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

Persistent disruptive behavior and edit-warring by User:Legacypac

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

---

For the last few months there has been a concerted attempt to clean up Longevity related articles. Various relevant discussions can be found at Talk:Oldest people, Talk:List of the verified oldest people and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. User:Legacypac is a more recent contributor to this topic but has repeatedly carried out multiple edits (such as consolidating multiple articles) either without discussion or while discussion is ongoing. Despite requests from both sides of the discussion this user has continued to edit in such a fashion. These edits (omitting a few) are a prime example of disruptive bahavior: [1], [2], [3], https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696466509], https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696634187], [4], [5], [6], [7], https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&diff=next&oldid=696717136] and [8] resulted in this this rather petty edit summary. A more recent sequence [9], [10], [11] resulted in Legacypac initiating a sockpuppet investigation against the reverting user (the result of the investigation was that it was completely unfounded).

Another user has recently joined in the discussion and their edits reflect the issues with User:Legacypac. See [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]] and, unfortunately, [[16]].

It appears to me that this users contributions on this topic are not only unnecessary but their behavior and attitude is in fact disruptive and is impacting on the resolution of the current discussions. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Without looking at the specific diffs provided concerning Legacypac, I will note for the consideration of other editors who may wish to comment here that the "oldest living people" area of Wikipedia has long been a WP:walled garden in which the regular participants vigorously resist any changes made by editors from the outside and have promulgated their own unique standards for what is and is not acceptable in the way of sourcing. The entire subject area is in dire need of a shake up and a good cleaning out, and possibly a block or two or three as well. Some thought should also be given to shutting down the WikiProject, as being detrimental to the improvement of the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The wall of that garden has been reduced to a picket fence with several gaps, through which Legacypac is attempting to drive a bulldozer. And FYI, I have suggested shutting down the project on more than one occasion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a pretty new participant in this topic. The overlapping super old people lists (5 layers deep in some cases) and serious inconsistencies between lists took a lot to understand, but we are making progress condensing things down to something that can be maintained going forward. If anyone is really interested I can provide diffs of SPAs and vandals who don't like any efforts to consolidate and rationalize. It's pretty brutal. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree on one thing: that these merges and moves are contentious and should require requested mergers and requested moves discussions, not unilateral actions. Nevertheless, I think the prudent place for these discussions is WP:AE if people want to request sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• We need more comments on Super Old People topics from experienced uninvolved editors, not campaigning like [17], [18] and [19]
• Before commenting on this ANi interested editor should read the vicious attacks from people opposed to the cleanup [20] [21] all edits by this vandal created just to attack me [22] and this vandal also created just to attack me [23] with such gems as (User:Legacypac is the most evil person in the world, not is the most evil wikipedian in the world). A threat [24] refusal to accept strong evidence of socks or topic banned editors and disruption on AfD [25] just a a few recent examples.
• The editor that started this thread has reinserted duplicated info 3x into the article that they complain I edit warred on when I moved out all the info 1x (to a very closely related article) and redirected again after it was restored. [26]
• Even after starting this tread Derby is busy reverting changes by other editors without discussion. [27] even with threats of ANi [28].
• Far from avoiding discussion or acting without following process, my delete/redirect success rate at AfD [29] on Longevity articles appears to be driving some editors into very uncivil behavior. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Legacypac has a history of concerted backstabbing, ad homien attacks, harassment, and divisive behaviour that demonstrates a clear pattern that is by no means limited to his tendentious behaviour regarding the entire suite of longevity articles. This user is fast becoming a net negative to Wikipedia and if spared the block hammer right now, is advised to significantly moderate his presence on Wikipedia or expect to be blocked without warning or another long drawn out discussion at ANI. I will be returning to normal duty on or just after 4 January at which time I will be happy to provide numerous diffs that will turn the air blue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Take your drive by slander away please. There is the matter of your uncivil behavior when questioned nicely on why you acted as an Admin to close a edit warring report that you did not read and tell an editor they were not aware of the 1RR template they were edit warring over. [30]. Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually Kudpung you are required to provide diffs at the point you make accusations or your above statement is entirely an unsubstantiated personal attack which needs to be backed up or struck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, adding threats with the purpose of creating a chilling effect is a reason for a block, Kudpung. Be careful when you want to follow the chilling road. The Banner talk 00:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Back to the actual point here, I agree that Oldest people merger discussion isn't going smoothly. I believe the pages are protected to stop the forced mergers but there's now both a straw poll and a separate RFC created on the subject so I'd ask an outside admin to merge them just for simplicity. Otherwise, while the AFDs and prods are a bit much, I don't find them particularly disruptive outside of the chaos regarding the Oldest people article at the moment. Given that Alansohn has edited here for a decade, the SPI report looks like witch hunting (which has been a recent problem in this area) so I would ask for some outside view on it too. DerbyCountyinNZ if the Oldest people page is under control, is there anything else that's a problem at the moment? The AFD discussions are all heated no doubt though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The Alansohn issue was already actioned by an Admin. While not found to be a Sockmaster, there IS socking going on all over the topic, and he did improperly remove my comments about an obvious sock. I'm not planning to pursue that uncivil behavior at this time, but if he takes action against me as he keeps threatening to, it will be dealt with then.

That leaves User:Kudpung's inappropriate conduct here. So which admin will step up and block him? If Admins are allowed to just say any slanderous threatening uncivil thing they want with no evidence then regular editors should also be allowed to say anything they want without fear of sanctions. Admins should not be above the rules. Legacypac (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think all around the sockpuppetry allegations are fruitless and not productive. I doubt there is actually sockpuppetry here, more like WP:MEAT-puppetry which is a different issue. I really doubt that it's only one or two editors involved here with multiple accounts, more likely a group of people told to come here and voting the same way, at which point they vanish for months at a time. The single working one was a topic-banned editor socking to return and we don't have a lot of those cases anyways. As to Kudpong, I'm too involved in this area so I'll leave it someone else but frankly, attacks with a "I'll be back on Monday with evidence" won't cut it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

By the same token we shouldn't block an admin for something that a "regular editor" wouldn't be blocked for. Is there a pattern of behavior here? Why is a warning insufficient? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing a clear consensus developing by editors not to merge, and Legacypac doing all she/he can to make the merges happen. On that note, can we get Oldest people reverted back to [31] this version? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:The Bushranger I've had minimal interaction with Kudpung so I believe this attack is the result of being one of three editors User:Johnuniq, myself and User:Viriditas that called him out on an obviously incorrect 3RR close [32] and [33] preceded by [34]. He also made unsubstantiated allegations about User:Viriditas in that event [35] which appeared quite baseless when I looked into them. (I recall it was User:WWGB who was using inappropriate language but I'd need to do more digging to show those "f-ing" diffs and we are not talking about WWGB's conduct here anyway). I took the issue as far or farther then I felt I could, knowing that holding an Admin to account for acting badly is pretty much impossible. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm responding to the ping above. I'm trying to focus on minimizing drama and conflict in 2016 and I would encourage everyone to join me by closing this thread. Haters gonna hate and all that. HNY! Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

BMK's analysis is spot-on. I'm with Viriditas, please shut this thread down with no action and here's to less dramah in 2016. David in DC (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be entirely fair to Kudpung, who has indicated he is on a wikibreak, but might like to return to expand on his remarks in a day or two. Perhaps we should wait until then? Begoon ^talk 16:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not doing anything is going to result in this issue festering, unless you see a clear consensus to merge the articles then this needs to be dealt with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The merger of the two overlapping articles has become very convoluted with many editors trying on both sides to effect one alway or another. If Kupung is allowed to just post unsubstantiated harassment against editors that take them to task for a bad Admin action, then we all can post this kind of garbage with impunity. He was on a wikibreak before he posted here, so that is no excuse. Legacypac (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Everything has been restored to status quo before all of the reverting began. This combined with the full page protection expiring has led me to a close with no action opinion. Yes things need to be fixed, but this isn't the place to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur. I am now closing the discussion. Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this 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 [36], [37] and [38]. 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 [39], [40] and [41].
• "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 refrain from reporting the case. I found it a proper place here per his background and his previous.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,[42][43] 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",[44] 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.[45] 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)

References

Disruptive Editor Noel darlow / 90.199.44.240

Disruptive editing, User:Noel darlow has continually removed facts and their supporting inline citations/references and inserting unsourced and unverifiable material in its place which contradicts the sources within the Crown Estate article. This has been occurring over the past year and a half (here, here, and here) where an editor adds an inline citation and Noel darlow simply removes it. Has refused to work collaboratively in improving the verifiability of the article with editors in removing over 20 inline citations without prior consultations on the Talk page, despite at least five different editors attempts and proposals to improve the page. Additionally, the editor has not once made any mention of what they are specifically against, nor has the user ever attempted to work collaboratively by building on other's edits, but instead seems to exhibit signs of WP:OOA such as responding to other user's attempts at adding verifiable information to the article with only "I'll edit the article as appropriate". The user has removed verifiable information and their supporting citations by inserting non-verifiable and contradictory information on six different occasions to date.

This continuously and "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable" is in contradiction with WP:DDE. The user has also reverted and reinserted unverifiable and counterfactual information three four times over the past two days in contravention with WP:TRR (its spirit if not its letter).

User trackratte edited the page inserting roughly 13 inline citations based on the best possible reliable sources (in this case House of Commons Committees, the Crown Estate's own publications, Parliamentary Reports, Legal explanatory notes accompanying legislation, British Government publications, and sources from Buckingham Palace, amongst others) in an attempt to improve the article as the lead was completely unverifiable in that it lacked any citations or sourcing. This is user trackratte's first involvement with this article, and has no prior formed opinions regarding the article subject prior to conducting cursory fact checking as the article lead was lacking any references. In finding that the sources directly contradicted the opening sentence, and that the opening sentence had no supporting citation, user trackratte began further research, editing, and adding verifiable sources.

User Noel darlow removed all of the material along with all of the inline citations, putting in its place unsourced material which directly contradicts with the sources.

User trackratte then initiated a conversation on the Talk page, outlining a variety of the sources concerning the critical issue of ownership.

[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Crown_Estate&type=revision&diff=697368041&oldid=697302863 User trackratte then restored the verifiable material inline with step one of WP:DDE ("Do not attack the author who you suspect is disruptive. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material.") in order to continue improving the article and adding verifiable sources, making a further 9 edits and adding roughly 8 more inline citations.

User trackratte added further information to the Talk Page, describing the root cause of the issue, and explaining Wikipedia policy and how it is disruptive to actively remove verifiable information (WP:DE: "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources"), and how inputting unsourced information which is blatantly contradicted by verifiable and official sources is not inline with WP:NPOV.

User Noel darlow again removed all verifiable information and supporting inline citation once again replacing it with unsourced, non-verifiable POV information without further engaging in the Talk.

User trackratte restored the last verifiable version in order to continue improving the article] inline with WP:DDE step 2 ("If sourced information appears this time around, do nothing; if not, revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage."), making a further 12 edits and adding a variety of inline sources, bluelinking to wiki articles containing critical conceptual information, and various copy edits for clarity and readability inline with supporting citations.

User Ninetyone joined the conversation on the Talk page stating that "it looks like Trackratte is doing a good job in sourcing the claims and they've obviously got the facts right so far", and adding a proposed copy edit to Trackratte's latest edit to improve the article's clarity and readability.

User Noel darlow for a third time reverted all changes without engaging in the Talk page with either users trackratte or Ninetyone, for a third time removing all verifiable material and supporting references, and re-inserting non-verifiable POV material in contradiction to Wikipedia policies (WP:TRR "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block." and WP:DE "editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable source"). User Noel Darlow removed roughly 18 inline citations, a substantial amount of verifiable fact, and reinserted their own personal views without any sourcing, substantiation, or coherent argument on the Talk Page beyond their not liking it.

Looking at the user's previous contributions within this article, this is not the first time this editor has shut down other user's similar attempts to improve the article by reverting and removing verifiable citations which conflict with their own POV, and seems to exhibit signs of WP:OOA such as telling other user's attempts at clarifying the article with "I'll edit the article as appropriate".

According to WP:DDE step three, if "the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information: Revert, and request an administrator via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Subsequently, I have followed policy and have requested an administrator, and will have reverted the editor's reinsertion of unsourced information as another editor has also begun collaboratively working on the last sourced version which User Noel Darlow has removed. I want to make it clear that my last reversion is being done inline with the explicit direction of the steps outlined to take in WP:DDE and as such I have followed steps 1 through 3 in order and subsequently understand my last restoration of sourced material as not falling under the rubrique of WP:TRR. However, in line with TRR and DDE, this will be my final revert to allow User Ninetynine and any other editors to continue to collaboratively improve the article, and I will reduce my involvement with the article in awaiting admin response.

User Noel darlow has for a fifth time removed over 20 inline citations and inserted unsourced information, some of which is runs completely counter to the sources. This also cuts off another editor's proposal, which was building off the sourced version.

A User "Once again have removed" verifiable information and cited references.

User Darlow has for a sixth time removed all verifiable information, and is now edit warring with what appears to be four different editors.

User Darlow has for a seventh time removed verifiable information and their supporting references, despite seven different editors' attempts to insert verifiable material over the past year or so.

Darlow same thing for an eighth time now.

As I clearly explained the relevant policies pertaining to the wholesale removal of sources to User Noel darlow in the talk page and the how "persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable" is against WP, I do not believe that ignorance of policy can be an excuse in this case. I therefore propose that the user receive a topic ban from the article for a suitable period of time as deemed appropriate by an administrator. trackratte (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact Trackratte has refused repeated requests not to proceed with his own POV without attempting to resolve our differences first. Once he/she did engage in Talk he/she failed to consider points raised and simply attempted to push his/her own opinion as fact without any real discussion. This disagreement is about presenting a clear explanation of Crown Estates ownership and thus mostly concerns the opening paragraph(s) and nothing else, despite what has been claimed in the complaint. I'd like the article to be locked while differences are resolved in Talk. Basic issue is that the reality of ownership is (counter-intuitively) NOT well-explained by literal, legal technicalities and the general fog of tradition and ceremony which inevitably surrounds a monarchy. Trackratte has not grasped this yet but I'm sure he/she will - if he/she is instructed to engage properly with other editors rather than reaching for the shotgun at the first sign of disagreement. Noel darlow (talk) 01:39, 1 January 20 moi16 (UTC)

PS: The technicalities deserve to be mentioned too, of course, although not at the expense of a clear statement of the practical reality. Crown Estate ownership causes massive confusion Noel darlow (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC).

Noel, you refused to respond to to my request that "If there is a specific point which you find lacking, or a specific source you find lacking, bring it up here", but instead you simply continue to remove all sources and insert unverifiable and counterfactual information in its place, and this is not the first time you've done so. As as far as I can see going back, this is your sixth time removing sources and placing unverified information in its place, despite five different editor's attempts over the past year or so. For example, here, here, and here. trackratte (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And I do not have a POV for this article, I added content inline with verifiable sources, ever sentence I added had one or more verifiable inline citations. Your removing over 20 inline citations and replace the material with non-verifiable and unsubstantiated information in contradiction to the sources you continue to remove is what is at issue here. This compounded by your unwillingness to build on the material collaboratively with other editors. To note, over my twelve and a half years as editor here, this is the first time I've had to resort to ANI. trackratte (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

There is every opportunity that our disagreement can be channelled productively to improve the quality of the article but first you'll have to engage properly with other points of view. I think it's reasonable to expect to thrash this out in Talk first and only then start editing the article.

The POV (IMO) is an over-emphasis on technicalities, symbolism and tradition. A monarch without real power inevitably becomes surrounded by a fog of irrationality and this seems to be the fundamental problem. Of course the details and traditions are relevant but I think they have to be handled carefully because they can easily obfuscate and obscure the practical reality of state-ownership. It is possible to be technically correct and yet wholly wrong.

I intend to reconsider my own opinion on how best to draw a line between reality and tradition - and in fact I'll be discussing this tomorrow with an individual who has advised governments and committees at Westminster, Holyrood and Stormont on issues relating to the Crown Estate as well as other matters. I'd respectfully ask you to do the same.Noel darlow (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, and your attempts at portraying it as so is a red herring, since on six different occasions and with four or five different editors you have always simply reverted their constructive edits and attempts at adding references, instead of collaboratively and constructively building on their edits to improve the article. In its place, you have simply continued to tell other users off, revert, reinsert unverifiable information, and remove all added reliable sources. Your behaviour is the only issue at play here, not the article's content. trackratte (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to discuss possible changes in Talk and attempt to reach some kind of agreement BEFORE making changes to the article. That is a reasonable request. My aim is to preserve the quality of information in the article and in particular to give due emphasis to the distinction between ceremony, tradition & symbolism and practical realities. You may not be aware of the immense confusion which this can cause. This issue will only be resolved by discussion not by making unsupported, knee-jerk complaints.Noel darlow (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet, the opening paragraphs, at least, were discussed and you didn't voice an objection to a proposal made by a third party. You just reverted the change that made the opening follow the proposal, along with simply removing valid sources for no expressed reason. (Unless your opinion on the invalidity of the sources is the reason.) I can see why trackratte is getting frustrated. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

So you agree that we should attempt to seek agreement before making changes to the article? That's what I have repeatedly been requesting. I'll look forward to discussing this with you. Noel darlow (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a straw man response in place of one that addresses the point of my remark: you don't articulate any objection in the discussion, you make evasive comments, if any at all, and revert. You're now edit warring with three different people. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

Three editors are adding OR and patent nonsense to several articles about the former Hesse Grand Ducal family

The following users are adding wp:OR and WP:patent nonsense to several articles on the subject of the former Hesse Grand Ducal family:

Royal Government von Hessen in Exile, a page that has been nominated for speedy deletion

• here

• here and subsequent edits

• here

Royal Government von Hessen in Exile, a page that has been nominated for speedy deletion

Royal Government von Hessen in Exile, a page that has been nominated for speedy deletion

• here and subsequent edits

• here and subsequent edits

• here and subsequent edits

• here and subsequent edits

• here and subsequent edits

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I should also note that the owner of the "Royal Government of Hessen" Facebook page put up a post asking people to come to Wikipedia to contest the deletion of their Wikipedia article: "Right now, we need your support. I ask of you to go to our wikipedia page and click the "contest deletion" button under page issues. Then locate the talk page and type "do not delete"." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• The apparent hoax article above has now been deleted. If this continues, please report to WP:AIV.  Sandstein  17:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• And then there also seems to be this by user: Eric02098. This was way in the past though...

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

An IP has been removing content from the (now closed) AfD page. See this and this (both edits have been reverted). The same IP also made this edit to House of Hesse (also subsequently reverted). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Above comment by Notecardforfree is about user:2600:380:A26E:55D1:83B9:D78F:B019:F06C. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"Crown Prince Clint"... "King Terry"... Consulate located Newburgh, Indiana (pop. 3000)... Hilarious stuff. Reminds me of Patrickdene and his "Cornet Royal Family". That Facebook page is comedy gold. Keri (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the offsite canvassing to push this, I've semiprotected House of Hesse and salted Royal Government von Hessen in Exile for a month (along with semi-ing the closed AfD page) so this can, one hopes, blow over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Debresser (relist)

Sorry, this is a follow on to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#User:Debresser:_highly_disruptive_editing.2C_intimidating_and_aggressive_behaviour.2C_and_a_racial_slur which was correctly closed without action.
However, it did miss the vital point: WP:1RR violation on Ottoman Palestine

• [46] (27 December 2015)

1. [47] 29 December 2015
2. [48] 29 December 2015

• [49] (31 December 2015)

Editor is aware of sanctions applying to this dab 1. due to them giving a warning to another editor at this revert [50] " 1. This should indeed be discussed. 2. IP edits are forbidden in the latest WP:ARBPIA sanctions." and 2. their comment at the previous ANI.
Now that's history, but a 2R is over 1RR, and there's about 8 reverts in total. My point is, ANI was closed with "see what happens", Debresser continues to edit war and WP:OWN:

• [51] (3 January 2016)
• [52] (4 January 2016)

(just outside 24hr). Warning given [53]. Edit warring under the brightline is still edit warring (see below) ...and insult editors / CIVIL / ad hominem [54] "redhead nominator started bulldozing into the discussion" [55] "redhead nominator..(snip)" "edit warrior" [56] on the two dabs and their AfDs (to clean up this mess). For 1RR this is extraordinary. Clearly consensus at the Talk:Ottoman Palestine from dab project editors is being single-handedly rejected by User:Debresser, who is refusing to reach consensus which just continues the edit warring despite consensus these aren't valid pages. Instead of well meaning dab project editors being abused in this way, 1RR and continued OWN has not been addressed. Instead, editor retaliates with [57] disruptive warning after WP:LISTEN. Widefox; talk 16:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

1. The issue is related to disambiguation, and has nothing to do with the IP-conflict.
2. I edited this article on December 29,[58] December 31,[59] January 3[60] and January 4 (after more than 24 hours),[61] so I can not possibly have violated even 1RR, let alone 3RR.
3. I find it hard to assume good faith from an editor who edits since 2006 (!) and says that 4 edits spread out over almost a week are a 3RR violation?!
4. If I am in violation of 1RR, then so is Widefox: [62], [63], [64], [65]. Actually , that is a 3RR violation!
5. I even don't count this mistake edit,[66]] and the fix,[67] which just come to show that this editor is too trigger happy.
6. My edits are to preserve the consensus version, as establish on the talkpage before User:Widefox came along, much like with User:Midas02 in the post above.
7. Widefox is being controversial and polarizing on the talkpage.
8. Widefox ignores the fact that there is a consensus, and that the forming of a new consensus is under way at the talkpage, and this is not the time to come along with edits that he thinks are best without first establishing consensus.
9. Widefox is trying to circumvent the discussion on the talkpage, which is well attended, by nominating this disambiguation page at [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ottoman_Palestine|Afd]]. I would call that "out of process" and think the Afd should be procedurally closed.
10. In addition, Widefox is poisoning the well at Afd, by mentioning this WP:ANI post there, as though that would be a reason for deletion. I propose that an admin scrap that comment (and my reply to it).
11. Widefox has not violated any hard prohibition, but is generally disruptive with 1. trying to circumvent consensus forming by posting me here 2. trying to circumvent consensus forming by using Afd 3. being controversial on the talkpage.
12. I have warned Widefox on his talkpage about his behavior,[68] and he deliberately chose to make another edit to the article after that.[69]

My advice would be to tell Widefox that he should calm down and be a more amiable editor. He has much experience and can contribute positively to this project, should he so desire. Debresser (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Widefox has violated 3RR (or 1RR which he claims applies) and is being a general pain in having an intelligent discussion on the talkpage, I propose by WP:BOOMERANG that he be blocked for 24 hours. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my reverting, I have only recently seen this may be considered 1RR, so will refrain from now on. It is that easy. Widefox; talk 17:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You violated 3RR just now! Debresser (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The logic that your 1RR violation is somehow dependent on 3RR for me is clearly "look the other way". Misrepresenting 3 edits as reverts is not even factual. Widefox; talk 18:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Much like the report linked above. This looks like an editor parachuting in and editing against local consensus, this time starting two AFD's on the subject as well!. I also see an attempt to sanction an editor who responded to this needlessly aggressive editing for 1RR (I assume under ARBPIA) while the one calling for the sanction seems to have violated 3RR! In this case I support the BOOMERANG block for edit warring based not only on the 3RR but for using AFD to try to win an argument when there was ongoing discussion/existing consensus at the talk page is still not good when combined with the whole situation. Jbh^Talk 17:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC) - On inspection the claim in #4 above that Widefox violated 3RR is incorrect. My apologies for not looking at the history myself. Debresser should strike their claim as well. Jbh^Talk 20:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Which local consensus would that be? Four (Three, comment by Midas02) dab project editors saying the dab needs cleanup? Projects do ask for help from others, and that's what you get! Going block us all now? Taking it to AfD when nobody is replying/addressing the elephant in the room that they have primary topics and fail WP:TWODABS so should go to wider audience with all editors pinged. Normal day at dab project. Any limited local consensus on the talk cannot override the wider consensus at WP:MOSDAB and AfD. Even if Debresser considers themselves right, clear edit warring and WP:OWN is not acceptable. They turn out to be wrong too. Widefox; talk 18:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

But local consensus can decide how to best apply the WP:DAB and MOS:DAB guidelines, which, as I have pointed out in the discussion already, specifically allow for certain exceptions. That is what the discussion is about, and you should really start following normal procedures for consensus forming, instead of edit warring and Afd nominating. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

1. User:Jbhunley, you have made a travesty of my previous complaint by failing to know the existence of WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB, and the fact that editors are merely trying to make sure these policies are respected. It is not a problem that you don't know these policies sufficiently well, but it is a mayor problem that you step in here, assuming a certain level of authority, and you haven't. For that reason I'm asking you respectfully to step out of this discussion and for some senior admins to step in.
2. The second part of the complaint, both mine and Widefox's, is about Debresser's extremely aggressive behaviour to just about anyone he comes across. I have been the subject of intimidation, abuse and slander for merely trying to make him understand certain policies apply, Widefox is now subjected to the same. By ignoring that, admins are merely confirming that this behaviour is apparently acceptable. As I've put it in my wording: "nobody, including myself, needs to be confronted with menaces or borderline insulting slurs". This user's talk page shows that he apparently can't spend two days on Wikipedia without getting into vicious fights. And seems to be proud of it as well. He should have been on his way to a permanent ban a long time ago. So I suggest some senior admins get their head out of the sand and start dealing with this. --Midas02 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Debresser you not only ignored / argued with all dab project editors (while at the same time asking for how it works), but actively refused to let dab project in by insulting/dismissing those that arrived. That local consensus at the talk was ignored, by your refusal to LISTEN to guideline based arguments / OWN and reverting those that came along like me and the last person that brought you here for your behaviour. Widefox; talk 18:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:Jbhunley can you back that 3RR claim with diffs? If not can you withdraw it please. Debresser, your links show different edits, that's misrepresenting edits as reverts - please either provide real 3RR diffs or withdraw. Also, the concept of admonishing/blocking dab project editors because they somehow shouldn't be parachuted into fix dabs - it's what the project does! Not everyone knows MOSDAB and TWODABS, but when folk don't listen and edit war, the discussion should be widened, which is what each of us have done. Widefox; talk 18:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

My "seems to have violated 3rr" is from point 4 above. Do you dispute them? Jbh^Talk 18:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you check them? 3 edits and 1 revert? You serious? You're going to have to point out what you consider 4 reverts, so I know what you mean. I agree with User:Midas02 that long-term edit warring and repeated blocks of Debresser are still ongoing. Clear wikilawyering doesn't detract - why the repeat disruption / OWN. Widefox; talk 18:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jbhunley, did you pull up the 4 diffs in #4 above? There is no way the second one is a revert, it is the addition of an AFD tag. I haven't looked closely at the others but two others don't appear to be reverts either. -- GB fan 18:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Jbhunley I have to second Midas02's call to either explain yourself or strike and withdraw. I would appreciate an explanation of your comments here and at the previous ANI. Guideline/policy based arguments pls. Time to either provide diffs or withdraw that 3RR, and explain about this and last time pls. Widefox; talk 19:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

FFS ec x3 slow down. ok 2 strike 3rr. will comment more later Jbh^Talk 19:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Other than my mistake with the 3rr, which I qualified at the time and said is ok to strike - editing on my iPad is slow and positioning in the edit window a pain or I would do it now - what do you claim I have to answer to either of you for? I would say that attitude and the request to drop out of this ANI because I am critical of your behavior simply shows I am correct in my opinion that you have an overly aggressive attitude on this matter.

I suggest, again, that the question of the DAB be addressed at the talk pade and now at the two new AFDs and everyone take a breath. Jbh^Talk 19:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Debresser I've dated the 1RR violation diffs clearly showing the 1RR violation. The point being 1R or 3R is not a right per policy. Continuing after being taken to ANI before, and now a repeat with another editor, when's it going to stop? Which of those 12 points in reply is actually factual? Care to strike the 3RR is that for certain isn't, which casts doubt over all 12. Also, more 3RR disruption refactoring my AfD comment removing content:

1. [70] which was repeated despite being told not to per contested WP:REFACTOR "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted":
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]

• [74] (resume edit warring)

User:Jbhunley Maybe there's something in the issue when a second editor brings exactly the same issue to ANI? There's a difference between BOOMERANG and ad hominem / shooting the messenger. When you say "attitude" can you explain/diff. The OWN has gone beyond normal Talk & AfD . As I said, I welcome scrutiny and your input but this could have been seen last ANI, and can now this disruption can be prevented from another time. Widefox; talk 20:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You say I have problems with WP:OWN on this article, when I edit once every few days, and you made 6 edits in one day?! Plus ignore the talkpage discussion?! Plus try to circumvent the discussion by Afd?! I think it is you who for unclear reasons seems to feel he needs to own this article, or just gets the kicks from edit warring for the sake of edit warring. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit is not refactoring, as I explained in the edit summary. It is a grouping of notes (same way as on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Israel, where these two notes are also grouped together), and has no effect whatsoever on the discussion. There is no reason not to allow this improvement, unless you want to be WP:WIKILAWYERING about it, and I strongly feel you are overreacting to a good and logical edit. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason was given to you at the time WP:REFACTOR "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted". Changing the edits of another editor isn't refactoring huh? Really? You don't need to explain more, didn't you see it's contested and should not be reverted per above / edit summary / 3RR warning etc? Widefox; talk 02:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not if there is no reason to contest the edit except for the fact that you dislike the editor. As explained there, this is a net improvement with no downsides. Debresser (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Contested is contested. There's no basis in WP:REFACTOR for that assertion. I get to decide if a refactor of my edit is contested, and as it is, you should revert, which I did for you. You must also AGF. Edit warring to the 3RR bright line is not a "right", and leaving it a day and restarting [75] is pure gaming the system. Editors can be blocked before failing 3RR, and also for such edit war gaming. Widefox; talk 02:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Widefox: Per your request - The last ANI was titled User:Debresser: highly disruptive editing, intimidating and aggressive behaviour, and a racial slur was what I would expect from a troll "racial slur" really?? I was surprised it was from an experienced editor but that kind of hyperbole makes me think there is an attitide problem and is not going to get the poster much credit unless they can show a HUGE problem. They did not and it was closed with "Now I know why I don't patrol ANI much. This whole thread is over-the-top, including the subject header, the OP's statements, and Debresser's response. Go back to the Talk page and work it out. Even before Midas02 jumped in, it looks to me like it was a work in progress. " and discussion continued at the talk page. (Describing the mentioned behavior as "menacing" was a bit OTT too. [76])

As far as the lack of discussion about TWODABS it looks loke you first brought up the matter at 05:09 3 Jan there was some civil discussion going on between Debresser and another editor [77] Rapidly the conversation has degraded to you responding to Debresser with persistent behavioural issue - a complete lack of WP:LISTEN and WP:CLUE, in which "rubbish" is shorthand for "edit warring CLUEless disruption against consensus" but that seems to be about the ongoing question about DABMENTION however it is still active discussion about whether the page should be a DAB and I feel it illustrats'attitude' as you requested. It looks like you got back to TWODABS at 0853 4 Jan but you nominated the article for deletion, as you say for lack of discussion of TWODABS at 0900 4 Jan - a very short time for 'lack of discussion' to be a good reason particularly when you were in a discussion about a related topic. Looks like using AFD to solve a matter under discussion at the talk page when, at best, you gave 28hrs for the other editors at the page to respond. Maybe you do not see that as an issue but considering how heated the conversation between you and Debresser was and that there were several editors who had been recently active who had not commented it looks like a tactical nomination to me. You might not have intended it to be but that is what it looks like to me because, as you note, it preempts the discussion at the talk page. At best I see two sided that need to relax a bit but this does not look much more ANI-worthy than yesterday's ANI. Jbh^Talk 20:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I fixed one of the 4 diffs above. 2 of those 4 edits were additions of dab-templates, and are thus partial reverts of the undo which restored the general {{dab}} template. The 4th edit was a straight revert. The 2nd edit was adding an Afd tag, which I have to admit is indeed hard to construe as a revert, although definitely not an okay edit under the circumstances. We could add the two edits (mentioned above as well) which were claimed to be an honest mistake, both straight reverts as well, which would make 5 reverts. Not sure I want to go there. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You might try to argue that addition of the templates are partial reverts but I wouldn't buy it. The other two don't count as they were an obvious mistake. Even if someone were to count them they would count as a single edit as well as the addition of the AFD tag and the edit between them as they are all consecutive edits by the same editor (edits at 1902, 1903, 1400 & 1501 on 4 Jan). I do not see a problem with nominating the DAB for deletion. -- GB fan 20:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@GB fan Please read Wikipedia:Reverting, where you'll notice that a partial revert is well-defined, and those were partial reverts, which count as reverts in all revert restrictions. I have seen this rule in use many times here on WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm ignoring the bad-faith 3RR, and attempt to portray normal AfDs with wide notification as anything but run-of-the-mill from now on as I've given Debresser enough time to provide revert diffs or strike and neither was done despite admitting there's only one revert - that red herring just underscores the disruption here.

The full quote of the previous ANI close for exactly the same behavioural issue (exemplified by the false accusations above of 3RR and 11 other "don't look here") "...In any event, if you can't work it out, administrative action may be taken, but for the moment none is warranted.--Bbb23". It didn't work with yet more editors, four of us, it's back here. Widefox; talk 23:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jbhunley it's a false balance when ignoring four editors saying the dab needs fixing, and one editor repeatedly OWNing it, while reverting IP editors for a sanctioned page. Double standard of the Debresser. The problem with ignoring it last time, is that another uninvolved editor (me) is here saying the same thing. There's only one common denominator here. Four dab project editors are all in agreement it needs fixing, the AfDs have started in agreement (1 delete each). It does nobody a favour to portray that as an edit dispute when it's OWN, does it? Widefox; talk 00:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

More edit warring: there's 3 reverts with the edit summary "Use my last revert right" (emphasis own) on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Palestine, desipte warning given [78], none of which are allowed per WP:REFACTOR "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted". I don't take kindly to others removing my comments, and taking that to 3R when it shouldn't happen at all. Widefox; talk 00:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Widefox: What I can see is it is an edit dispute with disputants on both sides that seem to have an issue with remaining calm when in disagreement. Maybe that is a long term issue, maybe not. Just as a for instance, and why I saw then anti-DAB editors to be problematic, the issues about TWODAB and mention of the term in the targets could have been addressed by simply going to sources to see if those topics are referred to that way and by reading the thread to see that there were three possible DAB's. Not to mention the question, brought up by one editor, that Ottoman Israel may refer to the same area (I do not know but it seems like it would be easy to look up). Discussion about that rather than the arguing would have been productive. Those issues were being explored before the first ANI was filed but I saw none of the DAB project editors who showed up show any interest in why the editors on the talk page thought a DAB was the right thing. Rather I saw quotes of WP:POLICY while ignoring that the very policy being quoted recognized it was not always applicable - plus two ANI reports, at least one of which was solidly over the top, to push the point home. Maybe Debresser has an OWN issue but I would probably have responded poorly when editors who are brand new to the topic show up and start saying this must be without taking the time to look at why the initial decision was made and addressing that as well.

Maybe you and the DAB project editors are 100% correct but whether you are or not I for one saw no inkling of an indication that you'all considered that the people who had previously been discussing the matter, and who seem to have a grasp of the topic, might have a point as well. Jbh^Talk 00:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I welcome your comments at the AfDs/talk User:Jbhunley. I thought the same as you to start with, but I checked, and that's when I realised this is just a TWODABs failed dab (hence cleanup tag, now AfD). Please see the discussion and participate there. I repeat - portraying as an edit dispute with me ignores the consensus, and the previous edit dispute put down to the previous gnome (all this is just normal gnome editing, nothing dramatic or content disput-y as seemingly portrayed), and the ANI close - it's back here. When editors aren't LISTENing to the consensus of four dab specialists and the guideline then blunt becomes useful, eh? Any sign of an end of this edit warring? Dabs have a little warning when editing, they aren't a normal edit dispute area, but more a highly style conformant one based on MOSDAB, which the debate at the talk fails WP:CLUE. When a dab fails the dab do's and don'ts simple guide but someone still OWNs that mess, that's when it's a bigger problem. Widefox; talk 01:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see that - I will never understand what people choose to edit war over cf the fuse/fuze dispute at Plasticine - and I would like to discuss the actual issues with you at the talk page before I sound off at the AfD. (You will note I have not expressed an opinion there yet.) You should note I added a third page to Ottoman Palestine based on the talk page. From what I understand from what you and the other DAB editors were saying what is needed to show those are appropriate for the DAB page is to demonstrate that all of those areas are referred to Ottoman Palestine in the sources. (Well in the articles but the sources need to show it before the article can) Do I understand that correctly? Jbh^Talk 01:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes content issues surface at the dab level, but as the dabs just slavishly follow the articles, those content issues are offtopic there, as they need establishing in the articles first (DABMENTION says as such, and another dab editor has repeated in their "WP:OR" comment): OK what's wrong with those two entries I will reply on that dabs talk (as offtopic here). In reply to your question of timing - this dab page can be boldly reverted to the PRIMARYTOPIC redirect, and should have been. A speedy for dab with 1 valid entry would have been contested, and until fixed we have incoming links from the PRIMARYTOPIC. There's no second ambiguous topic per the AfD. Widefox; talk 01:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Clearly both sides have arguments, and they are being discussed. What is not acceptable is edit warring in the middle of an ongoing discussion. What is not acceptable is circumventing a discussion by opening an Afd (which was not one of the option being discussed, and is pretty ridiculous as a "solution"). Debresser (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Another 3RR violation by Widefox: [79], [80], [81], [82].

As I explained in this edit summary, and on this discussion, Widefox is edit warring with me only because it is me, while there is nothing wrong with the edit itself. Debresser (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I repeat my call for a block, perhaps even more than 24h. We have Widefox edit warring with almost a 3RR violation on Ottoman Palestine, now here again on this related page. He bulldozers into an ongoing discussion, edits without consensus, proposes Afd to circumvent that consensus forming on the talkpage (not to mention that even if the article should not be a dab page, it certainly should not be deleted and his proposal was ill conceived either way), polarizes the discussion with unhelpful comments and general uncivil behavior. I think 48 hours will help him cool off and come to his senses. Debresser (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Just now I say he continues with his unilateral edits to Ottoman Palestine: 3 more edits.[83] It is unbelievable how he doesn't get the point that it is his editing without first establishing consensus, in the middle of an active discussion, that provoked all of this. A clear case of an editor who is not fit to edit this article. I propose to consider wider sanction against this editor. Debresser (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The two dab AfDs are unanimous for deletion with Debresser the only dissent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Palestine Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Israel. The false balance argument above is against consensus in all places. The unfounded accusations are a weak defense of the Debresser OWN problem. Widefox; talk 23:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jbhunley care to revisit your comments about AfD etc now it's clear just how wrong the dabs are per guideline and consensus, to the extent that they could have been just reverted or (moved then speedy deleted) rather than taken to AfD anyhow. This mess is solely one editor OWNing against consensus. Also, all these false accusations above should be stricken, and taken into account as part of the disruption. Widefox; talk 00:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary: Considering in Debresser's edit summary (above) they consider these dabs under WP:ARBPIA sanctions, the 3R, OWN, behaviour needs admin attention (2nd ANI on it). They've been previously blocked many times for 1RR ARBPIA, 3RR, and refactoring talk - all of which are reported again here. Widefox; talk 00:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Incorrect claim #1: I do not think this article to be under WP:ABRPIA, and have not said so. I just raised the possibility that some may say it is. In either case, the issue at hand is not related to WP:POV or WP:ARBPIA at all, but is rather a behavioral issue.
2. Incorrect claim #2: The consensus at Afd is not unanimous, although a majority says the page should be redirected instead of being a disambiguation page. Also note that Widefox proposed deletion, which is not what the consensus is going to.
3. If 1RR would apply, then he has violated it repeatedly, while my edits were several days in between or at least 24 hours.
4. Since Widefox has written his summary of events, I would like to do the same:
5. Widefox has violated 3RR once for sure, and came close to violating 3RR a second time, or did violate it a second time, depending on interpretation. In general, he bulldozered into an ongoing discussion and started to make edits, then when he saw that he couldn't dominate the discussion (oh irony of accusing me of WP:OWN), he decided to circumvent the discussion by opening an Afd.
6. All claims in this summary have been substantiated with diffs, see above.
7. Widefox has shown with his edits and talkpage posts, as well as with his post here, that he is not aware that his actions are violations and/or are detrimental to community editing. I firmly believe a block is the only thing that will make this clear to him. Debresser (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Debresser's own edit summary to revert an IP edit due to ABRPIA. Logically, either they a) stand by what they wrote and thus believe sanctions apply or b) they didn't believe what they wrote and made a deceptive edit summary. Either way, it's clear case of OWN, and now LISTEN. Attempting to BOOMERANG with false evidence just underlines the behavioural issue. The AfD contested refactoring edit warring is still ongoing (see 4Rs above)..We all have to abide by policies and sanctions, however many edits and previous blocks. Widefox; talk 02:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What is "false evidence"? The diffs don't lie about your 3RR violation, general edit warring, jumping into discussions by editing the page first and talk it over later, opening two Afd's in the middle of a discussion, and now again reverting my edit for no other reason than that it is me who made it. You have not been able to show even the slightest violation from my side. The one who is not listening here is you. Debresser (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Simply, there's no consensus for Debresser's claims (at AfDs and allegations here) and is repeatedly brought to ANI, due to (in their own words) a "right" to 3R and an offense is the best defense of BOOMERANG with long-term edit warring (threatening it for each person who finds their behaviour unacceptable). That gaming the system and behaviour is not conducive to collaborative editing. Widefox; talk 11:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to make an impression as though I am not here, because I do think this report is very important, but I have no idea what Widefox is talking about, and why he continues to post on my talkpage as though he has a leg to stand on, although I have asked him to stop posting on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Portraying this as between two editors is a false balance ignoring:

• Debresser is against consensus in all places (most clearly at the AfDs)
• Has been asked by two editors to strike the 3RR allegation, but has yet to do that at ANI, and at all places repeated (afDs, their talk etc)
• According to Debresser it's everyone else but him, but repeatedly being brought here indicates the opposite - that logic is WP:LISTEN.

(BTW Debresser [84]: attempts at BOOMERANG but will be ignored from now on. Debresser can you explain why you simultaneously don't want someone to post on your talk page (link?), give them a Talkback to it [85], and have an open question? [86]. This failed attempt at BOOMERANG is just bad faith, I ask for them to be collapsed by an admin here/struck as offtopic. Widefox; talk 13:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Mass spamming and modification on Tunisia related articles by Helmoony

The user Helmoony is mass-spaming and changing "Tunisian arabic" mentions to Arabic in articles that was in place since several months. After the debate in Wikiproject Tunisia in september, it was finally agreed with the admin Huon to grant the mention of Tunisian arabic for the names of people and places. Could you please do something about it ? Thank you.Zangouang (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi did really you read Huon statement ? « Given that we have reliable secondary sources such as that Libération article unequivocally stating that literary Arabic, not Tunisian Arabic, is the official language, we should use literary Arabic in official contexts, for example for the state motto. The use of Tunisian Arabic is obviously on the rise, but I don't think it's sufficiently common yet to be widely used for historical contexts such as, say, the spelling of Bourguiba's name - I have not seen a reliable published source that uses the Tunisian Arabic spelling for him. For biographies of living individuals matters are somewhat more complicated and may need to be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on how reliable published sources most commonly refer to that person. Given the discussion above I see no reason at all to provide Tunisian Arabic transliterations without published sources backing them up. That's original research. Huon (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)  » in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tunisia/Archive_2015.

- By the way it's just an opinion. Can you show me the conclusion ? And as I've shown to you it was a discussion based on opinions from the same user (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Exacrion) - Also, one of the reviewer suggested to me to review all same articles. [87]

- I'm not active here. I'm a sysop in Arabic Wikipedia so I don't have time review my wachlist in other languages.

- The list to be changed is here. Do what ever you see usefull in enwiki. --Helmoony (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you're an Arabic speaker who's salty about Tunisians wanting to assert their cultural independence. What's this argument to you?142.105.159.60 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Undeclared Paid Editor - Jsherlock

Please see diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ravenswood_School_for_Girls&type=revision&diff=698415720&oldid=698253897 and User_talk:Jsherlock. Seeking assistance on how to induce her to declare her paid editing position. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the edit summary this might be on the edge of being a Legal threat. SQL^{Query me!} 05:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Eh, I don't see that edit summary as a legal threat (although it mentions "courts", it's poorly worded but not unambiguous). I am not seeing direct evidence that proves that this account is being paid to edit Wikipedia. All I see is what appears to be a single-purpose account. Ariconte, do you have any diffs that provide direct evidence that unambiguously proves that this account is an undeclared paid editor? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I used the Google search terms "sherlock ravenswood sydney" which finds a LinkedIn profile.... which is explicit. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat or not, paid editing or not, the accused edit was quite proper. The edit she removed was not NPOV, most likely was NOTNEWS, and certainly was not within school article guidelines. John from Idegon (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And I do agree that the LinkedIn profile pretty much screams, yea, she's a paid editor. John from Idegon (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I performed the same Google search, found the "off-wiki" location described, and could still not establish direct proof that indicates that 1) This user is connected in any way to the off-wiki location, and 2) that this account is being paid specifically to edit Wikipedia as part of their job title. Remember, AGF - we have circumstantial evidence at best; we do not have any direct evidence. All I see is a potential COI, and no indication that paid editing violations are occurring here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Two points: (1) Not so much a "paid editor" as someone who works for and at the article subject and is in their full-time employ and does their digital marketing. This thread belongs at WP:COIN rather than ANI. (2) While the material removed from the article in that edit may have been proper to remove, the material added to the article in the same edit most certainly was not proper to add. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any updates to this thread lately. Unless anybody has additional details or concerns, I believe that a COI warning should be left for the person but that's about it. There is no evidence to prove the accusations presented in this ANI, and hence I am marking this as a preliminary resolved discussion. No administrative action is required. Am I wrong? Is this not resolved? Please remove the tag and let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Template:Resolved isn't appropriate for ANI; it's for simple non-controversial edit requests on talk pages. Since ANI is always inherently controversial, it's better to place a recommendation that the thread be closed, if that is your recommendation; then an admin can check and close the thread if warranted. I personally believe that Ariconte should have placed this complaint on WP:COIN (where it belongs) rather than here. Since the problems with this SPA employee have been going on for over a year and a half, the article talk page should get the "involved editor" tag and so forth. However, someone has posted a mild COI notice on the editor's talk page. If she does not directly edit the article further, perhaps the situation is OK as is. If it recurs, please report to WP:COIN. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

From a COI perspective, 86.166.167.76 (talk · contribs) and Jsherlock (talk · contribs) have edited only this article. JSherlock may have a COI, having added some brochure-like material.[88] Those two don't seem to be supporting each other; this is probably not sockpuppeting. The article is currently at full protection, reflecting a minor edit war between LauraJamieson (talk · contribs) and John from Idegon (talk · contribs), experienced editors who edit many school articles. The possible COI editor is not currently involved in that edit war, although their deletion[89] may have started it. So this is now more of a content dispute than a COI problem. All the arguments center around whether the critical comments of the Head Girl, as cited in the press, should be in the article. That seems to be the only content in dispute. I don't think WP:COIN can help here. John Nagle (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for my absence. I'm away from regular Internet :-) . I agree this should be closed.... my desire was to inform / assist Jsherlock. It appears she does not read the talk pages.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Galleries of Ethnic groups

User:71.246.159.32 is massively undoing all deletions of galleries of ethnic groups that have lately been done per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. See his contributions Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit summary seems to reveal a certain lack of constructive attitude. Would anyone object to a bulk revert? Favonian (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Moot point. All their reverts have already been reverted. Favonian (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This User:71.246.159.38 sock however still seems to be active! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean this user:71.246.159.32 sock doesn't seem to be banned yet. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I just blocked User:Ethnic image gallery vandál. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it my imagination or is there a lot of logged out editing/socking going on at various venues in the last few weeks? Doug Weller talk 15:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not your imagination. Katie^talk 16:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

People must have gotten new phones for christmas. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Those Kindle Fires were only $35. I wonder if my daughter, a longtime Wiki fan, has found her way in--she got one of those machines. Is the vandalism related to Percy Jackson? Kate Bush? Drmies (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Q: Why is it that we allow unregistered IP editing again??? Carrite (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Because WMF is wedded to "that anyone can edit!" meaning "no account, login, or anything required", when even TVTropes requires a login, to the point of taking overwhelming community consensus for sign-in-to-edit and going "lolnope". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Heads up

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

---

My friend is constantly bragging about an army of "socks" he has been amassing for sometime, and claims he intends to use them against this site in a "co-ordinated strike". He even laughed when I said I was going to report him, and encouraged me to do so as it would "allow him to brag and won't make any difference anyway". Please be prepared as this could happen imminently and he must be stopped! 78.40.158.52 (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Heads" up -- here they come!

*sigh* I'm glad you're taking this seriously. I have further information if you want to hear it (e.g. I know some of the accounts he uses). If you're not interested then close this thread and I won't bother warning you again. 78.40.158.50 (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can specify certain accounts and highlight their editing similarities, please do. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Previously warned user mass-moving articles without consensus

User Highflier9 (talk) has just mass moved a number of rugby- union related articles (contributions). Moving without consensus appears to be a pattern by the user, and they have been previously warned about this. Propose that they are blocked and that all the moves are undone (I see that this process has already begun since I started this edit). Greenman (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest - American Film Market Page

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

---

Hi everyone, I'm a film buff who's also done some freelance writing in film industry periodicals. I just started editing Wikipedia a few months ago. However, I noticed some suspicious behavior when I tried to add a few details to the American Film Market page.

Seeing as I read a great article about the AFM awhile back, I decided to use it as a source to add a number of details to the entry. I even added a picture I took. I was surprised and frustrated to see my handiwork quickly undone by a user called JonathanWolfWiki. Even the picture I added was gone! Apart from the annoyance of seeing edits I took a long time to write deleted, I wasn't even given a reason (which I was always given in the past; for example, I've often made mistakes when citing sources).

I thought there might be an error, so I undid the edits. However, I now see my revisions have been undone again by a user called Jennaflower. I don't understand why my edits keep getting undone! Rather than spend time and energy I don't have to undertake an edit war, I find myself in the unfortunate position of having to alert the mods.

This is the page after my edits: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=American_Film_Market&oldid=695193433

This is the current page: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=American_Film_Market&oldid=698599196

Seeing as the article is a stub, I thought my additions would be welcome.

I'd like to add one last detail. Prior to posting here, I performed a quick google search. As it turns out, the profile JonathanWolfWiki is tied to Jonathan Wolf, a Managing Director of the AFM. I can't understand why he wouldn't want to include my edits apart from a desire to control all content that goes on his organization's entry, but that's not how Wikipedia works, and completely in conflict with the spirit of a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

AlviseFalier (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This is on the wrong Noticeboard. Take it to WP:COIN. I am closing this discussion. Chesnaught555 (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Problems on Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad-Kashmir articles

User:سعد علی خان Is pushing POV on the Gilgit-Baltistan article, replacing either the flag of India (or a depiction with no flag at all) on the navbox when it comes to Jammu and Kashmir (which is in India) he also adds info on the religion stating 100% muslim on the article and the Azad-Kashmir article: here here here and here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Also at Punjab, Pakistan [90][91][92]. General Ization ^Talk 19:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked this user for 48 hours, which overlapped this ANI thread. I don't know if additional sanctions are requested here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the reported user immediately launched a tirade against Bbb23 on his userpage, stating "Bbb23 your act is shameful and why are you showing so pro india behaviour? I am editing right but if too man people fight with me at the same time and then block me than it is not fair. What kind of nuterality you people are showing ? you people are just showing anti Pakistan and proindia behaviour shame on you people"

I seriously doubt a short block will change his behavior, he's obviously here solely to push his POV.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Text from deleted articles on talkpages and in a sandbox

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

---

I wonder. Should patent nonsense that was earlier deleted from articles Lado Enclave, or has been in articles that have been deleted themselves Lado Kingdom be allowed to sit on user’s talkpages like here, here and here, or even in a sandbox like here? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering that unattributed copying within Wikipeida is WP:COPYVIO? Almost certainly not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Well these three persons wrote that stuff themselves and actually, it's one person. And he made those texts quite alone. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"It's socking, then." Or, judging by the account-creation dates on the logs, they may have forgotten the password for the first and just made a new account - but not two. Anyway, this is a WP:NOTHERE case and patent nonsense, so I'm applying the mop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And the mop has been applied. It appears that (over a period of close enough to 10 years!) whoever was behind this nonsense created a string of accounts, one after the other, abandoning prior accounts for new ones. Whether this was genuine serial-socking to evade scrutiny/appear to be multiple people pushing the nonsense, or a case of not being able to remember passwords, is impossible to say, but either way all four accounts I found are now blocked as WP:NOTHERE in case they attempt a return to one, and the nonsense sandboxes deleted. For the record, the accounts in question were Okuonzi (talk · contribs) (2005), Ronald . Lulua (talk · contribs) (2007), ORIJORU (talk · contribs) (January 2013), and LADOKINGDOM (talk · contribs) (July 2013). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Concerted POV pushing attack and socking of banned user at Race and Intelligence and Richard Lynn

We have a sitiuation at the pages about Race and Intelligence that need some attention from users with tools. In the past few days two new accounts have turned up at the pages Sombe19 (talk · contribs) and 維基小霸王 (talk · contribs) pushing a clearly "hereditarian" "race realist" POV and promoting established fringe sources and authors - under the tutelage and advisership of an IP editing from an anonymizing Gaditek IP range that is veiling geolocation (themost recent is 103.47.145.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and also 103.47.145.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). The IP is clearly Captain Occam (talk · contribs) who has routinely used off site coordination to orchestrate the insertion of his pov into articles. The style of argumentation closely follows Occams style (detailed lawyering, POV, calm demeanor (most R&I socks are anything but calm)) and reasoning (including arguments he has made in the past about how to "neutralize" the biography of notorious race scientist Richard Lynn) Today after a 1 month hiatus he posted at the site which shall remain nameless to complain about another sock that was confronting the IP at the R&I pages - thus clearly demonstrating that he is indeed the IP. I am currently traveling and do not have time to deal with this or with an SPI investigation, so I hope someone else might take a look. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: That the IP range and pure VPN service is similar to one used by another sock on this occasion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive246#Block_of_IP_range.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Statement: I have never been asked by others to edit such articles, except the ip user's encouragement on my talk page after my edits on N&I:

I hope you'll continue to participate in these articles. You seem knowledgeable and level-headed, and the articles need more people like that. 103.47.145.151 (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never been asked to edit such articles through discussions on websites, IM, mail nor any other ways (except for the above encouragement).

I have never been in contact with the IP user (except for recent public talks on Wikipedia), Captain Occam nor Sombe19.

--The Master (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not actually suggest that Occam/103.47.145.151 had recruited you. But he has clearly been mentoring you, and you have followed his instructions almost to the letter.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The only suggestion I've accepted from the IP user is to report puppet accounts who was later shown to be linked to long-term abuser Kingshowman.--The Master (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And to propose the Rinderman 2013 survey as a source for scholarly consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No. I found that source when searching for updated version of

Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing. American Psychologist, 42(2), 137.

Although later I found he/she already mentioned it in User_talk:Sombe19#The_Snyderman_and_Rothman_survey from your contribution log.--The Master (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever, the 103.47. IP is clearly a soc of a banned user and taking advise or suggestions from him is generally a bad idea and could get you sanctioned.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I only took one suggestion from him/her. And CU has domenstrated the suggestion was right. If he/she really were also a banned user, it's better to domenstrate that. By the way, thank you for teaching me the distinction between demonstration and proposal. I expect to learn a lot more things from you and other users.--The Master (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP is pretty obviously Occam. I don't know where he got the two new meat puppets from, but at least Sombe19 has been trying to make some blatantly racist edits and talk page comments in this topic area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity breast size

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

---

Should Wikipedia list celebrities' breast sizes? A couple of editors have ganged up to make sure that Ariel Winter's breast size is featured prominently in her Wikipedia article, despite the fact that (1) she is underage and (2) she has publicly said she is uncomfortable with media reporting on her cleavage. Would it be similarly okay to list Justin Bieber's penis size?203.59.20.130 (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity or not, that's not information we need to have here at all. It's on par with giving out peoples' home addresses or phone numbers, it's just personal information with no encyclopaedic merit. GRAPPLE ^X 11:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hell no! Nobody wants to hear (read about ) Justin Beaver anyway! KoshVorlon 12:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

(Personally I do not find it encyclopedic but...) This isnt really the same situation as the 'large natural breasts' editor - its a bit more nuanced in Arial Winter's case. As an actress continuously on a TV series from a very young age, like it or not any significant physical changes will get press time. From the gossip rags to the fashion magazines that cater to her celebrity. In her case she had a quite high profile breast reduction which was commented on and discussed by others and herself in the press. Now if this is encyclopedic or not is a content discussion for the talk page, but if Justin Bieber gave interviews where he discussed the problems of having a large penis, and that his was operated on to make it a more normal 6 inches, you can guarantee that would be in his wikipedia article. The article used as a source for the information was a Glamour interview. So perfectly useable to source the information, but may hit UNDUE. It was covered by sections of the press that cover celebrity 'news'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on the talk page, which is where it should have been discussed first as contentious material. (Or failing that, the BLP noticeboard) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with OID that this has been discussed enough in the news media (and by the subject herself, e.g. [93][94]) to warrant actual consideration. Personally, I don't think it rises to the level of something that should be in an encyclopedia article, but that's more of a talk page discussion than an ANI discussion. Dragons flight (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• An article in Glamour does not make something "Well reported and commentated on", to cite one edit summary--and even if a million tabloids and gossip magazines write it up, that does not make it encyclopedic. I'm disappointed that editors think this is somehow notable because a publicity machine and a gossip industry have made it notable. There are BLP concerns here, UNDUE concerns...I thank the IP for bringing this to our attention. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless an actress is known as a "sex symbol", putting that type of personal info in the article seems inappropriate. Contrast that with Pamela Anderson, where it makes sense to discuss it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Commenting on people's body part sizes is both dehumanizing and irrelvant, except in unusual cases such as people for whom their breast size is deliberately a major part of their public image. -- The Anome (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that I've protected the article for a week, seeing the edit-warring over a BLP issue. I believe the concerns as expressed by the 203.* anon above, Baseball Bugs, Anome and others are serious enough to make removal mandatory under WP:BLP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No. As the OP mentioned, if we did this, we'd also have to do a similar one for men... quite frankly a ridiculous suggestion as many people are indeed uncomfortable with this information being published about them. Also, let's be honest here, it is highly likely that something like this will be vandalised. Vandals are going to see the humorous side of articles like this, so really it isn't worth the risk. Also, as I said before, it's a ridiculous idea. Not being uncivil. Chesnaught555 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Bacon, bacon, everywhere...

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

---

Picture courtesy of Kelapstick, who takes orders for Bacon Explosions.
I'll take ten. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk)

SSTflyer has been adding the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon to a whole lot of articles, on the basis of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon#Scope. This includes everyone whose surname is Bacon. I know that Project members can add their templates to pretty much any articles they want to (presumably they want to improve all the articles of Bacon people) but this seems to be going too far. What do people think? StAnselm (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely going too far. --Golbez (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wait, what? If a project wants articles to be tagged within their scope, there is nothing wrong with tagging these articles. sst✈ 15:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

What puts Albion Fellows Bacon within the scope of "improving Wikipedia's coverage of Bacon"? The word 'bacon' does not appear on Albion's page outside of her name. I don't mind you tagging everything in the project's scope, but it's quite plainly not in the project's scope. You need to change the scope to, I dunno, "improving Wikipedia's coverage of anything involving the letters 'b', 'a', 'c', 'o', and 'n', in that order and generally adjacent." --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that it's pretty much just a categorisation of the article's talk page, I wouldn't think it's worth caring about—it doesn't impact the article negatively, and has a (small) chance of driving improvement efforts towards any of the tagged articles. GRAPPLE ^X 15:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If they can put it without logical reason, surely it can be removed just as easily. --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I can perform a mass rollback of my WP:BACON tagging right now, if that is what the community wants. sst✈ 15:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• As one of the early members of the Bacon group, I would like to state for the record that I agree with StAnselm. We can't spread the bacon jam that thinly. It is true that I've written up Bacon people for the Bacon cup, but the rationale we used for that competition does not extend to this issue. I'll ping Kelapstick, just to make sure--and will insert a picture indicating his credentials. Golbez, I strongly suggest you stop anagrammatizing and reread Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, which should teach you only to wonder at unlawful things. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• What the fuck is this doing at ANI? Can you people please get some perspective? EEng (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

---

To prevent wasting any more time on something as minor as this, I have just rollbacked all my WP:BACON tagging to people with the surname Bacon (a total of 54 articles). I hope that everyone would be satisfied with this outcome. Thank you. sst✈ 16:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. I sure wish we'd finally do the sensible thing and just get rid of the entire wretched gimmick of "Wikiproject tags" altogether. They are entirely useless. Wikiprojects should keep track of the articles they're interested in by means of lists kept in their own project space, and nothing else.</ceterumcenseo> Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Vandals of pages music

[95] [96], [97]--Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked them all for disruptive editing but, Giubbotto non ortodosso, don't you start also. Pinging Binksternet, for formality's sake. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention needed at Appeal to authority

Quick note: I'm posting a quick summary as well as a collapsed detailed explanation.
There is a conflict which has been ongoing at this page for several years now. I've known for some time that there are people who mistakenly think that any appeal to authority (which would necessarily include WP's policy on citing reliable sources) is a fallacy, regardless of the nature of the appeal, the authority, or the participants. One or more of these people seem to have recently established ownership of this article, edited it to suit their view, and are fighting against any attempt to correct it. I believe an administrator is needed at this point, because the arguments have never progressed past the point of these editors claiming that the sources are all wrong. I (and one other recently, and several others over the past few years) have been trying to make them understand the issue, but to no avail. Even when I quote the sources directly, they either ignore it, argue with the source, or claim that the quote means the opposite of what it says. Recently, I have been almost the only one arguing for the sourced definition of the term, and it's becoming more and more difficult to reign in my frustration at the complete lack of ground the other side is willing to give. A longer explanation of my involvement and the issue is collapsed, below.

Detailed explanation

My involvement My involvement began with this comment to the article's talk page, asking if there was any reason why the article differed from its sources. From the very first response to that question, the push from the other side has been to debate the meaning of the term (ignoring the fact that the definition is provides by the sources) or the nature of truth, rather than addressing the discrepancy between the sources and the article. I tried to shift the focus back, only to be stymied at every turn. The primary voice arguing with me has been FL or Atlanta (talk · contribs). When I quoted a source used on the page, FLoA promptly deleted that source, claiming it was not reliable without specifying why, despite the fact that it is used on virtually every other WP article on fallacies, with no challenges to its reliability in evidence (I did use an advanced google search and the WP search function to try and find where its reliability has been questioned, but with no results). FLoA then added an additional source which states that science allowed us to stop receiving all our knowledge from authorities, using this to support the statement that appealing to authorities is a fallacy. I pointed out that this was synthesis, but to no avail. When I removed a source which linked to a youtube video by a noted HEMA practitioner as not being a reliable source for an article on a form of argument, my change was immediately reverted by FLoA under the pretense of 'maintaining' the article while discussion was ongoing (a pretense that, apparently, did not include the 12 edits he made to the article during that time). Eventually, I opened a request for mediation at WP:DRN. It seemed to begin well, being accepted by a volunteer and opened, until a second volunteer stepped in to begin hatting portions of my request (not entirely without justification, but nonetheless in a disruptive and one-sided manner), before closing and re-opening the request, installing himself as the mediator. (I later learned that the first volunteer was not qualified to be a volunteer, which explains why another took over, but the lack of any notification of this to the parties involved was a drastic oversight). At that point, I was too weirded out to continue with the request. After reading that the primary party opposing me was 'going away' for a few days, I decided to go ahead and correct the article. I did so, only to be quickly reverted by another user (Perfect Orange Sphere (talk · contribs)) who had been canvassed (more on that later, including evidence) into the discussion. My edits: [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] The edits which reverted my changes: Note that the first is from an IP editor who may be a user not logged in) [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] When another editor appeared to correct the lead with this edit, it too, was immediately reverted. In fact, no edit I have made to the page remained for even 24 hours. I (and any who agree with me) have been effectively blocked from editing the page by our unwillingness to edit war, and the other side's willingness to revert anything they disagree with. I continued to make my case on the talk page to the new face of my opposition, but again, to no avail. That brings us to the current point. Note also that throughout the discussion, the opposition (who have been arguing that appealing to an expert, reliable source is a fallacy) have brought up multiple sources and presented them as experts whose authority invalidated my argument. Note also that none of the sources they provided explicitly disagreed with my position, despite their assertion. In each case, synthesis was needed to conform what their source said to their position. I have asked about why they are using the very argument they claim is always fallacious, and the best response I have gotten so far is "Because of WP:V". One might note that citing WP:V is, itself, an appeal to authority. Canvassing I discovered earlier today that a number of users (all of whom were on the opposite side of the issue from me) had been contacted by an IP editor (97.106.144.198 (talk · contribs)) to come participate in the discussion. So far, only one has seemed to respond. Posts made by the IP user about this: [118] [119] [120] I feel it's worth pointing out that user Lord Mondegreen, who had been recently discussing the very same issue on this page, taking the same position as I was not contacted, nor was user Original Position, who also took the same side as me (and I must say, did a wonderful job of explaining himself using concise, technical language). Evidence of my position Below is a list of quotes with attributions showing that the argument is not always a fallacy. Most sources are explicitly defining the term, but a few are explicitly defining the fallacy, yet clearly state conditions that do not include every possible usage of "X says Y so Y is true". Some of these sources are from the article, some are from my own research. All of them (in my opinion) meed the standards at WP:RS handily, and every single one agrees with me. In fact, I could find no reliable sources at all which explicitly state that the appeal to authority is always a fallacy. PerOrSph (using initialism for this user's handle could be seen as insulting, so I'm abbreviating it instead) insisted that they had provided sources which state this, but none of their sources actually do state this. It could be inferred from some of the sources they gave (only a handful, 2 or possibly 3 were ever given), but that inference would be the only manner in which those sources disagreed with mine. If one did not make that inference, then all the sources would be in agreement. For example, appealing to expert opinion could be reasonable if the field of the expert is appropriate, and other conditions are met. But, of course, as the logic texts have so often pointed out, such arguments can sometimes be fallacious appeal to authority. -F. Bex, H. Prakken, C. Reed (2003) "Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations" [121](PDF). Artificial Intelligence and Law: 133. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Basing a belief on what some authority says. A legitimate form of appeal to authority goes as follows: X holds that A is true. X is an authority on the subject. The consensus of authorities agrees with X. There is a presumption that A is true. It is a fallacy if we appeal to someone who is not an authority on the subject, if the authorities widely disagree, or if we say something must be true (and is not just probably true) because authorities support it. -Gensler, Harry J. (2010) The A to Z of Logic. Lanham, MD Scarecrow Press Appeal to Authority: Not always fallacious, but always something a critical thinker must consider. It is where you are asked to accept something as true based upon the word of an expert (authority). The main question is, "Are they really an expert?" Perhaps they're not an expert in that field, perhaps they've got an ax to grind, or perhaps they are being paid by someone. -Foothill College Although appeals to authority can be erroneous, it must also be recognized that some appeals to authority can be reasonable and legitimate in argument. For example, suppose you have a toothache and you go to your dentist for advice. He replies as follows. This tooth is badly decayed, but not beyond repair. I propose to replace the decayed portion with a filling immediately. Your dentist's advice in [this example] is the judgement of a suitably qualified expert in his field. In asking for his or her advice, therefore, you have appealed to an expert authority. However, it by no means follows that by acquiescing to his proposals you have committed a fallacy. -Walton, Douglas (2008) Informal Logic. London: Cambridge University Press The appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority. ... Finally, it should be noted that it is not irrelevant to cite an authority to support a claim one is not competent to judge. However, in such cases the authority must be speaking in his or her own field of expertise and the claim should be one that other experts in the field do not generally consider to be controversial. In a field such as physics, it is reasonable to believe a claim about something in physics made by a physicist that most other physicists consider to be true. Presumably, they believe it because there is strong evidence in support of it. Such beliefs could turn out to be false, of course, but it should be obvious that no belief becomes true on the basis of who believes it. -The Skeptic's Dictionary - appeal to authority Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority on the facts of the argument. -APPEAL TO AUTHORITY — argumentum ad verecundiam Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority. -UNC Chapel Hill Writing Center Appeal to Authority: the authority is not an expert in the field experts in the field disagree the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious -Stephen Downes, by way of a Stanford University handout The fallacy of irrelevant authority is committed when you accept without proper support for his or her alleged authority, a person's claim or proposition as true. Alleged authorities should only be used when the authority is reporting on his or her field of expertise, the authority is reporting on facts about which there is some agreement in his or her field, and you have reason to believe he or she can be trusted. Alleged authorities can be individuals or groups. The attempt to appeal to the majority or the masses is a form of irrelevant authority. The attempt to appeal to an elite or select group is a form of irrelevant authority. -Texas State Department of Philosophy We all rely on the advice and counsel of others. Sometimes when we present arguments, we appeal to what experts have said on the matter instead of presenting direct evidence to support the claims that we make. Critical thinking allows for this, for it would be difficult and wasteful to always repeat arguments already made by experts. Thus, many arguments that appeal to some legitimate authority can be construed as strong inductive arguments. ... ...many arguments that appeal to a legitimate authority are strong inductive arguments... -Salmon, Merrilee Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (2012) Cengage Learning What is wrong with arguing from authority? The short answer is, nothing – if the authority is a good one (for the conclusion in question). The reason why arguing from authority as such is sometimes classified as a fallacy is that it is not distinguished from arguing merely from putative authority. ... Paying too much attention to the latter kind of case, that of the deliberate, sophistical use of false authority to persuade an opponent, is one thing that leads to the traditional view that arguments from authority are always fallacious. Another is focussing on the case where an arguer (perhaps a solitary one) is indeed convinced of the genuineness and relevance of the authority to which she is appealing but is, in our view, mistaken in that conviction. Each of these pictures of argument from authority mistakes one species of such argument for the genus and, having done so, is unable to account for the obvious fact that we regard some arguments from authority as perfectly good arguments and are right in doing so. In this way they fail to save the phenomena and fail to provide an explanation of them. -Bire, John & Siegel, Harvey "Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies" Argumentation August 1997, Volume 11, Issue 3 pp277-292 Fundamentally, the [ad verecundiam] fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority." -Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Fallacies "...many of our trusted beliefs ... rest quite properly on the say so of others..." -Gensler, Harry Introduction to Logic (2012) Routledge Argumentum ad Verecundiam (argument from authority) fallacy: an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside the authority's special field of expertise. -Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Argumentum Ad Verecundiam (emphasis added in all cases)

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Appeal to authority is basically a philosophical concept concerning formal logic. In formal logic you can't make a syllogism or a statement that says that A=true because B says so and he should know. Basically whether the authority is an expert or not doesn't matter when it comes to formal logic. In formal logic you go all the way yourself and basically that's not always the way we work in daily life and certainly not the way we work on Wikipedia. We're not in the business of making syllogisms here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but, first, Wikipedia does need to discuss formal logic properly. Second, the argument from authority also applies in science, consisting of dismissing a new theory because it is inconsistent with old theories (authorities) rather than submitting to experiment. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: Thank you. Your final two sentences are perfect summations of my position with regards to the content. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually the Appeal to Inappropriate Authority is a fallacy in informal, not formal logic. You can make a formally valid syllogism that say that A is true if B says so. For example:

1. If B says A is true, then A is true.

2. B says A is true.

3. Therefore, A is true.

This is a formally valid modus ponens argument. Remember, formal logic is fundamentally concerned with the implications between statements, even false statements. Thus, it will investigate the logical implications of even false statements (such as (1) often is). Original Position (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The short version, not containing any diffs, doesn't make the case that there is article ownership behavior. The long version is [[WP:TLDR|too long, did't read. However, this is both a content dispute and a conduct dispute, and the original poster is trying to edit against the consensus at the talk page. What the original poster sees as article ownership behavior by multiple editors is probably seen by the other editors as simply following consensus. I suggest that the content dispute be the subject of a Request for Comments, which will get a larger consensus. (The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard has been tried, and has failed, because the original poster insisted on making article ownership claims, and DRN discussions do not address conduct issues.) Admin eyes on the article would be a good idea, knowing that the admins might see article ownership, but they might see editing against consensus. Someone should help the original poster develop a neutrally worded RFC (since non-neutral RFCs are harmful). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The assertion of editing against consensus is untrue. A review of the talk page and the talk page archives will show that there has been a consensus for years to include the fact that the argument is not always a fallacy. I am merely the most active current participant. The current state of the article is relatively recent. Additionally, at least five other users have supported my position either on the talk page, by edits, or in edit summaries within the past 7 months, whereas the opposition consists of two registered users and one to three IP addresses. 33-45% is not a consensus. That may not represent a consensus in my favor, but it absolutely does not represent a consensus of the opposing view. Additionally, I have never understood that WP:CON ruled to the exclusion of WP:V and WP:OR when those policies conflict. If WP is to be ruled entirely by popular opinion, then what use is it as an encyclopedia? Finally, I would like to point out yet again, that the article as it currently stands makes the case that the Wikipedia itself is a collection of fallacies, and does so using the argument that it explicitly defines as a fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I must admit that I haven't thoroughly read the article yet and that there may very well be something wrong with it. However, Wikipedia is not an exercise in philosophy or formal logic. I think it is important to separate these two issues. As Robert McClenon has written above; "Wikipedia does need to discuss formal logic properly". And as such it should be described in its own right. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If indeed there isn't consensus against the original poster's edits, that is all the more reason why a Request for Comments would be an appropriate way to resolve the content issue. If there is indeed article ownership behavior, then reporting that behavior with a few diffs rather than a hidden wall of text would be a better way to request admin action. I suggest that this discussion be closed with advice to the original poster to use an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There's more to it than ownership. The collapsed portion contains diffs showing canvassing, as well. I suggest you read it. It's not as long as you seem to think it is, unless you insist upon reading quotes from 14 sources which I provided. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: I agree. The article should explain how the argument works, and what its features are in both formal and informal logic. As things stand, the article defines its features in formal logic (rather poorly, though that's due mostly to the sheer number of edits recently), then proceeds to insist this is the end of the matter. If you take a look at the article, you'll see it doesn't contain a single example of an appeal to a false authority, but only of cases where legitimate authorities happened to be wrong, or their authority was improperly applied to the issue (being used to dismiss evidence, for instance). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would like to say that I believe progress is being made on the page. Many edits have been made in an attempt to make a consensus version with MjolnirPants. But instead of being willing to compromise and discuss, they quickly get impatient and pull out of discussions or decide to escalate. MjolnirPants has more or less said that the only version of the page they'll accept is one which fully aligns with the view he holds on the issue - building a consensus is very challenging when someone is behaving this way. FL or Atlanta (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Many edits have been made in an attempt to make a consensus version Which edits were those? The edit removing a reliable source which I quoted to support my position, or perhaps one of these edits reverting changes I made to the article? [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135]. Or perhaps it was the edits which reverted changes by others users who agreed with me? [136], [137].

building a consensus is very challenging when someone is behaving this way Kind of like trying to build a consensus with someone who states that broad agreement among every cited expert is actually a minority opinion? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict with MjolnirPants] All I'm seeing in this thread (both long and short editions), and in the talk page, especially by FL or Atlanta, gives me a strong suspicion that we're in a Dunning-Kruger effect situation. I'll keep it short: the weight of sources talking about it being a fallacy is because people are wont to use appeals to authorities in deductive arguments (in which the appeal is a fallacy), but it's a different situation with an inductive argument. If you don't understand this, you need to read up on the subject a good deal, and further tendentious editing in favor of your misunderstanding will not be tolerated. Nothing wrong with editing a subject with which you're not profoundly familiar, but repeatedly reverting others based on your own misunderstanding is profoundly disruptive. And this one is even worse, introducing an outright hoax: having watched the video, I can assure you that the source does not address the issue of "speaking about issues unrelated to their expertise". This, therefore, is your final warning: Perfect Orange Sphere and FL or Atlanta, if you persist in these editing patterns, a block will result. I strongly suggest that you either stop editing in this subject area or that you restrict your editing to obvious tiny fixes (e.g. spelling) and talk-page discussions. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak to the conduct issues--I'm not familiar enough with wiki's norms to do that--but on the content issue, MjolnirPants is correct. The primary content dispute, as I understand it, is about whether all uses of an appeal to authority are fallacious, or only some. Of course, you could have the view that appealing to authority is always fallacious, but this is not the consensus view in philosophy. Mjolnir has already cited many sources for this, but to sum up, the best online philosophy guides (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ("You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities." , both written by professional philosophers) say that only some appeals to authority are fallacious. Furthermore, standard textbooks in Intro to Logic classes (eg Hurley) also acknowledge this (Hurley says "Of course, if an authority is credible, the resulting argument will contain no fallacy." p.139 of A Concise Introduction to Logic). In other words, it is standard in discussions of the argument from authority to distinguish between fallacious and non-fallacious uses of this kind of argument.

Unfortunately, this distinction is almost completely absent from the wiki article on this subject. For instance, the opening summary paragraph states, "Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning...Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts, as the truth or falsehood and reasonableness or unreasonableness of a belief is independent of the people who accept or reject it. [10]" But as shown, logic textbooks and standard guides actually teach that only some appeals to authority are fallacious. These sources, and the other sources presented by MjolnirPants, should be sufficient to justify the proposed changes to this page. Original Position (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

References

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:[138] 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)

Vandalism only account

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

---

Please block Edits articles recent contributors edits articles recent contributors (talk · contribs)... Vandalism only. JMHamo (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Standard offer request for Bazaan

• Moved to AN. BMK (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Edmund Janniger

A vivid deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edmund_Janniger was closed today by a non-admin,[139] despite the fact that it was a contentious discussion with nearly equal numbers of editors arguing for keeping or deleting the article. Per WP:NACD, a non-admin should not attempt to close contentious discussions. Additionally, the discussion was still ongoing and there was clearly no consensus reached, so the editor's choice to close as keep was procedurally incorrect (could only be closed under no consensus).

I disagree as to any relevance to the discussion still being ongoing. The discussion can be closed, even if still ongoing, after seven days.

Can be closed after 7 days if there is clear consensus one way or another. If no consensus is reached, the discussion is normally relisted. But that's nor relevant here anyway - the discussion was relisted.

The real question is whether it should have been closed as Keep, which it was, or as "No Consensus". Since No Consensus results in a Keep, is it worth making an issue about the close?

It makes a fundamental difference for any future renomination. kashmiri ^TALK 02:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the discussion but another (non-admin) editor (Cachets687, who argued for keeping) is now reverting. Please someone with more authority than me could take a look at the way the AfD was closed, and either restore the AfD or close appropriately as no consensus? Many thanks. kashmiri ^TALK 01:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that this sort of issue is what Deletion Review is for. Take it there. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Things take ages there ;) kashmiri ^TALK 02:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The decision to keep was made by consensus following an AfD debate which was relisted 3 times. Voices to delete often came from dormant accounts that reappeared for the discussion. Kashmiri has made edits to a closed AfD debate. Comments regarding an article made following the closure of an AfD debate can only be written on the article's talk page or via other appropriate discussion pages. It is also important to note that Razr Nation, who closed the discussion, was acting in accordance with WP:NACD. Razr Nation is an experienced editor; Kashmiri is not an administrator. I have reverted the misguided steps taken by Kashmiri and have posted on the article's talk page. (WP:NACD: "Non-administrators should, as a rule, only close discussions if they are fairly experienced editors, and have participated at previous deletion discussions...Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If this happens, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice as per WP:TPO.") Cachets687 (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

As User:Cachets687 was involved in the discussion, they should not be taking any actions regarding the discussion. I'm reviewing the discussion now. Nakon 02:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick clarification: "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If this happens, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice as per WP:TPO." per WP:NACD. Thanks. Cachets687 (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have re-closed the AFD as No consensus. WP:DRV is that way. Thanks, Nakon 02:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nakon: Thanks for stepping in and solving this issue. → Call me Razr Nation 02:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, DRV very rarely overturns a "no clear consensus" close ... one problem was that while there was a majority of "keep" !votes, there were some "delete" !votes from participants who are not normally Wikipedia active editors, which I found odd. Collect (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There were a few delete !votes that may have been from external sources, but I found that there were enough legitimate editors that !voted delete and had significant arguments to warrant a "no consensus" outcome for the discussion. Nakon 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:PokestarFan is WP:NOTHERE - WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK

Hey there. My concern is over the editor PokestarFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has had a few run in's with the mop, and has been blocked before, mainly over copyvio issues, and some WP:CIR issues. User has logged all blocks here. A look at the user's edit count shows us that, as of Jan 8 2016, they have made 12 mainspace edits, and ~270 userspace edits. The user seems primarily focused on using their userpage and talk page as a webhost / social media-esque site, and the user definitely seems like they are WP:NOTHERE - I raise this issue mostly because the user has not shown Competence, having a few blocks under thier belt, as well as perhaps overusing {{helpme}} privileges. Yet even after these blocks, the user is very clearly not here. The user has also been warned about this behavior in the past. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm reviewing the user's activity now. Nakon 03:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Because of the huge number of watchers at ANI, the cost in editor time just to glance a new thread is measured in (literally) hours. Thus one of my pet peeves is ANI threads that should have been posted to other noticeboards or (my special pet peeve) raised one-on-one. This matter is the polar opposite of a serious, urgent matter. It should have been handled by contacting a random admin. EEng (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This random admin left the editor a note. I agree ANI isn't for this, but I think the foxes editor just didn't know where else to go (well, they could have talked to the editor, of course...). Drmies (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @EEng: - I apologize. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am not super familiar with the communities attitude to some places. I posted here since, to me, it seemed appropriate. It is clearly listed above that this is a board "for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.", which I believe this was. I didn't think contacting some random admin was appropriate either, but rather posted here so that one interested and relevant to the issue would reply. I will keep this in mind in the future, however, and I am sorry again. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I really should have directed my grumpiness not at you, but at our failure to (somehow) make clear to people how to handle minor stuff like this. Perhaps a more effective edit notice? Or here's another idea: maybe every post to ANI should require get a "second" from at least one other editor (or maybe even from at least one admin?) before being posted here. EEng (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• allthefoxes, next time just post on EEng's talk page. Not only do they know a thing or two about Wikipedia policy, they also have lots of time on their hands. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Even though I'm an Arbcom member, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor.

Drmies, shouldn't you be cabaling with your fellow Arbcom-ers? EEng (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked User:PokestarFan indefinitely, as it's clear the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Nakon 04:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)