.158.61.66 http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/107.77.87.118 http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.158.61.66 Wikipedia Account: Suraya90 Due to these factors, C.Fred and DoRD should have their editor credentials revoked. They are tremendously and unethically violating Wikipedia policies. Additionally, C.Fred and DoRD should not be allowed any editorial abilities when it comes to the following pages, due to their trying to push their own point of view and political agenda: a) Chaldean Catholic Church; b) Chaldean Christians; c) Chaldean Neo-Aramaic; d) Raphael Bidawid; and e) Tel keppe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warda2015 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What originally appeared to me as a simple content dispute has revealed itself over time to be abusive editing. Please compare the contributions of the blocked IPs to blocked user ChaldeanEthnicity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I think you'll agree, as I did, that we have a sockpuppetry situation. In the talk page of the articles in question, there has been discussion of the situation, and consensus emerged to not use the term Chaldean as an ethnicity, using Assyrian instead. When User:ChaldeanEthnicity was blocked, (s)he has resorted to editing anonymously. Frankly, I don't have a personal opinion in the matter—other than that a blocked user should not be gaming the system by editing while not logged in. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As noted at the top of this page in nice big red text, you must notify users if you are raising an issue which concerns them here. I've done so for you. Sam Walton (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

sock rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Pages regarding the Chaldean people and the Chaldean Church have been confiscated by vandals such as USer:C.Fred who tries to push his/her own political agenda. The Chaldean people have made several attempts to correct our Chaldean peoples' pages from vandalism and to stop C.Fred & other politically motivated Assyrians from inputting their own personal opinion and political agenda into the Chaldean pages. C.Fred uses various unethical and abusive methods to advance his/her personal point of view and political agenda. If we are providing 10 sourced references, many from leaders of the Chaldean Catholic Church, these references should not be removed to advance C.Fred's POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warda2015 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Politically motivated Assyrians, including C.Fred, are attempting to get land in Iraq for Assyrians, but the majority of Iraqi Christians are actually Chaldeans. Therefore, these politically motivated Assyrians have decided they need to refer to all Chaldeans on Wikipedia as actually Assyrians and replace any reference to Chaldean history with Assyrian history, in order to help their political agenda of acquiring land in Iraq. The theft of the Chaldean culture and heritage is is a violation of Chaldeans international human rights and User:C.Fred must be stopped from his unethical and abusive actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warda2015 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Warda2015 (talk · contribs) blocked as an obvious sock of someone, probably ChaldeanEthnicity (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, yes, I blocked Suraya90 (talk · contribs) as a block evading, checkuser confirmed sock of ChaldeanEthnicity (talk · contribs). Warda2015 (talk · contribs) is a likely sock of them as well. Other than that, I've had no activity related to this topic. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like there's a new sock that's arrived:

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

Do I need to file a sockpuppet report for this new IP, or is there enough evidence for an admin to act on this IP directly? I'd like another set of eyes besides my own on this. —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This IP is in the wrong location to be the same person. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Rihanna pages

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

---

Anything to do with Rihanna's pages they are ignoring the 3RR rule which they were blocked over that a few weeks back; and to make matters worse threatening to get an admin involved so I told them bring it on so can someone please block them as they haven't learnt their lesson from the other week 20:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.240.181 (talk)

Reporter blocked for lame edit-warring and personal attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why, this looks quite like the above.... -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Conduct of TheRedPenOfDoom

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

---

Topic ban requested.

User TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom is violating WP:DE, and has made bad faith edits to the Gamergate controversy article. TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom apparently feels the article is some kind of war-zone. I am an editor with relatively few edits, however my interest in wikipedia was rekindled after seeing the recent media attention regarding gamergate. I attempted to make a very minor edit to the article and was immediately met with a bellicose attitude both at the article itself [244] as well as at my talk page [245].

I made numerous attempts to civilly discuss the article, all of which were met with silence. [246]

I'll say here what I did there: Like it or not, the Gamergate article is drawing a tremendous amount of attention right now, and as it stands many feel the article could use improvement. Not everyone is on one "side" or another, I choose to believe there are many like me who want the article to fairly represent, according to the guidelines of wikipedia, what RS are reporting. If anyone here has trouble believing me, I urge you to attempt a minor edit at the Gamergate article and see for yourself the hostility you receive from a small but powerful group of editors. I had NO axe to grind but frankly am dismayed at the behavior of user TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom.

On a positive note, it seems a number of other editors are helpful and constructive, even if they have differing viewpoints. Again, it is a very small minority that is damaging the wikipedia community through bad faith, discouraging new editors from participating.

Marcos12 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain, Marcos12, how placing the standard Gamergate discretionary sanctions notice on your talk page is "bellicose". And for that, you come here to ANI? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response, the sanctions notice is not the problem - I was referring to the sarcastic "Oh Welcome Yet Another Wikiepdia Editor..". On top of that I attempted to discuss this with TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom and was promptly ignored. I thought the idea of wikipedia was to welcome new users "in good faith". It does not appear TRPOD got the memo. Marcos12 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Conduct of Rockcat57

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

---

A user by the name of Rockcat57 Made some edits to the Suzy Kolber article, which when reverted by a me (as I mistaked his edits for OR), lead to many WP:CIVIL violations by him. That uncvilty can be seen on this edit summary and with a passive aggressive message he left on my talk page. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner: No, Rockcat57 has been removing poorly sourced info from a WP:BLP. IMDB is not a reliable source and after a brief search I could not find any decent source for that info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take fault for that. But his reactions to my edits were still uncivil. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner: How's this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

While their response may have been uncivil, Weegee, surely you can understand why they got worked up to begin with?! They removed poorly-cited information with a perfectly reasonable explanation, and you re-added it multiple times without addressing their reason for removing it at all. I'd get pissed off too. You made a mistake, and instead of apologizing, you're creating further unnecessary drama by filing a report here? Come on...we don't even normally provide civility enforcement, much less over something as minor and trivial as this. Swarm ^X 23:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Kristina451 wikipedia stalker

Kristina451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) filed a false claim of sockpuppeting against me on this noticeboard to harass me. She claims that she is genuinely interested in editing articles after I had exposed her WP:COI.

I did a further search into Kristina451's background. It appears that during the last WP:COIN investigation into Kristina451, she claimed to the administrators that she was genuinely interested in editing the IEX article and that her account name was not created to harass Sophie.grothendieck. This turned out to be a huge lie:

- It appears that the functionaries must have found evidence of harassment and forced Kristina451 to change his/her account name. They did not ban him/her just in case he/she was genuinely interested in editing rather than harassing Sophie.grothendieck. However, after the name change, he/she clearly lost interest in editing the article because he/she lost purpose of harassing Sophie.grothendieck and immediately stopped editing. This seems to be a violation of the good faith that the functionaries have shown Kristina451 and displays that his/her intention was to harass people rather than to edit articles.

- Kristina451 waited a long time for the functionaries' attention on him/her to die down before coming back. When she returned, her first edit Sophie.grothendieck was to file this probably false report on the administrator's noticeboard to harass Sophie.grothendieck again and she went straight back to editing articles of which she had previously been accused of a WP:COI.

I believe that Kristina451 is just repeating his/her pattern here and trying to harass David Adam Kess and myself instead and he/she is repeating her lie that she wants to go back to editing articles. I recommend a block on Kristina451's account.

PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is what happens if obvious socks go unchecked for days. Kristina451 (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the future please notify the person who you are taking to ANI, thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

*Sorry about that, Knowledgekid87! I've added his/her username! PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It doesn't get any more duckish than this: [247] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, now as you are investigating this, I also wanted to mention that Calboarder24, Shazam puta and Kristina451 are the same person. Kristina451 appears to have created the Shazam puta account to fabricate the claim against me and Kristina451's recent edits on an obscure wall and the converging timelines of their account histories seem to associate her with Calboarder24. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• LOL - David Adam Kess gets blocked; days later an IP starts editing the same articles and gets blocked for sock-block evasion; days later PortugueseManofPeace starts editing the same articles. Collectively, we Wikipedia editors might not be so bright. But we're not that stupid. Quack! St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

MelissaHebert is another interesting one. And by interesting, of course, I mean "suspicious". St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• The puppet master tried to blame the socks on David Adam Kess who I still think is not involved. Looking at the sock's comments and behaviour, the sock master obviously is 'Sophie.grothendieck', the first named account of a person involved in the high-frequency trading (HFT) hedge fund called Domeyard [248]. This easily explains all the HFT related POV pushing. In any case, it is time to block the obvious socks. Kristina451 (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory gets fresher by the day! You invented a Shazam puta and now you invented a Dome Yard on your talk page, you aren't very creative with names aren't you? Who are you going to associate me with next? There is no HFT point of view in Akafeatfuasty's or mine if you actually bothered reading my edits and truth-check.

[Kristina451's version] Nanex critcizes vocal users of high-frequency trading

[Akafeatfuasty's version] Nanex critcizes vocal users of high-frequency trading and dark liquidity

[Kristina451's version] HFT firms make up the low margins with incredible high volumes of tradings,

[My version] HFT firms make up the low margins with incredibly high volumes of trades,

This actually shows that you're mass undoing the revisions without any discretion, which shows that you are the one with an WP:COI here, which is what Akafeatfuasty alleged in the first place on #wikipedia-en-help ^connect and that's why I was helping her! You're just throwing up dust in the air with this conspiracy theory to get all of us banned when you are the real issue. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

You just stalk everyone else who edits your beloved articles, which is what others have discovered before me. What is your problem? PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As usual, false claims made up on the spot. What you purport to be in the HFT article (your first link) was never there. And nobody undid that minor prose improvement in the second link. I have no idea why this endless sock trolling and disruption is supposed to continue. Kristina451 (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Good grief, the quacking is so loud my ears hurt. Admins can we please get a hyper-obvious duck-block for PortugueseManofPeace and MelissaHebert please. Really, any admin with 10 seconds free time would do. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sexually provocative images on user pages

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

---

Abandoned account user page full of porn

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

---

User:Kingstonjr Account appears abandoned [249]. The user last edited in 2012. What is the policy regarding this? Can we just delete the porn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.8.170 (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've tagged it for speedy deletion. I assume the user has returned to Pornopedia or wherever he came from. APK whisper in my ear 11:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Done — Ched :  ?  11:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Here is a post [250] User:Kingstonjr made to an editor banned by Jimbo back in 2006: Yeah you are very beautiful! Could you email me some too? hornyhare@.**.** (Redacted email). I am pretty sure that is not what Wikipedia is for. The below accounts are all coping each other's pictures with BDSM and nude spreading and editing each other. They may be sock accounts but I am unsure. Most of the Users have not edited in years however 1 revert on their user page brings back all the porn or whatever you want to call them pics. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

An Abandoned USER PAGE Full of Sexually provocative Images

User:Joe1234 is a mirror of the one above and even mentions it, although another editor removed some of the images in 2006 there is still plenty of porn jpg files listed. [251] The editor last edited in 2006. [252] 172.56.8.170 (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I would hardly call that "Full of porn" (nothing like the one above) but, to each their own. Mlpearc (open channel) 13:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done — Ched :  ?  13:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't get to see the other user page, but unless the page was only an image gallery, only the images should have been removed while leaving the rest of the page. Also, I wouldn't call the images on this user page porn. Yes, many of them contain nudity, however, nudity is not the same as porn. —Farix (t | c) 13:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Another editor removed most of the pics. All it takes is one revert and they are there. I will not argue semantics about porn but BDSM pics are there. There are several accounts linked to above KingstonJR and even a page that directs to accounts with porn pics and to users self identified as teenage females. There was crap going on back in 2006. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any real "porn" there. But if you think some of the images need to be restricted to certain articles, there is a process to go through. (I don't know the details, though.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They would need to be added to MediaWiki:Bad image list. The process is outlined on the talk page. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The images in question are pretty tame, but the user could try it if he's of a mind to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I was just putting the link there to be helpful. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Why are we wasting time defending this space? Lightbreather (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing it has something to do with principle, slippery slope, resistance to Wikipedia activism, and other such wastes of time. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files,
    • Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, AND...
    • Wikipedia is not censored - is about ARTICLES. Don't you guys have articles to work on? I do. Lightbreather (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Userpages states:There is broad consensus that you should not have any image in your userspace that would bring the project into disrepute and you may be asked to remove such images. Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit or using Wikipedia only as a web host or personal pages or for advocacy, may be removed by any user (or deleted), subject to appeal at deletion review.[Note 2] Context should be taken into account. Simple personal disclosures of a non-provocative nature on sexual matters (such as LGBT userboxes and relationship status) are unaffected. The matter is already settled. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Read the whole paragraph. One of the last sentences is that "Context should be taken into account." The list of images is essentially just a list of images that might be subject to censorship on other sites. Now, whether that hits the "clearly intended as sexually provocative" element is, I think, a matter that should be discussed. It strikes me that the user page is no worse than certain individual categories over at Commons. Most of the subcategories of Commons:Category:Nudity, for instance. Admittedly, Commons is another project, but that we're connected with it suggests to me that those category pages themselves wouldn't "bring the project into disrepute". Of course, userspace is a bit different, and the context includes the statement that Wikipedia is not censored followed by a bunch of explicit images. Perhaps there's an intent to "shock", but if so, it's a very mild shock. My point, in short, is that there are a lot of factual determinations that the wording of the user page policy tees up. It's not as black and white as suggested above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is there isn't a "image" on that page, they're all links (and most are pictures of everyday celebrities/models). Mlpearc (open channel) 15:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Go down to the user's page history a little ways, just before someone chopped all the images. It's worth noting that among the nude stuff there were conventional pictures of random things of beauty in nature, which is possibly the point the user was trying to make - nine years ago. And as you say, the links (the ones that aren't red) in the current userpage are to various starlets, which are generally no worse than PG-rated. The OP here might be on a mission of some kind, but he's barking up the wrong tree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And I see the OP has posted this ANI on the page of user Hashbrowns, on the same theory - that someone could revert the reversion and re-post the "porn". The OP is a busybody who should be sent packing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Bugs see WP:NPA, please use better manners or take a break.

NOTE Read post carefully. The 3rd to last revision of the user page is full of sexually provocative images BDSM and spreading. Anyone can restore them. The user did not take them down. Another editor did. The user has not edited in since 2006. The violating pics should be removed so they cannot be restored. It would make since to delete the user page as it had little value. Of course someone could remove the edits that put the offending material in there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.8.170 (talk) 15:46, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

The images are no longer on the user page. That is all that matters. These editors are no longer active on Wikipedia and there is no reason to delete their userpages. Just because the image galleries can be restored is not a reason to delete the pages wholesale. —Farix (t | c) 15:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

To someone on a censorship mission, it IS a reason to delete. If the user is serious and not trolling, he needs to follow user G S Palmer's link and do things the right way. And while there, he'll see how tame this stuff is compared to the "bad" images. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that BDSM and spreading is sexually provocative, what is at commons is irrelevant and faulty logic. We are talking about user page contents not commons. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Do YOU find them provocative? And how did they got on your radar in the first place? Were you LOOKING FOR provocative? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The images were removed from the user pages years ago, so they are no longer an issue. Why are you even going back through ancient user page histories in the first place? —Farix (t | c) 16:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that BDSM and spreading is sexually provocative. Says who? We are talking about user page contents not commons. Read my entire post. To elucidate: The rule of the userpage policy is to avoid bringing the project into disrepute. If you have a situation where the project is not at risk of being brought into disrepute (e.g., by partially mirroring pages found on Commons, which is a Foundation project with close ties to Wikipedia) it really doesn't matter that the content might be found by some to be sexually provocative.
Honestly, a better understanding of the userpage policy would be to serve as a gap-filler for where images aren't yet put on the bad images list (or might not clearly qualify), or haven't yet been deleted (Commons deletion can take awhile), or where there's a creative product on the userpage that's provocative (e.g., placing an image of a living person next to an image of a man ejaculating for effect), or where there's erotic fiction on a userpage.
In short, I haven't seen any argument that particular images on that userpage bring the project into disrepute, nor have I seen any particular explanation why the collection of such images in this specific case brings the project into disrepute. Let me leave you with this question: Would we say a prolific uploader of encyclopedic images of nudity or sexuality couldn't display a list of works uploaded on their userpage? Editors get broad latitude with their userpages for good reason. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The OP is now trolling user Lightbreather, where the closest thing I see to a "provocative" image is the famous WWII image of "Rosie the Riveter". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the OP is canvassing selected editors, presumably to help boost the argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

To hell with the "canvassing" guideline. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, WP:IGNORE it. The material in question does NOTHING to improve the encyclopedia, but removing it does. There are plenty of other places for editors who like that kind of stuff to go and find it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

MfD User:Joe1234

Miscellany for Deletion: User:Joe1234. Lightbreather (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

USER Page contains Images in Violation of WP:Userpages

Debate that should have been at WP:MFD

USER:Jbc01 user page full of Nude BDSM images violate WP:Userpages There is broad consensus that you should not have any image in your userspace that would bring the project into disrepute and you may be asked to remove such images. Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit Can the objectionable images be permanently deleted from user page so they will not be reverted? Or can the user page be speedy delete as it has not been used in over 2 years and contains sexually provocative images? I find, you admins figure it out. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC) That's simply nudity, no sexual acts are being performed and it appears it is one person showing the pictures they uploaded and then used in articles(meaning they were added for legitimate purposes in contravention of wiki policy). At most I would support hatting but other then showing some skin it isn't like it is depicting graphic sex acts. I would look at the IP's history, it looks like it's only being used to bring people to ANI or give ANI notices. I wonder if this is a good faith attempt or an evasion of scrutiny? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC) There are no sexually provocative images on that user page. While their may have been some nude images in the past, they are no longer there. So just why are you going through ancient user page histories of inactive editors? —Farix (t | c) 16:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC) That's more than just nudity. The current version of the page shows BDSM stuff, which some find acceptable and some find offensive as a form of violence against women. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC) That stuff is very tame. If someone finds such mild images offensive, the problem is with that someone, not with the images. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Tameness is subjective. Also, I think when images of violence (even staged violence) are depicted in relation to a specific gender (or ethnic group), members of that group might find it less tame than non-members. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC) There's no requirement that the public endorse Fifty Shades of Grey, but we can't cow-tow to their censorship either. If you're concerned about it being one-sided, look for some images of men tied up also, as I'm sure there are many. And speaking of "offensive images", the last time I looked, we had depictions of Muhammad in his article here - that kind of thing is a degree of "offensive" that has driven some zealots to murder, but we don't cow-tow to censorship there either. So try to keep things in perspective. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC) How did towing cows get into it? EEng (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC) He means "we can't tow cows to their censorship", that is, if we are to sacrifice cows (or any other valuable commodity; cows are just an example) to their censorship, they have to go under their own power (that is, of their own free will). Herostratus (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Is it like when someone said "you can lead a cow to culture but you can't make her think"? Or are they sacred cows? Is that it? EEng (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC) The user in question hasn't posted since 2012. This isn't an article on the topic of nudity or bondage, it's a user page. Even if you consider this "tame" or soft core, is the point of user pages is to host free porn? How does it benefit the encyclopedia to continue to host this non-active user's BDSM image gallery?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC) In fact, go to Commons and look under Category:BDSM subcategory Male submission, and try arguing that that's the same level of "provocative" as these long-abandoned user accounts have in their user page histories. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC) If you find an abandoned account being used to host images of nude guys who are tied, gagged and bound, I'd say delete that too, because it's not an article on the topic of bondage. User space isn't suppose to be your own personal website or porn site.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete Wikipedia isn't cloud space for wankers to keep links to their favorite wanking material. Lightbreather (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Would you have come here if the IP hadn't canvassed you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Canvass-schmanvass. Canvass is a GUIDELINE. And one notice is canvassing? But even if it were 100 notices, this is the kind of situation made for WP:IAR. Lightbreather (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC) IAR is not a get out of jail free card. It is to be used only when appropriate and necessary. KonveyorBelt 18:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Bugs you have been very insulting to the editors here. You cannot call editors busy bodies or trolls on a mission. I suggest you go strike through those, not remove or I will start another ANI. Your arguments are off topic, it is about userpage content as the above editor already stated. Stick to the subject as your bringing up commons is irrelevant here. P.S. I notified a long time admin to come look at this and he may not appreciate your personal attacks here either. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete User Page The account is abandoned and the pictures are sexually provocative which violates user page guidelines. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete per Lightbreather. I mean, I guess if the user ever comes back, then he could bring it up for undeletion, but if it's not being used, and it's sitting around holding tasteless, unencyclopedic images, then there's no net positive. Wikipedia has many underage readers/editors, there is a legality concern when it's not encyclopedic. — kikichugirl speak up! 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete images but leave the user page The user might come back. This user returned in 2012 after not being active since 2009. They also took a long break between 2005-2009. However, in the meantime, I see no reason and no benefit to the encyclopedia to continue to host his image gallery. User space is not for personal websites or personal porn sites. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC) It appears the user page in question is that of an editor who is interested in this subject, has contributed to those types of articles, and started several more as well. The User's page is split into the sections "Articles I have started", "Articles I have contributed to", and "My Pictures", of which a number of them appear in actual articles. In the "Articles I have contributed to", the user apparently kept a tally of how many of his images were included (15 by my count). What I gather from this is that the intention of the editor is not "free porn hosting", but material connected to what the editor thinks they have accomplished in contributing to articles they are interested in, which is a typical behavior in regard to what a lot of editors put on their userpage. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC) They haven't edited in two years, and articles they've started? Fucking Machines dot com? This kind of crap makes Wikipedia a laughingstock. Lightbreather (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Azzure it irrelevant to what they edited. The rule is clear sexually provocative images are forbidden on user talk pages. If you want to change that this is not the place. Their talk page will still be there and they can still log in. The user page will be deleted for violating guidelines. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC) And here we go with the canvassing. Prepare for a storm of pile on "delete" votes from the usual GGTF crew. KonveyorBelt 17:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC) I am getting sick and tired of the misuse of allegations of "canvassing." I think a lot of people need to re-read that guideline and quit misusing it as an excuse to try to discredit others. You think I'm canvassing? Bring a formal charge - otherwise, knock it off. Lightbreather (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC) @Konveyor Belt: Stop with the commentary. And go re-read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. This would fall under Vote-banking, as many of the members there have strong views about women's rights. KonveyorBelt 18:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete images or move to sandbox I see no purpose to the image other than gratuitous display. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete. It doesn't benefit building the encyclopedia in any way. Deli nk (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Comment Yet another example of dodgy work by Lightbreather, I notice. She has left a note at WT:GGTF but change the title of the report here, omitting the "Alleged". That amounts to canvassing because it is not neutral. When will this gaming be stopped? - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Sitush, that seemed rather minor. What seems not neutral is you asserting above "when will this gaming be stopped". Your interest in GGTF seems hard to figure out. Seems all you do there is criticize and/or engage in battleground. Either way, to address any potential concerns, I edited the notice so it matches the exact title of this ANI thread. [253]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC) It is not minor. She skewed the message and, which is arguably worse, she didn't notify other projects that might have an interest, such as the porn project. Again, she has been warned about that before. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete, as this is not even constructive. Also, WP:NOTANADULTWEBSITE applies. Epic Genius (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Delete - Personally I see no reason why you'd want BDSM on your userpage anyway?, Certain things should be kept in the bedroom or dungeon which ever way you wanna look at it. –Davey2010Talk 17:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Comment. I strongly suggest that we stop discussing here, which is not an appropriate venue to discuss content of user pages, and, if needed, continue at WP:MFD.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)  Done Moved to MfD. Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC) It doesn't matter what people are 'voting' on here, there is no incident and the page isn't against Wiki guidelines. This is absurd and an admin should close this now. Dave Dial (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Move to close: This is the wrong venue. ANI is not MFD. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

MfD Notice

Notice of MfD for User:Jbc01. Lightbreather (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

IP violating WP:CANVASS and the spirit of WP:SPA

User:172.56.8.170 seems to be on some sort of ...crusade... for a lack of a better term. Serous question, are we ok with this? CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No, we are not OK. They should move to WP:MFD. What is going on here is out of process and besides a grand waste of time.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done MfDs opened. Lightbreather (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment on the content not the contributor would seem to apply here. Is there any benefit to the encyclopedia in maintaining these user pages?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI is pretty much the one place commenting on the contributor is ok, but thank you for randomly quoting a saying because it sounded rightish. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your welcome. Any chance you could address the content issue here regarding any potential benefit to WP in maintaining these user pages? Why hassle an IP editor if they are actually being productive? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP should get an award. He/She acted to improve the encyclopedia. Lightbreather (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Def. getting the whiff of socks around here from this alone. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The appropriate award will be a lengthy block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm very curious about who the IP is. Is it a signed-out editor? GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Who was it that was so obsessed with the Wikipe-tan cartoon character a few years ago? Whoever it was, that's one possible candidate. And from time to time on ANI, we get users screaming "think of the children" and such as that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria is the one with the Wikipe-tan obsession, and still attempts to remove images from the page every now and then. But I seriously doubt that she has any connection with this IP. —Farix (t | c) 20:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that the one page they tried to get deleted is now fixed to reasonable expectations, I suggest we just wrap this up and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It must be snowing in Phoenix BB and I agree on a subject....for everyone else see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A blind squirrel still finds an acorn sometimes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

IP has been blocked by Mike V for persistent editing while logged out, block evasion, vandalism, and password reset abuse. —Farix (t | c) 22:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by User:80.111.174.103 on The Salute Tour

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

---

User:80.111.174.103 has been persistent in editing and reverting false information on this page over the last week. They edit the setlist linking a song to an unrelated artist and continue to try to alter the sourced name of the opening act. This user also has a prior history of inserting inaccurate information into this article and was warned and banned as User:80.111.184.146 in the past for disruptive editing. They have been asked to provide sources for their edits and warned repeatedly to stop adding and re-adding inaccurate and unsourced information but continue to revert back to their unsourced content. Morhange (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [254]
2. [255]
3. [256]
4. [257]
5. [258]
6. [259]
7. [260]
8. [261]

Semi-protected 1 week. Please discuss on talk page why it is incorrect to link it as a cover song. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Rohingya article

Rainmaker23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When I started editing this article in 2011, it was nothing more than random news collection. My hope was nothing more than to present accurate information without personal prejudices. But soon, I received a wave tirades from Burmese nationalists: "The article apparently is edited only by Muslims and Rohingya Supporters in Myanmar and noting is neutral." After that, some other editors contributed a part. So it went on. But after 2012, the Rohingya received international attention. So I expanded it accordingly, using sources from foremost experts such as Jacques Leider and Derek Tonkin. I also expanded humanitarian situations about them using sources from Amnesty International, and International Crisis Group as well as authoritative books from my university library. But soon, I received another wave of personal attacks. Here is from Rainmaker23, "You're trying to act as an appeaser. Wikipedia is not a place for your POV pushing pro-government stand against Rohingyas." and another user, "The paragraph is written to suggest that repressions against the Rohingya were deserved." These are too much and too unfair apparently when I spent countless hours to research and obtain diverse perspectives. One focal point of attention is the note by Leider I added. No reader would fail to get what he means. But you can see at Talk:Rohingya people, people do not answer when asked for direct quotations but respond with a string of personal attacks. My hope has always been to give neutral experts' viewpoints to the readers and play a part, however trivial, in resolving the current crisis. But I am accused by both sides of being a Muslim Rohingya supporter or pro-government appeaser who believes repression against the group is deserved. This is way too much.

User Rainmaker23 wants to delete everything that suggests some people from Bangladesh immigrated to Burma after Burmese independence. I have supplied extremely reliable sources which a Stanford Professor acclaimed "the future historians will owe significant debt". Another source, Moshe Yegar for example, is a respected Israeli historian. I also provided a source to Bangladesh Ambassador himself. But Rakhinmaker23 always says I misrepresent the sources even when I have provided him/her with direct quotations. When asked for direct quotations, he failed to do so but responded with a string of personal attacks. I tried to compromise by deleting a sentence that says post 1980s immigration is very low. But he is determined to delete everything that suggests post-independence immigration. (Also note that this article already states from the 1990s onward, a lot of Rohingyas went to Bangladesh. And Ne Win's operations created an outflow of refugees to Bangladesh.) I can no longer discuss due to extreme level of personal attacks. Please help. SWH^{® talk} 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I am familiar with this user and observed his (assuming male) behavior in many Bangladesh relates articles I watch. He has a strong belief that his standpoint is always correct and his narratives are better than anyone else. He is indeed a very good editor and can help improve articles a lot. But he has hard time in dealing with other editors, heading to consensus and wants to push own POV. I have encountered and observed several incidents with him which could be ANI, but I always decided to peace out. If administrators want to investigate this incident, they may also want to have look at other incidents, specially pertaining to Bangladesh and Dhaka. BTW, he has a habit of removing Talk page contents (I do not mean his own talk page, I mean Wikipedia article talk pages) claiming they constitute personal attacks (towards other users?) or irrelevant (!). A recent incident that bother me a lot was when I tried to partake in a discussion on Talk:Bangladesh#History where he (in)advertently went furious, made challenge, blanked discussion indeed and went to removing a message on my talk where he tried to get help from me on an encounter with another user. – nafSadh did say 17:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment User:Soewinhan, I did not engage in attacking you. It was your last personal comment at me which provoked my response. You brought major changes to the article this February, replacing the lede with many unbalanced statements. You are claiming that Rohingyas are different from the "original" Bengalis who settled in Arakan- in that case do you consider them to be illegal immigrants or non-Bengali? If you consider the Rohingya community to be illegal outsiders, that is absurd. Your sources clearly document Rohingya roots in pre-colonial Burma.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Nafsadh, I've asked for your opinion on occasions, I've sought to engage with you. I conceded to you on several issues. And yet you don't relent. What do you want? --Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz admin with WP:OWN issues.

I am a contributor to many African themed articles. I have no record of disruptive behavior (one or two edit wars, no blocks) only rock solid contributions across many African themed pages. Esp where LEADS are concerned. I have come across user Malik Shabazz for years and rarely clashed] (but if we do guess who is always right?). Yet he tell me to GO AWAY] from Malcolm X and when you look at the edit I made it is very hard to understand what could possibly provoke such an aggressive reaction. He claims I did not bring sources. am.. the rationale for my edits are related to WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD how do you bring a RS for lead judgements? He then continues to threaten me with AN/I well I got here first. Please note, his TALK page contribution to the issue is sparse, except to tell me about Disruptive behavior per the criteria of disruptive behavior I think we all can see my edits do not meet that criteria. Not sure why he fails to WP:AGV and insults people as if I am a vandal to be pushed away. My issues on the Talk have been washed out by his bullying tactics. The habit of revert is not new to this admin, nor are his useless childish threats (i been here for yonks I know the rules). He also pretends my view is only mine, when on the very talk page others agree with my issue. In a nutshell I do not need this tone, discuss the article and please do not think you own an article and can revert because you have an admin title and spend 24hrs on Wikipedia. Have some Wiki manners. Last issue, I am a specialist editor, I do not deal with AN/I or these technical things, I think this is my first one so forgive any errors, I am just hear to balance this place out. --Inayity (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not to appear bitey or anything here, but it's common courtesy/a requirement (as indicated by the big red letters up top and the orange box you get when you open a thread) to notify the other party when you bring an ANI against them. It's rather rude not to. Thankfully, someone else has already done this. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Adar 5775 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that Inayity read WP:OAS, including the guidance on Featured articles (of which Malcolm X is one). I've invited him several times to discuss the article, and to cite reliable sources, but instead he has linked to a thousand-page e-book and referred to "a quick Google search and reading Black forums", and repeatedly made grammatically atrocious edits to the article.

I also recommend that he read WP:LEAD, which says "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Not quick Google searches or reading Black forums. Reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Denver Stevenson abusing talk page while blocked

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

---

Recently, User:Denver Stevenson was blocked for using Wikipedia for advertising only, however, the user has started abusing its talk page and continously reverted other's changes on that page. Please revoke talk page access. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User:No rest for you tonight!

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

---

It might just be me but I'm sensing a WP:NOTHERE probably with the aim to recreate pages ive tagged for WP:SPEEDY. If someone can nip this in the bud it would be appreciated. Amortias (T)(C) 20:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And User:Smalljim's already done it. Amortias (T)(C) 20:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Superdupersmartdude's edit after final warning

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

---

In their short stay here at Wikipedia, Superdupersmartdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has managed to demonstrate that they are unable to edit on certain issues without vitriol. They started off making generally good faith edits but with some inappropriate humor and copyvio. More recently, however, they made an inappropriate edit on Feminism, added personal analysis to a disambig page, made some colorful statements on Bernie Madoff's article, added some unsourced and inappropriate content, and went full Godwin's Law on Talk:Feminism and ended up calling users "gender-fascists", adding Maybe I should report all of you to Arbcom as part of the feminazi wikistorm which happened here a while ago, along with your feminist wikiproject, since I have nothing to hide. Count yourselves lucky I don't feel like doing that right now. The user has been templated by multiple editors on their talk page regarding their behavior, but the "gender-fascists" comment came after a final warning. Since it's not a clear case of vandalism, I'm filing this ANI to bring attention to this user's behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

New Victoria Cross award to be made

Rumours emerging that a new award of the Victoria Cross is to be made (see Talk:Victoria Cross#New award to be made). No reliable sources to confirm yet, but there's bound to be attention as the rumours spread. Recipient is said to be Joshua Leakey (redlink at time of writing) of the Parachute Regiment. Will bear keeping an eye on and keeping unreliable material out. David Underdown (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Procedure not followed on Chabad article

In the wake of a notable legal scandal in Australia involving Chabad rabbis, a relatively new user VanEman (talk · contribs) added a substantial paragraph to the Chabad article,[262] which he later, rightfully, turned into a new section.[263] A little while later, he added a paragraph of almost the same length as the previous one to the lead.[264] I reverted that edit, arguing that it is not lead material.[265] I later explained this argument in more detail in a second revert, in view of the fact that Chabad is a worldwide organization with some 250 years of history.[266]

After posting on VanEman's talkpage,[267][268] the edit war stopped, and a discussion ensued at Talk:Chabad#Child_sexual_abuse. I later thanked VanEman for stopping the edit war and starting the discussion.[269]

Then suddenly came along user Murry1975 (talk · contribs) and restored the text under discussion.[270] This he did in disregard of the fact that the discussion had started just shortly before that and only 3 editors (VanEman, me and him) had expressed their opinions so far. Not to mention that he himself had agreed in the discussion that the paragraph was definitely too long for the lead.[271]

I argued on the talkpage discussion a few times that this restore went against procedure, but Murry1975 ignores that argument completely. He does feel the need to accuse me of WP:CENSORED, WP:IDLI, WP:COI and WP:CALMDOWN (not necessarily in that order). Just to mention that Murry1975 is not a novice editor. I also posted one nice post on his talkpage,[272] to see if official dispute resolution could be avoided. Unfortunately, either I am wrong in my understanding of whether Murry1975 should have restored that new and large paragraph, or Murry1975 refuses to bow to reason.

I'd like for someone to point Murry1975 to the fact that restoring the paragraph under discussion was for various reasons the wrong call. In addition, of course, I'd like for somebody to remove it again, until a consensus emerges as to if we should mention this subject in the lead at all, and if so, at what length. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you're looking for WP:Dispute resolution, unless you're here asking for an admin to misuse their tools to enforce your preferred version. Ivanvector (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Asking for someone to remove something you dont like so you can get around the 3RR? WP:GAMING. Yes DRn is a better route. Murry1975 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector 1. Neither rebuking another editor for a wrong call nor reverting involves admin tools. 2. In my experience, which is considerable, reverting to a pre-conflict version is a normal step, which an admin may or may not opt for. In any case it would certainly not be a "wrong" choice. 3. No, I came here for an admin to review Murry1975's following of procedures. WP:DR would be about the dispute itself, which we can discuss ourselves on the talkpage, as soon as all editors are reminded that there are rules to be followed. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)