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

Reporting FreeatlastChitchat for edit waring and violating 1RR (2nd)

After FreeatlastChitchat was blocked (for the forth time!) by slakr for edit warring, he was manually unblocked provided that he adhere to WP:1RR and refrain from edit warring. Unfortunately, he kept on the disruptive behavior by violating 1RR and committing edit warring. This is his first violation of 1RR. And this one is the second time he violated it. After he opened a topic on the talk page, I tried to explain why he really could not have mass removed the article but without paying attention to the presented explanations he reverted for the second time (he reverted seyyed's revert!). Minutes after his second revert, he made a belated response (I mean he reverted for the second time without participating the TP discussion and helping to form a consensus. He reverted then he commented.) Note 1: He had been here some days ago, Although I doubt whether his major problems with civility are solved considering [1], [2] and [3]. Mhhossein (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Defense Statement from FLCC
• NOTE Mhhossein is editing MY comments and rearranging them again and again according to his wishes. An admin who reads this should stop this behavior please because it is getting damn irritating.

1. I asked my unblocking admin that if he required , I can ask editor to agree with my exact edit on Talk Pages, however he did not ask me to do so and unblocked me.
2. The article in question Tawassul has now been edited by another editor who accepted most of my deletions. He did keep a couple of websites, but commented on the TP saying that they appeared to be highly suspicious.
3. There is no official sanction on me enforcing me to adhere to 1PR. I told the blocking admin that I will try to adhere to 1PR on pages where edit warring may erupt and I have done so till now. Even now I have reverted Mhossein only once.
4. The template in question was edited by four editors, including me. I am the only one who took the matter to DRN, the other guys are plainly refusing to accept mediation, I was the one who asked for the page to be protected(Even though the protected version is not mine). I was the one who started TP discussion about the template, I am not sure what more I can do.
5. In my comment on the RS noticeboard I am commenting on a source, and have full right to call the source bad, commenting on sources and content is allowed ojn wikipedia. Furthermore my opinion is shared by an uninvolved editor on the RSN.

• Comments by a FLCC About this report

I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me. The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites. Someone had inserted a Hoax into the article I removed that. Nowhere in the entire wikipedia will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources. An admin who closes this should be kind enough to tell me for how long this nom will be hounding me. Secondly if removing unreliable sources and hoaxes is something I need permission for then why the hell should I be editing wikipedia?

• Comments from FLCC About this nom

This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding, and I have had ENOUGH of this crap. Is this guy going to revert everytime I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts). I want this nom to be sanctioned, and he should be prohibited from undoing my edits, while I shall refrain from undoing his edits. He should be sanctioned and prohibited from mentioning me on TP's or any other place in wiki, and I shall do the same. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• "I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me"; Not only you failed to refer to a single diff fitting the criteria but also per WP:HOUND you hounded me [4], [5] and [6].
• "The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites."; You even failed to notice that being merely a website is not the proper reason for deeming the source unreliable (seyyed evaluated the websites which you called unreliable.) As it appears you never check who the authors are!
• " Nowhere in the entire wikipedia will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources"; No one objected your removing of unreliable materials (if there were any) you failed to say why you mass removed plenty of reliable sources without discussion and engaged in edit warring. Some of the reliable sources you removed two times without bothering to check their reliability:

"The Shi'ite Religion: A History of Islam in Persia and Irak" by Dwight M. Donaldson , "Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul)" by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, "Sharh al-Mawahib al-ladunniyah" by Muhammad al-Zurqani and "Al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah" by Ibn Juzayy.

• "An admin who closes this ... should I be editing wikipedia?"; 99 percent the same as previous comments.
• "This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding."; Repeating "hounding" for the third time without a single diff, while I just provided three diffs which should be investigated.
• "Is this guy going to revert every time I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts)."; You made a ad hominem comment per WP:PA (I revert because I'm Shia!). I never "blindly" reverted you. As I said above you'd removed many WP:RSs and you just refrain from explaining why!
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned."; I also want him to be Topic Banned and be prohibited from editing Islam related articles for the fact that his background shows that he fails to follow the MOS of Islam related articles.
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned." I also want him to be sanctioned for he promised by saying :" I will be trying to maintain 1revert per day on the articles I edit" and then he was unblocked after his promise. But his promise was broken two times. He also promised :"I can , from now onwards, make sure that I have someone agreeing with my exact edit on the Talkpage before reverting and editing." Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note 2 (by Mhhossein) FreeatlastChitchat is trying to misleadingly paste a new comment above my comments. Considering the date of the comments recorded in history, I made my last comment on "11:48, 31 December 2015". To my surprise, 5 hours later he pasted a new comment (Defense Statement from FLCC) above all comments on "16:42, 31 December 2015"!!! Although I tried to reorder the comments based on the sequences two times, he reverted me each time and sent me a warning for vandalism. Clearly, users have the right to read the comments based on their chronological order to get the point. Mhhossein (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Moreover the "NOTE Mhhossein is editing MY comments ... " is another new comment which found its way up above all comments! It's really weird. Mhhossein (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat has been boldly editing a number of articles related to Islam (or at least has been trying to). I do not think these articles could be called controversial articles in the eyes of a normal editor and I do not think the majority of FreeatlastChitchat's edits could be considered controversial. However, for some religious fanatics everything is controversial and FreeatlastChitchat has suffered from considerable harassment (one need only look at his talk page to see that). I'd also like to say that Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a medresse for the training of fundamentalists. There is too much presentation of the obscure minutia of religious dogma presented as if there was verifiable truth to any of it. Unless a religious concept had been commented on by external sources (i.e. sources or commentators external to that particular religion or sect), I think it has no place here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be thankful If you could speak in regard to this very discussion. Mhhossein (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, it's probably a good idea to stop making minor edits to this section just to prevent archiving. If an admin sees something worthy of action, they will act - otherwise it will be archived. While I'm here, I looked at the details briefly, and I see poor behaviour on both sides. You seem unable to drop a stick, FLCC seems unable to relate to other editors collaboratively. Both of those things could very easily come back to bite either of you, and likely will, so I recommend you both let it go.
FLCC, please stop being rude, to this user and others. You are often somewhat objectionable and insulting, and far too quick to anger. You should stop that, particularly now that people are watching.
Mhhossein, please learn to let arguments expire and move on. Begoon ^talk 14:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Begoon: If you assume my good faith I should tell you that the minor edits were never aimed to prevent archiving, rather it was done to facilitate following the thread. While I'm nice to hear that you "looked at the details briefly," I have some questions:

1. How did you find me "unable to drop a stick"? I welcome the criticisms which lead to being a better editor.
2. Just tell me why should he be allowed to mass delete lots of reliable sources and materials without trying to collaboratively participate TP discussions? (I've listed many of them and am ready to present an updated list of those mass deleted reliable sources by requests.)
3. Does he need the 10th caution of being civil to stop his behavior? (he was warned to be civil by an Admin in the last ANI report.)

Anyway, thanks for your attention. Mhhossein (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think I was fairly critical of FLCC in my comments. I don't approve of their rudeness, or lack of willingness to discuss. Certainly, if a talk page discussion is started, they should contribute to finding consensus, and refrain from edit-warring in the meantime. That's what we all should do. I also agree, in general terms, with the point made above: "Unless a religious concept had been commented on by external sources (i.e. sources or commentators external to that particular religion or sect), I think it has no place here." When I referred to "dropping the stick" I was referring to the pursuit of sanctions as a "solution" to an editing dispute. The lack of response here at ANI maybe indicates that this is perhaps not yet an ANI issue, and that WP:DR would be a better route if talk page discussion is not fruitful. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 11:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion Begoon. He was warned for his major civility issues in the previous ANI. Unfortunately he has not take that seriously. SO, what would you do? Mhhossein (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd carry on editing, adhering to policy, and establish whether my edits had consensus with talkpage discussion. I'd understand that just the ability to point to a source didn't make it reliable, or necessarily worthy of inclusion, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:CHERRYPICKING. I'd pursue WP:DR before calling for sanctions, and I'd realise that I am not the only one who notices when editors don't behave well, so I don't need to fight battles when I see it happening. These things generally work out over time. Patience pays off. Begoon ^talk 12:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

All those policies are applicable only if there is a TP discussion and the editors actively participating it. In all cases coming to ANI, however, an editor should start the case and whether other editors are seeing those destruction can not justify refraining from reporting the case. I found it a proper place here per his background. By the way, I did not ask for sanctions until I saw that he asked for sanctions. Anyway, the thread is getting too long. Let's not make it longer. Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Tireless edit warring and BLP violations by FreeatlastChitChat

I am pretty sure, either there are issues with competence or IDIDNTHEAR that are leading FreeatlastChitChat to wikihound other editors and create unnecessary edit wars. He is violating BLP on Template:Criticism of religion sidebar by falsely claiming people like Sanal Edamaruku, Tarek Fatah, Amartya Sen, Meera Nanda and many more to be critic of religion. While the template had been protected because of his edit warring and rollback abuse,[7][8] he resumed edit warring without even sorting out the issues raised on talk page. He came to this template by wikihounding my edits and his only motive was to edit war with me. He also made personal attacks like "totally lying his ass off",[9] yet failing to justify his violation of WP:BLPCAT. I think that it is the time when multiple editors indeed have problem with the numerous policy violations of FreeatlastChitChat and I am supporting that another block is necessary. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@D4iNa4 You have already been told by a Wikpedia administrator that to claim that H. L. Mencken and Sanal Edamaruku were not critics of religion was, frankly, absurd. You are the one obsessed with this article and your personal version of it which only you and one other person share as compared to almost 7 other editors who oppose you based on wikipedia policies of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BLP. You have refused to talk to anyone on the talkpage, and when I opened up a request at WP:DRN a week ago, you refused to accept that too. For you, only your view matters and you have decided not to accept any other view.

Even though a TALKPAGE is the right place to discuss this I will tell you what is wrong with your view of this template. I have already told you that We do not SOURCE ANYTHING in templates. Templates exist solely BASED on the articles which populate them. Just consider the article of Sanal Edamaruku who according to your reasoning is not a critic of religion. Just read his article. It says that

1. In 2012, he was charged by the Catholic Archdiocese of Mumbai with blasphemy. He moved to Finland to evade his arrest.
2. Edamaruku has carried out investigations and demonstrations which helped expose frauds, mystics and god men.
3. Edamaruku has been critical of India's blasphemy laws, describing them as "relics of colonial legislation" which have been abused to "hound and silence" intellectuals and artists who question religious beliefs.

ALL of these facts are well sourced in this persons article. How in the name of all that is good and pure can you exclude him from a template listing critics of religion. @User:Begoon this is the kind of behavior I am faced with every single day. A person who just wants to delete material from wikipedia because it hurts his religious ideas has refused to accept the advice of a Wikipedia admin, He refuses to engage in debate at the talkpage, and refuses to participate in DRN. Just what is a person supposed to do here? @User:Slakr you unbanned me when I said I will adhere to 1PR, when you come online just explain to me how am I supposed to work with this kind of hostility? A COMPLETE refusal to participate in any debate and a complete refusal to even look at the facts which are written right in front of his eyes. What am I supposed to do? And this is not on just one article, every religious article is like some kind of holy shrine to one or two fanatics who treat it like a religious artifact which should be revered by all, they do not give a single thought to wmf:Resolution:Controversial content and think that if something offends their religion, it should be just removed ALONG with the editor who dared to insert it in the wikipedia article And a person like me, who wants to put just a smidge of rationality back into these articles is either hounded until he is forced to leave the wiki or is pushed into a corner until I say something harsh which is at once reported to ANI. Perhaps it is high time the other side explains their actions as well. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out the hypocrisy of the above statement from FreeatlastChitchat wherein he states "A person who just wants to delete material from wikipedia because it hurts his religious ideas" which is EXACTLY what HE has been doing at the Racism_in_Italy, specifically the fact that he chooses to delete/revert all mentions of a racist author, Cesare Lombroso, being Jewish, when a) he self-identifies as Jewish b) he wrote an entire book on "anti-semitism" c) he contributed many articles to Jewish publications and d) he is referred to by most historians/academics/biographers as "Jewish-Italian" or "Jewish"...all of which have been heavily sourced and cited. So, in other words...pot meet kettle as they say.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet that admin failed to provide a source about Sanal Edamaruku.[10] By putting up this original WP:SYNTHESIS about only Sanal Edamaruku you are not proving how your WP:BLPCAT violation about these many people is justified. Many editors have asked you to "provide sources" on talk page that would support them to be a critic of religion and you have failed to do so because your biggest aim on this template as well as every other article that I edited and you joined in was to bother me. Your disruption is only wasting others time and not doing any good. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources are in the article . I just copy pasted them. Any other objections? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that every time you evade from saying why you had mass deleted those reliable books (some of which I listed on several occasions) is clear to all the editors. If there were no problem in your behaviour you would not be blocked four time in a year and I don't want you to list the sources here because they are just examples. The main issues are your civility problems and your not actively participating the TP discussions to reach consensus. You did of course broke your promise of "adhering to 1RR" as it is evidenced. Sentences such as "this is the kind of behavior I am faced with every single day" and "a person like me, who wants to put just a smidge of rationality back into these articles is either hounded ..." are called Victim playing. Mhhossein (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As an editor who has also experienced WP:HOUNDING and edit-warring at the hands of this user, I feel compelled to add my voice here. On the topic of Racism_in_Italy FreeatlastChitchat has reverted several edits without participating on the talk page (where there are EXTENSIVE discussions in place) and chosen to simply undo a vast amount of work compiled at the request/challenge of other participating editors with opposing views. I asked for mediation on this topic to gain a consensus https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Racism_in_Italy , to which he declined stating "I would like to [WP:DENY]] him this opportunity to waste the time of mediation committee and other editors." which speaks to the fact that he is not willing to compromise or engage in discussion to reach a consensus or have the real facts/timelines be known. This editor is a MAJOR POV-pusher who sides with other like-minded individuals (most likely sockpuppets as has been alleged here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RatatoskJones/Archive ) and his edits are absolutely contrary to scholarship and consensus-building. He constantly threatens others with denouncing them for "edit-warring" when he is in reality the one engaging in this behavior (as his previous blocks will attest). I would strongly encourage yet another block and possible ban from certain topics (anyone can take a quick scan through his history, and it will be very obvious upon which topics he constantly seeks to impose his POV).Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And we have another editor who has a strong need to put his religious POV into articles. For editors who are just going through this discussion without following the links, The request for mediation has been declined as Trinacrialucente is undoing the edits of three users, yes gentlmen, my edits are endorsed by two other editors, with only one editor trying his best to push forth a religiuos POV. Furthermore, Trinacrialucente has displayed absolute bad faith by stating that I have sock puppets. The SPI archive clealry shows that when closing the SPI an admin noted the fact that the reporter was lying, he also said that "These are contentious issues and bound to generate a lot of disagreement and factionalization, meaning some editors agreeing with each other. Just because they do doesn't make them socks.". I am quite sure that before he posted this comment Trinacrialucente had already read the message about his request for mediation being denied, and his SPI going nowhere because he posted this comment at 22:40, 8 January 2016 while the mediation bot informed him about the rejection on 15:55, 8 January 2016, while the SPI clerk informed him about the futility of an SPI at 01:10, 8 January 2016. So it is obvious that he came here out of spite, being angry at me for having prevented his POV insertions. Even Though I have grown a highly durable and thick hide thanks to the various bad faith comments, threats and insults which seem to be the ammunition used by most POV pushers. I think I have the right to ask this guy one single question. So I would like to ask Trinacrialucente, 'DO ANY OTHER EDITORS AGREE WITH YOUR EDITS OR ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE REVERTING THE "POV PUSHING" OF THREE OTHER EDITORS?. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, two others have supported my edits. Feel free to take a look. : ) In fact you probably should have done so before you went on that...direction. All it really did was support our case against you.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Umm,,, no, you are wrong. The most recent history clearly shows that UnequivocalAmbivalence and RatatoskJones are Reverting your edits, not supporting them. UnequivocalAmbivalence has clearly called you out saying "@Trinacrialucente: Your aggressive attitude and constant insults must stop. It is highly inappropriate and unnecessarily abusive. I have requested time and time again that you act in accordance to the civility policy, and yet you are still throwing insults at me even when I am communicating with other editors. This must stop." So my question still remains. If you feel that there are editors who have supported your edits just post a diff where these editors reverted the edits which removed your material. For if these editors who support your edits do really exist, they must have reverted me, or the other two users, when we "edit warred" to remove your "correct edits". Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Support taking administrative action: The reported editor is unable to constructively participate discussions of the talk pages. Also, his/her behavior is not based on etiquette. In the summary edit of Nader Mahdavi page wrote: "‬SAFF V please stop your ridiculous reverting".Saff V. (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Reply to Comment: Saff V. has failed to mention that he did not read WP:MOS when he was asked and had to be explained on the talkpage how the MOS works, he then admitted that he was wrong and changed the text according to my wording. His own words were @FreeatlastChitchat:Yes, It is right. So, I edit the titles based on your comment. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I never asked you to explain your reversion, I'm just focusing on your uncivil comments, a point mentioned by some other users.Saff V. (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

But you yourself accepted that your edits were ridiculous! FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you used again bad word in your answer.Saff V. (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Err... what 'bad word'...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Yeah bad word! 'Ridiculous' means "extremely silly or unreasonable" or "stupid or ​unreasonable and ​deserving to be ​laughed at." It's against WP:civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Mhhossein (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Mhhossein Stuff and (*bad word alert*) nonsense. You are effectively trying to mute criticism by removing the language for doing so. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Mhhossein so when I see a ridiculous edit, what am I supposed to call it? you seem to be the owner of wikipedia whose permission I need to edit, and whose express fatwa is required in my vocabulary usage. So Herr Ayatollah what should I call a ridiculous edit from now onward? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't dig yourself deeper. You could of course simply use a more polite language. I'm just asking you to act based on WP:civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Mhhossein (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked you in very clear words. What, according to you, should be the word used when someone encounters a ridiculous edit?. Please do reply to this, you seem to be avoiding this. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Rather than yet another block (they don't help, FreeatlastChitchat is blocked all the time and just continues) I would support a topic ban on all articles in some way connected to Islam. Jeppiz (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment He/She edited Little Satan article by POV terms and sentences without any summary or discussion in the talk page. I reverted his/her edits and opened new section in the talk page but he/she again reverted the article. I said to him first participate in the discussion and after conclusion we can edit. He think just to reverting the article to his/her version.Saff V. (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Saff V. the last edits to the TP are mine. I have explained my edits thoroughly, even made a list of your horrendously bad English which you inserted in the article, plus I have detailed the unreliable sources you used. Instead of answering my questions there or discussing there, you have made this comment. Bad faith editing much?

I reverted your edit and say to you participate in the talk page, but you reverted again and I reverted again and you reverted again and then wrote your reasons in the talk page. You must say your reasons before all reverting. Your style is first revert the article without any summary and discussion. If a user revert your work you revert again and write a short sentence in the summary box.Saff V. (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

then perhaps you should create the competence to understand what "bad grammar" means when it is written in edit summary? And you should create the competence to understand what "bad sources" means when it is written in the edit summary. For your kind information "bad grammar" written in the summary means that "I have changed sentences which were borderline gibberish and using very poor English" and you should take a look at WP:MOS before reverting me.And when it is written in edit summary "bad sources" it means that the sources I removed are unreliable, and you should see if they fall foul of WP:RS before reverting me. It is not my fault that your English grammar is poor and you want to insert poor English into articles, however it is my job as an editor to copy edit your mistakes, and I do that job regularly. Also it is my job to keep unreliably sourced fringe claims out of articles and I do that quite regularly as well. you should read WP:COMPETENCE before engaging in this kind of arguments. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Now I got that FreeatlastChitchat's edits are suitable examples for edit warring! You just don't understand that you have to collaboratively participate the talk page discussions before making such challengeable mass edits, but really why? After you encountered Saff V.'s revert, you made a revert at 07:40 without trying to act based on BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and helping to reach a consensus. After you got sure that the article is as you wish, you made your comment at 7:43. Saff V. reverted you alleging that you've inserted POV into the article, you again acted as if you are the only know-how of the project and kept one reverting. You went up to the red line of WP:3RR (you made 3 reverts in less than 3 hrs) which is very far from once again beyond your WP:1RR unblock promise. Note that you've shown enough disruptive behaviour so far (not only in this page) which makes you vulnerable to receive sanctions, in my view. Btw, while I'm not endorsing Saff v.'s reverts, I blame you as the one who refrained from BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Mhhossein (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC) (Edited Mhhossein (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC))
• Reply to comment Eventhough I can go into an explanation that I was reverting bad grammar I will just say this. Mhhossein says (you made 3 reverts in less than 3 hrs) . I say that he is lying his ass off Simple as that, he, is, lying. I challenge him to provide diffs to back up this claim. Simple as that, you said I made three reverts, show me the diffs and I will call it quits, otherwise you are the one lying his ass off. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did 2 reverts (which is still beyond 1RR) and I'm sorry for saying that, It was not intentional. I just did not notice that the first edit was not a revert. But this does not make us ignore your edit warring. What I see is not just a copy editing of the grammatical errors, that was a re-shape needing enough discussion! By the way, your language is very very irritating and although you were warned before by admins, you are clearly ignoring wp:civility. Mhhossein (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein you have the gal to say that It was not intentional? Just how much of this witch hunting thread have you posted unintentionally? I fail to see how you can write something, press preview, then press save, and still call it "unintentional". What clause of civility have I fallen foul of btw? You were lying, I told you outright that you were lying and challenged you to prove me wrong, what am I supposed to do when you lie through your teeth? say that you are the epitome of truthfulness? Anyway I have caught you spreading falsehood once I will do it again. You say that my edit was a reshape needing enough discussion. I challenge you to point out anything I added which was either from unreliable sources, or fringe, or against wiki policy. I have been telling you again and again, wikipedia is not your holy thing, I can edit it without your permission. Anyway, show me which parts of my edit "required discussion" and "why did they require discussion". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I was bold enough to accept my mistake and say sorry for that and I don't need to explain more as you apparently don't assume my and others good faith. What you called "spreading falsehood" and "witch hunting" are just some parts of your disruptive behavior which is well sourced. Your violation of WP:civility is well spread through out the project (no just this thread) and there's no need to over repeat them (you can follow this and the previous thread from the beginning). On your reshaping the article, I'll discuss it on the its talk page. Mhhossein (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

dude seriously? I mean WTH? You accuse me of something and the lie your ass off about it and I am supposed to Assume Good faith? Are you frigging kidding me? So when someone tries to shoot me, I should assume good faith? Have you been assuming good faith? Does spreading falsehood about someone mean that you are assuming good faith? How about this, you assume good faith for a change and stop editing this thread every time I make an edit on wikipedia? ANI threads are not forums, you post your report and wait for others to comment on it, and then an admin takes action if required. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I never need to lie. Why should I have lied when every thing was well recorded even by seconds? As I said it was a mistake which I corrected ASA I got it. The word "WTH" stands for "What The Hell" and/or "What The Heck", right? Mhhossein (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wikihounding and harassment by FreeatlastChitchat: Besides the links presented above for being checked against hounding ([11], [12] and [13]), I'd like to add this hounding by him which occurred just a bit ago. Mhhossein (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Nonsense and ridiculousness. here other people agree with me, no one disagrees with me, One editor is canvassing another, my comment saves the trouble of them ganging up on the article, ALL OTHER EDITORS agree with me, ALL OTHER editors AGREE WITH ME. I have told you many times, you are not the owner of wikipedia, nor is wikipedia your sacred temple. I have the right to edit and give my opinion, if my opinion is shared by all other editors in a particular discussion, it is not my fault. Perhaps you should start ANI reports about all the editors who have dared to disagree with you? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What you called "ridiculousness" is in fact your hounding! The matter is not whether the editors agree or disagree with you. The matter is your hounding and harassment. Mhhossein (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't use that word. It is a BAD WORD ® _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

References

FreeatlastChitchat gaming the system

Even while this discussion above about the very frequent policy violations of FreeatlastChitchat is ongoing, the user engages in a new trick. Having been involved in repeated edit warring at Muhammad, FreeatlastChitchat takes advantage of a very new WP:SPA who has already sided with him to edit war against Trinacrialucente [14], [15], [16]. Now, first the SPA changes the lead three times [17], [18], [19] and is reverted by three different users who restore the consensus version. Then FreeatlastChitchat jumps in and reverts to "his" version [20] and then immediately requests page protection [21]. Frankly, I find this kind of behavior dishonest. First of all, there was no dispute except for the one created by FreeatlastChitchat at the SPA operating in sync with him. Second, if a user wants to request protection, I find it very bad form to first revert to their own version instead of the established consensus and then immediately request protection to make sure their own POV "wins". This is combination with all the edit warring discussed in the long sections above makes me suggest a topic ban on articles connect to Islam for FreeatlastChitchat. The user has been given more than enough WP:ROPE and taken up far too much of ANI's time already. This user is here to right great wrongs, not build an encyclopaedia. Jeppiz (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - on everything related to Islam or religion as whole. He is still edit warring by making pointless edits. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• More Religio-Political POV First of all this is bad faith level 9000+. Just take a look at my edits and those of the so called SPA here and marvel at the great difference. According to my count, there is a NINETY SIX POINT SEVEN FIVE PERCENT difference between the two version. Furthermore my actions stopped an edit-war, made the article better and restored stability. I will just post what a completely uninvolved user said about my changes and let the closing admin/other editors gauge what I actually did. User:UberCryxic says about my version "I'm more or less ok with the current version of the intro paragraph. I don't think there will be a version that satisfies a clear majority in the short term, so the controversies will continue. I do think the current version is at least substantially better than the one proposed by Neby, which is so hopelessly misguided with its bias and terrible linguistic construction that it's almost beyond repair. The intro sentence should be crisp and to the point; it doesn't need to hash out the nuances and controversies surrounding Muhammad. That's what the rest of the article is for" here is his statement. I think you should read what the first line in the protection notice reads "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version." I think every experienced editor knows this. Furthermore your statement that "This user is here to right great wrongs" is actually quite true to be frank. Removing POV from articles is something I have always done, and wish to continue doing. This is an encyclopedia, not some religious website where everything is "too holy" and "nothing can be touched". If you do not like my edits, talk about them as per policy. The entire time you have been accusing me of bad behavior, you have cited not a single policy which prevents me from doing what I did. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have accused you of bad behavior. So have a lot of other users, which might explain why you have been blocked repeatedly and why there are several ongoing threads about you. As for this incident, I think I stated it pretty clear. You had been edit warring heavily yourself on the article, then reverted to your own version and immediately requested that version to be protected. You may not like what I say or not agree with it, but don't pretend it's not clear. Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Laughing Out Loud 😆😆😆! Can you please check the difference between revisions here to know why I am Laughing Out Loud! The version user:FreeatlastChitchat reverted to is actually itself the version of user:Jeppiz. I was surprised when I saw this report while checking the recent contributions of user:Jeppiz who seems to have a bad habit of fabricating & falsifying events. I actually intend to report user:Jeppiz for slandering and personal attacks.--Explorer999 (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Explorer999 is the WP:SPA I mentioned who already has a long history of personal attacks such as the one above. Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What personal attack? He has clearly shown that you are the one lying here. My revert was to your version of the article and your complaint about it is the height of bad faith. To be frank you should strike your comments after such an egg in the face situation. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"What personal attack?" For starters, calling other users "liars" as he does [22], and as you do above, is a strong personal attack. However, this is not about him, nor about me. It's about you, but as usual your response to threads about your disruptive behavior is to try to deflect it by personal attacks against other users. If you have a problem with my behavior, start a thread about it but this thread (not started by me) is about your constant disruptions, evidenced by diffs provided by several users. It's rather revealing that you have nothing to say in defence of yourself and just continue to engage in the same behavior that got you here. However, what you fail to understand that even if your revert would be to my version (it wasn't, although very close), it wouldn't change a thing. My initial comment was about the behavior, not about being right or wrong, or agreeing with me or not. WP is not about winning, and I've reported users for violations even when I agreed with them. You seem to think it's a content dispute. It's not. Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Saying about someone who "is extensively lying" that "he is extensively lying" is not a personal attack. When you stop lying, people will stop saying that you are lying, but when you continue to lie, then what do you expect the others to say about you?! Do you expect them to say that you are telling truths when you are not! FreeatlastChitchat reverted to the same version which you yourself described here (in your edit summary) as the consensus version.--Explorer999 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:HARASSMENT by FreeatlastChitChat

This section was originally started by Trinacrialucente as a separate topic and then was moved to this thread by 日本穣 · 投稿 (Note by Mhhossein (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC))

Unfortunately we now have THREE separate threads about the disruptive behavior of FreeatlastChitchat. After his edit-warring behavior evidenced (yet again) on the Muhammad board, where I made a change, was challenged, showed my proof/citations on the Talk page, but was still reverted immediately after the change without the editor even looking, he began to accuse me of edit-warring as is his MO (evidenced in his history and on the two other ANI reports here). Rather than continue the discussion on the Talk page, he issued a warning on MY talk page to which I told him NOT to post on my page again https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:FreeatlastChitchat. He then immediately did so, simply to bother or disrupt our activity. If this was just one example, I think we could all just talk it out. But there are now THREE SEPARATE ANI incidents on this editor. It is time for all of us to deal with this issue as it is completely unscholarly and disruptive.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

100% Clear case of Boomerang. First of all I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics, however as the information added by this nom was 100% Or I reverted twice thinking that he will understand, but he did not understand, so I did not edit further, his changes were then removed by another uninvolved editor who called them Abuse of primary sources.

As The nom made a change where he used Primary sources to synthesis info. I used Twinkle to generate a warning for disruptive editing for OR and added me personal commentsso that the notice read "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Muhammad, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not abuse Primary sources to create content which suits your point of view. Please be kind enough to read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, wikipedia policy forbids using sources to synthesis content. Thanks you for editing, have a good day".

As this nom was constantly using abusive language against me like saying "You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here, since you just don't know when to quit", "You ready to sit down now or are you going to continue to squawk and look even more foolish?", "As you have lied several times on the talk:Muhammad page", I posted a notice on his TP about ad hom attacks. I did not even include my personal comments this time, everything that was written had been generated by twinkle. Furthermore the nom has a long history of disruptive editing, almost every edit from his recent history has been reverted by consensus. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: There's already another open case for reporting FreeatlastChitchat. Regarding the accusations that FreeatlastChitchat is making I have to show how he himself has violated policies here; "I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics." Here FreeatlastChitchat clearly went beyond 1RR ([23] and [24]) and this is another case where he went beyond 1RR. FreeatlastChitchat already himself made an "ad hom attack", as I showed in my report. I also would like to say that "You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here" is clearly a personal attack by the nominator. Mhhossein (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics." not every topic is controversial. My 2 reverts on the topics you highlighted have been endorsed by other uninvolved editors, and in one case a wikipedia administrator has endorsed by edits. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. the title of this report is "WP:HARASSMENT by FreeatlastChitChat". Can you point out any harassment in my conduct? If yes, then provide diffs, if no, then why the offtopic comment? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So, you agree that you went beyond the promise which led to your unblock. Anyway, I can't see your violating 1RR being endorsed here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree that this should certainly boomerang. The nominator has engaged in extensive personal attacks and battleground mentality "You are bordering into idiocy" "given your utter lack of knowledge on this topic..." "FYI, despite you losing all credibility on this topic...(a statement that proved your absolute ignorance on this topic)... so...check and mate." "take it to the talk page as you so annoyingly say" despite being asked repeatedly to stop by me, as well as being warned by an uninvolved editor, a warning which was quickly deleted and followed by a very aggressive response. Also the nominator appears to have been engaging in WP:CANVASSING in an attempt to thwart consensus, which seems to include the assumptive labeling of several editors as "3 editori ebrei che NON SANNO NULLA"here and here (roughly translates to "three Jewish editors WHO KNOW NOTHING"). I have tried to ignore it other than requesting that it cease, remain calm, and attempt discussions, but the editor has refused all such attempts, and now that they are pursuing cases against other editors for much less, I can no longer remain silent on this issue. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, as one of the "3 editori ebrei che NON SANNO NULLA", I am not Jewish. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as the above uninvolved editor, here are the diffs alluded to above: LOL, rest assured there is nothing you can make me feel other than pity for you. And not sure what "abuse of primary sources" means other than you don't like to see the truth You ready to sit down now or are you going to continue to squawk and look even more foolish? You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here, since you just don't know when to quit... Are you going to now tell us you can find 100 examples in the ahadeeth to say Mohammed only dealt in credit cards now? For freeatlastchitchat who has proven himself wrong on this board more times than we can count at this point. OP warned them about this. I would, however, like to add in the important caveat that I do not purport to know about FreeatlastChitchat's behavior and will not comment as to that. GAB^Hello! 17:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment FreeatlastChitChat had many ANI posts against him in past days.

• Nonsense that's a completely irrelevant remark. And please have the balls to sign. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I think Future perfect snatched those off of him some time ago. This IP troll was actually trolling Future PErfect's topic and when I made a comment there, he decided to "exact revenge". I see that Bushranger has hatted his comments even there. lold at the hat line btw. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No wonder you came running to defend FPAS when his conduct came into the view of the community. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved this section to keep all about FreeatlastChitchat discussions together. It's ridiculous to have them spread all over. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, frankly, it's pretty bleeding ridiculous that you keep gnawing away at this bone. You must realise by now that nothing's going to happen due to the very fact that people are trying to piledrive a conviction. Well, carry on :D _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not gnawing on anything. I just noticed that this section was separate from all the others, so I moved it to make it easier to find everything. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Shmuly Yanklowetz

Shmuly Yanklowetz appears to be paying his staff to delete all statements that do not paint him in a 100% positive light, although the controversies section is balanced, researched, and sourced. Can you please prevent further deletions? Nothing is false, defamatory, or abusive.

This section that I removed clearly violates WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLP. For biographies of living persons, you need to stick closely to sourced material from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs, please. The article in question is Shmuly Yanklowitz. The original poster is User:184.177.112.118. There is edit-warring, mostly by IPs. Semi-protection might be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP has created a large "Controversy" section, which likely violates WP:WEIGHT at the very least. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And WP:COATRACK 69.12.26.174 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Add specifically a case of WP:OUTING in this edit:[25] written twice, above and in the "Censorship" section where the editor identifies an IP address by name and place of employment. It needs to be revdel'd and maybe more. Scr★pIron^IV 20:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've revdel'd all of the user's edits and have emailed Oversight. If any friendly admins (I said FRIENDLY!) wouldn't mind doublechecking my RevDel work, I would appreciate it. I haven't done much RevDel-ing and it confuses my brain. (I'm pretty sure I picked the wrong criteria). Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done ScrapIronIV, in the case of RevDel or Oversight requests it's best just to either contact an active administrator directly, or email the oversight team directly, rather than posting a link to private information to one of the most watched pages on Wikipedia.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - There are more instances of this same data in other edits today, I'll get together with @Cyphoidbomb: on it, and won't post here. Scr★pIron^IV 21:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I gotta say, that's one hell of a puff piece. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Drmies, you are just jealous of his awesome name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I just saw a notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism about a related topic and left a note about this issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Sir Joseph. I removed some gunk out of the article earlier today. The WT:JUDAISM discussion is about fine detail of how Yankelowitz's (and others' in his niche of the Jewish world) religious views should appear in Wikipedia's Category scheme. --Dweller (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User: Zachlita harassment, personal attacks

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

---

After Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spacecowboy420/Archive, in which it was apparent to me and Brianhe (talk · contribs), based on what we could see at the time, that Zachlita (talk · contribs) was a sock of Spacecowboy420, Zachlita has begun a campaign of WP:HOUNDING against me. It appears Zachlita's account was created to assist Spacecowboy420 on the article Dodge Tomahawk which grew in a a protracted dispute, which led to a AN/I complaint by Spacecowboy420 against me. Zachlita, monitoring my contributions, followed me from Dodge Tomahawk to AN/I to speak against me.

On an unrelated article, I added some photos I'd taken to Harley-Davidson XR-750. Spacecowboy420 followed me to that article, so he could revert. This led to an edit war over removing US English from the article, for which Spacecowboy420 got a 24 hour block for 3RR violation. Another editor who has been aiding Spacecowboy420, User:72bikers appeared, and argued against me on the talk page. Like Zachlita, 72bikers had joined Wikipedia recently, jumped into the battle on Dodge Tomahawk, followed me to AN/I, and then followed me to Harley-Davidson XR-750. Next thing you know, who should appear but Zachlita, monitoring my contributions to see where else he could argue against me.

In an unrelarted article, a new editor added some unsourced performance claims "based on personal knowledge" which we routinely revert. I also removed some material tagged since 2014[26]. I added a standard "welcome-unsourced" message to the new editor's talk page. The new editor replied asserting WP:TRUTH and expert knowledge, typical of anyone who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Who should show up, but Zachlita? He added encouragement to add more original research to articles, and made a personal attack that "some people think they own wikipedia and aint nice to new editors."

I removed the bad advice and personal attack, and warned Zachlita to stop making personal attacks and hounding me. Brianhe has previously warned Zachlita for civility violations on Dec 24 and again and again on Dec 26. Zachlita next restored the uncited performance claims to Honda SS125, which I reverted and warned Zachlita again for adding unsourced content, and carrying on personal grudges and harassment. He responded by restoring the personal attack to the new editors talk page.

I don't think there's any point in me reverting or templating any more. A block for harassment and personal attacks is necessary to put a stop to this. Not sure what to say about 72bikers or Spacecowboy420 at this point. I expect we shall see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur that this user requires blocking. Harassment and personal attacks to this degree are not welcome here. Chesnaught555 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

all the editors mentioned in this report edit motorcycle articles, and we all watch eachothers edits and turn up on the same articles. i dont agree with some of dennis edits so of course im gonna revert them.it aint personal.and dont call me a sock again plz. you made a sock report and it was proven i aint a sock.you just dont like people who dont agree with you Zachlita (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Just noting briefly that I concur with Dennis's assessment of the involved editors' behavior. Zachlita's latest sarcasm-laden rejections [27][28] of my offer to try to find common ground on which to solve a literal one-word dispute show that there are some serious misunderstandings of how collaboration on Wikipedia is supposed to work. This follows prior remarks that indicated poor understanding of community norms of civility and consensus-building like this and this. I'm a bit flummoxed as to how to move forward when faced with an attitude as inflexible as this. Brianhe (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't stalk or hound anybody, Zachlita. I watch my watchlist. I gave you links to the harassment policy and you made the choice to ignore it. You didn't find any of these article on your watchlist; you found them by looking at my list of contributions and finding ones you could pick fights over. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

this is about dennis and brian not agreeing with edits.first sock reports and now this. me and other editors didnt see a need to change wording, so youre saying im inflexible and have civility issues. this is about content not about me. Zachlita (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see how you might be unhappy about the SPI but it's not an excuse for retaliation by stalking. Wikipedia is not a battleground is another thing you've been repeatedly directed to read. These links to policy and guidelines are not magic spells that Wiki editors throw around or cards we play in a game. You're supposed to actually read them because there's stuff there you need to know. When you're told "you will be blocked if you continue to ignore this policy", you should listen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're just annoyed because consensus isn't in your favor. You try to police every motorcycle article and take people to ani when they don't agree with you. You're the subject of civility reports and 3rr reports so don't come across as an injured party.you don't get consensus so now you resort to fishing for blocks.Zachlita (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're just repeating the failed argument of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#User talk page harassment and general incivility. The closing editor, Chesnaught555, said "Take it to COIN. This has gone on for too long. Blocking Mr. Bratland would be punitive to say the least. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK I think." You should have read DROPTHESTICK and followed that advice. You should have read and heeded the harassment and battleground and civility warnings. You are not a newbie and have been repeatedly warned that the way you have been going about this is going to get you blocked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how I got dragged into this. But I take offence to that I am just following someone around. Dennis why have you been speaking badly of me and never notifying me of the discussion. Is this how you treat or speak of editors that disagree with you? I think what should be really discussed here is mr bratlands behavior . What gives you the right to write your novel theories and opinions have no bearing and much much more. Dennis has a unwillingness to accept consensus. Even when other editors overwhelmingly disagree with dennis . He writes a concession that you should accept gracefully instead of demanding total surrender . Even when majority disagrees with him he feels that for some reason he deserves some concession in his favor accept a good comprise, and move on. Maybe if his behavior were less obtrusive he would have less conflicts with other editors. Not sure what to make of this A block for harassment and personal attacks is necessary to put a stop to this. Not sure what to say about 72bikers. What is this to imply? What gives you the right to leave this on my talk page? Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Talk:Harley-Davidson XR-750, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Please read WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Note that it says "If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Another warning that you need to heed. Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing. You took note of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#User talk page harassment and general incivility and picked out 3 editors whom you chose because they expressed negative attitudes towards me as an individual. Because you thought they'd side against me, you canvassed them here, here and here. The guideline says "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)" is inappropriate. Combined with your pattern of Wikihounding, incivility, and tendentious editing, canvassing to stack votes is likely to get you blocked form editing. If you have trouble believing me, I'm sure experienced editors like Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), John (talk · contribs) or Skyring (talk · contribs) can convince you that these rules apply to your behavior, and you should stop.

  Please find some other way to build an encyclopedia and avoid deliberate confrontations.

  The sad thing is, the discussion you were canvassing and vote stacking for was one where I had not even argued against you or taken a position on the issue at hand. I said "I can't find any top speed tests" on the 1199 R, and so didn't commit to anything. But your obsession with me made you see things that weren't there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC) 21:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you feel that you have to or the right to berate or harass other editors that disagree with you? 72bikers (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is following and harassing who? 72bikers (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

72bikers, I was about to request a block of you here at AN/I, but I felt like you had not been sufficiently warned. Since you were not the subject of this, I'm not required to notify you. Instead I posted the warnings you copy-pasted above (you need only use diffs by the way; it's more readable). I assume you got to this AN/I the same way you found your way to the other pages you have been hounding me on, checking my contributions and looking for any controversy you could participate in. And here you are, as expected. I expect you will continue to hound me, and continue to insert yourself into any topic I'm involved in until you're blocked.

IP address data might imply that you, Spacecowboy420 and Zachlita are not socks but you walk and talk and quack like socks. Perhaps meatpuppets, or a little of both. Or you all simply like to disrupt Wikipedia in exactly the same way. No matter what we call it, it has to stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What gives you the right to berate and harass me and make unsupported claims. I have only run across you on motorcycle or motorcycle related articles. Are you to imply that my interest in motorcycles is in some way related to me following you around. Shame on you sir for not allowing others to disagree with you! 72bikers (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What needs to stop is your uncivil behavior towards other editors. Leaving unprovoked threating messages on editors talk pages. Is that just your effort to imply some authoritative message to editors that disagree with you. If anything has been proven here is that you have scoured my contributions to find something to throw in my face.following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior. When all I did was just look for editors that were not your personal friend that Vote-stack for you. To give a unbiased opinion on a article that's it. Please stay off my talk page with your uncivil intimidating and harassing behavior thank you. 72bikers (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

72bikers since you're here, maybe you can explain why you templated Dennis with Wikihounding and following another user around for using the talkpage of an article he created five years ago? This seems like nothing more than a deliberate effort to block Dennis from access to contributing to articles. Despite your opinion on the "validity" of his reasons for requesting a one word change, he is allowed to use the talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So he is allowed to leave threating messaged on my talk page just because I disagree with him? For what possible reason would he legitimately have for harassing and threating me. Why should he be aloud to make unsupported claims against editors. Then go and do the very thing he is claiming others have done. How is this behavior acceptable? 72bikers (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The evidence is right there in your edit history. It's an almost unbroken record of grudge edits, on pages chosen via stalking. The canvassing is right there. If an admin needs me to post diffs of every specific instance of these policy violations, I can do that. Watchlists are a permanent record; it proves to an admin that you weren't watching any of those articles before your pals started disputes with me on them. I was hoping you would actually read the policies I linked to in the warnings so you would realize you have to stop. But I don't think you're ever going to get the point, if you're still trying to convince anybody that it's "just because I disagree". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What is wrong with you sir. All that shows was I edit motorcycle pages. IF anything you are stalking my contributions and guilty of following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior . why are you searching through my contributions if not to just throw them in my face. Is it not that's what you are claiming I am doing and you just showed your guilty of doing just that. What brought me here is your unsupported threats on my talk page. 72bikers (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The meatpuppet claims are not realistic. Please note that I have not made a report regarding brianhe turning up on every ani report, sock report, talk page dispute and dispute resolution that you are involved in. Because despite him supporting your views every time, I respect his right to have different views from me. Try to have the same good faith in editors that disagree with you and we might have less time in ani reports. You do this every time. Some edits a motorcycle article that you think you own, you revert them with a scathing summary and template them, then when they dare to undo your edit or answer back, you go on a month long dispute rant, ignoring consensus and picking the rules that suit you, while ignoring those that don't. In the end you either get your way because people are tired of dealing with you, or it ends up in another ani report. You might have good knowledge of Wikipedia rules, but your presence here is far more disruptive than most vandals.you drive away good editors, you're unwilling to accept consensus and you turn every minor content discussion into a major dispute, unless you get your own way. That sort of attitude turns wikipedia into a bitter and unpleasant place.Zachlita (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(Out of order reply) For the record, Zachlita, lest my silence be taken as acquiescence of your claim that I "support [DB's] views every time". I pick instances to support Dennis, and other editors, carefully. You'll see for example that I was completely absent at Talk:Volkswagen emissions scandal c. September–December 2015, or the surrounding actions at 3RRN. I assume good faith about the reasons for your incorrect conclusion, perhaps to be due to your lack of long-term perspective as a Wikipedia contributor. – Brianhe (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles#New first place holder began with Brian asserting the H2R should be listed, and me chiming in to contradict him. No basis for these imaginary accusations. They're just an attempt to fling mud and confuse the issue. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Zach, you cannot revert edits on the basis that you "don't agree with [them]". Mr. Bratland has been here for a rather long time, and it is clear that he knows quite a fair amount of information on motorcycling. Personally attacking him was not the answer, nor will it ever be.

I request that a CheckUser be performed on User:Zachlita and User:Spacecowboy420. This will confirm whether or not sockpuppetry is occurring here. If it isn't sockpuppetry, it's almost definitely meatpuppetry. Chesnaught555 (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

dennis has been here a long time and he knows lots about bikes.and that doesnt excuse him ignoring rules on consensus civility and 3rr. how long does an editor have to be here before they can ignore rules? im not a sockpuppet. thats a proven fact. neither are all the other editors who disagree with dennis on many articles and ani reports. thats like saying you and brian are sockpuppets because youre taking his side. Zachlita (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not a sockpuppet of Brian, but that's a strange comparison to make considering that people do make sockpuppets to make it seem like consensus is on their side. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter -- sock, meat, same IP, different IPs -- it's the behavior that matters. If Zachlita, Spacecowboy420 and 72bikers could at least express that they understand what Wikihounding, harassment, and vote stacking are, and could express intent to obey the basic policies, you could imagine them putting this behind them and going their own way, to focus on writing some articles instead of on their grudge against me. But all I see from the three of them (or one of them, whatever) is denial and shifting blame. I think they're pleased with what they've accomplished so far and intend to do more of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, why are you always at the centre of these ANI reports? Do you prefer to edit constructively, or is it the conflict with other editors you crave? Your recent appearance here sparked a series of editors posting links to a long history of this sort of behaviour, and your attacks on other editors above merely underscore the problem. Is there no way you can edit without finding ways to irritate others? --Pete (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Was I being stalked or not? Look at the diffs and you tell me. Was Zachlita canvassing or not? Are Spacecowboy420 and his pals following me from one article to the next, or not? Does it surprise you that somebody with a grudge against me would try (and fail) to get me blocked at AN/I? Does it surprise you that if I'm being hounded, harassed, and the target of vote stacking, that at some point I'm going to be forced to come back here to AN/I to put a stop to it? Look at 72biker's first edits here and at Commons. They were all blatant copyright violations. I had no choice but revert them, he took offense, and joined up with Spacecowboy420 and Zachlita. Or maybe they knew each other all along. Or are the same person. What difference does it make? Do you think it should be allowed to continue?

If 72bikers is just a newbie editing in good faith, you could have done him a favor when he canvassed you for vote stacking. You could have given him a friendly understanding of the policy he was violating and convinced him to stop hounding me. Instead, you seem to have joined up with him.

The reasons why I'm here at AN/I are right there in the diffs for anyone to see. The question is why are you always right on my heels? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I have ANI on my watchlist, Dennis. When I saw your name come up again so soon, I looked in. I don't care what you edit, though I do mind how it is done. Could you answer the question I asked, please? --Pete (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Was Harley-Davidson XR-750 on your watchlist before you saw a chance to snipe at me again? I told you why I'm back here at AN/I. If this isn't Wikihounding, what is?

Do I edit constructively? After my three stalkers went to Dodge Tomahawk and deleted every word of independent criticism and objective commentary, I responded by going and digging up books and articles and uncovering all sorts of new facts, creating a new, expanded and comprehensive Draft:Dodge Tomahawk which met every one of their objections, bringing far more balance to the article than anything they ever did. I think my work speaks for itself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you answer the question, Dennis? Evading it just makes me wonder why it is difficult for you. As mentioned above, I was asked to look at the article you mention, and your agressive support of the nonsense word "winningest" in our encyclopaedia struck me as odd. I have asked you multiple times to stay off my talk page, and yet, despite the recent ANI discussion on this very point, where you were nearly blocked and promised to behave better in future, you have just done it again. This pattern of behaviour is not one that is usually associated with a constructive editor. --Pete (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You asked a bunch of questions. How many answers must you have? I know, you want me to answer the question, "Is there no way you can edit without finding ways to irritate others?" You're demanding an answer to that question? See Have you stopped beating your wife, perhaps? You know two other editors worked with me on Draft:Dodge Tomahawk? A fourth editor supports the compromise on that article, but is being stonewalled by -- guess who? I've collaborated for years on things like Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions and WP:MC-MOS.

I'm happy to let others judge my contributions. You have nothing on me but an old grudge that you won't let go.

I have a question for you, and for the admins: should I put all the Noticeboards on my watchlist, and whenever I see the name of an editor I once had a conflict with, I insert myself into the middle of it, and say, "Yeah, that guy, he's no good, let me tell you about that guy..."? Should I do that? Should everyone do that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not demanding you answer the question, Dennis. It's interesting that you chose to answer a different question, that's all. I can't make you change your behaviour to other editors – that's something that can only come from within. Adopting the position that it is always the other guy's fault is another evasion. --Pete (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know which question I didn't answer. You didn't answer my question either. Should I monitor all the Noticeboards for people I don't like? Are you sure you're helping here? You muddy the waters but will the admins have an easier time sorting this out because you came along and unloaded your old baggage? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

See above, friend. If you see your behaviour as perfect, then obviously any suggestion for improvement is nonsensical. Pardon my intrusion. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Does my behavior have to be perfect before I get to say I've had enough Wikihounding? Would I be more perfect if I monitored all the Noticeboards for people I have it in for? I want to know if you think everyone should to that. Was Harley-Davidson XR-750 on your watchlist before you saw my name at AN/3?

Closing Admin Please consider WP:BOOMERANG sanctions for Skyring (talk · contribs). The guy is watching these Noticeboards for the names of people he doesn't like, and haranguing them with loaded questions laden with false premises, e.g. "why are you always at the centre of these ANI reports?" It's one thing for an objective, uninvolved, third party to help resolve noticeboard issues, but Skyring is tendentiously using these boards for his own WP:BATTLEGROUND, picking his targets based on his grudges. It goes without saying that he thinks I'm the one who should be sanctioned, to which I say, again, look at the evidence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis whether you choose to believe it or not I hold no grudge towards you. Why would I care that you removed and informed me that some of my very first edits were not to policy that is such a trivial matter. And if anything I appreciated you sharing your knowledge of the rules of Wikipedia and other things wiki. Such as the talk page I never even really noticed these before. But now make it a point to check and read on every page I go to. And in doing so had come across some of your post on ram air Is this just somebody hypothesizing? or that it works at all -- I would be quite interested in learning more that. Sources? I thought I would return the favor and share my knowledge from working as a motorcycle mechanic and rider for 25 years and inform you and show the validity of these thing . And on your other post about motorcycle dry weights and wet weights .And after explaining to you and showing you sources on this information I believe you thanked me. But now that I have showed a difference in opinion from you. Or sought out someone who was not a close friend of yours for a third party opinion. Or that my opinion appeared inline with others you some how feel are out to get you I am stalking or harassing you. Would it not be true that I would have run into you on more than just the very few motorcycle pages I have contributed to. Or after reading this the any number of notice boards that you seem to be involved in. And I am only here to find this because of your behavior that I wanted to bring to the attention of the admins. Of Leaving threating and harassing post to my talk page. And why just because I choose to have a difference of opinion on a edit that to your even words. It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable to who you? So after all the thing you said of me here and else were these unsupported claims of sock or meat or just someones pawn or other nasty things .Then scouring my contribution for something to try and throw in my face. And the nasty threats left on my talk page. Is it not you that is guilty of stalking and harassment and just bad behavior? Born out of what looks to be paranoia. And now appears like you have some grudge against me. 72bikers (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a civility issue between Dennis Bratland and Zachlita. Why is my name (amongst others) being dragged into it? There has already been a sock puppet/master report regarding suspicions that I was in some way connected to Zachlita and/or Flyer22 Reborn Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spacecowboy420/Archive and the conclusion of the involved admin on that report was The two accounts are Unrelated. Closing Please don't use this incivility report to make accusations unrelated to that topic of the report, that have already been proven to be wrong. I don't wish to have any more negative interactions with you, Dennis. You, Brianhe, 72Bikers, Zachlita and myself all have similar interests and edit the same articles, surely it's much better that we act in a friendly (or at least civil) manner towards each other. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Similar interest? There's a few thousand motorcycling articles. Are you suggesting the articles in which I first made an edit, and then you came along after me to revert, were on your watchlist before you saw me edit them? Your watchlist can be checked to see if it's true. The evidence shows that you took no interest in these article until after I touched them, and then you followed after me and -- surprise -- found a problem with what I had done. Why on earth would anyone want to delete Talk:Liter bike if not because you were following me around? Are you denying it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I don't wish to distract from the main purpose of this report, or get dragged into any further personal discussions as this is a civility report against another editor, so I will make this as succinct as possible. Like many other editors, I used the "contribs" button when I interact (positively,neutrally or negatively) with another editor. It's a great way to find interesting/active topics to edit or sometimes just an interesting topic to read. You are a prolific editor and have been for about a decade, almost every sports bike article I come across has your name on it somewhere, of course I will end up on topics that you have contributed towards, even if I never touched the "contribs" button. The Litre bike page was something that hadn't been edited since 2008 and just redirected to another article, I'm sorry if making a deleting it offended you, but I thought that it was a prime candidate for deletion, it was not an edit designed to annoy or insult you. How about the Bajaj Pulsar 200NS article? You edited it, and then I went there and reverted an IP editor's contribution back to your version, in order to remove some silly promotional content. Do you also think that reverting back to your version was unacceptable? I've made many attempts to inform you that despite our differences of opinion on some article content, I have no negative personal feelings against you, no desire to take any of this personally and that I just want to get on with editing some bike articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Finally we can agree. You've been using the contribs button to see what I've been doing lately, so that you can involve yourself in it. Not cool. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland. And the caravan passes on. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

+

User:Dennis Bratland. And the caravan passes on. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

−

Please don't twist my words. I use the contribs button with many editors that I have interacted with, because it helps me locate interesting articles. 99% of the edits that I follow lead me to an interesting article to read, and nothing more.

I don't involve myself because of you, I edit an article if it needs editing. I edit based on content, not based on the editor. If I had blindly reverted your articles based merely on the fact that you had made the edit, I could understand your attitude - but I haven't. I have disagreed with you on some edits, supported your edits in other cases and made totally unrelated edits in other cases. 08:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

Your last effort is, once again, a total rejection of any compromise. An editor tried to meet you half way, and you didn't even make a counter offer. You stonewalled. This is the pattern on every conflict you instigate. You track people you don't like, revert them, and if they try to discuss, you refuse to bend. Your close associates Zachlita and 72bikers follow suit with perfect regularity. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Let us be clear on the point at issue here. It is one word. Spacecowboy420 replaced the made up word "winningest" with "most successful", and from that Dennis Bratland edit-warred, making four reversions in a hundred minutes, made personal attacks against other editors[29], intruded himself on a talk page where he had been repeatedly asked not to go[30], and commenced this ANI report claiming that those holding contrary views were all sockpuppets of each other engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. All this over one word which has no place in a reference work. --Pete (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That's quite a dishonest way to characterize what happened, and what I said. Please stop trying tracking the disputes I have with other editors so you can attack me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont know, I took a look at the history here and it seriously looks like you are edit-warring to include the word 'winningest' in an article. Which looks really really stupid. And by 'stupid' I mean, 'why on earth are you wasting everyone's time with this rubbish'? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 was edit warring and recieved a 24 hour block for it. The issue was WP:RETAIN. I looked at every dictionary I can find and it tells me 'winningest' is US English, just like 'petrol' is UK English. Apparently some editors like Skyring think if a faceless account on the internet says, "Well, I'm American and I don't like winningest" then that trumps what dictionaries say. I thought that's how Urban Dictionary works, not Wikipedia.I explained that repeatedly, but instead I get called stupid by people who cite no sources, just opinions about which words they like and don't like.

Spacecowboy420 came to the XR-750 article to delete three closeup photos of the bike I added. The article previously had 7 side-views of the bike; he changed it to have 8 of the same side view, removing the 3 photos that were unique. Why? Because of who added the photos. Skyring, Zachlita, and 72bikers mobbed me at Harley-Davidson XR-750 because that is what they do: look for disputes they can join. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have commenced a discussion at WP:3RRN. Incidentally, the last three reverts were made within a space of five minutes. Perhaps there is a temper control issue in play. I also note that Dennis seems to accuse me of being a sock of SpaceCowboy420 above, by providing a diff of one of my talk page comments and saying it was SC420's. --Pete (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You've got to stop mischaracterizing what others say and do. You are Wikihounding me. Nobody said you were a sock. You monitor 3RRN, AN/I, and who knows what other noticeboards, and when you see the name of somebody you have a grudge against, you weigh in against them. And now you're forum shopping over at 3RRN.

I see I mixed up the diff of Skyring's comment with this diff of Spacecowboy420. It doesn't make much difference -- it's the same thing from both of them. The dispute over 'winningest' was over, and now they're both stonewalling by refusing to accept any compromise. Yet they accuse me of not being able to collaborate. If you guys are editing in good faith, why not meet Brian halfway? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis you are making this appear like you are doing all this just because you are not getting your way. The edit that was proposed by your very words It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable. Why should there be a compromise that does not make a better article just to appease you. so it's time to take this to a new venue for resolution or better any time soon. Maybe these language issues can be discussed later under better circumstances and with no time that has pass you kept up your efforts. The only thing that has change is your effort on notice boards to get editors blocked or leave threating messages on talk page to scare. It looks as if you are doing this just to get your own way and have no opposition. 72bikers (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

72bikers, you've re-posted the same point, what, five times now? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, all this talk, edit-warring, abuse, reports and intrusions into the time of editors and admins, because you want to keep one nonsense word in an article. If someone wants to remove "winningest" from an article, they should be commended for making a simple and obvious improvement, and the community should not have to wade through this every time you don't get your way. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE and not a good thing for the project. May I suggest that you pick your battles better. Come out with all guns blazing when there's something that really matters. Not this crap. --Pete (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I let that drop, an admin already decided the edit warring issue, and you two want to keep filibustering about it. Because you so respect everyone's time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis over exaggerating a issue does not make it go away. It has only been twice on these specific issues but three altogether on this similar behavior of yours. And all three times you have never address these issues. Is it because you know them to be true? These issues are at the heart of all this nonsense. Blaming others or wasting time or stonewalling you or someone's personal grudge over some very trivial issue. all this just because someone choose to have a different opinion from yours and did not want to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia just to for some reasoning of yours to appease you. I don't see how any of your logic here has been sound or does any service to you. 72bikers (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

So you feel that you can contribute to Wikipedia while never once accepting a compromise, or backing down from your position? And it's a perfectly acceptable practice to track others' contributions so three or four of you can pile on them in discussions? And you have no problem with canvassing in order to vote-stack discussions with like-minded editors? I've provided diffs of all these behaviors from your tight little group, and your response is that every bit of it is A-OK? And so you have no intention of stopping? Because that is the only reason we're here. The only reason anybody is blocked from editing is to stop the problematic behavior when nothing else works, not as punishment. And you're not stopping voluntarily, are you?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Look into your heart, Dennis, and ask yourself if your own comments do not apply to yourself. All this fuss over one little word that you seem unable to relinquish. No compromise, just edit-warring and personal attacks. Tranquility comes from within, and I'm not seeing the detatched, restful, productive editor that ten years makes of most here. --Pete (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop posting blatant falsehoods. I did back down on the "single word" issue that you keep harping on. I offered numerous concessions on the Dodge Tomahawk issue -- I provided Draft:Dodge Tomahawk as evidence of how much work I went to in answer to the demands of these guys, finding many new sources and writing a significant amount of content to balance the points of view, which is what they asked of me. You are a (fucking) liar, Pete/Skyring. Please cease this behavior. It's not acceptable, any more than your forum shopping and other obvious harassment. You should never have involved yourself here; you have too much emotional baggage to accomplish anything except fill this discussion easily refuted slanders and throw gasoline on the fires. Stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis you speak of stop posting blatant falsehoods. You have dragged my name all through mud with unsupported falsehoods. I barely know any of these other editors. But what appears to be just a common interest in motorcycles and in some way have incurred your wraft. You speak of people showing up here how did brianhe come here to speak badly of me he is your close personal friend is he not he came to pile on. And are you to imply the two of you don't vote stack. The behavior you have showed the threating the harassing the searching through my contribution to try to find something to throw in my face. Now the cursing its clear your anger is getting the better of you. The very things you claim others to be guilty of you yourself have committed. And I don't see you changing your behavior at all or even acknowledging it. You talk of compromise but your very words It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable Why should there be a compromise that does not make a better article just to appease you? What does not appear to be a falsehood is that it seems you are just trying to get every one that disagrees with you either blocked or just scared away. 72bikers (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There should be a compromise because the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. A change that you perceive as neither better or worse was offered by a third editor (not me) who was trying to make peace. That is an open door for you to accept the olive branch so that everyone can move on. You, your pals Zachlita, Spacecowboy, and Skyring stonewalled a painless compromise. Why? Because you want to win more than anything.

It's a lie to keep repeating that your behavior is nothing but a "common interest in motorcycles". You've already admitted you've been tracking my edits. That's Wikihounding. Read the policy links I asked you repeatedly to read. I'm so tired of spelling this out again and again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I find it a little strange that you act so offended that I might have looked at your edit history and consider it to be "not cool" for me to edit something that I might have found on your edit history, but mere hours later you are posting here: User_talk:KrakatoaKatie#You_gave_me_a_.28very_short.29_editing_block I didn't notice anyone pinging you there, so I'm assuming that you followed someone there and decided to contribute? Isn't that exactly what you were complaining about other users doing? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

When someone has brought scrutiny upon themselves for disruptive editing, whether Wikihounding, as in your case, or forum shopping, in Skyring's case, it's necessary to track their contributions. The kind of backhanded argument you're attempting now? We call that Wikilawyering. You're not here to build an encyclopedia; it's all battleground to you, and you're trying to score points. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis I have never admitted to tracking you that is a all out lie. I simply don't care enough about you to stoop to such things. But you have just admitted to doing just that That's Wikihounding. Do you even read what you write? A change that you perceive as neither better or worse was offered were do you even come up with this stuff do you perceive if you state it is true and factual. Your close personal friend is not a third party just to let you know. You speak of peace and olive brank I propose it is you sir that think this is a battleground a war you must win. Why? Because you want to win more than anything. it's necessary to track their contributions Who made you the wiki police? Am I missing something here? You are guilty of every thing you have claimed others of uncivil,harassing,stalking and more. I am starting to think you argue just because you like to argue. Your not here to make a better Wikipedia. Your here to have word battles with people I am starting to think you get your kicks from it.72bikers (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, Did you ever consider that just perhaps you have brought scrutiny on yourself, with your editing style? Or does that only apply to editors who you are in dispute with?

Do you think it's me who is trying to score points? Who made this report? you

Who put my name in it, and dragged me into it? you

I don't want to be in this report, so please don't drag me into it (when it's a report on another user) accuse me of things, that you are doing yourself, and when it's pointed out, say that I'm trying to score points. This is laughable.

What is also laughable is that you made this report accusing another editor of personal attacks, and then posted this as an edit summary: "You are a fucking liar, Pete" - that is far more offensive, personal, disruptive, and indicative of someone using wikipedia as a battleground, than anything you have accused any other user of. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

He is getting a pass on his openly stalking and threatening behavior. I don't think blocking him would be ideal given his expertise and how long he's actually been here I would like to point out his only expertise is his understanding and ability to twist the rules. basically he can do whatever he wants there is no justice here. someone take this to the next step surely someone can serve up some justice. 72bikers (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I said what you quoted in bold on a completely different (albeit related) thread, so why mention it here? Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Because as you have stated it is related. Posted here to see if someone would take it to some higher level were maybe justice can be served. His harassing uncivil stalking threatening and more behavior needs to be addressed. have you even read this thread? You propose that he gets a pass simple because you believe he brings something to the table and has been here for a long time. Were are these double standards written? I would like to read them. I suspect that his pass on his behavior has only in bolded him to act the way he does. All the while making unsupported claims of others misbehavior that he him self is guilty of. how is this just how does this make a better wikipedia. You are just cultivating a bully. 72bikers (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like you to be aware that having pages on a watchlist is not synonymous with stalking. This seems to be the basis of your argument. Chesnaught555 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding of course that is not what I am talking about. Have you even read this When someone has brought scrutiny upon themselves for disruptive editing, whether Wikihounding, as in your case, or forum shopping, in Skyring's case, it's necessary to track their contributionsmr bratlands own words he has openly admitted to stalking. You are a (fucking) liar more of his own words personal attack. Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Talk:Harley-Davidson XR-750, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Please read WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Note that it says "If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Dennis Bratland He has left unprovoked threating harassing messages on my talk page just because I did not share his views. He has plagued this conversation with false accusation of others that he himself is guilty of. he has had his close personal from come here and pile on when not even involved in the conversation. His repeated uncivil and harassing and more behavior should be dealt with. Are you impartial or a friend to dennis giving him a pass on his behavior is just cultivating a bully. Have you even read this or are you just turning a blind eye? 72bikers (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. 100%. Having pages on a watchlist, clicking the contribs button, etc are all legit actions on wikipedia.

I have doubts about Chesnaught555's comments on ANI, their neutrality, relevance and compliance with wikipedia rules.

When this civility/harassment report was started he stated I concur that this user requires blocking. Harassment and personal attacks to this degree are not welcome here. Chesnaught555 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC) against a user who has not made personal attacks, and has kept his discussions to article talk pages. However, in the report regarding Dennis Bratland telling a user you're a fucking liar he (as a non-admin) decided to take it upon himself to close the discussion. Nice double standards. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I keep AN/I on my watchlist, it is perfectly fine to do that sir. I can fully understand why he keeps pages about motorcycles on his watchlist too. If you were to see mine, you'd find I watch the pages of my personal interests too. That is not unacceptable behaviour at all. Chesnaught555 (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Snowded and BLP

Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wants to include tabloid sources, including The Sun, Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail on our article on the British National Party, a controversial right-wing political party. As the material concerns living people and these are square in the middle of the definition of "tabloid journalism" I would argue that WP:BLPSOURCES therefore applies here. Would someone else please take a look at the situation then consider reaching out to Snowded and explaining BLP to him? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Mixed bag. Some claims from those sources are clearly simple statements of non-contentious fact which is fine - while some show "editorial positions" of the original source or the newspaper printing the claims, which falls outside proper usage.

Where the claims are clearly claims as to motivation etc., they should not be used, but a simple statement that Person A visited country B is not a problem.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220565/BNP-change-whites-membership-rules-fall-foul-discrimination-laws.html is far too editorial in nature to pass muster IMO, while

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hope-not-hate-vote-for-equality-305140 is just a 404 in the first place.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334312/Anti-fascist-protestors-arrested-packed-London-buses-following-violent-clashes-BNP-outside-Parliament.html is neither better nor worse than the editorial HuffPo cite for the same claim.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1911033/Top-Euro-Nazi-Zoltan-Fuzessys-hate-site-run-from-terraced-house-in-Gravesend.html is directly violative of WP:BLP for sure, making clear claims of fact based on opinion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339568/BNP-leader-Nick-Griffin-visits-Syria-receiving-invite-President-Assad.html is used to make a claim based on its headline and not on what the article actually states in its body ("after being invited to take part in a fact-finding visit to the war-torn country by the regime of President Bashar Assad" is not the same as the claim "BNP leader Nick Griffin visits Syria after receiving invite from President Assad" used in the footnote which is the only apparent reason for using the DM as a cite) and so on.

In short - the problem is that sources are used for both allowable claims of fact, and disallowable statements of opinion not properly attributed as opinion. And, of course, the endemic problem of confusion as to the difference between headlines of articles and the contents of articles. I hope this is clear to all. Collect (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad John has brought this here although he is misrepresenting the position someone. He deleted a whole load of material some weeks ago on the grounds that BLP policy does not permit the use of tabloid sources. In fact BLP forbids the use of tabloid journalism and per multiple discussions at WP:RS Tabloids are allowed for facts although with caution. No one disputes that broadsheets are better sources. At the time I sought clarification at the BLP notice board here rather than rise to bait of, shall we say, the over enthusiastic templating of my use page with warnings. That discussion also came to the conclusion that tabloids are not the same thing as tabloid journalism. John did not engage in that discussion other that to asset he was right. We've now come back to the issue again. Despite not having taking part in the discussion I raised at BLP he again issued a warning based on is particular interpretation of policy.

Now as far as I am concerned I am not wedded to the material in question and substantially agree with Collect's statement above. The issue here is proper clarification of policy. If WP:BLPSOURCES forbids the use of any tabloid journal as a source then it should clearly state as such. Tabloid journalism is not confined to the tabloids and neither is everything in a tabloid journal tabloid journalism. Not the Sun, but the Mirror and the Mail do have a reasonable reputation for news reporting. Something that has been established in discussions at WP:RS on several occasions. I posted again to BLP and put a link on RS earlier today to try and get this clarified rather than rushing to ANI but I did think about it.

The other issue which I just want to note is John's behaviour as an admin. If I have raised an issue for clarification on the BLP page and he (i) does not take part and (ii) most editors agree that not everything in a tabloid is tabloid journalism then he should not be slapping warning templates on my page but should be taking part in those discussions. It really isn't too much to ask. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• If User:Snowded is truly "not wedded to the material in question", and also truly of the belief that the two edits here and here are reasonable ones, then there may be a WP:CIR issue involved. I invite an uninvolved admin to review these edits (which involve restoring information on living people referenced only to the worst of the gutter press) and issue a final warning with a view to blocking if anything like this is repeated in the future. If Snowded's belief is that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. is somehow capable of allowing edits like these two (which restore the Sun source which even he accepts is not permitted) then he should not be editing here. --John (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• And, sorry, I meant to note that the content issue is moot now as User:Hillbillyholiday has very commendably re-removed the tabloid material and re-sourced that which can be; I would strongly request that a further restoration of the non-compliant material (or any such material on other articles) should be met with a block. --John (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• • So after the best part of ten years of editing here on a range of articles and raising an issue of policy clarification John's response is to say that I shouldn't be editing here? Further I am to be threatened with a block? Please, isn't there something somewhere about chilling effects? An uninvolved admin reviewing that material is a good idea - but it won't resolve the current conflict between John's assertion that no tabloid material is permitted and agreements at WP:RS which say they can be reliable sources. On that we need a community decision. Oh and the statement about my belief above is plain false the issue is what constitutes poor sourcing and on that WP:RS is at odds with John ----Snowded ^TALK 15:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I note that John subsequently changed "Snowded's belief that" to "If Snowded's belief is that" for which I thank him. Making it a question not a statement is appreciated. The answer is that it is not. I am solely and simply seeking clarification of the conflict between WP:RS and the reading of WP:BLPSOURCES by John (which also conflicts with that by several other editors). The content issue is partly resolved by Hillbillyholiday edits. So if we can resolve the policy issue now it will prevent future conflict ----Snowded ^TALK 15:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, apologies for my typo the first time round. This is AN/I where user conduct issues requiring admin intervention are discussed. There is a parallel discussion at WT:BLP where the policy (which seems pretty clear to most people on matters like this one) can continue to be discussed. If you have agreed that you will desist from edit-warring violative and defamatory content into a BLP, then I would not ask for further admin intervention, unless this was to recur in the future. However, User:Zumoarirodoka may need a line in the sand drawn for them as they have restored material which nobody has tried to justify. --John (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry, current policy allows the use of Tabloids and most editors involve in the previous discussion agree with that. You really need to stop this aggressive labelling and issuing of threats to experienced editors who are trying to get an apparent conflict resolved. I could equally ask you to stop edit warring to remove material which is sourced per current policy on WP:RS and show some respect for WP:BRD. If you want to move the question to that board I'm fine with it. Maybe this time you will actually take part in the discussion, your behaviour is in question here as well you know. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

John, could you please at least tell me about the material which you believe is innapropriate for me to include on the British National Party article and talk with me either on the talk page or my user page, instead of bringing it up here first and issuing final warnings to me about disruptive editing (which I was definitely not intentionally doing) without any prior discussion whatsoever?

I'm not opposed to legitimate criticism as I am fully aware I am biased against the BNP (as with the majority of editors on that article) and I try to stick to WP:NPOV as much as I can, but please be civil about correcting me. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 16:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC) edited 16:25 UTC

There're two interesting question on behaviour which could be asked here.

1. If an experienced editor has raised a disputed interpretation for clarification at the appropriate policy forum, should an admin issue them with a block threat to support that Admin's position in the said dispute?
2. Should an admin who is aware that there is a dispute about policy, edit war to revert long standing material without first discussing the issue on the talk page of the article concerned?

Just a thought ----Snowded ^TALK 16:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• User:Zumoarirodoka is continuing to edit war this material in against consensus after a warning. Block, please. --John (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @John: As soon as you mentioned the specifics, I removed the material; I have no objections to removing specific material, but it wasn't explained to me personally which parts were BLP violations. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 21:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I appreciate that. It seems there is only one user now who does not "get" this policy. They were honest enough to admit that they restored the Sun source to the BLP to make a [[WP:POINT|point]. I asked at WT:BLP if there is anyone who thinks the non-compliant tabloid version was better than the version we have now, and this user (alone, obviously) still seems to think that using the Daily Mail to support negative material naming a living person is ok. I predict that if this aspect of user behaviour is not clarified, this user will continue to misunderstand BLP. I would like an uninvolved admin to look carefully at this and advise Snowded of our BLP policy. --John (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
      • You really can't stop can you. WP:RS permits tabloid papers to be used as a reliable source on factual matters. BLP only forbids tabloid journalism. In all the discussions so far everyone has agreed that alternative sources are better if available. So your statement above about my preferring it is plain false. The issue is that you think you can revert perfectly good material just because it is linked to a Tabloid source and when you are challenged you issue block threats on people's talk pages while breaking WP:BRD. Given that you are an admin that is dubious behaviour at best. Try asking for better sourcing or even look for it before blind reverting. You could also discuss issues with other editors and generally assume good faith. The minute we first encountered each other on this I raised the matter for clarification on the BLP notice board which is what a responsible editor should do. In that discussion everyone (including me) said that other sources were preferable but that Tabloids could be used for factual matters. Your contribution to that debate was to tell everyone else they were wrong and you were right. I've opened it again with a the policy statement below given you didn't want it discussed here. Taking part in that discussion as a equal participant would be a better approach than demands here ----Snowded ^TALK 12:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The policy question

To make this simpler and separate it conduct issues in respect of either John or myself, lets put the question: ----Snowded ^TALK 15:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the WP:BLPSOURCES ban on tabloid journalism mean that no BLP material can be sourced to a Tabloid Journal?

• Some use: Reporting of statements and other factual matters should be allowed but no commentary, ideally alternative sources should be provided ----Snowded ^TALK 15:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is not the place for this discussion, as stated above. --John (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • OK I have shifted it intact to the BLP page. I trust you will contribute ----Snowded ^TALK 16:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Its just about npov - User:Snowded hates the bnp and wants them and griffin portrayed as negatively as he can and he will use any rubbish opinionated link he can find to support that portrayal and will ignore all policies including wp:blp to achieve that end, simple really. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And absolutely correctly, I suppose. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jsp722 and his campaign against the word "pagan"

Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Wikipedia articles. Most recently here. The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere. He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIron^IV 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In that particular case it's OK. However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a "final warning" from an Admin here. While they haven't necessarily been warned about this specifically, they've received plenty of other kinds of warnings from other unhappy editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Wikipedia articles. Most recently here.

Dear Hebel, thank you for your interest in my humble edits.

I believe that you have improperly resorted to this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page.

Indeed, according to the Welcome Section above, “[b]efore posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page”.

However, no such discussion has ever taken place, as per your own weird choice.

Indeed, while it's true that you have posted a note on my own talkpage at 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC), no actual discussion could take place, since immediately thereafter you posted your grievance straight on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, at 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)!

You simply could not wait even 24 hours for an answer from my side! Please note as well that since you posted your note on my talkpage I have refrained from any edit you might perceive as offensive (or from any edit at all to that effect). It just happened that I was busy with something else.

Therefore, you behavior appears to be precipitous, to say the least.

As to the content of your complaint, any edit which replaces any given word with another, deemed to be more appropriate, in any number of Wikipedia articles (even if it is just one), could be alarmistically misrepresented as a “campaign to eradicate” such word from such article or articles, which is precisely what you did.

Such an exaggeration alone makes your complaint sound inadequate, if not a bit preposterous, just because those word replacements may, in principle, be perfectly adequate and well-warranted.

Therefore, what should be discussed is not the trivial fact that a word was replaced with another in any number of articles, which is the very essence of how Wikipedia works, but rather the worth, or lack thereof, of the replacement itself.

However, such discussion should take place on the modified articles' talkpage, or on the interested editors' talkpages, but not on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page as though the mere act of editing were an infraction.

Apropos, may I point to the fact that all of my edits without any exception were offered together with a clear explaining summary, while all of your reverts (except for the last one, after my warning) were done without any summary explanation, which suggests an unwillingness to discuss the topic, if not a disruptive, vandalizing intention.

Add to this that all of your reverts (except for the first one) were done in articles on which you had shown no previous interest, but which you could only find as the result of a dubious, patrolling, wikistalking behavior. Add to this your systematic lack of edit summaries, and we have the reinforced picture of a disruptive, vandalizing intention and behavior.

Therefore, may I suggest that you review your own intentions, correct your own behavior, and wait for my opportune answer on my own talkpage, or for my inputs on any edited article's talkpage. Then you will be able to explain your reasons, and why you fear that referring to Norse religion as “Norse religion” rather than “paganism” is the ominous sign of the end of the world. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere.

For someone like you, who has never offered even a mere edit summary justifying your own relevant edits (except for the rather phobic threats accompanying your last edit), you are asking a lot. I believe that any user is entitled to decide by themselves if and when to engage in any talks, and should not be judged from how many talks they have engaged in.

In my case, I have consistently offered clear, meaningful edit summaries, and my edits have most often been accepted without discussion, except for the occasional “thanks”. When they were reverted, I have consistently accepted the revert, and refrained from edit wars, choosing instead to wait until the moment I may find it appropriate to engage in further talks. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Hebel for so extensively quoting my edit summaries and talks. I think that they offer abundant evidence of my own reasons about the inadequacy of the “pagan” word, and the appropriateness of phrases such as “Norse religion”.

However, I believe that the appropriate place to discuss the worth, or lack thereof, of such words and phrases are the relevant talkpages, not this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, which should rather deal with users' editorial behavior -- a field by the way where your own behavior seems to be far from exemplary.

Still, it is interesting to remark that, although I have offered abundant reasons against the “pagan” usage, you have never refuted them, and while you have so passionately objected to phrases such as “Norse religion”, you have never offered any reason in support of your objection either -- and you have even explicitly accepted the same phrase when used by ScrapIronIV, as seen below, which discomfits your whole complaint!

Therefore, it seems that your inconformity is propelled by some personal, irrational phobia, rather than being based on any scientific, rational, equanimous assessment. Besides, your empty quotation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS sounds rather like a wikilawyering-motivated need to fill up an empty protest with some high-sounding law article, which if anything applies precisely to your own behavior.

For the sake of completeness, may I add that of course there are abundant scholarly references showing both the devious nature of the terminology “pagan”, and the appropriateness and scientific worth of phrases such as “Norse religion”, but I believe that such discussion hardly belongs here, and should be reserved to the appropriate talkpages -- to the chagrin of Hebel, of course, who would seemingly prefer the summary elimination of dissenting voices, à la Kim Jong-Un. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Iridescent says:] This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent for your interest, and your deep research on my edits; it's always uplifting to know that someone has read what I wrote! Now, if my edits have been “going on for years” without “any kind of warning” they should not be that bad, eh?

As to your objection to name Hitler's National Socialist Party as such, rather than “Nazi Party”, the big bee seems to be in your own bonnet, as you have such a hard time to call things by their names.

Your logic is reminiscent of European dark ages, when it was thought to be dangerous to mention the Devil by name (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-of-the-devil.html).

However, since God too should not be mentioned by name, the doubt remains whether according to you Hitler and his party belong to the side of God or of the Devil (unless like Hitler you are an atheist as well)! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[ScrapIronIV says:] While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIronIV 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ScrapIronIV; I was almost despairing of my unpopular “Norse religion” theory, to the point of fearing that even Thor from now on would call himself a “pagan” as per Hebel wishes! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] In that particular case it's OK.

That “particular case” is exactly the same as all other “cases”, except that the change was made by another editor. Your agreement here shows that your concern with my identical changes is purely personal, and that you lack any point at all.

Besides, accepting the change when made by another editor, but obsessively wikistalking and reverting my identical changes, just because they were authored by me, plus your virulent personal attacks, make it a hard job to assume your good faith WP:AGF. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This you could have said in the appropriate talk page, which you miserably failed to do, instead inappropriately coming straight to vent your unresolved personal frustrations on this Administrators' noticeboard/Incident page. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[IJBall says:] I suggest a "final warning" from an Admin here. While they haven't necessarily been warned about this specifically, they've received plenty of other kinds of warnings from other unhappy editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no! Another Kim Jong-Un in the block! You dislike, plus someone else was unhappy, then... zap!, Final Solution on the poor target of your annihilating instincts! You might find yourself together with some self-help here: http://www.cracked.com/article_21834_5-realities-life-when-your-brain-wants-you-to-murder.html Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I do see certain problems with Jsp722's style of expression, I note that quite a lot of his edits do indeed seem to replace "pagan" or "paganism" (and some other specific buzz-words) with descriptions that are in fact more nuanced and more exact. Also, while we aren't here to right great wrongs, for those who are bothered by the derogatory origins and occasional derogatory overtones of the word "pagan", his descriptions are definitely less of an un-necessary irritation and make for a better encyclopedia. I have no present intention to make any further comments on this thread, but I feel that all sides might benefit from some careful reconsideration, possibly some advice. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I should add that I'd be happy to discuss this further with any editor. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit is a good example of why Jsp722 needs to be stopped: removing this word makes it unclear whether we're talking about their religious beliefs or something about cultural mythology comparable to George Washington and the cherry tree. This edit, likewise: Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, but that's not the meaning at all. Unrelated issue, but also problematic, appears here, as Jsp722 either takes offense to "precocious" or misunderstands it as some sort of derogatory term. All of his edits that I've checked involve removing or replacing useful terminology, and in every case the result is worse. Finally, Richard, what do you mean about the derogatory origins of the word, and how is it a buzzword? It merely means "rural" in its etymology, and while I can imagine that being used derogatorily like "hick" or "redneck" are in the US, that's irrelevant to the issues at hand here. It's been used for millennia with essentially its current meaning, and most or all fluent speakers of English will easily understand what's being meant. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking Nyttend's points one by one, This edit removes the word "pagan" and leaves "Prussian mythology". I'd see that as an improvement. In most cultures the mythology is the religion, or, to put it another way, very few cultures have regarded religion as an entirely separate thing from mythology. The word "pagan" is at least superfluous here. At This edit we find "pagan" replaced by "followers of traditional religions", again possibly an improvement, though I personally would consider piping it to Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia. (I also don't have the reference so can't check whether Jewish Arabs made pilgrimage to Mecca or not.) And at this edit, Jsp722 removes the word "precocious" from the description of a man whose career achieved the École Normale Supérieure only at his third attempt and at the age of 21. The substituted word "persistent" is simply an improvement in accuracy, I suggest. Finally, the word "pagan" was indeed originally derogatory, meaning "country hick", and it still does carry pejorative overtones at times. I'm not hung up on avoiding offence, the word has indeed been widely used including by neo-pagans, and there are appropriate places to use it, but it's not something we should be insisting on at every place where it could possibly be used. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

May I add, beside the already tired topic of derogatoriness, that the usage “pagan” reflects a Christian, or maybe Abrahamic, point-of-view, whereas Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, or as neutral as possible. Otherwise we might start to call followers of Abrahamic religions “mlechccha” (“bárbaros”) which is how some Eastern traditions would refer to them. Besides, “pagan” and “paganism” are inaccurate terms, because they may variously refer to different sets of religions, including or not Zoroastrism (held by some as monotheist and thus included among the “religions of the book”), including or not great religions such as Taoism, Hinduism, or Buddhism, including or not Catholic and Orthodox Christianity (viewed by some as polytheistic and idolater), and so forth. Besides, “pagan” and “paganism” are obscuring, uninformative terms, as one remains in the darkness as to whether each one of those peoples, together with their ancient cultures, those later massacred by or forcibly converted to Christianity and Islam, were followers of which among such related but distinct, and rich, religious traditions as those of the Saxons, of the Frisians, of the Norse, of the Iberians, of the Lusitanians, of the Franks, of the Celts, of the Slavs, of the Iranians such as the Mithraists, of the Arabs, of the American Natives, of the Yazidis, and so forth, all of them in the last two millenia trivialized and demonized as merely “pagans”. Therefore, lazily indulging in such blunt, gross, uninsightful, generalizing, defacing blanket terms as “pagan” and “paganism”, without any effort to identify, individualize, and humanize such a wealth of religious traditions, whenever possible, kind of complements their programmed and systematic physical and psychological extermination with their intellectual extermination as well: a weird, uncomely role to be performed by Wikipedia.

[Nyttend says:] This edit is a good example of why Jsp722 needs to be stopped: removing this word makes it unclear whether we're talking about their religious beliefs or something about cultural mythology comparable to George Washington and the cherry tree.

While I believe that every mythology is anyway cultural, from the article's context it is clear that the reference was the old Prussian religious belief system; among other reasons because the text explicitly say that it was something followed (unless you are used to follow anecdotes).

Besides, Webster clearly defines mythology as “A body of myths; esp., the collective myths which describe the gods of a heathen people; as, the mythology of the Greeks.” Add to this the context of the article, and it is quite obvious that the reference is a religious system, with or without the term “pagan”.

Personally, I think that the best wording would be something like “Prussian religious beliefs”, according to your own description above, rather than “Prussian mythology”, which is more restricted. Indeed, “religious beliefs” include many other factors beside mythology, such as ritual, cosmology, taboos, and so forth.

However, since “Prussian mythology” is the very title of the linked Wikipedia page, I found it more appropriate to leave the word “mythology” unchanged. Please note that the title of the Wikipedia linked page is “Prussian mythology”, not “Pagan Prussian mythology” as you would want, which would indeed sound rather ridiculous.

Indeed, “pagan mythology” is rather redundant, since in the current context mythology is anyway “pagan”, “heathen” or whatever you want to call it, as highlighted by the above quoted Webster's definition. Unless of course if you want to suggest that there is “Christian mythology”, “Jewish mythology”, or “Abrahamic mythology”, with which I would immediately agree.

That said, what strikes me is your slightly phobic proclamation of the “need to stop” Jsp722 just because of such a trivial disagreement. If you, like Hebel and probably others, want the “pagan” word in this phrase, just undo my edit. If I disagree, I can discuss the topic in the article's page, as I'm doing here. If there's still no agreement, anyone of us can still request a dispute resolution, and the issue will be settled by a neutral party.

Therefore, may I suggest that you cool down a little bit, review your motivations, and engage in discussions with a proper, constructive attitude, rather than trying to almost criminalize editors you may perceive as rivals just because of petty differences of opinion, and to impose your views, right or wrong, through the invocation of extreme, disciplinary means, all of which run completely against the very collaborative principles on which Wikipedia is based. Jsp722 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

[Nyttend says:] This edit, likewise: Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, but that's not the meaning at all.

There the original text was like this:

“tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or pagan, would converge on Mecca to perform the Hajj”,

while after my edit it became like this:

“tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or followers of traditional religions, would converge on Mecca to perform the Hajj”

While of course Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, Jewish tribes were not, according to my phrasing, necessarily included among the followers of traditional religions converging to Mecca, just because I did not say that “tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or followers of all traditional religions, would converge to Mecca”.

Besides, if you insist on saying that beside Christian tribes only “pagan” tribes would converge to Mecca to perform the Hajj, you are adventuring the unwarranted, unreferenced, novel theory that absolutely no Jewish tribe was converging to Mecca to perform the Hajj!

Now, if you have a specific reference showing that no Jewish tribes were converging on Mecca to performing the Hajj, please feel free to enrich Wikipedia with it, which still does not imply that the useless “pagan” word has to be used at all, given its many already discussed shortcomings.

Bottom line, blinded by your inquisitorial frenzy to find petty faults in my humble edits, and by your furious obsession for punishments aiming solely at the summary elimination of a perceived rival, you have not only incurred primitive logic faults, but also tried to make pass your own ahistorical, thoughtless guesses as though they were ultimate truths. Jsp722 (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

[Nyttend says:]Finally, Richard, what do you mean about the derogatory origins of the word, and how is it a buzzword?

Reading makes miracles (or pagan magic, if you wish). While any standard dictionary should do the job, try for instance the links below. Once you are in the linked webpage, press Ctrl + F to search the word “derogatory.”

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Paganism

https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/pagan

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan,

http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

Also, a Google search gave 144.000 results for the search pagan+derogatory

Were you and others such as Hebel to spend with honest research 1% of the time and energy you spend with ridiculous wikistalking, petty nitpicking, and infantile bickering, strictly motivated by the base wish of eliminating from Wikipedia editors you might perceive as rivals, and you wouldn't need to ask this kind of primitive question.

Just for the sake of illustration, and so that you may develop some minimal acquaintance with the topic, here follow some quotations from the above links:

Paganism is a term that developed among the Christian community of southern Europe during late antiquity to describe religions other than their own, Judaism, or Islam–the three Abrahamic religions. Throughout Christendom, it continued to be used, typically in a derogatory sense. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Paganism

Paganism has also been understood by some[who?] to include any non-Abrahamic religions, but this is generally[who?] seen as insulting by adherents of those religions. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Paganism

Once monotheistic religions, such as Christianity and Islam, started to become more prominent (in processes known as Christianization and Islamization), names to encompass polytheistic worshipers started to develop; some of these include Hellene, pagan, and heathen, and at times these names were used as slurs. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Paganism

Pagans were usually described within this worldly stereotype, especially among those drawing attention to what they perceived as the limitations of paganism. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Paganism#Perception

Pagan, adjective

1. If something (or someone) is pagan, it is from a kind of religion called paganism.

2. (often offensive or derogatory) Relating to a religion that is not a major religion; often anything non-Christian.

3. (by extension) Immoral, uncivilized, savage, heathen.

Pagan, noun''

1. A pagan is someone who follows paganism or a polytheistic religion.

2. (often offensive or derogatory) A person who doesn't follow a major religion; often used to refer to non-Christians.

3. (by extension) Someone who is immoral, uncivilized, savage, or a heathen.

https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/pagan

Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (such as milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan

"'Pagan' is a word invented by early Christians to describe anyone who refused to recognize the Only True God, and no self-respecting pagan ever described himself as one."

http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

"...paganus, the root of 'pagan' as well as 'peasant,' is consistently pejorative.." (A Chronicle of the Last Pagans by Pierre Chuvin, 1990, Harvard University Press, p.7)

http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

Jsp722 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Medeis has some sort of vendetta against me on the Reference Desk: Science board, and keeps harassing me

I often peruse the reference desk to get some advice on how to perform organic chemistry reactions in the lab. They aren't homework questions, particularly as I have a bachelors' in biochemistry and I am pursuing these reactions on an amateur basis. User:Medeis puzzlingly keeps accusing me of using the reference desk to answer "homework questions" and "professional advice". As far as I know, the restriction on professional advice is for legal advice, medical advice, financial investing advice, the kind of advice you would actually hire a professional consultant for, rather than restrictions on advanced organic chemistry because the questions are advanced or practical in scope. He has made these accusations against me on this basis several times, making personal attacks, and the latest action involves removing a legitimate question outright. Medeis sent me a "final warning" a few days ago on my talk page, threatening to get me "indefinitely blocked" as a sockpuppet, or saying he would report me to ANI. [31] I thought I would pre-empt him on the matter. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Also until two minutes ago, until I further glanced up on the talk pages, I actually had no idea that User:Medeis has been topic-banned from the Reference Desk before. Could I ask for some advice or intervention on the matter, seeing as it is not his first time harassing other users on the Reference Desk? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

would pre-empt him on the matter. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I frequently disagree with Medeis in many area and some of their accusations seem IMO careless at times. E.g. the homework questions accusation already seemed bizzare as it never seemed like Yanping Nora Soong (YNS) was asking questions relating what would be considered "homework".

However it has became increasingly clear that YNS is asking questions relating to potentially dangerous chemistry work they apparently plan to try at home, in an effort to produce drugs for self medication. See in particular Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 January 4#Ground glass joints with 2.5 bar pressure relief valve?. While I have some sympathies for the situation YNS finds themselves in, I'm fairly sure from the comments I've seen that I'm not the only one incredibly uncomfortable with this line of question. I'm not sure if Medeis's unilateral deletion was the best move (particularly since for a variety of reasons, Medeis's deletions tend to cause controversy) but in this particular instance it's difficult to fault it.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As for the sock issue, while it appears to be true Yanping Nora Soong has used other accounts in the past, AFAIK these account were basically in good standing perhaps with some people suggesting they were asking a little too many questions and a few other issues which seem irrelevant to the current situation. While there may be some similarites of current with previous behaviour, considering the length of time and the fact there was never AFAIK any formal warning or restriction, I do not believe there is a credible case for sockpuppetry (i.e. misuse of multiple account such as avoiding scrunity). Particularly since it should be fairly obvious why YNS may not want to link their current account with previous accounts from what they've disclosed on their user page. If Medeis still feels there is an issue, they should approach arbcom about this to avoid WP:OUTING and other concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a grave issue. YNS shouldn't be doing what she's trying to do. It could have really devastating consequences. Although, Medeis has violated his sanction (and also given a bad rationale), I think the real issue at hand is that YNS is attempting to prepare unknown medications for herself. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been psychiatrically hospitalized over thirty times, I actually have been through over twenty to thirty different medications in the last four years (I've lost count), I've even had electroconvulsive therapy (which they won't give me anymore since my diagnosis was formally changed from MDD / bipolar spectrum disorder to complex PTSD and dissociative disorder NOS). I have attempted suicide several times in severely dissociated or dysphoric states (not a threat by any means, just saying how severe my disorder is). Bear in mind, there are currently no approved medications for the treatment of PTSD. Experimental treatments are risky, but untreated chronic suicidality and dissociation are even more so. Plus, targeting NMDA receptors and sigma receptors are really promising lines of treatment.

I am also not doing anything illegal (self-medication is a human right) and I'm actually only asking for organic chemistry advice, not medical advice. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, AFAIK Medeis is under no active sanction relating to the RD or removals. (I think none point blank.) The topic ban mentioned above happened 2 years ago but was quickly vacated as lacking consensus (i.e. it's considered to have never happened). Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked up some threads in ANI and it seems there's lots featuring him. I did find the thread containing the community sanction but not the one which overturned that outcome. I simply took YNS' word for it (I still don't know). Now, Medeis might not have a bad conduct but he certainly is a problem user. I'd like to see links to his hounding and personal attacks (if any) before I comment further (not that my comments matter). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, a different named user asked the same question just a few days ago, and it was discussed ad nauseam at the ref desk talk page. In short, the ban was lifted 2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: Self-medication is not a human right, but it's just assumed to be one (just like self-euthanizing is not one but often supposed to be). Now, I'm no chemistry guy but as far as Wnt said on the Reference Desk, do not try it at home, you don't know what products your reaction might yield, hell, you could find the next big drug but there's no surety. Just saying, the consequences are too great. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We do not currently have any rule or guideline prohibiting the asking of "dangerous" questions. As always, the correct response upon observing a question which one would be uncomfortable answering is to ignore it. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Depends on how much social responsibility one feels. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I've seen Medeis allege "homework" a few times lately in situations where I think it plainly was not. Now the Reference Desk may have a policy about homework questions, but it's important that we not let the policy be gamed in such a way that, if a person wanted to, he or she could levy a false "homework" accusation against any question and then expect the merits of the question to be debated as if it it were an issue. While I am definitely not fond of chemistry under pressure, I must emphasize the importance of keeping an open door for people to ask such questions. If we happen to talk someone out of trying something risky, this is a very good thing; it is a special case though of the general rule that if we can share useful information, we make people more informed and more informed people will do better, safer chemistry. Though I should note that Soong is actually a much better chemist than I am, which is why the suggestion of using improper vessels under pressure seemed so out of place! (It's a pity our Document Object Model doesn't allow better possibilities for citizen-scientists to embed real-time lab notebooks and coordinate their research through Wikipedia... but I digress)

Anyway, the ANI take-home here should be (a) the question isn't up for debate, (b) Medeis should knock off with the bogus homework allegations - whether you call them assuming bad faith, personal attack or whatever, they're not relevant or productive. Wnt (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a chemist but I've worked in an art foundry for over twenty years where we do all types of pressure casting and molding and I can't express to YNS enough how devastating the catastrophic failure of a pressure vessel can be. People don't realize how powerful even 10psi can be depending on the failure let alone truly high pressure systems. I've seen things you wouldn't believe. Failures that would be fatal if someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time. With chemical reactions you can have the production of gases spiral out of control incredibly quickly with no chance to intercede. Then you're talking the potential for glass shrapnel and the chemicals spraying everywhere. Capeo (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that's the intention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was good advice. I guess I didn't think of 1.4 atm (gauge pressure; 2.4 atm absolute) as potentially being catastrophic. After all, 1.4 atm * 100 mL = 14 joules. The K.E. of a typical bullet is >500J (in hunting, ~>2500 J -- seeing from Muzzle energy#Legal_requirements_on_muzzle_energy), but an airsoft gun produces an output more on the order of 7.5J, and no one thinks of those things as lethal. My other consideration is that a a litre of water freezing into ice exerts wayyy more pressure on a tight container -- but I guess it doesn't do that explosively. But, after the heads-up, I ordered a specially-designed pressure vessel rated at 10 atm (tested at 15 atm) instead. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, 1.4 atm = 1.4 * 101325 Pa = 141855 kg m-1 s-2. Multiply by 100 cm3 = 1E-4 m3 = 14 joules... that seems to check out. Also, on looking it up just now [32] I should admit that I had a misconception in my mind -- it might actually be possible to use X-rays to find slivers of glass in someone's eye and avoid prospecting for it with forceps, though borosilicate is more difficult than soda lime glass. Even so, I'm not enthusiastic about exploding glassware, even before we get into the toxicity/flammability of whatever is in it. And buying a stronger container just seems like doubling down on the risk to me. You weren't very clear on whether you had any sort of fume hood or blast shield set up at all, which was one of the reasons for concern. Wnt (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am going to refrain from answering at this point at length. But I asked YNS whether her questions were homework questions for the simple reason that I did such syntheses in Organic Chem Lab to get my bachelor's degree; i.e., as homework. If it wasn't homework, it was a request for professional advice, both of which the Ref Desk disallows.

Based on YNS's talk page and contribution history, I think it is clear this user has a very long history soapboxing and of resorting to ANI, rather than editting mainspace. Her recent attacks on User:Snow Rise as a patriarchical cisnormative heterosexist (I paraphrase) started by a third person show a focus on using WP as a homepage and forum, rather than an encyclopedia. Likewise there's the request for speculation about how to get executed for a capital crime where no capital punishment exists, which degenerated into a discussion of assisted suicide show a wide divergence from the project's goals.

As a queer myself I can see the temptation to "speak out", but WP is defined as WP:NOTAFORUM. I don't think YNS has ever once asked for a reference at the ref desk. The sole problem I see on my account is that I did not notify YNS yesterday when I reverted her latest WP:NOTHOWTO question. But she has never engaged with me, except to revert a warning of mine on her talkpage to follow the guidelines with a revert and the edit summary "LOLZ".

I have nothing against this user, have not pursued her across mainspace, and suggest this be closed. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing really attacky about deeming someone a member of the patriarchy; most cis males who aren't feminists are by default, members of the patriarchy**, and I wasn't trying to make an attack. I was simply pointing out to him that, "your viewpoint is convenient for you to have, but not convenient for people who belong to more disadvantaged groups". Anyway, the whole issue sprung up up around what it meant for a doctor to make an "error" while sexing a baby, and it turned out we misinterpreted each other to begin with, and I don't think the discussion is antithetical to the project or to the reference desk when it makes evaluate more clearly what sex and gender mean. I wasn't even trying to have a debate, I was simply responding to what seemed like an unintentional microaggression. As Wnt put it succinctly : I've noticed most methods of classifying people that seem convenient to me eventually seem annoying to someone being classified.

**from the lead from our article on patriarchy: "Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property..."

Also what's wrong with asking a hypothetical question about seeking the death penalty when you've been imprisoned for life? It wasn't a request for legal advice -- I've never been in prison and do not think I ever might be, certainly not for life (tho if I were black I could not say this with as much certainty), it was more of a burning curiosity especially as I kind of saw it as a deep injustice to be imprisoned for life but not to be allowed the option to die. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's standard, yes, "deeming someone" in that matter is indeed a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

YNS, Please simply read the Ref Desk guildelines at the top of the RD pages, as well as Wikipedia:General disclaimer:

Not professional advice: If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.

We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.

We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.

And abide by them without interposing yourself in discussions where people innocently use terms such as "transgender" by attempting to shame them. I am certainly on no vendetta against you, and did not file an ANI, or a complaint at the talk page. You may find that engaging with people who've been openly queer since the early 80's, or simply other editors who don't start from the same premises as you, to be informative. And I do still maintain you should only ask for references, and not how-to questions, on how to synthesize bioactive substances. You are looking at matters that require hoods, vents, wash-stations, and so forth by law. We're simply not qualified, and I can quote plenty of other editors who've told you the same thing, if you insist. Please ping me here for further attention if needed. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, WP:NPA, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:NOTHOWTO would also be extremely helpful. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: It looks like there you started discussing the "cishet patriarchy" impersonally, but got drawn into what seemed like more direct argument. I don't want to confuse personal political opinion with personal attack. Nonetheless, be very careful about the "deeming people", i.e. making or appearing to make ad hominem statements or assumptions about other users. I know there's a rigged game here, that often people use policy as a way to attack people personally and then if they gripe back they get slammed; so don't let yourself become a victim of it. Wnt (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTHOWTO AFAIK applies to article space. It doesn't apply to the Reference Desk. I'm also not asking for professional advice -- if I had more chemist friends I spoke to on a regular basis, I'd be asking them in a non-professional capacity. I don't think you also know the difference between "transgender" (a term I identify with) and transgendered (a misuse at best, a slur at worst). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The OP has made 336 edits to Wikipedia in about 4 1/2 months. Of these, only 74 were to articles, while a whopping 125 (37.2%) were to Wikipedia space. Edits to their own user page and to the photographs they uploaded account for another 69. To be frank, YNS is showing very strong signs of not being here to improve the encyclopedia, but for reasons of their own. However valid those reasons are to themselves, personally, it is not what we are here for. I very strongly urge YNS to refocus their efforts into editing articles and otherwise contributing to the project in a positive way, as I am afraid that the failure to do so will otherwise eventually end up in a sanction. That's not something that's desirable: clearly YNS has much to offer to the project, but we're not here for any other purpose than to help improve an online encyclopedia, and if they cannot put the vast majority of their energy into doing that, then there is no place for them here. That would be regrettable. BMK (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep this brief as I may, under the circumstances. I just want to point out YNS that they really have no idea whether I am male or female or indeed whether I am cis, and they very well might never know, since one of the most compelling facets of Wikipedia is that participation is not predicated on who you are, but what you bring to the table as a contributor. I've always found that aspect of Wikipedia to be virtually unique in my personal experiences. However, I will state unequivocally that I am a feminist and consider it a defining feature of my life and general morale outlook. And I very much take offense to YNS's unfounded and repetitive accusations and presumptions about myself (and Graeme), which, at this point, I very much consider to have passed into the territory of WP:personal attacks, made as a part of a massive WP:SOAPBOX effort to divert discussions into territories they wish to zealously engage on. In an effort to create one or more foil for their stances, they have made numerous assumptions about the character and beliefs of others (myself primarily) which are not in evidence anywhere in the discussion and from which they will not be dissuaded in asserting. I like to think I have skin about as thick as any editor, but I admit, my patience begins to wear thin for being essentially called a bigot on no more basis than that it provides a convenient rhetorical argument for the insinuating party. I urge anyone who has questions about how tortured their logic is in reaching these conclusions to read the thread in question. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Perspective or background of the contributor does matter somewhat (in certain cases), see Wikipedia:Systemic bias.

Also, BMK, I'm not sure if you're saying that photographs do not improve the encyclopedia? I'm a photographer to begin with, so I find this sentiment puzzling. I actually didn't wish to soapbox at all. Graeme simply mentioned a hypothetical situation of a doctor "being incorrect" in the matter of sexing a baby, and this whole notion of "correctness" with regards to assessing a baby's sex (or correcting their sex) is actually a cause of a lot of suffering. This is not just personal opinion -- actually there are entire communities of individuals whose quality of life has been diminished because of the whole notion of whether a baby's sex is correct/incorrect.

I didn't call anyone a bigot, I am unaware of when unfeminist became a slur. If for you, "transgender'ed is not a slur, then neither is "unfeminist". Honestly -- I'm not trying to be a smartass -- but the whole idea of "sex is biological but gender is constructed," though historically important, has become frequently challenged. In fact, these challenges are well-sourced. See Sex and gender distinction#Criticism of the "sex_difference" vs. "gender difference" distinction. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also for the sake of the flying spaghetti monster, I have never said that the word "transgender" was a slur. I am transgender.

You've misread WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS (or not read it at all): it doesn't give you free license to speculate about another user's identity, motives, or beliefs. It concerns only our content and how we apply the sources to determine the shape that content will take. It does not concern our contributors at all, except insofar as it informs how they should approach article content. I'll leave it to others to read that thread and come to their own conclusions about what you were implying about my beliefs and the leaps in logic you made to do so. As far as I am concerned, painting me as an "unsympathetic cisnormative oppressor" and the various other terms you've used, ad nauseum, are quite inflammatory, especially in light of my repeated efforts to get you to stop speculating about what manner of person I am, off-wiki. You've stopped now and that's good enough for me to assume it is a turning point in your involvement there (for which I am grateful) but you do need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies on arguing the point, not the user, if you want to get on civilly here. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not sure how this discussion actually influenced article content, as opposed to a Reference Desk answer, and secondly, I apologize if you actually aren't cis. However, it seemed reasonable to assume a cisgender background based on rather absolutist** arguments you were making (**I don't think it's out of line to call this so?) -- that there are only two human sexes, and that all humans can be categorized or assigned membership to only one of them. Most trans or nonbinary people who have faced oppression from cisnormativity in society wouldn't make an argument like that. Also, it was not apparent to me that cisnormativity has ever adversely affected you. I was not making a bad faith accusation, or trying to impugn or insult you in any way. The majority of the people I interact with in everyday life, outside my closest friends, hold cisnormative beliefs. Cisnormativity is something I deal with on a daily basis. The same applies to white privilege: most white people in Western countries (or even East Asia) enjoy white privilege whether they realize it or not, unless they have faced societal oppression for not being white enough. I myself, enjoy certain kinds of privilege due to my education and upbringing, that many other people do not. It's not a personal attack to say that someone has cis privilege, it's just an attempt to get a person to try to re-examine the points of view held by those who don't have similar privileges. I don't think it is in violation of policy to note that an absolutist position on sex membership (or categorization) is very convenient to cis people, but not to others.

That aside, I apologize for not introducing references earlier. I was not as rigorous in my answer seeing as our answers weren't a discussion of article content. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the big picture here. It doesn't matter whether I (or any editor) is cis or trans (or Caucasian or Asian or Catholic or Muslim, or a member of another broad category of person). Nor is any editor obliged to confirm, deny, or in any way clarify their relationship to one of those categories in order to provide a factual, source, or content opinion on the topic. Our personal relation to demographics do not matter in this place--or at least, aren't meant to, if we don't bring them into the mix ourselves. Further, you don't get to yourself say "I am X, therefor, my opinion is more valid for X, and I am going to act as Arbiter and Gatekeeper of X". Those kinds of arguments from authority just won't fly here. Actually, quite the opposite is true on this project: it can be considered very problematic for an editor (especially a new contributor) to work in areas where they have strong emotional or ideological attachments for which they feel inclined to advocate, as this can be a significant bar to exercising WP:Neutral point of view, one of the pillar concepts of activity here. In any event, you definetly are not allowed to say "I think you're probably Y, therefore I can reach the following conclusions on what you think of X." You might very well get that impression about another contributor from time to time (we all do). But keep it to yourself and don't let it influence how you interact with others or how your arguments are presented.

So, using the discussion in question as an example, it's perfectly acceptable to mention theories or data or cisnormative privilege (and especially useful if you provide sources to support these concepts), but if someone has a different take on those concepts, don't accuse them of having blinders on because of factors that you can't know about and which aren't meant to be part of the discourse here in any event. And although you aren't forbidden from bringing your own background into discussion, it's probably best to avoid that too: in discussions on article content, your perspective won't matter much if you don't have WP:reliable sources to back up and WP:verify your position, and your arguments will carry more weight if you seem to be making them on their merits as a dispassionate observer. And indeed these principles of good argumentation and neutral stance generally apply to the ref desks as well, though the nuances are a little different. Approaching these topics from a stance of indifference is not always easy or consistent with how we intuitively treat the underlying issues when they arise in other areas of our life, I know, but it has advantages when we are working on an encyclopedia. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, BMK, I'm not sure if you're saying that photographs do not improve the encyclopedia?

• (1) You focus on one small aspect of what I said, ignoring the larger point: your edits have, by and large, not been focused on improving the encyclopedia.
• (2) It depends on the content of the photographs, and their appropriateness for use on en.Wiki (since you actively reject uploading them to Commons, which they're more likely to be used by other language WPs and be seen and used by non-Wikimedians).
• (3) In your case, 3 self-portraits and 14 other photos [33] do not constitute such an improvement to the encyclopedia as to invalidate my point.

BMK (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually have been constructing references to upload to chemistry articles on article space, I just haven't actually written them to articlespace yet -- User:Yanping_Nora_Soong/literature. Also, I'll just say right here -- of course I want to improve the encyclopedia, but the Ref Desk space is very different from the rest of the Wikipedia space. Do you wish that I stop contributing because less than half of my edits are to article space? Self-portraits aside, quantity and quality of photographs are different metrics -- actually that should apply to edit counts as well.

I would also like to point out that I haven't been blocked half a dozen times for edit-warring. Are you sure you actually want to improve the encylopedia, BMK? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Yanping Nora Soong, I am absolutely certain that I am here to improve the encyclopedia, and for not other reason. I'll also note that, in what appears to be the type of action which others have described above, you turned my attempt to advise you about how to avoid what would seem to be an inevitable sanction in your future into an attack on me. I would suggest that such behavior is not productive, and you should consider that not everything which is addressed to you is a provocation which requires responding in that manner. Clearly, I can talk to you, but there's no way I can make you listen, so good luck to you. BMK (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would encourage you to edit some chemistry articles too. I enjoy answering the chemistry questions by supplying references, but really you are not going to get serious professional chemistry advice on the reference desk! Also I am not upset about your interpretation of the genealogical record sex error. We just have to WP:assume good faith all around. There is no need to complain here about the issues raised above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: There is a very big problem with your complaint about Soong's edit counts. Soong has a high edit count at Wikipedia:Reference desks because she had several very technical questions to ask, and encountered substantial naysaying and requests for further information from several people including myself. For months, several people at the Refdesk (you can see them there on the talk page now) have been saying that people who seriously ask questions should consider registering accounts to avoid the anti-vandal semi-protection applied to many of the desks for much of the time. Now you come along and say that if an editor's edit counts are invested in Refdesk questions, they're not serving any purpose and there's something wrong with them. We can't have it both ways. My opinion is that asking and answering questions on the Refdesk is a useful encyclopedia building activity, which sometimes suggests direct improvements to articles and in any case is building up a database of raw Q-and-A material that we could use to develop better resources either here or at Wikiversity. I bet those gadgets they advertise on TV that answer questions use our material as part of their database also. In any case, whether or not you think the Refdesk is worthwhile activity, that issue should not be debated just for her alone simply because someone decided to call her question a homework question. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is an accurate evaluation of the situation at all. If YNS asks a certain kind of question at the Ref Desk, and gets the kind of response that indicates that it's not an appropriate question for that venue, and then asks another of the same type of questions, the problem does not lie in the fact that YNS got the same kind of response, the problem lies in the fact that YNS did not take on board that questions of that type are not appropriate. Repeating one's actions and expecting a different kind of result is not a reasonable behavior pattern. BMK (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: When YNS talked about trying to do something under pressure and we said it didn't sound like a good idea, that was not inappropriate. That was the Refdesk doing what it was supposed to do, namely, giving people a chance to share information. (more or less -- to the degree that it was just personal opinions/advice with too few sources, we did let him down, but we're not the ones you're blaming) A question does not become "not appropriate" just because someone thinks something is a bad idea; they were within policy and remain so. Wnt (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A question to RefDesk is "not appropriate" when it does not lie within the rules quoted above by Medeis. As far as I can tell, all of YNS's questions (or at least the majority of them) have been inappropriate for that reason. Further, your apologia for YNS fails to take into account that the editor has been, essentially, a non-contributor to articles, but a serial questioner at RefDesk, which is an ancilliary aspect of Wikipedia - it could be closed down tomorrow (not a bad idea) and the encyclopedia, which is our primary project, would not be affected at all. I reiterate, YNS is best advised to stop acting as if every comment directed her way is a criticism, stop responding to comments with personalized attacks, stop filing essentially frivolous ANI complaints, stop using Ref Desk in ways it is not intended to be used, and to start making contributions to the encyclopedia her primary activity here. Any other course of sction is almost certain to end up in a sanction. You are not helping this editor by abetting their behavior. BMK (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Your dislike for the Refdesk is not a widely shared sentiment and is not policy. My point is that we are encouraging new users to ask questions at the Refdesk, we are encouraging them to register accounts to do so, and thus logically we should not be going around and condemning them for doing what we encouraged them to do. Anyone in the world has been welcome to ask questions they think are interesting and non-trivial to answer under an IP address, and that behavior does not suddenly become wrong because they registered an account. Her ANI complaint was frivolous only in the sense that most of the interaction here is frivolous - unlike the Refdesk, the encyclopedia could do as well without this forum for non-encyclopedic content - it tied into previous discussions of problem behavior by Medeis; I think that if we end up deciding to tell him, as was proposed below, to stop playing policeman, that would be as reasonable an outcome as any. And if a sanction could be reasonable, asking for it is not frivolous. I have indeed criticized her responses a few times, and my purpose is not to defend her right or wrong; in any case, had I been asked, I certainly would never have advised her to venture into this snake pit. However, as my primary interest regarding the Refdesk is in seeing that people are free to consult it without that being treated like it's some kind of offense, I have been a bit careless of your potentially hostile reaction toward her. Wnt (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that I don't much like the blanket and poorly-nuanced dispersion which BMK made with regard to the RefDesks, but I think I can understand their concern in this instance. As a long-time contributor to the desks, who has often found it to be one of the more rewarding areas of the project to contribute in and who regards it as (in principle) very useful to the project as a whole, I still have deep misgivings about the liberties certain users take in that space--and this includes a number of those who ask questions and (more concerning) three or four who answer questions. There is far, far, far too much discussion that is unreferenced, including a great deal of wild speculation that cannot be referenced or includes winding digressions into original research. The rules concerning banned topic matters are also inconsistently applied, despite consensus on the Ref Desk talk page and broader Wikipedia/WMF principles telling us that they need to be strictly applied. And please, you can dispense with your response that we do not have community guidelines banning/discouraging offering advice in these areas; I know from TP discussions that we do not have the same view of the wording and weight of those principles, and I think it suffices for our purposes here to say we are not on the same page.

In any event, with regard to the rampant speculation in particular, I've been saying for years that if we do not crack down on this kind of behaviour (which flies in the face of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTAFORUM and other policies which the desks are not explictly exempted from), then the larger community will probably do it for us sooner or later. But I admit, in the last year, I've begun to feel like leading the charge to restrict unsourcceable speculation, fishing expeditions and other activities that attempt to make a part of the encyclopedia's process into an almost completely open forum. Which it is not meant to be. It's a reference desk, not a mid-90's online bulletin board for anyone to share any kind of information they choose, regardless of whether it improves the encyclopedia or conforms to broader community rules. Mind you, I'd much rather we started to give temporary topic bans to the worst offenders than that we lay down blanket restrictions on the desks--given that most of our contributors violate the principles of sourcing only intermittently and know where the line between sourceable commentary and wild speculation. But if the choice is between A) laying down some new rules that may complicate our process and B) allowing a general downslide of the desks into subreddit clones because of the activity of a few editors who number less than half a dozen but write literally thousands upon thousands of speculative, unsourced, and frankly often misleading answers to questions, every year--or worse, hijack threads to open discussion into unrelated matters they want to talk about--....well, I know which side I will come down on, alas.

Anyway, putting the issues of the value of the desks and broad violations of their principles aside, BMK is unambigously correct about YNS showing every sign of being WP:NOTHERE. So far. YNS has a long way to go to understanding this project and in internalizing its values. If they stay, I feel this will probably not be the last time the community discusses their behaviour, given their propensity towards a certain kind of paranoia and seeing enemies in people who simply question their approach, activities, and perspectives here, even though they (YNS) are barely familiar with our policies. But, other editors have come here with similar motivations, issues, and difficulties in understanding our process and have eventually become full converts. And all BMK seems to be saying (to my interpretation) is that YNS will be best-served by all of us not treating them with kid gloves and making it clear what is expected of them if they wish to continue to participate here. That's my reading of BMK's comments anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion about executions and suicide referred to by Medeis is here [34].

Firstly while there was some limited request for speculation in that question but most of it could be answered with refs without speculation. (Some speculation may have been necessary by the OP from these refs, but that is fairly common since a lot of the time there isn't a ref which answers such a specific question. For that reason there may also be some speculation based on refs by respondents.)

The claim it "degenerated" is missing the point, suicide was a part of the question from the beginning and the YNS later specifically asked "Are there routes for a life-sentenced convict to seek official routes to death that wouldn't be classified as a traditional execution". So the possibility of assisted suicide for life-sentence convicts was explicitly related to what the OP was asking about, despite what Medeis or others in the discussion suggested.

Note that the discussion was about avenues under law, it did not venture in to methods or anything of that sort. While some may be uncomfortable with the topic of assisted suicide and I agree we have to be very careful how we handle such questions (in particular why the OP is asking), there's no reason why "what circumstances is assisted suicide a legal avenue" should be disallowed but "what circumstances is the death penalty a legal avenue" is allowed.

The question of when something is crossing in to the territory of legal advice is a tricky one, but IMO that discussion didn't do. Questions about the law can and are asked and answered on the RD. And frankly if you take it to an extreme, I think many would agree it's silly to say we can't discuss with references whether someone who doesn't belong to the Church of England can become the British monarch because we risk providing legal advice. Which is probably why no one has done that.

Actually I considered reverting Medeis, but since they removed it under Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, I decided to wait and see whether the WMF did anything(*). Nothing seemed to happen from the WMF as I expected. But I didn't end up reverting. Even though the discussion there didn't seem to apply to YNS's current circumstances, I was uncomfortable enough with some of the things YNS said elsewhere that I felt it best to let the issue drop.

(*) I presume Medeis did email the WMF as that is a key part of how we respond to people who may be considering self-harm as evidenced by the advice they cited. Deleting comments because you feel they suggest the person could be considering self-half, but not doing any followup would be a very serious breach of protocol as there's a strong risk you could make things worse.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that we have two separate issues here:

1. Is User:Medies gaming and/or violating the rules in an effort to prevent User:Yanping Nora Soong's question(s) from being answered? IMHO, yes - clearly. These are really obviously not homework or professional-advice kinds of questions - they don't violate any rules - so this is clearly a misuse of WP:RD - and that should stop. It's a well-meaning, somewhat mild misuse - but Medies needs to be clear that no one user is judge, jury and executioner. A slap on the wrist as a reminder of that would be a welcome outcome - but nothing too heavy-handed.
2. Are User:Yanping Nora Soong's questions acceptable at the reference desks? Well, there are no rules, policies or guidelines saying you can't ask questions about very dangerous chemistry experiments - and Wikipedia is not censored...so, yeah, they are acceptable. Should we step in and informally request that similar questions not be asked in the future? Well, maybe - but it can only be a polite request, we have no rules to make this a strong demand or a block or ban or anything of the kind.

That's really as far as ANI needs to rule here.

HOWEVER there is a case for having a debate - absent the issues surrounding misbehavior from Medies or really terrible (but "acceptable") questions from Yanping. I don't think that debate should happen here - this is not a place for the formulation of guidelines. There should be a discussion over on the WP:RD talk page.

Meanwhile, absent some new rule/guideline/policy - I'd encourage everyone to remember that while it is currently OK to ask questions of this sort - we're not required to give answers to them! I'd strongly recommend that if someone asks a question on a topic for which you think an answer might pose some sort of grave risk - then DON'T ANSWER IT!. Feel free to explain the dangers.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies to articles only. Please re-read it. BMK (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also see WP:Reference desk/Guidelines#What the reference desk is not. BMK (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Two wrong answers that have been tried and failed vs. one right answer that hasn't been tried

While purposely not commenting on the actions of Yanping Nora Soong (others are handling that just fine), and assuming for the sake of argument that everything Medeis/μηδείς did was right this time, it is a demonstrable fact that Medeis/μηδείς keeps ending up here at ANI, and a certainty that she will be back here again and again, all because of deleting or collapsing other people's comments on the help desks.

Wrong answer #1: Block and/or topic ban Medeis/μηδείς. This is the wrong answer because she does a lot of good work, and because the community does not have a consensus to do either.

Wrong answer #2: Do nothing and let this go on forever. This is the wrong answer because many of the Medeis/μηδείς removals are highly contentious and controversial, and are really disruptive.

Right Answer: Restrict Medeis/μηδείς from one activity -- editing what other editors post. There are plenty of other help desk regulars who have proven themselves able to identify what needs removing and take action without any drama or controversy. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty torn on that issue. On the one hand, you're right--this has been a problem area for Medeis. On the other hand, that's a bitter pill to hand an editor--getting restricted from an activity on one of the occasions that said activity was really probably called for and did the project a favour... I'm also concerned about the message that this will send to YNS, who so far has had some real issues with conforming themselves to our policies and is, at best, only partially WP:HERE. I have serious concerns that restricting Medeis at this juncture will play into the somewhat disruptive behaviours of YNS, as these behaviours seem to me to be partially rooted in a victim-complex attitude that I fear validating here.

Given that Medeis' actions in this instance were not unambigously improper/disruptive and the party opening this thread has put their foot wrong in several places (and only opened this thread to "preempt" Medeis raising their own concerns), I'm leaning towards giving Medeis one more chance on this issue, but advising her that she would be best advised to build consensus for such a move on the red-desk talk page next time, rather than acting unilaterally. I don't make this suggestion lightly; I was 100% prepared to support that Medeis receive just the restriction you are recommending now the last time that I saw this issue come up. But this just seems the entirely wrong context. I'd rather risk one more iteration of this (admittedly recurrent) issue than penalize a contributor for doing the right thing and risk encouraging an editor who shows signs of being much more disruptive on the balance if their recent behaviours were to persist. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Point well taken. I see no harm in waiting until the next time Medeis/μηδείς gets reported at ANI, or even waiting for an example of an unambiguously bad deletion. It's not like she is going to stop her disruptive editing of other people's comments, and it's not like people are going to stop complaining about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Giubbotto non ortodosso

The user has involved disruptive editing recently. Can someone block indefinitely. 123.136.106.215 (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Offhand I can see where they're coming from with their edits to In My Head (Jason Derulo song). This is not meant to be an endorsement of the decision to add or remove anything from an article, just that I can see their rationale in this, given that they were told that AllMusic was not usable here by Cornerstonepicker when it came to genres. However that said, edit warring is unacceptable and both Giubbotto and the other editor that has been taking part in the edit warring has been given a warning by Cyphoidbomb. This seems to be the only thing he's done recently that has been overly controversial, so I don't see where any further action needs to be taken at this point in time. Both Thakillabeatz and Giubbotto non ortodosso need to discuss this on the article's talk page. On a side note, if you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, it's generally considered good form to disclose this when reporting the other user. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP above reported this at AIV and pointed out two other IPs that might have been used by Giubbotto, but they provided no evidence to connect, so vandalism wasn't clearly there. Edit-warring was, and I opted to warn rather than block them both. Both sides need to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and begin a discussion. If there are any ambiguities, they should seek the input of one of the relevant Wikiprojects. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The pepole that say that i'm connected to the IPs from Italy are two vandals that i've reported, and after they've been blocked, so why did you believe in them, me and the IPs have only two pages where we edit in common, so please stop saying that i am connected with those vandals--Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Relevant reading: User talk:Jenks24#User from Italy? and #Vandals of pages music. Not sure I can add much to that, I'm still not full sure what's going on here. Jenks24 (talk)

User started sockpuppet investigation against themselves

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZOKIDIN. I have no idea what is going on. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 07:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Tora Tora Tora!!! That's pretty specialist, tbh... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 :Appears to be a compromised account. AKA they left their laptop open, or they forgot to logout of a public computer. an admin should put a temporary block and revoke TP access before it snowballs. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think that at the very least ZOKIDIN looks like they're not very fluent in English. I got the impression that they're a Russian speaker given some of their edits, so I've asked for help at the Russian Wikipedia and pinged a native Russian speaker to the SPI. I know that in one of their edits they seem to have asked for the account to be closed, so this does kind of give the impression that the account may be compromised. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

user:ZODIKIN

OOPS, duplicated report

WP:NOTHERE:

• ZOKIDIN (talk · contribs)
• Open Dragon in Portal2 (talk · contribs)
• ZOKIDIN2 (talk · contribs)
• Milanarashidova (talk · contribs)
• Илья Драконов (talk · contribs)
• Илья Драконов 2 (talk · contribs)

Someone is frolicking inclding self-reporting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZOKIDIN - üser:Altenmann >t 07:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

OOPS, duplicated report

• OneLittleMouse (talk · contribs) Xakep. ZOKIDIN (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  I have blocked ZODIKIN2, the filer of the SPI, indef, this is clearly a vandal and an impersonator. I am not sure about ZODIKIN, they do not have to be there, and this is not really promising (check that page history), but for the moment I do not have enough data to block them indef. Generally, I have an impression that one or more users, after having been banned from the Russian Wikipedia, decided that they can have fun here even without speaking any English. Recently, I blocked a number of accounts who created their userpages claiming they are socks of Никита-Родин-2002, some of them even edit-warred at their talk pages after getting blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What is this about? You think I'm a sock??? This is my only account. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC).

No, I do not think you are a sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, cheers. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC).

"Russian socks are always correct, Mister Bond" _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: This is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002 (note the connection mentioned in the CU results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZOKIDIN). "Никита-Родин-2002" often reports his own socks (he used to add them to his own SPI report, but can't do that anymore, since it has been semi-protected), and even more often adds socktags to his own socks, no doubt in order to get more blocked socks to brag to his equally juvenile buddies about. So always look for connections to Nikita Rodin first... Thomas.W ^talk 14:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic IP not updating timestamps

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

---

Hi, there is an issue with a dynamic IP not updating timestamps on football players. After the edits, the editor leaves the BLP's as factually incorrect as it says "correct as of 12 December 2015" (as an example) which is incorrect because matches has been added before that. Apart from being factually incorrect it also causes some issues when other editors see article and think "oh, it has not been updated" and add all matches since 12 December again so now they are added 2 times and player has an even higher number of played matches.

Since this is an dynamic IP, messages at their talkpage has not helped which is why I suggest a range-block.

Some involved IP's are:

• 2A02:587:2809:CC00:4945:AE9:7BA2:3A82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:2809:cc00:a1d7:75b6:ed62:3e7d (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:9458:9e1a:58a4:1b44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:e8e4:51c1:291a:33bb (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:44e2:2cef:8643:4592 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:309a:9daf:c74:20f5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:9815:ce0a:e27b:3e2c (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:2809:cc00:e07d:22b0:1681:3ac2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:f11f:d99b:e0c0:f2f (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

and some of the articles are:

• Sebá
• Jimmy Durmaz
• Dimitris Siovas
• Alejandro Domínguez (footballer, born 1981)
• Luka Milivojević

Please help, the edits are being disruptive. Qed237 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, editor with almost similar username, sorry to say that it sadly won't be feasible. Any range-block would block wayyyyy too many IP addresses. It was difficult with IPv4s and now it's a diabolical situation with IPv6. Protecting the articles is probably the only thing we can do. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the information. Qed237 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Then it would be good if the following pages were protected: Jimmy Durmaz, Sebá, Dimitris Siovas, Alejandro Domínguez (footballer, born 1981), Luka Milivojević, Arthur Masuaku, Manuel da Costa (footballer), Brown Ideye, Pajtim Kasami and Giannis Maniatis. Qed237 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not diabolical at all. It's two networks, same Greek ISP, probably the same guy editing from two places. Don't get caught up in the number of IP addresses available with an IPv6 network. 2a02:587:2809:cc00::/64 and 2a02:587:280f:db00::/64 blocked two weeks for disruption. Katie^talk 17:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I forgot about rangecontribs. Since I can't find it anyway, throw in a link here, please. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Got it. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Eaglestorm and How I Met Your Mother articles

In mid-2015, Koavf edited some How I Met Your Mother articles en masse, without leaving an edit summary, performing edits which did things along the lines of removing sections under the headings "Trivia", "Cultural references" and "Music", and adding tags to indicate plot sections were too long or lead paragraphs too short (e.g. [35]). I initially disagreed with him, and even reverted one of his edits ([36]), but after beginning a discussion on his user talk page (archive link), I came to agree with him.

Eaglestorm, before this discussion, was reverting many of Koavf's edits, and has been doing so intermittently ever since. Eaglestorm's edits usually have one of the following edit summaries: "nonsense pogrom", "culling", "revert driveby deletion", "pogrom by converted", or something similar. ([37][38][39][40][41] and many more.) Today, he reverted three of Koavf's edits and wrote this message on his talk page before quickly archiving. Every time I've seen Eaglestorm doing this, I've reverted him/her, leaving edit summaries linking to the discussion mentioned above, citing relevant policies and trying to start discussion ([42][43]). Eaglestorm has refused to open up discussion, ignoring messages left on his/her user talk ([44], until his response today). I believe there have been some other issues involving Eaglestorm's conduct in the past ([45][46]), particularly with their lack of communication. I have avoided bringing them to ANI in the past as their edits were erratic, but this message was probably the clearest indication that Eaglestorm has no intent of editing constructive in this topic ("FU both"). This is not a simple content dispute issue as there have been no objections to the actions of Koavf or I, other than Eaglestorm, who has never started a discussion or (as far as I can remember) cited policy in an edit summary when editing this topic. I'm unfamiliar with ANI so I don't know how things usually work here, but I feel a topic ban from HIMYM articles, or a block would deter this action by Eaglestorm. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a subject that should be discussed on the article talk pages. I know that when this series was on the air, the pages were heavily edited and I think a consensus should be attempted because I'm not sure whether either editor has consensus on their side. I remember that it was standard for this series to have Trivia sections for each episode so removing them from certain episodes could be seen as disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not like Eaglestorm is a newbie. He has almost 13,000 edits compared to 8,000 for Bilorv. I guess that could cut either way. H. Humbert (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

On one hand, Liz, we have WP:FANCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:V, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE; on the other, we have... resistance to change. Have you read some of the content Eaglestorm is fighting to include here? Cultural references such as "Robin's "vice" bag is compared to Mary Poppins' magical bag." ([47] For context in the show, this is one character making a joke about another's bag in a 5-second portion of a ~21-minute episode, and should not be mentioned any more than anyone would ever think of listing all the jokes in the episode. This isn't cherry-picking: this is essentially the gist of every bullet point under every "Cultural reference" section there ever has been on a HIMYM article.) Now I know several Wikia where lists of allusions to any work of media in the real world is standard, but that's not the case on Wikipedia. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 07:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Eaglestorm is continuing to violate WP:CIVILITY with this obvious attempt at provoking me ("ugly stains by butthurt people"). If this was a new editor, admins would have no problem blocking him. Because Eaglestorm has 13,000 edits, as H. Humbert points out, no one but Liz can even bother to reply here. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have placed a temporary block on this account for the personal attack noted above, which should show that such comments are not acceptable here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from User:Oncenawhile on Southern Levant categories

Several months ago, I reported an incident of User:Oncenawhile making sweeping category removals from WP:ARBPIA articles. The result was a message from User:Georgewilliamherbert that "This topic area is very sensitive for obvious reasons and widespread use of HotCat like this is at least subject to enhanced scrutiny. I left the current ArbPIA alert for the record, but this can be closed if the two of you can discuss constructively in talk." Despite this notice, Oncenawhile is once again arbitrarily making sweeping HotCat removals of categories from WP:ARBPIA articles. Specifically, removing the category Category:Southern_Levant from a wide range of articles several days ago and then arbitrarily removing articles from Category:Buildings and structures in the Southern Levant today (while proposing to have it deleted - which is in and of itself ok, but forms part of a larger picture). All of these edits are contradicting previous discussions. It is worth mentioning that Southern Levant and Levant are the common terms used to describe the region in academic discourse.

The recent edits are as follows: 1, 2 3 4 5 6789101112131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 25.

The previous report can be found here which describes Oncenawhile making strange edits such as replacing "Southern Levant" with "the region" and mass-removing Southern Levant categories via HotCat.

Additionally, he's been directing personal attacks at me, here where he passively aggressively calls me a polemicist (while also insulting my intelligence) "I don't think Drsmoo is a polemicist, at least not consciously." and here where he accuses me of being Islamophobic for reverting his removal of "Antisemitism in the Arab World" from the sidebar of "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries". It is abundantly clear that this editor isn't interested in editing constructively with regard to the Southern Levant. He mass deletes categories, is told not to, and then does it again months (sometimes years, he has been at this for about 5 years now) later. Drsmoo (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that he was prevented from removing categories etc. In general, it is clear that you to aren't going to agree, perhaps it's time for DR. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that he immediately pulled the islamaphobia card on an article that's critical of the muslim world really speaks volumes.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

He was advised that sweeping HotCat category removals in ARBPIA articles are subject to enhanced scrutiny, he then waited 3 months and did it again, contradicting previous agreements. In the discussion, it was agreed that Archaeological and Geographical articles should stay in the category, yet he's again mass removed geographical articles from the category. Drsmoo (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if all the edits are like this, but the first 4 diffs seem to be exactly as advised at WP:SUBCAT, namely removing a parent category when a child category is appropriate. Zero^talk 02:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Another example of the kind of pernicious editing regarding the subject is how he originally claimed that History of the Southern Levant and History of Palestine were separate subjects here and therefore suggested that an article for the region under the name History of Palestine should be made in addition to the History of the Southern Levant article. Then, two years later, he claimed that Southern Levant and Palestine were in fact the same region, and that Southern Levant was a redundant content fork and should be deleted, directly contradicting what he originally claimed here. This deletion request went through with only three editors commenting on it. After the deletion, an admin, Sandstein had the History of the Southern Levant page redirected to Southern Levant. Yet a year later, Oncenawhile changed the admin's redirect from Southern Levant to History of Palestine here claiming it to be a "better redirect." This editor has an absolute vendetta against the academic term Southern Levant and has been attempting to have it marginalized and minimized on wikipedia while using stealthy means whenever possible. Drsmoo (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence that "Southern Levant and Levant are the common terms used to describe the region in academic discourse". A Google search for the term "Southern Levant" finds just over 100,000 examples, nearly all of them relating to prehistoric periods. A Google Scholar search produces just 10,000 results, all related to prehistoric periods. Why do you believe that this is relevant to articles relating to contemporary history and politics?RolandR (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Google is not a reliable source. Archaeological research is conducted in all of the countries removed from the category within the field of Levantine Archaeology. Ie https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-archaeology-of-the-levant-9780199212972?cc=us&lang=en&. The issues at hand are repeated mass changes to ARBPIA articles and duplicitous and hostile editing. Drsmoo (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a very strange report. The nominator and I have been having a constructive discussion on this at Category talk:Southern Levant. Prior to my recent edits I wrote a talk page message which pinged him here. Everything is being proactively discussed. I don't understand why the editor felt it was appropriate to claim ARBPIA violations. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There was only a discussion four months ago after you arbitrarily removed Southern Levant from dozens of articles. It was suggested that you engage in dialog. It seemed that we HAD come to an agreement, as the page wasn't modified for four months, only to have you again go back to removing Southern Levant from dozens of pages, along with proposing to have an associated category deleted at the same time. Your editing behavior on this subject, random breaks of 1/3 of a year or several years, is not commensurate with collaborative editing. Nor, btw, are personal attacks. Drsmoo (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If I had any nefarious intentions I would not have notified you before my edits. How do you explain why I bothered to notify you? I am actively trying to gain your trust, but your suspicions appear to run very deep. I promise you if you take a cold shower and come back and look at all of this you may realize that you have misinterpreted and overreacted on a number of recent occasions. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll allow the passive aggression and condescension of the above message to speak for itself. Obviously posting a notice seconds before abruptly editing 22 ARBPIA articles in seven minutes, 3 months after the conclusion of the discussion is not collaboration. Drsmoo (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you at least accept that I felt this to be a reasonable method of collaboration? I inform you, I use HotCat to make the edits in a clearly labelled fashion, and then you have the opportunity to revert the ones you disagree with. Which you have now done with 9 articles. It is just more efficient, because we don't have to discuss the 13 that we both agree with. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks, overwriting an admin's redirect and constantly removing links and references to the region across wikipedia is not reasonable. You've already stated the Southern Levant to be ["a neologism coined to serve a political purpose"] and I have yet to see you make any edits related to this subject that weren't either deleting links to it, deleting images from pages, or trying to have categories and articles related to the region deleted. Drsmoo (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Bumping this back to the top as it remains unresolved. Another disruptive incident occurred today. Five hours after Syro-Palestinian archaeology was moved to Levantine archaeology by a three to one consensus (nine votes to three), Oncenawhile issued an ultimatum that if the article didn't conform to his standards within "a month or two" he would "propose moving it back", which is of course completely ridiculous and demonstrates an absolute lack of interest in consensus. Rather than working on improving the article, he instead added a tag and issued an ultimatum. One would think if he were interested in improving the article he would choose to work on it and contribute to it instead. If completely ignoring consensus and stating his intent to move the article back mere hours after the move isn't disruptive then I'm curious to hear an example of what is. Drsmoo (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Slow-walking, sweet-talking Jones

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

---

Can I have some views as to whether "You are a fucking liar, Pete" constitutes a personal attack? A lie is a knowing falsehood, and so far as I am aware, the whole discussion referenced is about a single word – "winningest" - and how one editor is going to extraordinary lengths to use this nonsense word in our supposedly serious encyclopaedia. I present the truth as I see it, and I resent the implication that I'm deliberately lying. --Pete (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Cussing at someone and calling them a liar absolutely is a personal attack. No one on Wikipedia should be doing saying that to any editor here ever! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You're not a liar, you're just ignorant of the facts. The term "winningest" has been around for over 2 centuries.[48] It's kind of slangy, but it's not a "nonsense" word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh, so it's the other fellow who's edit-warring, not you, Skyring?

...this nonsense word Except, as you've been told, it's no such thing. As this link points out:

...Yet despite the existence of grammatically unquestionable alternatives (most winning, best), winningest is deeply entrenched in sports commentary and is not going away any time soon. Those who dislike it might as well get used to it. Google News searches show winningest has been common since the 1940s, and there are scattered examples from earlier. The word has always been confined mainly to American and Canadian publications.

My copy of the OED 2nd Edition doesn't have usage notes, but it DOES use that form in three of their example quotes for the "winning" entry. So if you know it's an actual word, used in actual publications, then you KNOW it's not a "nonsense word", and continuing to maintain that claim might fall under "knowing falsehood", hmm? --Calton | Talk 06:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

While it a word with a dictionary definition, it is also informal. As per WP:FORMAL we should try to avoid using informal terms, unless in a direct quote.

Also, as per MOS:COMMONALITY we should try to find and use universal terms where possible. "most successful" is a more universal term.

It has nothing to do with a bias towards British English, as "most successful" is just as commonly used and understood in American English as it is in British English.

I don't think it adds anything to the article to use the word "winningest" and it detracts from both the desired tone of an encyclopedia and the desire to have an international encyclopedia Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, while I agree that we should avoid words which are perceived as being slangy or informal, I do want to point out that "winningest" and "most successful" are not precisely the same, as their connotations are somewhat different. There are a number of ways in which sports teams might be the "most successful" -- i.e. having the most championships, making the most money, attracting the most fans, etc. -- only one of which is to be the "winningest". BMK (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that most successful can have many connotations, however in the context of the lead and the article, the meaning is very clear. Even if there was a little ambiguity in regards to the meaning, it would be so minor that having the correct tone and universally understood English is a far more important consideration. But.. I have an idea and an edit in mind that might remove the possibility of ambiguity without sacrificing the requirements of WP:FORMAL or MOS:COMMONALITY Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I know nothing about American sports, but isn't "when ... Fracassa won the most games in Michigan High School football history" exactly the same as "when ... Fracassa became the winningest coach in Michigan High School football history", with the advantage that people outside the US aren't actually going "um? what?"? Laura Jamieson (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

exactly Laura. I wanted something a little more succinct, so I changed winningest to most victorious which should be understood by everyone. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm being selfish. This was a hijacked question, that initially dealt with a claim of incivility. "You are a fucking liar, Pete" is an obvious example of gross incivility, and highly worthy of a block. The profanity used, makes it clear that the editor needs to calm down and carefully rethink how to deal with people on wikipedia. A block will make sure that he takes the time to calm down and reflect, while also making sure that he understands there are consequences for such comments. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Pete was correct or not (and I see absolutely no intent to deliberately deceive), that is absolutely a personal attack and User:Dennis Bratland should take a lot more care with his language in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC).

• It's true that many of the sports articles here are badly written editorials rather than encyclopedia articles. "Winningest" is an annoying stupid non-word, suitable maybe for low-brow sports journalism, but not for an encyclopedia. It should be excised on sight. The same goes for saying "would go on to score the winning goal" when you really mean "scored the winning goal". Reyk _YO! 11:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You can argue that it's too slangy to be encyclopedic. But to call it a "non-word" is a false characterization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I prefer to communicate in proper English. "Winningest" is not just a slangy neologism, but an annoying affectation as well, it's restricted to one subject area (low-brow sports journalism) in one geographical region (parts of North America), and does not count as a real word in my opinion any more than, say, "Schweppervescence", contrafibularities, or embiggen are real words. Reyk _YO! 12:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, this. Although the meaning of the word is probably fairly easy to work out by its very nature, we should not be using words that the majority of the English-speaking world may be meeting for the first time when there are far better alternatives. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
        • The term is 2 centuries old, so it is hardly a "neologism". And do you consider The Wall Street Journal to be "low-brow"?[49] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
          • It still isn't proper English. Are you arguing to use this "word" in Wikipedia articles? Reyk _YO! 12:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
            • Who should I believe? You? Or Oxford, Merriam-Webster, etc.? My money's on the sources rather than on your personal opinion. You can find longer "proper English" phrases to substitute for "winningest". But you continue to argue that it's "not a word" - and you're wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
              • Are you arguing to use this "word" in Wikipedia articles? Reyk _YO! 14:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
                • Not necessarily. I'm mostly arguing that you've got your facts wrong. It IS a word, whether you like it or not. The sources say so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
                  • I see, so this has been an exercise in semantic pedantry on your part. Gotcha. I still do not consider "winningest" a real word; I set the bar somewhat higher. Please don't waste my time again. Good day. Reyk _YO! 14:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
          • There are plenty of words with long histories which see use in reliable sources, but no matter how many Guardian columnists use "fuck" or "bugger", I'm not sure we're going to see them in Wikipedia articles any time soon. Ditto things like contractions, which are well-attested and commonly-used, but verboten (and rightly so) by the MOS. Whether a word is "real" or not and whether it should be used or not are two entirely different arguments, and while "winningest" just sounds like a Colemanball to this reader, I'm willing to accept it's a word in the dictionary sense—but still one more informal than we're wont to use. That's before we would even look at readability, either—it's not a great idea to use words regularly which the lay reader might have to look up to understand, especially in articles which aren't overly dense in nature, so it suits the reader (our end goal after all) to be more legible, I would think. GRAPPLE ^X 13:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Fucking plenty mate e.g., and, and..., etc... Mind you, I totally agree that 'winningest' is one of the most dumbass words in the history of the language. Which it shouldn't belong to. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that "bugger" is a totally formal and encyclopedic word when used in the correct context. But that's just me making a petty point. We have to make articles understandable for our readers, we have to retain some formality, but we shouldn't shy away from technical words if they add something to the article. A lot of the time, articles are written by people with a lot of experience in that particular subject, and the words used are suitable for their peers, but they have to consider that some people like myself are dumbasses, and require just a touch of dumbing down. The key is to find the nice balance. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, any word used over 1K times in The New York Times was gone well past the "nonsense" stage into "acceptable use in a major reliable source" stage.[50] Starting in 1906. If a word has been used in the New York Times for well over a century, there is no way we can seriously dispute its usage. Collect (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"Losingest" only gets 63: [51], and they only go back to 1955. Seems a shame to me, I'd love to see "losingest" coaches and teams, but I guess we'll need to live with the anomaly for now, since the NYT has "spoken". Or we could just stick with proper English the world understands, and fails to laugh at. I'm easy either way. Begoon ^talk 15:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Did I hear someone say Roll Tide? I took "winningest" to the HEL class I was taking in 1995 or 1996, having never heard the term before; my rather descriptive professor had no problem with it. It ain't pretty, IMO, but it is a word. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Make it part of ENGVAR, seems like the best solution for most fun. Tide can be winningest, since US, but Chelsea are not, since GB... Begoon ^talk 15:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• There are words that have been in dictionaries - especially a number of British colloquialisms and regionalisms - for far longer than 100 years that I'd never use in articles, because (a) a large amount of our readership wouldn't understand them, and (b) they can be substituted with something far more understandable. "Winningest" isn't used outside a small subset of region (North America) and type of source (i.e. sports reporting) and since it's easily replaceable, we shouldn't be using it. Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I only want to point out that the thing Pete/Skyring keeps lying about is the slander that I won't drop the "winningest" argument. I said I was going to drop it, and I did. Yet he keeps lying about that. He keeps accusing me of never collaborating, or compromising. I have shown evidence that is a lie, yet he keeps saying it. That's what that was all about.

  I think there should be an RfC to discusses this other thing, rather than quietly changing the FAs and GAs that use "winningest", as Skyring and Spacecowboy420 are currently attempting. Not this word alone, but to answer the questions: Is slang any word an editor doesn't like? Or do dictionaries tell us what is and isn't slang? What is and isn't a word? Is WP:Writing better articles Policy? Or just an essay? Is there a List of Words You Must Never Say On Wikipedia? Should there be? Should we use stable Featured Articles and Good Articles as guides to good writing, or ignore them as mere stuff? Can we dismiss the language in our best sources (the NYT, WSJ, BBC, etc) as mere "tabloids", "slang"? Or is the fact that our sources use it what tells us what words and tone we should use? These are the core questions behind this debate which should be answered by the community.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

  • And I think many here want to point out that you probably shouldn't say "you are a fucking liar". Drmies (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Is it so surprising that when someone repeats the same slander enough times, they are eventually told to fuck off? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I think this has become sidetracked on the issue of this word. I believe this was started to address Mr bratland behavior. Is he really allowed to personaly attack and swear at another editor simply because he became irritated. And there are no repercussions or consequences? 72bikers (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Looks like there's no consequences for Wikihounding, canvassing, vote stacking or forum shopping either. Funny how you guys don't want to see those rules so strictly enforced, but now you're demanding action. You are allowed to say fuck on Wikipedia, by the way. Fuck fuck fuck fuckity fuck a fucking fuck. You guys have to start actually reading the policies and guidelines that do not say what you think they say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, this debate is becoming tediously long. Clearly nobody took this to COIN as I suggested (at least, I can't see a report), and I think some of you here need to read WP:DROPTHESTICK - heck, déjà vu to say the least; I put a link to that essay in my closing report of Spacecowboy's filing of Mr. Bratland. I don't think blocking him would be ideal given his expertise and how long he's actually been here. Constantly filing AN/I reports is not only repetitive but it is not working, nor is it going to work, because it has never worked in the past. Either take it to COIN like I suggested before, or drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• • • • I also would like to point out that this is pretty indicative of how he deals with other editors that disagree with him. He has also admitted to stalking other editors and tracking there contributions. He has openly admitted this and of riffling through mine to just to try and throw something in my face. He has also invited his close personal friend to join in and attack other editors. He has accused other editors with unsupported claims of uncivil and harassing behavior. When it has been him that has left unjust threating messages on others talk pages in a effort to intimates them . And still instead of amending his behavior he just throws guilt elsewhere. 72bikers (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Sorry. I can't see how taking demonstrated examples of personal attacks and gross incivility to COIN would help. Where's the conflict of interest? Is there truly no way that the community can act against Bratland's calling other editors motherfuckers? Is this the community that is going to attract fresh editors to carry on the work? --Pete (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Clearly I'm talking to a brick wall here. Repetitive AN/I filings will not help matters. Actually take it to COIN, I don't see a problem with the word though... or just drop the stick. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC) User:Chesnaught555 why did you close this? You're actively involved in a discussion started by Dennis Bratland, in which he requests for a block on a user for incivility, agreeing with him and pushing for the user to be blocked, however on this discussion which is a far more serious accusation against Dennis Bratland, you are closing the discussion? If you have valid and unbiased input that you wish to add to these discussions, then please do - but try to close the newer one, while contributing to the older one, just because of some bias towards/against certain editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the second time you have closed a report against Dennis Bratland and recommended that no action is taken against him. Having good faith in your comments, your closing of discussions and your recommendations that people in dispute with Dennis Bratland is not very easy right now. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You know what? I am starting to think you are right. I will back down. Forget I tried to close it, if you want to. All I am saying is, this issue which a small group of you have with this editor has gone on for too long, and as you can all see, nothing has been achieved. Chesnaught555 (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This goes around in circles and is annoying. Unfortunately, when this editor continues with this style of behavior, this continues. The editors who find his attitude towards them unacceptable, don't really have other options. They can accept his lack of civility towards them, they can stop editing wikipedia, or they can report him. I'm failing to see other valid options. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder about the bona fides of Chesnaught. Looking at their contributions, I see a short period in 2014, and a month's worth of activity (including an interaction with KrakatoaKatie). Who is such a user to be closing incident reports here? They said earlier, "I concur that this user requires blocking. Harassment and personal attacks to this degree are not welcome here." and yet apparently nothing can be done about Bratland. Bratland himself makes constant accusations of sockpuppetry, and yet seems to be supported by a circle of close friends here. Time, I think, to look closely at some of these friends. --Pete (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of sockpuppetry? I think you will find I am not a sockpuppet of any of the users involved... I'm Welsh, and I'm pretty sure most of you here are either American or British (England-born). File an SPI if you want to, but you won't find anything. Chesnaught555 (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a rare sock who admits it. No, I'm looking elsewhere. But while we're on the subject, perhaps you could explain your curious behaviour. It is a rare editor indeed who after only a month's editing feels able to perform a non-admin closure on an incident here. And why on earth would anyone take a complaint of incivility to WP:COIN, as you repeatedly advise? --Pete (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't the uncivil remark per se but rather the whole motorcycle COI problems. As for curious behaviour? For all the time I haven't been editing, when I took an apparent year's break, I was reading essays and trying to get a general feel of how things work around here... don't mistake my low edit count, or the fact that I am only sixteen years of age for lacking responsibility. On a side note, I'd just like to apologise to every editor involved here who thinks that I have been uncivil, or that my behaviour was unacceptable. I will step down as of right now, at time of publishing this. Chesnaught555 (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Should not _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean, sorry? Chesnaught555 (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this kid even a admin? By his own admission and from his page he is just a juvenile. And has things like this user has a screw loose you have been warned. and The sanity of this user has been disputed. These appear to be intimidation tactics for no one to mess with him. Surely this is not a impartial admin that should be passing judgement on these matters. Nothing personal ches but I feel the severity of these matters deserve a real admin. 72bikers (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Dennis Bratland asked me to close this, saying it's getting out of hand and all that. It is, I agree, and I would love to close it, but I'm not going to until I hear something from Dennis Bratland that's not a. fuckity fuck fuck fuck; b. it's all someone else's fault; c. whatever. Dennis, you are going to have to take responsibility and own up to it--and that also means you have to tell us that (as I said before) you are going to have to try and be more careful with your words. If you think calling someone "a fucking liar" is not a personal attack, you are sorely mistaken and I will prove it to you: can call someone a fucking liar right now and I'll block you for it. Go for it.

  I think there's a consensus of sorts among admins that "fuck off" or permutations thereof aren't exactly blockable, but that's not the same. Own up to it, then we can move along. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • OK, if that's what it takes to stop 72bikers making personal attacks on Chesnaught555, then I own up to it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Dennis, that almost sounds like it came naturally. Still, I will accept the main part of your statement: this is what AGF dictates. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

• • Did he not just ask you to own up and not blame someone else. Then the first thing you do is go blaming me for something man that's rich lol. All I did was bring up on what authority does he have to close these discussions as it did not appear that he was a admin. But that's a peasonal attack ok and telling someone they are a f-ing liar is ok. 72bikers (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What is going on here you state that his action are not acceptable then not do anything to curb his behavior. He ask you to close this of course he wants it gone away he is openly guilty of severe bad behavior. All he did was say ok then went on to attack someone again. Are you sir a impartial admin? What came naturally to him was to go lay blame elsewhere. He receives no punishment for his uncivil, harassing, stalking, false warning and more behavior? 72bikers (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Chris Stark article

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

---

Hello, if anyone is around right now, could you please check this [52] out? An entire nest of IPs making various nonsense edits per minute (!), at this moment ongoing. An RPP has apparently already been requested, but nobody seems to be there? Thanks. Poepkop (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Been fixed! Poepkop (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. What, a few hundred edits in some twenty minutes? Didn't we have some fancy filter that could put a stop to that? Drmies (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was really fast, like up to 10 edits per minute, the filter hopefully someone else knows about? (I'll have to read up on filters).Poepkop (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

user:Tom29739 and page WatchOS

Both Tom29739 (talk · contribs) and Jimthing (talk · contribs) need to stop edit warring and take this through the processes outlined at WP:DR. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

The above newbie user keeps editing the page to the wrong marketing version ("watchOS") which ONLY goes in the lead as per the MOS of the above page (and is trying it on on the TVOS page as well) – despite previous discussions by other users months ago as to correct naming convention we use on WP! He is also trying to quote the MOS says things it doesn't, and/or is selectively quoting parts of it to suit his own POV on getting it switched to this wrong marketing version. I have been involved with editing Apple-ralated articles for years now on WP, and this really is getting tiresome having these 'but I know I'm right!' argumentative protracted re-re-re-discussions with new editors continually about Apple's marketing naming convention vs. correct English language usage and the acceptable variations WP use. Please block user for a period accordingly. Thanks in advance. Jimthing (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing: - Please remember to notify the user when you make an ANI thread, I have done so for you. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Apologize for jumping the gun a bit there. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I did it ~10 secs later, lol! Thanks anyway. Jimthing (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing:The talk page of the 'watchOS' page has nothing on it about the naming of the article. Where are these 'previous discussions by other users'? Tom29739 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tom29739: Countless discussions on other Apple pages and elsewhere with exactly the same issue. Jimthing (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing:Others on the 'tvOS' discussion agree with me. Tom29739 (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing: Please post some diffs of these "countless discussions". Not all of them, as that would be countless, but several would be good. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just go to Apple page histories and see for yourself. The most relevant WP guideline is clear, and has been for years: "Conventionally, Wikipedia articles usually give the normal English spelling in the lead, followed by a note such as "(stylized as ...)" with the stylized version, then revert to using normal English for the remainder of the article." Jimthing (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing: - "Go and see for yourself" is not appropriate on ANI. Diffs are necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If I must waste more time on these types of discussions, yet again... just see various talk pages on previous Apple products for starters: iPhone 4S (not "4s")/iPhone 5S (not "5s")/iPhone 5C (not "5c")/iPhone 6S (not "6s"), going on to iPod Touch (not "touch") [and all sub pages], then try iPad Mini (not "mini") [and all subpages], Mac Mini (not "mini"), Apple TV (not " tv") – that's randomly lowercase, vs. Apple Watch (not " WATCH") – that's randomly uppercase! ...I've probably missed some others, but you get the overall idea. ALL discussions ended-up correctly following the WP guidelines, as they make sense as they are (per those talk page discussions, for deeper explanations) in simply using the lead to explain hype marketing typographical elements like this. Hence there is absolutely NO need to go over the same old arguments time and time again for every new user who repeats the same tired argumentative points previously discussed yet again. Thanks! Jimthing (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Jimthing any time you report an issue, you must have diffs. It puts everything in one place so a quick decision or course of action can be undertaken, if need be. That being said:

Looks like Tom29739 and Jimthing were | edit warring on WatchOS back and forth - both claiming WP:MOS
and | Edit warring on TvOS, again claiming consensus and MOS
Interestingly enough, the sole discussion on this appears On the Apple TV talk page, and it was closed by Jimthing, who also participated in the talk. In all fairness, Tom29739 was | notified by two users about edit warring over this same thing.
It looks like a content dispute, however, I'd say Sysops need to step in and protect WatchOS, TvOS so that no more edit warring can occur. For the two participants, I'd recommend WP:DR to get this ironed out, both believe they're right , and it looks like neither will back down, that's a recipe for a block, in the very least, and you don't want that, so give DR a try. KoshVorlon 16:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tom29739 and Jimthing: Consider this a warning to use dispute resolution and stop edit warring. If this continues, both of you will be blocked. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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

WP:NOTHERE JonFreeD AlekSmith7

Nenad_Gligo_Vrhovac: JonFreeD (talk · contribs) created this hoax article and AlekSmith7 (talk · contribs) removed the deletion tags from it. Clear socking and NOTHERE. IMO waste of wikipedians' time, seen from page history must be severely punished. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Staszek Lem - The article you mentioned has been deleted as a G3. If you suspect sock puppetry, you need to open a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations - have you done this? Since the article is deleted, the contributions of both accounts no longer are listed (I assume that their contributions were only made to that article). However, looking at their logs, I see that they were created within a day of one another. If the accounts are no longer causing disruption, a block might not be performed until they do so (since blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive). I'll leave that for an admin to review and decide. Bottom line: if you suspect sock puppetry, open an SPI case. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Social networking by United kingdoms my home

User:United kingdoms my home has done almost nothing but social networking and userpage adornment on this site. I sent them a message asking them not to carry on, but they removed it without response and have continued misusing other editors' talk pages. If not checked, this behaviour may encourage others to treat our site in the same way. I think an admin's final warning may be in order: Noyster (talk), 18:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This user is definitely only making edits to others' talk pages or his own userspace. While I'm not seeing a blatant violation of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK (he's not using Wikipedia to host a blog, uploading files and using Wikipedia as a hosting service, that kind of stuff...) - he is editing in a manner that scratches that policy. I must admit that I haven't added discussion to this kind of an ANI report in some time (I'm used to giving my $.02 on ANI threads that involve much bigger and disruptive fish), so I'll abstain from making a recommendation for action. However, I will say that WP:NOTHERE can apply in this case. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Noyster Perhaps you can tell him that WP:NOTHERE can lead to his editing privileges being taken away? I don't think that we should come down on newbies like a ton of bricks, so perhaps we can coax him to start editing articles. If he starts working on articles I have no beef with him decorating his own userspace. To be frank I have no idea what pleasure/output he derives from this activity. This is not likea blog etc which is for public. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I was on the fence about taking any action; he's not being disruptive - we should assume good faith here, and I think this is the most appropriate thing to do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Pity we cannot apply a block on all edits except article space. Activities seem to have slowed down but if there is another burst as on Jan 3, I would suggest a month block as a warning. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

RHaworth - A month block, huh? I'd probably start at a few days first, then a week if it continues. A month seems kind of harsh :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this an attack on Jewish editors?

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

---

See Talk:Leo Frank#Opening Paragraph. "If you review the talk page archives, you will find that the actual vandalizing of this article has been done by Frank's proponents, in order to keep most of the evidence of Frank's guilt out of the article so he may continue to be falsely presented as a victim of "antisemitism". Also, many editors who have sought a neutral point of view for the article have had their contributions reverted, their arguments hidden or deleted from the talk page, and even been blocked or banned over trumped up charges of sockpuppetry or other supposed offenses in order to maintain the false consensus that Frank's proponents fought so hard to achieve.

Take note that those who push the idea that Frank was "innocent" are primarily jewish. This is why most of the source references given in the article are works of jewish authors. Any source that does not promote the "innocence" of Frank, especially those of non-jewish authors or historians which promote the idea that he was guilty are routinely removed and dismissed with the "antisemitic" smear. Tom Watson, the famous, well respected lawyer, author, and statesman, who was a contemporary of Frank, and wrote and published the most definitive series of articles on Mary Phagan's murder and the trial of Leo Frank is the most notable example."

A relevant edit by the same editor[53] who started a section "Using "Antisemitism" As a Smear Word" - you need to read it all for context, but possibly the most relevant sentence is "It is the ADL's bread and butter, and it is being used on the talk page of this very article as yet another tool the pro-Frank editors use here to push their POV agenda." In an edit just before that one the IP supports GingerbreadHarlot[54]. Note that at GH's SPI the IP was found not related to GH. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GingerBreadHarlot/Archive. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That IP hasn't edited in a while. This seems unnecessary.142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, are you saying you don't think "this (is) an attack on Jewish editors"? Or agreeing with the IP that this discussion isn't necessary? Your indenting suggests the later, but I'm not so sure from the comment Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks User:Nil Einne, precision is required. I was responding to the OP, and disagreeing with the IP. I don't think it's anti-Jewish, but definitely do think the discussion is necessary. Thanks for pointing that out! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the issue, but the last edits namely those referred to at the beginning of the discussion were only slightly more than 1 day ago [55] ([56]) and as Doug Weller has sort of indicated, the IP seems to be a semi regular editor e.g. [57] [58] so I don't think behaviour concerns should be ignored because the IP hasn't edited in a while. Nil Einne (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The word Jewish is somewhat inflammatory, no matter what the context. Let's replace it with the word 'plumber'. "Take note that those who push the idea that Frank was "innocent" are primarily plumbers. This is why most of the source references given in the article are works of authors who are plumbers. Any source that does not promote the "innocence" of Frank, especially those of non-plumber authors or historians which promote the idea that he was guilty are routinely removed and dismissed with the "antiplumber" smear." Now, would any plumber take offence? I don't think so. Methinks the objector doth protest too much. Akld guy (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

For those who claim that Wikipedia allows any sort of bigotry but anti-Semitism, we can always point them to this thread. 76.72.20.218 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I am always inclined to mistrust IP editors. But 76.72 is absolutely correct. @Akid guy: overlooks the fact that being a plumber is a choice, not an accident of birth, and the memory of six million, aside from all that, Wikipedia ought to be exquisitely careful of its appearances in this article, as indeed in all articles that are magnets for those who would excuse racist lynching. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying that because you (and I) were born into a certain category, we have more right to be outraged than someone who was not so born? OK, replace 'plumber' with 'blue-eyed'. Akld guy (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your argument would make sense if we lived in another world where anti-blueism was a thing that had been used to justify major genocides in recent history.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not a historian, so when I first ran across this article, I didn't know what was going on. But then I discovered a useful piece of information, which makes sense when you think about it: Who would be the only people on the planet so relentlessly interested in "proving" Frank wasn't innocent? Yep, antisemites. No one else would care so much. Also, if you give them long enough, they all eventually try to source crap to Stormfront-lite type websites. So yes, this is antisemitism, and this is why the page is protected, and you can safely and confidently block these two IPs. I've removed the thread from the talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Seconded.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I disagree with this. I've read the post three times already and it doesn't appear to be antisemetic, further there appears to be an even consensus (rough anyway ) 2 say yes, 2 say no. On the basis of that, I would request Floquenbeam revert her removal or allow it to be reposted as no consensus actually exists that the post is an attack of any kind. Further the IP is correct, the lead asserts multiple facts without any sort of reference. KoshVorlon 20:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if the time has come to ban Kosh Vorlon from AN/ANI? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The lede is not supposed to have any references in it. At all. It is supposed to concisely summarise the facts the article goes into detail about below it and those should of course be referenced. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sort of correct, but that's not exactly what WP:LEADCITE says. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Coded incivil message at RFC

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

---

There is currently and RFC going on at the Royal Tunbridge Wells talk page over the inclusion of a term in the article. During this discussion @CountyOfKent: added this cryptic comment. An IP responded by stating if people had read the first letter of each word in the comment, which if that is done reads as a sweary insult which I have included a translation of here. I am not sure whether this warrants any action as the RFC has also been plagued with cases of IPs duplicating !votes and repeating claims made by others. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Was he talking about you? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: He could have been but I think equally it could have been aimed at Charles or Fuhghettaboutit. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it, along with the responses to it. I'd be inclined to go with a warning followed if necessary by a block. However I suspect an SPI for some of the new accounts might be more fruitful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Pretty blatant socking going on there. Keri (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wait--did we really need a code breaker for this? Anyway--CountyOfKent, one wonders where you came from but if you keep this up it's no mystery where you're going. Zzuuzz, if you can drag yourself away from your fan club I think running CU here would not be merely fishing. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked CountyOfKent as an obvious single purpose sock. If someone sees it differently and wants to unblock, I'll be offline for a while, so just use your best judgment--I won't object. Jonathunder (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No disagreement here. SQL^{Query me!} 02:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Block was warranted for (passive?) incivility. I also think that WP:NOTHERE can apply as well. I'm going to go ahead and close this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Postscript: The type of "coding" in this case would be an acrostic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user returns from block and starts behaving even worse

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

---

Religions Explorer, who was blocked yesterday by Nyttend came back from the block and immediately returned to disruptions. As discussed yesterday, the user often violates WP:OWN by telling users who disagree to stay away [59] and has made repeated personal attacks [60], [[61]. After returning from the block, the first edit was a long preaching post beside the topic, which is hardly much of a problem though it did violate WP:NOTAFORUM. Several users have explained, over and over again, that we operate by sources. Religions Explorer's reply to my comment was the usual, telling me to "stay away" in a post that had nothing to do with the topic [62]. When I pointed out, before returning to the actual topic, that the user needs to respect others and everybody can edit Religions Explorer flat out deleted my comment from the article talk page [63]. After Favonian reinstated my comment, the user then made 100% off-topic personal attack by calling me a troll [64]. This kind of behavior from a user only a few hours after their latest block expired is strongly indicative of someone who is not here to work with others. Jeppiz (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur; this user requires blocking. Clearly WP:NOTHERE and further action is most definitely required. Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Shall we discuss the battleground mentality of the other editors in the thread, or should we continue to address this as a content dispute (like it is).142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no content dispute, nor is there any other user causing problems in the thread. All other users agree perfectly with each other. (Even if there were behavioral issues with other users, they would not be an excuse. Meeting uncivil behavior with uncivil behavior is not acceptable) Jeppiz (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. I can't say I am surprised to see everybody back here today but I think that giving him a very short block was exactly the right thing to do. If he was willing to listen then that might have got his attention and it was right to give him that chance. At least we know where we stand now. The sad thing is that he still thinks that he is the good guy and everybody else is a troll. This guy is probably not flat out bad but I think that he is too misguided to contribute constructively. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

True, he is probably not a vandal, but it's very much an attitude problem that violates both WP:OWN and WP:NPA several times a day. First at least 4-5 users tried to tell him, then warn him, to change his behavior. It did not help, it just got worse. Then he was given a short block and warned the next block would be longer. As you say, probably right to give him just a short block as a firmer warning, but it also just bounced off. He is convinced not just that he's right about the topics, but also that he has the right to edit war, to tell other users to stay away from articles, and to insult other users. It makes WP less enjoyable and less productive for everybody else. Jeppiz (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Reblocked for a week, with a reminder to stop and a suggestion that an additional block might be a months-long thing. I'm hesitant to start off with a long block, preferring to start with something short (either it will get the subject to shape up, or it will demonstrate that a long block is needed) and ramp up from there, but when the ramping has already started, I'm significantly less optimistic. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate action looks to have been taken to address this ANI thread. Can we go ahead and close this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I've been contacted about a Speedy deletion I tagged

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

---

The following is a post on my talk page, it relates to the Speedy deletion of Prince Sultan Advanced Technology Research Institute. I tagged it for Speedy G11 and G12 after reviewing it. I'm afraid I do not at present have the time to deal with this appropriately, nor do I, as a non-Admin, have access to the deleted content. The editor needs to be informed about COI, PROMO, and the fact that we neither require nor desire their permission for an article about the institute to exist (or not). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Article - "Prince Sultan Advanced Technology Research Institute", G11-G12 violations ??
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Dodger67, This is in reference to the speedy deletion nomination and final deletion of the article "Prince Sultan Advanced Technology Research Institute" by you. The reason being G11, G12 violations by our article. I would like to inform you that I, Hamdan Hussain, employee at PSATRI (Prince Sultan Advanced Tech. Research Institute) have been made responsible for creating wiki articles for this influential defense company of the state. However if certain content of our work has violated the wiki rules, we heartily apologize and will make sure it is not repeated again. We will retry to publish the same article with a new content this time without soap-boxing or promoting anything (without G11, G12 violation). However, all the logo's, images and content used from our site were with the consent of the organization. Please find attached the document by my organization which authorizes me to publish articles for them using our pre-existing content over web. Your help and further guidance in the process will be highly appreciated. I hope I can now post about my company on Wikipedia, of-course provided the Wiki rules and regulations are followed. Please advise on the same. Thanks & Regards, Hnhusain (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I sent him a coi-welcome. SQL^{Query me!} 21:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Perfect and appropriate response. Even if this letter was relevant to anything as far as article creation is concerned, we wouldn't have the ability to verify the authenticity or legitimacy of it anyways... so there's that :-). The article has been deleted. If they re-create or send additional inquiries, it's a perfect opportunity to educate the user about our notability guidelines and what and what does not warrant its own article. As for now, I think this thread can be closed as no further action appears to be required from anyone. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, good response. To make it even better, I'll add a few words of explanation about that letter and about releasing copyright content for use by Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

A vandal appears to be specifically subverting your policies to avoid punishment

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

---

There are various IP addresses suspected of being the same user due to the similarities in the vandalisim and two patterns among the IP addresses who have been doing what appears to be hit-and-run vandalism on Superior Defender Gundam Force and List of Superior Defender Gundam Force characters, among other various pages. Information on this specific pair of pages in particular are not common knowledge to english-speaking Gundam fans and is ALWAYS uncited. I am completely unable to warn or notify user due to the constantly changing IP address and general inactivity over long periods of time, this is presumably done to avoid punishment. Though I did bring up the issue on the talk page of List of Superior Defender Gundam Force characters, which the user/users has/have completely ignored. As it so happens, this also means the pages the user is vandalizing can not be protected according to your policies either. I would like to know exactly why your policies leave absolutely no possible way to deal with users such as this one/these ones.

It should also be noted that the IPs and diffs on List of Superior Gundam Force Characters are too numerous by this point to link all of them, but I will list a few examples to help you pinpoint all of the vandalism (it's pretty much everything I've personally removed from the page though). Forgive me as I'm not sure how to properly format these urls in this site's formatting.

Diffs:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=next&oldid=637861427
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=next&oldid=638481189
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=668868262&oldid=668009979
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=696614204&oldid=691384784
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=next&oldid=696614204
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=next&oldid=696737061
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force_characters&diff=prev&oldid=695069640
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force_characters&diff=680807736&oldid=668983255
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force_characters&diff=582528548&oldid=542553008 (earliest example I could find in the page's history, which was quickly followed by several other large edits by the 120.1xx.xxx addresses).

IPs:

• 114.121.133.177
• 114.121.128.34
• 114.125.168.132
• 120.164.41.107
• 120.164.42.177
• 120.168.0.64
• 120.168.0.46
• 114.4.21.210
• 120.172.157.226

Mattwo7 (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thing is, in the main article I only see it three times in the last eight months or so, and you seem to have it well in hand. I don't really object to the principle of semi-protecting, but I am sometimes more eager to semi-protect than most other admins. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't be forced to repeatedly deal with something that clearly requires administrator attention. Mattwo7 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • That's part and parcel for editing here. Those IPs are all over the map, so there's not really much that can be done when the person is clearly coming in from a variety of locations. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Is it not possible that the person is using detectable IP masking or IP randomizing technology? Mattwo7 (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Short of a checkuser, there's not any way to tell, and even then, it involves some deep IP magic sometimes. However, we can't go fishing just to try to figure it out, and (as in this case) we generally don't bother when we can hear quacking. We also don't just permanently semi-protect an article. It's frustrating sometimes, but eventually they get bored and go find something else to do. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
        • And it's probably just a plain old dynamic IP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
          • "all over the map" — Nihonjoe, what do you mean? They all geolocate to western Java, and with one exception, all the IPs are from Telkomsel or Indosat Ooredoo. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
            • All over the IP map, not the physical map. There is not one or two specific ranges that are small enough to block effectively, and any block would likely impact tens of thousands of other people. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Can't you block the ISP's involved until they improve their security? It's all from the same country. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, let's just block an entire country. That sounds like a good plan. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, it's not a matter of "security" with the ISP. ISPs usually have tens of thousands of customers (or more), and they can't monitor what every one of them is doing at all times. That's just not logistically feasible. You're welcome to use the whois info to report them, which might help, but more than likely won't. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mattwo7: Also, making "requests" via edit summary like this [65][66][67][68] is not very effective. There isn't an infinite army of admins watching every single edit on this site. There are 6,884,149 articles here, and we just don't have the ability to watch every edit on every article every day. If you want a page protected, request it at WP:RFPP. That page is specifically for requesting page protection. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Endlessdaze

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

---

The above user seems to be here purely for promotional purposes. His only edit, besides drafting an article on an upcoming film and a few tweaks to the article about the director of said film, is replacing the plot of an unrelated movie with the cast list of the movie he is promoting, in an unmistakeably spammy manner. Diff: [69]. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt - I looked through that user's contributions, and while I agree that this looks like a COI / SPA, this account isn't making edits that are blatantly promotional (such as creating G11 articles, adding blatant advertising to the movie, or making spam-bot-like edits). It looks like a {{welcome-coi}} on their talk page is the right first step to take. Remember assume good faith :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, Oshwah. Am I allowed to delete this thread? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

NO. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt Haha, no - we'll just close it out for you. If you have any more questions or need advice with assisting other editors, my talk page is always open, EauZenCashHaveIt :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User Ms Sarah Welch

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

---

Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs)

The user has been repeatedly Uncivil, mocking, gangs up by indulging in Canvassing and Votestacking to scuttle the normal consensus building process, harasses editors by continuously posting on their talk pages for no valid reasons, and engages in unsubstantiated edit-warring (evidence below). Mainly edits Indian religion articles, pushing here own POV (evidence below). I request the user be blocked from any further editing.

• Post from a well established editor MohanBhan here

"Your behavior matches with every single instance of uncivil behavior mentioned there including name calling, inappropriate and repeated use of warning templates, and repeated copy-pasting of out-of-context comments made on different forums. The tone of your comments is unprofessional, mocking and condescending even when you are at fault and have brazenly misquoted citations or modified them to suit your purposes. You have been warned many times for breaching WP:Civil, and for using talk pages (the last being the talk page of Allama Prabhu) to make personal attacks. So please do not write on my talk page. Please see WP:TALKNO."

• Supported on almost every count by another editor here

• Post from Mohanbhan on Sarah Welch's canvassing here

• A latest round of canvassing here, where she writes in the edit summary "@JJ/@Apuldram: please decide if this sentence is WP:DUE here...". Calling out two editors in particular with whom Sarah Welch "collaborates" often. This is not just an instance of canvassing, but serious mockery of the other editors who have been engaging in the recent discussions, as it paints them as worthless folks whose opinion does not count. Please note the tone "JJ/Apuldram please decide if ..." Why should JJ/Apuldram "decide"? (nothing against those two editors) But is this a "Wiki"-pedia or "SW/JJ/Apuldram"-pedia, which Sarah Welch clearly believes. These (and many others as noted by user Mohanbhan above) are classic examples of repeated WP:CANVASS , WP:VOTESTACK , WP:FORUMSHOP

• This preceding post followed what was a completely pointless edit-warring episode by Sarah Welch. She reverted the same well sourced edit multiple times harassing other editors and wasting their time, while also continuously raising false spersions on their credibility: here and here without even checking the source, as eventually acknowledged herself here.

• Further evidence of prior edit-warring on the same article here, acknowledged by another experienced editor Kautilya3.

• Further evidence of harassing users by relentless talk page posting here, where an Admin had to come in and instruct her to stop. - 172.56.38.207 (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@172.56.38.207: Are you @Js82 by chance? Your IP is too close to @172.56.42.111, from which someone / @Js82 was harassing me on my talk page last month, for which my talk page was protected for a while by an admin. FWIW, @Js82 was long warned by wiki admins, and blocked by admin Drmies, before I posted on @Js82's talk page. The @Mohanbhan reference you give is old. Are you referring to issues related to wikipedia admin's comment on @Mohanbhan? Indeed, I asked @Apuldram to verify the text you or someone added to Sikhism article, because I could not verify it. @Apuldram too failed to verify. We deleted it. Such collaboration is not vote stacking (there is no RfC voting in progress in Sikhism article you implicitly refer to). In the most recent case, I found the source details incorrect, so corrected it. What is wrong with it? Since you haven't informed all involved parties, let me ping them for you; @Joshua Jonathan:, @Kautilya3: FYI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this ain't going nowhere, forget about it. Whilst waiting for the boomerang in a sock, that is. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite obvious that this is Js82 again; otherwise, please let us know who you are. The diffs provided above do not make a case against MSW, but only a case of harassment by this IP. Please block. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Blocked User:Religions Explorer using different sockpuppet IP's

@Nyttend: So...basically 1 week blocked user @Religions Explorer: is clearly socking and being disruptive deleting talk pages again. Please do something admins. --92slim (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Another IP too. --92slim (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked one. But [70] with an edit summary " (Undid revision 699606910 by 92slim (talk) I don't consider myself to be blocked)" suggests that they are not going to stop. As does their talk page response to the block: "You son of a bitch. I don't care if you block this acount or not jackass. God damn you and all the nasty trolls on this website--Explorer999 (talk) 4:56 am, Today (UTC+0)"Looks like a ban and a range block are needed, but I don't do range blocks. I am however blocking indefinitely. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"Whaddya mean, you don't do range blocks?!?!?" _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeatedly blocked user socking (and admitting it)

I didn't see the report above when posting this, so making it a subsection as it's about the same issue It gets a bit repetitive to be back for the third day running concerning the highly disruptive user Religions Explorer. On Monday, the user was given a short block [71], came back yesterday even more disruptive and was blocked for a week [72]. This first lead to a highly uncivil outburst [73] before returning to the same article with different IPs to continue, openly admitting it's the same user, even continuing to sign as Religions Explorer [74], [75] and declaring not acknowleding the block [76], [77]. No need to start an SPI as the user admits the sockpuppetry, but I suggest a permanent block on Religions Explorer (three days in a row at ANI) who has shown himself to be extremely disruptive, and to semi-protect Talk:Muhammad for a while given the dynamic IP use. Jeppiz (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL WTF. Seriously, this guy needs an indef block. --92slim (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hard blocked the IP for a week for evasion. SQL^{Query me!} 09:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@SQL:@Jeppiz: OMG seriously, ANOTHER IP??? wtf --92slim (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think @Jeppiz: is right, either semi-protect the TP and/or range block. --92slim (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Talk for a week, but I'll leave the range block to another admin. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Help on range blocks. Help on IPv6 range blocks. If you dont have the time or inclination to learn how, see here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

All right, I gave it a shot. Pinging NativeForeigner, HJMitchell or Mike V from the list of admins willing to do rangeblocks to check I didn't goof - I blocked a *.16/28 range for starters. Feedback and trouts welcome. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC) dunno about rangeblocks but pings ain't my thing - HJ Mitchell was who I meant to ping. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Initiate ban discussion now so any and all edits can be reverted on site with maximum prejudice. If you don't abide by the community's policies then you're not welcome here. Blackmane (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support; this has gotten to the top of the ramp (see my comment of 00:04, 13 January 2016), so we need to acknowledge that fact and not bother giving any further consideration to this guy. Note that I've read those "how to make rangeblocks" pages several times, but I still don't understand them well enough to perform them unless someone else tells me what range I should be blocking. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend:, @MLauba: I just got home from work, and looked into the first IP in question - it belongs to DigitalOcean, a virtual server hosting service. The IP in question is running a VPN service (or, at least, port 1723 is open), I think we can safely rangeblock 104.236.128.0/18 without affecting much legitimate traffic. I'd be interested in thoughts on this, and duration of the block. SQL^{Query me!} 19:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess its easier if you do calculations all day. I will admit they are factually accurate but dont function very well as a 'how to block X ip without taking out half the continent' tutorial. If I have some time later this month I will write one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Or, maybe, we just need you to become an Admin. Just sayin'... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There are several legitimate editors on that range, so check with a CU if you plan on hardblocking it. Assuming it's just a softblock, however, it should be fine. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Issues with Robsinden

TL;DR:

• After an addition stays on a page for an entire week, user boldly removes it, then after being reverted repeats it four more times: [78] [79] [80] [81] [82].
• When I point it out, user justifies their part in the edit war: [83].
• User alters my comment on template talk page: [84].
• I warn user to cease from further disruptive actions: [85].
• User's reaction: calls me an idiot and removes my warning. [86].

I would appreciate guidance on how to deal with this type of bullying. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

In order of presentation.

• Content dispute. You have rightly been discussing it on the TP, but frankly both parties seem to have descended into a slanging match. Consider a WP:RFC or the Project page.
• Telling another editor to WP:BRD does not an edit war make.
• Best practice is not to refactor others' comments; but it was only linkage and therefore could be claimed to be a helpful addition.
• Which you have both been responsible for.
• Well; rather uncalled for. But then you did threaten him with a board, which is hardly in accord with WP:AGF.
  

Nothing to see here. Please move along. Move along. Move along. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

So... I guess it's OK for some to behave in a bullyish manner and blatantly break basic rules, as long as you don't like what the other editor is doing. While my behavior was not perfect either, Robsinden's was unjustifiable. And regardless of WP:BRD (which was not violated by me, as I already explained), 5 consecutive reverts are not OK - and yes, neither are they OK on my side. There are also no butts for calling me an idiot.

But hey, thanks for completely dismissing my concern. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Robsinden templated me with 3RR, so... accusing me of breaking AGF by "threatening" (really???) with a noticeboard is, well, in your own words - rather uncalled for. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cinterminous Comment As I said ^ _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who can actually deal with my concern? I feel like I am at an empty sheriff's office. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your talk page comment shouldn't have been edited by another editor. It seems like you both exceeded 3RR on that template page. As for being called an idiot, it is definitely not civil but I think most of us have been called worse. And admins are reluctant to block long-standing editors for breaches in civility. I think the best thing for this logjam between the two of you is for more editors to participate in this talk page discussions as there is a fair amount of animosity between you two now. I hope this fades over time but right now, you need a few more editors to weigh in on your subjects of disagreements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I second Liz's response. It's a scratch in the civility policy; it definitely was not needed and only makes matters worse. However, the best thing you can do is brush it aside, focus on content and not on the editor, and try and come to a peaceful resolution. If anything, take a break, walk away, and focus on something else for awhile so that any flames might settle. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not looking to get anyone blocked, only to be assured that being a long-standing editor is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for acting in a condescending and unapologetic manner. I'd elaborate but I risk breaking civility myself. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt - Your statement is 100% true. Tenure, status, permissions, involvement, whatever - does not matter. All editors should be treated with respect, and all editors should be expected to be respectful to others. It doesn't matter who you are. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

New editor making a mess of a merge

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

---

Could someone please take a look at the edits of User:Terminatorof East? If nothing else, manual edits to RMCD are not a good sign. Also seems to editing talk page history to cover his tracks. GoldenRing (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you joking? The fellas been here ten minutes and the first thing you do is bring him here? I assume you're suggesting that he's a sock.* Fine. But in the spirit of WP:AGF use his TP first. Anyway you've been round the block often enough not to be camera shy :D _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Which, let me say GoldenRing, is probably absolutely correct, notwithstanding the above. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Since I was on new-user patrol, it's not surprising that he's only been here ten minutes. TBH he came within an ace of just getting listed at AIV, but the mess seemed messy enough (and I was sufficiently unsure of how best to sort it out) that I asked for help here. I guess there's a decent chance this is not a new editor hem hem, but the actions themselves seemed likely enough to warrant a block on VANDAL/NOTHERE grounds that it wasn't worth starting an SPI. GoldenRing (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean when you say that the editor is "editing talk page history to cover his track". I thought that only administrators could edit a page's history? - David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

He did not. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried assuming good faith and talking to the user (ie. actual discussion, not dropping templates on them)? I see a new user trying to figure out how to object to a proposed merge, not a malicious vandal. --Carnildo (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. This is definitely not an issue worth filing an ANI over - in fact, there really isn't much of an issue at all (minus some unexplained content removal). GoldenRing, you need to address these concerns directly with the editor by opening a conversation on his/her talk page. I'm going to go ahead and close this ANI thread, as there is clearly no need for it to be open - no action or interaction is required from anyone. If you have any questions or need assistance with anything, my talk page is always open for you, GoldenRing :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on Assetto Corsa again

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

---

Just seen that the edit war on Assetto Corsa between user Mannyqee (talk · contribs) and a whole bunch of IPs has resumed, with the IPs again removing large amounts of material and certain references without explanation, and this appears to have been ongoing for a couple of days. This dispute was supposed to have been discussed last time round but all the editors just disappeared. IIRC last time there was an organized editing campaign from some fan forum or other and it seems like they might be back. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's only one IP. Mannyqee has made some separate edits, but only two reverts of the IP... so far. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No edit warring is occurring on this page. But, it looks like the edits being made involve the removal of references and referenced content. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Mmmm. I warned the IP and advised the editor. Seems to have stopped since... Standing by Gold Leader. ,_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No edits have occurred on the article since the edits made by the IP address was reverted earlier. I'm going to close this thread; if vandalism or (actual) edit warring occurs, file a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, respectively. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

vandalism/spam

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

---

Pksnake has put intentionally disruptive and annoying content on the talk page for illuminati, he's has been given warnings before. thank you for your time.Thelockedoctor (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Pksnake (talk · contribs) is obviously a troll, but he only edited (under that ID) a few times in late September. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with close) Blocked as vandalism only account. While not ongoing, there are no constructive contributions from this user. No reason not to block. HighInBC 00:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Renewed tendentious editing by Born2cycle

This is my first time opening an ANI and it is with some discomfort that I bring it up regarding a historically constructive editor. However the continued and renewed tendentious editing by Born2cycle continues to be disruptive to the project. Multiple attempts have been made at correction over the years including:

• 2009 RfC
• 2012 AN
• 2012 ArbCom Case
• 2013 ANI with subsequent pledge
• 2014 Editor review
• 2015 Reminder of his Pledge

My first interaction with this editor was during a move review where I was the target of the move review[87]. As such I clearly have a conflict of interest in the matter. However it is in that venue that the tendentious attributes of this editor arose again. At one point I reminded the editor of his pledge, and he was quiet for some time, but then, after the article had been effectively stable and settled since December 2, over a month later he jumps back into the fray and continues his argument of the point - illustrating his believe which he links to on his userpage about WP:The_Last_Word. The result is this move review has created such a wall of text, I don't believe anyone dare try to close it. Actually one non-admin tried to, and got it wrong, although it really was in good faith. And subsequently I JethroBT took his best stab to clean it up. But it is still a huge mess that most people would shy away from editing.

During this move review, where the objective is to discuss the merits of the close and if it follows WP:RMCI, instead Born2cycle either introduced or spurred on discussions including:

• Continuing to argue his point about why the move is valid - WP:REHASH
• Arguing semantics over "opponent" being a WP:BATTLEGROUND term
• Arguing what WP:CONSENSUS means or attempting to redefine it
• Arguing about BLP validity as it related to this article
• Failure to assume good faith of other contributors
• Boarderline WP:NPA violations, including flinging accusations

He appears to approach contentious subjects as battles to be won, such as his essay on Born2cycle/Yogurt_Principle. It is also illustrated in his extreme positions and over-discussing the point, including his dissenting view on:

• Talk:"Heroes" (David Bowie album)
• Talk:Bell (disambiguation)

That is in addition to his massive edits and discussions at the initial move request and subsequent move review. Reviewing his contribution history, it seems most of the articles he is getting into recently have been controversial and is being tendentious in his editing and attempting to get his way. His recent, and WP:LASTWORD on the Move Review [88] today was simply the last straw. I reminded him of his pledge, but he has skirted right past that. I know the pledge was years ago, but it still seems valid today based on his current editing patterns.

My contention with him isn't over the move review, because honestly the move closure could have been handled better (but I still stand behind the actual closure itself), and I would actually be okay with it being overturned. It has to do with the behavior of this editor and how he completely drowns out the discussion and consensus process by pushing his point of view ad nauseam.

My desired outcome of this would be simply a reinstatement of the limited discussion ban and helping Born2Cycle get the point about his activities (ie WP:LISTEN, WP:TLDR and his own pledge). He appears to have great knowledge about WP:ARTICLETITLE and would hate to loose his experience and expertise as he often brings up good points of views - but simply argues them to such a degree. A less desirable, but possible necessary one would be to actually topic ban him from article moves -- a harsh move, but based on historical evidence going back multiple years, through multiple AN/RFC/ANI/ArbCom processes, it might be finally time. How much more should we excuse productivity for abuse of process, good faith and other editors. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin

Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The user consistently makes disruptive edits and his contribution to Wikipedia on the talk pages of the applicable articles is normally nothing constructive but him unreasonably claiming everything is too promotional. If you search for the word "promotional" within his edits, you'll see a large amount of those cases. One of the last incidents involved him trying to completely remove the occupations of those on the list of vegans, where his actions have already led to a large portion of the useful information being removed, such as the band names for musicians that aren't known for their solo work.
He has been warned yet continued to make numerous disruptive edits ([89][90][91]). Not only that, but he appears to be extremely biased when it comes to editing articles about animal rights and such, which falls under the definition of "Bias-based" from WP:COMPETENCE. An admin already put a link to that page on Martin's talk page. --Rose (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing actionable here My interactions with Martin may be found primarily at Talk:Carnism (where I was usually agreeing with him) and Talk:Veganism (where I sometimes was). He is not exceptionally good at building consensus in controversial areas, but I don't think there's any fair case to be made that he edits in bad faith. He is consistently civil, even when others are less so (e.g. User talk:Martin Hogbin#Final warning). His contributions are almost always from the same POV, "disagreeing with editors who are promoting a green political agenda" [92], but they are generally reasonable. He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points (are livestock "commodities"?, etc), but that's no grounds for admin action.

Do I think it would usually be easier to reach consensus without his input? Regrettably, yes. Does that imply the articles would be better without him? Not at all. FourViolas (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that at one point he expressed the view that there should be no positive information about veganism in that article. That was the definition of neutrality to him. Just because some of his (reverted) edits lead to people paying more attention to some sentences doesn't mean that he's the reason it happens. It's just like some inexperienced vandal putting insults on a page about someone, another user reverting those yet noticing some other issues while doing so and making changes to improve the article. Should we thank the vandal for that and take no action? I don't think so. The problem with Martin is even worse as he's not new here so he deliberately makes those disruptive edits and starts practically pointless conversations repeating the same words ("too promotional") over and over again for months if not years now. --Rose (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, to add to the above and respond to you saying "He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points, but that's no grounds for admin action."; I disagree with that. His behavior forces other editors to dedicate a lot of their time just to try to make a case for him because otherwise he would (as the past has shown) make the same kind of unacceptable edits that would have to stay in the article. After days of multiple users proving something to him, as it was in the discussion about whether animals are treated as commodities, he may lay low but then he comes back and brings up the same subjects. This is the very definition of disruptive editing. --Rose (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I think FourViolas, as usual, is exceptionally patient. Martin has a long history of strong views on green topics broadly construed, dating back years (see e.g. his global warming skepticism [93],[94],[95]) and several editors have mentioned his disruption on articles such as BP. He argues at tremendous length and frequently raises the same issue over and over. Notably, I have almost never seen him support his views with sources of any kind. To mention just one recent example pertinent to veganism, he attempted to present the fact that animals are commodities as a "vegan opinion" here, and then argued this at length at Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals. Despite being offered high quality non-vegan sources showing that animals are regarded as commodities, including with the specific phrase "commodity status" which he insisted on, he maintained that there was something implicit in "commodity" which implied that animals are mistreated, or treated exactly the same as inanimate objects. As always, he never provided a source for the idea that the word has this connotation, or that this was intended. When an editor arrived who wanted the UK-based Vegan Society's definition, "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals", to be given priority in the lede, Martin endorsed this - blatantly contradicting his view that the lede should not contain vegan "opinions" as noted by SlimVirgin. He then suggested several sources which he presumably knew could not be used - several primary sources from other vegan societies [96] and a couple dictionary definitions [97] including a disparaging joke from Urban Dictionary. This is literally the only time I have ever witnessed him cite a reference for anything. And this is just one of many episodes - generally speaking, he argues at tremendous length without familiarizing himself with the topic or supporting his views. As in this comment where (in the course of dredging up another discussion which had gone on ad nauseam) he suggests that other editors "could find (an RS) somewhere to support what (my acquaintances) say", he does not seriously engage with the project, and makes never-ending demands on other editors' time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Re: Heads up

As mentioned before, socks come, socks go, socks are dealt with, deny recognition. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Latest Intel is that the massive sock attack won't take place until a day later. Tbc as Ben won't reveal the exact time after I "snitched" on him. Personally I wouldn't 100% trust him so remain vigilant tomorrow! I hope you guys appreciate me protecting you, as we may fall out over this real soon. 78.40.158.52 (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)