Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive883

Question re Voćin massacre

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

---

According to the following opinion by the ICJ JUDGEMENT RE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE (CROATIA v. SERBIA), page 82, 3 February 2015:

"In the opinion of the Court, although the material before it raises grounds for grave suspicions about what occurred at Vocin, Croatia has not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate its claim that Croats were killed by Serb forces in that locality in December 1991."

Does this mean the incident didn't happen? Even I don't necessarily believe that. But if the ICJ rules that it cannot substantiate it then should the article exist? Please advise. I have already set up a similar request for dialogue at the article talk page. Thanks. Quis separabit? 22:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

References

How is this an issue for WP:ANI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Just asking for advice. Like I said, I have already set up a similar request for dialogue at the article talk page. Quis separabit? 23:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Australian Beach and User:Scienceyperson

A strange sequence of events here:

• User:Scienceyperson created the article, Australian Beach on 15 April 2015, having registered their username the same day.
• It has been edited by several other editors since it was created, and PRODded and dePRODded.
• There has been some discussion at User talk:Scienceyperson about the sources.
• It is currently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Beach because its references are unverifiable and its content untraceable.
• In the last hour s/he has blanked the article, added {{db-author}}, moved the article to User:Australian Beach and blanked it again to remove the template (sophisticated actions for such a newly registered user)

To avoid disruption to the AfD, I suggest that this editor should be blocked while it is running. If not indefinitely. PamD 18:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understand the chronology here, shouldn't the AFD just be closed as speedy delete (G7) which would just put and end to the disruption? Deli nk (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, having started the AfD it might be better to let it run to get a consensus whether or not this is a hoax, with whatever implication that has for the editor's future on Wikipedia (is creating a "well-referenced" hoax article an "indef-block-on-first-offence" category of activity?). PamD 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the AfD should run its course. I'm more curious at how she was able to create a User page when there isn't an associated account. I tried creating a User page for an editor who couldn't figure it out and I couldn't unless I was logged in under their username. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Dunno what happened for you, Liz, but anyone can create any page in the User space regardless of whether the account is registered, with the usual caveats about salted pages, etc. Keegan (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Especially with the odd behaviour, please let the AfD run its course. As nominator I have no idea if this is a hoax or not. While we could speedy it, I think this case is better allowed to run to conclusion. WP:SNOW may well apply in the not too far distant future, and that would be pragmatic. Fiddle Faddle 22:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block for using their user page as a platform for commercial advertisement opportunities[8] and for using Wikipedia for the purposes of perpetuating a hoax. Time to put the kibosh on this behavior. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Support indefinite block, for exactly the same reasons as above. Promotions are not okay, hoaxes are not okay. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support I just closed that AFD, and I support an indef block for anyone who uses Wikipedia to create hoaxes, or for advertisement. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Accusations and striking of comments.

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

---

Hello. I have been accused of sock-puppetry by user:Thunderlagoon in relation to my edits on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois de Menil. This user has also taken the liberty of striking all my comments, on the grounds that I am a sock. I have asked that he restore them until such a time as he can conclusively show I am a sock as he as no right to strike other users comments unless the are in breach of BLP or are vandalism. He has not. I have looked at his account. Today is the first day this user has made edits. His account was created this morning. He has just added code to customise his user name. He had opened an SPI about me here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwikiv. This seems a bit inconsistent to me. While it is plausible that this user find his way to an AFD on his first day, I think it rather unlikely that the user would also open an SPI based on a very specific AFD he probably would have had trouble finding. I am asking that and Admin restore my comments to their former state as I am not here to edit war. I also would raise the question as to whether the SPI nomination was a malicious one and would appreciate an admins opinion. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I would have preferred this kept in one place, but I've added User:Thunderlagoon to the list of users to Checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwikiv. Could we wait until this sockpuppet investigation has been dealt with, and then work out the striking/unstriking of comments based on who's actually the sockpuppets? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you User:Joseph2302 for adding his account as there is a genuine reason for suspicion when a 1-day-old accounts starts an SPI. I do not understand why this was not done earlier. I would however like the intervention of an as-of-yet uninvolved Admin and my text needs to be restored unless I am found to be a sock-puppet. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's all fine for me for checkuser check on my account cause I'm certainly aware of the outcome. Thanks Joseph2302 to put a mute to the meaningless war over a SPI. Thunderlagoon (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think your comments should have been struck out, Trout71, especially without a finished SPI and by an account that is only 10 hours old. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I really appreciate someone with a neutral perspective. I am not particularly impressed with what is a highly unorthodox SPI being let go ahead, especially when it may be malicious. I am not a sock of users who clearly are from Asia. I live in Ireland. However there might be a silver lining. If he is not blocked User:Thunderlagoon can kindly undo his edit. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• 'I preferred sticking over removing for leaving it to others the reason for striking. All the Oppose votes were mainly made by IPs which is very suspicious. Moreover the actions of this user is bound to be more suspicious. I also stated that any experienced user is welcomed to unstrike if needed as already stated in SPI and AFD. There is no target of personal attack on the user. I have listed for checkuser which shouldn't bother the user if he/she is not a sock. Thunderlagoon (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin please close this? User:Thunderlagoon has been indefinitely block as a sock, and User:Trout71's comments have been reinstated. I therefore believe there is no more issues for WP:ANI to resolve. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

IP editor 87.81.147.76 refusing to accept consensus

87.81.147.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly re-inserted material against the conclusion of an RFC in which he participated relating to an illustration of Mohammed at Islamic Calendar. RFC concluded;

The consensus is to keep the image at this time. The picture is well-sourced, per the discussion, and illustrates a salient point of the section.
— [[User: HiDrNick!]] 20:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor has amended the caption of that image at least 8 times since the RFC closed. 10:50, 21 March 2015, 16:58, 22 March 2015, 11:54 23 March 2015, 16:43, 23 March 2015, 10:07, 9 April 2015, 14:53, 9 April 2015, 10:47, 13 April 2015 , 10:58, 13 April 2015

The user is also agressive and borders on personal attacks on the talk page; Last paragraph Last paragraph - Aspersions based on other pages edited

They have repeatedly taken this discussion to other venues such as the ANI thread on phantom consensus[9],[10],[11],[12],[13] and a discussion of general sanction templates[14],[15] on my talk page.

Can an Admin make them go away. SPACKlick (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

[16] Is now hounding me at an ArbCom request thread. I believe they've done similar to @NeilN: but I'll leave it to him to ring that up if he feels it necessary.SPACKlick (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SPACKlick. It was one thing when the IP confined themselves to Talk:Islamic calendar but now they've taken to derailing unrelated conversations, often with blatant misrepresentations and attacks, as shown by the diffs above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User is now attacking user:Tarc at the talk page diff SPACKlick (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from archive until resolved. SPACKlick (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And again. SPACKlick (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This request is unlikely to get more admin attention, SPACKlick. At this point, I'd contact an admin directly with your concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

They've been quiet since April 16; is this still a current ongoing issue? It would make more sense to drop it unless they come back and do it again, IMHO. The conduct is offensive but they apparently quit it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

Hi all. I am attempting to create an article about a popular meme, "Brian Peppers". I can't find any way to create the article - I've been to [17] and there's no obvious way to start it. Also, I notice there's been a lot of activity in the past judging by the log on this page. Is there a reason this article doesn't exist? Onion quality (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This article was protected from creation some while ago. If you want to create it you will need to get an administrator to unprotect the page. It might be worth creating a draft article to show them what you plan to create before asking them to do so as a credible design may help your case. Amortias (T)(C) 18:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Old timer comment Onion quality, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and it has tons of articles where contributions from newcomers are welcome and likely to be helpful, as well as (even now) lots of potential topics for new articles. There are also a number of topics that are touchy for one reason or another (typically involving controversies surrounding living people, or political disputes), and editing them without getting into a lot of conflict and drama requires a reasonable amount of editing experience.

  Brian Peppers was a hugely disruptive topic when Jimbo deleted the article, in part because Wikipedia's approach to biographies of living people was in a state of flux at the time, and Peppers was a living person back then (per Snopes, he died in 2012) but also because Wikipedia generally doesn't see internet memes as encyclopedic topics (and there was a battle over that going on as well back then, the heyday of Encyclopedia Dramatica). I personally don't think we need the article again but either way, recreating it would have to be done rather carefully, and as Amortias says, posting a concrete draft for review is probably the only workable way to start. It will certainly require a lot of adherence to Wikipedia editing practices (especially including solid sourcing) to be accepted, and new editors generally aren't familiar with how to do that, and "learning by doing" on such a topic is likely to be unpleasant.

  The best advice I can give you is to welcome you to Wikipedia and recommend that you start out on less contentious topics. If you're still interested in writing about Peppers after you've gotten more used to this place, you'll have a better idea of how to go about it. It's not something that can be explained in a few sentences. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Onion quality, I think you should look at some of these before you try and recreate that particular article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see my user page: User:Onion_quality - I've placed my first draft there. I'd be appreciative if someone could review it for quality and neutrality. Thanks! Onion quality (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've struck the address as unnessecary. It might be worth an admin moving it to a draft space rather than your userpage. Amortias (T)(C) 20:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

As an admin I'd be more inclined to WP:CSD#G4 and suggest deletion review when ready. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding an address strikes me as immediately-oversightable information, given that there is no need to expose a private residence address that is no doubt now occupied by someone else entirely. The purported sources are Snopes, an archive.org link, a Tripod page(????) and YTMND, none of which are really solid reliable secondary sources... Snopes is marginal at best. The entire article begs the question, "Why does this exist?" and I suggest that there is no good reason for it to. Consider this a !vote to keep deleted and nuke the draft. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This attack page has been deleted. There is no legitimate use of this page on the project. Nakon 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I may quietly disagree that there is no legitimate reason for an article about someone who has shot to considerable fame (regardless of circumstance) to exist, I accept the consensus here. What I do take issue with, is the labelling of my draft as an "attack page" by the user above. It was never intended to disparage the subject, only to quote direct facts with as much neutrality as possible. I am actually quite shocked and hurt by any suggestions otherwise. Onion quality (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I can also no longer create my user page. Can someone sort this out. Onion quality (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh yikes, Onion quality, yeah, now you can see what I meant about editing this topic potentially being unpleasant. It looks like I inadvertently gave you bad advice by not checking first just how bad the old article was and how little usable sourcing seems to exist about Brian Peppers. So I don't think Peppers is a suitable article subject at this point. That said I think some newbie biting has happened with this deletion. The user page should not have been protected, and the A10 (attack page) classification sounds like it misinterprets the intent of the page. Onion quality, rather than posting drafts in your main user page, it's better to either make a subpage or use the draft namespace--see wp:draft for more info. But an admin should be able to unprotect your user page, if you agree to not re-create the Peppers article in it. Nakon (or anyone), can you unprotect the page? Thanks. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We have a policy against bios on people notable for a single event ( WP:1E ). Between that and the other longstanding issues, this is not a great topic to engage on. Additionally, the address *is* out of bounds as a privacy violation, making the draft an attack page. Though it looks like everyone assumed it was ignorance not intentional flouting the rule. I unprotected. Please do not reinsert the address. Now, that would not be considered ignorance, and would result in sanctions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Nakon's restore did the unprotect, I was misreading log. Nevermind. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible canvassing

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

---

I changed EvergreenFir's original title "Canvassing by Guy Macon" to the more neutral "Possible canvassing" BMK (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in canvassing, specifically Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming_and_excessive_cross-posting. See contribs here. I believe the extent of the canvassing warrants a direct ANI posting despite the good faith efforts of another editor to issue a templated warning. I have no recommendations for consequences (from trouting on up) as I have little knowledge of this user. However I request the canvassing edits be reverted at the least. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Without looking very closely into the details, I will note that it's not considered canvassing if every contributor to a previous discussion on the topic is notified of the new discussion. It's only canvassing if the editor selects only certain editors -- those he or she believes will agree with their position -- to notify. Is that the case here? Did you ask Guy Macon how he determined the people he notified? Did you follow up to determine for yourself if that was the case. Did you, in fact, do anything at all beside come directly to ANI to tattle on this editor you have "little knowledge of" for an act that you have no real idea whether it broke a policy or not? BMK (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Look at diffs. 100s of article talk pages posted on. Posting here more for clean up than tattling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Then it's not canvassing in any way shape or form, because every editor who reads those talk pages -- pro or con the issue -- will see the notice, which was properly neutral:

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no suggestion of how anyone should feel about the issue, and nothing about the notice which might attract editors on one side of the issue rather than editors on the other. You don't know how he determined what article talk pages to place it on because you didn't bother to ask. BMK (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your interpretation. I see this as canvassing given its scale and feel it warrants admin attention regardless of intent or rationale. I'll let an admin decide. If they agree with you, they are welcome to trout me for this ani. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any canvasing here. It's neutrally worded and generally circulated to all. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, my selection method was simple: Every page that would be affected (All biography pages that have "Religion: None", Religion: Atheist", "Religion: Agnostic", "Religion None (atheist)", or "Religion: None (agnostic)" in the infobox). I am well aware of our canvassing rules, and I wouldn't canvass even if I could get away with it, for the simple reason that I value getting an accurate picture of consensus far more than I value getting my way. Right now the consensus is going against my preferences by over 2:1, and if that holds to the end of the RfC I will happily start plugging away at bringing those multiple pages into compliance with the consensus. And of course I expect to be reported at ANI for doing so -- some folks are really, really into making sure everyone knows that certain politicians are atheists.

Given how contentious this topic is, I wanted to avoid the multiple complaints that the last couple of consensus discussions on this subject generated from people who did not like their favorite pages being changed in a way that they felt strongly about without any notice that such a change was being discussed. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Interference

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

---

I seem to be being stalked by a user called Interference, he is using his 'revert' power to revert every edit I made.

We have edited some articles the same - we are disagreeing about deletion of some new articles

But this user keeps using 'revert' on all the edits I do. Even when they are not related at all. Like this;

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=659098213&oldid=659098140

I feel like I cant make any edits without him using his rveret powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbertybob (talk • contribs) 07:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You know why I'm reverting your edits and you seem to be avoiding any discussion as to why multiple editors think your edits are in bad faith. Interference 541 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Bobbertybob is disruptively adding and re-adding CSD and PROD tags to articles as well as making fairly useless AFD noms. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Now you just did this https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Lamont_Cain&diff=659105814&oldid=659105212

Can sonmeone help me fix the afd thing for that... and stop this person just 'undoing' everything?!~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbertybob (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not 'avoiding any discussion' at all. I will talk to anyone about any of my edits. What is the problem? Why are you stalking me? Bobbertybob (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your interest in deletion of Ezra A. Bowen and Muara Bungo collide with WP:NPOL and WP:NGEO respectively. Furthermore, you aren't reading the talk pages of articles prior to re-flagging them in addition to ignoring WP:DEPROD. Interference 541 (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bobbertybob_reported_by_User:Jbhunley_.28Result:_.29 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:BOOMERANG is needed here. Bobbertybob has been making pointy CSD nominations, reverting twice, then PROD and reverting twice then opens an AfD. He has done this at Ezra A. Bowen (Notable under WP:NPOL) and Muara Bungo (Notable under WP:GEOLAND) as well as trying it at Lamont Cain but seems to have munged the AfD nomination somehow. Several users including Amaury and NeilN have told him these nominations and reverting properly removed CSD and PROD tags were disruptive. I have reported him at ANEW and I see he has just now been blocked at AIV. Additional disruptive edits can be seen in his Contributions. Jbh (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Boomerang duly launched. Blocked for 24 hours per the report at ANEW.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

QUICKY: Mitchell328

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

---

Whatever's happening here needs a mass rollback, aaaand, probably an indef, even though we haven't climbed up the warning tree with him. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Acroterion is on the case. Resolved. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, popups is still showing the rev-deled edit summaries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not any more; possibly just takes time for the rev-del summary to percolate around the system. (And, with one edit, it is doubtless proven just how small is Lindsay's understanding of computers and WP.) Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Somebody who doesn't like Yopie

Yopie seems interested in royal families, pretenders, and so on. This is of very little interest to me; it's of great interest to somebody who appears to be in Mesa, AZ, and anyway connects to the interweb via United States Phoenix Qwest Communications Company. What Yopie adds, the IP removes; what Yopie removes, the IP readds. Edit summaries sometimes look reasonable enough in themselves; but viewed as a bunch, they're vapid: the idea seems to be: (i) revert Yopie because Yopie, (ii) optionally add whatever edit summary might look OK at a mere glance.

I blocked 97.117.249.253. Before that block ran out, I also blocked 174.26.204.55.

Rather annoyingly, both IPs have, uh, expressed their displeasure with me (one IP, the other). I don't mean that the complaints annoy me in themselves (such complaints usually bore me but occasionally amuse me); rather, it might look as if I'm blocking this fellow because of his affronts to my dignity or similar. So I invite another admin to take a look. I also invite one or more admins to do some benevolent stalking of Yopie, to see whether another Mesa, AZ IP starts up. -- Hoary (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. IP is stalking me for 3 weeks, without valid explanation (just this]. All started as BLP issue with IP 206.213.43.100 about House of Orléans-Braganza and his members, where IP is inserting unsourced defamatory material. IP was in conflict with User:Materialscientist, User:Kober: and User:FactStraight too, all about BLP.--Yopie (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Odd editing at Kate Kelly article

A number of editors want to include an edit at the Kate Kelly (feminist) about what they call "laptop-gate" (see here.) I have no comment on if this content is appropriate and a talk page discussion has been started on that. However, all these editors pushing for the inclusion of this content are brand new editors, i.e., within the past several hours. There may be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry involved, but I believe an admin should review the editing pattern. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing and semi-protecting, discuss on talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the article. There are now about eight brand new users, with most of the accounts being created within minutes of each other. They all are posting support for including the laptop content. Do we need to do an SPI or is this just rather obvious that the accounts are related (sock or meat)? You can also tell they are related because all of them sign their posts the same incorrect way. Can their comments then be removed from the talk page? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's rare that article talk page comments are removed unless they are a BLP or copyright violation. But I think you should feel free to start a WP:SPI case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I ended up creating a case at SPI with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riboflavin6969. Bahooka (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

IP editor 192.30.95.97

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

---

This editor first started editing yesterday, and each one of their 5 edits has been either vandalism or spamming an external link. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

They haven't edited since receiving a warning, almost 24 hours ago. As it's an IP editor, who might have already changed IPs, I don't think there's anything more that can be done unless they start making similar edits again. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Block request for user EauZenCashHaveIt

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

---

Hello, I recently seem to have crossed paths with a user who, in a very short space of time, seems to have built himself quite a negative reputation. It all started when I corrected a link to a disambiguation page [1], standard procedure. This user, who seems to be rather attached to the article concerned, rather bluntly reverted this change, displaying a relative lack of experience with Wikipedia by stating the obvious 'It's a red link, it leads nowhere'. Thus undoing a correction I introduced, and relinking to a disambig page. I then corrected him by explaining why we are making these changes [2], being reverted again: Then we should remove the link, since it leads nowhere. Comment noted, but that's not WP's policy.

But it did raise my attention as to who might be making such, rather overconfident and agressive comments, which led me to his talk page. There I got a longread of incidents this user has already been involved in in just the course of a month, being told off and corrected multiple times, even being told to let it drop, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a block, Please remove that personal attack, Efforts to build Wikipedia are never improved by personal attacks on editors, etcetera, etcetera.

We're talking about a user here who has a good 200 edits, half of which seem to have been to talk pages justifying his behaviour, and repeatedly telling off experienced editors on good standing.

On this occasion, I seem to be the latest candidate for target practice. Upon being reverted, the user came harassing me on another, related, edit I had made, and has been making multiple agressive and/or personal attacks: As for experienced, why didn't you even sign your post, Show me the guideline that encourages links to non-existent articles. By all means and the latest See, now you're just being difficult. You should really follow your own advice.

Now, my sabre has been getting rather rusty lately, so I am no party for a duel. And this is where I am no longer going to entertain the behaviour of this user. Nobody comes to Wikipedia to be harassed or attacked, not me, not anyone else.

On the counts of harassment, agressive behaviour and personal attacks, I would therefore like to request for this user to be blocked, term to be defined by the admins, although I can't see this user coming to terms with Wikipedia. I'd also like to suggest further investigation as his editing pattern does not strike me as that of a new user. Thank you, and regards, --Midas02 (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Removing and inserting redlinks has been always debatable, if enough people have agreed to keep them, then go for that. I don't see any personal attack if someone is telling other to sign their post. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I certainly did not expect this masterful storytelling, nor did I expect the need to defend myself. I will try to balance out whatever has been said here so far.

• "a user who, in a very short space of time, seems to have built himself quite a negative reputation"... "it did raise my attention as to who might be making such, rather overconfident and agressive comments, which led me to his talk page"... "I seem to be the latest candidate for target practice"... The condescending Willy Wonka meme comes to mind here: please, tell me more about how YOU were harassed and personally attacked. His heading on my talk page reads "Agressive and inexperienced editing - again".
• The above named heading leads to a seemingly standard warning, except that it was Midas02 who kept restoring content in a rather pushy and aggressive manner, in spite of my expression of valid concerns, on both List of The Blacklist characters and James Jackson pages.
• What Midas02 is calling "personal attacks" are replies to his own aggressive remarks:

1) As for experienced, why didn't you even sign your post is a direct reply to the above named heading calling me inexperienced (he also gave me the wrong warning, but that's beside the point).

2) Show me the guideline that encourages links to non-existent articles. By all means is a direct reply to as an inexperienced user, please inform yourself on the guidelines of Wikipedia. Again, the pot calling the kettle inexperienced.

3) See, now you're just being difficult. You should really follow your own advice is a reaction to Midas02 restoring the content without any explanation for the umpteenth time, right after he told me that repeatedly restoring content in spite of another user's objections is not OK.

• As for harassment, I checked the disambiguation page and sure enough, the name he was battling to keep as a non-existent link was added to the disambiguation list just a few minutes prior to the edit in question. It doesn't seem like a good practice at all, since some of Wikipedia's bad rep is that people can add anyone to these kinds of lists and then claim their validity as notable figures, when in reality they don't even have their own Wikipedia article. Both edits are intertwined, so I removed them. No harassment there, as I already explained to Midas02.
• I am not even sure what to read into his last paragraph here: "I'd also like to suggest further investigation as his editing pattern does not strike me as that of a new user." One minute I'm a noob who should know better, next I'm not? Please help me understand what the heck is going on here. Thanks. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 08:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment In my opinion, posting this on the ANI board is a huge stretch, and requesting a block is ridiculous. This stems from an editing tussle regarding a link (Jamie Jackson) that points to a disambiguation page. Midas02's solution was to disambiguate with "(actor)", though the page doesn't exist yet. After reverting, and conversing through edit comments, EauZenCashHaveIt's ultimate solution was to remove the link entirely, a solution that follows WP guidelines, and one that I approve of. [18] As I see it, the editing issue is resolved, all in a day's work, and there was no behaviour that even comes close to warrant wasting time on the ANI board. At best, it's a 3RR issue, with no talk page discussion, which is now resolved. Willondon (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

A user's constant insults and now curses towards me

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

---

(The user referred to is C1cada (talk · contribs)) User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The insults are overt and now that he's cursing at me, I believe it's time to report this here. This report is just a small extraction of the disruption and constant insults I had to witness and endure this past week. Seeing that he's new, I kept my patience with this user for quite some time. But he sent me to ANI yesterday for the most trivial of matters, and even after I laid out some of the issues I found concerning in his own edit-pattern there, the user continues to insult me and engage with me like it's a battlefield.

I warned him over and over again to not insult my English, especially in talk pages, but he just doesn't stop. Even other users, such as Alakzi, warned him about the ongoing insults.

Some examples (and I mean it when I say some):

• Is English your first language, Étienne?
  • Looking at that, the question is within the context of use of "massacre," a word a non-native English speaker could easily misuse as it means a sudden, violent mass killing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• I have to ask you again if English is your first language, Étienne?
  • Again "pogrom," a word with Russian-Jewish connotations which grates when used in a Turkish-Armenian context. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• You're very coy on the question of whether English is your first language.
  • Harping nonsense. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• It is an issue for us at English Wikipedia if your command of English is not sufficient
  • Does not contain that language in either the editor or the comment. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• I suspect you need to buy an adequate English dictionary
  • He's having trouble himself User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Étienne, whose peculiar mastery of the English language I should be the first to acknowledge
  • Insulting and intended to be User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• It is simply that English is manifestly not your first language and that does put you at a disadvantage unless you are genuinely both bilingual and literate (schooled) in the language.
  • "you're being something of a pussy in your reaction to these reproaches" seems hurtful and is a confession of serial offenses. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• I compliment Etienne on the remarkable improvement in his grammar at the ANI.
• Once again I have to raise the question of your comprehension skills in English.
  • A duplicate User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• I ask you to stop these pointy semi-literate interventions of yours.

And the more I warn him to stop, the more aggressive his language gets. Here's diffs from just a short while ago:

• So WTF is your problem, Étienne?
• I do think you're being something of a pussy in your reaction to these reproaches.
  • Last 4 all from same source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It has been almost two weeks now since he's been hounding me. He reverts my edits of good faith, only to prove some sort of point, or to engage with me elsewhere. His edit-summaries often contain subtle insults towards my English as well ([19]). He refuses to discuss issues I have raised with him directly regarding his particular edits (for example: Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Re_Grace_Knapp:_WP:OWNERSHIP_issues.3F), yet he still goes about reverts me.

Elsewhere, the user displays a problematic editing-pattern in main space articles as well. He has openly said: "I don't need consensus to correct matters of fact." and has edited to that effect. For example, even with a consensus reached by several users to exclude the word 'pogroms' from the POTD, the user has made unilateral edits to the template:
Consensus:

• [20]
• [21]
• [22]

Unilateral edit by C1cada:

• [23]

Please note the timing of the consensus and the unilateral edit. As you may have noticed, the POTD template revision page is filled with his unilateral edits, much of which were voted against over and over again at the corresponding talk pages. The user was opposed over and over again when he wanted to exclude 'massacre' from the blurb for the Armenian Genocide. That's like excluding 'gas chambers' from the Holocaust. And after failing in that regard, he attempted to play down an entire genocide by employing the term 'pogrom' instead. That was voted against as well, but as shown above, he still went along with his edit. What's even more troubling is that the user then places the POTD template of the Armenian Genocide in the most important Turkey related articles and portals. He placed it in WikiProject Turkey, Portal talk:Turkey, and the Turkey article in an apparent attempt to canvass Turkish users to support his argument. And when continuing the discussion with him, he repeatedly insulted my English, and responded, oddly enough, in gibberish in other languages [24]. The user also games the project over and over again when it comes to the 1RR rule at the Armenian Genocide article. This I find most concerning, and very frequent. For several times now, after being reverted at Armenian Genocide, he declares beforehand that he plans to revert the next day, and then does so without hesitation a few hours after the 24 hour mark. At any rate, I apologize for the length of my report, but the disruption caused by this user this past week alone is extensive and deeply concerning. I can go on and on with this. If more examples of similar instances are needed, I can provide them upon request. But the bottom line is, I find it impossible to work with this user. And in light of all this, I feel the admins here should be able to handle this in an appropriate matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

His post where he "responded, oddly enough, in gibberish in other languages [25]" is translated, by Google, "For the rest of it, once again (wearily) ... not import what. And what the fuck is this: Please Etienne, can we the Chat things before hand before changing the blurb yet again ...., Stephen? Talk up the pot calls the kettle black ... shit, an "blurp 'really." User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Riiii...ght, my French is terrible ... I think it's very hurtful of you to highlight it like this, Fred. If it happens again I feel I will have no alternative but to take you to an ANI on it. Google doesn't do very well on "n'importe quoi" BTW. It's the French colloquialism for our weary "yeah right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by C1cada (talk • contribs) 13:23, 25 April 2015

I will ask him, on his talk page, to not engage in insults. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Unrepentant. The Armenian Genocide needs a section on the post World War I massacres, which carried off possibly hundreds of thousands Eastern Russian Armenians. The lede refers to it and accordingly the article should have a section on them. I provided that edit and it was immediately reverted by this editor as WP:NOCONSENSUS. So I took it, Massacres after Wordl War I, and two other issues Modification to the lede and "Historic homelands", to the Talk page and there has been no dissent save this weird one from this editor banging on about Tehcir law, the duration of the genocide and OR. But there is nothing in my proposed edit that references any of that (it refers to events several years on) and it's thoroughly sourced from two standard histories. Small wonder I question his comprehension skills. I have traced on the Talk page of that article how lack of English language skills leads to significant error.

I have no idea what is with with this editor. He treats me essentially as one of the denialist weirdos who persistently post at the article and whom I do duty reverting. I could add a list as long as his, but can't be arsed, of his insinuations that I am a denialist,. He has accused me (giving him the benefit of the doubt in a passage I find hard to construe) that I am undermining the article by supporting the Ottoman genocide, or something to that effect. He sees fit to remind me that I "may" be blocked for not observing the 1R rule in place there, though in fact I never engage in edit warring anywhere in my edits and haven't come close to reverting twice in a 24 period. c1cada (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The article talk page is becoming a public forum. This is not what Wikipedia was intended to be for, @C1cada:. When two users are being disruptive/passive-aggresive to each other, one must take steps for a resolution of the said conflict; in this case, there is no reason to engage in a conflict with @EtienneDolet:, because you weren't threatened to be blocked. The latter user just informed you that there's a 1RR, or one revert rule which may lead to a block (this is true, actually). If you have any contributions to do, which I can see you do, remember to assume good faith. --92slim (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that, Slim. One reason it's becoming a public forum is that Étienne unilaterally did away with WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I can sense that Étienne is frustrated with my lively chat, but that's not because it's insulting as such but ... erm, well let's put it this way: I have quite good Russian and from time to time venture an edit on their wiki (which is absolutely excellent incidentally). But suppose I was to edit in some contentious area, say the Ukraine issue. I'm pretty sure I would be taken to the cleaners on their Talk page in short order and would just not be able to cope with their more forthright users, who can be very forthright indeed, and would quickly feel frustrated and aggrieved. Regarding the "Post War Massacres" edit I made, I gave 72 hours notice I intended to provide one and I explicitly invited you to provide it before me. I don't call that being a diva as some grump or other suggested to me on the other ANI, of which I happen to know an honest to goodness Russian one rather well as it happens (sdras!). c1cada (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Etienne did not "unilaterally do away" with WP:EDITCONSENSUS, because that's not how consensus works. If there is one editor who objects (as he and others have done), out of two, there is no consensus. No users have agreed with your edits, mainly because you don't include reliable sources to back your claims. This is where you'd like to start, in order to be taken seriously. --92slim (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

He did so with his reverts. What is it that you thinks needs citing at Massacres after Wordl War I? It's meticulously cited. I remind you that Armenian genocide failed a Good Article nomination because of copy edit and citation deficiencies. My edit sets a standard. As for your latest remark on the Talk page, I answered there. c1cada (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

My request on C1cada's talk page that he quit insulting EtienneDolet was met with a revert. Obviously a stronger remedy is needed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Armenian genocide is subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Modified by motion:

"The section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case is replaced with the following:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.

Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

Passed 10 to 1 on 05:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)" User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors

";Decorum Certain pages (typically, AE, AN, and ARCA) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of discretionary sanction enforcement cases. Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted; and may remove statements, or restrict or block editors, as necessary to address inappropriate conduct." So what is an appropriate remedy? However, "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict." From the way he is acting it seems User:C1cada is not aware that discretionary sanctions cover Insults and personal attacks. Therefore Template:Ds/alert needs to be placed on his talk page. Which I will do once I figure out how to format it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Done User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

IPBE request

An user needs an IPBE but cannot ask it directly because of a global block, can you please have a look at m:Steward_requests/Global#Global_unblock_for_104.131.93.125.? A local global block whitelisting could also work. Thanks! --Vituzzu (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Drmies

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

---

For some reason, this guy has made some pretty nasty slurs on me in the past week or so - namely that I insert into Wikipedia information that is either unverified, or misrepresents a source. Despite numerous requests, he's declined to either provide evidence or retract the accusations, and has instead just terminated our interaction with the words "we're done here, now fuck off". https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=659058143 Which in fairness is at least consistent, it's basically the same sentiment I detected from our very first encounter. You can see the version of the article he's referring to here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Gunther_Holtorf&oldid=656850534, and the source I've supposedly misrepresented here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8703/index.html I have a ton of other issues with this guy (Civil, Assume Good Faith), but I've seen enough disinterest from others to know I'd be wasting my time airing them. But given the basic purpose of this website (collation and presentation of sources), I think I'm entitled to resolution one way or the other on these specific two charges. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of User:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger's edits on Gunther Holtorf: [26], [27], [28]- not many of these seem very helpful.

Your blocks here are basically just complaining that the article was bad, and completely ignoring the disruption highlighted above, and claiming that "I can no longer assume good faith".

Your current userpage is calling Wikipedia a waste of space.

Your posts on their talkpage here are non-civil and claiming they are a jerk.

All this evidence points to one unhelpful editor, you. I'd recommend a WP:BOOMERANG. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, but it hardly explains or excuses Drmies' accusations, does it? If I must comment on this, I got blocked for all that already. I assume double-jeopardy does not apply here? I've written an article, and then re-written it, even though I don't even think the first version was that bad (at least not bad enough to warrant ripping up). I've been more than helpful, and got nothing in response - hence why I say what I do on my userpage. Disagree all you want, but my userpage is not an article, the only source it needs is my own experience here. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

My experiences with Drmies have shown him to be a fair, thoughtful, and incredibly patient administrator who is willing to help editors when they ask. You engaged him on his talk page, he responded several times, and then you exhausted his patience at which point this occurred [29]. If you've exhausted Drmies patience to the point of where he tells you to 'fuck off', you crossed a line you never should have gone over. From what I can see, WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate where you and this report are concerned, Mighty Morphin Army Ranger. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone should take Gunther Holtorf to AfD. BMK (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the book he's written, the article subject seems to have received enough coverage worldwide to meet WP:GNG. The article, however, is pretty poorly written and at this time relies on only one source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Willing to help? I asked him very clearly - where did I insert unverified information? Where did I misuse a source? You can criticise the tone all you want, and like I said I got blocked for it, but you can't deny the question isn't there - it's there in black and white. Everyone can see he only told me to fuck off because he has no answer to give and got fed up of me asking. His responses, where they can even be called answers to questions, deliberately avoided these topics. If this gets shut down, then he will simply have been rewarded for telling me to fuck off when I asked him for proof to back up his accusations. That might feed well into this myth that he's somehow a great guy, always willing to help, but I fear the only people who think that are those who are never put into these situations. Have either of you had to ask him a question like this? Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Of Ranger's edits, the following demonstrate WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, an unhealthy obsession with Drmies, WP:OWN issues, and a desire to propogate WP:DRAMA:

• "Seriously, is this a joke? Is this how you usually treat people who put HOURS of their night into improving articles here?" - Nevermind the years of work others have done around here, their experience isn't needed.
• After being blocked Ranger started to get it and even admitted "I don't have a fucking clue how to do it," and yet refused any offer for help, saying "This isn't an encyclopedia, it's a politics club." He descended into wikilawyering and posting pointless walls of text and out of context guidelines, eventually exemplifying WP:NOTTHEM.
• Ranger was clearly keeping up with what was going on on Drmies page, but interpretted what could be a mistake (given that the name is a clear play on Mighty Morphin Power Rangers) as a personal attack, which is just plain hypocritical given his attitude and continued overt personal attacks.
• He eventually backtracks on his admission that he didn't know how to do references, claiming that it was obvious that he was citing an existing source, despite never mentioning it.
• "If Bbb23 is unwilling to move this appeal along... I'm afraid I can no longer Assume Good Faith"
• Admitting he has no interest in working on anything else on the encyclopedia - Normally, I don't have any problem with someone who creates an account to make a single change and not bother with anything else. When that single change becomes a week-long temper tantrum, that's just disruptive editing.
• Rejecting any attempt by Drmies to end the issue.
• Creating a user page that is nothing but complaining about another user.
• Starting this thread.
• Other posts hostilely addressing or referring to Drmies: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]

That's about thirty links right there to problematic posts, out of (as of this post) 48 user talk page edits. Notable posts that do not address, mention, or reference Drmies include:

• confusion that the admins haven't immediately dropped everything they're doing to address him specifically
• taking a general statement about Wikipedia not being used for promotion way too personally

Could Drmies have been clearer and more professional in explaining reversions? Sure. Did Drmies actually violate WP:CIVIL before being pushed repeatedly by the overly hostile Ranger? Not when read under the assumption of good faith. Does Drmies behavior justify Ranger throwing a week long temper tantrum over 45 posts (out of 83)? Absolutely not. Does that temper tantrum indicate a user who is capable or willing to contributing to the encyclopedia in a mature and civil manner?

TL;DR: Mighty Morphin Army Ranger is here for the drama, and doesn't have the required patience. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You're just annoyed that unlike you I don't particularly consider being made to feel like shit, or just generally be ignored, is a price worth paying to edit Wikipedia. I've read Civil and Assume Good Faith, so unlike you I do expect to be treated with respect without having to beg for it. And not for the first time, you put a positive light on everything Drmies has done, while you interpret everything I've done in a negative way, which is pretty shitty thing to do at the best of times, but particularly shitty when you consider I've been here just a few days, he's been here for what I assume is years (he must have if there's this many people willing to fling themselves on grenades like this, to the point of denying basic reality). You keep going on about competence - how's this for competence, even I know there's nothing in Civil that says you can ignore it if you think the other person is not Assuming Good Faith. But once again, it's an example of me being held to a standard you admit Drmies isn't even doing. When it's him, ah well, he could do better. When it's me, ah, he's this, that and the other, none of them good. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Multiple editors have recommended that you drop this. You keep ignoring this advice. More editors keep recommending you just move on. If everyone kept pointing out that you were on fire and recommended that you let them pour water on you, would you start arguing that it was actually quite chilly and don't want to get a cold? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If a fireman accused you of arson, then refused your requests for evidence, then eventually told you to fuck off, would you care one bit how many other people told you to drop it, when it was as plain as the nose on your face that not one of them was remotely interested in whether or not the accusation was true, they just think the fireman was a stand up guy, and any misunderstanding between you two is of course entirely your fault? Is that really how you conduct yourself here? Is that how little self-respect you have? Or is it more the case that you're only saying these things because you've not really considered it from my side at all? Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Smelling a mighty strong whiff of WP:BOOMERANG on this one, especially considering this lengthy belligerent exchange, and the endless diatribes on his own talk page and userpage. Those, along with his edit-warring on Gunther Holtorf, constititute the OP's sole participation on Wikipedia. All kinds of problems here, including lack of competence, not being here to build an encyclopedia, battleground behavior, and of course disruptive and uncivil behavior and inability to edit collaboratively. This ANI is just the latest in a long line of aggressive and disruptive postings. Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And considering he's got this long list even though all the time he hasn't been blocked adds up to less than a day? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention how I kick puppies too. This is ridiculous. I might as well put on an auto-reply, people are just repeating things I've already responded to, without even bothering to consider my earlier replies to the exact same things. Is that Civil? Acting like I'm not even here? I know it's not, as I've read the page many times these past few days. And how can someone who has written, and then re-written, and entire article, not be here to "build an encyclopedia"? If anyone wonders why the above is my "sole participation on Wikipedia", then I have to wonder if you possess the competence to judge me at all. I came here to improve that article, which was pure dogshit when I found it. I then spent a week blocked. When that expired, since nobody else had done so, I rewrote it, rather than leave it in the shitty state it had yet again been returned to, for reasons completely unknown, and never explained. I have spent precisely two days on Wikipedia not restricted to my own talk page, yet the way people are talking here, I'm supposed to have written articles on umpteen subjects? As well as arriving as the perfect editor, fully conversant in all policies, and prepared not to get upset if other people he encounters do not appear to have the same level of competence. What level of competence is it, to be still telling people to fuck off even after being here years? Or is that the reason for it? Do you all after a certain time stop even caring that it's not Civil, and instead as we see here, rely on your socio-political connections to ensure other editors will come and 'deploy a boomerang' on anyone who dares challenge your right to act that way, should you tire of being asked for evidence to back up your false accusations? Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Block Mighty Morphin Army Ranger

Proposal: Block of Mighty Morphin Army Ranger, length to be decided by uninvolved admin or community consensus. Note: Has already had a one-week block which apparently didn't work and resulted in only further aggression and disruption. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block of Mighty Morphin Army Ranger, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support defined month-long block - Against better judgement, I'm for giving WP:ROPE here. He did initially come here to help, he just utterly failed at playing well with others. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed to month long, following Winkelvi. I do think that if he continually complains via hasty unblock requests (as he did last time), we might want (if possible) to revoke talk page access for a day, then a week, and then two weeks, before making the block (and revoked access) indefinite -- to make sure he gets the point that we don't support such hostility and help him focus on learning about the site before diving back in. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support month-long block - Time enough to cool down a bit, lose the aggressive battleground mentality, perhaps take more time to look around at well-written articles, find some other articles to edit, read up on policy and guidelines, and the like. Such a block would be truly preventative and not punishing. I say give the guy another chance. If he's truly hell-bent on being disruptive, it will become apparent soon after the month block and the correct measures can be doled out. If not, he should be given a chance to be a productive contributor. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Ridiculous. The block was for disruption of the article, so how did it not work? Unless rewriting the article is disruptive? Since all I have done since the block is rewrite the article and file this complaint report, then any new block would be for one thing, and one thing only - for requesting Drmies be held accountable for his false accusations. Anyone who blocks me, is basically saying he can do what he likes. He can accuse anyone, of anything, and he can even tell them to fuck off if they don't like it. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

[42]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support lengthy block. I can never get back the time I wasted reading this "editor's" combative, lengthy explanations for why they freaked out and how much they hate evil Drmies. This person is either a troll or utterly incapable of collaborating with others to build an encyclopedia. Time sink. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm neither, but thanks for your feedback. I look forward to the day when you find yourself in a similar situation, and I get to see how you collaborate your way out of it. I actually came here for serious consideration of a serious issue. More fool me. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've got nearly six years of productive editing here with minimal conflicts. Maybe that's because I brush chips off my shoulder, instead of enshrining them on my shoulder with SuperGlue. Also because I make improving the encyclopedia my first priority, as opposed to pursuing trivial vendettas. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not buying it for a second. Either this is not a true recollection of how you collaborate with others (bearing in mind my experience is where you would have been 6 years ago), or you've never been put in this situation before and therefore don't really know how you would react. If your first priority is the encyclopedia, I doubt you'd so easily ignore accusations of this type, since if anyone actually believed they were true, they'd never let you add anything to an article. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block of whatever length the closing admin sees as the consensus. (Because the OP admits to kicking puppies) BMK (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support month-long block Drmies (who I might add MMAR, is a woman) told them to drop the stick many times, but they've persisted beyond the threshold, and coming back after the block to immediately unload on ANI hardly suggests they want to be collaborative. It's rare when Drmies does get profane (from my experience they've nothing but kind), but here they were completely appropriate in asking MMAR to stop their harassment. Nate • (chatter) 04:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies is not a woman. They are anthropomorphic, no, that's not right, androgynous, no, ambiguous, ambidextrous?, ambivalent ... well, that will do for now unless Drmies wants to add better words.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Drmies is Drmies. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Bah, my apologies. They are who they are then and I did not mean to offend. Nate • (chatter) 05:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, Drmies would probably be pleased. Ian summed it up best.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• So, two messages on a talk page is harassment is it? Come off it. Some of you aren't even trying to pretend you've looked at what went on. If all it takes for Drmies to swear, is to be asked twice, the second time incredibly politely given her continued provocation, why they were making these false accusations and where their evidence was for them, then their talk page must be like a sewer. But it's not. So what was it about this situation that made them lose their top? I'd like an actual answer here, one that makes sense, if I'm going to be credited with pushing an apparent saint over the edge, someone who is always polite and respectful. I'd also like to remind people that this all started with the way they approached me, and the way they continued to treat me. I'm not an asshole, if there had been at any time, even a hint that they had realised they were being disrespectful and were trying to row back, then I would probably have calmed down as well. But no, every single post from them has contained some element of untruth, mockery or sarcasm. Whoever the person is you people get to deal with and find perfectly reasonable, it definitely isn't the same Drmies I've have to deal with. I suspect (and have even read) that a lot of you don't think they're perfectly reasonable at all, that this 'edge' they have is there, and is perfectly normal. Well, check your rules again, the 'edge' in this case is downright against the rules. You do not get to accuse people of these things, then ignore them, then tell them to fuck off. It's a simple as that. Your various personal experiences to the contrary don't magically negate the basic truth of that assessment. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block of any duration. This troll has been fed for far too longer. Any claim that Drmies is carrying some kind of grudge is ludicrous. "Edge"? "Rules"? Trolling is the "dramaz" being forced upon us here. MarnetteD|Talk 05:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• support block and suggesting adding a month for each combative post that MMAR posts here before the thread closes. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Looks like it's time to revoke TPA. BMK (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done, by Bbb23. BMK (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Note: A request for unblocking has been sent to the UTRS team (#13582) and has been declined. Nakon 22:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:POINTY edit summaries

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

---

Guy Macon has been flooding articles with WP:POINTY edit summaries for months to hundreds of pages with absolutely no attempt whatsoever to check for consensus on their talk pages. [43] Then he starts an RfC at Template talk:Infobox person. Rather than advertising the RfC to a couple related projects and central locations, he used a script to advertise on hundreds of article talk pages, inappropriate canvassing per WP:CANVASSING#Spamming_and_excessive_cross-posting. [44] This is also not the first time he's done this. Just over 2 weeks ago, he did the same thing for a different RfC (see same link, few pages in.) He was asked to stop in this instance by Samsara and reported by him to ANI also at this time. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#User:Guy_Macon_posting_large_identical_text_blocks_in_growing_number_of_venues ― Padenton|✉   07:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well done Guy!. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 07:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So what....we throw out Wikipedia policy and consensus as long as we can salute Penn Gillette? Screw those editors of those pages too? Even when almost none of the pages said atheism was a religion? How about we all just get off our soapbox and follow consensus? Is that too hard? ― Padenton|✉   07:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Atheism is not a surrogate definition for those who hold Theist belief systems. If Guy could even bothered to start an RfC or alternative venue for consensus, such redundant infobox descriptors would/should have fallen flat as being and nonsensical. This is not canvassing, it's a statement of fact. As plainly summarised, "Atheism is not a religion, bald is not a hair colour, off is not a TV channel." Consensus for a meaningless and offensive label? "Support, support, support" its removal as being a non-descriptor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place for content debates, this is the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. ― Padenton|✉   08:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So let's talk about user behavior. Your wikilinking "None" to atheist is clearly a back door method of re-inserting a version of "None (atheist") against a clear consensus not to do that. Some people really want certain politicians to be labeled "atheist" in the infobox, presumably to make them less attractive to voters. See Anna Lo for an example of this.

I would also like to see your evidence for the claim that I am using a script. The "spamming" claim was just addressed in the section above this one.

As for the "absolutely no attempt whatsoever to check for consensus" claim, there have been multiple consensus discussions on this:

• Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion
• Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 25#Tangential question related to religion parameter
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 17#religion parameter
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 13#Religion: Atheist?
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 12#Religion "If relevant"
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 11#Proposal to remove "religion" from template
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 5#Change Display Name for Religion Parameter to "Religion" from "Religious Beliefs"
• Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 3#'Religious belief' field

Until the RfC closes and I see a closing summary that tells me what the new concensus is, I intend to follow the consensus from the closing summary of Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. I don't follow my own preference in these things. I follow the result of the latest consensus discussion whether I agree with it or not. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not wikilink "None" to atheist. The article was like that until you decided to run a script to mass edit everything you disagreed with. That consensus says absolutely nothing on Religion = None, and the rate of your changes make it clear you made no attempt to look at the article's talk pages to see if there were any previous discussions. If you're claiming otherwise, how about a direct link rather than a list of irrelevant discussions?

Are you claiming that you aren't using a script? So you did these thousands of edits in that short timeline, maybe 5 different changes total to all those articles, with no automation?

You have yet to address your inappropriate edit summaries to these thousands of articles. Help:Edit_summary#What_to_avoid_in_edit_summaries― Padenton|✉   20:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not using a script. I am going through every page that comes up when I search for "Religion: None" (roughly 800, not "thousands"), pulling them up in tabs (17 at a time), removing the ones not effected (you would be surprised how many schools and even political parties have "Religion: None" in the infobox), fixing any spelling errors or inappropriate wikilinking I see, adding {{reflist-talk}} as needed, and double-checking the end result before moving on to the next 17. I don't like scripts. I think that in general it is best for a human has to look over the result of an edit before saving. If I did use a script, I would register it as a bot as we are supposed to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• So, Padenton, what you are saying is that Guy Macon is using snark when reverting your constant attempts to crowbar your belief that atheism is a religion, into infoboxes, despite unambiguous consensus that this is inappropriate. Apart from thanking Guy for his diligence and warning you that if you do this once more I will block you, what else did you want? Or can we close this now? Guy (Help!) 22:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: Actually, I am an atheist myself, and I never said atheism was a religion. Show me the diff where I did. I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. I never put Atheism in the religion field as text, but as a link from None. If you look at the actual discussion on the topic, the clear consensus is actually far different than what Guy Macon claims. His unilateral declaration that surviving a few ANIs previously indicates consensus for his changes below the discussion is ridiculous. (Template_talk:Infobox_person#Religion_means_what.3F) Feel free to read the actual discussion on the topic, you'll see that there was no consensus on it saying None. In fact, the consensus is clearly supportive of "Religion: None (atheist)". But sure, I'll take your baseless assumptions.

This has nothing to do with his reverts of me, and if you read any of what I said above you'd know that. Look a little deeper in the list, at the rest of his edit summaries. For example, this to thousands of pages: [45]. Go a few pages deeper into his contributions on the Article namespace that I linked above, there are countless such edits.

Not wanting atheism to be called a religion is one thing, but there's no reason to be uncivil about it in the edit summary to thousands of pages. I'm done. ― Padenton|✉   00:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Sucklechimp

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

---

This user is blocked as vandalism-only account, but they're now making sexist personal attacks against User:Diannaa who blocked them. Please could their talkpage access be revoked? Joseph2302 (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Done by Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Nakon 00:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Links: Sucklechimp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Conduct of User:Amaury

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

---

After User:Loriendrew misused a warning template on my talk page, accusing me of edit warring after I made one revert. I then left them a warning about their actions. User:Amaury proceeded to remove this warning and accused me of vandalism. When I pointed out to Amaury that my actions were not vandalism they falsely reported my message as vandalism. Amaury is clearly acting in bad faith. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What are you asking admins to do? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what steps are usually taken for this kind of behaviour. I just want Amaury not to repeatedly falsely accuse myself or other editors of misconduct in future. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you mentioned me, I placed the edit warring template on your talk page due to your history of editing warring and multiple blocks as a result. Your choice to blank your own talk page is your prerogative. I applaud User:Amaury for his removal of your warning template from my talk page since your historic actions and behavior indicate bad-faith.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

One revert is not edit warring. That is why I left the template on your page. That was an entirely good faith action. In what way do my "historic actions and behavior indicate bad-faith"? Your removal of the template is your prerogative, but accusing me of a "misuse of WP:WARN" is not. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Quite frankly, in my own personal opinion, Loriendrew did not exactly know what 3RR was during the issue. Based on the IP's contributions, one revert was made after the initial edit made the IP. 3RR consists of 3 reverts in 24 hours under one article. History of edit warring and past blocks are not excuses to add the edit warring template. Also, there was no vandalism involved at all. With past experience, the use of the misusage of templates was in fact necessary. One revert is not edit warring and the Amaury's vandalism report was falsified. WP:Vandalism does not list IPs adding warnings as vandalism, nor was it in the beginning. Although, I concur that the IP should have begun a discussion on the issue through WP:Consensus if there were disagreements.Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact, since this is an IP, we can't even be sure that this editor is the same editor who was blocked several months ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It was, in this case, myself. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Callmemirela, do you really think that someone with a four year edit history is unaware of what 3RR is?79.97.226.247 (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If she considers one revert as edit warring, then not entirely. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 02:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Middayexpress

User:Middayexpress has removed my edits at Somalis in the United Kingdom even though consensus is against him on its discussion page. Cordless Larry pointed this out to him and he is now inventing that he has the support of an editor who hasn't even contributed to the debate. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somalis_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=659181558 This is the latest in his harassment of me, where he follows my edits and says they're all red flag even though they're cited to reliable academic research. I'm fed up of this behaviour. BrumEduResearch (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Misleading post. I've only encountered you on two pages; the one above and a superdiversity stub that you linked me to from there. Your edits also certainly did not have consensus, as AcidSnow can confirm. The Rfc on the GSE testing material there expired on 10 March with no consensus, as a bot noted [46]. And per WP:NOCON, "in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". With regard to the superdiversity material, that Rfc has not yet expired so your addition of the passage was premature. Middayexpress (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Misleading reply. Just one other editor, Acidsnow supported you so you invented support from another editor to claim consensus. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somalis_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=next&oldid=659190864 BrumEduResearch (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That is also misleading. I wrote that User:26oo who as you well know was already involved in the wider discussion, would surely not support the language based GCSE material [47]. And I explained why too in that link above ("This is because not all Somali language speakers are of Somali ancestry"). It makes no difference either way since the Rfc had already expired as no consensus in March and the default per WP:NOCON was to retain the incumbent version of the passage. Similarly AcidSnow indicated that he did not support the language based GCSE material, not me personally ("It's cerainly no suppored by Midday or I" [48]). Middayexpress (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. More lies. 2600 had not taken part in any discussion about education on that page. You're just linking his name because like Acidsmow you always agree on everything and try to control the page. BrumEduResearch (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Also misleading. I clearly wrote the wider discussion, as the talk page shows. I also linked to 26oo because he's one of the longstanding editors on WikiProject Somalia, which the page falls under. Middayexpress (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not only is that highly untrue BrumEduResearch, it's also a character assassination against me. AcidSnow (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom

The content dispute at Somalis in the United Kingdom has been going on and on since at least February 2015, and the threaded discussion has been too long, difficult to read. I became aware of the on-and-on discussion in February when I tried to respond to a request for a third opinion at the third opinion noticeboard, but I was unable to respond constructively because of the length of the posts and the difficulty of the posters in summarizing them. In view of the length and repetition of the discussion, I only see a few ways out. If User:Middayexpress, User:BrumEduResearch, User:AcidSnow, User:Cordless Larry, and others really want to work together to improve the article, and want help, they can request formal mediation. The controversy has been going on too long for any less heavy-weight content resolution procedure. They can treat this as a conduct dispute and argue here at ANI, which is likely to be inconclusive. The community can impose community general sanctions, but this isn’t as contentious or disruptive a topic area as those where the community has imposed general sanctions in the recent past. One or another of the involved editors can go to ArbCom, but this isn’t as contentious or disruptive a topic area as those that ArbCom has heard in the recent past. The community can close (or ignore) this thread and ignore any future threads about this article.

Do the editors want to request formal mediation, or do they want extended inconclusive threaded discussions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:Robert McClenon Is that the same as dispute resolution? Because if so then Larry already suggested that on the discussion page and Middayexpress threatened go report him for forum shopping. BrumEduResearch (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC) ]]

I didn't "threaten" to report anyone. What I actually did was point out that "given the Rfc and Third Opinion, that would be WP:FORUMSHOPPING", and that "Gigs likewise wrote that "it seems that there is definite consensus that there is a lack of reliable data on this issue, so consider just going with that, rather than spending a lot of time debating on how to present imperfect and potentially flawed data"". Kindly stop putting words in my mouths. Middayexpress (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The dispute resolution policy defines a variety of different dispute resolution procedures. For content disputes, they include third opinion, the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN), various specialized noticeboards such as the BLP noticeboard, Requests for Comments, and formal mediation. Larry probably was suggesting DRN. I was not. As a DRN volunteer, I would refuse to accept this case because it is too long and complex, and DRN is intended for quick light-weight mediation. As to Middayexpress's complaint about forum shopping, citing RFCs and third opinion, I disagree. It is forum shopping to pursue the same dispute in two forums at the same time. I don't see any open RFCs on the talk page. Any RFCs have expired after 30 days, with or without actual closure. It is not forum shopping to ask for some sort of dispute resolution when other processes have not worked. It would not be forum shopping to request formal mediation. I suggest requesting formal mediation if the editors involved actually want to work collaboratively. DRN is not likely to work, and third opinion and RFCs do not appear to have worked. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Robert McClenon, I was unaware of the difference between DRN and formal mediation (not having been involved in either before). I actually meant the latter when I suggested dispute resolution earlier. There is actually an RfC open on the talk page, though it doesn't concern the education section of the article which is under dispute here. I presume that doesn't affect whether we can take the education dispute to mediation, but I might be wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I have been dragged to this noticeboard at a late hour and although I support mediation, if it is indeed possible, I'm not going to launch the process at this time of night and I'm unlikely to be online much tomorrow so it will have to wait, or someone else will have to start it. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I understand the mediation process is voluntary. What I would like right now is for the present Rfc on the two brief "superdiversity" passages to conclude as per policy. It is possible that those passages will thereafter be retained. If this so happens, I will abide by the verdict. If it doesn't, the other party must abide by the verdict, as with the March expired Rfc per WP:NOCON. Middayexpress (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The mediation process is indeed voluntary. I see that I was mistaken and there is one open RFC. It would need to be closed in order to start mediation. If the editors want to allow it to run its course into May, it would be a good idea for them to avoid starting any more ANI threads in the meantime. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert McClenon. I wouldn't have opened an ANI thread about this myself, but will revisit this once the current RfC has expired. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Election Services

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

---

The article Corporate Election Services is up for deletion at AfD. When I evaluated it, I found the company to be marginally notable, and the article to be overly promotional. (The referencing was no great shakes either.) Therefore, I !voted to delete it. Unfortunately, the one editor so far who has !voted to keep it, User:Marketdiamond, is aggresively assaulting any editor who !votes differently. In general I don't like it when that kind of hassling happens, and I like it even less when it happens to me:

"Truly fascinating, did you read anything here? Is an editor's vote considered when they parrot unsubstantiated allegations that have unanswered reasonable challenges going back a week, and on the articles talk page?"

I let Marketdiamond know, in strong and sarcastic terms, that I didn't appreciate being insulted in that manner (and that, indeed, my !vote counted as much as anyone's.) He objected to this on my talk page, and tried to coerce me into striking my comment by threatening to come here.[49]. I told him to get lost.

I think it would be a good idea if an admin told Marketdiamond to cool his jets and allow other editors the freedom to disagree with him without insulting their intelligence in response. He's certainly not helping his case any with his current behavior.

And that's pretty much all I have to say about that. BMK (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is one other thing. Marketdiamond !voted twice in the article, so I converted his second !vote into a comment. He replied:

BMK, isn't this AfD proof certain wikipedia editors can do anything they want for 13 days (now April 15, 2015; 11 days ago & counting)? Glad to see someone is interested in Wikipedia principals here, but I'd start with the 'drive-by' 'one-line', 'hide-for-a-week', editors.

Then on my talk page he wrote:

Hi. Your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Election Services after April 14, 2015; 12 days ago days of 150+ article-related edits are destructive.

Can someone decode this stuff? What is this obsession with days all about? He wrote the same kind of stuff on Talk:Corporate Election Services:

• Going on: April 14, 2015; 12 days ago
• Going on: April 16, 2015; 10 days ago (three times)

If he's trying to communicate something, I'm not getting it. BMK (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Just now, he posted this to the AfD. I have no idea who it's addressed to, since he doesn't say:

See your talk page, except you just edited my words there. I'd ask (for the 2nd time in 3 hours) if you read my two April 26, 2015; 0 days ago questions & if you intend to answer, but per usual with this unreasonable (violation of wikipedia policies?) AfD no answer to my April 26, 2015; 0 days ago reasonable questions to you. So 100% non-responses going back April 16, 2015; 10 days ago & counting.

Note that in this same edit he went back to all of his own edits and changed the number of days. What is going on here? Is this a WP:CIR issue? The guy;s been here since 2005 and had 48K edits, so I don't think it could be that, but I really have no idea what this thing about days is all about. BMK (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can someone immediately block BMK, this editor has repeatedly edited my statements on 2 different talk pages, and now he's going to edit my text here.

Second, a quick time stamp look of his talk page and the AfD talk page proves beyond all reason that this editor is wrecking havoc violating multiple wikipedia polices within minutes. And please don't edit my words again BMK. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the only editing of Marketdiamond's words I did I reported above. He cast a second vote in the AfD, with a bolded CHANGE ABOVE TO EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP. I struck through those words, without deleting them, and added a bolded COMMENT header. I have not changed Marketdiamond's words anywhere else. BMK (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I changed the title he gave his comment on my talk page, but that is well within my purview. He titled it "Your contributions to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Election Services" and I removed the "Your contributions to". My talk page, I maintain it as I see fit. No words in the comment itself were altered. BMK (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and how does Marketdiamond know that I am "going to edit [his] text here"? BMK (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Last comment, I promise. Read the entire AfD (link is in the title of this section). It's not long. There is definitely something... off going on there. BMK (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested immediate block on user BMK

User BMK is editing my comments on 2 talk pages, I have no reason to contribute to Wikipedia if editors are going to repeatedly within hours edit my talk page words. If this is allowed to go without any block, then may I please apply for the powers user BMK apparently has to go ahead and edit away at other users talk page comments?

• Second, to reasonable, respectful (if a bit heated) questions of mine to user BMK replied with:
• "duh, no, i only does whatz all da udders duz cause i aint got no brainses. You kmow what, you can stick your comment where the sun doesn't shine, sweetheart. If you don't like the way I !voted, based on my own personal evaluation of the material, there's nothing much you can do about it, but insulting me rates right up there at the top of the list of shit you can do which will make it absolutely certain that there's no possible chance of changing my mind. Now, stop being a jerk and hassling editors who disagree with you.(Oh, and yes, my !vote actually does count. It's enough to make you cry, innit?)" yet I never insulted this editor, so again he is stating something that is false.
• "I don't have a clue what the fuck you're talking about. What I'm talking about ..." (yet he then goes back and edits my bold text without my permission or consent?)
• And finally when I confronted this user they responded not with AGF attempt to resolve but: "Buzz off". If these type of responses are allowed on AfD pages for user BMK without a block (see AfD policies advising strongly against these type of responses) then this opens up a ton of questions for me.
• Finally, user BMK is violating several wikipedia policies by time-jumping/forum shopping (I consider this also editing my talk page words) edits.
• User BMK posts this ANI (now the 4th talk page for us 2) 'before' giving me a response to my AGF notice of him, yes you read that right, minutes before user BMK came here I had told him of my intent to come here if we could not work this out between the 2 of us, now to be referred to as BMK's ".
• Even worse user BMK comes [to ANI before posting an AGF notice and AGF attempt to resolve on my talk page, this wastes everyones time and shows that user BMK isn't interested in resolving this without maximum damage and time wasting to multiple editors. This also includes user BMKs time shift on this page, can editors really put things another users comments here? Honestly, I'd like to do this if BMK is able to without a block.

I repeat my reasonable request, user BMK needs to be blocked or we need to revise policies on editing other peoples talk page comments, forum shopping, being uncivil, inciting, AGF, ignoring talk page questions, AfD civility etc. Right now we have some editors playing by the rules which user BMK then proceeds to break without concern for the rules and now the 4th talk page for this.

Also, I wish 'NOT' to have my comments on talk pages edited again, BMK, I thought that was an unbreakable wikipedia policy. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Three things here: (1) Marketdiamond did not notify my of this report, as he is required to do; no harm done, though, for as you can see, Ifound it anyway; (2) You really have to read this and this to get the context that Marketdiamond didn't provide; and (3) If anyone can figure out what's going on with this editor, you're a better person than I am Gunga Din.
  That's pretty much all I have to say. BMK (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Racist comments on talk page

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

---

User:Antony.kalashnikov has been leaving racist comments on user talk pages. See [50] and [51]. -- haminoon (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Euryalus! -- haminoon (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Shagadelicbasil23

This user's edits are largely constructive, but they have a habit of getting things slightly wrong and it's quite disruptive for other editors to have to go around after him and clean up. He also makes null edits (e.g. adding a single space for no reason), presumably only to put himself at the top of the edit history. Efforts have been made to contact the user via his talk page, but he refuses to respond. I believe measures should be taken to compel this user to abide by Wikipedia's etiquette rules. – PeeJay 07:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay here. I've lost count of the number of questionable edits this user has now made, something I've raised on their talkpage a few times. And it then continues. Now we all make mistakes, but it would be nice to acknowledge the errors and not to continue with them. Adding an incorrect man-of-the-match to a WP article before that has been announced may not seem important, but it becomes disruptive if it's done time and time again. If they weren't on such high-profile articles (for the Cricket Project) they might not be spotted for some time. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree, they're usually a good editor, but some edits aren't helpful, and they don't respond to people informing them that their bad mistakes are wrong. On English cricket team in the West Indies in 2014–15, they're repeatedly adding null edits, which is extremely frustrating, on Carlton Mid Triangular Series in Australia in 2014–15, 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool A and 2015 Cricket World Cup Pool B, they were repeatedly adding unsourced content as soon as it happened, violating WP:NOTNEWS- for example adding Man of the Match or notes about the match, but very seldom supplying a source. Doing it a couple of times is slightly annoying, but on these 4 pages, they've probably made these type of edits 20ish times. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I've left a fairly strongly worded warning on Shagadelicbasil23's talk page. Hopefully that will do the trick but if it doesn't please flag any further problems here or at my talk page.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing re: Indian Empire

Zaketo (talk · contribs) has for months engaged in generally disruptive changes to infoboxes relating to India, mostly changing British India to Indian Empire but also doing other twiddles. A few are ok, but the vast majority over several months have had to be reverted. These eventually led to a discussion at WT:INB and then to a SPI. Yet still Zaketo is making the changes, despite consensus, eg: here and here.

I don't think there is much doubt that Zaketo was socking, although checkuser was inconclusive. Can someone please find a way to persuade him to stop, or simply block him for a while to emphasise the problems associated with disruptive editing. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

And they are not stopping or even discussing further after this report. Just look at my own edit summaries for "you know what the consensus is". - Sitush (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

They have now requested a CHUS. - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Zaketo are clearly socking IMO and it would help if an uninvolved admin could stop by SPI and examine the behavioral evidence. And in general, the users's high-paced editing of infoboxes in India/British India related articles which does not have consensus (and, which is the user's sole focus for past 8 months) is disruptive,and I wonder if discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA are called for. Abecedare (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick

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

---

Moved by me from AN. BMK (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

After an article he wrote was nominated for deletion [52] because of lack of notability and a lack of reliable sources as seen in 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 [53] . Another article was also nominated [54] He has proceeded to go to canvassing and vote stacking [55] , [56], [57], [58], [59] . Even after being warned about wp:canvas [60] he has continued to do so [61]. CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have already asked him to stay off of my talk page [[62] but he has continued to post on my talk page. [63]. I simply have no need for conversation after being accused of being a sockpuppet by him. [[64] . CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Really? This is getting ridiculous (never accused him of being a sock puppet, only stated that such an action wouldn't help prove their point). The talk page issue was by me trying to make peace as the user keeps attacking pages (four nominations for deletion, no deletions) instead of trying to fix issues, and other users suggested we learn to settle our differences. The WP:canvas doesn't even make sense, I was trying to get valuable insight by others as I believe it's fair to get many viewpoints and I tried to be as neutral to the topic as possible. I didn't describe the topic for how great or terrible it is or ask them to vote "keep". The nominations in question did not have many (if any) insights so what else was there to do (I'm a newish user, if there is a better alternative, please enlighten me)? I asked for people I knew were knowledgeable about the issue or I knew would give a honest opinion to weigh-in. For all I knew, they would say "delete" and I would be fine with that as I trust their viewpoints, and my only concern was to confirm whether the page is notable or not. If CrazyAces just asked why I choose who I choose to inform than this would be completely unnecessary. Just because it wasn't the outcome CrazyAces wanted, doesn't mean it is wrong. Now, if a desire to get multiple ideas from different users on a topic that wasn't receiving much opinions is wrong, than I apologize and won't do such a thing again. However, I think this did not need to be brought here as we could have merely discussed it on a talk page as respectable people. I believe, if anything, CrazyAces should be blocked, this is the third time they misused AN/I just against me. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2015

P.S. - No notability? Then why are users voting keep all the time (including ones I never asked to comment, so don't even try using that as an excuse)? Weird, right? Those references have all been replaced, as well, so that is irrelevant. I guess you also forgot to mention asking Niteshift (or whatever his name is, apologies) to give his opinion on the deletion page too. So if what I did was so wrong (it's not) why can you do it? TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2015

Whether the articles are notable or not (I have no opinion on that) your comments are very, very, clearly canvassing. You even admit that on the talk page of Garagepunk66. You were informed of this, yet continued to do it. Further episodes of this will result in longer blocks. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Users AHLM13 & Cosmic Emperor

Both guys are new editors with good potential; but both are picking on each other. I'm quoting their quarrel from my talk page:

He will not change

He removed lots of Bangladeshis and British people from this list. I have little knowledge about them but i know about the bias and hatred of this user. check this https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_modern-day_Muslim_scholars_of_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=659300690 --C E (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

AHLM13 did not do anything wrong. He undid Ishtiak19's removal of Jamaat Islam leaders. Then he found out what mess happened and fixed it. His three edits together was no changes. Later he merged Bangladesh with SA. I think you might want to stop stalking. nafSadh did say 16:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:CosmicEmperor, what is your problem? Why are you following me? Nafsadh is right, you need to stop to do these things. It is easy to understand that you are sockpuppet of Universaltiger, as formerly you tried to insult me and even now you are not stopping to disturb me. Tell me what do you want? Go to enjoy your life. -- AHLM13 talk 16:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@AHLM13:, WP:Cool down man! nafSadh did say 16:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Cosmic needs to calm. -- AHLM13 talk 16:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Both of you. Keep calm, even when someone is poking at you. nafSadh did say 16:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Now I understood why CosmicEmperor is following me. Formerly, he used to ask help to me and pretend to be my friend and insult other users like GorgeCustersSabre. This is his real identity. -- AHLM13 talk 17:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I have mentioned above, I have little knowledge about them. I wanted you to check his edits. Or else,i could have reverted his edits myself instead of asking you, if i was sure he was wrong. He is blocked three times and always threaten and abuses other users in their talk page -if he has any editing disputes with them.He is behaving like this much before I saw his comment on Bengali people talk page.If some user from Australia will edit any article in Uk , he will write in their talkpage "go back to Australia"C E (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

OKay. Both of you please calm down, try to help each other. nafSadh did say 17:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:CosmicEmperor, you are changing the argument. Finally I recognised you. I was only blocked for three time because of injustice. What about you? You offended me by writing that I write like Pakistani people (don't know did you mean by saying this). You also offended my friend User:GorgeCustersSabre and a whole population.-- AHLM13 talk 18:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Nafsadh, I always tried to help him, but he always refused to listen me.-- AHLM13 talk 18:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, the irony from this comment. Ravensfire (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an admin nor a diplomat. I can't pacify them; so, you guys deal with these kids gentlemen. nafSadh did say 18:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not a kid. -- AHLM13 talk 18:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That is an expression, referring to both of yours relatively new editor status. nafSadh did say 18:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I will not comment on User:Nafsadh's talk page anymore. When i first visited WP, somewhere i read , "you discuss on user talk page if you have any objection or editing dispute or even a query". AHML13 was contantly tagging me in the above discussion as my comment was related to him, so i had to post on User:Nafsadh 's talk page , for which he is getting notifications that i have posted message on his talk page. Even I got two notifications from him today. C E (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You are always welcome to post and discuss on my talk; this particular discussion went beyond the scope, so I moved it here. nafSadh did say 18:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Block and unblock request of User:TheGracefulSlick

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

---

I am requesting discussion of the unblock request poste by User:TheGracefulSlick. Earlier today, Black Kite blocked this user for 48 hours, on grounds of canvassing on a pending AfD discussion. See discussion higher on this page.

Black Kite is an experienced and highly regarded administrator, and the block is certainly defensible. Nonetheless, I am not convinced that it is necessary. After seeing the discussion above, I posted on TheGracefulSlick's talkpage (edit-conflicting with the unblock template):

I am reviewing this block, which I was taking a look at based on the ANI discussion (I had an edit conflict with the unblock template). With great respect to Black Kite, a very experienced and competent administrator, I am not convinced that this is a necessary block, and am inclined toward unblocking.

It is true that another user warned TheGracefulSlick, a relatively new editor (four months wikitime), against canvassing on an AfD. It is also true that the warning came from an editor who has been perceived by several admins (most recently Bishonen, per her talk) as problematic, and who seems to be engaged in a wikifeud with TheGracefulSlick. If that was the only "warning" provided (and I apologize if I missed one somewhere), it is understandable that TheGracefulSlick did not consider it as binding authority.

Also of note is that TheGracefulSlick's requests for opinions on an AfD were neutral in form, and that there remains some disagreement as to exactly how our anti-"canvassing" norms are to be construed and enforced. This is all the more troubling because, as Opabinia regalis cogently observes in her pending re-RfA (answer to question 7), at present compared to in years past "most [AfD] discussions have many fewer participants overall ... [there are] a decent chunk [of AfDs] that attract hardly any commentary." In this environment, it is readily understandable that a good-faith editor who goes to the trouble of creating an article, which is then nominated for deletion, would want to ensure that a reasonable number of experienced Wikipedians with subject-matter expertise opine on the AfD, rather than entrust the fate of the article to a smallish handful of people who happen to be looking in on the AfD page that day. At least I cannot conclude that such a reaction should result in a block for a solid editor with a previously unblemished record, without a greater discussion of the importance of anti-canvassing norms than seems to have occurred in this case.

I would welcome additional input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite, as the blocking admin, responded and stood by the block, pointing out that a couple of the talkpage messages at issue were indeed non-neutrally worded. On that basis, PhilKnight has declined the unblock request. TheGracefulSlick has responded to their points, and based on the overall record, I still think that continuing this block is not necessary. I would appreciate others' views here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm about to post an unblock condition to TheGracefulSlick's talkpage. It'll be there in a few minutes. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Antisemitism again

Strivingsoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who just came out of a block for this same behavior) has tagbombed the article on David Duke's book Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question, because it cites too many "Jewish" sources. He's also completely in denial that David Duke is an antisemitic white supermacist neo-Nazi, which indicates some combination of trolling, antisemitic WP:TEND, and/or extreme WP:CIR issues that cannot be described both civilly and accurately.

We either need to implement a topic ban for this user (say, from race and Judaism) or another block (indef sounds good), user is going to be a completely unnecessary timesink otherwise. I'm happy with either. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the the previous block was unfair but even then nobody supported the charge of anti-Semitism against me which I still categorically reject as untrue. That block was in fact based on charges of "personal attacks" but even then I had really meant no offense and I explained the unease experienced by my counterparts had been because of me and my counterparts coming from very opposing political views, and this was testified by other observers as well. And that's why I think the previous block was also unfair (despite the fact that I admit I should've done better to sustain a softer language). But as for this recurring charge, it is clear that you also share my opponents' POV here! So I'd like you to admit that this is a POV difference and has nothing to do with the accusations you have leveled against me (which I have already rejected as untrue and unfair). I think the right course of action would be for your to explain why you think my activities on Jewish Supremacism are wrong. But you really didn't provide any strong reason there and have instead chose to rush to the noticeboard a difference that can be settled via the common course of action for content dispute settlement on Wiki! Strivingsoul (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Kudzu1, User:Anders Feder, User:Bejnar, User:Monochrome Monitor, User:Bishonen, and User:JzG seemed to think you've got a problem, dunno where you're getting the idea that no one supported the charges against you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, these are the very same users with whom I still have an ongoing discussion on the Houthi talk page and Jewish Supremacism talk page! With all due respect, I think it was not wise of you to approve the block request by a user with whom I had an ongoing discussion i.e. before even his charges against me are proven. But one impartial observer User:DrFleischman also rejected the charges against me. I think you're being hasty in your assessment, and clearly hold a biased viewpoint similar to that of my opponents. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban, please. WP:NOTHERE - Cwobeel (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So where's the line between content dispute and disruptive editing? NOTHERE certainly seems excessive. Has this user repeatedly failed to respect a clear consensus? I don't see that in the diffs. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss:, do you think that a person that says On the contrary, I think, those "rubbish" sources are specifically crucial for reducing such biases as espoused by likes of you! Self-centered, self-satisfied Zionist/US imperialist apologists who dismiss as "rubbish" whatever POV that doesn't reaffirm their deeply entrenched prejudices! is here to build an encyclopedia? Don't think so. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for that. But those were directed towards a user who had made equally upsetting remarks against me! As I said, this is an issue of conflicting political views! But I admit I should've sustain a much softer language all along the heated debate! Strivingsoul (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I think they have a strong POV, which is not the same as NOTHERE. As you of all people should know, a strong POV is not a serious problem if you are capable of observing process and consensus. And consensus doesn't mean a lot of editors think you're out of line in general, it refers to consensus on a single, fairly narrow content question. If BRD hasn't been closely followed here by all involved, Strivingsoul isn't the only one to blame for the results. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Strong POV is not the issue here. It is his behavior and attitude as reflected in his comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so make a case on behavior and attitude, which has nothing to do with how he feels about David Duke. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Strivingsoul's argument for tagbombing the secondary-sourced article about a 368 page antisemitic canard by Klansman and Neo-Nazi David Duke is that we cite too many Jewish sources, and arguing that David Duke (a holocaust denier and former grand wizard of the KKK) somehow isn't an antisemite despite writing a book that says that Jews secretly plot to take over the world. This is like tagbombing the article on The God Delusion, claiming that it cites too many Christian sources, and then arguing that Richard Dawkins isn't a New Atheist. That requires either two of other trolling, WP:TEND, WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not only staging some unfounded libels against me but are even falsifying the topic! First off, I should state clearly that I'm not a fan or spokesperson for Duke. But I have personally read his book. Nowhere in the book Duke ever claims any Jewish conspiracy or that "Jews secretly plot to rule the world." He actually clearly rejects those charges, and what is interesting is that you are taking those false allegations straightly from ADL's mouth, and that's one reason why I argued that the page content are completely biased for stating ADL's views as facts. And I have provided the links to the talk page. Strivingsoul (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Where is the link to the talk page discussion about said tagbombing? Did he participate in the discussion? Did he or someone else remove the tags during the discussion, per BRD? Did he respect the consensus reached in the discussion? If there was no discussion, you have no disruptive editing case there. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I linked to the article, and the talk page isn't that hard to find from there. There is a discussion, of which there are three users pointing out that the tags are an obviously bad idea, and one user trying to pretend that David Duke isn't an antisemite. If we had an article about a historical white-on-black hate crime that mostly cited the NAACP and professors of African-American studies, and someone claimed the article was biased for citing too many black authors and not citing a neo-Nazi (while pretending that said author is a neo-Nazi), would we be having this conversation, or would we have just blocked that user as a under WP:CIR, WP:TEND, and WP:DFTT? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion related to the tags is several hours old and includes comments from three editors including Strivingsoul. The tags are removed and Strivingsoul is leaving them that way. It seems to me you're in the middle of the D phase of BRD, things are proceeding normally, more participation is needed for consensus, and I don't know why you're here. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

He should be banned from https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant and anything having to do with Jews. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Can this editor's opinion be considered an impartial judgement when he himself has been directly involved in the content dispute with me? Sorry, but this whole complaint discussion really is not fair and balanced. All users with whom I have had content dispute are tagged to come and testify against me! This is no justice! Strivingsoul (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Any editor in good standing can comment on WP:ANI as long as they are civil. How can you say there is no justice when nothing has come of this discussion yet but simple conversation? Nothing is stopping editors who agree with your viewpoint from speaking on your behalf, if they are out there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a total ban is justified though. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor was not warned on the DS on WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and WP:ARBPIA. He is now [65] - Cwobeel (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

- I admit I'm not a neutral party to the other dispute but I wasn't involved in this dispute. I think any nuetral party would agree that your tag bombing of "Jewish Supremacism" was objectionable. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Then go to the talk page and make a policy-based argument to that effect. ANI is not a substitute for BRD. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

But it is the place to deal with disruptive behavior, such as this editor's. I think a topic ban would be quite justified. BMK (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The question is which instance of my behavior has been disruptive? So far there's been only accusations but no cogent argument to support them! Strivingsoul (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that we can give him a chance to demonstrate that he is taking the feedback expressed here seriously. If he does not, well, he now knows what is at stake. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

But I'm really confused here. What am I really expected to do in future? There doesn't seem to be any consensus on what has been wrong with my activities. Remember this ANI discussion was prompted by my activities on this talk page (which is still an ongoing process). And as pointed out by User:Mandruss as well, I have not violated any Wiki policy or guideline there. But what I admit is that in a past case on Houthi talk page, I developed a rather strong tone through the debate, and for that reason I already apologized above. But I want you to also appreciate the fact that even in that case I was provoked by a user who had expressed his own political strong opinions against mine. But still, I'm willing to admit any further fault that I am might have committed, if there is any. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• The next incident should get a one week block, and the one after that, a topic ban. This is classic agenda editing. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agenda editing?! Well I think I do have an agenda to improve some of the topics that suffer from systematic bias (Mid-East, Islam, and marginalized critiques of the political status que) Is there anything wrong with that agenda so long as I try to work according to wiki guidelines? Please enlighten me! Strivingsoul (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of your edits have been about Iran, not Islam. That's agenda editing. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It certainly seems like Strivingsoul's POV editing problem has only gotten worse since the last time he was at AN/I. I cited WP:NOTHERE then and I believe it's true now. His purpose in being here seems to be more to "critique the political status quo" and make ethnically loaded accusations than it does to work constructively with editors toward improving the encyclopedia. That isn't acceptable, and his behavior has certainly not been acceptable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Continued WarKosign iban violations

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

---

As reported before, WarKosign continues to violate the iban and revert my edits. He self reverted one iban violation with the comment "Self-reverting possible violation of an iban. Someone else should apply this change.", guaranteeing his tag-team of editors would revert to his edit. What is the point of having an iban if one editor is going to be allowed to continually violate the iban? His self revert with the message to his tag-team editors is here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=657360828&oldid=657331946 I also tried to discuss the revert of my edits on the talk page by creating a new section titled ""The borders of the new state were not specified.", not a NPOV", but found it impossible as WarKosign continued to comment on every aspect of the revert of my edits and continued to modify the revert of my edits in the article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Gouncbeatduke has been warned before about making inflammatory accusations, like here that "Anti-Arab hatemongering in Wikipedia is at all time high". The fact remains that Gouncbeatduke claims to be a WP:CLEANSTART account that previously edited under a different username (which s/he will not disclose, which raises obvious questions), but this user is clearly a single-issue editor that has not learned at all and should be topic banned until he shows he can edit constructively and not go around accusing everybody of being a racist. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign has put him/herself in a difficult situation by choice by requesting an IBAN with an editor who edits a similar article content that s/he edits. It is preposterous IMO that this request was considered without application of a perhaps mutual topic ban. An edit summary such as "Self-reverting possible violation of an iban" would have, debatable, been understandable. To write "Self-reverting possible violation of an iban. Someone else should apply this change." adds WP:CANVASS. IMO ibans are nonsense but there either is one or there isn't. GregKaye 21:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not know why this is raised again. The issue has been handled by the ANI only days ago. I should not have made this edit because of the IBAN and therefore I self-reverted once I was made aware of it, noting that someone else should re-apply this correct edit. I asked for advice at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and the response was that this edit was indeed correct. I later corrected it further by removing a statement that was not present in the long-standing silent consensus.

So far Gouncbeatduke's contribution to restoring consensus was slow-going edit warring and unhelpful remarks.

Contrary to what GregKaye wrote I did not request an IBAN. I requested to have the user stop repeated personal attacks against me and complained about the user's battleground mentality. The user has showed a pattern of using terms like "Anti-Arab hatemongering" or "pro-Jewish/anti-Arab POV-pushing" for editors that happen to disagree with them. I see this repeated complaint to ANI about an issue that was already closed as a form of harassment. “WarKosign” 22:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Gouncbeatduke (WP:BOOMERANG)

• Semi-involved Comment The problem is not so much WarKosign as it is Gouncbeatduke. I say this as someone who agree more with Gouncbeatduke on the actual substance, but the behavior of the user is disruptive and this discussion is a case in point. Given that I'm the user who restored the consensus version (bad though it is), I can only take Gouncbeatduke's thinly veiled accusation "tag-team of anti-Arab editors" as an attack on me in direct violation of WP:NPA. For the record, I explained my reasoning on the talk page and explicitly pointed out that I restored the consensus version not because I agreed with it (I don't) but because Wikipedia is about gaining consensus and to avoid edit warring. Gouncbeatduke's attack is a spectacular demonstration of bad faith. So as a direct WP:BOOMERANG in response to Gouncbeatduke's call for ANI action, here is my proposed action. Topic-ban Gouncbeatduke from all articles related to Israel and Palestine, broadly construed, until the user has learned to stop edit warring and to stop attacking other users. ANI really does not need all this drama, neither do the articles on an already sensitive topic. Jeppiz (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz is clearly one of JarlaxleArtemis tag team editors. He immediately reverts the edits of any editor JarlaxleArtemis targets. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a case in point of Gouncbeatduke's battleground mentality. I've never even heard of the user whose tag team I'm accused of being a part of. Check our history, I bet the match can't be more than 1-2% as I haven't come across the name. Yet another WP:NPA from Gouncbeatduke that only goes to show that the problem is the user's battleground mentality, already shown in several post above. This user needs a break, and so does Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Gouncbeatduke removed his offensive post above (he shouldn't have, as several editors have already responded to it, as I've just told him on his page), and now this? "Jarlaxle's tag team editors", really? It might be as well for your peace of mind that you haven't heard of Jarlaxle, Jeppiz, but I have. I've blocked Gouncbeatduke for 48 hours for personal attacks and outrageous assumption of bad faith. Bishonen | talk 23:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC).

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

Bishonen In a previous situation in which there was an Iban between myself and another editor you warned me on occurrence when I gave thanks for edits made. This is in a context in which I had been personalised for later publicly arguing in favour of this other editor and in which I now have a message from this editor on my talk page saying "Am touched as ever by your moral support".

Now, in this instance, an ibanned editor revert the editor that s/he is ibanned with you only penalise the editor that was reverted. Yes there was a "tag-team of anti-Arab editors" comment but I think that it should be noted that this comes in a context in which this editor had him/herself made a clearly unjustified accusation of "tag-team edit warring" as in part of the ridiculously long running borders saga at Talk:Israel/Archive 47#The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state. Please look at the Talk:Israel. Ever since I placed a {{cn}} tag on a piece of non-information in the lead, quite literally pertaining to a comment in information that wasn't there, the page has become a battle ground. WarKosign has been involved in systematic evasion in regard to attempts at talk page communication and I think that the whole borders situation displays an extremely tendentious approach by editors. There is a preference for comment to be made on content that isn't in the declaration of independence and objection to presentation on content that is in the UN partition plan. I personally would not have used the "anti-Arab" reference. In my situation I had myself objected to what I regarded as canvassing on with use of "anti-ISIL" arguments but, given content on the Israel talk page I honestly have no disagreement with the sentiment.

Again, involvement that can be given by other editors in regard to Israel related topics as editing continues would be appreciated.

GregKaye 03:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits in MMA articles by an unregistered user

Hello. As of late, there is a IP user doing several disruptive updates in MMA articles. Here is his contributions list as I can't send the link to each an everyone of them. He has simply added several unsorced contents that do not qualify as good faith, but simply edits he decided to do based on his own will. He adds fights that don't exist and he kept doing that even after I warned him about it on pages summaries and including his talk page. As page protection is unnecessary (other IPs sometimes show up and do help), this is a matter of keeping this IP away from articles he decides to edit. It's giving us trouble where it is not wanted. Please deal with this as soon as possible. Thanks! Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I noted the IP editor 71.97.48.49 (talk · contribs) had not been 'welcomed' to WP, so I have done that with this template and an edit summary request. 220 of ^Borg 02:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

He keeps doing it... Not a matter of good faith edits from someone who doesn't know how it works. He's just doing edits based on his will, including past events. Please, stop it.Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Need administrator to close move discussion

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

---

In Talk:CIA transnational human rights actions#Requested move 10 April 2015, there appears to be a consensus to move CIA transnational human rights actions to Human rights violations by the CIA. Could we get an admin to review and close (if appropriate)? Thanks! - Location (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Elindiord

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

---

Elindiord has repeatedly reverted legitimate edits [66], [67], [68], [69] using only the default Twinkle summary, generally as mass rollback of a single user's edits (see Special:Contributions/Elindiord). They have not explained these edits in any way, and have not responded to multiple inquiries on their talk page by other editors about their behavior. Conifer (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Odd activity at Mulalo Doyoyo

Over at Mulalo Doyoyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the article has seen a flurry of activity from four named accounts and some IPs that don't seem to have any interest outside of this person and some other articles with which he is connected. While not a problem in itself as the article subject does appear to be notable the article needed to be expanded with sources, I have grown frustrated at attempts in my attempts to apply cleanup tags and a lack of getting any discussion on the article talk page.

At this point, I intend to just walk away from the article as BLP articles are not my forte and I really don't want to get dragged into this one. But I wanted to bring it up here in case others who are more motivated towards BLP articles may want to try cleaning up the big wall-of text article, find some sources for some of the remaining BLP info that remains unsourced, and cleanup some of the remaining promotional wording regarding the subject's works. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Barek: I concur that there is definite "odd activity" (wp:SPA and wp:COI) here. One editor has admitted a connection between him and Mulalo Doyoyo, see here. I have welcomed a few of the registered accounts, as they (mostly) had only HostBot notices on their talkpages, and requested they use edit summaries. I also restored and added to the maintenance templates. 220 of ^Borg 04:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I have dropped ANI notices on the talk pages of : Rduvvury‎ (talk · contribs), Yyyj4 (talk · contribs) and Cmoon100 (talk · contribs) directing them here.
All the same accounts have also edited Cenocell, one of them created it. Quote:

"Cenocell is a patented concrete material ... It was invented by Mulalo Doyoyo and Paul Biju-Duval at the Georgia Institute of Technology."

I note that all 3 accounts I 'pinged' have valid e-mail addresses, so I think good faith, but somewhat misguided editing. So there it is, lets see what response we get. 220 of ^Borg 05:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye

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

GregKaye seems to be on a bit of a crusade at the moment to fix the great wrong of 'the' not appearing in article titles such as List of most common surnames in Asia. He has opened a number of RMs, which all seem to have gone against him, so has now abandoned that approach and is simply moving pages with titles he has problems with, despite many of them clearly being contentious based on the many still open and contentious RMs. He seems to be similarly tendentiously dealing with other matters that concern him, such as the great bias of the BBC on the name of ISIL, despite his earlier warning about editing in that area, and The borders of Israel. Perhaps he needs to step away from the keyboard, or at least from these areas, for a few days and let them settle down, before not returning to try and re-argue the same issues yet again.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne Your content above relates to my comments on "[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BBC misrepresentation of sources|great bias of the BBC]]"

In this content I finished by asking, "How is it neutral of the BBC to ignore the majority of what their various interviewees say and go their own sweet way and then to compound this with an actual misrepresentation of content that their interviewees have directly presented?" I don't personally see anything wrong in raising this. There was no warning. GregKaye 22:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The warning is linked above (and was copied to your talk page). If you think it does not cover the WP:RSN edits then it certainly covers your April 23rd edits to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne I really should have followed up on the "any further misconduct" comment at the time as the only thing that had been of issue was a limited content of interactions with one editor. If you really think that my comments about "BBC misrepresentation of sources" constitute misconduct in regard to ISIL related topic areas, or tendentious editing, then you are at liberty to present your case. I would also warmly welcome other editor involvement in regard to Israel related topics.

I also think that suggestion of tendentious editing is especially questionable in the light of the content of the thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#JoeM and Islam, a safe combination? in which I was an editor invested significantly in advocating for and helping an editor who had pushed for edits that were diametrically opposed to edits that I had made. GregKaye 10:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne In regard to titles such as:

• List of tallest bridges in the world and
• List of most common surnames in Asia and

a substantial number of similar you have been perfectly in your rights to present your views here and here.

Similarly I have then been perfectly in my right to respond with content as:

Please look at the way this type of grammar is presented in books. As you should have seen from the other thread: I proposed the use of a books search :(most OR least OR lightest OR heaviest OR tallest OR longest OR shortest) AND "in the" which gives the results (as they contain a "fooest" followed by something like an "in bar" type content). These results in sequence are:

• The Most Beautiful Girl in the World
• The Most Misused Verses in the Bible
• The Most Important Fish in the Sea
• The Most Dangerous Area in the World
• The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business
• The Most Wonderful Doll in the World
• The Most Dangerous Man In The World
• The Most Important Little Boy in the World
• Vesuvius: The most famous volcano in the world
• The tallest, shortest, longest, greenest, brownest animal in the jungle!
• The Most Successful Small Business in The World
• Burj Khalifa: The Tallest Tower in the World
• The Least Examined Branch: The Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional State
• A short synopsis of the most essential points in Hawaiian grammar
• A brief summary, in plain language, of the most important laws of England concerning women
• Catalonia: An Emerging Economy : the Most Cost-effective Ports in the Mediterranean Sea
• The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World
• The Most Powerful Idea in the World: A Story of Steam,..
• Notices of the Most Remarkable Fires in Edinburgh
• Most Beautiful House in the World

I went through 18 examples (not including, presumably, reprints or the "in Most of the World" example) that consistently used "the fooest" before finding one example, which happened to be at the beginning of the phrasing, which omitted the article. All I am trying to do is to present content that does not mak, as I see it, grammatical error.

Please explain how this is disruptive or strike your content. I have proposed consecutive proposals so that they can be viewed together on the Request moves page which gives the benefit that the whole content can be considered in one go or that words may be considered separately if desired. I am also providing a long list of relevant articles which might not otherwise be a feature of an RfC.

In a search on grammar guide superlative

Results in sequence were:

http://esl.fis.edu/grammar/rules/comp.htm presenting:

1-syllable adjectives: add -est to the adjective (plus the)

• My sister is the tallest in our family.
• Yesterday was the coldest day of the year so far.

... and so on

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/adjectives/comparative-and-superlative-adjectives presenting:

• Superlative adjectives:

We use the with a superlative:

It was the happiest day of my life.

Everest is the highest mountain in the world.

That’s the best film I have seen this year.

I have three sisters, Jan is the oldest and Angela is the youngest.

http://www.edufind.com/english-grammar/comparative-and-superlative/ presenting:

SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVES

Superlative adjectives are used to describe an object which is at the upper or lower limit of a quality (the tallest, the smallest, the fastest, the highest). They are used in sentences where a subject is compared to a group of objects.

Noun (subject) + verb + the + superlative adjective + noun (object).

The group that is being compared with can be omitted if it is clear from the context (final example below).

EXAMPLES

• My house is the largest one in our neighborhood.
• This is the smallest box I've ever seen.
• Your dog ran the fastest of any dog in the race.
• We all threw our rocks at the same time. My rock flew the highest. ("of all the rocks" is understood)

This text is as presented on the website and represents basic grammar.

The fourth website - http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/adjectivesuper.html - shows that even the Germans get this right. Why can't we???

Please check other grammar guides to see if anything different is presented...

Rightly or wrongly but with good faith I have chosen to attempt to address what I regard to be grammatically flawed content on Wikipedia through the use of an associated set of RMs. Again and again we have presented content in a format "List of the fooest bar in baz". I do not see this type of the type of format presented at anywhere on Britannica or other similar source. In my personal opinion this seems to me a really basic grammatical mistake that I find embarrassing. I would like our encyclopedia to have content that is correct in every way. I make no apology for that.

GregKaye 21:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You are dealing with article titles, not English sentences, and the strict rules of grammar don't necessarily apply. And, in any case, English is a language in which "the" can often be dropped without any loss of sense - think of a sign which says "Push button for elevator." If it were to be strictly grammatically correct, it would say "Push the button for the elevator [to come]," but English is quite happy to allow signs and other non-sentences (headlines, for instances) to drop words which are not necessary for understanding, and are provided mentally by the reader.

At the very least, you should get a consensus for any mass changes before you do them. Not doing so can be considered to be disruptive. BMK (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. However I do not see any content in a source such as Britannica dropping articles. From a personal perspective I find it surprising that our encyclopedia does not have significant content in WP:PG in regard to a presentation of accurate English and I think that this is to our general detriment. However my hope has been that we can present content that we might not get marked down for if we presented it in an English exam or that would not present bad usages of English that might be copied by, amongst others, school students. I am genuinely trying to do what is right. I thought that an appropriate way to proceed was to submit RMs as the most appropriate method to facilitate the discussion of article titles. WP:RM provides one of many contexts by which consensus is established. GregKaye 22:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

From discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion and elsewhere GregKaye seems to have a rather wide interest in correcting what he, rightly or wrongly, perceives as errors. To an extent, I salute him for it. To an extent. It can become a bit more problematic if, seemingly, an individual seems to be spending most of his time engaging in some sort of crusade or other, and it probably doesn't help make people see better of him if he seems to engage in too many such crusades. Particularly for the matter of article titles, I think it might be going a bit too far to change them to all match the perspective of a few usages of English. I know of at least one academic journal article, written in English and published in English, which I literally could not read at points because of the unusual usages. I tend to think that in at least some cases using words like "the" too often might create similar issues of confusion with other editors from parts of the world whose English we might find difficult. We don't really sacrifice clarity by not including all the "the"'s, and we might in some cases actually lose some for all I know. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

From my point of view, the inclusion of the "the" is a legitimate cause, though I'd probably have tried a single test case first or raised it at MOS (which from the response here it appears Greg hasn't). In any case I don't think this is tendentious editing, rather just going about something the wrong way combined with strong opinions (which from my POV are good to have because you care, though may mean you need to act a little more carefully). I also can't personally remember any problems with Greg on ISIL. Banak (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

AN/I is not the correct forum to argue for or against "the" in a Wikipedia article title. The question, Greg, is if you are moving pages with titles you have problems with that might be seen as contentious moves. It seems like you are going through the WP:RM process (Wikipedia:Requested_moves#April 22, 2015) and I don't see diffs offered here of moves you have done which are considered out of order. You have presented quite a lot of move requests at once and I would just trust the process and not rush the moving decisions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

TY John Carter both for your inputs at the Wikiproject and here.

I am also hoping that any editor may give clarification in regard to WP:PG content on what issues should be addressed in which forums. In regard to matters of the use of the English language, the only relevant content that I know is Wikipedia:Article titles#English-language titles within which it simply says "On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language." I have simply viewed that titles are to be written in English. It has been within this context that I had considered it it to be of benefit to try to ensure that the English used was, amongst other things, grammatically correct. Please, can anyone give guidance as to any reason why these may not have been appropriate moves to request? GregKaye 23:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

TY Banak "John Smith" of old :). Your comments are appreciated.

TY Liz, the reason that I thought it best to present, let's face it, a lot of moves was to provide an opportunity for the issue to be properly discussed in a way that would give a wide variety of interested parties to contribute. GregKaye 23:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "written using the English language" means as opposed to using French or Mandarin Chinese. It does not imply that all titles must be in perfectly grammatically correct English (in fact, most titles aren't, since they are the names of people, places and things), any more than the elevator sign does. You are being much, much too literal, and in the process misinterpreting the meaning of what is written. BMK (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

TY BMK, I am hoping that any editor may give clarification in regard to WP:PG content on what issues should be addressed in which forums. Three editors: AjaxSmack, Iryna Harpy, JohnBlackburne have accused me of disruptive editing in regard to the RMs. It would help my understandings to know whether there is any basis to these charges. GregKaye 00:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, if you go around making controversial mass changes without discussing it beforehand, yes, that can be considered to be disruptive. BMK (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you've misconstrued objections as meaning "accused me". What has been discussed is the issue of your deeming these change to be WP:ITSIMPORTANT, whereas other editors are pointing out why it is not (for example, per my comment here). At no stage have I done anything other than assume good faith on your behalf, nor have the other editors you've mentioned above. The issue of such localised changes has been deemed to be disruptive due to broader ramifications for the entirety of Wikipedia by editors arguing against your proposed RMs. Being disruptive is not necessarily a bad faith intention on your behalf. I seriously think that you should consider that no one is suggesting that you're a bad editor (your track record suggesting quite the antithesis), but that even suggestions made in the best of faith are not necessarily going to result in positive outcomes for the project. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, if uninvolved editors are allowed to weigh in, I personally generally value succinctness in List article titles. I also value observing due process in moves, which includes official public RMs and following community consensus as determined by a majority of those, and, again, always using official public RMs if similar moves have been opposed or controversial in the past. Softlavender (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I one editor who implied that User:GregKaye was being disruptive when I stated that his "mass proposals are borderline disruptive"[70] but my gripe was that the method s/he chose to bring about article moves was not ideal (multiple discussion locations for long lists of articles). I prefer a single discussion location of the issue to gauge support before moving to the WP:RM process when the ramifications are so wide. However, I believe s/he could have a legitimate argument and I fully support her/his passion for the issue — I do not think this is an ANI issue and have absolutely no personal or project-wide problem with her/him. —  AjaxSmack  04:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• While I agree that succinctness is more important than forming longer but more sentence-grammatical constructions, because these are titles not sentences, that's not an ANI matter. We're supposed to be addressing the user behavior. As someone actually move-blocked for three months for very similar actions some time ago – unilaterally mass-moving articles without establishing a consensus to do so and in the face of some expressed opposition from multiple parties – and having seen the error of those ways, I have to concur that these direct moves to be brought to a halt. If we don't do potentially controversial article renaming that way, then we don't do it that way, period. That said, the only user behavior issue here is the direct moving of articles to suit a proposed pattern that is still under somewhat heated debate. The notion that any user can be punitively enjoined from actually using RM – the prescribed process for proposing potentially controversial article moves – is patent nonsense. You can't punish people for following proper procedure, nor prevent them from doing so. The complainant here may not like the proposals, but GregKay has an editorial right to propose them, just like anyone else. If someone just can't stand seeing these proposals and the arguments made in them, they obviously need to take a break from RM discussions, and maybe change the settings for the bot-posted discussion notices to which they may have subscribed their talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Threat of legal action

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

---

User:Totemi has just threatened legal action against User:Willkane82 and Wikipedia, at User talk:Willkane82: [71]. This is apparently over some content dispute at WP:BLP Giuseppe Vatinno. More info at Talk:Giuseppe Vatinno, though I don't yet understand what Totemi's complaint is about. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Clear legal threat. User blocked. JohnCD (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User talk:Zimimi

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

---

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

User continually changing the Casualties secion of the Battle of the Somme infobox from

623,907

to

623,906
Alan Seeger killed

Has been reverted and warned on talk page, but continues disruptive behavior while ignoring warnings (simply blanks the warnings being given)

Evidence

• Diff1
• Diff2
• 13 more examples skipped
• Diff3

Warnings to user

• 1 warning blanked
• 5 warnings ignored
• 2 warnings ignored

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish59 (talk • contribs) 20:39, April 26, 2015‎ (UTC)

Who are you, that is filing this complaint? You didn't leave your sig. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for forgetting to sign. Hamish59 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I posted it only as a reminder. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Without commenting on his edits, I just want to comment on this edit summary: watch the personal attacks and bad faith. only (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Returning to the issue of Zimimi's edits, a look through their contrib list (which is not long) shows a tendency towards obstinacy resulting in edit warring (not only on The Battle of the Somme, but also on 2015 military intervention in Yemen) , disruptiveness (for instance the removal of an article section without explanation or apparent reason [72]), and what appears to be possible POV editing. Plus, of course, the name check insertion of "Alan Seeger" reported above.

I'mnot sure what this adds up to sanction-wise, possibly a final warning and a short block in the next instance? BMK (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If anyone had issued a {{Uw-ew}} warning during the 13-14 reverts, this would be an easy edit warring + 3rr block. In the absence of the right warning, and as its a new account, I'd be inclined to go with a final warning. Though policy doesn't actually require a warning before a 3rr block. Monty₈₄₅ 00:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point I think it all depends on what Zimimi does next. BMK (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Admin Swarm blocked Zimimi for 72 hours for edit warring, with a warning that the next block will be significantly longer. BMK (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Other IP User

There is another IP user that used to have the accounts User:Dodo birds die, User:Dodo birds die4, User:Epicgenius2, Dodo birds die...etc. User was blocked in December multiple times for sock puppetry but, recently this month has come back abousing me and and my fellow ikipedian project member's talk and user pages. This user now uses IP.Doorknob747 (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can a admin please remove the User:Dodo birds die main User page. This account had been permanently blocked, and clearly that user is not going to have any use of that account again. Also, the rest of the sockpuppetry accounts have the user pages removed so why not this one? So can a Administrator please remove the main userpage of that account. Thank you in advance. Doorknob747 (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've replaced the contents of their User page with a {{Blocked}} tag instead. Hopefully this is satisfactory... --IJBall (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Links:

• Dodo birds die (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dodo birds die2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dodo bird die3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dodo birds die4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Epicgenius2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And here's the SPI investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dodo bird die3

Question: What's the IP address of the new version of this troll? --IJBall (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I also replaced the contents of the master's user page with a {{sockpuppeteer}} tag. Hopefully it's OK for non-Admins to do this... --IJBall (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: Please stop turning Wikipedia into a bureaucracy. It is obviously okay for a non-admin to do that. Also, you don't need to use that abysmally stupid {{Nacc}} every time you comment on this page. Regards. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I have no interest in misrepresenting myself as an Admin when I'm not one, which is why I generally self-label that way – those templates were created for a reason. Also I have no idea what you mean when you claim I'm "turning Wikipedia into a bureaucracy". --IJBall (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I have to disagree with the IP user, some admins really don't like nonadmin editors to template user pages as being sockpuppets. They prefer to leave that act to admins blocking the accounts or CUs or clerks at SPIs and sometimes they don't do it all. Maybe some admins can weigh in here. Bbb23? Mike V? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. I really would like to know if it's OK for non-Admin to add "sockpuppet" tags like this. --IJBall (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's my general opinion. If a user has been blocked.abusing multiple accounts, I don't really care who adds a tag as long as they know what they are doing and it will be useful. There is one exception which may be held widely. The userpages and categories of any sockpuppeteer who makes usernames or adds templates to get recognition and add themselves to these categories should be aggressively deleted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This conversation is where I saw this issue being discussed, IJBall. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Pinging those involved at the discussion that Liz referenced: @Bbb23: @Vanjagenije:) Well, I'm not planning on doing this very often (in this case, I only tagged those pages at the request of the original poster here). All that said, if this is indeed the case, then 1) it needs to be written in to policy formally, and 2) they need to revise the documentation involved with all of these templates to make clear that only Admins and Clerks should be using them (which is not the case with those templates' docs currently)... --IJBall (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

As long as that user does not comeback, I have no problems in what ever you people think of doing about this situation and those users. Also, what is this discussion over a sock puppetry tag? Also, if this vandal wikipeidia editor user ever comes back and vandalizes me or anyone of my fellow Wikipeidan's pages or talk pages, I am going to come back to this discussion and am going to get heavily involved in deciding what will be the final decision that will be taken for this situation, and this vandal user! Thank you, for, all of your support in advance. Doorknob747 (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Generally, non-admin/non-SPI clerks should not tagg userpages with any of the sock templates. Often, there's a reason why the page wasn't tagged, and that's best left to the discretion of those whose role it is to make the determination in the first instance. If you feel strongly that the page should have been tagged, i.e., it was inadvertent, then ask the blocking administrator or the person who handled the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• +1 to what Bbb23 said. Template:Sockpuppet#Usage has a version ({{sockpuppet}}) which can (but very very rarely) be used while an account under investigation but other than that the tags should be placed by admins/SPI clerks who take action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Callanec, please pay attention, or you're never going to make Arbitrator, which is clearly where you're heading -- we're no longer talking about the tags, we're now talking about what IP Doorknob747 was referring to at the to of this discussion. Be aware - Arbitrators have to be a bit sharper than you're showing yourself to be. I moved your comment up here to save you some embarrasement. BMK (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, I am still talking about the tags. And the point is, nowhere in the documentation of those tags does it say that only Admins or SPI Clerks should use them. Nor does this seem to be an official "policy", but a preference of SPI crew. Both of these things should probably change, if they don't want garden-variety editors to use them... --IJBall (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd be interested in knowing what IP it is that Doorknob747 (who's a bit of a disruptive editor himself - see the multiple edits here on AN/I, despite a topic ban placed on him 8 days ago by Floquenbeam from commenting on AN/I threads that don't concern him [73]) is accusing of being a sockpuppet, since I don't see that information above. Who is the IP who is supposedly a sock of Dodo birds die? BMK (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

2600:1017:B809:AE93:24F6:8DF5:75E5:981E There is another one. Note the other ip address will tell you how this one links to the other one which definitely links to the sock puppet. Doorknob747 (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

here is the other one 2600:1017:B800:4B55:24F6:8DF5:75E5:981E Doorknob747 (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Repeated copyright and BLP violations from editor

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

---

Barbie diamond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• BLP: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79],
• Copyright violations: See warnings on talk page and on Commons where she's been blocked once.

Despite all the "final warnings" editor has not used any talk page and continues to add copyright violations (last one a few hours ago). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours.  Philg88 ^♦talk 13:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure how effective 48 hours will be as they tend to edit weekly but I'll keep an eye on their future edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Philg88: If someone is repeatedly violating copyrights, then the necessary response isn't a slap on the wrist, it's an indefinite block. An individual who isn't respecting the copyrights of others is an ongoing danger to this project, and needs to be prevented from further editing until they clearly and positively indicate that they understand the problem. (Note that 'indefinite' isn't the same as 'permanent'. The block could be lifted in 1 hour if that's how long it took for the editor to demonstrate an understanding of the problem and undertake to avoid it going forward.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, extended to indef.  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Blocked IP socking

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

---

• 79.182.175.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• SadsadsdaA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:DUCK. Continues to edit after being asked to stop. [80], [81] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

IP User, Wikifiddling and refactoring talk page discussions on Crown colony

Some strange behaviour on the article Crown colony

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

IP has been removing/changing dates without explanation. He has been reverted by Jaaron95 and myself as it appears to be Wikifiddling. One of the dates he is changing is clearly wrong [82] and he has been corrected see Talk:Crown colony#British Nationality Act 1981. The other dates check out on daughter articles.

He has also repeatedly refactored the talk page discussion, variously removing my comments and changing the comment I replied to, in one case changing it to give the impression he'd added a source when he hadn't [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88].

Has been referenced to WP:TPG and warned twice previously but is continuing. WCM_email 09:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The IP has seemingly done the refactoring at the Talk page again (see here), though they are seemingly only removing their own Talk page comments, so it would seem that that isn't against policy (is it?...). --IJBall (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't normally be etiquette to refactor after someone has replied, in particular given he's now changed the comment I replied to the answer no longer makes sense. WCM_email 11:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that what this IP did in that last edit is against etiquette, I'm just not sure against guideline or policy. So, unless the IP returns to more vandalism-type editing (e.g. with the date changes), I'm not sure there's anything for ANI to do here... --IJBall (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[89] And his latest completely buggers up the talk page making it appear I replied to someone else and the context of my reply is completely out of kilter. This is simply being disruptive and as part of continuing pattern of disruptive edits needs effective action like a block. WCM_email 16:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the changes made are within the spirit of policy or good behaviour. WP:REDACT says, "[r]emoving or substantially altering a comment after someone else has replied may deprive the reply of its original context; however, leaving false text unrevised could be worse" and strongly recommends other less extreme methods of doing this, such as by using square brackets to explain changes, and by striking the comment.

This change alters the text significantly, including removing section headings and other markup in such a way as to suggest that WCM's comment actually applied to a completely different post. I think it is fair to say that by removing the context from WCM's post it reaches the point of misrepresenting WCM per WP:TPNO. Block-worthy? Not at this stage, per WP:BITE. But an admin note on policy on his talk or on the article talk page to push him in the right direction couldn't hurt. Kahastok talk 18:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

66.168.88.182

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

---

Hoping this is a quicky: 66.168.88.182 (talk · contribs) keeps making unsourced and unexplained edits, for example to PBS NewsHour here, here and here. History of disruptive editing on talk page, and no edits in talk space. I'm at 3RR, but I consider these obviously disruptive edits. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Recently returned from a three-month block by User:HJ Mitchell, I see. Supposedly dynamic, but it doesn't much look like it. I've blocked for six months. Bishonen | talk 18:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thanks B. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Talk:Gensophobia; Suspicious behavior

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

---

Hi, I've today noticed a simply beautiful page called "Gensophobia". I decided to post (as a joke) why it shouldn't be deleted. For humor. Shortly after, there's a mysterious swarm of IP addresses that are contesting deletion (along with the article's creator, Thefuryshoota). I don't think this is a coincidence. Is there some potential proxy editing going on? Thank you for your time. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This page is an insult to those of us who have a deep, irrational fear of the Global Educational Network for Satellite Operations (GENSO). See http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ for details. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

...what...the fuck is that zapatoni page? I don't even know what's going on here. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Definitely suspicious, the Latin is all wrong. On a more serious note, I deleted the article, but left the talk page for the time being, as its being discussed. My inclination would be to just leave the socking alone, maybe toss some warnings, but if they don't continue disruption, that should be enough. Monty₈₄₅ 00:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gensophobia is currently deleted. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Drjamesphillips

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

---

While doing the WP:New pages patrol, I encountered editor Drjamesphillips. What was interesting to me is that the same day he created his account, he placed the {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol2}} tag on his user page and started doing the WP:new pages patrol. It is very unusual that a newly registered editor even knows about the new pages patrol, not to say that a certain (high) level of experience is needed for that job. Just 18 minutes after the account was registered, he proposed an article for speedy deletion ([90]), but the article was kept because it actually does not fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion. I kindly asked Drjamesphillips on his talk page to explain how he came to know about the new pages patrol. He first gave me this answer, but than few minuets later removed the question and answer altogether [91]. The behavior of this user is obviously not useful to the project, because WP:NPP is highlt sensitive issue and requires competence. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2015

If you would like to point me at the guideline that forbids new users from doing this then I will delete my account. You seem to have a vendetta here and have been dogging me for the last day. I would appreciate it if I could be left to get on with this. I have helped with dozens of articles in the last few days. Some I have questioned on the chat forum. I think your behavior towards me as a new user is designed simply to discourage and the fact your messages failed to do so has made you decide to escalate the issue inappropriately.. Thankfully for me I am not a child that can be bullied. If however the site does not wish my help then I invite an independent admin to block it permanently within 7 days. If this has not been done I will take it that I have not broken any site rules Drjamesphillips (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

After giving it some thought I do not have any desire to participate in any site that has users that harrass and belittle new users in this way. Could an admin permanently block the account with immediate effect. Drjamesphillips (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Did this really have to go to AN/I? They might be new, but at least 90% of the edits (probably more) I've seen them make regarding New Pages has been absolutely fine. Just because a new person makes a few mistakes, why has this been escalated into such a big problem? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Joseph2302. Almost everyone here was pleasant and supportive but if it has users like Vanjagenije then it is not for me as it clearly rewards the wrong type of person. Enjoy your time on wikipedia. I will stick to real life editting from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.132.127 (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the person who raised this issue (Vanjagenije) should not be dealing with new users if they cannot do so in a sympathetic and understanding manner? I Work with James and it was I that suggested to him that the site would benefit from him working on the pages that related to his expertise. I am disappointed and frustrated with this.Lemlinspire (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Lemlinspire (talk · contribs), Drjamesphillips (talk · contribs) and Justhereforthefun (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed socks. This all seems vaguely familiar to me, but I can't put my finger on the master. Perhaps another cup of tea will help clear the cobwebs.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Why not also blocking 82.41.132.127 (talk · contribs)? It is obviously used by the same person. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If it is the same IP, it will already be autoblocked. As Virgin IPs in the UK tend to be fairly dynamic they can likely just cycle through to another IP or range anyway. All that being said, if any admin feels it would beneficial to block then feel free.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't anticipate that he was a sock but he clearly wasn't a new editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Cristinamolina12042

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

---

The user has been blocked for self-promoting, but is now using their talk page as a draft article, with massive unsourced BLP violations about celebrities they've (alledgedly) worked with. Please can someone remove talkpage access? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access removed, and all of that... stuff removed from talk page as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

ip editor vandalizing freddie gray death article

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

---

An IP editor keeps vandalizing the Freddie Gray death article with nonsense such as this, this and this. Make no mistake, this isn't an honest mistake on his part. The police incident today makes clear only one police cruiser was destroyed. Even if he hadn't read that, he had to know that his edit "Millions of police cruisers were destroyed" and "Reportedly, every known police cruiser in existence was destroyed" was false, nonsense, and vandalism. I thought the first time he made a mistake, but when I frequently explained it to him in the edit summary, he just kept at it. I'm thinking a block is in order – he evidently is just using Wikipedia to vandalize. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: He just did it again, and this time he's adding false quotes. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The article needs page protection stat. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism orgy in Olympiacos B.C.

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

---

I have already asked from the much esteemed admin Ronhjones to protect this page due to ongoing vandalism for months. These ip users: 77.69.114.74 and 46.176.157.125 are vandalizing the page continuously. I urge you to protect the page. Thank you so much for your attention. Gtrbolivar (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I'd recommend you go to WP:RPP and post your request there but there is quite a backlog of requests and it might get faster attention here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Generally unproductive editor

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

---

Factchecker atyourservice has engaged in two recent edit wars, his username differs from his signature, AND he's removed an editor's comment. Why hasn't anyone done anything?--A21sauce (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those two edits were really reverts, they were both pursuant to a talk page discussion and the second one was actually pursuant to an agreement formed in that discussion, and then the subsequent revert by a third editor seems to have been at least partially mistaken because he thought I was saying "condemned" when I was really saying "commended". Also, I didn't remove anybody's comments! Another user accidentally removed an IP's (generally unproductive) comment, and tried to get somebody to rollback, and then failing that reposted the comment himself. Eh. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

User isn't responding to me at my talk page or his and is going on making other edits to the article. I think if he tried to add diffs to the complaint he would realize he is mistaken, other than that not sure what's going on here. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

My bad, sorry to bother everyone.--A21sauce (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: A21sauce - It would be helpful if you provided links to the edits you find objectionable. Shearonink (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on television show related articles

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

---

Several IP users have been vandalizing several television show related articles, including 2014–15 United States network television schedule and 2015–16 United States network television schedule; among others, and replace some parts of those articles with Marlton School and many users, including me, have been reverting those vandalizing edits for a few months For example from the diffs.

2014-15

diff 1

diff 2

diff 3

diff 4

diff 5

diff 6

diff 7

diff 8

diff 9

diff 10

diff 11

2015-16

diff here

Other television related articles

diff 1

These vandalizing edits have to stop and I mean real soon. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Then better post at wp:rfpp soon and I mean real soon. 162.209.0.32 (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Here's a pretty how-de-do!

As close as I can tell, User:Arthur Bazikian was renamed to User:Barevhayer110 and then to User:Rockman1880.

The user moved their own User and User talk page to a certain degree. The name change also automatically moved them, overwriting the original pages. The user also performed a number of other page moves relating to these user names and:

• Rockman1886
• Rockman1887
• Rockman1889

In addition they moved User:Xhaoz/RC to User:Xtoz10 and blanked the page.

I would suggest that these changes should be undone.

The account seems to be a vandalism only account, and is blocked as such on Commons.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

I undid the redirects to the Rockman1886/1887/1889 pages. Since these didn't exist before the move, we can delete them under G6, correct? KrakatoaKatie 05:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well done. As long as they don't have hidden history, they can, and should be deleted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

Unsolicited Requests For Password Change

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

---

In the past couple of weeks I have received 3 e-mails from Wikipedia saying that I requested a password change (2 on 4/14/2015, and 1 today, 4/27/2015). I have made no such requests, and would like to find out who made these requests. How can I find out who is doing this and stop them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdpeng (talk • contribs) 14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hdpeng: It's really nothing to worry about if you didn't request it yourself. See here where I inquired about it a long time ago. - Amaury (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This happens to me a couple of times a month. I assume it's just an editor who I have annoyed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Warring upon an inadmissible closure

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

---

A non-admin Davey2010‎‎ (talk · contribs) speedily closed a deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Antony-Barber after a single day of discussion with delete votes.I reopened the discussion, voted delete since IMO it was clearly a nn case (explained), but the user reverted me. I additionally posted in his talk page that this premature closure is against the rules, but the user says he is doing fine and reverts me again. Please interfere. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean "please intervene", don't you? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I withdrew the AFD, You reverted it and then !voted and then proceeded to edit war over the closure just because I closed one of your AFDs as Speedy Keep - It's absolutely childish!, As I've now said for the third time you can either go to DRV or renominate it, I 100% stand behind the PAB closure which I believe is fine and within rules, I'll also admit I did call the user a "twat" in the closure which I apologize for (I tend to get frustrated easily unfortunately). –Davey2010^Talk 01:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You fail to see an important difference: I objected against keep-closure of the case where I voted keep, i.e., I was not pushing my POV in this AfD. Whereas you closed the AfD where some other person voted delete for an absolutely nonnotable third-rate actor with no references. Also, if you are being easily frustrateand uyou know this, then probably you have to avoid activities where you may be easily frustrated and thus decrease your ability to act rationally. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

My position is you have to right to speedy keep an AfD wherte there are "delete" votes and then make me jump through the hoops. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Davey, the problem is that you use speedy keep #1. That says "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection - perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." The bold part is the problem. Speedy Keep #1 only applies if there are only keep votes. Once someone other than the nominator says delete, it no longer applies. When you closed it someone else had said delete. -- GB fan 01:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, can you show us where the delete !vote was withdrawn? If there are any outstanding positions in favor of deletion, its not eligible for speedy close. Monty₈₄₅ 01:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Once there's a single delete !vote in there it becomes academic whether the nominator withdrew or not, they should wait for an admin to close, unless there's 20+ calls for snow keep in there. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reopened the AFD. -- GB fan 01:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

6 edit conflicts so far , That shouldn't of been there!, It should've said withdrawn - I'm so used to Speedying I guess I just forgot but then the obvious thing would've been for Stasek to notify me of my error as opposed to this. –Davey2010^Talk 01:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well as far as I knew Delete !votes or not you are are allowed to Withdraw at any given time ?, I've withdrawn more than once and no one's had any issues so not sure why it'd be one today but hey-ho "stuff" happens lol, Lesson learnt I suppose. –Davey2010^Talk 02:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, don't grief me; I did notify you in your talk page that you are violating policies. And I also wrote quite friendly that I have nothing against all other your non-admin speedy closures. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Your free to withdraw your support for deletion as nominator at any time, but as long as at least one other editor still supports deletion, it is not eligible for a speedy keep close. If every editor in favor of deletion including the nominator withdraw their positions, it may be speedy closed, but that is unusual. Monty₈₄₅ 02:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, speedy keep § 1 only applies to nominations with no outstanding delete votes. But, assume good faith should be invoked here. Also, part of the reason that it took so long is that WP:SK wasn't timely cited, a claim with proof is more credible. Esquivalience ^t 02:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well this person has been so active in AfD, it did not occur to me that I have to guide him by hand over the policies on the issue. My mistake. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dude you don't even know how to Ping without screwing it all up so I'd move on if I were you!, At the end of the day I withdrew and everyone was fine with it bar you, It's been reopened so all's good, Can someone close this monstrosity please?!. –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note to anyone who was notified that they were mentioned in this section, and doesn't understand why: You were referred to this section because when this section's creator created the section, rather than pinging Davey2010 with their username, they transcluded their whole user page by placing {{User:Davey2010}} instead, which transcluded their whole user page. So, most parties pinged here probably gave Davey2010 a barnstar at some point! Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal notice

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

---

User:Manuke7708 appears to be trying to contact legal at Talk:RKO Radio Network? Didn't know where else to report this, so placed it here. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 19:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: This is the correct place to report legal reports, however you must inform them when you do so. I'm informed them on your behalf. Seems like an implied legal threat to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

He seemed very upset with the deletions from this article. He was directing his comment to legal at Wikimedia, not threatening a lawsuit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Tort1001

• Tort1001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I already reported this user at UAA for their username, for impersonating Tort1201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but after this comment by 1001 I figured I should post about it here at ANI since it is not just a username issue. Here's the explanation I gave at UAA: "Violation of the username policy as a misleading username. Impersonating Tort1201. I believe they intended to actually pass themselves off as being 1201 and hoped no one would notice, for the purpose of making 1201 look bad. They're playing an exaggerated/bizarre version of who they believe 1201 is in real life (someone with a COI with regards to the articles they have edited, Phoenix Global and the Crime and Corruption Commission). This is kind of a serious matter and I hope Tort1001 can be hardblocked (and possibly checked for a sockmaster but I don't know if that's allowed, I know checkuser is not for fishing). If you need any more information, please ask."

I emailed 1201 and they confirmed that they did not make a new account. 1001 is making disruptive and unhelpful comments and I'm looking for permission to remove their comments (and replies) from Talk:Phoenix Global after the user has been blocked. There is no valuable content to be lost there, as their comments were non-constructive and most likely not sincere anyway. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Now he's just plain vandalizing the talk page. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding:Admins, please also look at User:Harleyxxx, they've put level 4 warning templates on Talk:Phoenix Global and tried (and failed) to put them on my user page too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've notified them of this discussion, and have warned them not to post on my talkpage (as I tend to do with vandals/spammers/sockpuppets). Also, could we have Talk:Phoenix Global semi-protected? Doesn't seem to have been any constructive new user/Ip content there, only massively disruptive. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Harleyxxx also tried putting the same broken warning on the talk page of another editor who had posted earlier on the PG talk page. I have no clue what it is that they're trying to do, but judging by their edit to the PG talk page it looks like they copied that warning from somewhere where *I* had warned someone (the piece of code at the end looks suspiciously like the beginning of my signature). I've absolutely no clue who they might be or what "side" they're on, but they did show up right after Tort1001's block. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and remove those posts now. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• comment: the Phoenix Global article remains the subject of editing by new users with strong POV; would love an admin or two to add it to your watchlists to tamp down the disruptive behavior. Kind of wild west-y there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like actual conversation about the contents of the article has died out, I wonder if it means that everyone's cool with it or if trouble will start again after full protection has expired. :/ I didn't really pay attention to the other recent content discussions except for the one about Zach F's website/company. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Keeping the article semi-protected might be a good idea, at least until the legal issues concerning employees of the company are resolved. 79616gr (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Huge number of edits with no summaries

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

---

Would someone be able to take a very quick look at the editing history of Coolidon (talk · contribs). There are so many edits coming from this user that I struggle to believe they are a human being and they might be causing some serious damage.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be that many edits (maybe 100 across 4 days) and they're spaced out with 2 or 3 minutes between most of them. My main concern is the addition of the fossil_range parameter to the infobox on most of the articles, as the info is unsourced. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

100 across 4 days seems okay, I agree with Lugnuts, the content isn't great. Also, they appear to now be spamming User talk:DrChrissy. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to post something on this user's talk page. He/She appears to be posting incorrect and/or uncited information in the fossil_range parameter of the taxobox. In some cases, the numbers appear to be made up or estimated, and in others (such as the one I just reverted at Orangutan, it appears to be based on the divergence date cited in the article. (For those not familiar with evolutionary biology, that's like saying the fossil range for Homo sapians is 7 million years to present.) I suspect all of these edits will need to be reverted. – Maky ^« talk » 18:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of the rapidity of the edits made today. Of course it is not an offence to make too many edits in one day, but I am concerned that verifiability and accuracy might not be adhered to.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, I've been assuming good faith up until now, reverting bad edits on the pages I watch, but after seeing these edits on DrChrissy's talk page, I suspect this user is a troll. The use of bad English and spamming is a very common trolling tactic to elicit heated debates. – Maky ^« talk » 18:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Definitely seems human to me, but looks like a troll. Now trolling User talk:EdJohnston. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC) And my talkpage too. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

to which Coolidon responded with this, for which i warned him. self-destruction going on now. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

i have all the right to edit pages!!! Coolidon (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but life isn't fair. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you keep throwing tantrums and attacking editors, you won't for long. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I recommend you read WP:YOUNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

im gonna stop with wikipedia. and im going to vandalize Wild Ones Wiki. Coolidon (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Can this be considered a WP:NOTHERE statement then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So you admit to being a vandal then? I guess WP:NOTHERE is so appropriate. I'm in favour of rolling back all their edits. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That would appear to be the option with the least work and risk, and I can't say it's the wrong option, though I'm still capable of pretending that we're just dealing with a kid who wants to help but doesn't know how. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I am too but from what I have seen I am leaning towards someone who is not interested in working with others. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Rollbacked all their edits- lots of them seemed they needed a source, and quite a lot were messing round with syntaxes, making text small etc.. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay good and FYI to all User:Zad68 indeffed Coolidon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Indef was required to stop disruption. He's still talking on his User Talk, my AGF-o-meter isn't totally buried at zero just quite yet. Zad68 19:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Mine went up here, it is a plus that the editor is communicating in a positive way but still have WP:CIR in mind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

They admitted they were just guessing on all their edits, and have yet to demonstrate that they've even bothered opening the links. I'm becoming convinced they're just looking for attention. Mildly tempted to log onto Wikia to contact them about incoming. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I stopped replying after the last fossils comment, it appears that is the only reason why the user feels they were blocked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Babestress

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

---

I blocked them indefinitely, and, after trying to modify my words, they now directly promise to report me to the police [92]. I am afraid they need their talk page access removed. If someone thinks the block is not good they are also welcome to deal with the user (including unblock), this would be fine with me. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Saying you are going to contact the police over a supposed case of "cyberbullying" is an empty threat, but it is still a threat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I can only imagine the laughter from the police officer on the other end of that conversation. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Removed tpa, cleaned up their renewed insertions above your sig. Have you been "done" yet? Bishonen | talk 12:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

  Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The actual "cyberbullying" ("I suggest you find a mentor (not me) who would be willing to correct all the bullshit you produce, and then file an unblock request explaining how you are going to change your editing style.") was actually quite mild. If someone is so thin-skinned that they feel a need to report something like that to the police, they should throw away their computer and never access the Internet again. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not takin' me alive, copper! BLAMM!! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Request at least a 1 week block for continued vandalism despite multiple warnings

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

---

An IP editor, 64.233.173.149, has been repeatedly vandalizing articles on Wikipedia (and, with this latest edit, he's tossed in a little soapboxing as well), despite repeated warnings to stop. By my count, he's gotten well over 10 warnings for his vandalism and unconstructive edits, yet he still continues to make these ill-advised edits. This editor's already been blocked for 24 hours. I think a 1 week block is needed to show the person that Wikipedia is serious about its rules. Thank you. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, clear vandalism-only behavior, that gets a 48 hour block, with a much longer one if they return to that behavior in a couple of days.

HydrocityFerocity, for your information, the usual best place for these types of reports is the Administrator's noticeboard for Vandalism, but it's not wrong to have come here. We can deal with it from here.

Thanks for reporting. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism at Masta Wu (rapper)

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

---

A few days ago, the article Masta Wu went through AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masta Wu). The reason was that the article was largely a collection of meaningless gibberish probably created by machine translation from Korean. Normally I'd take the time to clean up a bad translation, but this article was so badly translated that no useful meaning could be gleaned. The AFD resulted in a keep decision when an editor trudged through the article history to find an actually usable version of the article; the bad translation had come later. Once the AFD closed and the older version of the article was restored, a crop of sockpuppets arrived to try to restore the newer, badly translated version. One member of the sock farm contacted me to try to lobby for the newer version, claiming that there is a cabal of anti-KPop editors trying to suppress information at en.wiki. I declined the user's request to restore the bad version, but instead invited them to provide a better translation (as their English, as evidenced on my talk page, appears rather good). The user chose not to accept my invitation to do so.

Fast foward a few days, and we now have a new batch of socks creating a new page at Masta Wu (rapper), recreating the truly poor translation that was the original source of the problem. The article has been tagged for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#A10, a duplicate of the existing Masta Wu), but the deletion tag has been repeatedly removed, first by the original author (Twistaboy222 (talk · contribs)) and later by a new user (Moussefbgfbg (talk · contribs)). Both of these users have been reported as socks at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaise kaise.

Also beginning today, we have a different set of users futzing with the original Masta Wu aticle, repeatedly adding {{good article}} and {{pp}} tags, none of which apply. These have also been added to the SPI.

I think the new Masta Wu (rapper) article needs to be deleted (an possibly salted) and the Masta Wu article protected. (I've put a request at WP:RPP, but I'm not sure what the backlog is there.) I'd also like to see a quick resolution of the SPI, or at least behavioral blocks on Kazandre (talk · contribs), Twistaboy222 (talk · contribs), 188.238.192.38 (talk · contribs), Younmasta (talk · contribs). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Some supporting comments: The main article was protected a few days ago for the above reasons. The "rapper" fork was created 3 times during the span of the protection, the latest iteration containing the poor translation. (The others were deleted as copyvios, so I can't see what was in them.). The "rapper" fork has now been redirected to the main article, and has already been undone once. Crow^Caw 22:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• [edit conflict with Crow] I deleted the (rapper) redirect and then restored just the revision where someone made it a redirect: it's fine as a redirect, and if people start causing problems, it can be protected. I've also semiprotected the article, since it looks like all the problems are coming from IPs and non-confirmed users. I'll now check into the SPI and blocks. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked the IP for 48 hours and the users indefinitely. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you WikiDan, and thank you especially Nyttend. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP User

I have come across a user who keeps adding unsourced and questionable material to video game and movie-related articles. I initially warned the editor to stop introducing unsourced material. The user seemingly returned with another but similar IP address and began re-adding the content I removed:

The initial editor I warned:

• 128.231.237.8 (talk · contribs)

I then noticed similar edits in the History/Revision log of each article from similar IP address.

• 128.231.237.4 (talk · contribs)
• 128.231.237.5 (talk · contribs)
• 128.231.237.6 (talk · contribs)
• 128.231.237.7 (talk · contribs)

All IPs belong to the same organization and are quite possibly the same user. Maybe I'm wrong and everyone at National Institute of Health likes editing movie and video game articles. Please advise. Thanks! --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Unusual! Of course it's the same user, per WP:DUCK, but they form the smallest range I've ever seen editing a wiki article — 8 IPs. Since they are different IPs, each with a separate user talkpage, they probably haven't seen your warning, and would be very difficult for me to talk to as well. Instead, I've blocked the tiny 128.231.237.0/29 range for disruptive editing; I think the person will see the block log, and I've put a recommendation in it to create an account for the purpose of communication. (I've left the "Block account creation" unticked so they can.) Feel free to let me know on my page if you should see them expand into the largesse of a /28 range or so. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC).

This sort of IP definition could be a static pool of shared computers, such as a classroom or workshop. It would not be unusual for an editor to be taking a "space available" PC in a shared environment in a hospital recovery wing or rehab center. Not that it really adds anything to the discussion; just looking at the pattern. ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate it, ScrapIronIV, I was wondering what such a small range could represent. (I don't really understand ranges or rangeblocks, I do them with a lot of help behind the scenes.) One person moving between different computers all in the one room, then. In the hope of confusing, or simply as one machine or another became available for use, who knows? Bishonen | talk 22:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC).

While the other IPs were blocked, 128.231.237.8 (talk · contribs) seems to be continuing to edit – is there any evidence that they've gotten the message?... --IJBall (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a page protection on the impacted articles would be appropriate. Perhaps that would encourage the registration of an account, so we could communicate with them. The edits seem to be in good faith, just a bit overzealous. ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I made a mistake: 128.231.237.4, 128.231.237.5, 128.231.237.6, 128.231.237.7 and 128.231.237.8 is not a /29 range but a /28 (still very small). That's why number 8 has been free to roam. See, this is what happens when idiot admins like me make rangeblocks. (I only do them because too few people do.) I've changed the block to reflect this, and also extended it to a week, since they don't seem to have learned anything from the 48 hours. I'd rather not semi, too many articles. ScrapIronIV, I agree they may well be in good faith, but they can really hardly avoid seeing my block rationale urging them to create an account: it comes up every time one of the blocked IPs tries to edit. IJBall, I don't think they could have not got the message, some time when they tried using one of the other machines. It's all the same person. Bishonen | talk 20:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC).

Well, I would not categorize an error an "idiot admin" action. That sounds like a self directed personal attack (insert smile here) I appreciate the fact that you take action - and I haven't seen any hint of your self accusation being warranted. You seem like one of the "good 'uns." ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen: you got all of them in the 128.231.237.0/24 range (I widened the range to see if there were any other subnets also active). After looking, I also found this same editor is also using the same /28 grouping within the 137.187.241.0/24 range. This is also a NIH network.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Touching this thread to keep it alive until Bish sees it. Maybe 'Zilla carried her off for the weekend.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

She did, yes, in her pocket. Nothing I could do about it. I had a lovely weekend, actually. Berean Hunter, are you saying there would be a point in blocking the whole 128.231.237.0/24? But why? Don't I get all those IPs in the same way with a 128.231.237.0/28 block? Please explain in words of one syllable. [/me thinks about IP ranges and wrings her hands a bit.] I don't see any recent obviously disruptive edits from 137.187.241.0/24; do you think it should be blocked? Bishonen | talk 17:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC).

I was showing the /24 ranges specifically to illustrate that only the /28 portion of both networks have been editing anonymously...just the lowest 8 addresses out of 250+ available. I was adding to your comments above where you were wondering why such a small subset of addresses were being used. Somebody has subnetworked small groups probably for administration and security purposes. The 137.187.241.0/28 range is what I'd block. That is your blocked editor...every edit in that range is theirs. I don't see any collateral damage. This edit on Friday is him on one of the same target articles. They have used most of those addresses persistently up to April 20 except for the one on the 24th so yes, they are quite active. Leaving that range open allows for block evasion. You may try checking the results on the link for 137.187.241.0/28 tomorrow. They seem to edit Mon-Fri. Any edit you see dated on the 27th will likely be block evasion...that and they are essentially refusing to communicate with other editors.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen: They used 137.187.241.4, 137.187.241.5, and 137.187.241.8 today. Compare this from your blocked editor with this edit to see that it is a duck.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Berean Hunter. I've extended 128.231.237.0/28's block to a month for block evasion, and given 137.187.241.0/28 the same. I'm still allowing them to create an account, but it's beginning to look a little unlikely. Bishonen | talk 11:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

  @StarScream1007:I would suggest that every IP from that Organisation that has added "unsourced and questionable material" have an appropriate Shared IP template placed on the talkpage so they know, we know, where to find them. Just kidding (mostly) I wonder if it might be a kid in a hospital? 220 of ^Borg 02:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I would genuinely feel awful if this was a kid in the hospital. I believe the NIH specializes in medical research as opposed to treatment, but I could be wrong. I wonder how their organization NATs their IP addresses. My place of work has a 147.126.0.0/16 range. When a user edits Wikipedia, their IP shows up as 147.126.16.x, where the last octet of the IP address is the ID number of the VLAN they are connected too on our campus. A co-worker of mine used this to his advantage when his IP kept getting blocked on a gaming server - he kept logged into our network switch, changed his VLAN, and thus changed his public facing IP. This worked well until they blocked our entire /16. I have also noticed this IP address try to make a similar edit yesterday 173.73.55.151 (talk · contribs), which seems to be from a Verizon Fios Hotspot. Thank you all for your continued help and suggestions. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I added that comment before I took a close look at the National Institutes of Health page. However, for research, they likely need human 'guinea pigs' for testing. I haven't looked a the edits closely, but the topics seem to me more the type things a younger editor would be interested in, i.e. the Metroid video games. Perhaps someone's 'borrowing' their WiFi from the car park!
• Umm, I just noticed the IP editors concerned haven't received an {{ANI-notice}}. 220 of ^Borg 04:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

-.4, -.5. -.6, -.7 and -.8 all notified now. But as they are all 'rangeblocked' it may be a moot point! At least they will see the notice. 220 of ^Borg 04:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

The blocked user Starworks Media Group has made a legal threat on their talk page; their talk page access may need to be removed. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've had a word. Hopefully that will calm them down a bit and get the threat retracted. I don't think any admin gets any jollies from wielding the turn-off-talkpage-hammer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you; I didn't mean to look like I was asking for the access to be removed, just that attention was needed. Thanks again 331dot (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Now spam-blocked by Dianna. BMK (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Regarding Myself

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

---

@5 albert square: , @Smalljim: Respected All the Wikipedia Administrators, I am Mriduls.sharma who is blocked for personal attacks and harassment towards the User@Krimuk90:. I am very short tempered and aggressive guy who got angry with Krimuk90 he/she didn't reply politely and started getting rude when he/she said stop ruining my talk page alignment. I was new to this site and I don't know anything about this site. Then I also became aggressive because of his/her rudeness towards me. I know I abused him/her lot of times because he/she put me in socket puppet investigation and also blocked me indefinitely because of abusing him/her. I didn't hack his/her account I just reset his/her password because he/she was troubling me and not accepting my edits in actor Arjun Kapoor's article because he/she was saying you are adding wrong height information. He/She must have explained me that which is right or which is wrong. Now a don't want to do any Socketpuppetry or harass this user with my Ip's. I just want to say sorry to this user @Krimuk90: aka Smarojit. I also just want all the administrators who know my case should change my block settings and expire the block in june 2017 or july 2018. This is because please give years time to improve. From: Mridul Sharma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.243.240 (talk • contribs)

You don't get to make up arbitrary terms, like "My block should be ended at this point". Joseph2302 (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Mriduls.sharma, in your unblock request in December, you said that your account was hacked and since then, you've been found guilty of sockpuppeting. A simple "Unblock me, please" request is insufficient for you to get unblocked. You need to stop creating sockpuppet accounts and request an unblock from your original account, explain the reasons for your block and how your behavior will change if you were to be unblocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't hack his/her account I just reset his/her password. What does that mean? How can you change someone's password unless you have access to their computer or you hack their account via hacking their original password? Please explain. Also, you have been confirmed as abusing several sockpuppet accounts, as well as having been blocked three times for personal attacks and harrassment. Given all of that, it is highly unlikely you will be allowed back on to Wikipedia. Move on, find another interest/outlet. Softlavender (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe they mean that they used the reset password function to send an email to the email account registered against the WP account. Blackmane (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we allow blocked users to log out and edit ANI as IP users? Especially if the purpose is to bypass the normal block appeal process?

"If you block my ip then i will get a new ip because my ip address is dynamic"[93]

User talk:Mriduls.sharma

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mriduls.sharma/Archive

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865#The harassment continues

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mriduls.sharma

User:Mridulsharma29/sandbox

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Guy, are you suggesting that queries from blocked editors should be summarily removed from ANI when they are identified? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If they recieved the normal notice[94] which refers them to Wikipedia:Appealing a block, then yes. That page clearly states

"Should I create a new account to appeal?

No. That is considered evasion. You get a lot of marks on Wikipedia for being honest and not "playing games". You'll do far better to appeal under your usual account (and take the block if that's what is decided) than to be banned for evasion.

Wikipedia has users who were blocked for days or months, accepted it, and were welcomed back and "made good" as respected editors shortly afterwards. Once a block is over, it's over.

If blocked you can usually appeal on your talk page, which is only blocked if abused. If you cannot edit your talk page then you must appeal via the Unblock Ticket Request System or by emailing the Arbitration Committee."

and

"The preferred way to appeal a block is to use the unblock template, but you can also contact the blocking administrator via email to request unblocking or alternatively submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System."

If logging out and posting to ANI is allowed as a method of appealing a block, then Wikipedia:Appealing a block should be edited to reflect that fact. The last thing we want to do is to send blocked users the message that they are free to ignore the instructions we gave them for appealing a block and to invent creative new methods of appealing. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. Talk pages are where block appeals go. If talk page access has been shut off, then UTRS is the pathway. If an editor wants to talk to the community, they can contact the blocking admin by e-mail, or any admin they trust, and ask to have TPA temporarily restored so that an appeal can be made on the talk page and transferred to AN/I by another editor. Depending on the case, blocked editors are sometimes temporarily unblocked in order to post on AN/I, with the understanding that this is the only place they can post. All of these options are available -- evading the block by using an IP is not a viable option, and the IP doing so should be temp blocked immediately. BMK (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit warring and manipulating a discussion by User:AHLM13 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washiqur Rahman Babu

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

---

User:AHLM13 repeatedly deleted a comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Washiqur_Rahman_Babu from User:Merchant of Asia. It appears that this user since then has been blocked indefinitely. In my opinion no reason to delete a good faith comment on an ongoing discussion page. I couldn't find evidence of using multiple accounts by Merchant of Asia on this discussion page. From the accounts listed in Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bazaan only Merchant of Asia contributed to the discussion. Otto (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It is entirely legitimate to delete !votes from sockpuppets. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Guy(JzG) said it already. Let's put it another way: Bazaan is blocked from editing for many days, thus commenting on AfDs. Merchant of Asia is Bazzan. Hence, Merchant of Asia's edits can be reverted anywhere. –nafSadh did say 03:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

After i mentioned that he was canvassing on other user's talk page, he started using ethnic names. Another user mentioned the same thing there. C E (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Copyright concerns at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa

I would welcome input regarding the material at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa#Other sources and possible violation of copyright by apparent inclusion of the full text of multiple copyrighted encyclopedia articles there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:CP might be a better venue for this. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation. Brief quotes from a selection of encyclopedias that are relevant to the discussion is fair use. This is just a tactic to interrupt an ongoing RfC. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please block John Carter for this blatant WP:WIKILAWYERing? He has been spending the last month or so trying to get me blocked, and now is making completely bogus accusations that quoting between 4% and 10% of several encyclopedia articles (the portions of those articles with the remotest relevance to the current dispute) is a copyright violation. Anyone who actually read the quotations would know that they couldn't possibly be any more than brief quotations, and even those who don't read Japanese can clearly see the ellipses. John Carter is not only assuming bad faith on this point, but actively searching for excuses to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I am rather amazed that someone thinks this would merit a block, even before the requested uninvolved review is clearly made, which it has not been yet. Such a presumptuous rush to judgment is certainly a cause for concern. I particularly note that, as per material I recently found rather easily on the internet, there does seem to be what some might not unreasonably describe as a perhaps distorted view of the subject of the article, and that perhaps some individuals might be trying to cast a modern national hero in what some might call a form of whitewashing. I am truly amazed myself in what seems to me to be perhaps a rather obviously deficient effort to even check Google for relevant sources, several of which I have found rather easily. Curioser and curioser. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: The quotes are small portions of those articles, and to even think that a fair use quote constitutes a copyright violation is either a blatant competence issue or playing dirty to "win" this dispute, both of which more than merits a block. Your dubious beliefs about what a copyright violation is in itself a cause for concern. You should read up at WP:CP#Handling previously published text on Wikipedia since it says in black and white that I'm allowed to post brief quotes from copyrighted material. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I did the same exact thing last January, and no one -- not the user with whom I was arguing at the time, nor the other user who joined in to oppose me later, nor the block-evading sock-IP who kept trying to derail the discussion, nor the other three or four users who specifically commented on the issue in my favour (including one who specifically commented on the quotations and later one admin), nor the other admin who posted several times immediately following my post but was not directly involved in the content dispute -- ever even thought to call what I did a "copyright violation".

Also, Warlord of Mars, you specifically said that there was a copyright concern if those were the full length articles rather than select quotations relevant to the dispute. I specifically responded two-and-a-half hours later telling you that they were select quotations of the relevant sentences, and in my post above I specifically pointed out the ellipses (seriously, you can Ctrl+F "[…]" on the page right now and see them for yourself). Why have you not withdrawn this "request for input" yet? Or is your concern not so much that copyright might have been violated (you already know it hasn't) but that the Kenji dispute might wind down before you've got me blocked for one imagined slight or another? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And you "checked Google" and found a total of one source that by your own admission you haven't checked yet. And within ten minutes of you mentioning said source on the talk page I found a review that I also haven't checked yet but whose title seems to indicate your source could have problems when used in an article about a popular children's writer. But anyway, we're still waiting on you regaling us with all the rich and juicy discussion of Kenji's nationalist agenda and its influence on his writings it provides. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, WP:F states that Wikipedia editors are allowed use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. If we are going to be nitpicky as John Carter is, then we might examine the word "brief". WP:CP's summary of the policy chooses to italicize this word for emphasis. John Carter chose to call the quotes presented by me and Sturmgewehr88 potential copyright violations, but ignored the by-no-means-brief quotations provided by another user immediately above. The longest of Sturmgewehr/Hijiri's quotations was 229 (220 minus the "[…]"s) characters of Japanese text; I don't have a digitized copy of the whole article, but it was roughly 105 columns of roughly 26 characters each; that's probably less than 10% of the article in question. The longer of the other user's quotes is 671 words, compromising more than a full page of this article; what's more, it's a doctored quotation -- most of it is taken from pp312-313, with a paragraph added in from p328 and no indication of such; and the other user's quotes were also unnecessary, since both those articles are available online, had already been linked numerous times in the discussion, and several involved users had indicated that they had already read them; the majority of the shorter quotation had nothing to do with the subject of the article.

Note that I don't think that user did anything wrong (except for possibly altering the quotation without indicating such). I specify that this is only if we are going to be nitpicky as John Carter is nitpicky. But why did John Carter choose to accuse me and Sturmgewehr of copyright violation and not treat Ubikwit the same way? Why the double standard? It's clearly because he is wikilawyering and trying to find any excuse to start a fight with me and, to a lesser extent, Sturmgewehr. He is also forum-shopping by opening two ANI threads on the same topic at the same time.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Any block of John Carter would be punitive here, rather than preventative. However, he deserves a trout and a warning for his bad-faith wikilawyering. Shii (tock) 07:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

46.177.166.134 Disruptive editing, no dialogue or justification, violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule in Olympiacos Women's Water Polo Team article

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

---

As you can see here: [95], [96], [97] this ip user violated the three-revert rule by making disruptive, unjustified and unexplained edits (he wants to impose his version or who knows what), despite my clear explanation after reverting his second edit. I am looking forward to your help, thank you so much for your attention. Gtrbolivar (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Gtrbolivar, there is a noticeboard that focuses on edit warring at WP:ANEW where you might want to move your request there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz I'll post it there as well. Gtrbolivar (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Liz I made the post on both pages but I haven't see any reaction so far. Gtrbolivar (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's common for there to be backlogs at some of these maintenance areas...we don't have enough active admins, I think. But someone will get to it in the next 12 hours, I bet. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's unfortunate that you didn't format your request at WP:ANEW appropriately. This case is still unresolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Refusal to accept consensus and warring

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

---

User:Neuroscience325 a.k.a. User:Biotheoretician a.k.a. a whole bunch of different IP addresses has been trying to insert pro-fringe material into the PEAR article since at least early December if not earlier. He pops up every so often, pulls a fast one, and promptly gets reverted. He seems to think that if he does this enough then people will eventually get tired of reverting him and will let him have his way.

Complicating the situation is the fact that he is impossible to talk to because any attempt at communication is met with fantastically longwinded screeds about the evils of pseudoskeptics, closed-minded scientists, and other malarkey that no reasonable person cares about.

Could one of you administrators do something to stop Neuroscience325 from continuing to molest the PEAR article? User:Manul’s attempt at reasoning with him was unsuccessful, and I don’t think that any of the other editors are willing to give it a try. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to do no such thing--my only goal is to improve the factual quality of the PEAR article, which in its present state is abysmal. The PEAR article had major problems long before I ever touched it and is still plagued by editors who simply have not read the relevant sources, have personal biases against parapsychology, and generally do not understand the history that lead to the founding of PEAR.

If you'll note, I'm basically the only Wikipedia user doing any sort of research for the PEAR article at present:

[98]

[99]

[100]

I have done my very best to be more than forthright on the PEAR talk page, and any users who have a problem with the sort of edits I've made are more than free to express their concerns on the talk page or to me personally in email or through my user page--in fact, I encourage it.

PEAR was run by Robert Jahn, Princeton's former Dean of Engineering and Applied Science, funded by aerospace pioneer James S. McDonnell. As it currently stands, the group is made to sound like a bunch of fools too stupid to understand how the scientific method works: this is defamatory, poor editorial works that needs to be remedied.

As I wrote on the PEAR talk page,

Since the SRI article mentions the successful publications that Puthoff and his associates got into mainstream academic journals, I think it's also fair that this PEAR article mention the couple of successful papers that Jahn and his associates have managed to publish in peer-reviewed journals.

Is mentioning the publications of major physics journals and Ivy League-educated physicists somehow "pro-fringe" as 76.107.171.90 seems to claim?

Is this really an unreasonable goal for the PEAR article--the utilization of historical facts rather than the passing commentaries of ideologues with no relevant scientific training (i.e., Robert Park)?

"He seems to think that if he does this enough then people will eventually get tired of reverting him and will let him have his way."

This simply is not true. These past months have taught me that none of you will let me have my way unless I construct a careful historical argument and really invest myself into PEAR's research to craft well-written and historical content--which I've done.

For example, TheRedPenOfDoom (who has himself been destroying all improvements I and others have made to the PEAR page for many months) removed the entire History section I added to the PEAR article after I fixed it up, which added a much needed discussion of Jahn and Dunne's background, without offering any insightful commentary on the matter--he just removed it and didn't deal with the fallout of his action whatsoever.

[101]

This is the irreverent attitude taken by almost all Wikipedia editors to PEAR--it's weird, I don't understand it...so I'm just going to hack it to pieces and call it a day. This is poor and sloppy editorial work, completely divorced from any reasonable definition of rational skepticism.

Because I don't accept this attitude and I claim we ought to critically analyze the sources (i.e., CSICOP and the New York Times), it seems I've upset some of the more materialistically-minded Wikipedians. But unlike most of the other editors of the PEAR article, I actually own all three of Bob Jahn's books, have bothered to listen to what the man himself says, and have studied the pre-PEAR history of parapsychology extensively. For that, I do not apologize.

"He pops up every so often, pulls a fast one, and promptly gets reverted."

Since we're having this discussion right here and now and my changes to the PEAR page have in so many cases been reverted, I don't think this qualifies as "pulling a fast one". If anything, I'd call it making a serious attempt at improving the sourcing for an article on an academic project that people such as yourself have destroyed for no other reason than sloth and anti-intellectualism. The fact that I'm at present perhaps the only meaningful contributor on the PEAR talk page underscore this point perfectly--I actually care about PEAR and want to see a reasonably well-functioning and well put-together, historic, and encyclopedic Wikipedia article on PEAR. Whereas you dislike PEAR from the outset and want to vandalize--erm, prevent--all attempts to actually improve on what every other Wikipedia editor has hitherto failed to do: namely, to construct a historical article on Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research.

"Refusal to accept consensus and warring"

It sounds like you're saying I ought to be intimidated by the anti-psi status quo and you're angry that I'm not. As I wrote on the PEAR talk page:

Certainly if not at Princeton then on the West Coast at Stanford and Berkeley there is an actual academic following for this sort of thing [parapsychology]. Are you disputing this as a fact?

Neuroscience325 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

These experiments were of great importance for many years among parapsychology research. Unlike almost all such research, it was being conducted by established people using modern instrumentation and sophisticated analysis. I think it is fair to say that at the time this was the major challenge to the conventional scientific view of these reported phenomena. With respect to sourcing, Journal of Scientific Exploration, was specifically formed to publish material that nobody else would publish, and Foundations of Physics has taken pretty much the same approach. My personal view is that it is good such journals are published, but we do need some way of indicating they are a little different from others.

Therefore, I think these experiments are important enough that the history section proposed does belong in the article. It is well enough documented that such is indeed the history. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

DGG, please don’t derail the thread by discussing article content. This is a conduct issue not a content issue. If you want to talk about the PEAR article then you can do so at Talk:Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The user user:Robert McClenon told me that my above reply was too wordy and incomprehensible, so I'll try for brevity (although I'm sure why you can all sympathize with my distaste for being told I must "accept consensus" by an anonymous IP--it's very annoying and off-putting and upsetting).

As it currently stands the PEAR article suffers from numerous problems--principally, it lacks a proper history of PEAR (and especially of lab director Dr. Robert Jahn and lab manager Ms. Brenda Dunne), and the article's assertions (particularly the anti-PEAR ones) come from sources that are wildly insufficient to demonstrate a scholarly consensus and do not come close to addressing the scope of PEAR's research.

It is unencyclopedic to use CSICOP (the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) as a source--the group was founded by anti-psi skeptics like James Randi in the 1970s for the specific aim of discrediting Hal Puthoff (who had millions in parapsychology contracts with the CIA, Air Force, etc., all funded for 20+ years on taxpayer dollars) and his parapsychology research at SRI International and Project Stargate (though the full extent of Stargate was not known until the 1990s). Because PEAR was in part founded to replicate the remote viewing research done at SRI (this was a big part of Dunne's contribution to the lab), it makes no sense to cite groups like the CSICOP (now renamed the "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry") as either unbiased or scholarly (which the current Wikipedia editors have chosen to do)--they are an ideologically motivated anti-psi group of scientists just as PEAR and the Global Consciousness Project are run by scientists who are ideologically motivated and pro-psi.

[102]

[103]

[104]

Psi researcher Rupert Sheldrake--a professor at Schumacher College and Biochemistry Ph.D. from Cambridge University--has noted how his own Wikipedia page has been vandalized and attacked by Randi and Dawkins type individuals who haven't bothered to study the first thing about his sort of research. It is my allegation that the same thing has happened to the PEAR page, which was originally written by unabashedly pro-PEAR individuals (if not members of PEAR itself) with an obvious though not necessarily undue pro-psi slant.

[105]

[106]

The current article openly calls PEAR pseudoscience even though it was run by some very smart people out of Princeton University School of Engineering and Applied Science and there is no good reason to believe anything about the lab was improper--other than the fact that some academics find parapsychology personally offensive. This is simply inexcusable behavior from Wikipedia editors and doesn't make any sense, and when I point this out in no unambiguous terms, people get mad at me and come crying to the administration. And I don't understand that either.

Nobel Prize winners like Brian Josephson and Wolfgang Pauli have supported psi research, and it is from men like these and the engineers who came after them (i.e., Puthoff, Targ, and others) that Robert Jahn, Princeton University's former Dean of Engineering, found his inspiration.

Indeed, Jahn’s own interest in testing for evidence of such “anomalous” interactions between mind and machine stemmed from his efforts to replicate experimental work done in the late 1960s by a fellow plasma physicist, the German Helmut Schmidt, then employed as a research scientist at Boeing.2 Schmidt appeared to have demonstrated that a particular experimental subject had the capacity to guess numbers generated by a randomizing algorithm at a rate considerably outside the calculated margins of probability.

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/34/burnett.php

Jack Houck retired after 42 years of being a systems engineer for Boeing, the aerospace company. He had an MS degree in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering from the University of Michigan. Independently, he is a researcher of paranormal phenomena. Jack is the originator of Psychokinesis (PK) Parties, and is recognized as one of the foremost authorities in the world on the subject. He has given more than 360 of these workshops to over 17,000 people during the last 23 years, and maintained meticulous records on them.

[107]

[108]

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research was itself funded by aviation pioneer James S. McDonnell through his James S. McDonnell Foundation--McDonnell Douglas itself was later sold to Boeing.

[109]

Whatever a couple armchair philosophizing Wikipedia editors don't like about PEAR--"it's claptrap", "it's pseudoscience", "it's woo"--really isn't my problem. I'm a cognitive science major at college (studying psychology, AI, and philosophy), and PEAR is relevant to my field. Its encyclopedia article ought to actually discuss the topic critically rather than parrot the opinions of James Randi, Robert Park, and Stanley Jeffers. If there isn't a chance these men could admit psi might exist, then they aren't acting as scientists, they are acting as ideologues. That isn't to say they aren't intelligent or their opinion isn't worth considering, but the PEAR article needs to be more aware of the failings of its own sourcing.

I've been accused of "trying to insert pro-fringe material" into the PEAR article, but I don't believe I've done any such thing. This is history, plain and simply, and the PEAR article ought to acknowledge this FACTUAL information. That other people are uncomfortable with PEAR really isn't my problem--this was major research that costed many millions of dollars and was done at the top of the top of the Ivy League for 28 years.

Neuroscience325 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Its encyclopedia article ought to actually discuss the topic critically rather than parrot the opinions of James Randi, Robert Park, and Stanley Jeffers. is a clear description of where you go completely off the rails. Wikipedia in fact MUST "parrot" the sources that represent the mainstream academic view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There isn't any such thing as a mainstream view when it comes to parapsychology. The PEAR article is in its present state heavily vandalized, as are basically all other articles involving intelligent and mainstream physicists with respect to psi phenomena.

Simply being able to conjure anti-psi physicists is no feat. Here are some pro-psi physicists, each of them closely related to either the Fundamental Fysiks Group of UC Berkeley, SRI International for which the Fundamental Fysiks Group did much work and which was in part the initial catalyst of PEAR's research, or Maharishi University of Management in the case of John Hagelin, whose research on Transcendental Meditation and random event generators has been picked up by former PEAR researcher Dean Radin)--so you can bet each of them and each of their work are known to Jahn and the rest of the PEAR team.

David_Bohm

Fritjof_Capra

Fred_Alan_Wolf

Jack_Sarfatti

Russell_Targ

Harold_E._Puthoff

John_Hagelin

The point is that enough well-respected academics take this stuff seriously that it is not pseudoscience. The PEAR article needs to acknowledge this, perhaps in a controversy section, along with the countless publications that PEAR made in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, run by the Society for Scientific Exploration. Robert Jahn, the founder of PEAR, was former VP of the society and if the journal is noted enough to have a Wikipedia page, then groups which publish in said journal--namely, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research--cannot be disregarded by default as you and others on the PEAR page have attempted to do.

[110]

"The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective" (Proceedings of the IEEE, 1982, Robert Jahn)

[111]

"Parapsychological Research: A Tutorial Review and Critical Appraisal" (Proceedings of the IEEE, 1986, Ray Hyman)

[112]

Neuroscience325 (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

As 76.107.171.90 says, this is not the place for a content dispute or discussion about sources. ANI focuses on whether there has been editor misconduct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't look to me like it is primarily a content dispute or a discussion about sources. There are multiple allegations of editor misconduct. None of them may be substantial, but the allegations of editor misconduct amount to personal attacks. The IP started with a claim of sockpuppetry in that two registered accounts are the same and multiple IPs have also been used. That claim was not substantiated, but idle claims of sockpuppetry are a serious personal attack. User:Neuroscience325 claims that the article has been heavily vandalized. That claim is without merit and appears to be an effort to use the V word to "win" a content dispute. Since he or she doesn't identify the vandals, it is an "impersonal attack" and is disruptive. Other than that, the subject editor is filibustering, and has proved the IP's point that discussion is impossible due to lengthy and incomprehensible posts. I agree that this discussion doesn't need to be at ANI, but that is only because Arbitration Enforcement is a more efficient way to deal with conduct issues about fringe science. The subject editor will probably claim that Arbitration Enforcement is dominated by a cabal. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Robert, I have not accused User:Neuroscience325 of sockpuppetry. User:Biotheoretician is a legitimate alternative account of User:Neuroscience325. Furthermore User:Neuroscience325 has freely admitted to editing the article using multiple IP addresses [[113]]. I listed User:Neuroscience325’s alternative identities so that you can recognize his edits on PEAR’s talk page archives. If I had suspected him off sockpuppetry I would have taken him to WP:SPI.

I didn’t want to take User:Neuroscience325 to WP:AE because communicating exclusively via screed isn’t actually against any Wikipedia policy that I’m aware of, and WP:AE seems to be reluctant to deal with long term edit warring cases. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This needs to be taken to AE. This user neuroscience is spamming more pages with dubious links, quoting internet forums, doing huge off-topic related rants etc. Bottom line it is trolling. Future Kick (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No. I’m not spending four hours diff-diving just for DangerousPanda to tell me that they need more recent evidence of edit warring or some other silly nonsense. If Neuroscience325 is unambiguously problematic then sending me to WP:AE is process for the sake of process. If no administrator wants to fix this problem then they don’t have to, but I don’t have to fix it either.

This thread can be closed now. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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

I claim Nagihuin is subject to Wikihounding and under pressure by Meatpuppetry

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

---

I claim that this Sockpuppet investigation is derived from a Harassment issue of greater scale over Nagihuin. Let me put all things on the table:

1. Nagihuin posts a map. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=American_imperialism&action=history

2. SantiLak disagrees with the map and starts an edit warr against him.

3. Nagihuin suffers Wikipedia:Wikihounding by User:Santilak, who undoes his work in many entries (*Evidences linked).

4. Vsmith and Mlpearc starts editing Nagihuin off in many places**, favoring Santilak. That makes me think Santilak, Vsmith and Mlpearc have connections or personal relations and that would be a case of Wikipedia:Meatpuppetry. (**Evidences linked)

5. Mlpearc starts this Sockpuppeting investigation supporting Santilak claims and putting Nagihuin and me under pressure to favor Santilak position.

• EVIDENCES FOR WIKIHOUNDING BY SANTILAK.

Wikipedia:Wikihounding BY SantiLak ON AMERICAN_IMPERIALISM

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=American_imperialism&action=history

1. Nagihuin posts a map. [114]

2. First Santilak action: UNDOING without giving a reason [115]

3. Nagihuin reposts it giving a reason: [116]

4. Santilak continues its actions 2 times more.

Wikipedia:Wikihounding BY SantiLak ON EMPIRE

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Empire&action=history

5. Nagihuin posts a map.

6. Santilak removes it 3 times more while Nagihuin gives reasons. Santilak does not start a talk.

Wikipedia:Wikihounding BY SantiLak ON PAX_AMERICANA.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Pax_Americana&action=history

7. Nagihuin posts a map.

8. Santilak removes it 3 times while Nagihuin and me try to explain that the map is needed.

Wikipedia:Wikihounding BY SantiLak ON HEGEMONY.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Hegemony&action=history

9. Nagihuin posts a map.

10. Santilak removes it with peregrine reasons.

Wikipedia:Wikihounding BY SantiLak ON LIST_OF_UNITED_STATES_MILITARY_BASES

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_military_bases&action=history

11. Nagihuin posts a map.

12. Santilak removes it 2 times.

Wikipedia:Wikihounding BY SantiLak ON SUPERPOWER

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_military_bases&action=history

13. Nagihuin posts a map.

14. Santilak removes it until other users stop him.

• • EVIDENCES OF MEATPUPPETRY BY SANTILAK, MPLEARC AND VSMITH:

MEATPUPPETRY BY SANTILAK, MPLEARC AND VSMITH IN AMERICAN_IMPERIALISM

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=American_imperialism&action=history

1. Nagihuin posts a map

2. Santilak removes it.

3. Vsmith and Mlpearc back santilak up.

MEATPUPPETRY BY SANTILAK AND VSMITH IN List_of_United_States_military_bases

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_military_bases&action=history

1. Nagihuin posts a map

2. Santilak removes it.

3. Vsmith backs Santilak up.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_military_bases&action=history

MEATPUPPETRY BY SANTILAK AND VSMITH IN Empire

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Empire&action=history

1. Nagihuin posts a map

2. Santilak removes it.

3. Vsmith backs Santilak up.

LadyBeth (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And just fyi, the original dispute issue was derived from naming the map "USA DE FACTO EMPIRE", Nagihuin REALIZED after all this war that the name was not correct and CHANGED THE TITLE AND THE LEGEND of the MAP, using "USA TREATIES, ALLIANCES AND MILITARY FACILITIES" and even reuploading the file as "USAsphere.svg" instead of "USempire.svg", so that would be enough. But SantiLak and Mlpearc tried to Harass Nagihuin with all this SPI, Wikihounding and Meatpuppetry to win their case (and I honestly don't know which case it is at this moment, just an ego war). Thanks.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USAsphere.svg

Thank you all. Let's create a free Wikipedia. LadyBeth (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This should be fun :) Vsmith (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

LadyBeth, please follow the directions above: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, just did it. LadyBeth (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

LadyBeth, you understand that other editors simply agreeing with another editor is not meatpuppetry, right? It's how consensus is formed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but it happened in a very narrow space of time and over more than one article, which is suspicious. LadyBeth (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

For example, edits by Vsmith and SantiLak happened in less than 15 minutes in two of the cases quoted. LadyBeth (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty impressive that you put this inquiry together and you've only been editing Wikipedia for 2 days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that User:Vsmith - who has over ten years of consistent participation, is an Admin in good standing, and has over 140,000 edits to his credit - is a meatpuppet? Even after your personal friend Nagihuin has specifically stated that you registered to come to his aid?[117] Scr★pIron^IV 14:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that there are two concerns here:

-Wikihounding by Santilak.

-Possible Meatpuppetry by the other two users.

Even if you have a million edits, that is not a reason for not avoiding Meatpuppetry patterns, specially if other users with many years invested into this have you in your friends list somewhere.

LadyBeth (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If Meatpuppetry isn't considered by whatever reason, please don't let this claim to blur the other: Wikihounding by SantiLak. Thank you all. LadyBeth (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Actions by all users, including yourself, are examined here. Questioning a series of edits across articles is not wikihounding. Multiple people replying across a series of articles concerning the same issue is not meatpuppetry. WP:DROPTHESTICK. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Nagihuin didn't tell me specifically to register myself, that is a claim that is not true. I've come into this because I sadly saw how Nagihuin work was destroyed without reasons and a with a proper talk, and I just watched suprised how SantiLak Wikihounding patterns were overseen and avoided by Administrators. If Nagihuin is being heavily pressed, SantiLak actions should be considered. Administrators only acted favoring SantiLak position. Thank you all. LadyBeth (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, the only good evidence of meatpuppetry is for you and Nagihuin and looking at the SPI, Nagihuin has been found to be socking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And I claim it is Wikihounding because SantiLak specifically erased the map on every page it was used, just because he didn't agree with it. That is the definition of Wikihounding. It was pure "seek and destroy", if that is not Wikihounding, what is. LadyBeth (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." Disagreeing with the validity of a map is a valid reason. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

SantiLak's actions were not backed up by reasons. At least if you agree on claims like "USA treaties are not a reason of USA influence/hegemony" (that was the claim of removing the map from Hegemony, for example) not being reasons of anything. Those aren't reasons applying the most elemental Laws of Logic, they are pure built-in-the-moment comments and that came after edit warrs here and there.

LadyBeth (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

SantiLak's reversions were accompanied by plausible reasons. You don't have to agree with them. Saying "not backed up by reasons" is downright false. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have this page on watchlist so I saw this discussion being put up. Just wanted to give my opinion (for what its worth). logically SantiLak's edits seem to be ok. He/She disagreed with a specific item being included in wikipedia, so it stands to reason that they will remove it from whichever page they find it on. btw, without sounding rude, have you considered the possibility that SantiLak's position may be favoured by other users because it is "the right way"? I mean one reason why many editors do the same thing is because it is the right thing to do. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

For example, Hegemony talk. SantiLak claiming the USA-Philippines, USA-South Korea, USA-Japan, TPP and TTIP treaties don't project USA "hegemony". there are thousands of wiki pages showing maps colored in blue or red or green or whatever showing USA influence over large areas in the world in the Cold War, for example, and those maps are there and nobody goes erasing and removing them. Please follow the Laws of Logic.

SantiLak quote: "The other three mutual defense treaties (USA-Japan, Philippines, Korea) just mean that they will both come to each other's aid in the case of either being attacked. Those three countries are very close nonetheless due to aligned foreign policy goals in their regions but that isn't due to a US hegemony. Now to the other treaties such as the proposed treaties of the TTIP and the TPP. Those proposed treaties don't indicate any US hegemony, the TPP for example existed between several south asian nations before the US even started negotiations to join and even if the US joins the treaties, that wouldn't give them a hegemony over those countries in any way. The TTIP also doesn't show a US hegemony even if it were enacted and it is still proposed anyway. Two, the military bases shown on the map are not all actual US military bases but that is a smaller issue. Three, major non-nato ally status does not indicate a US hegemony over a country, simply increased cooperation. There is a big difference."

LadyBeth (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And now you are continuing a content dispute here. Please stop and take it where it belongs (the article's talk page). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So NeinN you do agree on the idea of "USA hegemony is not derived by treaties like all those included in the map"? Because thats the very reason into SantiLak claims, and that follows a political agenda (hiding actual and neutral facts for whatever reason).

Apart of that, Nagihuin just put the most important military and economic treaties of USA in a map and he included it in a logical and reasonable way in the entries quoted. LadyBeth (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute, i'm no interested on it, i'm just claiming SantiLak reasons are not actual reasons just made up comments to back up Wikihounding and I call the Logical mind of everybody to realize that. LadyBeth (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that LadyBeth has also decided that User:OccultZone is a meatpuppet [118], and used that as an excuse to remove a talk page post, contrary to talk page guidelines. Given this further evidence of cluelessness and bad faith, it seems to me that regardless of whether LadyBeth is or isn't a sock/meatpuppet (though one or the other seems self-evident from their edit history), this is exactly the sort of 'contributor' we can do without, and suggest that an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE will be in the best interests of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone backed up Mlpearc actions (done without actual reasons) which is the one here under the accusations of meatpuppetry. For what I'm seeing, experienced users build dense networks of contacts backing them up here and there, that's the deep reason of having thousands of editions and contributions. SantiLak being in a node of that network, he will get all the back up, so the very concept of "consensus" is very delicate and the Freedom Concept of Wikipedia is flawed. Just see the facts and apply the Laws of Logical -"USA HEGEMONY not derived from treaties like US military defense pacts or economic big treaties like TPP or TTIP"... come on guys-instead of hiding you all in Wikipedia protocols which are known by "insiders" but not by "outsiders" or "new contributors". Thank you all, I may be blocked but at least I have a very good knowledge of what's happening in the depths of Wikipedia, and it's nothing like Freedom.

I'm willing to drop the stick, but SantiLak should stop the Wikihounding patterns on Nagihuin. LadyBeth (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Request for page protection

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

---

May I request that the article Crimean Karaites be semi-protected. This is because of an edit war involving (so far) three IP address editors edit warring over the article content totally against consensus. The IP editors are socks of the blocked user Kaz. The requisite SPI cases are open, though there is no question that they are the same person (same edit sumaries) and that they are Kaz as one of the IP addresses even identified himself as the person known to be Kaz in his edit summary [here]. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you requested this at WP:RPP? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Only one IP has touched the article in the past week, and they're currently under a sock investigation. You don't need protection at the moment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah! So many noticeboards. I have now. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I fully get that reverting IPs day in day out can be cumbersome and irritating, but just make sure the consensus is easily documented on the talk page, and escalate to WP:DRN if necessary (yeah, another noticeboard - best keep content stuff off ANI, though). I think that's probably the advice you'd be given on WP:RPP, which tends to be reserved for frequent vandalism or disruption (ie: multiple times a day in recent history). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• I semi-protected because of strong suspicions of socking. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Inactive user page a vandalism target

re: User:Bob Kuczewski

• Empty page, except for the same name repeated.
• Repeated vandalism target beginning 17 April, from ~7 different IPs, apparently related to some off-wiki dispute.
• Associated user has four edits from five years ago, none in mainspace.
• Has required the attention from seven different editors, including one admin and at least two short-term blocks.
• I don't see a light at the end of this tunnel.

This is a lot of time spent on defending against vandalism of a user page that is not even in use. Is there anything that can be done besides the current approach? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Weird. Protected. Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We both hit the Go button on the protection at the same time, but ended up applying the same settings. Zad68 17:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! Onward. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not quite true that User:Bob Kuczewski has no mainspace edits - he did create and subsequently edit Hanggliding.org, an article about a gliding forum (which was later deleted). Searching that forum and other US hanggliding sites shows some kind of ongoing dispute between Kuczewski and others. His Wikipedia user page is the 3rd thing you find if you Google that name. So I guess this vandalism is overspill from that offwiki dispute. Note 67.251.102.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits, particularly to USHPA. I can't immediately find other pages where the dispute may have manifested itself here, but at the least watchlisting USHPA in addition seems like a good idea, and I'll drop a note to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation to they'll know to keep a weather eye. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 18:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that Nyttend posted this on the user's talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I figure that in the unlikely event that he returns, he shouldn't be left to wonder why he can't edit his userpage. Or "couldn't"; he's autoconfirmed, but I protected it fully (lest it get attacked by logged-in users too); Zad's action reduced it to semiprotection, but it basically a protection conflict, not a reduction. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops Nyttend I didn't mean to overwrite your protection level. Zad68 18:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem :-) As I said, it was a conflict, not something you meant to do. And it's definitely not a big deal! Nyttend (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Would semi-protection of the USHPA page be in order? Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not yet, I think. We just need to keep an eye on it, and if anything comes up (which it may well not) we need to make sure the parties know that Wikipedia isn't the venue for them to settle their dispute. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 18:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil discussion between user:pubwvj and user:bruceki

I chose "uncivil" because I've never done this sort of complaint before, and I don't now quite how to characterize the interaction. It's at least that.

I have been repeatedly attacked by user:pubwvj while trying to edit an article that refers to a business that he owns and operates per his user page. I have tried repeatedly to stick to the content and ignore the activity per WP:NPA, and worked my way through the suggested steps, including ignoring the posts, posting a request that he cease this contact on his user talk page as well as asked for a WP:3O and finally started a discussion on WP:COI - "sugar mountain farm"

As part of that COI discussion I have now refrained from directly editing the article in question; but this user continues to attack me in discussions on the talk page even after that step.

He has been told by editors that questioning sources, asking for cites, and discussing content is not vandalism or libel but apparently cannot hear that. "Vandal bruceki is at it again" and various comments in the article talk page Bruceki (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

References

User BruceKi has spent years abusing me online. I have done nothing to hurt him but he has stalked me, attacked me in forums, attacked me on his blog, stolen my photos violating my copyright. He has also threatened me via email. He is an angry person who stalks other farmers and vilifies them on his blog. There is discussion by other members on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard page of BruceKi's bad behavior and he then goes on to give more of his innuendo by backhandedly accusing me of kicking puppies of all things. In other places such as the talk page of Sugar Mountain Farm he has made blatantly false statements, e.g., lies. This is a long time pattern of abuse by Bruceki of me. I do not pursue him. He pursues me. For years. The only thing I've said about him is the fact that he is doing this cyberbullying. I'm not attacking him - I'm defending myself. All he has to do is leave me alone. It's that simple.

What Bruceki fails to mention is that he has been warned by higher editors not to soap box and not to synthesize. Please see his talk page history. @Mike Cline: @OhNoItsJamie: @Jbhunley: @SmartSE: @Joseph2302: Pubwvj (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Two questions:

@Bruceki: Which article are you talking about?

The article where most of hte contact is: sugar mountain farm. the only interaction on wiki between user:pubwvj and I has been in that talk section of that article, the talk section of his user page, and the discussion in the COI and 3O pages. He has contacted other wiki users and asked that I be banned from editing or otherwise sanctioned. I have had no other contact with this user on any other wiki page or on any other subject on wiki. Bruceki (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pubwvj: He has been bullying you for years? Would you provide proof in the form of diffs, please? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@@Erpert: Bruceki has been bullying me for years not here on Wiki but on his blog which I do not want to link to because I do not want to generate links to his trash talk but if you look here on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard you can find where SmartSE did link to one example ("this 2009 blog post") and there are many other examples on Bruceki's blog. Bruceki has also stalked me across the web on other forums where he has attacked me, typically linking back to his blog where he does his primary attacks. On his blog he has also used my copyrighted photographs explicitly against my permission after he asked if he could use them and I told him that no, he may not use them. Despite asking and being told no that he may not use my photos he used them anyways. His pattern of attacks and abuse against me and against other farmers goes back many years. His uncivil behavior on Wiki is very new. I linked to one example in the COIN above and you can find more on the talk page of the Sugar Mountain Farm talk page. One of his approaches is to make up things and present them as facts. He as been warned by @OhNoItsJamie: not to Synth and not to Soapbox (warnings are on Bruceki's talk page history).Pubwvj (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If you stick to the content and cease the personal attacks we can probably figure out whats right and wrong. I posted this notice because despite effort I have not been able to get through to you the difference between disagreeing with an (opinion, fact or reference), and a person. Bruceki (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Pubwvj, if he has been only bothering you off-wiki, there's really nothing we can do about that, I'm afraid. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: I would like to deal with Bruceki's attacks here on Wiki. Sometimes he's direct and nasty like threatening me which he has done in emails and sometimes when other people are watching, like here on Wiki, he thinks he's cute such as when he accused me "of kicking puppies only some of the time." I don't kick puppies or pigs. That is a backhanded attack and should not be allowed on Wiki. More blatantly he publishes lies and distortions. Sometimes he just makes useless but demeaning statements like:

"How do you know the sales from this farm, or the customer reaction from those sales? Bruceki (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)"talk:Sugar Mountain Farm

Well, yes, I know the sales from my farm and the customer reactions. I gave him a link to customer letters we've received and there are many quotes on our blog. Most telling is that our customers keep buying our pastured pork week after week, year after year for the past twelve years. That is the proof of happy customers.

Another example of distortion or lies by Bruceki where he claims that we never had any boar taint in our herds so he argues (SYNTH) that we aren't really doing tests. The reality is we have many pigs, typically about 400 on farm at any time, and we have been managing many lines of pigs for over a decade. During that time I have identified some lines that were higher and lower in taint. By culling the higher taint animals we were left with the lower taint animals as breeders. That's one of over two dozen breeder characteristics we watch. Using the biopsy we can taste test live boars rather than killing them. This lets us then breed the live boars that tasted best and we get to continue testing them over the years as well as tasting them against their offspring and finally the boars themselves when they go to butcher. I've spent about a decade working on this. At times when we brought in new breeder stock either initially or down the road I had to cull out some potential breeders because they had taint levels that were too high. Biopsy testing and selective breeding are highly effective scientific methods that small farmers can use out in the field. That said, here's Bruceki's take on the topic which he knows nearly nothing about where he blatantly lies:

"Sugar mountain farm doesn't perform those tests for other parties, isn't an expert or source for those tests, and in fact claims that the tests are always negative ("we have no boar taint in our herd") Bruceki (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)"talk:Sugar Mountain Farm

Other times he flat out denies that we're doing something when he is not here and has no way to know if we are doing it or not. He states his wishes as facts. The reality is we are doing exactly what I say we do on our farm, we've been doing it for decades (12 years in the case of pigs, back to 1989 for other stuff). I know this because I life this life and deal with this. For Bruceki to walk up and say "no they don't do that" is patently absurd. He has no knowledge, no authority, no expertise, no qualification to make that judgement. It would be one thing if he asked how do we do something in which case I would probably point him to one of the over 2,000 detailed articles I've written about how we do things on our farm. (I write a lot at night and I've been writing for decades, the count mounts up.)

Then there are the times when he says things out of ignorance, but he says them anyways as if he were full of the facts. The reality is there is scientific and field evidence that the world out on pasture works differently than Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation which are more like Bruceki's own farm. His lack of experience in what we do and perhaps his desire to protect his way of doing things gets in the way of better judgement.

In the end, Bruce isn't qualified to be making the innuendo and other statements he makes. What he's really doing is trying to destroy the Sugar Mountain Farm wiki page as part of his stalking campaign that he relentlessly pursues against me. I do not know him in real life. He's on the opposite side of the country in Oregon. All I know is that he's been attacking me, and other farmers for years, going on a decade perhaps. None of us seek him out. He seeks us out and attacks us on his blog, in forums and now here on Wiki. Pubwvj (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is BruceKi has a many year history of attacking PubWVJ (me) and Sugar Mountain Farm using lies and distortions. Bruceki's behavior here does not make m e think he is going to change but rather that is a new twist on his attack campaign against other small farmers. Part of the problem is that the 'content he wants to stick to' is really his reinterpretation of how we run our farm. He does not know what we do and he denies that what we say we do is correct. He has no expertise and no insight into the conversation. All he offfers is his antagonism which can be found on his blog posts. I well believe that he fails at the things he describes failing at but just because he fails doesn't mean other people don't succeed. We succeed at raising pigs on pasture with pasture making up 80% of their diet see http://SugarMtnFarm.com/pigs We have been raising pigs this way for over a decade and sell hundreds of thousands of pounds of our pastured pork fresh to customers directly and through local stores and restaurants. Bruceki's denial of reality is just him sticking his head in the sand while other people are out their making their farms work. This is fact. Time proves out if something is a success or not. Suggestion: BruceKi be removed from the Sugar Mountain Farm and talk page and he not contact me. This eliminates his stalking at least on Wikipedia. That will resolve the conflict. I'm not stalking him. He is stalking me. He's been stalking me for years. If he would simply stop stalking me and leave me alone then the problem is solved. I won't seek him out. I don't. All of the problems are a result of his actions and what he says. He has been given multiple warnings that he would be banned. Perhaps it is time to try banning him. Then the other people can get back to talking civilly on the Sugar Mountain Farm talk page and making appropriate edits to cover the background on the farm, farm notability, farm practices, what is unusual about the farm and what the farm has accomplished or other interesting things for Wiki readers Pubwvj (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Is Sugar Mountain Farm even notable? 109.157.155.102 (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

when I asked user:pubwvj how he knew the farm sales or other characteristics of the farm it was before I noticed that he revealed his ties to the farm as owner/operator. I asked that question on April 20th, he only disclosed hisconnection on April 19th and even then only on his user page, which I don't typically look at. Never on the article talk page. It took me a few days to notice. You have never disclosed your COI on the sugar mountain farm entry, even today. You made statements about the operations of the farm and I asked how you knew that. That's a fair question on an articles talk page. I will note that the majority of my concerns were about appropriate cites and reliable sources, which was confirmed when @CorporateM: basically slashed everything that I was concerned about in the article out in an edit a few days later. The issue isn't about stuff on wiki, or a difference of opinion on a fact, it's that you seem to be unable to differentiate between what is an attack on a person and what is an attack on a subject, idea or cite and I still don't think you get it. Bruceki (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sugar Mountain Farm is notable as already determined by WikiProject Agriculture and WikiProject Food and drink as noted by them at the top of the talk:Sugar Mountain Farm page. Notability was resolved long ago. That is not the topic of discussion here. The issue of edits is ongoing. CorporateM said they are reducing the page to the minimum and then rebuilding it which is what they are doing.

The issue being discussed here is your (bruceki's) years of attacking me (Walter Jeffries) an my farm Sugar Mountain Farm as well as your attacks on other people and their farms. You should not be doing any attacks. You have a massive negative COI. Your goal is to destroy the Sugar Mountain Farm. Your COI has been discussion by other editors on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard page where they pointed out your history and pages where you've attacked me. You need to stop your attacks. The best way to do that is for you to recluse yourself from both edits and talk on Sugar Mountain Farm. If you can't recluse yourself from talk then stop posting miss-information, innuendo, lies and don't make statements about things you don't actually know about. Stick with hard facts and cease attacking me, Sugar Mountain Farm and stop your campaign to destroy the Wiki page on Sugar Mountain Farm. Basically, stop attacking and stick to facts and things you really know, not things you assume. Pubwvj (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Third party perspective I've tried to mediate this dispute and am growing weary of it. Pubwvj: please stop talking about Bruceki. You've made you're feelings clear plenty of times, and at this point you are beating a dead horse. If you want to discuss content, stick to discussing content, not other editors. Bruceki, surely you have better things to do than brow beat fellow agricultural professionals on Wikipedia? Now that there are several neutral third-party editors trimming the article, please drop your stick as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

you've shown remarkable restraint and patience Jamie. Will do. Bruceki (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability

I do not see any discussion where notability was verified as alleged above. The fact that the article was added to WikiProjects does not lead to the assumption of notability as alleged. I did not say I was going to re-build the article. The current page of only two paragraphs contains everything I have found that can be reliably sourced. The editor has failed to provide other sources that are actually reliable and often exaggerates the quality of a source. As I previously stated at COIN, a discussion about AFD is appropriate, as it's quite likely everyone is wasting their emotional energy on a page that shouldn't exist at all. The prior page was made up almost entirely of un-acceptable sources. CorporateM (Talk) 13:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As noted on the talk:Sugar Mountain Farm page we are discussing notability and the sources and I am working on putting together sources per your request. Mike Cline offered some notable sources. Pervious editors such as Ohnoitsjamie and Jbhunley had already verified and reorganized and written some of the text. Since I farm full time it will take me a bit of time to go through the sources and pull up what you've requested and organize it for you now that I am better understanding what you're requesting. I appreciate your patience. Pubwvj (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This article should probably be nominated for deletion. Its notability is seriously in question. There is more content in this one ANI dispute (with more going on for years) than there is in the article itself. Scr★pIron^IV 14:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

References

• Notice I have nominated the page for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sugar Mountain Farm Jbh^Talk 15:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Born Rich (film) and User:JS18WlKlPEDlA

Users involved

Users I'd like to report:

• JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Evershawn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Users with consensus (in my opinion):

• Shibbolethink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arxiloxos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amaury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• materialscientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and several others who made similar edits to the page, Born Rich (film)

Background

(because one of the editors in question, User:JS18WlKlPEDlA, has accused me of COI and NPOV)

So recently I became interested in combatting commercial intervention in Wikipedia. I stumbled upon this article from New York Magazine while researching So You've Been Publicly Shamed, a book by writer and journalist Jon Ronson. The article details a sort of "Black Ops" reputation management industry, with this very interesting and concerning quote:

"But when sleuthing through the metadata, I noticed other names thrown in incongruously: Joe Ricketts, Helen Lee Schifter, Irena Briganti, Antonio Weiss, and Luke Weil. I also noticed the same Wikipedia editor, Belkin555, had tidied the entries of several of them. A few were powerful people with no apparent scandals to cover up: Joe Ricketts was the founder of TD Ameritrade, and Antonio Weiss runs investment banking for ­Lazard. Others, judging by the unforgiving kliegs of a Google search, had left much messier trails on the web."

"In 2006, according to the Observer, Weil, who now works as a VP of his dad’s company and once sued the makers of the Born Rich documentary to force the removal of his own too-candid interview footage, assaulted a music producer with a broken liquor bottle and battered his then-girlfriend, Patrice Jordan, and was sentenced to a year in jail."

This, of course, set off my NPOV and COI sensors! I wanted to see if the articles concerning these folks had any issues in not adhering to WP policy. And I was very unsurprised to learn they did. I found that the Luke Weil article itself had several issues, the worst of which was that it was blatantly copied from Luke Weil's personal website. I put it up for a CSD, and it was deleted. I then checked out his father's article, suspecting a similar circumstance. A. Lorne Weil's page was not as liable to CSD, but I suspected it was on the line, so I put it up. An admin, rightfully so, changed it to an AFD which was then deleted via overwhelming consensus. I had noticed there were few, if any, links to Luke Weil's page on wiki, and there were some interesting elements related to a documentary he was in, Born Rich (film). So then I went and checked out that article, and found an ongoing dispute about Luke Weil's participation in the documentary and also a lawsuit he had filed attempting to stop the film's release.

Situation

So I stumbled upon an ongoing long-term dispute between User:Evershawn and several other editors concerning this line in the article: "By the end of the film, Luke Weil became unhappy with his portrayal and sued unsuccessfully." See these diffs for what I mean. So I and another editor, User: Arxiloxos, became interested in fact checking this and putting NPOV coverage in the article of Weil's lawsuit, as well as making sure all the inline links and redlinks adhered to WP Policy. Evershawn had been adding numerous redlinks and other inline external links that violated WP:EXTERNAL and policies for redlinks of deleted pages. We reverted edits by User:Evershawn, but then after Evershawn was blocked for numerous copyright infringements, another editor showed up: User:JS18WlKlPEDlA. User:JS18WlKlPEDlA then reverted every attempt to include the lawsuit, violating the 3RR and BRD in the process. JS18WIKIPEDIA also specifically attempted to remove any mentions of Luke Weil with the lawsuit, even though he was the main plaintiff (see below). Arxiloxos and I both posted to the talk page adhering to BRD. We came to a consensus about the sources including this NYT article and this HIGHBEAM research article and others which all clearly state that Weil filed a lawsuit against the film's creator saying he was deceived into participating, thinking it was school project. He then lost the lawsuit. It's incredibly clear in those sources, as viewable by these quotes:

HIGHBEAM/ASSOCIATED PRESS: "The judge's ruling dismissed a lawsuit filed against Johnson by Luke Weil, 22, who said in court papers that he was "tricked" into taking part in a project that "embarrassed" and "humiliated" him and his family. Weil, whose father ran Autotote, a gaming technology company, said that on three dates in 2000 he signed releases that allowed Johnson to use an interview with him for what he thought was solely a school project. Weil's court papers complained that Johnson "publicly and maliciously" referred to him as an "`heir of a gaming operation,' thus making him an object of disdain, derision and obloquy." The judge said the releases Weil signed clearly state that the documentary is a commercial undertaking for a professional studio in Beverly Hills, Calif., and because of the unambiguous language, he cannot claim to have been tricked or defrauded."

Philadelphia Inquirer: "Jamie Johnson's documentary Born Rich, at 10 p.m. Monday on HBO, begins and ends - as the lives of the wealthy so often do - with both a party and a lawyer. At the Johnson & Johnson heir's 21st-birthday bash in swank Southampton, N.Y., with an appropriate Roaring Twenties theme, the filmmaker announces with guileless bravado: "At midnight, I'm going to inherit more money than most people will earn in a lifetime." Johnson's lawyer counsels him against making this involving yet sad movie, which results in tabloid frenzy and a lawsuit, ultimately dismissed, filed by Luke Weil, Born Rich's bluntest and most offensive figure. He alleged he'd been tricked into participating. "The irony of making a movie about the rich is they have the money to sue you," says Johnson, who narrates the film, part of HBO's America Undercover series, in an unfortunate voice that sounds padded in martini-pickled olives."

NYT: "After hearing early reports about the film, Mr. Weil filed a lawsuit against Mr. Johnson and the filmmakers demanding that his scenes be cut. For his part, Mr. Johnson retaliated by featuring the lawsuit in the film as an example of what happens when rich people talk about money. Last fall, a New York State Supreme Court justice ruled in favor of Mr. Johnson in the case."

So then User:JS18WlKlPEDlA engaged in a small effort to threaten both myself and Arxiloxos. User:Drmies rightly recognized this as such, and removed the messages. User:JS18WlKlPEDlA continued to add the threatening messages, ignored the advice of other editors, and even attempted to poison the well by digging up an unfounded and rescinded sockpuppet accusation against me from months ago, that was in a completely unrelated situation. I eventually archived the discussion because I had told the user numerous times to take it to the talk page instead of threatening me personally.

Arxiloxos and I (and others such as User:Drmies and User:Amaury) warned User:JS18WlKlPEDlA numerous other times (see more in the talk history).

Possible Sockpuppetry/COI?

Further, I think it's possible that User:JS18WlKlPEDlA and User:Evershawn are quite possibly the same person. Evidence:

1. JS18WIKIPEDIA and Evershawn have very similar grammatical structure and phrasings in their talk page entries. See: 1 2
2. Both users edited similarly on the Born Rich (film) page. See 1 2 and 3 4.
3. Both users have three or four word user pages and regularly blank their user talk pages removing warnings. See: 1 2 and 3 4
4. also visible in the above diffs is continual appeal from both editors to "report vandalism to wikipedia administration" when other editors warn them for editing against consensus.
5. Evershawn was blocked from his activity on the Luke Weil and A. Lorne Weil pages, it is quite possible JS18WIKIPEDIA was created as a method of shedding this past block. In the intervening time there were several IP addresses that made edits corresponding to a similar interest.

Thanks for your attention. I know it's awfully long but I think it's rather compelling.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an awful lot of information to absorb and a great many diffs to look at. It sounds like the next step is for you to file an SPI. What administrator action are you looking for? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess what I'd like, what my personal best desired outcome is, is:

1. The page should be protected for a short period of time.
2. And also reverted to the last edit with consensus.
3. And the offending users blocked for a short period of time, giving me time to gather the ultimate evidence for a SPI, and for the six or so editors who were editing before to request in edits with consensus to bring the article to an ultimately complete and NPOV state.

But I know that's asking for a lot, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so what will you give me?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it's not up to me. I just read lots of cases and requests and comment in order to move the process all along. Your biggest challenge is to draw administrators' eyes on to your case which is long and complex. Simpler cases are much easier to assess, take action and close...that's why I was asking for a quick statement on what outcome you were looking for. Sometimes it's easier to look at the result requested and then backtrack to see if there is evidence to substantiate the request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sockpuppet investigation launched at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evershawn Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• The SPI is one thing, and a useful and necessary thing, but it's clear that JS18 is disruptive and displays a pretty serious battleground mentality. If they have been editing the article again (I've been away from my desk) they should be blocked for edit warring alone. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• I don't think my "battleground mentality" would supersede that of Shibbolethink's. He has been unwilling to have any amount of discussion. Made revisions and edits when ongoing user talks were in place. Deleted an on-going user talk conversation on his user talk page. Made several unnecessary warnings on my user talk page (the last one claiming I blanked content when it was a constructive edit adding content from the source he cited). At this point I do believe that myself and the other editors have reached an agreement on the content of the page (actually even before Shibbolethink created this notice and investigation request). It would be nice if Shibbolethink would not try to hound every edit I make especially when they're appropriate with other more experienced editors (I'm a newer editor without vast experience in wiki policy) but I'm trying to learn as quickly as I can. I apologize to any other editors I may have frustrated in the process so far. I do not believe there are any current issues or disagreements on-going anymore. JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually archived that talk page discussion, you can find it here. Archiving inappropriate discussions is a common practice. I was actually happy when you went back to the talk page for the film instead of continuing that discussion that wasn't going anywhere.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocking admin note

Even if JS18WIKIPEDIA is the same person as Evershawn, he should in no wise be considered to be evading the block on Evershawn. Sixteen days ago, I told Evershawn that I was blocking him for 24 hours, and JS18WIKIPEDIA was created about 96 hours after the block message. I've just learned that I unintentionally blocked Evershawn indefinitely, and I've removed the block because it wasn't what I meant. If these two are the same, JS18WIKIPEDIA is evading a mistake, not a justly-placed block — had I performed the block that I meant to, this account would have been created three days after the block's expiration. Evaluate him on his actions, and sanction him if he's been causing problems, but there's no good reason to consider the block-evasion question. Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with this research. Noteswork (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible quick violation of i-ban

Restored from archive for closure. BMK (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

With this edit only a few days ago an i-ban was placed between User:Alansohn and User:Magnolia677, and I offered some advice to the latter party. I have recently received this message, only two days after the i-ban was put in place, regarding how the former party has behaved since the ban, which can be found in the second diff I have provided here, as well as information regarding the comments made since the ban was enacted at User talk:Alansohn#Magnolia by Alansohn, particularly the comments made here. It seems to me that Alansohn has rather obviously violated the i-ban, and also perhaps behaved in a way rather obviously attempting to GAME the ruling. I request review by uninvolved administrators, blocks if they deem it required, and, if possible, some input from administrators for Magnolia677 regarding how he should react to the recent developments. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The ink isn't even dry yet and that's twice this IBAN has come back to ANI. Perhaps the two need to be just plain topic banned from all articles relating to New Jersey. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The previous report, filed about 24 hours ago, is above here.

I'm done with these two. The next time someone proposes topic bans or site bans for both of them, I'll be voting in favor. I don't know about the community, but they've both certainly exhausted my patience. BMK (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear that only one person has violated the topic ban, and that's Alansohn. He's violated the article editing restrictions multiple times, as shown in the previous thread, as well as leaving a screechy tirade of personal abuse against Magnolia on his talk page. Although I initially agreed with the substance of Alansohn's article edits, and Magnolia wasn't exactly blameless, it's pretty clear which of the two is primarily responsible for prolonging this dispute. And that ain't Magnolia. I support a block of a few days to put a stop to the disruption. Reyk _YO! 09:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment(non admin observation) The post by Alansohn is against the iban imho and is bad. With no surprise at this point, assumes bad faith on the part of another editor. I support a block of a short duration for Alansohn to impress on them the importance of keeping the iban, and to put an end to the conflict, at least for a short time. Warnings have apparently not done much good after the iban was put in place. The disruption this conflict is causing is rather sad. As for Magnolia677, I see less of a problem. He is simply asking for advice from an experienced editor on how to deal with a bad situation, but it would have been better to ask an uninvolved admin. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am striking my comment for a short ban. The section he started below with WP:OWN arguments shows that a short block may not be enough to stop this ongoing problem. A block of at least a month, and perhaps three if not more is probably better. AlbinoFerret 05:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block on Alansohn - I have strick out my emotionally-based "a pox on both their houses" comment above, and after looking more closely, I believe that Alansohn has now violated the I-ban sufficiently -- after being warned for an initial incident -- to receive an appropriate short block - short, since the editor's last block weas in 2009. BMK (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support longer block on Alansohn. Not necessarily long, but it is more than worth noting that although he hasn't been blocked for some time, it seems that part of that may have been because people didn't want to block a productive editor. His conduct has, however, been one of the more frequently discussed topics on the noticeboards, and there is more than sufficient cause to believe that he has maybe at best narrowly avoided being sanctioned repeatedly. So, while I do not necessarily believe he should be subjective to what might arbitrarily be called a "long" block, his pattern of conduct is such that I think a "short" one will be insufficient to prevent further misconduct once the block is lifted. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

See my response below, with specific explanations and documentation showing that the problem here is with deliberate violations of the interaction ban and wikhounding by the other editor. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is your abusive commentary on an individual whom you have been banned about directly or indirectly interacting with or discussing at all. The fact that your commentary would probably qualify as a violation of conduct guidelines even if you weren't in rather obvious violation of the interaction ban makes it just that much worse. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Persistent violation of IBAN and malicious stalking

User:Magnolia677 has been deliberately stalking my edits, in violation of the interaction ban and in rather clear violation of WP:HARASS. Let's look att the edits in question, which can be followed at this link of a number of articles for census designated places in New Jersey, all of which I've edited and most of which I created:

• Quinton CDP at 22:05 by me
• Ramblewood at 22:06 by me
• Ramtown at 22:10 by me
• Richwood 22:14 by me
• Robbinsville CDP at 22:48 by other editor, an article he had never edited before
• Seabrook Farms at 22:53 by other editor, another article he had never edited before
• Rio Grande at 23:00 by me
• Robinsville CDP at 23:03 by me

After I had started editing a sequence of articles, and described exactly what I was doing here at ANI, the other editor magically started editing three articles just down the same list -- Robbinsville CDP and Seabrook Farms -- and then suddenly edited Zarephath as I moved down the list. These actions appear to me as the deliberate and intended result by the other editor of manufacturing a phony violation of the interaction ban.

Above at ANI, I described how I took every precaution to look through the articles I would be editing to avoid conflict, both in the letter and spirit of the interaction ban. This does not appear to be the case with the other editor, and so I lay out these specific claims:

• Charge 1: The editor in question has failed to comply with the IBAN clause 4 guaranteeing "wide berth" and appears to have acted in deliberate bad faith to manufacture potential violations of the IBAN by purposefully editing articles on the List of census-designated places in New Jersey just an article or two ahead in alphabetical order, all of which I had edited previously or created and all of which he had never edited before.

• Charge 2: The editor in question has repeatedly stalked my edits in violation Wikipedia's Harassment Policy, which states at WP:HOUND that "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." as evidenced by announcing a talk page discussion in which I was one of two involved parties and in editing the articles for Robbinsville CDP, Seabrook Farms and Zarephath which he acknowledges he knew I would be editing in alphabetic order.

Am I angry about this; You bet I am. My goal remains to avoid conflict here and my rather clear perception based on the evidence is that the other editor is trying to create conflict, provoke a response and obtain a negative reaction from me. Sadly, I have fallen for his bait and I accept responsibility for allowing my anger and frustration at this ongoing abuse to get the better of me.

I'll ask someone uninvolved to provide the necessary ANI notification to the other editor. My sole goal is to see this end and to be allowed to edit articles in peace, and be given "wide berth" as mandated by the ban. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Move to close subthread as one of the more frankly ridiculous and transparent attempts at misdirection I have seen for some time. It is worth noting that this originally separate thread was first posted several long hours after the above editor was given his notification of the thread above, but started as a separate thread, for no readily apparent reason. The fact that he chose to do so, at least to my eyes, unfortunately, reflects only on him, not on the conduct of others, and, unfortunately, reflects very, very poorly on him. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just for transparency's sake, I moved the thread up here, since it never should have been opened as a new thread. BMK (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this initial thread was opened, I have been tied up in my real life with a series of meetings and other issues related to my personal medical history. I've done no other editing and this was my first opportunity to edit. I appreciate the bad faith assumptions you have made, offering no evidence other than your supposition. Why not take a look at the evidence and address it? It goes a long way to demonstrating, with diffs, the underlying cause of the problems here. Deal with his claims and deal with mine separately or together, but the claim that they should be ignored because I didn't post them soon enough is utterly unfair and demeans the entire process here. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no bad faith in my statement, although there is rather obvious bad faith in your own. If you are saying that you haven't had a chance to see the comment I made on your user talk page before posting this scree here, I think that few if any reasonable people would find the "co-incidence" of your, entirely on your own, starting a separate thread on the same page as the one I indicated had already been opened on this same page incredible in the extreme. And the obvious assumption of bad faith in your statement that your comments might be someone had made a "claim" that your comments here should be "ignored" frankly just compounds the existing questions regarding your credibility. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

JC, I get it. In addition to being prosecutor-in-chief, you're also judge, jury and executioner. You've made up your mind a while ago, but maybe other editors might be willing to overlook your prejudgement and consider the actual diffs provided as evidence. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Noting that Alan continues to engage in his persistent habit of engaging in insult and derogation of anyone who disagrees with him. Noting that he continues to engage in denial of his own misconduct, or apparently attempting to assert that his misconduct is in some way acceptable under the circumstances. Noting his continuing to ignore the fact that the first comment here was posted several hours after the ANI notice on his user talk page, and that he has refused to address the fact that his starting a separate thread several long hours after being notified of the discussion above, apparently indicating he was somehow unaware of the previous thread. Also noting that the claim for "medical issues" is an apparently new one, which might in some cases be acceptable, were not the long-standing, seemingly regular, derogation of anyone who disagrees with him were not as obvious as his history on the noticeboards is. It might, however, be seen as a possible indicator of regular or ongoing medical issues of some sort. If that is true, he might well deserve our sympathy, but it is not in any way a justification for his own long-standing history of at best dubious conduct. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge my actions, but point out that I was rather brazenly provoked here. The diffs provided here establish the necessary context. Are you going to evaluate the diffs or just ignore them? Maybe we can get an explanation from the other editor for the edits in question. Alansohn (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment(non admin observation)This section should be closed. It is a prime example of ABF. The very act of editing now seems to be a problem to this editor, and only he is allowed to edit articles about places in New Jersey. The other editor is supposed to know that articles in the subject area are off limits because Alansohn plans on editing them soon. That screams of WP:OWN issues. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No. There are tens of thousands of articles in New Jersey, none of which I own. The other editor stated above that he knew that I was editing articles from the List of census-designated places in New Jersey using AWB, which lists them in alphabetical order. We are supposed to believe that the other editor had never edited articles for Robbinsville CDP or Seabrook Farms or Zarephath, but magically chose by pure coincidence to edit these three articles from that list. The diffs show that the other editor read down the list and deliberately edited articles in that same sequence in blatant violation of this IBAN and in violation of WP:HARASS. Just yesterday, he told JC that "The other party spent the day editing hundreds of New Jersey articles in alpha order, leaving his name as the last editor. When a few of my edits interfered..." His edits didn't just passively interfere, there was what appears to me to be active and deliberate interference here, violations of the IBAN and of WP:HARASS. Anyone want to look at the diffs? Any explanation from the other side for these edits? Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, what the diffs show is that he did not edit articles you have. There is no proof of why or how he selected those articles. If he uses the same software, when he went to edit some articles from a software generated list, then noticed that you have edited some articles by looking at the histories first ( a good idea if your not supposed to follow another editor), and went further down a list to edit articles you have not, he is following the iban. You cant place articles on some kind of "Im going to edit some articles so you cant list". No one owns the articles, everyone is free to edit any article on WP. What the ban states is that neither of you can edit after the other until a third editor has edited it. This section reeks of WP:AGF and WP:OWN issues. Perhaps a Boomerang should hit you for starting it. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong again. The IBAN specifies giving "wide berth" and forbids manufacturing confrontations. WP:HARASS prohibits following another editor from page to page to stalk his edits. The best case is that the editor in question is rather deliberately gaming the system. He does not use AWB, and the evidence here, based on his own remarks, is that he did exactly what you ascribe, deliberately anticipating an edit to provoke a violation. If this is "wide berth" this IBAN is completely useless. No editor should have to put with this kind of stalking. Have you ever used AWB before? Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your whole argument above is that somehow by editing articles you haven't he is creating confrontations. You seem incapable of recognizing that there would be no confrontation in such cases unless you were yourself to start it after his edits. This apparent flaw in your reasoning regarding this matter once again seems to raise the repeatedly referenced WP:OWN problem you have regarding the content in question. You do not now, and never have had, the "right" to edit everything. If someone else has edited articles you intended to get to, and by so doing, reduced your possibility of editing it immediately, well, too damn bad for you. I'd love to create the Jesus article among others myself now, but, well, it's no longer an option for me. No rational person would say that by not attempting to avoid articles you haven't "gotten to" yet, particularly as you have no implicit right to "get to" all articles, is somehow manufacturing a confrontation. He is simply abiding by the terms of the i-ban by editing articles in the field that he you have not yet edited. You would be as well if you were to avoid the articles he has edited. The only way there would be a confrontation would be if you started it after his edits, and there is nowhere in wikipedia an explicit or implicit statement that Alansohn has the unrestricted right to edit every last page in a given topic area. To even attempt to argue such a point raises I believe serious questions of an unfortunate nature about the person making such arguments. It basically seems to be an attempt to argue that, by editing articles you haven't, he is misbehaving because your ability to edit everything is the top priority. It isn't, and you should realize that. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Before I started, I looked through the entire List of census-designated places in New Jersey and removed from the list every article that the other editor had edited in the past 30 days; I missed a few edits from 2014, but I made a rather deliberate effort to remove the articles and the edit history shows it. He, while subject to an interaction ban, deliberately looked ahead at the list and edited the same articles to manufacture a confrontation, but it's my fault? He edited Robbinsville CDP, which was just two articles ahead of where I was editing on the list. That's fucked up. If you were driving on the highway and someone jumped in front of your car, you wouldn't be responsible; he would. Someone who is deliberately manufacturing confrontations, editing articles because he knows that I might not notice that he had edited after I started a process is violating the interaction ban and is deliberately stalking my edits. I don't "realize that" it's my fault because he is the one going out of his way to stalk my edits. "Wide berth", my ass. He's deliberately creating conflicts here. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you will care to explain why you havent given the topic area a wide berth, but expect another editor to. Looking at your contribs you appear to be a WP:SPA that only edits New Jersey articles. AlbinoFerret 22:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I regularly edit about 5,000 to 10,000 different articles, including writing about 2,000 new articles and 800 DYKs, and I'm an SPA with a few hundred thousand edits. Do you expect me to edit articles at random now? "Wide berth" means endeavoring to avoid each other, not avoiding editing articles in the state. With that in mind before I started using AWB on Saturday evening, I looked at List of census-designated places in New Jersey and checked for all recent edits over the past 30 days generating this list. I removed from the AWB list all articles that the other editor had edited, including Manahawkin, New Egypt, Lopatcong Overlook, Marlton and Cherry Hill Mall. Take a look at my edit history and I didn't touch those articles. That's "wide berth", which Wiktionary defines as "considerable or comfortable distance from a person or object, especially for safety or deliberate avoidance." Every once in a while, I checked to see if the other editor had made any new edits to articles that might be on the list. While I was doing that, the other editor ran down that same list and jumped about two or three articles in front of my edits on that list. I worked to stay out of the way; He worked to jump in and create a confrontation. That's not "wide berth"; when it's deliberate, that's an IBAN violation, that's stalking, by definition. Let's hear from the other editor what his intentions were here. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because you edit a bunch of articles dose not mean that you are not editing in "one very narrow area", articles on places in New Jersey. Imho it has caused some of the problem, along with WP:OWN issues. If your not going to go to another area, its not really a wide berth. You knew what the focus of the other editor is, cities in the US, yet you decided to create a list of cities. Exactly how wide a berth is that again? AlbinoFerret 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've created and edited articles for tens of thousands of articles for people, places, schools, school districts, museums and events around the world, including around 900 WP:DYK articles. My counterpart has a rather unhealthy obsession with cities in the US, a rather limited focus. The last DYK article I created, for Battin High School, is a school that closed a few decades ago, yet my counterpart was stalking the article just hours after its creation with repeated edits to an article well outside his narrow topic of interest, even after warnings about his stalking (see here). Since then he's stalked me to Scotch Plains, and now with the Iban in place he's apparently rather creepily working diligently to figure out which articles I'm editing and then jumping ahead on the list to manufacture a confrontation. I've gone out of his way to stay out of his way; He's gone out of his way to stalk and harass my edits. Whether it's a place I'm editing or a school, he's done anything but exercise any definition of "wide berth". With him persistently stalking me to articles of any kind, be it place or school, I'm not sure what is unclear about the concept of maintaining "considerable or comfortable distance from a person or object". Even after rather clear warnings of wkistalking, made at both articles, he's persisted with the harassment. These edits violate the IBAN and clearly violate WP:HOUND and its prohibition on "singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." I don't know what on earth I can do when an editor works to stalk my edits wherever I go. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understand the evidence correctly, you're essentially accusing him of pre-stalking you, going where you intend to go before you actually go there. I don't think there's anything in the IBan that covers him apparently reading your mind. Why don't the both of you post on each other's talk page a polite short list of articles you intend to get to in, let's say, the next week. Then you can avoid the articles on his list, and he can avoid the articles on yours. (And I mean literally "short" and a list of articles, not categories or types of articles.) Once the week is up, and you've managed to avoid each other, do it again for another week. Rinse and repeat. BMK (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure WP:AN/MINORITYREPORT isn't a blue link. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If someone regularly follows his victim from place to place, showing up each time after the victim arrived at the bakery, the bank and the bowling alley, we'd all call that stalking. If someone studies his victim's habits, and shows up at the bakery, the bank and the bowling alley 20 minutes *before* the victim arrived, that would be an even more demented version of stalking. No sane person would blame the victim for showing up *after* the stalker; any rational individual would see an even bigger ick factor of a creep who is so preoccupied with his victim to go to such lengths. What BMK calls "pre-stalking" is far worse than merely following someone around; it demonstrates a level of obsession and harassment far above what is acceptable.

The other party has usually stalked me in the traditional, creepy version, at Battin High School (a brand-new article) and again at the same article, but also at Scotch Plains, with some more stalking at the same article. Far worse, he's gone out of his way to study what I'm editing and then jumped ahead on the list. This isn't a case of "apparently reading [my] mind", this is stalker who sat down, reviewed my edits and saw that I was editing the List of census-designated places in New Jersey. This isn't my supposition; In this talk page edit he describes how "The other party spent the day editing hundreds of New Jersey articles in alpha order, leaving his name as the last editor. When a few of my edits interfered...." He knew what I was doing and deliberately edited Robbinsville CDP, just 15 minutes before I would get there, followed on that list minutes later by Seabrook Farms and Zarephath.

Be it Battin High School and Scotch Plains or be it Robbinsville CDP, Seabrook Farms or Zarephath, he had *NEVER* edited any of those articles before. The only way he would come across those is to deliberately stalk my edits, either imposing his changes on articles I had just edited, or -- even more disturbingly and downright fucked up -- looking at my edits, checking the list and jumping a few minutes ahead to deliberately manufacture a violation of the Interaction Ban.

In real life, a stalker who persistently follows his victim after being warned would be given a restraining order. Someone who starts stalking his victim after a restraining order has been issued, and then starts showing up in advance after guessing the victim's next steps, would be tossed in jail. Whether you look at our definitions of Stalking or read WP:HARRASS or you look at the IBan clause 4 re "wide berth", we are each obligated to make our best efforts to stay out of each other's way. I've tried my best, as described above, to avoid even touching anything he has touched. The other editor has been persistently stalking my edits, at articles he has never edited that aren't on his watch list, and now resorts to maliciously looking ahead to jump a few articles ahead on a list. In Wikipedia, we have ways to deal with this kind of messed up behavior, and a block combined with a meaningful interaction / topic ban are needed, above and beyond the present IBAN that he has been gaming from day one. Alternatively, an apology by the other party, combined with a genuine commitment to avoid further stalking may be a legitimate alternative before taking further action. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of words, but what it still comes down to that you want first dibs on articles on places in New Jersey, and expect Magnolia677 to back away entirely from that subject area, on the mere possibility that you will edit an article within in. Unfortunately, that was not part of the IBan, which set up specific rules for editing in the same subject area: i.e. whoever edited an article first, the other editor couldn't revert their edits until a third party had edited articles first. There was a clear mechanism for complaints about the contents of the others edits, if it was felt that they were wrong or harmful to the article, but there was and is nothing in the IBan which forbids either of you from editing in the same subject area, and certainly nothing that requires the other editor to read your mind. I made a suggestion that you both post a short list of srticles which you intent to edit, and you (both) ignored that. You have instead returned to making the same basic complaint. Unfortunately, by acting on what you want to be the case about the IBan, you have actually broken the real, specific conditions of the ban yourself -- which is why all uninvolved commenters who have expressed an opinion have suggested that you should receive a block for your behavior. BMK (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking into the future

For an interaction ban to work, both parties have to want it to work. They both have to dial down their sensitivities, they both have to turn a blind eye to perceived slights from the other party, and they both have to make an effort to stay out of the way of the other, especially immediately after a ban is put in place, by going to different parts of Wikipedia which the other doesn't frequent, and editing there until things cool down sufficiently for them to, perhaps, edit in the same area without getting on each other's nerves. Frankly, I haven't see that behavior from either of these parties, hence my initial "a pox on both their houses" comment above.

It may well be that these two editors are just not capable of fulfilling the requirements of an interaction ban, that the community may have to force them to disengage with mutual topic bans, and then with mutual site bans -- but neither editor appears to take these possibilities seriously. It is true that in this particular instance, Alansohn appears to be at fault, and it is true that in the last instance before the IBan was put in place most editors (not including myself) thought that Magnolia677 was in the wrong, at least technically, but in reality, neither has behaved like two editors who want to disengage would behave. They are each still trying to pin blame on the other, only now it's for violating the IBan instead of other perceived problems.

I think that however the community deals with this particular instance, it needs to start thinking about where the line is across which topic and site bans are warranted. It may not be now, since the IBan has just been put in place, but my evaluation of the behavior and attitudes of both the editors leads me to believe that the line, wherever it is, will be crossed at some point, perhaps even soon. BMK (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that there is a lot of possible, if unfortunate, truth to this statement. I would prefer to avoid site bans in the cases of both individuals, and tend to think that perhaps some sort of mutual topic ban from New Jersey might be sufficient. That might also include putting at least some of the NJ-related content under discretionary sanctions, because there may well be a chance that the content might suffer if the scrutiny the material receives from these two individuals were removed. I am not in any way proposing anything here, I want it understood, just expressing some personal, possibly poorly-founded, opinions. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with John, this is very well-stated, BMK. I-bans aren't created as a way of drawing a line in the sand, in order to catch the other person crossing said line. If the two editors really want to abide by the I-ban, you need to ignore each other, not focus your efforts on where the other person might have violated the letter of the ban. It seems like the I-ban has only increased the conflict brought to AN/I, not decreased it and so admins might eventually seek stronger solutions. I think it would be a loss for Wikipedia if you received topic bans for New Jersey articles but it might come to that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree. Alansohn I know to be a passionate supporter of the concept of free knowledge and a Wikipedian of the old school. He pretty much drove the de facto acceptance that every high school is "inherently notable" in the notorious school wars, years back. He did this because he believed it to be right, not just correct. I have a lot of respect for his patience, persistence, ethics and commitment. I really wish the two of them could just disengage. It is a very sad state of affairs.

Looking into Magnolia's edits, I am drawn to much the same conclusion that Alansohn presents above. If Magnolia can't show a long-standing interest in this subject area, then I suggest a block for at least 48 hours for gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this I think he's just trying to work through the US Cities stuff he has been working on all over the 'pedia. He saw a chance to make the edit on those two particular articles and did it without drama. I think the problem is Alansohn is so prolific in his edits it may be hard to work on certain articles without interacting with each other. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Alan's rant, I think he's perturbed as he is committed to the project and working in the area he works in; however, it was uncalled for and should not have been done per the IBAN. I think M77 was doing his thing independently (USCITIES stuff), Alan was doing his stuff, and there was a little overlap. Alan should be waiting like M77 does until there is an intervening edit to make his edits. That's how most others seem to deal with their IBAN and it seems to work with little to no issue. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) Tend to agree with the IP, somewhat to my surprise, 'coz I generally have reservations about IP at the noticeboards. But Magnolia's subject area of interest does seem to be US cities, apparently including NJ cities, while Alansohn's is New Jersey, including New Jersey cities. If a way were found to restrict the head to head editing in the overlap somehow, that would probably work, but how would one do it fairly, and also take into account that both seem to (presumably) have some sort of knowledge or expertise in their particular topic area, and that the articles in the area of intersection would, frankly, probably be best if both of them could work on it without problems? Both could, presumably, leave the area of intersection alone, and, I dunno, maybe some sort of "month off, month on" approach might work. So, that might allow Magnolia to edit other cities articles for a month, while Alansohn does NJ cities, and then ask Alansohn to edit other areas of NJ content, while Magnolia edits the NJ cities. Maybe. Sounds ridiculous, though, doesn't it? John Carter (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. They clearly contribute well but put them together is similar to elemental sodium and water together. Topic banning them from something they are clearly good at individually would be a net loss. How about Odd days/Even days? Uncommon solutions are rarely tolerated and rarely work but it may in this case. And to address the IP issue, I edited long ago and lost the passion as I found myself perusing the drama boards more than editing and I realized I was here for the wrong reasons. Instead of becoming part of the peanut gallery here I decided to leave and just edit anonymously whenever I feel the urge and avoid the drama boards mostly. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem about the IP address - I was just being a smartass, which is an unfortunate tendency I have to make some sort of attempt to control one of these days. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone want to wrap this up somehow?

The thread seems to have been inactive for a while now, and I think that there is enough of an indicator that there should be at least some form of action taken upon it. So, before it gets archived, would some admin either want to review it and do whatever is required, or, alternately, offer an !opinion as to how to resolve it? John Carter (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Two things I think bear repeating, since this discussion is a bit fractured. The first is that several editors have now throroughly debunked Alansohn's complaint about Magnolia677 "stalking" him. (Pre-stalking, really, since Alansohn expects Magnolia677 to avoid editing articles that Alansohn intends to edit.)

The other is that all uninvolved editors who have expressed an opinion about sanctions based on these reported incidents have recommended a block for Alansohn. (It's a long, convoluted thread, so if I missed someone who thinks that Magnolia677 should be blocked, my apologies, and please say so here.) BMK (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This was archived, but as the first serious incident in a brand-new interaction ban (the previous incident having been written off as a probable accident), it really should be closed by an uninvolved admin. BMK (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The thread has been quiet for around 5 days. If there's been no recent disruption then it sounds like a block isn't really preventive. That said, my eyes glazed over. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, you can think of it that way, but I can practically guarantee that if something isn't done by way of a sanction, or at the very least a final warning, this issue will appear again, and soon.

As for MEGO, yes, I totally agree. Walls of text seem to be the communications methodology of choice of both subjects of the IBan. BMK (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• To prevent that, why don't we have both of them now, on this page, come to some very specific (not vague like "wide berth") mutual agreement of their own devising that will have a zero-tolerance of exception to. In other words, if either of them demonstrably violates whatever the agreement is, even once, they will receive a block of X amount of time. It's time both of these individuals started taking responsibility for their actions and for the solution to the problem, instead of dragging the whole thing through endless discussions on ANI. I think the only way for them to do that is for them to figure out the plan and the consequence, and set it in stone. Right here, in a neutral centralized place. The other option being either a TBAN for both of them on NJ articles, or Arbcom. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@@Softlavender: Good idea. Why don't you suggest this on both of their talk pages? BMK (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think it's my place to post on their talk pages, but perhaps John Carter would like to, or another neutral but knowledgeable person. And we can ping Alansohn and Magnolia677, as I did just there, if pings are working properly. I'd rather someone else curate the convocation and agreement, as I have no understanding of the details (other than observing the length and repetitiveness of the situation on ANI). Softlavender (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A neutral mediator would be good, but it can't be me, I know I'm not on good terms with one of the two, and I'm not sure how the other is feeling about me at this point. Medeis negotiated the IBan, but that's what seems not be working -- or maybe it is, and the fact that we haven't heard from other editor in the last few days is an indication of that. I do know that I, personally, have no intention of rescuing this thread from the archive again if it's archived for a second time without being closed. BMK (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

My personal desire is never to see this issue come up on ANI again. How can we effect that, or create a proposal for the community !vote on, to effect that? I believe we probably do need a mediator to help the two of them establish the zero-tolerance ground rules, here on this neutral public space. If they are adults and acting in good faith, they can establish ground rules, in my opinion. And I do believe that, as stringent as it may be, the only other way to prevent this issue coming up at ANI again, short of a workable and very specific agreement between them, is NJ topic bans for both, or ArbCom if it ever even verges onto ANI again. ArbCom deals with things the community cannot or has not been able to handle, and thus far it seems like the whole dialogue is always so incredibly lengthy no one wants to get involved to decipher it. Can you think of a next step? Or a proposal to headline? All I know is, I'm developing a zero-tolerance for this ever showing up here again, and if it does, I personally (if I see it) will propose a NJ topic ban for both. Softlavender (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm neutral (I'm basically unfamiliar with the editing habits of both Alansohn and Magnolia) but I do agree with Alansohn's analysis that if Alansohn is editing with a predictable pattern and Magnolia is using the pattern to anticipate Alansohn's edits and interfere with them on purpose, that constitutes gaming. I haven't examined the article histories myself, so I won't take a stance for now about whether such anticipation and gaming has actually happened. Magnolia, if you were doing that, it's not good faith editing so please stop. Magnolia's complaint on the other hand was that Alansohn was editing such large numbers of articles as to leave a "footprint" almost everywhere. Alansohn, would it work for you to slow down some, e.g. don't edit more than 50 articles a day? Magnolia could have a similar speed limit.

I unfortunately have too limited availability to be able to mediate this (I'm away a lot of the time). My take on the existing agreement is that it's so legalistically written that it almost asks to be gamed. The only thing missing was "Hear ye, hear ye" at the beginning. Alansohn and Magnolia, could the two of you just divvy up the articles somehow? E.g. Alansohn edits NJ articles from A to M and Magnolia gets N to Z, then switch after a while? Or Magnolia stays away from direct edits on NJ articles (talk page suggestions are fine) and Alansohn stays away from some other state(s) nominated by Magnolia? Does anyone understand the nature of the conflict between Alansohn and Magnolia in individual articles (maybe it's somewhere up there in the tl;dr)? I think that info is needed to get a sense of what kinds of agreements can work. Anyone mediating will have to spend a while looking at older disputes and examining diffs. But the basic idea is reasonable. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

1) Zero-tolerance anything generally doesn't work on Wikipedia, especially when there's a lot of room for gaming. 2) If Alansohn is focusing mostly on NJ while Magnolia is working on all 50 states, why topic ban both from NJ? That stops almost all of Alansohn's editing but only 2% of Magnolia's. Unless I'm missing something we might do better to restrict Magnolia from NJ and Alansohn from the other 49 states or some subset of them. I guess either proposal would require some diff-counting to see how equitible it was. But I think it's better to figure out the root of the conflict if that's possible. Alansohn and Magnolia, could you each name one specific article where you think your disagreement was especially bad before the IBAN, and give your side of what happened in it, with diffs? Maybe we need an arbcom-style presentation, either on an ANI sub-page or by the actual arbcom. Or is there still such a thing as the mediation committee? It looks like MEDCAB is dead. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Tolerance hasn't worked, and has only gotten us these 200,000-byte ANI threads. My zero-tolerance plan (see up above [119]) is for them personally to establish a very specific agreed-upon protocol in which if either of them provably deviates even once, they receive a block (say 24 hours for the first instance). If they both agree, and the plan is very specific, I don't see how that is gameable or unfair. And in terms of mediator, I mean an admin, not an IP; and the agreement should include at least one or two very specific admins to whom either can turn if the pact is transgressed and who will institute the agreed-upon block. (By the way, comments by Liz and BMK below are noted, thank you.) Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It might be a sign of progress that neither Alansohn or Magnolia have returned to discuss this issue so they very well might have gotten over it all. There is no sense in imposing bans and blocks if there is no longer any problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this part of the discussion has been worthwhile, and not that I don't agree with Softlavender that I would be happy not to see the problem arise here again, but I think at this point I'm with Liz and 50.0's earlier comment. Maybe it's best to wait and see if they've somehow fallen into a functional pattern of editing both can live with. I'd be interested in hearing what @John Carter: thinks. BMK (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that I've been clear as to the issue here; I want to be able to edit in peace without having this editor riding my ass out of what appears to be nothing more than spite. Whether before, during or after the implementation of this interaction ban, the other editor seems to be persistently stalking my edits as part of a consistent pattern of harassment. There are multiple examples in the recent past of this deliberate stalking / harassment at articles he has never edited before and which would never appear on his watchlist, such as at Battin High School, Scotch Plains, Robbinsville (CDP) and Seabrook Farms. I have worked over the past few months since he started editing these articles and creating conflicts to stay out of his way, to provide warnings when he appears to be engaging in harassment and to provide the "wide berth" required by the interaction ban; I haven't seen any corresponding effort by the other editor. We've heard BMK, JC and other editor's versions of his story, but without hearing directly from the editor in question with explanations for his recent edits and his plans to avoid further conflicts over the next 360-odd days left in this interaction ban, it's hard to make any substantive suggestions to tighten or modify this Iban. Alansohn (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In response to BMK above, I think Alansohn's last comment above has to be weighed in, and I regret to say that what I see in it tends to indicate that at least Alansohn is exhibiting the same problems that he did earlier in his opinions, which leads me to think that the behavior is likely to return to form unless something is done to change that. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're right, but I'm also afraid that my patience to deal with this issue is very low at this point. BMK (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand. I just hope someone else closes it, taking into account everything said here. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I just had a little laugh after seeing again the overall title of this thread: "Possible quick violation of i-ban." Well, the violation may have been quick, but the resolution certainly hasn't been.

At this point, I doubt that many admins are even going to consider diving into such a deep pool of words, claims and counter-claims. I thought we were on the track to at least starting to clear things up with Medeis' IBan (which, any admin reading this, is still logged, and still remains in effect), but I guess that was an illusion. It's been said many times before that AN/I is not well suited for dealing with complex issues, and my feeling now is that this is going to have to end up at ArbCom before all is said and done. BMK (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've seen childish WP:POINTy edits before, but this edit where the editor in question added an entry to the list of notables in the article for Trenton, New Jersey adding "Chris Christie, as governor, he is closely associated with the state capitol city." I'm not quite sure how I provoked this disruptive edit. It's this kind of bad faith edit at an article this editor has never edited before, that demonstrates the nature of the problem. I too am afraid that my patience to deal with this issue is very low at this point if the other editor is unwilling to edit like a mature adult. Alansohn (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm willing to see this closed, if we can't get the two of them together here to agreeably work out a detailed deal without casting aspersions and making accusations -- on the understanding that if it comes to ANI again (from either side), a proposal for a NJ topic ban for both of them, of whatever length, is likely going to ensue; or ArbCom. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me, at first glance, what is so childish and disruptive about that edit. If Bill Clinton is listed as a notable person from Little Rock, Arkansas because he was governor, why should Christie not be listed as a notable person from Trenton, New Jersey? Or is it just that you don't like Magnolia677, so every edit they make to your area of interest is automatically disruptive? Reyk _YO! 06:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That is an easy one to answer, and if you do not know the answer, a little research would tell you the answer. Clinton lived in Little Rock before he was governor, that is why his presidential library is there. Christie has an office in Trenton as governor, but the official governor's mansion is in Princeton, New Jersey. If we are going to add every politician and civil servant associated with state capitols, that has a Wikipedia article, the list is going to be long. We have governors, state assembly members and both state and federal judges, as well as notable civil servants. We generally do not list people based on where they work, but where they have their residence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm no expert on American politics and took it for granted that a governor's residence would be in the state capital. One has to wonder why, instead of a civil and polite explanation like yours of why an edit is erroneous, Alansohn has to scream and make personal attacks. Reyk _YO! 08:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to add every politician and civil servant associated with state capitols. We aren't talking about "every politician and civil servant" -- we are talking about state governors [notable residents by definition]. The list is for "People who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Trenton". Christie has been governor of the state since 2010, and has been hugely in national and international news as NJ governor because of Hurricane Sandy, etc. Additionally, his firm had an office in Trenton since 1999. I'm not seeing why Christie would not be one of "People who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Trenton". Beyond that, even if someone were for some reason to disagree with that quite rightful-by-definition addition, to call the addition "childish" "POINTy", "disruptive", "bad faith" and "unwilling to edit like a mature adult", after being asked to come here and resolve matters, pretty much speaks for itself. Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Additional note/question: There seems universal agreement on this thread, by those auto-confirmed editors that have investigated the matter (four uninvolved editors here), that Alansohn is the disruptive and/or gaming party. Rather than demonstrating an interest in resolving the matter, immediately above he posted an aspersion. Up above in the thread there was support for a block of Alansohn; but it didn't get put into an organized subtitled proposal, so various lengthy intervening discussions have ensued. My question is, should we: (1) Make a subthread now titled "Proposal: Block of Alansohn"? or (2) Let this thread be closed with a warning that if it comes up again, either ArbCom or a NJ topic-ban will ensue? Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is all Alansohn's fault so there isn't universal agreement. And it's hard to resolve this dispute as long as Magnolia677 stays away and doesn't help address the problems. I do agree that this case should be closed and next time the participants appear at ANI, a topic ban is proposed at the beginning of the discussion, before the conversation has grown cold. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it the point for M77 to disengage as much as possible in order to not interact? 129.9.75.247 (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that part of the IBAN is for the two editors not to use each other's names, etc. At the very least, when asked (or at least pinged, assuming pings are working and that they are checking this thread) to come resolve the matter and hammer out an agreement, Magnolia77 has not come in here and attacked the other party again instead, like Alansohn did above. I'm not taking sides, as I haven't reviewed all of the evidence at hand. I'm just saying that four out of four editors who !voted above supported a block for Alansohn. I was just asking a question. If no one wants to put it to a formal and organized !vote, I suggest that an admin close this thread with a stern warning (and also a warning against gaming by e.g. editing every single NJ article in existence so that the other party cannot "touch" them). Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A note was left on my talk page asking me to write something here. My biggest concern about Alansohn is that he is a bully. He name calls, he makes accusations of stalking and disruptive editing, he intimidates other editors, and looks for battles where there is only good-faith editing (see Battin High School). Owning a US state on Wikipedia is not always a bad thing. Look at the wonderful contributions of User:Coal town guy to West Virginia. My real concern is that bullies--even hard working ones like Alansohn--at some point become a liability, as we've seen in many of our workplaces, and on our kids hockey teams. Their squeeze isn't worth the juice. When there is ownership of a large part of Wikipedia--such as a US state--but no support for new editors, no goodwill, and no open-mindedness to alternative editing styles, you end up with countless articles which all pretty much look the same. How different would those New Jersey articles look if their government sections were trimmed, if other sections were permitted to expand, and if new editors to New Jersey were welcomed and supported? Personally, I feel bullies and mean-spirited editors are a liability and should be kicked the heck off Wikipedia--even if they've made a million edits--but that's just because I dislike bullies (and love Wikipedia). Thanks for listening. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Another Dodo sock

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

---

Can an admin take a look? The edits are on: User talk:Doorknob747 I suggest page protection be put in place as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This Door's ghost (talk · contribs) is the editor making the edits. They haven't received any warnings but they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. MarnetteD|Talk 00:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe its a sock account of DodoBirdsDie6 (talk · contribs). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nor much doubt about that now, given their edit summaries. BMK (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat at Talk:RKO Radio Network

[120]. Some legal intimidation anyways. This is very likely related to the hoaxing attempts on the Lester Coleman article which have gone on for years. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's coming close to NLT but, in the interests of safety, and an abundance of caution, I asked WMF Legal if they're actually involved and there's a real issue or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this new account, Talkwiki7708 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), likely the same user as Manuke7708 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who made similar threats two days ago? —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hah. Yeah. Groan. Ok, sockpuppetry on top of everything else. Ok, are either of these associated with other accounts we know of?... Is there a Checkuser in the house? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, pretty obvious. Just more craziness to add to what's already there. Secret twin brothers! Huge government conspiracies! An Emmy-winning journalist turned international spy turned respected Middle Eastern professor who's been dead for years! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Both were created about five minutes apart on the 24th. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Question and assistance request for those following this more closely: If you could scan this user creation log section and let us know if any of the names look familiar...

2015-04-24 1244 user creation log

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for obvious attempt at a chilling effect, torpid as it was. I was amused at how the "wikifoundation" was investigating "wikieditors" and Worldcom (!) had been notified of their shenanigans. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I just CU-reblocked that account along with Talkwiki7708 and Cyberwikied (talk · contribs) for socking.[121] ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Lots of SPAs at Talk:Lester Coleman's archives, but all too old for CU data to still be available. A few IPs as some related pages too, but nothing recent (CUs please let me know if I should dig further to find them). DMacks (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

User:68.35.244.34 appears connected to this as well. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 23:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikimedia Foundation Legal mailed back and indicated they had no contact from RKO, so it appears entirely spurious. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

User:67.235.248.142 caught my eye from a few years back. DMacks (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Abem12 creating inappropriate articles after a level 4 warning

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

---

See User talk:Abem12: this user has been creating spam (promoting his/her own interests) and inappropriate articles that are all eligible for speedy deletion eight ten times, despite being warned with two level 4 warnings. Although they were two bouts of inappropriate page creation spaced 18 days apart, because he/she kept creating such articles after receiving a level 4 warning on both of these bouts of inappropriate page creation, and they constitute vandalism and spam, the user is probably WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Esquivalience ^t 02:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Looks like they were trying to replicate this make-believe thing on here. But enough is enough. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

IP adding unsourced medical information and copyvios

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

---

64.222.173.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log): unsourced copyvio, unsourced medical claim, unsourced medical claim, unsourced, replacing sourced text with unsourced, etc. Talk page is already full of warnings. 173.252.16.206 (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Notified (which you should have done with {{subst:ANI-notice}}) and blocked for 72 hours to get their attention. Miniapolis 22:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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

DefconBot Never Updates to Me For Vandalism Updates

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

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Admins Please Help me Because DefconBot Has Inactive Because If never updates for Vandalism Info Can You Please Help Me Thanks!.National Names 2000 (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Um...what's going on here? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me as if National Names 2000 is having trouble with DefconBot, and posted about it here instead of going to User talk:DefconBot where they should have gone. They also posted the AN/I notice here, instead of on User talk:DefconBot, where it belonged.

National Names 2000: This page is not for fixing problems of that sort, it's for serious behavioral problems. Please don't post that kind of thing here again, and if you do run into a behavioral problem, discuss it with the editor in question on their talk page before you come here. In this case, please go to User talk:DefconBot, which will redirect you to the talk page of the editor who runs the bot. Explain the problem you're having there, and you'll probably get the help you need. BMK (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Travelbybus

Travelbybus (talk · contribs)

This user adds unsourced claims in several articles related to politics repeatedly without feedbacks. See [122], [123], [124], [125]. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This editor's behaviour is very reminiscent of that of serial sockpuppeteer Greekboy12345er6. RolandR (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

User:DD2K aka "Dave Dial"'s Deeds at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request‎

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

---

Twice now Dave Dial has presented deceptively manipulated search engine results at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request‎ which by their presentation would be taken to represent the full result of the search, but which careful examination reveals use inapplicable date ranges which in fact yield results very different from the outcome he claims.

The first instance is this edit, where he claims that "Scholar(HRC, HC) and ngram results favor Hillary Rodham Clinton," presented these links with no indication that they represented the oddly limited date range. When I called him on it the first time he deleted my observation claiming that comments go in the discussion thread (which is weird because he himself then started a new argument in the "wrong" section and edit-warred against other editors seeking to move that to the discussion section).

When I called him out on in the discussion section his response was that "the valid dates are 1970-2000. because that is when the article was created(2001)." That's not made at all clear where he initially posts them up. And, had he gone to the actual date of article creation the numbers would have been somewhat worse for his position. If that's just a mistake, fine. But then he does it again.

Here, he claims "these Ngram results are totally false" and instead (in the last paragraph) claims "The actual results should look like this Ngram." Now, here's the Ngram he provides. But this time the dates are from 1986 to 2003. Which is especially weird because right after that the numbers start to go the other way, so if he'd showed the EXACT SAME SEARCH with results up to the most recent date range it looks like THIS.

I call foul. This is deception. The excuse he offers in response, that he intended to stop an (an irrelevant) 2001 date range, and made a typo or whatever doesn't hold water. That he presents a deceptive date range after being called for a previous deceptive date range nails shut that coffin.

And there are other things. In the edit history following that post (from 22:11, 29 April 2015‎ to 22:34, 29 April 2015‎ he revert-wars with both User:Calidum and User:Kenobi5487. Despite relying on falsifications himself, he belittles numerous other editors for disagreeing with him: here he tells User:331dot "your support !vote is ridiculous", and here he claims of User:Anythingyouwant "the editor has no clue". And his most recent response to me is this one where falsely accused me of having been "topic banned from some kind of topics concerning women" which is a disgusting and degrading lie. (Full disclaimer, I was "DeistCosmos" until February, when I had my username renamed to reflect my Twitter handle; I have NEVER been topic-banned from anything, nor proposed to be topic-banned from anything, nor involved in any discussion remotely like that; making an accusation like that is a serious thing which requires some foundation in reality).

Because of all this, I propose:

1. That User:DD2K aka "Dave Dial" be topic-banned from this move discussion, and all his participation therein struck.
2. That User:DD2K aka "Dave Dial" additionally be blocked and prohibited from editing Wikipedia under any account until the whole thing is at an end.
3. That, in discouragement of these tactics, the move discussion be summarily closed as moved, to be revisited in one year. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support #1 and #2, Oppose #3 as unwarranted. Any notes that need to be made to closing admins (admins closing the RM) regarding the situation may be made on that page. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support #1 and #2, Oppose #3. As Pandeist says, Dial did falsely accuse me of having no clue (and of systemic bias), and fortunately I was able to put an end to the discussion by civilly proving him wrong. But still, I think summarily closing the move would not be appropriate. The rest sounds okay. Unfortunately, I think Pandeist also needs to be warned about canvassing; the only person he was required to notify here was Dial.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Forgive me if I was mistaken, but my impression was that it is appropriate to give notice to involved parties, even if they are victims of the conduct instead of its perpetrators. Pandeist (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • It's understandable. Probably the template near the top of this ANI page needs to be clarified. The problem is that it's really easy to ping the defendant plus lots of plaintiffs, which leaves the defendant greatly outnumbered here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I humbly submit that that's the defendants own doing. He's the one in control of how many people he insults/edit wars with. Pandeist (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

DD2k notified. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support #1a; #1b, 2, & 3 seem like over-the-top grandstanding by the filer to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support #1, though I oppose #2 as being over-the-top and oppose #3 as too early of a closure. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• FFS. Is this a freaking joke? If an admin wants me to further explain myself(more than I have in the current and past move requests), I will. But this 'incident' report is absurdly ridiculous. What about the move request presenter giving results from just 2014-current? As if 'Hillary Clinton' just popped out of nowhere and she never existed as Hillary Rodham Clinton from 1970-2001. You know, when she became a public figure. An absolute joke. I am amazed that editors are voting in this. Dave Dial (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Anybody can present whatever date range results they wish; but what they can't do is simply toss it out as "here are the real numbers" while hiding (even after being warned for it once) date range manipulation which distorts the truth to prevent the collapse of their claim). And as to the move requesters citing the change in the past year, that's plainly and honestly presented as the change in the past year. It supports that the case is stronger now than it was then (and will be that much stronger again next year). Pandeist (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support #1, Neutral #2 & Oppose #3 as absolutely ridiculous. While the 7 revert edit warring was very over the top, that seems to have calmed down for now. #3 was... ridiculous. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Trout for Everybody - Jesus, what a fucking stupid waste of time. Close this idiotic thread. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Idiotic, is it, to point out a participant falsifying data to spur opposition (who knows how many opposers relied on that errancy), revert warring with two others to keep this deception in the wrong place, while insulting many more participants and making an absurdly false topic ban claim? Are those the standards you wish to see exercised against you when others dispute your positions in discussions? Pandeist (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose #3 -
  • Q: Hey, why was this article moved to Hillary Clinton?
  • A: Well, an opposing user misbehaved in the RM and that voided all opposing arguments.
  • ?: Oh.
  • Trout is too good. Carp for the OP. Neutral on #1 and #2. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Added after close

• Support option 1 and oppose the close of this discussion. This whole affair has had a great deal of unpleasantness imo and this is capped by manipulation of information. Philg88 imo the close of this thread was disruptive. GregKaye 12:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: The thread was closed to prevent any further unpleasantness in what is clearly a sensitive discussion - prolonging it here is not going to improve the Encyclopedia. Your use of the word "disruptive" beggars belief.  Philg88 ^♦talk 13:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Miraclexix won't leave me alone

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

---

The dispute that I thought had ended turned out didn't. Now Miraclexix is going on my talk page, finding already fixed disputes, and butting in and antagonizing me. If this isn't harassment, I don't know what is. I would like this dispute to be resolved because I am sick of being poked. I will admit to violating WP:BEAR (a great essay by the way). But now he is doing the same thing. As the accisations of harassment keep getting thrown at me. I feel worse about contributing, as I feel that I am just destroying the Wikipedia. If I am really in the wrong here, than why haven't I been warned/blocked earlier? Weegeerunner (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm scared of getting blocked by an admin for harassment if I do that. I'm risking a block by bringing it up again here. Weegeerunner (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't be scared, just remove his gibberish from your talk page and move on. Pursuing a vendetta here when your own hands aren't clean will result in a WP:BOOMERANG hitting you right in the WikiFace if you keep pushing. You and the Miraclex guy are two trolls feeding one another, that much is obvious, so you'd be wise to drop the stick already and steer clear of troll-swatting central to which you're being drawn like a moth to a flame. But obviously you won't, you'll just keep pushing. *sigh* At least now you can't say nobody warned you. 162.209.0.32 (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:TROLL Weegeerunner (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, just no! I refuse to believe anyone would take seriously a guy that whines on their talk page about their 'extremely administrable encroachments', (what the heck) and other such barely coherent nonsense, I simply refuse. If you weren't a troll yourself, you would've moved on long ago, shaking your head. Instead I'm shaking my head at your what, THIRD ani thread about the same troll that's playing you like a fiddle? Yeah, no. Now you might ask how do I know it's your third attempt at a suicide by admin, well here's how - I looked at your list of recent contributions and posting here about Mr. Miracle's all you've been doing lately, I see no other edits! This is not healthy, I'll tell you that much. 162.209.0.32 (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I never said anything about extremely administrable encroachments. The reason that I haven done anything else is because I was hospitilized, and I can't go back to my normal editing if it is as problematic as he says it is. That's why I wan't closure. I don't feel right editing like that if it's really disrupting the encyclopedia. Look at what I have done, do you really think someone who reverted so much vandalism in the past would go troll? Weegeerunner (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Weegeerunner, you've not provided diffs or other evidence, and I don't see evidence of substantial problems on your talk page or on his. Unless you provide evidence, nothing can be done. Per WP:WIAPA, unsubstantiated accusations are considered personal attacks; if you make more assertions without evidence, it may be you who gets blocked. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Here, here and here. Weegeerunner (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

All of those are reasonable statements. Looking around at his talk page, meanwhile, I found [126], where the time-lapse between creation and tagging gives me the impression that you were stalking him. Unless you can provide solid evidence of serious problematic editing by Miraclexix, this thread will be closed either with no action or with a block of you. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a few questions. First off, with the Raymond Coxon thing, how was me putting maintenance tags on the article incivility? Can you explain the proper way to use them? And I still don't understand how warning someone for editing someone else's comments is harassment. (I shouldn't have just used warning templates, but It's still not wikihounding). Also, he constantly tried to paint me as a disruptive editor as seen here and here. If my editing is really that problematic, and I am nothing but a disruptive editor, that insults people, harasses people with tags, drives people away, and deletes articles and reverts content for no reason other than to be annoying, (or in other words, someone who is WP:NOTTHERE how come I was never blocked for that before? And if what I did is wikihounding, how is going to someone's talk page, finding an old discussion that died a natural death, and used it to paint me as a disruptive editor. If I am really such a horrible editor. I ask you to place an indefinite block on my account. Weegeerunner (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've never used Twinkle, so I don't know: maybe you can't customise the edit summaries. Still, that's one small thing, and the force of his message still stands: it looks like he says that you're templating the regulars unnecessarily. There's nothing wrong with going to your talk page and responding to earlier discussions; the problem is when you're so closely following your opponent that you start trying to have his creations deleted within a minute of their creation. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I never did that. I tagged one article he created for deletion because I was patrolling the recent changes and I was unaware that A7 doesn't apply to software. And yes, it is true that I shouldn't have templates the regulars, and I have owned up to that mistake. But I still fail to see how that validates his claims of me being a disruptive editor who harasses people and is WP:NOTTHERE. And if I should stay off his talk page and leave him alone. Why can't I have the same right? He can accuse me of harassment, stalking, and vandalism for simply templating the regulars? And if using warning templates is considered blackmail, and I have been driving new users away with them, I assume I'm not allowed to use them on new users ether. So what's the point in having warning templates if using them is blackmail and bullying. And we shouldn't ignore WP:DTTR#AGF, and Why are we assuming the assumption of bad faith? How is using maintenance tags repelling good faith contributors and violating WP:AGF? Can you please explain the correct use of maintinance tags? I assumed you looked over an article, and if you felt it needed work, tagged it for maintenance. If that is driving people away, what is the correct procedure? Weegeerunner (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, you need to explain what you're doing: templating the regulars and adding unexplained tags is disruptive, as is your general battleground mentality. Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained tags? I explained the tags very well. You can't change the edit summary in twinkle. I don't know what else to say. I did all that I could to explain why I put the templates there. And I did not know he was a regular. We can't just ignore WP:DTTR#AGF. And I do not have a general battleground mentality. Almost all my edits are recent changes partol. I follow the 4 step pattern to the best of my capability, and sometimes a discussion/dispute happens. Many times I have seen users who take every single thing said to them or edit reverted as a personal attack. Also, if I am really such a disruptive editor, Why wasn't I told about this before? I have conversed and even had disagreements with many admins. Why is it that only now am I being told that I am not helping the encyclopedia? It's hard to explain adding tags in twinkle. And still, where is the evidence of the big accusations of vandalism, stalking, and harassment? And again, I know I shouldn't have templated a regular, I owned up to that mistake. But how is templating the regulars blackmail? Weegeerunner (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Why weren't you told? Let me be clear: your battleground mentality is driving off others, and it's easier to ignore you than to bother with enforcing policy against you. Just stop taking everything as a challenge, stop taking good advice as a reason to go to ANI, and stop harassing people. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

First off, I do not have a battleground mentality. It just looks that way because I was in a dispute. And aren't admins supposed to help other editors? I do not take everything as a challenge. We can't just ignore WP:AGF Bear poking is not good advice. And I never harassed anyone. You keep saying I harass people, but you never show any evidence. If you are going to assume that I am WP:NOTTHERE aren't you supposed to have clear evidence? Weegeerunner (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I came here because of a WP:AN thread asking that this be resolved before you dug yourself into a bigger hole. My comments about your actions arise solely from this thread: you hauled someone here, without evidence, claiming malfeasance, and when required to provide evidence, you provided evidence that the other guy had been doing this right thing. When I fail to accept your arguments, you continue fighting, you don't or won't understand what I'm saying, and you continue repeating the same thing over and over again, even poking me to ensure that I can't ignore you like everyone else can. Let me make myself understood: if you don't stop immediately, your original request for sanctions will be granted in a Croesan fashion, i.e. WP:BOOMERANG. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You know what? Do it. I am clearly in the wrong here, I accept the fact that I am a harassing, blocking, vandalizing, encyclopedia ruining bastard. I want an indeffinite block on my account and my talk page access removed. (at least) Weegeerunner (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Shenanigans, possible sockpuppetry at Robert L. Gordon IV

After a significant gap in editing, Bldfire created this article a few days ago. I noticed it when an entry was added by an IP here. After going through this version I concluded the article was little more than a resume and asked Bldfire what he was thinking. Another IP reverted immediately and Bldfire joined in. I posted my concerns at BLPN [127] and a new editor, making their first edit, responded. They added sources to already sourced material while leaving the unsourced and poorly sourced material alone and for some reason deleted their welcome. Today, I again chopped out all the unsourced, poorly sourced, and outright misleadling content and another new editor showed up, reverted, and called me racist or biased. [128] This "new" editor also has quite the inconsistent user page. [129]

I also have a feeling that some of these editors might be socks of Cali11298 who likes to create socks to interfere with other editors. I recently tangled with Scaravich105nj who was a sock of Cali11298. I'll be asking Flyer22 to comment here as she knows their habits well. Not sure if this is enough for a SPI but something is going on with that article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Since this person is clearly (from the current article) not notable in their own right - they don't meet WP:RS/WP:N - I have redirected it to the parent organisation. It will be interesting to see what happens now. AFD might be in the future. I also smell paid editing. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• @Black Kite: for the record, Soklassik (talk · contribs) and EditingNUPE (talk · contribs) are  Technically indistinguishable from Bldfire (talk · contribs).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I was going to state that there is definite WP:Sockpuppetry going on there, but this has obviously now been confirmed by WP:CheckUser Ponyo. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I took Bldfire's user page at face value. I shouldn't have as now I see he has a total of 141 edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Given the above, I have fully protected the redirect. Looking at the accounts now to see which ones need blocking. Edit: I see that's already been handled. This can be closed now. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, someone helped but I got the blocks and sockmaster tag taken care of. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Bldfire account should be blocked for at least 24 hours. I know that blocks are meant to preventative, not punitive. And I know that Georgewilliamherbert gave Bldfire a warning about WP:Sockpuppeting. But looking higher up on Bldfire's talk page, it is clear that he is no stranger to the WP:Sockpuppeting policy. So right now we have a WP:Disruptive editor (Bldfire) with a clean block log. Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that Ponyo went ahead and indefinitely blocked the Bldfire account. Flyer22 (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And to be completely fair, it might be worth someone uninvolved looking at the original article to see if Mr.Gordon may possibly be notable. I don't think so, but that's just me. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

What differentiates Mr. Gordon from Rachel Haot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B021:FFAE:E552:FFDD:4C0A:1D0F (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record here - Ponyo notified me on my talk page after he noticed my warning on Bldfire's talk page, and I reviewed and responded on my talk, and I am fully OK with the indef on Bldfire at this time and Ponyo's actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the would-be article on Robert L. Gordon IV, which is now only a redirect to America's Promise. However, there is no mention in the main article of Robert L. Gordon IV. That means either that the redirect should be deleted, or the article should have information added to it. I attempted to do an RFD on the redirect, and that was locked out because User:Black Kite has fully protected the redirect due to sock-puppetry, possibly to salt it against re-creation to Bldfire. However, in the process, Black Kite has accidentally introduced an anomaly that non-admins cannot rectify. Black Kite: Can you either please enter an RFD against the redirect, or provide enough information so that the role of Robert L. Gordon IV can be inserted into America's Promise? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Why must we get rid of the redirect? What harm does it do? If this non-notable person is associated with the organisation, then a redirect to the organisation is the best possible outcome; any handful of readers who search for Gordon's name will get our most relevant article instead of a blank page. It would be nice if the page they landed on mentioned Gordon, but admin tools are not necessary for closing that gap. bobrayner (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

When I look for something and am redirected elsewhere, I expect there to be at least one occurrence of the original item. If there isn't one, it doesn't make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

My point exactly. To answer User:Bobrayner, the redirect actually is harmful because it tells you nothing but makes the reader think that it is trying to say something. Either the non-notable person should be mentioned in the article in passing, or the redirect should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Probable sock makes accusation of e-mailed threats

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

---

@Doorknob747:@Knowledgekid87:Sent me an email threat saying they will come to kill me at my home. They even provided the correct home adreess of mine. I want these wo users permently banned from wiipedia. Thank you in advnce. Logging off!10,000RPM (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I suspect this is another sock of DodoBirdsDie6 (talk · contribs). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I never sent any one a threat I just got out being banned some one help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 29 April 2015

I'm thinking block for the original poster, anyone else? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Well now I know what this "revenge list" is [130]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I found that he has another sock account that he used to use a bot to vandalise peoples user pages: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dodo_birds_die5 Doorknob747 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

although lucky i think the bot stopped at first edit on @Epicgenius: I think that Dodobird6 is sock of Dodo birds die5 which is sock of dodobirdsdie4 which is sock of dodobirdsdie3 and on and on....Doorknob747 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I tagged the ones I could all under User:Dodo bird die3. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Also I thought of checking if any other users were taking advantage of me by searching my username, and guess what, I found another dodobird sock, that used my name falsely! https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Andabandaanda How many accounts does this stupid bird use so he cna abuse me and other usrers names? Im searching again trying to see more, I suggest you and epicgenius do the same, who knows he may have 10 accounts?Doorknob747 (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Andabandaanda last edited almost two months ago. Forget about them. Let the admins and checkusers do their work. BMK (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@DivineAlpha:was the target there.Doorknob747 (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look... Oh, I realize what this is... I'm not going to bother looking (or discuss any further on this) DivineAlpha 03:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Risker: Is this edit [131] related to the possible socks? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Since the sockmaster also informed me that I was on his revenge this, I'm assuming that "I like unassigned characters", who has already been indef blocked, is just another sock. BMK (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

^ da *blleep* how does one make those symbols?Doorknob747 (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I just happened to check my watchlist and saw the obvious abuse, someone else blocked the account, and I'm not in a position to CU it right now, although I can ask another CU to see if he can look here. Doorknob747, try unicode... Risker (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks, it seems we were all put on some "hit list" is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Very little doubt about it in my mind. I've asked Barek, who blocked the other as a VOA, to block this one as well. A CU would be good, maybe a rangeblock as well. BMK (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

6 socks in total 6!Doorknob747 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Its nothing new, some users have made upwards of over 100. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Intersting, but now you you are just scaring me. Doorknob747 (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope we can trust in the sock's word that it was the last sock of the day. Doorknob747 (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Bottom of page [132] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 April 2015‎ (UTC)

What Doorknob was pointing out was another sock, Dinn===u===f==ck==a , who has already been indef blocked for disrupting AN/I abusing multiple accounts. BMK (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the username is talking about the rotation of the boomerang that is arriving any minute now. Blackmane (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

OP is blocked. BMK (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, OP, Doorknob747, and the others are all the same person. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Amazing. BMK (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A classical attempt to get sympathy, and make people see him as a victim, instead of seeing him as the disruptive troll he really was. Thomas.W ^talk 14:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Good block, good call, these socks should be monitored though. I feel we have an active sock master here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, in hindsight, it was kind of obvious, but that was actually a good block. I've counted about 12 socks so far. Epic Genius (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Nationalist SPA using Wikipedia for soapboxing

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

---

The single purpose account Leventopoulo appears to be on Wikipedia with the sole purpose of righting great wrongs on Talk:Republic of Macedonia. And the wrong they want to right is WP:MOSMAC, one of the more firm Wikipedia policies. There's nothing wrong in wanting to change policies, but after after several users have tried to explain MOSMAC to Leventopoulo, the user continues with arguments that have nothing at all to do with the article, but increasingly irrelevant soap-boxing that even verges on the racist in its attacks on Macedonia (" a country that lives by non-democratic standards and no fair-play") [133]. As the user has descended into mere soapboxing, I've warned them both on the talk page of the article and their own talk page about soapboxing [134], eventually removing the latest soapboxing but to no effect. In short, a request for an edit was made, and declined in line with WP:MOSMAC. While the user may have had some legitimate argument at first, I believe that these posts [135], [136], [137] and [138] do not contribute anything to Wikipedia or to improving the article, and constitute an obvious case of WP:SOAP that only serves to disrupt. The user is not here to construct an encyclopaedia, only to right a great wrong.Jeppiz (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor has been alerted to WP:ARBMAC. Further action should be at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I would have gone there had the editor actually edited the article, but it's semi-protected from new editors exactly because of this. So the violation is rather for repeated soap-boxing, which I why I took it here.Jeppiz (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Soapboxing is a form of disruptive editing because it violates talk page guidelines. Soapboxing in an area subject to discretionary sanctions is within the scope of the discretionary sanctions. If I am mistaken, then someone can disagree. However, Arbitration Enforcement typically works better than community discussion here, and indeed that is why the ArbCom imposes discretionary sanctions, so as to deal with disruption by an effective procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I wasn't aware of it but you're no doubt right.Jeppiz (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Help desk

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

---

Please see WP:Help desk#Sannie Carlson pages where User:Marcomarati included a clear legal threat in the fist post. (The editor has been notified) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind - the editor was blocked while I was writing the above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

IP 190.201.129.183

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

---

Not sure where to report this, but edits today by 190.201.129.183 appear consistent with JarlaxleArtemis, including use of Cantv Servicios, Venezuela IP. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

190.201.129.183 (talk · contribs) This link makes it easier for others to check on the IPs editing. You may want to take this to SPI though. MarnetteD|Talk 20:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Urgent page protection needed

David Coburn (politician) needs urgent page protection, it's being vandalised about every 3-5 minutes by IP addresses, and lots of the edits come under defamatory content/BLP violations. Requested semi-protection a couple of hours ago at WP:RPP, but no response- the influx of vandalism is no doubt caused by this story being released. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Just now handled by John. Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to open up a space for comment on my admin action on a page where I am involved as an editor, as I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea. I hadn't seen the requests here or at RPP but shortly after editing it I saw and reverted a flurry of obvious vandalism and thought an IAR semi-protection was appropriate. If another admin wants to symbolically unprotect and reapply mine or a different regime of protection, perhaps that will keep us right in case of any challenges. After all, this is a politician standing in an upcoming election who has apparently edited his own article, then been blocked from editing. (See David Coburn MEP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and I should ping User:JohnCD who was the blocking admin.) In case this should turn contentious (though I don't see why it should), I am putting my actions up here for review. And of course any informed commentary at article talk is always welcome. I will certainly take no further admin action in the area as I am now involved in editing the article and in the talk page discussion there. --John (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are the pagelinks:

• David Coburn (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:John is asking for a review of his semiprotection of this article, given that he was also acting as a regular editor. It looks quite reasonable to me. Some IP comments were bad enough to be oversighted. It is hard to see that IPs have an absolute need to edit between now and the election, giving the extent of the abuse. On 29 April the Guardian asserted that the blocked Wikipedia account was User:David Coburn MEP. The latter was indefinitely blocked on April 6. EdJohnston (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No objection on my part: I discovered that he'd protected it only because I went to protect it myself and found that the job was already done. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• From my (uninvolved) perspective, semi-protection here would seem to fall into the category of "any reasonable admin" type stuff. Would a completely uninvolved admin have done the same as a result of a request at WP:RFPP? Probably. The above certainly suggests as much. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with semi-protection. Incidentally, Coburn is an MEP (Member of the European Parliament), not a national MP, and so is not directly involved in next week's General Election. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Apologies, for some reason I thought he was standing next week. Maybe I was thinking of Nigel Farage. --John (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Unresolved COI

Per this COI item, I have reason to believe that User:Senpion has a COI, insofar as the types of material he has added give reasonable grounds to indicate that he is adding his own research to Wikipedia articles. His major contributions span all of an hour-and-a-half of editing a few months ago and are wholly limited to article additions regarding a particular researcher. I believe that the nature of the material added indicates a COI, but I won't go any further into why due to outing rules. However, no outside engagement on COIN by a third party occurred, and the user only indicated the belief that sourced material overrides COI, which it does not. The obvious problem I see is that it looks like advertising and promotion of a company by a related party. Without resolution, the only result will be a slow-moving edit war. I removed the material for that reason, and the user re-added it. As nothing was done on the COI board, I believe it is necessary to bring it to a larger forum for some sort of resolution. The edit specificity and general lack of actual time on the encyclopedia makes it unlikely that individual engagement on the talk page will work, given the total lack of understanding of COI exhibited. MSJapan (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I am a little confused why you are so focused on this issue. There is a growing trend toward using wearable devices for autism, including the use of google glass. I am aware of a group of researchers in Germany and also another group at Stanford who are also using the same technology. I have not had time to make those additions at the present time. I do not understand why you think this is advertising when the information is sourced from leading charities and technology blogs? I am sorry if you are not happy with these edits, and I have only started using wikipedia recently, but you should really give autistic people a chance. It is starting to become an unpleasant experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senpion (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There are some problems with your addition to the article: (1) Your 1st reference cannot be resolved by (my) Chrome, some certificate (secure http) issue. (2) There is already a chronological healthcare section, where your info would fit at the end. (3) So far all you did as Senpion was trying to add the info as new section several times, something folks here are wary of, known as "Single Purpose Account", and a pattern often observed with SPAm. (4) Your info is about some development planned for the start of this year, maybe it happened meanwhile, but from your 2nd reference it was a future product. That's generally not allowed here and known as "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". (5) The long quote about happy children looking into the world is unencyclopedic, maybe hide it in a quote= string parameter of {{cite web}}, or better drop it, it really sounds odd. If you suggest your addition on the talk page ideally with a fresher additional 3rd party reference in the direction of your 2nd techcrunch reference, other contributors hopefully won't reject a sourced neutral addition of a short interesting fact. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

MSJapan, can you provide specific evidence (diffs) that support your accusations? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I can, but I'm going to run afoul of policy in giving public evidence. As you are an ArbCom clerk and used to dealing with certain types of information, I'll email you and explain my evidence. MSJapan (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Which I have now done. MSJapan (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no. It is true that as a clerk we sometimes deal with sensitive information but I can not take any action on any information you send me as I'm not an administrator. There are other clerks who are admins or a regular admin can probably handle it. I haven't seen the email but I'll just delete it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, then I'll go figure out who to get in contact with. MSJapan (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Beanyone. I will try to make the changes you suggest (it might take a couple of days if that is ok with you?) I appreciate your guidance and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senpion (talk • contribs) 19:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please hold off for the time being. The issue not mentioned above is that the nature of your edits indicate that you may have a level of involvement with the subject that does not make you a neutral third party. Sources are irrelevant if you are not editing neutrally and do not disclose that. MSJapan (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks:

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

I think this complaint might be closed if User:Senpion will refrain from edits such as this one at Google Glass and this one at Asperger Syndrome. It would be OK if he proposed these changes on the respective talk pages and left the actual edits for others to make. In any case, (a) Google is discontinuing Google Glass, (b) these reports are describing possible future products that are still only in a testing phase. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ed, that is helpful for me, I did not know about the Wikipedia crystal ball notion until recently. Do I have to request talk changes for any changes because I am a new user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senpion (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• I want to apologize to both MSJapan and Senpion that the original thread at COIN was archived without action. We are just shorted handed there - nice job keeping the issue in the community, MSJapan, instead of going vigilante. I've reviewed edits by Senpion and I see MSJapan's point. I am taking this up with Senpion at their user talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Having seen Jytdog's engagement with Senpion on the talk page, he has gotten to the issue as I saw it, so I think we can let it run its course there. MSJapan (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Miraclexix won't leave me alone

Would an admin please put a stop to this post-haste? The filing party seems to have dirty hands and the discussion is getting pretty heated.

I responded there because of a request at WP:AN (same section header as here), hoping to defuse things, but I discovered that the filing party (Weegeerunner) hadn't provided any evidence. In response to my request for evidence, I was shown edits that manifestly did not demonstrate malfeasance on the part of Miraclexix, and indeed seemed to demonstrate that Weegeerunner was at fault. I've repeatedly tried to say "you're the one in the wrong here", explaining what the problems are, but I've basically been greeted with a battleground perspective throughout, a refusal or inability to get the point and to drop the stick when told "you're in the wrong". I wonder if we're getting into trolling territory, between the persistent "if this is a problem, why didn't someone tell me before" (I said basically that he's driving off people, making it easier for them to ignore him than to resolve the problem) and the insistence on continuing the situation when I've said "stop it", bordering on harassment (just look at the bottom of my talk page), plus the combination of "am I not right" and "ah, just go and block me indefinitely", which isn't at all helping things.

Diffs: I'm just asking you to see the section on this page (permalink), including the links provided therein, and his talk page, and to take action from those two pages. I've not interacted with him except purely in an administrative role, but I'd still rather ask someone else to do it who's not at all involved. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please hear me out. First off. I am not someone to believe I am in the wrong just because someone says so, I feel like you are mistaking the fact that I don't believe I am in the wrong because of a lack of evidence shown to me as a battleground mentality. And also, this dispute started around the same time my struggles with MDD began to worsen. I am planning on taking a wikibreak because the stress I have been under and issues in real life lately have began to show in my recent behavior on wikipedia, (ie my more iratable behavior). Weegeerunner (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Helmboy

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

---

I have no idea how to start my complaint. I've encountered myself in quite a few messes with User:Helmboy. It all began when they removed the {{copyvio}} template here. They again removed the template here after I reverted them. Then edit warring from their part began on the article, all within an hour. This can be viewed here. It occurred between User:AlexTheWhovian and the user being reported. I reverted to the good version of the article (with the copyvio template) again. Nothing happened after that. Both AlexTheWhovian and I began giving warnings to the user. here and here. This became a giant blowout on their talk page as the user refused to listen to what they were being told. They have a know-it-all attitude as Helmboy also came to my talk page. They are now accusing me of wanting to delete the article and being a vandal when I am just following what the template is written. Helmboy is being rather stubborn and is refusing to seek WP:Consensus. Instead of agreeing and seeing wrong to what they've been told, they refuse to corporate and continues to disrupt Wikipedia. I am at a loss on what to do except come here to "knock some sense into something", in hopes to get this stopped. UPDATE: Helmboy has now edited my signature once and has edited my comments by advertising their rewrite. I really am getting annoyed and frustrated. Can an admin say something already?! UPDATE #2: The user continues to have the know-it-all attitude as they called out a well-respected user for adding the copyvio template here (I, of course, had to but in). Can an admin PLEASE intervene in this situation?! Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 17:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I've had similar encounters with Helmboy over the years, and he his a highly problematic editor, for exactly the reasons Callmemirela cites. He seems to see himself as some sort of television expert (he has, on occasion, described himself as a reporter, despite having no media affiliation,) and believes he is always right. Consequently, if challenged by another editor, he will do as described above: launch into a spate of edit warring, abusive edit summaries (generally the only time he uses them) and pointy editing. I concur that attention to his editing behavior is long overdue. How he's managed to fly under the radar this long eludes me. --Drmargi (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

My views concur with those of Callmemirela and Drmargi. The user in question has a know-it-all personality, as well as always-right and higher-priority. My edits on the pages linked by Callmemirela were to add correct styling, correctly sourced information, and corrected references to the page, but these were undone in complete by Helmboy, for the excuse of not allowing my edits given that he hadn't finished his and so that he could implement his lack of consistency. There have been run-in's with the editor and I on other articles, going against consensus on talk pages, and accusing other editors of poor arguments when he gives exactly the same in the very same discussion. He refuses to go by Wikipedia guidelines and well-known standard practice, insisting that each and all of his edits are required and more important and basing his reasoning entirely upon "common sense" or "it's either this or this, and nothing else", and refuses to let any discussion go even after the discussion has reached its obvious end (for example, the discussion of Callmemirela's use of the copyright violation tag - there was obviously no going backwards, and going forwards could only be reached by an administrator, yet the argument was continued). Such troublesome users are the ones who give Wikipedia it's bad reputation. Alex|The|Whovian 17:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Now to add some truth to this. First I only removed the template ONCE after simply removing the offending summaries which was the only thing that was needed in the first place. The other editor involved was only reverting his edits and had nothing to do with the added template. Adding the template instead of the mentioned action forces an unnecessary series of events that only these few bored editors enjoy engaging in, as well as the perverse enjoy they seem to get from trying to escalate good faith edits as though they are something bad. These few editors are just making it more difficult to add to an article with baseless accusations and unnecessary blocks on articles. I was going to give up on this site, until some other editors told me to try to carry on, but I am at the end of my wick again due to this constant unnecessary harassment and bullying by a few known bullies. helmboy 22:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"Add some truth to this." Are you being serious? All you've caused and proved is that you cannot edit properly nor can you establish consensus amongst other editors. You have the know-it-all and I'm-always-right attitude. You go by your way and no other way.

Nothing constructive here. Just insults and harassment. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"I only removed the template ONCE [...]." Wow. First removal: [139]. Second removal: [140]. Last time I checked you are not an admin, copyright check or OTRS agent as per "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." explicitly written on the template of the article (something you clearly can't comprehend). Excuse me, but your edits are disruptive. You are trying to make a point by edit warring, going at it in your own way, ignoring WP:Consensus, and so on.

Those both refer to the same single diff I made and only show when it was first added and when you put it back. If you look in the article history you can clearly see only the single diff. And there was NO discussion about you adding the template. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"These few editors are just making it more difficult to add to an article with baseless accusations and unnecessary blocks on articles." Pardon me if you are editing very poorly and can't follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Baseless accusations mon oeil. The proof is quite clear that you have no intentions to edit in a group but rather by yourself. Also, I wouldn't be talking if I were you. You accused me of wanting to get the article deleted when that is not my intention in a million years. It's called following the rules, something you are unaware of. You also accused me of being a vandal. Do you even know the meaning of vandalism? Read WP:Vandalism and come back to me. I have not vandalized the Wikipedia. I am enforcing what I've been told.

It IS poor editing to block an article when the simpler and correct option of removing summaries is all that was needed. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"Bullies" as you call it is not what we are when someone edits poorly and refuses to cooperate. It's called enforcing the rules, something you can't get through your thick skull.

Insulting and bullying comment. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You continue to claim your unjustified argument (again, from poor editing) that the solution to the whole copyright crap is to remove the summaries. It has to be resolved by an admin first. Are you admin? NO. So stop with this nonsense. You cannot edit the article until the issue has been resolved by others. Again, you are not understanding this, considering I've repeated this endlessly as now. You cannot argue basing yourself on lame arguments when you can't properly edit or contribute to the Wikipedia with a bunch of nonsense. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You think you are an admin by taking upon yourself to just block the page and unnecessarily making a real admin decide it's fate. Your editing skills should have just been used to remove the offending summaries. helmboy 23:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I know you don't like me and are still grinding an axe about issues. What's new. helmboy 22:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

And how many editors have had more run-ins with your controlling editorship? Including the ones that have given up. helmboy 22:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I blanked List of Young & Hungry episodes for copyright reasons on 5 April and listed it at WP:CP; it should have been dealt with long ago, but that board is backlogged and under-manned. For some reason everybody and his wife thought they could carry on editing the page even though the copyvio template carries a large clear warning not to do so. I undid a number of edits and replaced the template on 11 April, but seem to have failed to notice the subsequent edit war, for which I apologise. As far as I can see Callmemirela has behaved entirely correctly, replacing the template and asking people instead to work on the rewrite she has done. Helmboy, on the other hand, has not, and shows no sign of wishing to edit in collaboration with other editors. In case any helpful admin was thinking of moving the rewrite into place, it is not useable (sorry, Callmemirela!) – the "Webisode" summaries are clearly copied from somewhere too. I'm tempted to suggest just redirecting it to Young & Hungry. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Talk:List of Young & Hungry episodes/Temp

@Justlettersandnumbers: Then just blank the summaries as I did rather than invalidating the the whole article. Rewording changes nothing as it still has the same copied structure. Wasting admins time causes backlog and will solve nothing except having the whole thing deleted. helmboy 00:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Does this fix it? Talk:List of Young & Hungry episodes/Temp2 Which should have been done to the original article which may still end up gone thanks to that template. helmboy 00:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• No. First problem I found, the lead is copied from somewhere. I haven't been able to establish where the language first appeared, but its on a ton of websites. Did they originally copy it from Wikipedia? Has a copyright infringement been around since early 2014? Don't know. What I do know is that where ever the language in the lead came from, there is no attribution in the temp version. As this is supposed to be a totally separate from the version under investigation, we still have a problem. Monty₈₄₅ 00:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: What about replacing the lead from the main article?? see revised. helmboy 01:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You still need to properly attribute things when copying within Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Failure to properly attribute material from elsewhere on Wikipedia makes the resulting article a copyright infringement. (We are bad at enforcing this, but we still must try) Monty₈₄₅ 01:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: All of this should have been done via the articles talk page, not by a copyright template block-out requiring a second that may not be accepted. Wasn't the use of the copyright template poor editing? helmboy 01:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment Helmboy, if something is a copyvio, we don't leave it there, plain and simple, and we take care of it as soon as possible; reading the text on the List of, there's a clear copyvio there of the ep descriptions. Enforcing the rules of the encyclopedia is not bullying, because if we don't enforce copyright, we aren't going to be here because someone justifiably sued the WMF off the web. You used that term for me a year ago when I removed esoteric information about captioning, satellite feeds and useless pictures of color bars on Entertainment Tonight, and I had barely ever said a word to you. If you can't learn to collaborate, maybe this isn't the place for you. Frankly I'm amazed that Callmemirela was as patient as they were before asking for ANI intervention; I would have asked for action long before they did on your behavior. Nate • (chatter) 04:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Taking care of it would be simply removing it and not road blocking the article and giving the admins unnecessary work. As for your opinion on of what is "esoteric" information is only YOUR opinion, which is you still haven't gotten over. You still grinding an axe over that says more about you and how open to edits you appear to be. helmboy 02:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. We get it. You think it wasn't needed. What's the point of arguing this? We. Get. It. Nothing can be done about it now. We can't remove it. The admins have the extra work. What else is there to argue? We get that you think it's poor editing. Also, your comment about not being open to edits makes me laugh - take a look at your own edit history and abusive tone. (What's also funny is your consistent argument that there's no rule for rounding down when I edited Season 2's table for Young & Hungry, and yet Season 1 was also rounded down previously, yet you were fine with that.) Requesting administrator intervention against user based on the above arguments and offending user's obvious tone. Alex|The|Whovian 02:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources for season 2 were a different site that doesn't auto round like the zap2it source, and the issue was in preserving the referenced source and keeping the figures accurate. As for nothing can be done if someone adds the template unnecessarily, that comes as no surprise and is just one of the reasons for backlogging the admins. And I believe you have had an extreme abusive and rude tone towards from our first encounter as well as with a number of others such as on the Constantine talk page. helmboy 12:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the user above me. The user continues to call off well-experienced users based on poor editing and lack of experience. The user knows no bounds and continues to argue that adding the copyvio template was unnecessary when it clearly was. I agree with Alex (I think that's your name) when they introduce Helmboy's tone. Seriously requesting admin intervention against the user in question. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 02:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No surprise, given you are the one who is trying to get rid of me and no doubt others by trying to make out they have done some major offense, when all they are trying to is get back to editing articles. Like I was trying to do with fixing a very minor problem the simplest way possible. And now all this thread seems to be is some sort of witch hunt by a select list of closed-minded editors who would run this site like soldier only following orders no matter the fallout.helmboy 12:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's regrettable that Helmboy refuses to take responsibility for the consequences of his overly aggressive editing style, and to hear what a number of editors have tried to tell him about his refusal to adopt a collaborative working style rather than assuming a, "You're picking on me because you don't like me" stance. Equally regrettable is the lack of attention to this matter by our corps of administrators (I'm beginning to feel like a broken record on this point) because it clearly hasn't risen to their minimum drama quotient. Meanwhile, Helmboy will continue to disrupt articles, edit aggressively and edit war unchecked across the television article genre. --Drmargi (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Drmargi: All reports I've filed for ANI have been ignored. It took someone else to get what was required. Maybe I'm a jinx? Or I clearly need a new tactic to create more captivating titles to catch admins' attentions. :P (I clearly agree with the lack of attention, though) Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Would it be worth it to just start pinging uninvolved admins to close/take action on this? It seems much of the longer threads here are being ignored. cnbr¹⁵ 13:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cnbr15: Good idea. Who should I ping, though? Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Identify the admins who you think might, by some miracle, be responsive and try them. --Drmargi (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Per suggestions above me, I am pinging the following admins, who have recently closed ANI reports, to finally get some closure for this on-going situation. @Newyorkbrad:, @Nick:, @Philg88:, @Bbb23:, @Black Kite:, @Favonian:, @GorillaWarfare:, and @Diannaa: please find a solution and close this report. It's been here for 5 days already, and no opinions have been stated by any admins. Thank you, Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 22:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@@Callmemirela: So what exactly do you want an admin to do here other than close the discussion?  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Philg88: Find an appropriate solution to this "blowout" and situation, if there is one, based on what it's been written (very extensive unfortunately). I am not the only person having issues with the user, so there must be something at least. If not, then fine. I want a solution to the problem if there is one and closure. That is all. Thank you, Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 01:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Editor adding demonstrably false information

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

---

User:Beyond My Ken, an editor with a history of contentious editing is knowingly adding demonstrably false information to The Swimmer (1968 film).

For example, He writes, "Pollack reportedly reshot several transitions and scenes, including the Shirley Abbott scene with Janice Rule now playing the part originally played by Barbara Loden." But his own cited source (TCM) [141] contradicts this, saying, "Pollack directed only the scene with Janice Rule." There are other uncited claims as well.

I did try to discuss this on his talk page. You can see his final, uncivil response there. [142]. Adding knowingly false information and insisting on it seems remarkable to me, and try as I may, this is a difficult editor to speak with. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I want to add the ANI notice to his talk page, but he has made it very clear, in extremely sharp language, that I am not allowed to put anything on his talk page. What is the procedure in such a case? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Any information I added to the article came directly from a cited source. If the cited source doesn't have the information Tenebrae refers to, then it was in the article before I edited it.

Tenebrae is mistaken regarding his contention that Joan Rivers made her film debut in Once Upon a Coffee House and not in The Swimmer. As can be seen here, the actor in question is John Rivers, not Joan Rivers.

Nothing else to say. BMK (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, there's always one more thing. The specific information complained about by Tenebrae as being unsourced was not added by me, it was added in this edit by MikeHippie during a re-write of the article. BMK (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not mistaken. Here is a screengrab of the end-credits. He additionally does not address the Pollack falsehoods. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

non-free image removed Mdann52 (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

IMDB confirms Tenebrae's contention that Joan Rivers appeared in Once Upon a Coffee House, It lists here as part of a group, "Jim, Jake and Joan", presumably singing at the coffeehouse.

Nevertheless (1)Tenebrae cited the TCM cast list in support of his statement in the article that The Swimmer was Rivers' second film, (2) TCM doesn't actually have the name "Joan Rivers" it has "John Rivers", most probably a clerical error, (3) But error or not, it is WP:SYNTHESIS on his part to draw conclusions that the article doesn't state. (4) On the other hand, the TCM article on The Swimmer says explicitly that it was Rivers' "film debut".

I agree that this is a content dispute on should be handled on the article talk page, not here, and not on my talk page, but Tenebrae seems reticent to go there, preferring instead to make behavorial allegations against me. BMK (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Close as a content dispute. BTW, TCM states "But almost from the beginning, the star and the director clashed and undermined each other's work to such a degree that after Perry completed the film, Columbia brought in three other directors, including Sydney Pollack, to do additional work on it. One sequence that was shot by Pollack was the scene where Merrill visits his ex-mistress played by Janice Rule. Barbara Loden was supposed to play this role but she never completed her scenes under Perry's supervision. In the end, less than half of what Perry filmed ended up in the studio cut of The Swimmer."[143] The article does not say "Pollack directed only the scene with Janice Rule." Glrx (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, TCM does say that, but in the "Notes" section, not in the "Article" section. BMK (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. If BMK had pointed out TCM's own discrepancy in a civil way instead of losing his temper, all this could have been avoided.

Read the two sections more closely, there is no "discrepancy" between them. The wording you objected to above was not added by MikeHippie on the basis of the TCM article. BMK (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• TCM Notes: "Pollack directed only the scene with Janice Rule."
• TCM Article: "One sequence that was shot by Pollack was the scene where Merrill visits his ex-mistress played by Janice Rule."

Those statements are perfectly consonant. BMK (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. " "Pollack directed only the scene with Janice Rule" is not the same as "Pollack reportedly reshot several transitions and scenes [plural], including the Shirley Abbott scene with Janice Rule...." Aside from the weasel-word "reportedly," the phrase "only the scene" and "several transitions and scenes" are demonstrably inconsistent.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"Article" meant the TCM article, not ours. I've amnended the description. BMK (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It continues not to be Joan Rivers' first film, however.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That's your SYNTHETIC conclusion. As I said to you before, find a source that says that, and you're golden, but you can't create statements out of thin air that the source never said. BMK (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If it was, IMDB missed it.[144] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Mea culpa. I'm sorry I fueled the fire. Take this dispute to the article's talk page; it does not belong here. Glrx (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You can see all 79 minutes of that movie here.[145] Joan shows up with her two colleagues at about 20 minutes in. The film looks like some college student's project. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit warring at Orthodox Christianity by 124.178.53.76

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

---

The IP user 124.178.53.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is insisting on adding an unsourced, OR, POV comment to the article on Orthodox Christianity (see here, here, and here). He has rejected criticism of his edits, insisting that what he is adding is obvious and doesn't require sourcing, and saying that if he is blocked, he "will just get back with another IP" (see here). I have imposed indefinite pending changes protection on the article (see here), but I have not reverted the IP's most recent edit (done before I protected the article), lest anyone should accuse me of edit warring. I've done all I think I should do here, so I'm passing the baton to AN/I for others to deal with the matter as they see fit. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at AN3

Here contains a legal threat, due to the fact they appear to disagree with anonymity on Wikipedia- their quote "if you cannot put their names in public I will create a facebook page with this title- Suing Wikipedia" seems to be a clear legal threat/intent to sue Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Blathering on FB would hardly constitute a lawsuit, so I don't think this comment is actionable. I shall remove it from the notice board, since it clearly doesn't belong there. Favonian (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is an actual legal threat or not, the intended purpose was to produce a chilling effect on other editors they are in a dispute with. The entire point of the NLT is to eliminate such chilling effects. —Farix (t | c) 11:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be interested how one person's campaign will "sue Wikipedia". I challenge the IP user to correctly identify their arse from their elbow before they go any further. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing gross incivility of Hijiri88

I am frankly fed up and truly disgusted by the above editors insistent refusal to abide by even the most basic standards of acceptable behavior. The regular grossly unacceptable, outrageous outbursts this editor has made at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa are probably the best example, although I suggest that any editors reviewing this matter also look at the conduct discussed in the recent mutual interaction ban requested by Catflap08, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270#Interaction ban between Catflap08 and Hijiri88, perhaps particularly the comments by administrator and former arb User:SilkTork there, including, and I quote, "Hijiri's recent outpourings suggest that user has lost the plot regarding Catflap, and is heading for Wiki-suicide unless this ban works," and later, again by SilkTork directed at Hijiri88, "But you have since lost the plot. Listen to me again - stop this chest beating, and adopt a more collaborative approach to editing or you will find yourself not just facing a restriction on interacting with one user, but a restriction on editing Wikipedia." And it is worth noting that the events involved here were only 2 weeks ago.

Since then, he has engaged in edit warring to remove information from the lede, and started a new subsection of the article talk page Talk:Kenji Miyazawa#Theory that Kenji was a nationalist in the body, which is plainly ridiculous and raises extremely serious questions regarding this editor's basic competence as per WP:CIR because the article does not currently say that the subject was a nationalist, but rather that he was a member of a group which had nationalist tendencies. In fact, the article has not described the subject as a nationalist for some months, favoring the changed phrasing, although Hijiri seems unwilling or incapable of recognizing that change. This raises even further issues regarding his basic competence, specifically whether he is capable of recognizing and adequately dealing with current reality. The current version of that talk page also is a remarkably good indicator of the varieties of gross and unacceptable conduct in which Hijiri88 has regularly indulged lately.

It is worth noting that I have received off-wiki communications from another editor, who I will not name here more or less at that editor' request, to the effect that he had concerns about my entering into conflict with Hijiri because there seems to be a pattern of editors either retiring or eventually losing their tempers and being blocked in some way after having to deal with the irrational hissy-fits Hijiri regularly displays. I have forwarded a redacted copy of some of those communications to SilkTork as well, and, if required, am willing to forward the full versions to an administrator, under the absolute condition that the admin in question agrees up front to in no way disclose the name of that other editor, for fear of Hijiri engaging in his tendency toward inexcusable bile toward that editor.

I believe the time has come for Hijiri to be placed under some sort of definite sanctions. Including the existing I-ban with Catflap08, I think it might be reasonable for Hijiri to be topic-banned from the subject of Kenji Miyazawa, and, possibly, from the broad topic of Nichiren Buddhism. It is worth noting that Hijiri's only interest in Nichiren Buddhism seems to relate to the fact that the nationalist group with which Miyazawa was associated with was a Nichiren Buddhist group. I might also request an i-ban of him with me, and or perhaps a topic ban from Christianity and older religions, to prevent his engaging in stalking and harassment of me similar to that which he had indulged in against Catflap08, which was the direct cause of Catflap's temporary retirement from wikipedia until the i-ban was first discussed. Hijiri's grossly unacceptable regular attacks, insults, and repeatedly demonstrated dubious competence to my eyes raise very serious questions whether that individual is capable of contributing in a reasonable way at all, and I also think it might be reasonable and appropriate to consider some form of site ban until and unless he learns to reign in his grossly unacceptable comment. However, as I am clearly an involved party, I think it best if that decision is made by others. I will however try to meet any specific requests for specific instances of misconduct at request, but, honestly, there are so many such instances, in so many areas, that I don't think anyone should have any trouble finding them. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

GregKaye 15:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide some specific diffs? I have noticed that Hijiri88 often removes content from her/his TP seemingly selectively, some summaries are strongly worded and there has been antagonistically toned, IMO, comments on both sides. I do not see how Ibans can work when editors can still work on the same projects. GregKaye 16:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like WP:BOOMERANG to apply here. John Carter is in fact edit warring as well. Almost the entirety of his "contributions" to the talk page discussion was nothing more than assumptions of bad faith and (basically) calling Hijiri88 an incompetent POV-pusher. He claimed that consensus supported his reverts, then turned around and said "old arguments" don't apply. He requested page protection only five minutes after reverting Hijiri88 again, claiming that it was so an RfC could be held, but he has never once brought up starting an RfC over the dispute, and never mentioned the page protection until it was in effect. He complained that the lede was too short and he was keeping Hijiri88 from making it shorter, but wasn't willing to expand it himself, and after I expanded it myself, John Carter moved on to demanding sources. When they were presented to him, he ignored them. Whenever one of his arguments falls apart, he pretends it never happened and finds something else to argue about. All of this is unacceptable.

Because of such WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, I strongly support an indefinite IBAN between John Carter and Hijiri88, and an indefinite TBAN on John Carter from Kenji Miyazawa, Nichiren Buddhism, and the Kokuchūkai. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the above editor's comments are, ultimatley, gross misrepresentation of fact by one of the few editors who consistently takes Hijiri's side. What he describes as "edit warring" on my part is to remove allegations which violate basic policies and guidelines. What he calls my "assumptions of bad faith" are in fact attempts to keep the content consistent with policies and guidelines, which Hijiri has little use for, apparently. The fact that he is apparently willing to defend violations of policies and guidelines if his friend is the person doing them is something that should very definitely be taken into account. He is, or could easily be seen as acting to perhaps misrepresent things to save his friend, which is really no more acceptable. The arrogant presumptuousness of the statement that implies I would need to start an RfC immediately itself indicates that the above editor is perhaps rather obviously acting in bad faith to defend his friend. He also frankly completely ignores the outcome of the previous RfC, which is yet further evidence of his own misconduct. I am sorry that he seems apparently incapable of realizing that edit warring in the defense of policy and guidelines is perhaps more permissible than Hijiri's obviously personally motivated edit warring. I strongly suggest that the above editor make some more visible effort to adequately represent the facts of the situation, rather than continue to engage in what seems to me a rather knee-jerk attempt to defend his friend. Also, FWIW, I just this morning finished the listing of "History of Asia" from the online Guide to Reference and have added all the encyclopedic ones to the appropriate pages of Bibliography of encyclopedias. Now that we have a clear indicator of the most currently well-regarded reference works in English anyway regarding that subject area, which was not available before this morning, finding relevant reference sources to compare to should be easier. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: "In the defense of policy and guidelines"? You're edit warring was violating WP:NPOV by allowing readers to conclude that Kenji was a nationalist. "We are not responsible for what editors may or may not conclude"? You have serious WP:CIR issues if you think it's ok to mislead readers with POV and that any policy or guideline backs you up. And no, I didn't expect you to immediately start the RfC, but you don't request page protection "to permit another RfC" if you have no intention of starting an RfC. I'll start an started the RfC myself. As for me taking Hijiri88's "side", that's laughable. Sometimes he's in the right and sometimes he's in the wrong, and my history with him shows that I've acted accordingly rather than "consistently". On the other hand, I could accuse the same of you and Catflap08. His past actions are what got you interested in this article too, isn't it? that's why it's on my watchlist at least. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: I just went through the sources you added to the bibliography of encyclopedias list, and only one was at all relevant to this dispute. Within that one source, only one sentence was relevant to this dispute. That one sentence calls the Kokuchūkai a "Nichiren study group" (without even saying its name) and doesn't at all mention nationalism. Your unrelated work did not in any way contribute to the Kenji Miyazawa article. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have had some interaction with Hijiri88, none of it good and his behaviour is a problem. I close RFC's and went to close one on Talk:Kenji_Miyazawa. I was uninvolved, and had never even seen the article before. The language questioning the closing was caustic. The little section is filled with insinuations and calling the closind dubious. Suggesting that I was somehow undermining something. Suggesting motives contrary to AGF. While I got him to remove some of it, and then unwatched the page. He has kept on it, At WP:AN he posted again on the dubious closing diff. AlbinoFerret 22:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

John Carter showed up suddenly on an article talk page he had shown no interest in before. He has not indicated that he has actually read the previous discussions, and much of what he writes indicates that he has no idea what that discussion was about. He started out saying that I was convinced that the subject was not a nationalist and that I was trying to remove this claim from the article, and claimed this was "OR". I pointed out to him how all our sources say he wasn't a nationalist, and suddenly he U-turns and insists that the article never claimed he was a nationalist. Then when I point out that it did, he suddenly shifts again. I have asked him numerous times if he has actually read the previous discussion, or if he has checked any of the sources; he has consistently dodged these questions. I would say he's only there to troll me, if I hadn't already seen a tremendous amount of evidence that he is engaged in off-wiki contact with a user with whom I have an IBAN.

I don't have the exact diff, but I think John Carter requested an IBAN with me previously (@Sturmgewehr88: did you check this?). I'm beginning to agree with him. I wonder if his opinion has changed since the previous IBAN discussion closed, though?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for once again making what others might not unreasonably consider paranoic tendencies on your part so obvious. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: Someone posted an unnecessary request for closure on an already-finished RFC, and asked for an "experienced" user to close it. You are, to put it mildly, not an experienced editor, but showed up nonetheless and posted an extremely dubious closing statement. I said I wouldn't bring it up on ANI because you changed the close. Why are you showing up on ANI and asking for ... what? Me to be blocked? Also, the AN post was a general comment, on an ongoing discussion that was started by someone who had no idea about the Kenji problem. The enormously large close request question is an issue on AN, and I brought my two cents that a lot of them are unnecessary and are posted for dubious reasons, and attract non-admins to make equally dubious closures. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, I have made over 5k edits since 2008, I have authored 3 articles. I have been involved in two very contentious articles. I am an experienced editor. This is just another example of the caustic discussion style. Again you use dubious, a word that implies underhanded action. The closure basically quoted policy diff are you saying policy is dubious? I didnt just show up at AN/I for you, I post on this page often. When the section opened up on your behaviour I posted on it. AlbinoFerret

@Hijiri88: It took me a bit of hunting but I found the dif. John Carter wants an IBAN, so he should get what he wants. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it might reasonably be seen by some that it would take a true idiot to not have seen that one of the options I suggested at the top of this thread was an i-ban, and made an effort to go through the history to find it, but I thank you for having made the rather obviously pointless effort, and for demonstrating your own abilities as such. At this point, I am very seriously reconsidering that earlier matter, in favor of potentially taking this to Arbitration. If you are going to presume to tell people what they want, please at least (1) make the effort of actually reading the comment at the top of the thread to which you have posted, where you could see a similar statement, had you bothered to look of course, and (2) refrain from making rather presumptuous judgments about what people do and do not want, as opposed to what they have suggested in the past and what they now think appropriate. It reflects very, very badly on you, in a number of ways, to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: And thank you very much for the extremely dickish and unnecessary comment! I did in fact see that you proposed an IBAN in your opening comment, hence you want (present tense). If you actually wanted (past tense) an IBAN, and prefer ArbCom, then you should at least strike or rephrase that comment. I looked for this dif because Hijiri wanted to see a previous (i.e. before this ANI post) IBAN request by you. It reflects very, very badly on your character to call someone a "true idiot". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A review of your own comments on the article talk page make it extremely clear you are in no position to criticize others here. Your own judgment is open to at least as much question. John Carter (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in on this topic by John Carter who noted that I "have had previous involvement with the editor Hijiri88" and "would welcome any input [I] might see fit to offer." My previous involvement was in trying to put a stop to Hijiri 88's overzealous removals of supposedly non-reliable sources relating to haiku and associated topics during Hijiri 88's previous incarnation. At the time Hijiri 88 had created a fair amount of damage due to slash and burn techniques but was amenable to reason. Looking over Hijiri 88's current portfolio of edits, I don't find that much to censure. But I do find that Hijiri 88 while making useful contributions can be something of a loose cannon, and tends to be drawn toward controversial topics, and therefore hope other editors will continue to follow his edits. With regard to the current Miyazawa Kenji controversy, it seems to me that the edit war over religion and nationalism has skewed the article towards these topics. If he was "a Japanese poet and author of children's literature ... known as an agricultural science teacher, a vegetarian, and social activist" it is unclear why so much of the article should be devoted to religion and nationalism. The lede goes on too long; the material in the second half of it should be moved to later sections. If there is a point to be made about the connection of Kokuchūkai and nationalism, shouldn't that point be made on the Kokuchūkai page? Having looked at only some parts of the current controversy I would still hope a plea for civility on everyone's part might prove more effective than banning possibly-useful interactions.--Icuc2 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, John Carter above refers to this talk page thread. As any competent Wikipedian who actually reads my comment can tell, it refers to my removal of a short paragraph near the end of the article discussing the minority theory among scholars that the subject was a lifelong devotee of the Kokuchukai and a nationalist. I had written this entire section myself, but had on the talk page expressed doubts about it violating WP:WEIGHT. No one else disagreed and said it belonged in the article, so two months later I self-reverted by removing the paragraph, based partly on the fact that it had misled at least one good-faith user into thinking this was a significant part of the subject's biography. John Carter completely misread my self-reversion and has been continuing even after I have explained it to him. Sturmgewehr, User:Dekimasu and myself appear to be the only users who have contributed anything substantial to the article in the past year, and I am the only one has contributed anything substantial to the Kokuchukai article ... ever. I find John Carter's request that I be TBANned from these areas frankly offensive, given how he himself has shown no interest whatsoever in contributing to this area, and has over the past week been doing nothing on the Kenji talk page but baiting me.

Also, for the record, I don't appreciate John Carter Contributions&offset=20150427211148&limit=20&tagfilter=&contribs=user& target=John+Carter&namespace=3 selectively contacting users with whom I have conflicted in the past.The only two users notified of this dispute whose history with me was not both (1) very brief, and (2) generally negative were User:Nishidani and User:Cuchullain, and of these two Nishidani roundly told John Carter that I was righton the substance,andCuchullain was forsome reason notified on a defunct talk page of an alternate accountthat hasn't been used for almost a decade and they are extremly unlikely to see. Why were not User:Dekimasu, User:Prasangika, User:Wikimandia and all the others with specific knowledge of the present dispute (the one from which John Carter wishesme topic-banned) not contacted? Could it be because,withonlyone ortwo exceptions, they all agree with me? Let alone the hundreds of others who have had one or two brief, positive interactions with me in unrelated areas over the years?

User:Icuc2's comment is both fair and well-researched,butmyhistorywithhim has nothing whatsoever to do with the present content dispute, andwas so briefthat I hadhonestlynot remembered it until now. John Carter's annoying such users with this discussion, based one or two brief conflicts with me years ago is extremely creepy and stalker-ish, and I don't think the fact that the one who has commented so far was fair should be an indication that this activity by John Carter was not a blatant violation of WP:CANVAS.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The transparent paranoia of the above comment is definitely worth noting. First, I believe you know why I contacted Cuchulainn, although, I admit, I had trouble finding his active user talk page. And I find his continuing to indulge in "what about" fantasies as some sort of evudence amusing, and extremely indicative of perhaps a pronounced lack of basic logical capacity, which can and reasonably would in the eyes of many raise very serious issues of basic competence. It may surprise Hijiri to realize this, but he can contact anyone he wishes to as well. I did not review every single edit he ever made, either under his own name(s) or as an IP, although he, apparently, does not seem to necessarily believe that. There have been a remarkable number of people who have had extremely dubious contacts with Hijiri, under all his names, and it would be reasonable to receive evidence from them. I also note that, for all his posturing about why I should have done what he would want done, he has apparently not bothered to contact any of those individuals himself. It is not the obligation of anyone to have to provide the evidence for all sides in a dispute, although apparently that concept is one that Hijiri cannot or will not understand. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't "contact anyone I wish", because that would violate WP:CANVAS, both in terms of the actual guideline, and in terms of what you are likely to accuse me of if I even dare to try. Because when I do it it's canvassing; when you do it's perfectly acceptable behaviour and you can continue to get away with it indefinitely apparently without even a warning from an admin, much less a block to prevent you from continuing it. (User:Stalwart111 called you out on it, but he's not an admin and couldn't block you.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have been requested by John Carter to comment on this issue, and mention an email he sent me a little while ago. The email was from a user whose details were obscured, but who had got into conflict with Hijiri88, and was detailing examples of Hijiri88's past behaviour. I left a comment on this on my talkpage during a discussion with both John and Hijiri88:

"John provided information he was given on previous incidents involving yourself, and asked for my feedback. It is difficult sometimes when a body of evidence is provided which paints someone in a bad light to know what to make of it, so getting other opinions is always recommended. In my response I said I felt you were a brittle and hostile user who makes things difficult for themself and others, but that I wasn't seeing sufficient evidence to open an investigation against you. My strong recommendation to you is that you focus on building the encyclopedia, and don't respond so aggressively to others. I'd like to look at your contributions history in a week's time and see some positive work on building the encyclopedia or in helping out the project, and not to see you trawling through talkpages talking about personal conflicts. That simply stirs up trouble and wastes people's time as you and they and others then have to deal with the consequences. And I'd like to see you speak with more patience to and about other users - this will help reduce conflict, and make your own time here more pleasant and productive."

Friction has continued with messages on my talkpage, the Kenji Miyazawa talkpage, and on AN, either by Hijiri88 or about Hijiri88. Reviewing these, my observation is still the same, that Hijiri88's behaviour is brittle and provokes negative responses (which then makes things difficult for himself, others, and the project). He asserts his own believes and position too strongly, even when he may be right; but on the whole he's here to build the encyclopedia, he talks about contentious edits, and he responds to discussions. As experienced users we all know how exasperating editing Wikipedia can be at times, especially when there is a disagreement over article content, and so we are somewhat tolerant of occasional irritated behaviour, hostile language, threats of blocking, and repeated requests for assistance. But there comes a point when the community itself becomes exasperated. We have other things to do than continually monitor fractious users, and arbitrate minor editing disputes. And we don't wish the encyclopedia to become unstable as users have edit wars while arguing over what should be in an article.

There is nothing serious enough in Hijiri88's behaviour for admin intervention at the moment, but Hijiri88 needs to adopt a more diplomatic approach to dealing with editors who disagree with him because he is accumulating enemies, and he is wearing very thin the tolerance of the community. At the same time, John Carter should think carefully about how useful it is to keep stirring the pot over minor issues. If problems continue at Kenji Miyazawa it will be locked again. At that point a moderated discussion could take place to resolve the issue. If that fails to resolve the matter, then an article ban on all editors involved in the dispute could be considered. We can't keep returning to the same issue over and over again. Personally I am fed up with the dispute surrounding Hijiri88, and the amount of time it takes out of my allocation for Wikipedia, so this is the last time I will respond. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that there may be sufficient evidence that there has been an ongoing failure, for apparently some time, for Hijiri to demonstrate an ability to abide by policies and guidelines. I agree we cannot, as Hijiri has obviously done, continue to make an argument against content after the content has been changed and the argument is no longer valid. There are, I regret to say, serious issues regarding both the prior abuse he suffered, and the pattern of abuse he has recently engaged in. There are also serious questions regarding his basic competence, so far as I can see, and I believe that is an additional cause for concern.

I said on the article talk page I would bring the matter to ANI should his problematic edits continue, and I have done so. I have not as of this time ruled out the possibility of arbitration regarding his pattern of behavior. I have hesitated to do so, because there is a serious possibility that doing so would cause Hijiri to react in his now trademark abusive way toward others, particularly an individual who has rather clearly tried to avoid him and advise others to do so in the past. The option of arbitration remains open and, honestly, is one I have not fully considered to date. I won't have a lot of free time till Thursday, but I believe I may decide on raising the issue of the recent pattern of his disruptive, attacking, problematic behavior to ArbCom later this week. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry John, but you did yourself a great disservice (as I suggested you were doing at the time) when you acted like a dick last week (right here) with regard to the same issues, the same editor and the same content conflict. I'm not saying they are right and you are wrong, I'm saying that if you had approached this whole issue with a bit of maturity and common-sense then this thread would probably be moving in a different direction. I honestly don't know if this conflict is the result of one person's problematic editing or the other person's problematic attitude. I accept you've tried to present evidence for the former but you also went out of your way to demonstrate the latter last week. Making beds, laying in them, etc. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And I've gotta say, continuing the dickish behaviour by canvassing Hijiri's adversaries from long-ago disagreements ([146], [147], [148], [149] and [150]) strongly suggests your just here to pick fights and not to actually resolve anything. What purpose does that serve but to add drama? St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I am myself more than willing to have my conduct reviewed by the arbitrators, along with the behavior of all the others involved, and am, like I said, very strongly considering having all the information I have received, which included the information I linked to above, reviewed by the arbitrators. As I said on the article talk page, I very seriously doubt that I am the one who will come out the worst through such review by the arbitrators, if I do decide it has come to that. John Carter (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And that's a lovely speech to make, but one of the first steps in the requests for arbitration process is to substantiate, "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". Arbs might see it differently, but I can't see much evidence of that. What there is evidence for is you trying to escalate mole-hills into mountains, you being deliberately antagonistic and you canvassing other editors to try and swing this thread against someone by resurrecting years-old conflict. That's the polar opposite of dispute resolution. Sure, you might come out "better" but you haven't exactly covered yourself in glory thus far and Arbs are likely to take a dim view of that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'd like to thank John Carter for inviting me and others to look into this dispute, which is certainly one of the more amazing I have come across in my Wikipedia days. I've generally been a defender of Wikipedia against academic colleagues who contend that it is ineffective compared to more traditional forms of scholarship, but it seems to me that the semi-anonymous internet context encourages the escalation of pissing matches in ways that would never happen in in a real world context, and this type of escalating mud-wrestling match over relatively minor disagreements seems to support the anti-Wikipedians. The tendency on Wikipedia itself is to blame the people involved, but this only exacerbates the situation.

Having spent a few hours reviewing the somewhat fascinating Miyazawa Kenji dispute, I really have to wonder why it is so difficult for the editors involved to find common ground. Surely there are ways to work through a disagreement about the nature and importance of Miyazawa's affiliation with a nationalistic Buddhist sect without devolving to this level of personal attacks and attempts to find recourse in Wikipedia rules and policies. All that is required here is a little effort to maintain decorum. Everyone in this dispute is volunteering their time without self-interested motives, as far as I can see, and while egos may be involved, I don't see why a little respect for others' contributions seems so hard for people to muster. This is just Wikipedia, people, it's not Northern Ireland or Palestine. No one's relatives have been killed. There's no irreparable damage. Why not find some common ground and move on?

Often I find in these deletion matches that the problems can be resolved by some additions and reorganization. In this case, it seems to me that John Carter's effort to draw attention to the nationalism of Kokuchūkai is valid but misplaced. This argument needs to be made on the Kokuchūkai page and at most alluded to on Miyazawa's page, unless there are specific literary repercussions that are being discussed on Miyazawa's page. Hijiri 88 therefore has a valid point in questioning the overweighting of this material on the Miyazawa page, but as usual, needs to look for more tactful ways of resolving the problem. Surely Hijiri 88 would not argue that the nationalistic tendencies of Kokuchūkai are of no relevance; the question therefore is how to frame this material appropriately.

This leads me to my main criticism of the Miyazawa Kenji page, which is that it does not adequately deal with Miyazawa's literary work. There should be a section about his poetry and a section about his fiction, and both sections should explain about the major works, their importance, and characteristics. The absence of such discussions makes the whole debate over the importance of Kokuchūkai rather pointless at the moment.

These days I find so few people doing actual editing that I feel sad to see capable editors wasting time that could be productive on what are essentially personnel disputes. This wouldn't be so pathetic perhaps if people were actually getting paid. But life is too short. Why not try to enjoy the fact that you are not working in isolation? That's the nature of Wikipedia. If you want to make your own web page somewhere, go for it. If you want to make Wikipedia pages, learn to get along with other people, even when they are difficult. Just my two cents worth. Now I really need to get some work done.--Icuc2 (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Icuc2: Thank you for your considered and well-researched comment. You and Nishidani are the two exceptions to the rule that John Carter otherwise followed diligently, to exclusively canvass users who were unlikely to weigh in in my favour. (Note I'm not assuming bad faith on the part of the others: they have not weighed in against me either. I'm just saying that his choices of who to contact were dubious at best.) If he wanted to get a fair assessment of my behaviour across a variety of discussions, he should have contacted users like Cuchullain, Yunshui, Lukeno94, Drmies, Boneyard90, Stalwart111... who all, like Nishidani, have a history of interacting with me both positively and negatively on a wide range of discussions and don't always (in the case of Cuchullain and Nishidani, "rarely" would be appropriate) agree with me 100%. He didn't do this; he contacted a select group of users who had all disagreed with me once or twice years ago (the majority of others I'm sure he wanted to invite have been blocked, IBANned or SBANned because of their own abusive behaviour). His (accidentally or deliberately) avoiding posting on Cuchullain's main talk page but going to an old altaccount that hasn't been used in years is evidence enough of this behaviour.

You are correct in your analysis of the Kenji dispute, although I would also ask you to also take a look at the Kokuchūkai article where discussion of the issue was already added some weeks ago. If this is sufficient for that page, would you then not be saying that the issue should be "at most alluded to on Miyazawa's page"?

As for "so few people doing actual editing [and seeing] capable editors wasting time that could be productive on what are essentially personnel disputes": you and I both like classical Japanese poetry, so would you mind looking over my recent creations or complete overhauls of these articles here, here, here, here, here, here and here? I am considering doing the same for the woeful Kenji article (the only well-sourced section is, ironically, the one on his religious views that I wrote back in early March). But I had to stop as a result of the present dispute with John Carter (and the previous dispute, also with John Carter), and now he is asking that I be TBANned from the Kenji article so I am not allowed make said improvements.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think a fair compromise would be for John Carter to withdraw his request to censure Hijiri 88 in exchange for Hijiri 88 agreeing to refrain from destructive edits, particularly destructive edits of the work of other editors involved in this discussion. At this point, only a psychiatric lawyer getting paid by the hour would have the patience to wade through all these reams of recrimination and counter-recrimination. How you all find time for this is beyond me. I can say from looking over this discussion that no one here appears to be blameless. So why not take the opportunity to reflect on how to make a discussion like the one over Miyazawa and nationalist Buddhism work. Somehow academics manage to get these discussions to work, most of the time anyway, and I can tell you that's not the result of any inherent superiority of academics. It doesn't look to me like any of you are inherently unreasonable. It's clear to me that everyone involved in this discussion is highly intelligent. I don't think the problem is inherent in Wikipedia itself. It's probably too simple to say it's is just a conflict of egos. I think it's more a problem of the absence of authority and organizational structure and the different expectations editors create to fill that vacuum. Most of us don't want to see Wikipedia become overloaded with rules and organizational structure, but in the absence of that, editors have to figure out how to get along on a case by case basis. I usually find that an interesting challenge, but I tend to work on unpopular pages so I probably get spared a lot of friction that others encounter more regularly.

Anyway, the gist of this is, it seems to me time to move on and get the focus back to the pages in question. There doesn't seem to me to be wide support for anyone being banned. If everyone would simply state what they need from others involved in this discussion in order to continue their work, and consent to allow others to do so without being subject to constant recrimination, life as we know it could go on and we could worry about larger problems like global warming and World War III.--Icuc2 (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Icuc2: I agree completely with your proposed compromise. John Carter, do you also agree? Can we close this discussion now? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Still waiting for your word on Icuc2's proposed compromise. Given that Sturmgewehr88's suggestion of TBAN/one-way IBAN for you has thusfar received somewhat more support than any of your proposed sanctions against me, I think it would be in your interest to accept. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Hijiri88's editing at the Kenji Miyazawa article is becoming increasingly vexatious.

He has just deleted my comment[151] (in an apparent edit conflict) and is misrepresenting consensus[152], in violation of WP:TALK as well as making reference to "a wikistalker", which might be a violation of his IBAN, assuming that he is referring to Catflap08.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... everyone involved agrees the article needs to be radically expanded to focus more on his children's literature and poetry. It is also almost completely unsourced. I was specifically told on this thread to work on improving the article and not on user problems, and now you are criticizing me for doing just that?

As for deleting your comment -- it was a technical problem. I had an edit conflict with you, and when I tried to complete my edit, for whatever reason your edit wasn't preserved, or why I wasn't even told you had tried to make a post. The "edit conflict" screen looked like what happens when you click the "back" button onto the edit page and then try to save the page and have a conflict with yourself. It might have been that I clicked away and didn't notice the edit conflict for several minutes. I don't know. Anyway, you reverted my comment as well. I am willing to assume you had the same problem I did and it was a good-faith mistake. I already apologized to you. What else is the problem?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, this is not a "misrepresentation of consensus". The consensus in the most recent RFC is, if anything "don't mention nationalism in the lead"; I tried to alter the RFC question to address the issue of whether Kokuchukai should be named in the lead (which has never been established by consensus one way or the other); you overruled me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: the wikistalker he is refering to is John Carter. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... I'm going to pretend I was waiting for someone else to point it out so I wouldn't violate my own IBAN by directly replying, rather than just missing Ubikwit's very obvious assumption of bad faith by accident. Sturmgewehr88 is right: the wikistalker I was referring to is John Carter, and no one can in good faith think that wikistalking is not what he has been doing to me over the last week or so. He followed me to the Kenji article and immediately reverted me as his first edit ever to that article (he had posted a single, nonsense comment in the previous RFC that indicated he hadn't read what the RFC was about). He then reverted me about a half-dozen more times; then when Ubikwit made the exact same edit he stopped reverting. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Sanchitwa

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

---

User:Sanchitwa is putting speedy deletion tags on all the pages I created, in protest that I put their article Programmingquery up for deletion. This is clear harassment, please can someone block this user, and remove the tags from all my articles? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Other users have restored all but this one: List of England cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut. User is blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal Threats

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

---

User:My Butt Is Large has threatened to sue editors here and here and here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it's already been solved. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks

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

---

User:Conman22 has hit me with a whole round of personal attacks and shows no intention of stopping.37.136.79.183 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please include diffs or links to such complaint. It would ease your report. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 15:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide any specific examples? And show what IP/account you were using when he attacked you? (Your contribution list says this is your first edit from this IP address.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Conman22 has never edited anything on en-wiki. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that myself. 37.136.79.183, did you write the wrong user name? Or is this all just a bogus report? Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I meant User:Conman200 and I used account User:Petrustweak when attacked, I dare not to use it anymore, using dynamic IP:s instead.37.136.72.45 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That account doesn't even exist... Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry again, it was Conman220.37.33.1.157 (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Dfrr's conduct on Wikipedia.

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

---

It is clear that the user in question User:Dfrr has been spamming multiple users. He according to my counts has sent over 390 of these messages. Furthermore he has admitted to sending over 390 of those messages. [153]

Many of these messages were WikiLove sent even though they had not had interactions with the user and they were also sent invitations to the WikiProject of R&B and Soul Music despite these editors not being involved in the WikiProject. The reason I was sent the WikiLove was due to praising another editor.

He was also told to not spam. [154] [155] [156]

The user also has placed a large amount of unneeded information on his user page. I think most would be breaching U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. I truly believe he is also Not here to improve Wikipedia under Focusing on Wikipedia as a social networking and a General pattern of disruptive behavior. I do hope this discussion is productive and I open the floor. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

right like you would ever edit Fonzie & The Golden GirlsDfrr (talk) 20:30, right like you would edit James Brown & Bob Saget User:TheGRVOflighting for him and only himDfrr (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-)) Here is what I will do I will ping @StuRat, EpochFail, JackofOz, Cullen328, Trimethylxanthine, Dr. Blofeld, and StephanieM:Dfrr (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-)) More More More ping@Bollyjeff, Canuckian89, Winner42, and UrkelDood:Dfrr (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

I agree with above. Also going to ping @DawnDusk, Conifer, Ritchie333, TheGRVOfLightning, PizzaMan, and MrWooHoo:, who have been involved in the past with this user. Also because I'm a genius I'll try again with a signature to actually ping people here... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with GRV that Dfrr's userpage falls under U5, which is intended to disallow diaries, blogs, and the like. A collection of animated images, while unorthodox, is on the topic of the encyclopedia and isn't disruptive to any other users (assuming the images are not fair use). Conifer (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting that having a cluttered user page and sending unsolicited WikiLove messages should be met with a block? I can see how they might be unexpected and spammy but I think a warning is sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Dfrr has received many warnings about talk page spam (from myself) and thanking spam, but I still get a few thanks a day from them. They act like they understand when you tell then to stop, but then it keeps happening. Review some posts from other users on their talk page. I agree with the possible not here analysis. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess that I've gotten WikiLove/kitten messages from strangers, including those with no main space edits, and it was no big deal. You can always delete the content or tell him/her not to post on your talk page. It just seems in the big scheme of "ways to damage Wikipedia", this is pretty small stuff. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ha this is just the fact that i am awesome and everyone loves meDfrr (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-)

Dfrr comes across as being young and excitable - like Liz, I think what they do is annoying but nothing more. I already told them that their mass-invitations to projects and various other talk page messages are not what Wikipedia is primarily about, and to focus on articles, so I am disappointed but not at all surprised to find a thread here. ANI is a serious matter, Dfrr, and you really need to say you will stop with the mass messaging, otherwise there is a serious risk that less forgiving members of the community will conclude you are not really here to build an encyclopedia and wonder if you should be blocked. Don't go there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This man needs to be removed from the encyclopedia per WP:NOTHERE. And no, @Ritchie333: he is not a child. He is a troll pretending to be one. After goading me into swearing and a temporary bloc, he promised never to bother me again, but then he decided to spam me with thanks yesterday. He knows exactly what he's doing and the fact that anyone is falling for his facade of being a child that doesn't know any better is a disgrace. He's not worth the time we're wasting here. Permanent block. --DawnDusk (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this supposed "child who doesn't know any better" also pinged me to this page. --DawnDusk (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

hey User:DawnDusk you chose to swear not me i am not a troll and i did not cause the block that User:Mike V (Who is going to reply here) put on you okay Mr. Dusk secord of all you fooled me into thinking that you were my friend really now? that is like Laura Winslow from Family Matters telling Steve that he is her friend then saying mean crap about him plus you people need to cal down and watch Happy DaysDfrr (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

Actually, it was EoRdE6 who pinged you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Liz and DawnDusk: As did Dfrr in his spammy reverted edit. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is awesomeDfrr (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

Well, that was a spammy edit and I'm glad it was reverted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) It might be worth noting his recent input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations#Editor Conifer and its associated talk page. Hope no gets surprised by the content on the page of course. Based on my own reading of the phrasing of the statement on that page, I tend to agree that he comes across as a younger person, or, perhaps, one with a rather unique dialect. I tend to agree with Ritchie, at least on the possibility that Dfrr might be young and excitable. I've never gotten the impression that Liz is "young and excitable." Really, really bad joke here, based on obvious misreading of statement. Please send trout to my user talk page. I might be doing some fish fry over the weekend, and can probably use as many as I can get. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If you simply look at Contributions/Dfrr, you will clearly see WP:NOTHERE. Annoying a large number of editors is a clear disruption of wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

okay you people take everything the wrong way like Richie Cunningham did to Chachi Arcola in Happy Days frist of all i am trying as hard as i can to get new members for the Wikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music] and i am reaching out to peolpe who have never heard of the project. i sent User:StephanieM one and i have not heard anything from Steph yet plus you people need to listen to Dave Koz music and calm down. and Bob Saget is awesomeDfrr (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

I am awesome no matter what anyone says Like User:LandLord77 who i have talked to beforeDfrr (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

Archie Bunker has smelly breathDfrr (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

Is Dfrr a vandalism-only account? The user is clearly not here to contribute to Wikipedia. I am in serious consideration to file the user under the vandalism page, because their edits consists nothing but spam, random edits and nonsense. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 21:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on the edits he made here I think it's clear that this is a vandalism only account, Also he has clear ego issues as illustrated by this: I am awesome no matter what anyone says Like User:LandLord77 who i have talked to beforeDfrr (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-)). Anyways. This will be my last edit on this matter until around 5:00 PM (AEST) due to the fact I'm meeting Hulk Hogan. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Grov guess what? did you know that I am the most awesomeest person in the whole wide world because you know nothing about me. because Bob Saget i think that Wikipedia is awesome and you all should just leave this issue alone because James Brown needs improvement and nobody wants to edit James Brown or Bob Saget who is awesome and no I do not have clear ego issues you just want to think really you can do better than this okay?Dfrr (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

Block indefinitely. An obvious troll. Pax 22:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine for all I care cause I an' Dfrr (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

Yup indef. - Clearly not here to contribute, Obvious troll is obvious. –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Strange message on my talk page

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

---

Does anyone know what to make of this?[157] --Guy Macon (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

They do appear to have successfully added User:PaulinSaudi to their DR case, so I'm not sure what more you need to tell them. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you might have asked them directly for clarification. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• But what's strange is that the IP (User:64.121.83.151 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was blocked last year here for being a sock of blocked account User:Jacobkennedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The interest of the sockmaster appears to be LGBT issues. The IP has since then resumed its disruptive editing connected with LGBT topics - I recently noticed them at Legal system of Saudi Arabia - and is obviously a static IP. Why isn't the IP blocked? DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

IP is now blocked for a year. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Vimalchand013 and Daltonganj Railway Station

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

---

Could someone please review User:Vimalchand013 and Daltonganj Railway Station and take action if necessary? The latter appears to he copied from Ranchi railway station. Thanks. 82.132.238.106 (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have had to block him for copy vio. Another admin deleted all his copyright-violating images, and his response was to re-upload the pics. The article was also already deleted once. Unfortunately he will have to remain blocked until such time as he can demonstrate that he understands copyright law and how it applies to Wikipedia. Thank you for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Nbier8

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

---

Uses Wikipedia as vandalism for fun. His vandalism has been logged on his talkpage as of 2015-05-02, 1:53 (CST). I'd suggest removing account and banning IP. Knowledgebattle (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The wikilink you gave is User talk:Nbier8#May 2015 but I removed your ref because they are not useful on a page like this. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Roger. Knowledgebattle (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Stephen

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

---

I'm having some problems with this Stephen (talk · contribs). He deleted one of my comment on ITN and claimed it should be taken to the "appropriate" talk page. But he won't tell me what talk page to take it to. So I figure he's just jerking me around, and I'm taking this here (ugh) in an effort to get an answer. Thank you, all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You know how sometimes you get stressed out or pissed off about things that don't actually matter? This is one of those times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I never get angry. But I know you're a fair, understanding and knowledgeable admin. So what's the answer to my question? What would be the appropriate talk page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, the easy solution would be a new nomination for ITNC. Talk:Main_Page#Baltimore_Riots indicates that several people are interested in restarting discussions. If you think the article should now appear on the main page, it may be better to just start a fresh nomination than attempting to restart a long closed one. --Jayron32 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a great place for the comment that was being removed, as it is over 67% snark and under 33% legitimate point. But I agree with Jayron that a good place for a similar, but less snarky, comment would be a new nomination if you think things have changed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Jayron's suggestion was essentially taken up at ITN and the story was finally posted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

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

Artproyect

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

---

Yesterday I noticed a few promotion edits about a musician in article space by new user Artproyect. The edits were quickly reverted by others while I was posting a note on his/her talk page concerning this. The editor then put the promotion on their user page. I again notified the editor on their talk page yesterday about promotion. It is still there. It isn't terrible but I wanted another opinion and will notify Artproyect after this post. Ward20 (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the user page, as the material is copied from here and here without any evidence of permission. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Links: Artproyect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --IJBall (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Reporting Davey2010

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

---

I am bringing to the attention of admins one action by User:Davey2010 whereby he contravened WP:NPA here[158] by "recommending" I go to nearest optician purely because I voted differently to him on Articles for Deletion. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally, the edit in question doesn't trip this editor's "NPA" alert level. While it probably does violate "discuss the content, not the editor" guideline, and thus was a possibly ill-advised comment, it's still a pretty mild criticism. Not meritorious of ANI attention. Suggest a speedy close here. --IJBall (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, whatever the admin decides. If your comment is correct then there is no action needed but someone should still have a word with the editor since it is still a mild attack. You need to see it from my point of view, I do feel insulted when someone says this. If this should be a speedy close then I won't be pursuing farther. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The threshold for NPA is not whether one feels insulted, but rather whether they should reasonably feel insulted. I feel insulted on a fairly regular basis, but I've yet to lodge an NPA complaint against anyone. One might be a little less sensitive about their eyesight. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• I was just writing when I was edit conflicted with the close - Whilst I perhaps shouldn't of made the comment it wasn't a direct attack at all and IMHO it didn't deserve me being dragged here, That aside I apologize if Hash Tag 444 was offended. –Davey2010^Talk 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Against consensus pov edit at Masjid al-Haram

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

---

Re: Fauzan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In a Revision as of 14:31, 1 May 2015 Fauzan gave input to an RM discussion but at a time when s/he would have clearly seen the consensus discussion (displayed in the link) with the discussion having clearly displayed the discussed images of the Great Mosque.

Then in a revision as of 14:37, 1 May 2015 the same editor reverted to the against consensus picture.

I am unaware whether I have ever encountered this editor but the current case seems to me to be a fairly clear case of against consensus and potentially tendentious editing.

Is there also a way to request protection for the picture?

GregKaye 12:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Why are you bringing a content dispute consisting of one single edit you don't like to ANI? This belongs on the article's talk page. ANI is for ongoing continuous problems that all other forms of dispute resolution have failed to resolve. This is a single edit, not an ongoing problem, and you didn't even try to revert it or discuss it with them. Not to mention you have failed to show any tendentious editing, and you are mind-reading as to what the editor "would have clearly seen". Softlavender (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This page is called "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" so that is an easy mistake to make. I reported an incident that seemed to me to be more blatant than a lot of the other content here. I just realised I hadn't made the revert and had just returned to the page and thank-you for the edit. The two edits were within seven minutes of each other with the beginning of Fauzan's edit being just 16 lines away from the pictures and the unanimous discussion on choice of image. I would be grateful to know of a way to protect the picture. GregKaye 13:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no way or even cause to "protect the picture". The editor is not edit-warring or engaging in any problematical behavior whatsoever. Please see WP:BRD and WP:DR for further information on how to discuss and resolve edits you disagree with. In the future, please do not bring issues to ANI unless you have tried all of the steps in those links. Doing so will likely boomerang on you for failing to assume good faith and failing to use normal and civil dispute resolution processes. Softlavender (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledged mistake. You criticised "mind-reading" yet, despite an extremely questionable situation, you still assert "The editor is not edit-warring or engaging in any problematical behavior whatsoever." If you thought the edit was fine, why did you revert it? Thank you for the information on the protection issue. GregKaye 17:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised that Greg brought it up here. The IP who inserted the image left "feel free to revert" in the summary, so I IAR and reverted to the previous image. I did read the discussion but was unaware which parts of the discussion applied to which image. I apologize for any inconvenience caused, but considering it to be a case of "potentially tendentious editing" is overkill. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Profane edit summary

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

---

Can anyone have a look at this IPs edit summaries at Afghanistan–India relations and censor? The summary contains racist and inflammatory remarks. How this wasn't detected by the edit filter is beyond me. Mar4d (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have rev-deleted the two edit summaries. Someone else has issued a warning. Please post here or at WP:AIV if the activity resumes. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Mar4d (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

IP user taunting editors with graphic comments

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

---

IP User 101.190.151.84, formerly 101.190.149.230, is posting blatantly sexist graphic comments in edit summaries and talk pages, in response to being reverted by another editor on the Gender identity disorder article. Funcrunch (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked for 1 week. --Golbez (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap. This user goes beyond graphic and beyond WP:PERSONAL. Clearly not here to contribute at all. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 07:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Ararat arev again

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

---

Ararat arev has reemerged at the IP address 166.170.14.123. Based on his past behavior, blocking that IP alone won't do any good. A rangeblock that was established in November and renewed in January did reduce his activity some, so I'd like that rangeblock renewed again. A. Parrot (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, blocked 166.170.14.0/24 for a year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Please block a new IP used by Kenny Loggins hoaxer

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

---

• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:956C:FF1A:F22E:2052 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This new IP showed up to perform the exact same sort of hoaxing as described at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Kenny Loggins vandal. Please block this IP.

Thanks in advance... Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This editor has not yet been informed of this thread on their user talk page. JZCL 17:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 2 days and undid the remainder of their edits that Binksternet did not yet attend to. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Gringoladomenega vandalism

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

---

Gringoladomenega (talk · contribs) continues evading block, first with BenjaWF (talk · contribs), now with IP addresses, always from Chapecó, Santa Catarina, Brazil. See 177.75.149.35 (talk · contribs), and now 189.30.112.82 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Now the vandal went to my talk page to insult me and said that he will dedicate all his time reverting my edits. He will never do more "valid edits". He swears. SLBedit (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Todas as minhas edições são validas e o usuário SLBedit reverte por vingança. Podem conferir. Alem disso, ele quebrou a regra das 3 RR... Deve ser bloqueado por isso. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.112.82 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not 3RR if I am reverting a blocked user that turned out to be a persistent vandal. SLBedit (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Both IPs currently blocked by two different admins. 3¢soap3¢ 20:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm surely not surprised that an IP that can't even follow WP:ENGLISH at ANI was blocked... --IJBall (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Tiptoethrutheminefield, possible sockpuppetry

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

---

Is at it again. Check his talk page for more information on his disruptive behaviour. --92slim (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• That doesn't mean that Tiptoe is always incorrect. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It means that he is disruptive, as he adds citation tags for no reason. --92slim (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• No, it does not mean that. You're going to have to establish that in this particular case the user's edits are indeed disruptive, because right now I don't see it. In fact, the user seems to make what appears to be a very detailed and substantive argument--much more detailed than yours. So, from what I can tell we have a content disagreement here which should be hashed out on the talk page and until there is evidence that Tiptoe is somehow being disruptive here after your cursory and false claim of vandalism. (You're both edit warring, of course, but their edit summaries are much better than yours.) Did you notify them of this? You're supposed to. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Three times [159], [160], [161] in recent days 92slim has deleted citation required tags that were added to the Malatya article, as well as making edit summaries displaying bad faith and an absence of reasoning. I asked him to self revert his last edit, but instead he has escalated his bad editing behavior by making this complaint (which he did not notify me about). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not three times in 24 hours or even recent days. Also, the citation tags are not required. See this for my argument, which refers only to his tags and not the content. He didn't ask me, but made me an WP:ULTIMATUM in my talk page which was promptly deleted. --92slim (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Editors SHOULD NOT delete citation required tags. Editors should leave them in place or provide a source for the tagged content. It is not up to you to decide that they are not required and then delete them, especially since your sole argument on the article's talk page consists of "obviously". Editors also should not use words like "vandalism" in edit summaries. I asked you to self-revert because you had clearly exceeded what was acceptable. All you are doing here is adding to that excess. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

In response to this long paragraph full of nonsensical stuff, all I have to say is that the source (Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia) was already provided before you placed the tags. Please, stop being disruptive. --92slim (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to add to this discussion that Tiptoethrutheminefield has a long history of personal attacks against me. Could something be done about that also? 37.136.37.236 (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

To 37.136.37.236, I wouldn't be surprised. User:Tiptoethruthemainfield is now using an obvious IP sock (IP:176.239.33.146) to evade his personal account. Keep it up. --92slim (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

So, at exactly the same time as using an IP address in Britain, according to 92slim I am commuting all the way to Turkey in order to use a Turkcell IP address. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I am monitoring your other IP with which you edited similar articles (such as Malatya or Lake Van Monster, and others), and it does sound like you. --92slim (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

37.136.37.236, no one can do anything about "a long history of personal attacks" against you because this is your only edit to Wikipedia. If you want to log into your account, you're welcome to file a complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, 92slim, that socking charge is a bit silly; nothing indicates that these are the same person and the language they use suggests they are quite different. The IP is not a native English speaker (or they're from Alabama). You know, I think I ran into Tiptoe before, and I wonder if at one point in time I was thinking about blocking them for all kinds of admin-abuse related reasons, but your dismissive tone is so awful that I want to jump to Tiptoe's defense immediately. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Well @Drmies:, that means you have a slight personal interest in Tiptoedwherever, as there is no reason to defend a suspected sockpuppet using an IP address whose edits you haven't even checked. I can be dismissive when someone might be abusing accounts against Wikipedia policy, yes. --92slim (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Drmies and many others are nothing but vandal defenders, this page is full of belittlement of the damage that hoaxers and distructors make. Arguments like "your tone is awful therefore i sympathize with vandal you accuse" are the pinnacle of absurdity. Its more important apparently that everyone has a chance to vandalize than making of a reliable encyplopedia. Im just fed up with you. And of course someone "clever" wikipedian who wants to have the witty last word now shouts: its your only edit, how can you be fed up? Well I had another account, that's all. Diminsh you nobodies in your little imaginary world the only place you are something in. Boothian Peninsula (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Boothian Peninsula, please name your other account? Or is that "another account" currently blocked? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec)No one is defending vandals, Boothian Peninsula. But if one makes accusations against another editor, they need to present evidence to back up their claim. Editors are not going to be blocked just because another editor calls them names, there needs to be some sort of proof that supports their accusation. This protects everyone, including you, from retaliation by editors you have a disagreement with who might want to get you blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of Tipetc here (IP:176.239.103.190). It doesn't look that he's going to stop. Notice how both sockpuppet's edits are synchronized perfectly with Tipetc's edits on Malatya and to each other's edits on Kurdish recognition of the Armenian genocide, for example, and both have similar numbers. --92slim (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My commuting must be relentless, not only from Britain to Istanbul in a matter of hours, but now to Malatya as well. Can something be done about 92slim's stupid and unrelenting sockpuppetry allegations? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Admins have nothing to do about sockpuppetry here on this board; you should report your case in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. Logos (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Done here. Thank you. --92slim (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and canvassing

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

---

In the discussion at Talk:Malta#Terrible map and Talk:Malta#Which map should we use in main infobox? @Subtropical-man: has repeatedly used personal attacks and unfounded accusations against me [162][163][164]. This includes calling others "idiotic", implying that I have sinister motives, and calling all four editors who happen to disagree about a map "Opponents of EU". After repeated warnings to comment on content, not contributors, Subtropical man next escalated to WP:CANVASSING here, which produced the desired sympathetic !vote here.

Per the canvassing guidelines, I placed a uw-canvas warning on Subtropical-man's talk page and a notice of canvassing on the discussion [165][166]. His response has been to accuse me of "trolling" and personal attacks, and to delete the canvas template, then strike out my comments.[167], in violation of WP:TALK. And of course, bizarre and inappropriate warnings on my own talk page to top it all off.

Aside from the disruptive editing and canvassing, we had four editors in support of the proposed new map at Malta. Now we have a skunked request for comments and lots of hurt feelings. I don't know if a temporary block or topic ban can fix this. Or a preemptive close of the discussion, going with the previous consensus. Or some other solution? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Personal attack? Where? I never uses insults or profanity against your person.
• Please stop manipulation. You wrote "calling others "idiotic"" - where I uses term of "idiotic" about other users? Please citation and link.
• Canvassing? It is a private ask to user Rob for an opinion [168], I have not request to opinion in talk page of Malta, even not give a link to this discussion.
• There is rule, if user do not want any post, can remove from own talk page. You break rules of Wikipedia: [169] - edit-warring in my talk-page.
• You accused me and user Rob [170][171] - this is personal attacks.
• "I don't know if a temporary block or topic ban can fix this. " - it is an attempt to block a user who has a different view than user Dennis Bratland in matter of the map. It is clear your intentions. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 19:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: "Please, stop idiotic ideas." is WP:PERSONAL. "EU opponents" is an opinion, not a fact. I would consider this as a personal attack as well. Asking for other users' opinions is WP:CANVASSING. You asked them which map was appropriate for the subject. After your comment, the user you asked for help commented on the talk page of the subject, stating their opinion. And again, you are accusing the user over something you are doing. Accusing you and Rob is not personal attack. You are violating WP:CANVASSING. A personal attack is what you did, by calling edits idiotic and accusing others as opposing. Your case is very weak, Subtropical-man. You do not know what defines WP:3RR, because Dennis (I am assuming it's his name) is not edit warring by adding templates. You are removing templates which, quite frankly, were necessary. You are not respecting Wikipedia's rules, by making personal attacks, canvassing and accusing someone of 3RR when it was not. You wrote as an edit summary that Dennis stop editing your talk page. Quite frankly, everyone is allowed. That is the whole point of talk pages. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 19:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: Asking for other users' opinions is not CANVASSING. It is a private ask to user Rob for an opinion [172] on only private talk page, I have not request to opinion in talk page of Malta, even not give a link to this discussion!!!!!!! I just wanted his private statements in his or my talk page. If I gave link to discussion in Malta talk page and asked for a vote - that would be CANVASSING. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate.[...] Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." This is exactly what is written on WP:CANVASS. Asking Rob for their opinion is canvassing. Yes, you did not link the user to the discussion, but you informed them of what you thought and asked them for their opinion. Again, canvassing. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 20:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Callmemirela. I understand what you're saying but you do not understand what I saying.

• It is a private ask to user Rob for an opinion [173] on only private talk page, I have not request to opinion in talk page of Malta, even not give a link to this discussion!!!!!!! I just wanted his private statements in his or my talk page. There in no intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion. I ask only in user talk page, I wait for answer in user talk page, I not give link do discussion about maps. What you write about me is speculations and slanders. How can you behave like that? You instruct others and himself behaving outrageously.
• You wrote "Dennis (I am assuming it's his name) is not edit warring by adding templates" BUT user Dennis first restored own previous post and wrote new. Every time. This is edit-warring on talk page of other user.

Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: "Speculation and slanders"? Wow. I am enforcing rules. I am not ruining any images or reputations. I am commenting with what I am given with proof. The evidence shows you committed WP:CANVASS. You asked Rob for their opinion, whether you included the link to the discussion on the subject's talk page or not. You asked what they thought was appropriate for Malta in terms of maps. You fail to understand that you canvassed to ask for someone's opinion, which is canvassing. It does not matter if you referred Rob to the discussion or not: "Hello Rob. I have a question: what map you think should be in the infobox in article of Malta. Current map is standard map on based on map of EU and Europe, used in thirty articles about countries in EU/Europe. [...] What is your opinion?" Canvassing going on. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 20:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• At one time I doing the same - restored my posts (warnings) in user talk page, who user reverted. Administrator gave a link to the principles of Wikipedia (I can not remember the name) and wrote I have no right revert on antoher user talk pages, other user has the right to delete even all posts from own talk page.
• Canvassing is deliberate action, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion" BUT if I ask on only private talk page (not give link to talk page of Malta) and I expect a private response in my or this user page - where is "influencing the outcome of a discussion"? Stop by all means try to see canvassing.
• Callmemirela, you are not honest and neutral. Maybe I am guilty, but Dennis Bratland also (edit-war in talk page, false accusation, intentions to blocked user who has different view). Good advice: not everyone who is accused is guilty as the only one, often also nominator is guilty. You are not neutral in this matter, trying not see bad actions by Dennis Bratland. Please - give it a rest. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 20:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• So every single time anyone disagrees with you, they must have a sinister ulterior motive? Under any circumstances do you assume good faith? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• That's it. Callmemirela, please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If you still think that is canvassing, you must read WP:AGF. Exactly I explained above.
• Dennis Bratland - no, I do not think so. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe I used words that could be considered personal attack (but not about person, only ideas), sorry. Currently I have a stressful period and quickly let go my nerves. I did not want to offend anyone, but effusively describe what I feel (about new map). Dennis Bratland - I apologize for my words. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I find this troubling, as Sub-Tropical man has been blocked multiple times already for canvassing and personal attacks. I recall intervening in ANI discussions in the past regarding it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have a three blocks: one for canvassing (2012) and two for 3RR (2013, 2014). Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Subtropical-man's exact words were "Please, stop idiotic ideas." This is extremely rude and counterproductive, but he is attacking the ideas and not the person. So I think that accusation fails. As for WP:Canvassing, yes, he notified one person, but that, I think, is a far step from making a canvass (I think you can look up the word on your own). (Did he ask anybody else?) Everybody should quiet down and go relax on the beach, in Malta, if possible. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, apologies, it was edit warring, not attacks. Still, you've warned so many times about canvassing in the past, so much that KWW had to block you until you promised to stop... Sergecross73 msg me 21:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No, this is not constantly repeated action in the months/years, this just one episode. I did, I got block, I stopped and I was unblocked. It took a few minutes. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• And still the talk page refactoring continues: [174].--Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: This user continues to be denial that they haven't committed WP:CANVASS, which is certainly frustrating. They did it in the past, and they've done it again. They blatantly admitted that they asked for Rob's opinion but denies canvassing. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 21:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Dennis Bratland, you wrote: "Subtropical-man requested Rob984 to come (red. on Talk:Malta) and give his opinion" - this is 100% lie. How can so manipulate and deceive others? This is unacceptable! Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  Callmemirela, please see - Dennis Bratland wrote: "Subtropical-man requested Rob984 to come (red. on Talk:Malta) and give his opinion". I'm not requested Rob984 to come, nowhere wrote about Talk:Malta. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You asked him for input. And linked to the article. What would the intended response be other than him commenting? What did you realistically expect? Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not ask him to vote and discussion in Talk:Malta and even not give link to discussion in Talk:Malta. I ask for private opinion on his or my talk page, nothing more [175]. This is Rob' own initiative (comment in Talk:Malta), as he wrote [176]. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, you asked him for a response, and linked him to the article. You didn't word for word say "Hey Rob, I'm canvassing you. Please vote for my stance", but you obviously meant to get him involved. Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

In no way I can prove my innocence (because how?) and you in no way can prove my guilt. You based only on conjectures or speculations. I wanted to know the private opinion of another person, nothing more. I writing this to you in 100 different ways and nothing. But problem is elsewhere, here: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You are assuming bad faith :( Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:DUCK. Anybody who's been around Wikipedia a while knows if you go and say, "Hey Joe, which picture of Foo do you prefer, A or B?", Joe is going to browse straight over to Talk:Foo and see what all the fuss is about. Which is exactly what @Rob984: did and exactly what anybody would have expected him to do. And now how do we unring that bell? The poll is no longer an unbiased sample. You managed to dig up one other editor to support you, where before you were batting a big fat zero. The question is how do we resolve this now that the discussion has been skunked by dubious shenanigans? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Rob984 is a wise man, has own opinions - no matter what I vote - Rob984 expresses his own opinion. And it's his right. It does not change the fact that I asked about personal opinion, not request for vote in Talk:Malta. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That's easy for you to say now. It's either that or admit you tried to cheat, and I don't think that's ever going to happen. Since you say you never intended to get his !vote, then don't you agree it should not be counted? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Very good manipulation, very good. But, this is not possible. I asked about personal opinion in user talk page, not request for vote in Talk:Malta. Rob is free man and user, if wants to vote, has the right to this. Dennis, I know - you trying get rid of me and Rob, the two opposition votes. It is clearly visible. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Again with the WP:PERSONAL, Subtropical-man. Accusing others of "trying to get rid of me and Rob". Very wrong. It's called enforcing Wikipedia rules. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 22:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Again with the WP:PERSONAL, Dennis Bratland. Accusing others of "canvassing". Very wrong. It's called enforcing Wikipedia rules. Callmemirela, so. Dennis Bratland create post in WP:AN/I and asked for a block for me (see above). Remember, voting in Talk:Malta is in progress. Now, Denis wants to cancel vote by Rob - other opponent. How long are you going to pretend that nothing is happening? You're very neutral :-[ Very, very neutral. I have no words :( Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Your whole argument is flawed. You didn't ask for a "private opinion". You publicly asked him a question and then linked him directly to the public article/images in question. Your comment made it clear you had s certain stance on it. Then he just "happened" to go comment and side with you. You canvassed him, plain and simple. It's sad that years later, you still don't understand the concept... Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I know best what I did and what I had intentions, I wanted to know the only private opinion in user talk page. I give links to maps, because I asked a question about these graphics but I did not give a link to a discussion Talk:Malta precisely because I wanted to have only personal response in user talk page. If I wanted to Rob voted, my post would have a link to the discussion Talk:Malta. What are you doing? You are assuming bad faith and by means of conjectures and speculations you are trying to tell me that was different. It is downright insolence. Today I read again WP:canvassing ("cool look") - my ask to Rob in user talk page does not meet the requirements of WP:canvassing because is "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion" - I did not request to vote, I wanted to get just a private opinion in talk user page and that was my purpose. Even if you do not want to believe, you have to prove guilt and later without proof of fault does not have the right to use slanders (Subtropical-man doing canvassing etc). In addition, at this stage of the discussions, you completely break the rules Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Harassment. You are assuming bad faith and by means of conjectures and speculations you use slanders and harass user. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 09:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly they informed me of the discussion because I have been involved in a number of other map discussions,[177][178][179] I produced and updated a number of vector maps,[180][181][182] including some of other European countries.[183][184][185] The proposed map isn't a vector image, is low quality, is unconventional (the majority of other countries maps use a variation of the standard green-grey scheme), and includes text with can't be read. Subtropical-man going and seeking an opinion from a map creator, of whom could create an appropriate, high quality map in line with whatever the consensus outcome is (I often make maps that aren't how I would want them, because of consensus), would seem to me to be in good faith. As for me having a "predetermined point of view or opinion", other than the fact that I often oppose adding poor quality maps to infoboxes, I don't know how Subtropical-man could anticipate my view. And lastly, I actually only gave an opinion, not a "vote". I gave feedback on the proposed map (such as using a zoom insert and removing labels). Rob984 (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Continuing abuse of revision delete by User:Kww

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

---

User:Kww is continuing to engage in serious policy violations regarding the use of revision delete. He is engaged in a systematic campaign to undo whatever edits he can find of mine, explicitly stating that he has no regard for the quality of the encyclopaedia and simply wants to get rid of me [186]. He does not just undo them but has taken to deleting the relevant revision as well. WP:REVDEL says that "The community's endorsement of the tool included a very strong consensus that its potential to be abused should be strictly barred, prevented by the community, and written into the policy", but Kww has abused the tool as follows:

1. According to WP:REVDEL, "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal." None of my edits are even remotely offensive, and there is significant dissent about their removal.

2. "If deletion is needed, only redact what is necessary (i.e. leave non-harmful fields visible)" - none of the fields are harmful but Kww has generally deleted all of them. The potential harm of the IP address I edited from is hard to imagine.

3. "RevisionDelete should not be used without prior clear consensus for "ordinary" incivility, attacks, or for claims of editorial misconduct" - Kww has no consensus even to revert my edits, let alone delete the revisions.[187]

4. "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who subsequently reinstate edits originally made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content." - Kww has restored serious violations of core policies to the encyclopaedia. See for example the extraordinarily biased and promotional text that he put back to Alex Lowe.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#User:KWW_abusing_revision_deletion I pointed out these violations before, and was surprised to find that no-one particularly cared about abuse of revision delete. They told me to take it to the policy page, which I thus updated to reflect the fact that these violations are apparently acceptable, and that the community apparently no longer minds that much about the potential for abuse of the tool. But that got reverted, and people said that if there were policy violations they should be reported on AN/I. Kww has continued to abuse the tool, so one of two things must happen:

1. Either Kww's policy violations are not acceptable, in which case action needs to be taken to prevent him from abusing revision delete.

2. Or, they are acceptable, and the policy pages need updating to reflect that. Perhaps you all think it's OK to violate policy as long as you're doing it to get rid of someone you really don't like? If so, then you need to write the policy pages accordingly, and it would be good to define the circumstances in which people are allowed to ignore policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.9.132.172 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You only have one edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Revision Deletion Criteria 5 is Valid deletion under deletion policy, executed using RevisionDelete. Deletion Policy includes by reference all Speedy Deletion criteria. WP:G5 in turn allows the speedy deletion of contributions by blocked or banned editors, made in violation of their block or ban. As you admit to being a banned/blocked editor, I don't see a problem. Also, your block evading. Monty₈₄₅ 01:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I've now blocked the IP for block evasion. I'll leave it to others to decide if this section stays or goes. Monty₈₄₅ 02:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Nandinigoel.india socks

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

---

Socks of Nandinigoel.india (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Nandinigoel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nandinigoel1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

82.132.225.61 (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and blocked. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User: Sudipmisra is an account purely created for advertising purposes who is violating all rules surrounding CSDs and advertising.

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

---

So another user, User:Pishcal, stumbled this article: Dck worldwide, and, in my opinion, rightly found it to be a blatant violation of advertising policies. So they marked it for a CSD.

The user who created it, User:Sudipmisra, promptly removed the CSD, and instead added an improper file link to the company's logo, a violation of copyright! Though I suppose there's a funny loophole here if they release it themselves, though it's still an advertising violation.

If you look at Sudipmisra's contribs, you can see its an account purely intended for advertising. I wager the account should be blocked and its contribs be reverted. Thanks.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe this belongs over at WP:AIV. Pishcal — ♣ 14:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at User:ImUrvashiRautela/sandbox

Here's the diff. "we have to take legal action if you guys dont remove dethron words from wikipedia". I am involved and so would feel better if somebody else reviewed this. Thanks. --Geniac (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This account is a SPA claiming to be the manager of Urvashi Rautela and has been blocked once for edit waring over sourced information on Rautela's article. Whether he/she is blocked for making a legal threat, they are definitely WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 22:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it a little strange that ImUrvashiRautela wrote a legal threat to himself at an article in his/her own sandbox? Who does he think will be reading his sandbox? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked per WP:NLT. Per NLT guidelines, after blocking, we should make sure to deal with any legitimate complaints they may be making in the threat. The only thing negative is in the lead at Urvashi Rautela, regarding the dethroning and age controversy, which may be what they were saying with "remove dethron words". Of the 4 references, only 2 mention it, both in passing, though they are at least arguably reliable. To fully comply with BLP policy, we should probably find at least one RS that clearly talks about the incident and add it as a reference. Monty₈₄₅ 23:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Doors22 - a longtime, POV-pushing editor

I have wanted to stay away from the drama boards for a while, but there is something that needs doing. This is about the following user:

• Doors22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Doors22 opened a thread at NPOVN on Formerly98's edits at Finasteride. This is a boomerang on that thread. I am posting it here, because of what i am proposing.

• Claim: Doors22 is a long-time POV pusher, here to pursue one issue - increasing awareness of "post-finasteride syndrome", per his own words in Feb 2011 in his first month of editing when he wrote: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same"

• In pursuing this mission, Doors22 has come into conflict with members of WIkiProject Medicine, including Doc James, Jdwolff, Yobol, DMacks, Graham Colm, Alexbrn, Formerly 98, and me. Tryptofish did some great work mediating disputes (Miss him so much!)

• A context note: "Post-finasteride syndrome" is what Doors22 is concerned with. It is a putative "syndrome" where some men suffer long-term sexual dysfunction because of using finasteride, a drug used to treat enlarged prostate and hair loss. There is boatloads of litigation on this. The condition is not recognized by the medical literature, all though the literature does note that there is a correlation between some men having sexual dysfunction after using finasteride (causation is difficult to show in this). Last month, a single agency within the NIH (the Office of Rare Diseases Research) put a page up on "Adverse events of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors" that mentions PFS. That is the only recognition there is. Doors22 has a FRINGE stance.

• Action sought - Topic ban from anything related to finasteride or side effects of drugs for long-term Civil POV-pushing and increasing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

• Evidence

Doors22 started editing WP in January 2011. After getting his feet on the ground on a few other articles, he got to the finasteride article, and started editing in a strongly POV manner, emphasizing sexual side effects of the drug. For four years now, he has been hammering away at that.

He made a foundational statement on his talk page, a month after he started. He wrote: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same"

This turned out to be a prescient declaration of WP:NOTHERE.

Since then, his edit analysis shows:

• 360 edits overall

• content
  • 88 edits to Finasteride (which you can see here - almost all about side effects or Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation
  • 6 edits to Merck & Co. (maker of finasteride and that's what his edits were about
  • 5 edits to Spencer Kobren (hair loss guy)

• Talk
  • 104 edits to Talk:Finasteride (which you can see here) arguing, often with personal attacks, to get his changes into the article.
  • 28 edits on other users' talk page, either about finasteride or politicking around it

• boards
  • 29 contribs here at ANI here - all in threads about me or Formerly98, jumping in to make negative comments. In my view (not surprising, I know), these are especially ugly (bringing anger over content disputes into other issues)
  • 11 posts at NPOVN (see here)
  • 1 contrib to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome
    • That AfD in October 2012 was a rodeo of meatpuppetry and led to an a sock/meat investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brainbug666/Archive over Finasteride, Post-Finasteride Syndrome and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome that was instigated by Stalwart111 The close of the SPI was " Meatpuppetry is certain, but difficult to demonstrate here" and one editor (not Doors22) was indeffed for battleground behavior.
  • 5 edits at deletion review that he initiated over the deletion see here)

• drafts
  • 7 edits on Draft:Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation arguing that the article should be created (it was not). contribs to that are here (note, doors22 got very angry with me on this)

• Wikipedia Talk
  • 9 comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (contribs) all about his issue

Add all that up, and 293 edits (81%) are pursuant to his mission - one issue about one drug, or trying to get rid of people getting in the way of him achieving that mission.

• his block log - one block back in 2011 for calling another editor a Nazi (and not backing down from that) after calling him a dictator (for which he did apologize) (see below)

• In the course of pursuing the "raise awareness of sexual side effects" mission, Doors has received the following warnings and blocks:
  • In Feb 2011 called Jfdwolff a "dictator" here (for which Doors [apologized)
  • In Sept 2011 was back at it, receiving a warning for making personal attacks again, against the same editor (this time calling him a "Nazi" and then was blocked for the same by Doc James. attacks were here and here.
  • Sept 2012 warned here while edit warring over content about the Post-Finasteride-Syndrome Foundation (the mission of which is the same as Doors22's self stated mission - to raise awareness of the sexual side effects of finasteride.
  • October 2012 was part of the sock/meat puppet investigation mentioned above, over the AfD
  • Feb 2014 warned for deleting content from finasteride without edit notes
  • Jan 2015 I warned him for edit warring

• Sample edits to Finasteride
• Doors22 edits in spurts. First one was Feb-March 2011
  • 1st edit was a new section called "Safety controversy":

Over one thousand users of Finasteride report that they developed "Post-Finasteride Syndrome" that persisted despite continuation of finasteride treatment. Symptoms of Post-Finasteride Syndrome include, but are not limited to erectile dysfunction, loss of libido, genital shrinkage, emotional lability, and lack of energy. In December 2010, several American doctors published an article in the Journal of Sexual Medicine that found evidence in favor of a causal relationship between finasteride use and prolonged sexual dysfunction. The controversy is gaining more attention and has been investigated by the media including the BBC and several doctors including endocrinologists and urologists. In January 2011, a Canadian law firm filed a class action against Merck for failing to include warnings of permanent sexual side effects on finasteride's product label.

References

• • • note, it was Jfdwolff's revert of that content and subsequent refusal to agree to allow it, that led to Doors22's personal attacks of "dictator" and "Nazi" against him. That first discussion on talk started with Doors22 stating: "Without the need for further support, I think it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that this be reported on Wikipedia, even if the condition is rare. Many people trust Wikipedia as a reliable source for information and know very little about human biology and medicine which can allow them to make dangerously uninformed decisions about their health."

• next spurt was august - oct 2011. (note, effort to get Post-Finasteride Syndrome article created was during this time) sample edits"
  • dif about label of drug in the US, about sexual side effects.
  • dif adding content about erectile dysfunction
  • dif with edit note: "Very important for people suffering from Post Finasteride Syndrome and those interested in the ongoing controversy - Do not remove again before reaching a consensus on the talk page as per Wiki standards and regulations)"

• next spurt was Jan 2012. sample edit:
  • dif with edit note: "Merck did not decide to stop spending money on the website as every single other product page is originally up. They are adjusting their market strategy to respond to emerging controversies. Please do not delete without discussion on talk page."

• next spurt was April-May 2012. sample edit: (peaceful)
  • dif another label update

• next spurt was Sept 2012. sample edits (there was battling here
  • dif added new section on the PFS Foundation
  • dif used that new section as a COATRACK for claims that the syndrome exists

reverted by Jfdwolff with edit note "still no consensus for mentioning this group"

• • edit warred to keep it in, with note: "Added the sufficient third party source... do not remove again, discuss on talk page if desired"

reverted by Biosthmors with edit note; "revert. political advocates do not get to decide what adverse affects are per WP:MEDRS -- they are not reliable medical sources"

• • edit warred it back under new section header "Society and culture"

reverted by Edgar181 with edit note "m per talk page comments"

• next spurt was Feb 2013. one edit:
  • dif about FDA panel meeting, over-emphasized sexual side effects (content no longer in article, don't know when that was taken out)

• next spurt was Feb 2014. battleground again
  • restored edit about FDA panel
  • added more to it and more and more

• Sept/October 2014 more battleground
  • jumped in to edit war over PRIMARY sources and more and more and more and more and this went on and on and we finally reached a difficult consensus, and he finally went away again at the end of October... but

• January/Feb 2015 high battleground.
  • right back at the same content again. which led to more difficult discussion on Talk and even after we reached a compromise on content mediated by Doc James, Doors pushed harder for yet more content on this. It is just relentless.
  • 36 contribs on Talk:Finasteride ( see here in January 2015 alone.

• in March 2015 a draft article was created Draft:Post-Finasteride_Syndrome_Foundation and the discussion about that got very personalized, with Doors mistaking comments I made about the foundation for an attack on him (he may well be connected with for all i know - and i cannot know). (see the link)
• more troubling, Doors broadened his behavior into battleground, making all 29 of his contribs at ANI on postings about me and about Formerly 98 - just taking pot shots to take us down. Stuff like this and this.

• april 2015. more battleground, a bit on the article...
  • the PFS Foundation sponsored a meta-analysis on sexual side effects that published and Doors came back to put it in
• but even more so elsewhere:
  • Talk discussion getting increasingly personalized and heated
  • this: "You have proven yourself to be a dishonest person time and time again..."
  • the thread at NPOVN

This is just not letting up. So again, from some of his first comments here when he wrote: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same" He has been doing one thing here, and is resorting to increasingly ugly measures to achieve his goals.

• so here it is Proposal: topic ban for Doors22 from finasteride and side effects of drugs. Reason: long-term WP:Civil POV pushing and increasingly WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC) (repeated reason down here, for clarity. REDACT shown with underline Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC))

!votes re ban proposal

(note: "break 1" was originally "survey" and "break 2" was originally "discussion". was changed by SlimVirgin in this dif with edit note "not an RfC". Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)) note no longer relevant, changed again by Guy in this dif Jytdog (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC))

• Support as nominator. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support and request one-way interaction ban with myself per my comments in the section below Doors exhibits the classic behaviors of WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY. As I outline below, every minor edit that does not support his position turns into an extremely lengthy WP:IDHT argujment, with personal attacks on the editors on the other side of the issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 19 April 2015‎ (UTC)
• Support The edit-warring, misinterpretation of sources, exhaustive talk page posts, and personal attacks that Doors has engaged with respect to this topic suggests that he unable to edit this topic productively and therefore a topic ban is justified. I understand how devastating side effects of drugs can be and I understand wanting to include that information in an article, but crossing the line into disruption is not ok. Ca2james (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose JYTDog admitted below that this is at least partly a personal content dispute for him. Both JYTDog and Formerly98 have been accused by a handful of other editors of being "COI Ducks" - editors that have an editing style of being paid editors or having some other conflict of interest. While this is almost impossible to prove unless the editor in question volunteers this information, it is problematic nonetheless. Moreover, they seem to have formed a WP:TAGTEAM and will participate in each others skirmishes as they battle with other editors, usually to remove negative information about large corporations or side effects from drugs. Both of these editors have even attracted criticism from non-wikipedia sources which you will find if you google both Formerly98 and JYTDog. I also believe this is also a retaliation from when I contributed my opinion on noticeboard incident's when both of these editors were separately reprimanded. JYTDog has an established pattern of retaliating against editors with whom he disagrees by initiating incidents against them on this noticeboard. In an edit below, he even admitted he frequently submits complains on this board and he was reprimanded for doing so just a couple weeks ago.

Most importantly, this most recent complaint comes as a retaliation for a RFC (request for comment) I posted on the NPOV board. I recently put in a reference to a meta study published in a highly respected journal that called into question the quality of the existing clinical trials for finasteride. The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health but also received a small unrestricted gift from a non-profit group that is trying to organize research about permanent side effects caused by Propecia, a cosmetic drug. In my opinion, Formerly98 tried to poison the well by calling out that it was funded by an activist group. His statements were accurate to an extent, but they were misleading since he completely disregarded that the NIH, a globally respected research institution, was the main sponsor for the study. He often argues out of both sides of his mouth depending on his objective du jour. He decided the foundation was not notable enough to receive a wikipedia article but it is notable enough to mention when he feels it can discredit research that is unfavorable to the drug. Sometimes he feels the FDA is a authoritative source and other times he downplays its significance. What is very important to note is that an admin independently reviewed Formerly98's questionable edit yesterday and removed the reference to the funding source as he evidently felt it was not worthy of inclusion. When you look at things from the perspective of a tagteam of obstructive editors with a questionable history of downplaying side effect edits, things will look unfavorable but I would ask you review both of their edit histories to understand that they are the true source of this conflict. I made some mistakes in my newbie days (several years ago) which they have been eager to highlight but as many editors do, I have adapted as I gained an understanding of how things work around here. Doors22 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support - the inventors and proponents of "post finasteride syndrome" have been disrupting WP for years. The creation of a draft about the foundation (just to claim in the lede that this "syndrome" is legitimate) is the latest dirty trick in a tiresome campaign. The commentary now at Finasteride#Adverse effects is poorly written and disingenuously sourced but neither surprises me. The fewer hysterical, POV pushers in this area, the better. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There are a few things that don't make sense with this post. People who recognize post finasteride syndrome aren't the "inventors" of the syndrome, it is something that is caused by an adverse reaction to the drug. In the past you have falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet which was proven to be baseless upon investigation by an administration. I also was not the one to create the draft about the foundation although I think it is worthy of existence. You also mention that the adverse events section is poorly written and disingenously sourced but it was last updated by DocJames and yet includes references from the National Institutes of Health, JAMA Dermatology, and the FDA. Lastly, despite what it says on your own user page, you apparently haven't assumed good faith about multiple editors by accusing them of carry out a "dirty trick" by creating a page for the post-finasteride syndrome foundation. The existence of permanent/crippling side effects is one of the most (if not the most) widely discussed issue about the drug. This will become quickly apparent after a quick google search or news run. I don't really understand why you are accusing editors of using some kind of a trick to create an article for a non profit that is already approved by the US government. Your whole edit makes very little sense. Doors22 (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No, "symptoms" are caused by adverse reactions to the drug. Grouping those symptoms together to call it a "syndrome" is absolutely the invention of a select group of fringe-dwelling pseudo-medicos. That a number of health authorities have acknowledged that those people use that name for those symptoms is not "recognition" by those authorities. In this instance, the editing history of this particular subject isn't confined to your actions (though they are disruptive on their own). There is a 4-year history of POV-pushing, pseudo-science and emotion-dressed-as-medicine on Wikipedia with particular regard to this drug. And of course the adverse symptoms are the "most widely discussed issue about the drug" - you could say that about 90% of drugs that otherwise do what they are supposed to do except in a tiny number of cases. Highways just sit there doing what they are supposed to do - we only talk about the accidents. And we're talking about tiny numbers, as the sources you put forward quite rightly acknowledge - a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage. Rather than focus on my account of the history of this subject and the current state of our articles, perhaps you should spend some time reflecting on your misbehavior, disruption and attitude and think about issuing some apologies because you're on a fast track to a topic-ban (which, to be fair, is about as light a sanction as we have). St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This statement is concerning because if you took the time to thoroughly review this incident you would have seen I already offered apologies for mistakes I have made. This incident is for the most part the result of a personal content dispute between myself and Formerly98 but the incident was opened by JYTDog on Formerly's behalf. Let me ask you this - How can you possibly collaborate with an editor who makes one argument to meet his objectives one day and then turns around and argues a more extreme version of the opposite case the next day in a separate context? It is almost impossible when you are dealing with another editor who is attempting to game the system and apparently has a lot more free time and will than are available to me at the current time. Diff SourceDoors22 (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

no, i did not open this on Formerly's behalf. that is your BATTLEGROUND mentality. i opened this because in my view your behavior is disruptive to the point where we need to topic ban you; I am seeking the community's input on that.

You were warned to stop POV pushing many, many times - the following are just some of them:

• Jan 12 2015 by me here
• Jan 13 2015 by me here
• Oct 2014 POV pushing remarked by Jfdwolff here and expanded here where he wrote "No, my comment about "persistence" relates to the fact that you've been editing Wikipedia as a single-purpose account since February 2011. During that time we have had repeated discussions about using Wikipedia to promote awareness of a phenomenon that has been very poorly studied. "
• 29 March 2011 3 editors oppose your efforts to load animal studies into the article and note your POV-pushing: Talk:Finasteride/Archive_2#Even_more_animal_studies
• 18 March 2011 Tryptofish acting as a mediator noted your aggressiveness
• Feb 8 2011 warned by Jdwollf here and again here
• Feb 7 2011 warned by Jfwolff here

and you just not hearing it. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support the proposed topic ban of Doors22. It is an open and shut case. Alexbrn (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support.(uninvolved) The SPA behavior has been pretty well established above, and the personal attacks show this user's engagement in the topic has become problematic. I'd look for at least 6 months on a topic ban (maybe more), but definitely a short WP:ROPE after that. I've only recently seen some of this editor's behavior pop up on my watchlist articles, and that already seemed troubling before I saw the case here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Doors appears to have a specific POV, while Jytdog and Formerly 98 appear to hold opposing POV. Eliminating one POV from the discussion seems counterproductive in terms of ending up with NPOV articles. With respect to the content dispute and accusations of FRINGE, a cursory 30 second search reveals multiple MEDRS sources discussing Finasteride with respect to erectile dysfunction:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18421068/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24955220

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21176115

It appears the ongoing goodfaith efforts of Doors are largely responsible for getting this conservative statement regarding potential long term sexual dysfunction included in the current WP article: The effect of finasteride on sexual function is controversial but "Post-Finasteride syndrome" was recognized by the National Institutes of Health's Office of Rare Disease research group in 2015. [10] There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports. It seems that without Doors, the article wouldn’t mention this as a rare, but potentially longterm/permanent side effect (this seems like relevant encyclopedic content which I suspect many men would like to be aware of). It seems that eliminating Doors from participation would not be good for Wikipedia in terms of NPOV or the readers..--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat did you review the long history of behavior issues, supported by diffs, provided above? For that matter did you even review the 3 sources you provided to see if they were relevant to the content, because they don't appear to be. In fact the first one you provided, PMID 18421068, supports the opposite conclusion from what Doors is pushing, so how is it relevant? And neither of the other two really support all that well the existence of a "post-finasteride syndrome," which is the idea that sexual dysfunction continues after discontinuation of use--that is what Doors has been pushing. And what do you think of this edit by Doors, which removes a 2014 MEDLINE-indexed meta-analysis and review? And it's problematic to try to square off Doors' behavior issues as "POV vs. POV" when what really matters is, who is supporting development of article content along WP policy and guidelines, with respectful and collegial behavior? Because of all this I can't see how this !vote carries any weight. Zad68 20:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Zad, I did review the history. There's a lot to wade through but there appears to be WP:BATTLEGROUND on both sides. With respect to the 3 secondary sources I listed, I'm aware that the oldest one supports the opposite position. Not cherry picking among secondary sources I found on this topic, I linked them all.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

So you didn't really focus on the behavior issues, which is what an ANI thread should focus on, and you're aware your sources aren't really relevant to the editing by Doors. OK then. Zad68 20:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, BoboMeowCat, but I have to question whether you actually read the discussion above or the sources attached to that particular claim. It is the same problematic claim I highlighted immediately above your comment. The suggestion that an acknowledgement on their website that some anti-Finasteride activists use the term "post Finasteride syndrome" is not the same thing as "x group gave recognition to the syndrome" which is what our article now claims. That "men would like to be aware of" the anecdotal-evidence-based claims of fringe-dwelling activists is of no consequence to us. That's not what we do around here. Again, this is part of an ongoing, 4-year pattern of extreme disruption and POV-pushing from people who "just want to get the truth out there". St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think there is some misunderstanding here.

"It appears the ongoing goodfaith efforts of Doors are largely responsible for getting this conservative statement regarding potential long term sexual dysfunction included in the current WP article: The effect of finasteride on sexual function is controversial but "Post-Finasteride syndrome" was recognized by the National Institutes of Health's Office of Rare Disease research group in 2015. [10] There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports."

• The material in the first sentence is incorrect. As noted on the Talk page (note that I have not yet reverted, and Doors has not yet responded to my day old note) the page that Doors is referencing here contains an link to a disclaimer stating that the information on the page is collected by library specialists from diverse sources, including advocacy group sites, and the NIH neither vouches for its accuracy nor does anything on the page reflect official NIH policy. Any materials that the ORDR provides are for information purposes only and do not represent endorsement by or an official position of ORDR, NCATS, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or any Federal agency. " In the course of adding this information, Doors removed two meta analyses, one of which found evidence for sexual dysfunction and one which did not. So high quality secondary refs were removed, and replaced with statements that are not supported by the source.
• The information in the second sentence has been there since 2008 (Before Doors22 edited here). To the best of my memory no one has tried to remove it, even though MEDRS explicitly states that "Case reports, like other anecdotes, fall below minimum standards of evidence".

Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 01:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not only did you try to remove this, but you were for the most part successful! I see you have a pretty selective memory. See the diff here. Am I the only one who is picking up on these misleading arguments? Doors22 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your diff doesn't show removal of the material, only that it was broken out into a new paragraph Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 03:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

That is completely false. You conveniently removed the text that mentioned the global regulatory bodies (Sweden, UK, Italy, FDA). You specifically said "to the best of your memory nobody has tried to remove it" (referring to text about the Swedish Medical Products Agency). One falsehood begets another... Doors22 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Doors, this is why it is inappropriate for you to edit this article. The material about persistent sexual side effects was moved to a new paragraph and reduced from three sentences (one that said that it had been observed, a second that stated the Swedes had added it to the Swedish label, and a third that stated that it had been added to the U.S. label) to one. It was NOT removed and the reduction from three sentences to one was done by a consensus agreement among three editors and opposed only by you. Yet instead of accepting that your position did not win consensus, here you are 6 months later shouting in all bold, all caps letters (all caps removed by Doors after this response was posted) about "ridiculous tactic" and engaging in yet more personal attacks. This is classic WP:ADVOCACY and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and is precisely why you should not be editing this article. You are too close to the topic to be objective. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 03:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You are now shifting your argument which is typical but it shouldn't distract too many. You winnowed down a reasonable section to text to 'there are case reports of persistent side effects'. All the while you deleted reference to the globally respected medical authorities that serve as valuable MEDRS. The problem is that you write like you are a spokesperson for a pharmaceutical company - constantly trying to minimize valid information or deflect from issues that are disadvantageous to you. These are not personal attacks but observations about the validity and consistency of your arguments and your editing style. The 'ridiculous tactic' I am calling out is that you showed a clip of text that has been there for years and 'to the best of your memory nobody attempted to remove it', yet you were the one to cut it down by 75%. Call a spade a spade and don't try to create the impression you haven't reduced the text when you have. Doors22 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Once again Doors, these bahaviors are emblematic of the problem

• Your ongoing anger about this edit six months after it was performed
• Your failure to recognize and accept the fact that your version failed to attract consensus support
• Your personalization of the content dispute, personal attacks, and defense of the same even when they are pointed out to you as a violation of policy

Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 06:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

My current disagreement has nothing to do with the specific edit at all. My disagreement comes from the fact you tried to use this as an example just yesterday of an edit that you say nobody has tried to remove. With two seconds of research, it is determined you made an effort to remove the citation and now you are claiming you built a consensus around it. You could just admit that you chose an incorrect example as a mistake, but your unwillingness to do so illustrates you have no interest in having a constructive conversation. Would anybody else like to comment on this? Doors22 (talk) 13:33, Today (UTC+1)

Doors, one more time. No one tried to removed the information that there are case reports of sexual dysfunction that continue after stopping the drug. What happened is that by a 3:1 consensus, a decision was made to not to add a separate sentence for each regulatory agency that added this to the drug label. (We don't have a separate sentence for each regulatory agency that approved the drug, after all.)

Yes, I misread your diff and said that it was a move to another paragraph and did not note that there was also a reduction in weight (one that was supported by a 3 : 1 consensus). You could have corrected that, though I don't really see how it matters since it was a consensus decision. What you decided to do instead was to immediately start accusing me of lying. This is the wrong approach and against policy. You don't see me here accusing you of lying and deliberate falsification when you add information stating that the NIH has "officially recognized" post finasteride syndrome, which given the disclaimer on the source page, strikes me as obviously incorrect. I simply assume that it was a mistake or difference in interpretation. You need to realize that you are a beneficiary of WP:GF here and that you need to practice it as well. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 12:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment here, but I know nothing about Doors22 or the issue. Formerly 98, can you help me to understand the exchange above? You wrote that the information about the Swedish Medical Agency (you provided this link) has been in the article since 2008, and that no one has tried to remove it. But you did remove it here in September 2014. It is no longer in the article.

There is a source for it on PubMed, an article from 2011 in the Journal for Sexual Medicine (I haven't checked to see whether it's correct): "The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency of the United Kingdom and the Swedish Medical Products Agency have both updated their patient information leaflets to include a statement that 'persistence of erectile dysfunction after discontinuation of treatment with Propecia has been reported in post-marketing use.'" Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah

No that is incorrect. I did NOT make the statement that "the information about the Swedish Medical Agency has been in the article since 2008. What I said was that "The information in the second sentence [of my quote of BobMeowCat]] has been there since 2008" The key information in that sentence is "There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug". If you look at the diff I offered, the information is sourced differently but it is present in 2008. And if you look at the diff provided by Doors, the information that "There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug" is still there after the edit that I made last year supported by a 3:1 consensus.

The key issue here as I see it is not in any case whether I made an inaccurate statement (I don't believe I did). The key issue is Doors immediately began accusing me of "falsehood" and being deliberately misleading. These are gross violations of WP:GF. He could have raised the discrepancy between what I said and his perceptions in a non-accusatory way, but as has been his pattern, he immediately went on the attack. Miscommunications, misunderstandings, and even inadvertent misstatements are commonplace in discussions about issues. What drives them off the track and into the ditch is the failure to apply reasonable assumption of WP:GF.

Meaning no disrespect, my understanding of the rules is that you should not be here commenting given that you were canvassed to join the conversation. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 16:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the exchange. (People are allowed to ask for uninvolved input, by the way; calling it canvassing isn't really fair.)

Doors22, Jytdog has asked for a topic ban from anything related to Finasteride. Would you be willing instead to confine yourself to the talk page? A topic ban would deprive Wikipedia of the information you have, and you're obviously well-informed, but your adding material directly to articles is not a good idea because you have a conflict of interest if you're involved with the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. Also, focusing on one issue means you don't develop a feel for Wikipedia's policies. Reading them isn't enough; you have to see them in action and use them yourself, but if you're confined to one issue, and only sporadically, that learning curve doesn't happen, and everyone ends up frustrated.

It would also be important, if you remain active on talk, not to overwhelm editors with long or repeated requests. If you'd like something to be added to the article, use the "edit request" template, write up your edit along with sources, and post it. If the editors there say no, a good way forward is to start an RfC and abide by the results.

The material about sexual dysfunction after cessation of the drug is now in the article, as is Post-Finasteride Syndrome, and there's a mention of the Foundation too (though the heading "Society and culture" is odd). Is there anything important missing, in your view? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, I appreciate your good intent here but looking at the comments above, I don't think this proposal will address the issues that I am having with this editor. Multiple editors, at least one who is uninvolved, have asked Doors to discontinue his personal attacks, and Doors' response has consistently been to deny that there is any problem with his behavior. I don't think he understands how to carry on a reasoned debate without getting personal, or else he is so emotional about this particular issue that he is unable to restrain himself or see his behavior objectively. I am concerned that this proposal will simply lead to the Talk page continuing to be filled with invective, and that other inappropriate expressions of anger will continue. I know you and I have very different outlooks on the world and our opinions are frequently very very different. But I hope you will agree that I deserve to be allowed to edit here without being constantly being called a liar and having my good will questioned over every difference of opinion on this issue. Others may have different issues, but those are my concerns anyway. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 17:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Formerly 98:, there are problems on both sides. We saw it in the exchange above. You posted something imprecise (that no one had tried to remove the second sentence, without specifying what you meant), Doors and I both (mis)understood it to mean the same thing, it seemed obviously false, Doors responded with frustration because he feels this happens a lot, and you then suggested that his frustration shows why he ought not to edit in this area. You then moved his post to the lower section, and suggested that I ought not to comment because Doors asked me to.

The usual thing with COI editors is to ask them to stick to talk. If they become overwhelming on talk, a topic-ban request is the next step. It makes sense to give this a try, because otherwise you lose Doors' input entirely, and he's seems well-informed about this, even if not always in a form that WP can use. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Slim, I think you are suggesting a false moral equivalence here. I find a lot of Door's comments "imprecise". But I don't call him a liar over and over and over again. If he is "frustrated", a break might be the best thing. Because judging by his behavior, he has been "frustrated" and "feeling this happens a lot" with multiple editors since 2011.

With respect to your comments on canvassing, do you really think Doors picked your name at random out of a hat as "an uninvolved editor", given your position as an admin, the many disagreements that you have had with Jytdog, and your posting skeptical remarks about my edits to the GlaxoSmithKline article the day before he sought you assistance as an "uninvolved editor"? This is where an editor with less respect for the rules and less confidence in the good intent of his peers might start getting "frustrated". But I"m not going to go there and Doors should not have either. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 18:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Formerly 98, you indicated above that the relevant info has been there since 2008 and clarified you were referring to this sentence:

There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports..

This isn't true...quick review of history shows this info hasn't been in the article since 2008. Here's the relevant text from December 2008:

Recognized side effects, experienced by around >1% of users, include erectile dysfunction, and less often gynecomastia (breast gland enlargement). [1] As expected from its short 6-8 hour half-life, in trial studies, side effects ceased after dosage was discontinued. [188].

Prior to Doors first edit in 2011, mention that this could be a long term/permanent side effect wasn't made clear. Here's the relevant text immediately before Door's first edit in 2011:

Side effects of finasteride include impotence (1.1% to 18.5%), abnormal ejaculation (7.2%), decreased ejaculatory volume (0.9% to 2.8%), abnormal sexual function (2.5%), gynecomastia (2.2%), erectile dysfunction (1.3%), ejaculation disorder (1.2%) and testicular pain. Resolution occurred in men who discontinued therapy with finasteride due to these side effects and in most men who continued therapy. [189]. Later down in that version there was mention of the Swedish health advisory, but you later removed that.

I would think most men would consider temporary erectile dysfunction very different than longterm/permanent sexual dysfunction. It seems Doors is largely responsible for inclusion of this rare but serious reported side effect being mentioned in the article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin several issues:

• I am sorry but in my view you are WP:INVOLVED and I view Doors22's posting on your page as canvassing. You raised questions here and here on your Talk page about the integrity/bias of both Formerly and me, as have other editors talking there; those editors have discussed concerns about pro-industry POV in the same breath that they have espoused FRINGE medical ideas like conspiracy theories about AIDS and autism/vaccines. Doors22, who also espouses FRINGE convictions about medicine (in his case, PFS) has made his main "defense" - really a distraction from issues raised here about his behavior - the putative bias/corruption/bad faith of Formerly and me. That you stepped up here to support someone advocating a FRINGE medical position who is making personal attacks of COI against people holding down the mainstream medical view, is just unfortunate.
• I raised no issue about COI about Doors22 nor has anyone else here, that I am aware of. I am raising issues about his long term POV pushing at the article, and increasing BATTLEGROUND behavior at the article and at other noticeboards/talk pages.
• Thanks for the suggestion that Doors22 stop editing the article directly. That is not a terrible solution, but doesn't address Doors22's BATTLEGROUND behavior at the article and outside it. I think it might be reasonable for the community to go with your recommendation if Doors22 agreed to refrain from directly editing, and acknowledged his battleground behavior and agreed to stop. On the other hand the community may also take the view that Doors22 has already demonstrated that he is NOTHERE and has already not changed course after many, many warnings, and that a topic ban is in order. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Door presumably asked me to comment because I had concerns about Formerly 98's insistence that research funding be included in relation to the Post-Finesteride Syndrome Foundation (he argued that "funding impacts study outcomes" here, 17:44, 17 April), but when it came to GlaxoSmithKline's RECORD trial studying Avandia and cardiovascular outcomes argued the opposite (e.g. here, namely that it would be second guessing, because the FDA had decided the funding didn't matter – which isn't correct; they asked for an independent review of the trial). The result is that we're probably the only source discussing the RECORD trial that has deliberately omitted that it was a GSK trial (F98's edit here).

There seems to be a lot of removal of well-sourced information when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, and this is perhaps what caused Door22's frustration. Returning to the issue, the question now is whether he will agree to stick to talk, as Jytdog seems to be willing to consider this. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Slim, the bottom line is you should not be here. You have a recent history of conflict with both Jytdog and myself, and this lack of objectivity is exactly what Doors was hoping for when he canvassed you. Do the right thing. Strike your remarks and withdraw. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 21:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Formerly, people have the right to do whatever they want when they are canvassed. That is a distraction.

Slim, Doors is attempting to distract the community from his four year record with the pharma shill gambit over recent interactions. It is a four year record. With regard to outcome, I prefer a topic ban and that is the SNOW consensus here so far.Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Being involved doesn't mean people can't comment, so who is or isn't involved is a red herring, just as the canvassing guideline doesn't mean people can't ask for help, and MEDRS doesn't say anything that would prevent Wikipeda from telling its readers that the RECORD trial was GSKs. I see a lot of policy and guideline misuse, and whereas experienced editors can ignore it, the less experienced get frustrated, lash out at the unfairness, then get blocked or banned for having lashed out. Having said that, I don't support COI or SPA editing, and I don't think Door should be editing that article. Let's wait to hear whether he accepts staying on the talk page and making an extra effort to minimize drama there (which I hope others will do too). Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

SV of course you are free to comment here; I only commented on your involvement as you seem to have described yourself as "uninvolved". And bringing up things about GSK where Doors22 has never edited, shows that. Doors is responsible for his behavior. Editors other than Formerly and me have called his attention to his attempts to use of WP as a soapbox over the last four years; his behavior has not changed and he has become only more fierce. Please see the 7 support !votes other than mine and Formerly's, two of whom have had to deal with Doors at the article over the last four years prior to Formerly getting involved (~ 1 year ago at Feb 2014) or me (~ 6 months ago Oct 2014).Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thank you for your commentary. I am open to some kind of solution like you proposed. I am not affiliated with the post finasteride syndrome as you may have thought nor have I given them a personal donation, however I have kept up to date with their activities as they are doing a good job to stimulate research and awareness for the condition. If I were to confine myself to just the talk page, I think it is only fair to do the same for JYTDog and Formerly98, especially the latter. JYTDog has accused me of engaging in canvassing you provide support for my cause yet we have never interacted before and I only contacted a single editor. Meanwhile, JYTDog signaled to eight users whom he specifically said were likely to come out against me and several of them did in fact support the motion to topic ban me.

I am concerned that if only I am confined to the talk page, Formerly will remove/condense/conceal useful text that discusses the controversy of Propecia's persisting side effects. He has done just this in the past. In one example, he reached a relative consensus with another editor Gilmour1201 in February 2014 and then about 6 months later he decided to reverse any compromise that had been established after the original editor left. Beginning on September 11, 2014 he embarked upon a series of edits where he removed references to Propecia side effects. Ironically, the first edit was a separate instance where he removed the reference to the warning label updated by the Swedish Medical Products Agency. Another good example of Formerly98's editing style is when he removed properly referenced information about Merck, Propecia's manufacturer, with a very weak rationale. These are just a couple examples worth highlighting. Moreover, the recent incident in which he made opposing arguments to represent his pro-industry POV was the latest that catalyzed this current debate. In the first edit he argues that the source of study funding affects study conclusions so it is reasonable to bring attention to a small unrestricted gift on the Propecia page. Yet the next day on the Glaxo Smith Kline page, he pontificates "Why would we add the information that the trial was GSK funded except to raise questions about the reliability of its conclusions?". The way I see it, this type of disruptive editing and argumentation has largely contributed the drama we are discussing today.

I think the current state of the article is not perfect but reasonable. There are several high profile studies that are currently being conducted on post finasteride syndrome, one of which by a Harvard affiliated hospital, and I'd like the article to incorporate the findings once they are published in the future. More studies will continue for at least the next several years. While this condition has been publicly known for over a decade, it is unfortunate that the Wikipedia community has been resistant to even mention this controversy. It takes many years to design a study, conduct the study, publish the (primary) study, and then even longer for somebody else to write it up in a secondary report which qualifies as MEDRS. How do you feel about the suggestion of having myself, JYTDog, and Formerly98 contribute solely through talk page discussions going forward? I think this solution may work well if editors who have not been involved in these long debates are ultimately responsible for deciding what goes into the article. Best Doors22 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? There is strong support (all but one) for a total topic ban with regard to finasteride (and derivatives, manufacturers and associated organisations - "broadly construed") which would exclude contributions to the talk page and every associated discussion anywhere on WP. SV is throwing you a (very generous) bone by suggesting that such a topic ban might be limited to article space so that you could contribute to discussions "behind the scenes". I don't support that at all but she has every right to propose it. And you're (basically) throwing it in her face by suggesting you'll accept such an offer, but only if those who have highlighted your disruption are sanctioned also? That's not how it works, mate. If you walk away from this (almost-100% consensus) without a total topic ban (or a block) you should consider yourself lucky. You're in absolutely no position to suggest that others receive equivalent sanctions as a result of your behaviour. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Doors22, I apologize for assuming you were involved with the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. I mistakenly thought that had been acknowledged. If you're not, and so long as you're not suing the company or anything similar, you don't have a COI, but the focus on this one issue is still a problem. If a topic ban is imposed, perhaps you could use the time to edit more widely, then you could ask that it be lifted after six months or so. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, no worries about the mix up with the foundation. I recognize that I did take the bait on several occasions when I should not have which apparently got me into trouble. While I made mistakes, I feel it should acknowledged that I was provoked on multiple occasions that contributed to this ordeal. I'm sure you understand that it can be challenging to work with more experienced editors who are quick to quote a range of guidelines to get the edge in disagreements.

What is your current thinking about restricting myself to the talk page going forward? JYTDog mentioned he thinks it would be a reasonable solution to discuss edits on the talk page and Formerly98 recently said he would prefer to establish a better working relationship than go through the ANI process. I think it would help secure the neutrality of the article if the same policy is upheld for them as well. In its current state, I think it is reasonably balanced but I mentioned earlier that I'm concerned the balance will quickly evaporate if I am removed. Stalwart111 is under the impression that this board is unanimously against me for some reason but both I and BoboMeowCat oppose a topic ban and it isn't entirely clear where you stand. More than 50% have been in favor but two of those editors were directly involved in this incident and JYTDog canvassed eight users who were previously involved. Thanks again. Doors22 (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Doors22, in future when someone cites a policy, calmly ask them to quote the relevant part from it, then read that part in context to get a feel for whether they're right. I think restricting you to the talk page is a reasonable compromise. It makes no sense to turn down an information source, and you've been mostly civil in the last couple of years (before that there were a few rough posts). But, as I said, consensus is currently against you, and this isn't up to me. An uninvolved admin will close the discussion. As for Jytdog and F98 also being confined to talk, that's unlikely to happen. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 05:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

By my reading, 10 support the proposal and 2 (including you) oppose it. Which means you've managed to convince 1 person that sanctions aren't immediately necessary to prevent you from further disrupting this project. And he didn't really seem to understand what was being proposed or why. That's a few more than "more than 50%"; more than 80% in fact. And you continue to argue that you're a necessary force for ensuring the article remains "neutral". There's absolutely no remorse here at all for what is long-term disruption, just vague references to "taking the bait" as if others are (once again) responsible for your disruptive actions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support per the behavior at the article, at the various User Talk pages, here in this ANI thread. Editor cannot maintain enough detachment from his agenda to edit in accordance with content policy and behavior guidelines. Zad68 03:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. SPA with personal attacks and other POV pushing, record going back years. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. Doors22 is a POV pushing SPA that has been disruptive in the topic area for years. The question shouldn't be whether or not to topic ban them, but why they have been allowed to be disruptive for so long. Yobol (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Doors22 is a WP:SPA whose activism has spilled over into edits of WP:BLP articles on figures identified with the subject of his fixation. He may be right, more likely he has at least some points worth making, but the way he is pursuing his agenda is rife with WP:SYN, WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and all the usual alphabet soup applied to agenda editors. A timed topic ban is obvious here, I suggest at least 6 months. If he is not sufficiently interested in Wikipedia to start editing other topics, then frankly we can do without him. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved non admin) Doors22 clearly has a personal connection to the article, which is prohibiting him from making quality edits and rational discourse over the talkpage. Perhaps when some time has passed and Doors has expanded himself to other areas of the encyclopedia, the topic ban can be revisited, however its blatantly obvious that one is needed in the present day. cnbr¹⁵ 13:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Support alternative talk page restriction proposed below. Agree with above assessment of POV both ways. Agree with assessment that single purpose editing has frustrated gaining broad WP experience and normal WP socialization as might be expected from the number of years. Agree with above assessment of teaming. Hugh (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

context for HughD's vote. He edit warred against me (and Formerly and 2 other editors) at the GSK article and received a block for it. Was POV=pushing some politically-oriented content which seems to be an ongoing issue (edit war warnings on political articles here, here and here and those don't count the ones he deleted which you can see here). So the "oppose" is no surprise. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, we request you argue in the threaded discusssion section. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Look at the edit history, as the reporting editor shows, arranged in spurts, bouts of wholly unsatisfying editing interspersed with long frustration breaks. Less than 400 edits, just 128 in article space. If you don't look at the years (5) the reported editor is a relative newbie to our project, never gained 5 years of experience. This editor's biggest mistake was following his passion into the pharmaceutical ownership zone, where he got summarily beat up and yeah, fought back, ineptly. All he knew of WP is what he learned there from the entrenched: revert, delete, snideness, tag teams, and notice boards. This episode is as much a failure in welcoming and inclusiveness as anything else. Warnings all around, please. Hugh (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (non admin uninvolved in the dispute)There are problems here, on both sides. Someone will undoubtedly point out that I have had issues in the past with some of those seeking the ban. I also point out that we see way to many cases brought here by those seeking the ban that have a content disagreement mixed in. I do think that Doors22 has something to offer on the topic, but there are issues that they should think about. I oppose an indef ban but support a talk page restriction or at most a 6 month topic ban. (added later) This post by Doors22 on the WP:ANRFC board diff shows that there is hope in that he sees there is a problem and seeing a problem is the first step in fixing it. AlbinoFerret 15:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

oh man. thanks for providing that link. so on the one hand he says "i am responsible" and on the other he says me and Formerly are responsible.... and most importantly he no where in that post acknowledges that he is here for one reason - to use WP as a soapbox nor does he acknowledge WP:SOAPBOX. what he said 4 years ago remains true today: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue" -- that is the definition of WP:NOTHERE. he is a longterm POV-pusher and the battleground behavior continues, as he continues to blame others for his behavior - and even takes advantage of my neutral request for a close, to open yet another forum to argue. and that you cannot see all that AlbinoFerret... Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

One of the things I have found frustrating is when you have mis-quoted and mis-referenced policies that are not applicable to the situation. I do not attempt to use the encyclopedia as a soapbox and I feel that one quote from 4 years ago was taken out of context. The are reasons these guidelines exist and I recognize (and hopefully you do too) that edits will be more credible and useful if they abide by the rules. I try to always include MEDRS sources but you have to realize that new editors are not very skilled in doing so. It is unhelpful to keep bringing up edits I made four years ago. I would like to continue contributing on the article as new sources and studies are published. In order for that to be done most constructively, it will require you remain open to new sources and try to work with me rather than against me. I hope I am misreading the tone of your post above, but it feels like you are not assuming my good faith and are emanating hostile sentiments. This incident you filed was not fun for me which will act as a deterrent to avoid this from recurring if possible. I don't think it was fun for you either so hopefully you will meet me half way as I am extending an olive branch. Thank you for your input AlbinoFerret. I would prefer to have no restrictions come as a result of this incident, but either way I will be spending a high proportion of my time on the talk page to gather input of others to ensure things go more smoothly in the future. Doors22 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What I see is an editor who has problems, but he also has something to offer. Its not impossible for people to change and he did say in that post "I take personal responsibility for my actions.". I dont think anyone involved in a battlefield is innocent. I dont think an indef is in the best interest of WP, multiple of points of view make for better articles. What would be best is if he does change and broadens his experiences on WP. I do think that restricting him to the talk pages will force him to work with others. AlbinoFerret 18:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

albino you have obviously not reviewed the talk page discussions. hammering and hammering mixed with personal attacks does not make for a productive editing environment. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thats incorrect, I did, I said there were problems. But I also think that forcing someone to only be on the talk page will limit the problems in fighting over edits. It will force real discussion if Doors hopes to get anything included in the article, fighting wont accomplish that. I have also said before that in a battleground everyone is at fault. While its only my opinion, I think every battleground should have page protection for a long time to force discussion. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

albino man. nobody else on the finasteride talk page brings up the same things over and over again. i get it that you have strong feelings about this from the e-cig article.. but that was a terrible entree into WP. that is not what things are like in most of WP. Jytdog (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC) (clarify Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC))

No, thats in the past, I just find this page interesting, as is this section. But nice try trying to inject some kind of motive, there is none except what I believe to be best for WP. I dont know Doors, I have never edited an article with them, and the subject of the articles this happened I dont find interesting. AlbinoFerret 12:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

sorry, you misunderstood me b/c i wasn't clear. when i wrote "the page" above, i meant the talk page of the finasteride article, not here at ANI. fixed that above. sorry. what i was trying to say is that when doors comes around we can count on long drawn out battles on the talk page as he argues and argues to include content based on bad sources (less frequently now) or argues to give more weight to the sexual side effects; and that often devolves into personal attacks from him when he doesn't get what he wants. it just never stops. that would be likely to become only more intense if that is all he could do, based even on what he has said here - he has given no indication that he understands that using WP as a soapbox to push one POV is not OK here. Please read WP:NOTHERE, read his full mission statement ( "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue....") look at the diffs, and look at what he has written here at ANI. all he wants to do is retain access to this platform to continue doing the same thing. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I am an uninvolved editor as far as this topic and Doors22, a name I've not even seen before. I am quite familiar from the last four months or so on Wikipedia with Jytdog, and to a varying lesser degree with several of the other parties involved here. I have also just been in a lengthy "discussion" via an AfD nomination (not mine, and for topic I was previously uninvolved with), across Talk page and noticeboards, for a Medicine article. This gives me some perspective. As this is a Jytdog complaint about editor behavior on a medical topic, I find these two points relevant:

• Jytog is extremely aggressive in editing style: debates relentlessly (which IMO is often good), is quick to revert edits (bad), on occasion reverses position based on discussion (in the end good, but not so much when also created the issue with a contested edit), readily sanction-shops via noticeboards (bad), displays I guess you could call it highly emotional behavior (e.g, name calling then striking through, requesting you strike through your own comments deemed hurtful, making a comment and deleting it so you have to read the history; distracting). All of this adds up to a WP persona that is hard to slot, and makes for an editor who can be difficult to communicate with, even intimidating, while remaining just on the right side of "acceptable WP behavior."

• Jytog strongly supports the WikiProject Medicine take on guideline interpretation, a situation I've only recently begun to understand, and one that most of the editors in this thread that I recogize seem to support: it appears that Wikipedia is allowing conventions of evidence-based medicine (such as how to determine the relative weight of research papers and what they really mean) to be applied by anonymous editors (what we ALL are) in deciding what content may or may not be included. Medical research is a highly technical area that can be difficult to interpret, but the bottom line is, specialized content is being determined by self-appointed expert editors according to rules that are simply not accessible or understandable to the general non-technical editor or reader. This may seem to result in good, responsible medical content, however, it also seems to be against core verifiability policy, and results in exclusion of content that in any other area of WP would be clearly verifiable by our standards. This is a problem, and it makes it extremely difficult for any editor to edit or even discuss core WP:PAG-supported content that goes against that WikiProject standard and group of enforcing editors.

Given these two points, and having surveyed chunks of the cited edit history, and read this thread, this looks like a swarming, with a group of like-minded editors piling on a lone opposing editor. The value of Door22's actual edits aside (as this is a behavior complaint), Door22 may or may not have the patience or temperament to deal with a wall of relentless, formally unified POV opposition (EBM-adherents) in a murky editorial situation, but trying to drive an editor over the edge in this way, and then use that behavior to ban them is...reprehensible, and I'm sure not in the spirit or core policies of Wikipedia. If it's a specific article/content dispute, there seem to be many other, even admin-enforced, ways to resolution, by focusing on the content, perhaps putting protection on the article in question so only Talk page consensus edits can be made, and so forth. Don't shoot the messenger. --Tsavage (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, I think you offer an interesting idea. There are several editors on that article that I feel have ganged up against me and want to do everything possible to discredit/eliminate any new information about side effects that come from this drugs. However, a couple administrators have participated (DocJames for one) and his input has been objective. Protecting the entire article and only allowing admins or approved parties to make edits could help preserve a neutral POV. However, would there be enough interest from objective third parties that the article would get updated with changes and new sources in a timely fashion? Doors22 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Doors22: Hard to tell, just have to see. I don't have much to say beyond that. After a decade of on and off editing, including some contentious topic editing, I am new in the last 4-5 months to this level of intense, essentially litigious behavior. It seems not uncommon in certain subject areas, it is tiring, and I feel an off-putting undercurrent through it all. If you're gonna try and hang in, and you're rational, not crazy, the one kinda painful thing I learned is you have to quickly disengage from arguing through content editing, that makes it too easy for your "opponents" (your disagreeing fellow editors) to charge you first if possible with edit warring, and eventually to build up a list from edit histories that can be characterized as bad behavior. And you have to unfortunately learn the policies and guidelines in some detail, and get a feel for how admin-involved processes seem to go, and be meticulous with your edits, stay calm and polite, vet everything your "opponents" say, especially when policies and guidelines are cited, and don't spend all your time in discussion, keep editing non-contentions articles to...stay real. :) That's what I've figured out so far. Fun for a while if you like arguing, but ultimately, it really sucks, no fun at all, if you simply enjoy expanding articles. And pretty unWikipedian. I suppose it will eventually come to a head, probably around the power of WikiProjects. --Tsavage (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

i have yet another "fan"; marvelous. Tsavage, in your press to register a complaint about me, you have not looked at the issue. Doors22 announced his intentions in his first month here, and has followed through, pushing one point of view on one topic his entire time here. His contribs amount to one big violation of WP:SOAPBOX, a policy and a pillar. If you want to open a thread about me, knock yourself out, but I made my first edit to the article six months ago; Doors has been at this for four years. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You have 40K+ edits, and you reported a fellow editor with 178 article space edits. You are an adult asking our admins for capital punishment against a minor. The reported editor has behavioural deficiencies due to inexperience. What's your excuse? You have deficiencies in terms of welcoming and inclusiveness. It's long overdue for you to step up your game in terms of accepting your role in broadening participation our project. You routinely skip the step of looking at someone else's edit and seeing if there is something of value in the content or source. When you wrote above "I have wanted to stay away from the drama boards for a while," by "a while" did you mean, like what, a week? Hugh (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"a wall of relentless, formally unified POV opposition (EBM-adherents)" Thank you for your thoughful comment and for so eloquently articulating this issue. I would add based on my recent experience that that the zeal for the project-level standards spill over from strictly medical issues to large pharmaceutical corporations, with an unfortunate outcome that the articles are non-neutral with respect to their histories. Hugh (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

JYT, if you have so many 'fans', did you ever stop to consider that you have a problem? Here is the latest example of unreasonable editing behavior. Zinedine included one of Bayer's early products, heroin, in the header which you brusquely removed because it was unsourced. First, this is inappropriate because if you really cared about a citation the right thing to do would have been to request one or tag the text with citation needed. Secondly, there is no reference for Bayer's production of aspirin in the lead so you are applying a double standard. After the user responds to your request and includes a source, you threatened with a block if the edit was put back in place. That's highly unacceptable after the editor after the editor provided a source that was not necessary in the first place and that type of action would never warrant a block, especially because it was not even close to the > 3 reverts in 24 hours rule. It's possible you didn't want to include a reference to heroin in the lead because it creates a negative tone for the company, but that should be the topic of debate, not some inapplicable technicality combined with a threat. Doors22 (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

that worked out quite well with no drama or boards needed (despite HughD's efforts to add it). Doors, every time you do this distraction/counterattack thing you dig your [[WP:HOLE] hole] deeper, in my view. you are showing no insight into your SOAPBOXING. nada. this is getting more unseemly the longer this goes. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC) (fixed thanksJytdog (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC))

You have just presented another example where you cited wikipedia policy where it does not make sense to do so. WP:HOLE in no way fits within the context of your complaint. If you are going to frequently cite policy, it's important to do so correctly to have a constructive conversation. Doors22 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that the essay i linked to was not what i intended. i meant to link to this article: Law of holes. which is what you are not heeding. (when the close comes, if you would have said somewhere, anywhere - "hey i get it - i have to lay off the sexual side effects thing and I understand that i have driven everyone else who has tried to work with me crazy" this would go very different for you. but you have dug in harder and even tried to attack me instead. you are making the case for POV Pushing and BATTLEGROUND, every time you write something that is not that. That is what I mean by digging your own hole deeper. What the community looks for is whether you get it ) Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There really is no reason that an editing disagreement on Wikipedia should make you "crazy" unless you have some personal connection to the issue but maybe I don't know the whole story. I have said several times I will adjust my collaborative style and so should you, frankly. Now that the work week is starting, I won't be able to frequently respond but I don't have much more to add as this conversation has run its course. Doors22 (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues with your behavior - first, long term POV pushing on one issue since you started here, creating endless tangles on talk when you don't get to push your point into the article. Not once have you said "I get that this is a problem; i will stop" The other issue is BATTLEGROUND. while you have said some things about changing your style, at every chance you had here, you have attacked me or Formerly. So... where is the actual change. The way you could have avoided what i am pretty sure is coming, would have been to acknowledge the problems and promise to stop. and actually stop. Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support (uninvolved non admin) Doors is a relentless POV pusher who does not help the project. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It is remarkable that Jytdog uses the same arguments that he used to try to get me banned because I opposed him and his ideas. The Banner talk 19:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

yep another fan. Banner, i am glad you have been heeding the warning you were given in the close of the case about you. Your case was a bit different - you were acting disruptively in the organic food articles because you were (are?) frustrated that MEDRS governs claims about health. That is not me, that is the guideline. You weren't pushing for anything, just making a mess b/c you were frustrated. The Doors case is different in that he has been consistently pushing one POV, fighting tendentiously to expand content on PFS in wikipedia. Your behavior did share with his, battleground behavior. Which you are still doing, skipping right over the pile of evidence about Doors to come after me... c'est la wikipedia; c'est la ANI. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Discussion here, please Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Question Jytdog, the above it quite long and confusing as is the title you chose for this ANI complaint. What does this have to do with Wifione? Are you alleging that Doors is being paid to be concerned about sexual side effects of medications? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The wifione case that was actually conducted at Arbcom was about long term POV pushing. Arbcom said they have no hand in paid editing. I will just remove that from the section header. to avoid other people who misunderstand that case from being confused. This case about Doors22 is very, very simple. He only edits about one thing and pushes one POV on that one thing. Every time he shows up we get into long, disputes on the article Talk page, and he is becomingly increasingly disruptive and WP:BATTLEGROUNDish. The evidence above iis, in my view, what a case against a long term POV-pusher looks like. we will see if i am right or not. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems the interpretation by the press was that Wifione had a financial COI with respect to that bogus business school he was promoting. Promoting a bogus business school on Wikipedia for free would seem like an odd hobby, although I suppose possible. Whether or not you are successful in getting Doors topic banned related to POV doesn't seem related to Wifione....so I'm not following your "we'll see if I'm right or not" comment. I do appreciate you amending the section header to remove reference to a case that doesn't seem to apply here. I'll refrain on voting on this specific case until I have time to review the evidence provided. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Response There are a lot of reasons why I feel your accusations are inaccurate but I don't have the time to respond to each one. However one example is when you tried to warned me of edit warring after a single edit, which was not even a reversion but was rather a correction to a previous edit. It is also very untrue that post finasteride syndrome is not recognized by the medical community. Over the past few years it has been gaining increasing awareness in MEDRS sources and was documented before that in countless blogs written by doctors, internet forums, and foreign regulatory bodies. I have been upfront that I am a patient who continues to suffer from seemingly permanent side effects due to taking a COSMETIC drug, a very unfortunate consequence which will negatively impact the rest of my life when the offered benefit was negligible in comparison. My goal is to create an accurate and objective encyclopedia article to help other potential consumers make informed decisions with the up-to-date information on this drug.

Both JYTDog and Formerly98 have an extensive history of removing/diminishing reports of side effects for a wide range of drugs/corporate products. This has made it very challenging to create an article that is balanced. It is also worth noting that on many occasions the two of you have ganged up on me to try and create a "consensus" and have tag teamed each other on editing conflicts on many other articles. I have not had significant issues with other editors, barring my initial days as an editor several years ago when I admittedly was much less aware of proper editing etiquette on Wikipedia. I really do not think a topic ban is appropriate, especially given my edits on the article are very grounded in facts, and look forward to hearing the feedback from other editors.

This is also worth mentioning, even if its less relevant, but a couple weeks ago you were reprimanded on the admin noticeboards for acting with incivility towards another editor and were warned to stop initiating so many incident reports on these boards as you have been initiating a large volume in the recent past. Doors22 (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Doors exhibit classic WP:SPA and advocacy behavior. Every minor edit turns into a a multi-thousand word discussion in which he becomes tendentious, exhibits WP:IDHT behavior against consensus, and engages in personal attacks. In fact, I rarely see a post from him in response to my comments that does not contain at least one personal remark.

• “For you to equate a research gift to a "bribe" or "incentive plan" is ridiculous but alas not out of character.

• "You are digging yourself deeper by showing making one deceptive argument after another."

• "this is why you are being deceitful in trying to discredit the study because of a small unrestricted gift. "

• You have proven yourself to be a dishonest person time and time again.

• "I have not made any assumptions about Formerly98. He has made his intentions clear by making not bad faith arguments that somebody with his alleged background, knowledge, and expertise would have never made."

• Even when third parties come to his talk page to warn him about these personal attacks, he defends them.

• Here on the NPOV talk board, he adds a comment responding to me in which he questions my integrity twice. The edit summary states that "a pharma employee should not pretend to be ignorant to the differences between a grant and gift" I have not been a pharma employee for nearly a decade, my COI statement clearly says this, and this has been pointed out to Doors multiple times. In the edit itself, he repeats his suggestiion that I am lying about my employment status, with the remark "I also don't believe you are not aware of the difference between a gift and a grant, especially since you were/are an employee of the pharma industry."

• The problem is longstanding. Here in 2011 he calls user: Jfdwolff a "dictator" in his edit summary.

• The vindictiveness extends to retaliatory editing. Here, after an extended series of posts in which he accuses me of an undisclosed COI, he makes 3 edits to the Electronic Cigarette article supporting the other side of a content dispute that I am involved in. He has almost no history at this point of editing non-finasteride related articles, and has never before shown interest in electronic cigarettes. Diff1 Diff2 Diff3 and later reverts one of my edits to the article.

• Similar retaliatory editing on the Pharmaceutical industry article talk page, which subject he has never shown an interest in until another editor begins criticizing my rewrite of that article. Seeing a content dispute that I am party to brewing, he jumps in to support the other side of the argument. Diff

Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 12:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to Formerly98

• I just said earlier that I have only really run into issues with Formerly98 and JYTDog and I believe this quick response helps to confirm my statement that they have a tendency to tag team one another one Wikipedia, trying to form a two person consensus. What I see here is two things. First, I edited a single page (electronic cigarettes) where you had been very active and you accused me of WP:HOUNDING you. This edit is not recent and to avoid any perception that I may be hounding I have not done anything like it since. However you continue to bring this up time and time again.
• Secondly, the history between us has led to my frustration and I apologize if you feel I made a personal attack against you. The reality is that you make arguments that do not seem to be what you actually believe for pushing a POV and this would lead to frustration for anybody. Somebody who claims to have a PhD in chemistry and experience working as a research scientist for pharma companies should know the difference between a research grant and a gift and not pretend otherwise. Moreover, it is very incendiary to refer to a research gift with no strings attached or obligations a "bribe" or "incentive plan". On your own talk page, you have written "If I disagree with you, its almost never personal. I may even secretly agree with you, but feel that the article in question is unbalanced and needs to be adjusted to a more neutral POV." In my opinion, it is very counterproductive to make arguments to which you personally disagree and can be very antagonistic to other editors making good points.
• Lastly, I'd like to highlight my edit that you called out on the WP:Pharmaceutical Industry article. This is very obviously not an instance of hounding yet you repeatedly bring this up (among other poor examples) which can get very exhausting. I am confident that anybody who spends the time to properly evaluate this example will see that your accusation is without merit because I merely offered a civil opinion on a topic to which you don't have a monopoly. The problem is that very few editors don't have the time and it's possible they take your accusation at face value which is highly misleading. I think this example is a good representation of the (lack of) credibility of many of your accusations and the aggressive/unfair editing tactics you often employ on Wikipedia. Both Formerly98 and JYTDog have run into problems with many, many other editors even in recent months where they seem to be the other two that have problems with my editing.Doors22 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I know this looks like a personalized content dispute (and it is in part), which is why I reckon no one is commenting. But there is meat to this, or i would not have brought it. And I know that NPOV issues are difficult, since you have dig in some to see what is going on. I tried to tee this up so it would be very very clear. Hopefully folks will take some time to review the evidence I provided above. And I want to apologize to the community for showing up here again, but the BATTLEGROUND from Doors22 was just getting to be too much; and his NPOVN posting was just too.... ironic. Thanks in any case for your patience and consideration. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahhhh, so you did notice that few are commenting. Curious - have you ever read The Boy Who Cried Wolf by Aesop? Other editors have been hinting about the remarkable frequency they're seeing your name on ANI. Did you first try to settle this "personalized" content dispute on the TP of the respective article? Atsme☯^Consult 14:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• and so now Doors adds some clear WP:CANVASSING to the list of BATTLEGROUND behaviors. Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• No comments for a couple of days. Is this closeable? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you think there have not been any comments in a couple of days. If you look above my edit here, there were 5 new edits just today (April 23). I have done some research over the past few days and decided the best way to proceed is to file an incident for WP:Votestacking. I don't feel this was conducted in a way that was remotely fair or impartial. Irrespective of who I am working with, I have made mistakes and I am trying to learn from them and I feel the best way to handle this situation is to calmly proceed with this accordingly. Doors22 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• You call bringing a ridiculous claim against me trying to learn and acknowledging your mistakes? Admins, please close this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#JYTDog_-_Vote_Stacking when you close the discussion above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

JYTDog - Vote Stacking

Moved by me from bottom of page, should have been up here. BMK (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am currently the subject of an incident for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and have been subjected to WP:VOTESTACKING by JYTDog. As a result of the vote stacking, more than half of the editors who contributed to the incident were involved or partial participants. As a result, the so called "consensus" is really not representative of objective opinions from uninvolved editors. I have made mistakes and there is a degree of truth to engaging in this behavior, but I am trying to learn from my mistakes. I think this is the best way to proceed when I feel I am on the receiving side of unfair/biased editing behavior.

The filed incident can be found above. In the past, I have been ganged up on and when I didn't know how to proceed I became frustrated without any options. This wasn't due to bad faith but just due to the sentiment of being bullied by other more experienced editors throwing around policy and guidelines to get an edge in disputes. JYTDog said that I had engaged in WP:CANVASSING, so while reading up on the subject today I realized he had actually subjected me to WP:VOTESTACKING. According to the article, votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. JYTDog called out 10 editors whom he even claimed had disputes with me in the past in order to bring them to comment on the incident. Some of these disputes were from as far back as 2011.

As shown in this diff, JYTDog tagged 11 different editors whom he highlighted had disputes with me in the past. Five of these eleven editors participated in the incident to vote against me (and notably at least one of the eleven is inactive). Meanwhile, I was accused of canvassing due to asking an admin for advice. I have never interacted with this admin prior and I don't think she has ever edited on Finasteride, the article involved in the debate. The votestacking was effective in racking up votes against me. Moreover, it poisoned the well to influence new editors who came along. Only 4 uninvolved editors supported the proposal to ban me and most of them came after the votestacking, potentially biasing their opinions. Not including myself, one uninvolved editor opposed the proposal and the other (who I allegedly canvassed) neither opposed nor supposed the proposal but offered a more balanced solution. As you can see, this created the impression that a large consensus formed but 60% who voted in favor of the proposal were brought by JYTDog and the others were likely influenced from the already tendentious discussion.

I would like this issue is to be objectively evaluated because I think it would be destructive to the encyclopedia if I am banned for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior when a double standard is applied to my accuser. I openly admit I have made mistakes, but maybe some will be able to understand when I have been on the receiving side of this kind of behavior for some time without a solution to manage the situation properly. Doors22 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What a ridiculous diversionary tactic. And again with this business of trying to have those who highlighted your disruption sanctioned also. You still haven't actually accounted for your disruption or suggested any way that you might look to contribute productively in topic areas other than this one. At this stage I'd guess there'd be decent support for a indef block. Either way, this hail-Mary section should be closed immediately and a ban should be enacted to put an end to this nonsense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I've had concerns that if we just topic ban Doors22 without him understanding that his behavior has been problematic that he will just carry on the personalized disruption elsewhere. His post above is not promising in that regard. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

By hyperlinking all the editors with whom this editor had a dispute, the effect was to notify them of this thread, which of course is votestacking whether intentional or not. The closing administrator however requires "the clear and substantial consensus of...uninvolved editors", per CBAN. Whether or not the piling on of involved editors influenced the votes of uninvolved editors is something that must be considered by reading through the votes. With the huge amount of discussion generated, it is possible this thread will be archived without action, as few administrators would want to take hours to read through it. I suggest posting to AN requesting an administrator to close, as the thread has now been open several days. TFD (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it really affected anything. Several of the names were misspelled, and so the ping was not received. For the most part the remainder of the list is identical to a list of editors who have been major contributors to the Finasteride article over the last 3 years and who are still active Wikipedia editors (and thus available to comment). If the list of people who have edited Finasteride is essentially identical to the list of people that Doors has had conflicts with, that tells us all we need to know. 50.113.65.200 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look a more closely you'll see there was only one broken ping link. Yobol showed up as red because he/she doesn't have a user page but the ping was still received and JFDWolff was incorrectly referenced at first as "JDWolff" but a correct ping was listed later. An important point to raise is that the input for an ANI should be representative of opinions from neutral/impartial Wiki users, not editors who were previously involved in editing the article in question. Whether it was intentional or not, pinging 11 involved editors and having 6 of them offer opinions would heavily influence any discussion and voting process. Doors22 (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

if you showed a whiff of "i understand the problem" you might have a shot at not getting topic banned, Doors. but you just continue this wikilawyering battlegroundy, IDHT stuff. It is terrible to watch. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• i've requested close at AN here Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• very much hoping someone will bite the bullet and close this. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

NAC reverted following close review

This is a non-admin close, coming a number of days after the original poster and the subject have asked for closure. That no admin has done so despite requests here and at AN speaks volumes, so despite some less-than-pleasant interactions with Jytdog, I am issuing this as an uninvolved close, since I have neither commented here, nor edited the article or to any drug article ever, to my recollection. The logical, and perhaps needed escalation from here is of course to ArbCom, where the edits of all parties concerned would be subjected to deeper scrutiny. For now, the subject's recent comment at AN expresses notable contrition and growing and sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policy to move forward as an editor without sanctions, in this closer's view. I also note that the serious claims of canvassing and !vote stacking have not been dealt with: clearly, not a single admin regards them as actionable. However, I urge Jytdog and his allies to heed the message sent by the overall benign neglect of the admin community, who have pointedly declined action against the subject. That said, I am free as a non-admin to issue this strong rebuke to every admin who has reviewed this matter and just walked away: the community gave you tools and trust, so shame on you for letting this ANI report fester so long. You can, and must, do better than this. Jusdafax 21:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have restored this from archive and reverted this closure in view of the objection raised here at the close review. If no uninvolved admin is willing to close it, it would be better to be archived without a closing summary than to be marred with one when it does escalate further (which this is probably going to if everyone doesn't calm down). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your re-open, obviously, and take issue with your characterization of my close as "marred." In my view, re-opening this archived ANI thread will hardly "calm down" this issue. Jusdafax 18:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible quick violation of i-ban

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

---

Restored from archive for closure. BMK (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Restored from archive for closure again. Someone please close this. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

With this edit only a few days ago an i-ban was placed between User:Alansohn and User:Magnolia677, and I offered some advice to the latter party. I have recently received this message, only two days after the i-ban was put in place, regarding how the former party has behaved since the ban, which can be found in the second diff I have provided here, as well as information regarding the comments made since the ban was enacted at User talk:Alansohn#Magnolia by Alansohn, particularly the comments made here. It seems to me that Alansohn has rather obviously violated the i-ban, and also perhaps behaved in a way rather obviously attempting to GAME the ruling. I request review by uninvolved administrators, blocks if they deem it required, and, if possible, some input from administrators for Magnolia677 regarding how he should react to the recent developments. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The ink isn't even dry yet and that's twice this IBAN has come back to ANI. Perhaps the two need to be just plain topic banned from all articles relating to New Jersey. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The previous report, filed about 24 hours ago, is above here.

I'm done with these two. The next time someone proposes topic bans or site bans for both of them, I'll be voting in favor. I don't know about the community, but they've both certainly exhausted my patience. BMK (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear that only one person has violated the topic ban, and that's Alansohn. He's violated the article editing restrictions multiple times, as shown in the previous thread, as well as leaving a screechy tirade of personal abuse against Magnolia on his talk page. Although I initially agreed with the substance of Alansohn's article edits, and Magnolia wasn't exactly blameless, it's pretty clear which of the two is primarily responsible for prolonging this dispute. And that ain't Magnolia. I support a block of a few days to put a stop to the disruption. Reyk _YO! 09:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment(non admin observation) The post by Alansohn is against the iban imho and is bad. With no surprise at this point, assumes bad faith on the part of another editor. I support a block of a short duration for Alansohn to impress on them the importance of keeping the iban, and to put an end to the conflict, at least for a short time. Warnings have apparently not done much good after the iban was put in place. The disruption this conflict is causing is rather sad. As for Magnolia677, I see less of a problem. He is simply asking for advice from an experienced editor on how to deal with a bad situation, but it would have been better to ask an uninvolved admin. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am striking my comment for a short ban. The section he started below with WP:OWN arguments shows that a short block may not be enough to stop this ongoing problem. A block of at least a month, and perhaps three if not more is probably better. AlbinoFerret 05:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block on Alansohn - I have strick out my emotionally-based "a pox on both their houses" comment above, and after looking more closely, I believe that Alansohn has now violated the I-ban sufficiently -- after being warned for an initial incident -- to receive an appropriate short block - short, since the editor's last block weas in 2009. BMK (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support longer block on Alansohn. Not necessarily long, but it is more than worth noting that although he hasn't been blocked for some time, it seems that part of that may have been because people didn't want to block a productive editor. His conduct has, however, been one of the more frequently discussed topics on the noticeboards, and there is more than sufficient cause to believe that he has maybe at best narrowly avoided being sanctioned repeatedly. So, while I do not necessarily believe he should be subjective to what might arbitrarily be called a "long" block, his pattern of conduct is such that I think a "short" one will be insufficient to prevent further misconduct once the block is lifted. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

See my response below, with specific explanations and documentation showing that the problem here is with deliberate violations of the interaction ban and wikhounding by the other editor. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is your abusive commentary on an individual whom you have been banned about directly or indirectly interacting with or discussing at all. The fact that your commentary would probably qualify as a violation of conduct guidelines even if you weren't in rather obvious violation of the interaction ban makes it just that much worse. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Persistent violation of IBAN and malicious stalking

User:Magnolia677 has been deliberately stalking my edits, in violation of the interaction ban and in rather clear violation of WP:HARASS. Let's look att the edits in question, which can be followed at this link of a number of articles for census designated places in New Jersey, all of which I've edited and most of which I created:

• Quinton CDP at 22:05 by me
• Ramblewood at 22:06 by me
• Ramtown at 22:10 by me
• Richwood 22:14 by me
• Robbinsville CDP at 22:48 by other editor, an article he had never edited before
• Seabrook Farms at 22:53 by other editor, another article he had never edited before
• Rio Grande at 23:00 by me
• Robinsville CDP at 23:03 by me

After I had started editing a sequence of articles, and described exactly what I was doing here at ANI, the other editor magically started editing three articles just down the same list -- Robbinsville CDP and Seabrook Farms -- and then suddenly edited Zarephath as I moved down the list. These actions appear to me as the deliberate and intended result by the other editor of manufacturing a phony violation of the interaction ban.

Above at ANI, I described how I took every precaution to look through the articles I would be editing to avoid conflict, both in the letter and spirit of the interaction ban. This does not appear to be the case with the other editor, and so I lay out these specific claims:

• Charge 1: The editor in question has failed to comply with the IBAN clause 4 guaranteeing "wide berth" and appears to have acted in deliberate bad faith to manufacture potential violations of the IBAN by purposefully editing articles on the List of census-designated places in New Jersey just an article or two ahead in alphabetical order, all of which I had edited previously or created and all of which he had never edited before.

• Charge 2: The editor in question has repeatedly stalked my edits in violation Wikipedia's Harassment Policy, which states at WP:HOUND that "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." as evidenced by announcing a talk page discussion in which I was one of two involved parties and in editing the articles for Robbinsville CDP, Seabrook Farms and Zarephath which he acknowledges he knew I would be editing in alphabetic order.

Am I angry about this; You bet I am. My goal remains to avoid conflict here and my rather clear perception based on the evidence is that the other editor is trying to create conflict, provoke a response and obtain a negative reaction from me. Sadly, I have fallen for his bait and I accept responsibility for allowing my anger and frustration at this ongoing abuse to get the better of me.

I'll ask someone uninvolved to provide the necessary ANI notification to the other editor. My sole goal is to see this end and to be allowed to edit articles in peace, and be given "wide berth" as mandated by the ban. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Move to close subthread as one of the more frankly ridiculous and transparent attempts at misdirection I have seen for some time. It is worth noting that this originally separate thread was first posted several long hours after the above editor was given his notification of the thread above, but started as a separate thread, for no readily apparent reason. The fact that he chose to do so, at least to my eyes, unfortunately, reflects only on him, not on the conduct of others, and, unfortunately, reflects very, very poorly on him. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just for transparency's sake, I moved the thread up here, since it never should have been opened as a new thread. BMK (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this initial thread was opened, I have been tied up in my real life with a series of meetings and other issues related to my personal medical history. I've done no other editing and this was my first opportunity to edit. I appreciate the bad faith assumptions you have made, offering no evidence other than your supposition. Why not take a look at the evidence and address it? It goes a long way to demonstrating, with diffs, the underlying cause of the problems here. Deal with his claims and deal with mine separately or together, but the claim that they should be ignored because I didn't post them soon enough is utterly unfair and demeans the entire process here. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no bad faith in my statement, although there is rather obvious bad faith in your own. If you are saying that you haven't had a chance to see the comment I made on your user talk page before posting this scree here, I think that few if any reasonable people would find the "co-incidence" of your, entirely on your own, starting a separate thread on the same page as the one I indicated had already been opened on this same page incredible in the extreme. And the obvious assumption of bad faith in your statement that your comments might be someone had made a "claim" that your comments here should be "ignored" frankly just compounds the existing questions regarding your credibility. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

JC, I get it. In addition to being prosecutor-in-chief, you're also judge, jury and executioner. You've made up your mind a while ago, but maybe other editors might be willing to overlook your prejudgement and consider the actual diffs provided as evidence. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Noting that Alan continues to engage in his persistent habit of engaging in insult and derogation of anyone who disagrees with him. Noting that he continues to engage in denial of his own misconduct, or apparently attempting to assert that his misconduct is in some way acceptable under the circumstances. Noting his continuing to ignore the fact that the first comment here was posted several hours after the ANI notice on his user talk page, and that he has refused to address the fact that his starting a separate thread several long hours after being notified of the discussion above, apparently indicating he was somehow unaware of the previous thread. Also noting that the claim for "medical issues" is an apparently new one, which might in some cases be acceptable, were not the long-standing, seemingly regular, derogation of anyone who disagrees with him were not as obvious as his history on the noticeboards is. It might, however, be seen as a possible indicator of regular or ongoing medical issues of some sort. If that is true, he might well deserve our sympathy, but it is not in any way a justification for his own long-standing history of at best dubious conduct. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge my actions, but point out that I was rather brazenly provoked here. The diffs provided here establish the necessary context. Are you going to evaluate the diffs or just ignore them? Maybe we can get an explanation from the other editor for the edits in question. Alansohn (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment(non admin observation)This section should be closed. It is a prime example of ABF. The very act of editing now seems to be a problem to this editor, and only he is allowed to edit articles about places in New Jersey. The other editor is supposed to know that articles in the subject area are off limits because Alansohn plans on editing them soon. That screams of WP:OWN issues. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No. There are tens of thousands of articles in New Jersey, none of which I own. The other editor stated above that he knew that I was editing articles from the List of census-designated places in New Jersey using AWB, which lists them in alphabetical order. We are supposed to believe that the other editor had never edited articles for Robbinsville CDP or Seabrook Farms or Zarephath, but magically chose by pure coincidence to edit these three articles from that list. The diffs show that the other editor read down the list and deliberately edited articles in that same sequence in blatant violation of this IBAN and in violation of WP:HARASS. Just yesterday, he told JC that "The other party spent the day editing hundreds of New Jersey articles in alpha order, leaving his name as the last editor. When a few of my edits interfered..." His edits didn't just passively interfere, there was what appears to me to be active and deliberate interference here, violations of the IBAN and of WP:HARASS. Anyone want to look at the diffs? Any explanation from the other side for these edits? Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, what the diffs show is that he did not edit articles you have. There is no proof of why or how he selected those articles. If he uses the same software, when he went to edit some articles from a software generated list, then noticed that you have edited some articles by looking at the histories first ( a good idea if your not supposed to follow another editor), and went further down a list to edit articles you have not, he is following the iban. You cant place articles on some kind of "Im going to edit some articles so you cant list". No one owns the articles, everyone is free to edit any article on WP. What the ban states is that neither of you can edit after the other until a third editor has edited it. This section reeks of WP:AGF and WP:OWN issues. Perhaps a Boomerang should hit you for starting it. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong again. The IBAN specifies giving "wide berth" and forbids manufacturing confrontations. WP:HARASS prohibits following another editor from page to page to stalk his edits. The best case is that the editor in question is rather deliberately gaming the system. He does not use AWB, and the evidence here, based on his own remarks, is that he did exactly what you ascribe, deliberately anticipating an edit to provoke a violation. If this is "wide berth" this IBAN is completely useless. No editor should have to put with this kind of stalking. Have you ever used AWB before? Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your whole argument above is that somehow by editing articles you haven't he is creating confrontations. You seem incapable of recognizing that there would be no confrontation in such cases unless you were yourself to start it after his edits. This apparent flaw in your reasoning regarding this matter once again seems to raise the repeatedly referenced WP:OWN problem you have regarding the content in question. You do not now, and never have had, the "right" to edit everything. If someone else has edited articles you intended to get to, and by so doing, reduced your possibility of editing it immediately, well, too damn bad for you. I'd love to create the Jesus article among others myself now, but, well, it's no longer an option for me. No rational person would say that by not attempting to avoid articles you haven't "gotten to" yet, particularly as you have no implicit right to "get to" all articles, is somehow manufacturing a confrontation. He is simply abiding by the terms of the i-ban by editing articles in the field that he you have not yet edited. You would be as well if you were to avoid the articles he has edited. The only way there would be a confrontation would be if you started it after his edits, and there is nowhere in wikipedia an explicit or implicit statement that Alansohn has the unrestricted right to edit every last page in a given topic area. To even attempt to argue such a point raises I believe serious questions of an unfortunate nature about the person making such arguments. It basically seems to be an attempt to argue that, by editing articles you haven't, he is misbehaving because your ability to edit everything is the top priority. It isn't, and you should realize that. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Before I started, I looked through the entire List of census-designated places in New Jersey and removed from the list every article that the other editor had edited in the past 30 days; I missed a few edits from 2014, but I made a rather deliberate effort to remove the articles and the edit history shows it. He, while subject to an interaction ban, deliberately looked ahead at the list and edited the same articles to manufacture a confrontation, but it's my fault? He edited Robbinsville CDP, which was just two articles ahead of where I was editing on the list. That's fucked up. If you were driving on the highway and someone jumped in front of your car, you wouldn't be responsible; he would. Someone who is deliberately manufacturing confrontations, editing articles because he knows that I might not notice that he had edited after I started a process is violating the interaction ban and is deliberately stalking my edits. I don't "realize that" it's my fault because he is the one going out of his way to stalk my edits. "Wide berth", my ass. He's deliberately creating conflicts here. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you will care to explain why you havent given the topic area a wide berth, but expect another editor to. Looking at your contribs you appear to be a WP:SPA that only edits New Jersey articles. AlbinoFerret 22:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I regularly edit about 5,000 to 10,000 different articles, including writing about 2,000 new articles and 800 DYKs, and I'm an SPA with a few hundred thousand edits. Do you expect me to edit articles at random now? "Wide berth" means endeavoring to avoid each other, not avoiding editing articles in the state. With that in mind before I started using AWB on Saturday evening, I looked at List of census-designated places in New Jersey and checked for all recent edits over the past 30 days generating this list. I removed from the AWB list all articles that the other editor had edited, including Manahawkin, New Egypt, Lopatcong Overlook, Marlton and Cherry Hill Mall. Take a look at my edit history and I didn't touch those articles. That's "wide berth", which Wiktionary defines as "considerable or comfortable distance from a person or object, especially for safety or deliberate avoidance." Every once in a while, I checked to see if the other editor had made any new edits to articles that might be on the list. While I was doing that, the other editor ran down that same list and jumped about two or three articles in front of my edits on that list. I worked to stay out of the way; He worked to jump in and create a confrontation. That's not "wide berth"; when it's deliberate, that's an IBAN violation, that's stalking, by definition. Let's hear from the other editor what his intentions were here. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because you edit a bunch of articles dose not mean that you are not editing in "one very narrow area", articles on places in New Jersey. Imho it has caused some of the problem, along with WP:OWN issues. If your not going to go to another area, its not really a wide berth. You knew what the focus of the other editor is, cities in the US, yet you decided to create a list of cities. Exactly how wide a berth is that again? AlbinoFerret 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've created and edited articles for tens of thousands of articles for people, places, schools, school districts, museums and events around the world, including around 900 WP:DYK articles. My counterpart has a rather unhealthy obsession with cities in the US, a rather limited focus. The last DYK article I created, for Battin High School, is a school that closed a few decades ago, yet my counterpart was stalking the article just hours after its creation with repeated edits to an article well outside his narrow topic of interest, even after warnings about his stalking (see here). Since then he's stalked me to Scotch Plains, and now with the Iban in place he's apparently rather creepily working diligently to figure out which articles I'm editing and then jumping ahead on the list to manufacture a confrontation. I've gone out of his way to stay out of his way; He's gone out of his way to stalk and harass my edits. Whether it's a place I'm editing or a school, he's done anything but exercise any definition of "wide berth". With him persistently stalking me to articles of any kind, be it place or school, I'm not sure what is unclear about the concept of maintaining "considerable or comfortable distance from a person or object". Even after rather clear warnings of wkistalking, made at both articles, he's persisted with the harassment. These edits violate the IBAN and clearly violate WP:HOUND and its prohibition on "singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." I don't know what on earth I can do when an editor works to stalk my edits wherever I go. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understand the evidence correctly, you're essentially accusing him of pre-stalking you, going where you intend to go before you actually go there. I don't think there's anything in the IBan that covers him apparently reading your mind. Why don't the both of you post on each other's talk page a polite short list of articles you intend to get to in, let's say, the next week. Then you can avoid the articles on his list, and he can avoid the articles on yours. (And I mean literally "short" and a list of articles, not categories or types of articles.) Once the week is up, and you've managed to avoid each other, do it again for another week. Rinse and repeat. BMK (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure WP:AN/MINORITYREPORT isn't a blue link. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If someone regularly follows his victim from place to place, showing up each time after the victim arrived at the bakery, the bank and the bowling alley, we'd all call that stalking. If someone studies his victim's habits, and shows up at the bakery, the bank and the bowling alley 20 minutes *before* the victim arrived, that would be an even more demented version of stalking. No sane person would blame the victim for showing up *after* the stalker; any rational individual would see an even bigger ick factor of a creep who is so preoccupied with his victim to go to such lengths. What BMK calls "pre-stalking" is far worse than merely following someone around; it demonstrates a level of obsession and harassment far above what is acceptable.

The other party has usually stalked me in the traditional, creepy version, at Battin High School (a brand-new article) and again at the same article, but also at Scotch Plains, with some more stalking at the same article. Far worse, he's gone out of his way to study what I'm editing and then jumped ahead on the list. This isn't a case of "apparently reading [my] mind", this is stalker who sat down, reviewed my edits and saw that I was editing the List of census-designated places in New Jersey. This isn't my supposition; In this talk page edit he describes how "The other party spent the day editing hundreds of New Jersey articles in alpha order, leaving his name as the last editor. When a few of my edits interfered...." He knew what I was doing and deliberately edited Robbinsville CDP, just 15 minutes before I would get there, followed on that list minutes later by Seabrook Farms and Zarephath.

Be it Battin High School and Scotch Plains or be it Robbinsville CDP, Seabrook Farms or Zarephath, he had *NEVER* edited any of those articles before. The only way he would come across those is to deliberately stalk my edits, either imposing his changes on articles I had just edited, or -- even more disturbingly and downright fucked up -- looking at my edits, checking the list and jumping a few minutes ahead to deliberately manufacture a violation of the Interaction Ban.

In real life, a stalker who persistently follows his victim after being warned would be given a restraining order. Someone who starts stalking his victim after a restraining order has been issued, and then starts showing up in advance after guessing the victim's next steps, would be tossed in jail. Whether you look at our definitions of Stalking or read WP:HARRASS or you look at the IBan clause 4 re "wide berth", we are each obligated to make our best efforts to stay out of each other's way. I've tried my best, as described above, to avoid even touching anything he has touched. The other editor has been persistently stalking my edits, at articles he has never edited that aren't on his watch list, and now resorts to maliciously looking ahead to jump a few articles ahead on a list. In Wikipedia, we have ways to deal with this kind of messed up behavior, and a block combined with a meaningful interaction / topic ban are needed, above and beyond the present IBAN that he has been gaming from day one. Alternatively, an apology by the other party, combined with a genuine commitment to avoid further stalking may be a legitimate alternative before taking further action. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of words, but what it still comes down to that you want first dibs on articles on places in New Jersey, and expect Magnolia677 to back away entirely from that subject area, on the mere possibility that you will edit an article within in. Unfortunately, that was not part of the IBan, which set up specific rules for editing in the same subject area: i.e. whoever edited an article first, the other editor couldn't revert their edits until a third party had edited articles first. There was a clear mechanism for complaints about the contents of the others edits, if it was felt that they were wrong or harmful to the article, but there was and is nothing in the IBan which forbids either of you from editing in the same subject area, and certainly nothing that requires the other editor to read your mind. I made a suggestion that you both post a short list of srticles which you intent to edit, and you (both) ignored that. You have instead returned to making the same basic complaint. Unfortunately, by acting on what you want to be the case about the IBan, you have actually broken the real, specific conditions of the ban yourself -- which is why all uninvolved commenters who have expressed an opinion have suggested that you should receive a block for your behavior. BMK (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking into the future

For an interaction ban to work, both parties have to want it to work. They both have to dial down their sensitivities, they both have to turn a blind eye to perceived slights from the other party, and they both have to make an effort to stay out of the way of the other, especially immediately after a ban is put in place, by going to different parts of Wikipedia which the other doesn't frequent, and editing there until things cool down sufficiently for them to, perhaps, edit in the same area without getting on each other's nerves. Frankly, I haven't see that behavior from either of these parties, hence my initial "a pox on both their houses" comment above.

It may well be that these two editors are just not capable of fulfilling the requirements of an interaction ban, that the community may have to force them to disengage with mutual topic bans, and then with mutual site bans -- but neither editor appears to take these possibilities seriously. It is true that in this particular instance, Alansohn appears to be at fault, and it is true that in the last instance before the IBan was put in place most editors (not including myself) thought that Magnolia677 was in the wrong, at least technically, but in reality, neither has behaved like two editors who want to disengage would behave. They are each still trying to pin blame on the other, only now it's for violating the IBan instead of other perceived problems.

I think that however the community deals with this particular instance, it needs to start thinking about where the line is across which topic and site bans are warranted. It may not be now, since the IBan has just been put in place, but my evaluation of the behavior and attitudes of both the editors leads me to believe that the line, wherever it is, will be crossed at some point, perhaps even soon. BMK (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that there is a lot of possible, if unfortunate, truth to this statement. I would prefer to avoid site bans in the cases of both individuals, and tend to think that perhaps some sort of mutual topic ban from New Jersey might be sufficient. That might also include putting at least some of the NJ-related content under discretionary sanctions, because there may well be a chance that the content might suffer if the scrutiny the material receives from these two individuals were removed. I am not in any way proposing anything here, I want it understood, just expressing some personal, possibly poorly-founded, opinions. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with John, this is very well-stated, BMK. I-bans aren't created as a way of drawing a line in the sand, in order to catch the other person crossing said line. If the two editors really want to abide by the I-ban, you need to ignore each other, not focus your efforts on where the other person might have violated the letter of the ban. It seems like the I-ban has only increased the conflict brought to AN/I, not decreased it and so admins might eventually seek stronger solutions. I think it would be a loss for Wikipedia if you received topic bans for New Jersey articles but it might come to that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree. Alansohn I know to be a passionate supporter of the concept of free knowledge and a Wikipedian of the old school. He pretty much drove the de facto acceptance that every high school is "inherently notable" in the notorious school wars, years back. He did this because he believed it to be right, not just correct. I have a lot of respect for his patience, persistence, ethics and commitment. I really wish the two of them could just disengage. It is a very sad state of affairs.

Looking into Magnolia's edits, I am drawn to much the same conclusion that Alansohn presents above. If Magnolia can't show a long-standing interest in this subject area, then I suggest a block for at least 48 hours for gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this I think he's just trying to work through the US Cities stuff he has been working on all over the 'pedia. He saw a chance to make the edit on those two particular articles and did it without drama. I think the problem is Alansohn is so prolific in his edits it may be hard to work on certain articles without interacting with each other. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Alan's rant, I think he's perturbed as he is committed to the project and working in the area he works in; however, it was uncalled for and should not have been done per the IBAN. I think M77 was doing his thing independently (USCITIES stuff), Alan was doing his stuff, and there was a little overlap. Alan should be waiting like M77 does until there is an intervening edit to make his edits. That's how most others seem to deal with their IBAN and it seems to work with little to no issue. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) Tend to agree with the IP, somewhat to my surprise, 'coz I generally have reservations about IP at the noticeboards. But Magnolia's subject area of interest does seem to be US cities, apparently including NJ cities, while Alansohn's is New Jersey, including New Jersey cities. If a way were found to restrict the head to head editing in the overlap somehow, that would probably work, but how would one do it fairly, and also take into account that both seem to (presumably) have some sort of knowledge or expertise in their particular topic area, and that the articles in the area of intersection would, frankly, probably be best if both of them could work on it without problems? Both could, presumably, leave the area of intersection alone, and, I dunno, maybe some sort of "month off, month on" approach might work. So, that might allow Magnolia to edit other cities articles for a month, while Alansohn does NJ cities, and then ask Alansohn to edit other areas of NJ content, while Magnolia edits the NJ cities. Maybe. Sounds ridiculous, though, doesn't it? John Carter (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. They clearly contribute well but put them together is similar to elemental sodium and water together. Topic banning them from something they are clearly good at individually would be a net loss. How about Odd days/Even days? Uncommon solutions are rarely tolerated and rarely work but it may in this case. And to address the IP issue, I edited long ago and lost the passion as I found myself perusing the drama boards more than editing and I realized I was here for the wrong reasons. Instead of becoming part of the peanut gallery here I decided to leave and just edit anonymously whenever I feel the urge and avoid the drama boards mostly. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem about the IP address - I was just being a smartass, which is an unfortunate tendency I have to make some sort of attempt to control one of these days. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone want to wrap this up somehow?

The thread seems to have been inactive for a while now, and I think that there is enough of an indicator that there should be at least some form of action taken upon it. So, before it gets archived, would some admin either want to review it and do whatever is required, or, alternately, offer an !opinion as to how to resolve it? John Carter (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Two things I think bear repeating, since this discussion is a bit fractured. The first is that several editors have now throroughly debunked Alansohn's complaint about Magnolia677 "stalking" him. (Pre-stalking, really, since Alansohn expects Magnolia677 to avoid editing articles that Alansohn intends to edit.)

The other is that all uninvolved editors who have expressed an opinion about sanctions based on these reported incidents have recommended a block for Alansohn. (It's a long, convoluted thread, so if I missed someone who thinks that Magnolia677 should be blocked, my apologies, and please say so here.) BMK (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This was archived, but as the first serious incident in a brand-new interaction ban (the previous incident having been written off as a probable accident), it really should be closed by an uninvolved admin. BMK (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The thread has been quiet for around 5 days. If there's been no recent disruption then it sounds like a block isn't really preventive. That said, my eyes glazed over. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, you can think of it that way, but I can practically guarantee that if something isn't done by way of a sanction, or at the very least a final warning, this issue will appear again, and soon.

As for MEGO, yes, I totally agree. Walls of text seem to be the communications methodology of choice of both subjects of the IBan. BMK (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• To prevent that, why don't we have both of them now, on this page, come to some very specific (not vague like "wide berth") mutual agreement of their own devising that will have a zero-tolerance of exception to. In other words, if either of them demonstrably violates whatever the agreement is, even once, they will receive a block of X amount of time. It's time both of these individuals started taking responsibility for their actions and for the solution to the problem, instead of dragging the whole thing through endless discussions on ANI. I think the only way for them to do that is for them to figure out the plan and the consequence, and set it in stone. Right here, in a neutral centralized place. The other option being either a TBAN for both of them on NJ articles, or Arbcom. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@@Softlavender: Good idea. Why don't you suggest this on both of their talk pages? BMK (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think it's my place to post on their talk pages, but perhaps John Carter would like to, or another neutral but knowledgeable person. And we can ping Alansohn and Magnolia677, as I did just there, if pings are working properly. I'd rather someone else curate the convocation and agreement, as I have no understanding of the details (other than observing the length and repetitiveness of the situation on ANI). Softlavender (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A neutral mediator would be good, but it can't be me, I know I'm not on good terms with one of the two, and I'm not sure how the other is feeling about me at this point. Medeis negotiated the IBan, but that's what seems not be working -- or maybe it is, and the fact that we haven't heard from other editor in the last few days is an indication of that. I do know that I, personally, have no intention of rescuing this thread from the archive again if it's archived for a second time without being closed. BMK (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

My personal desire is never to see this issue come up on ANI again. How can we effect that, or create a proposal for the community !vote on, to effect that? I believe we probably do need a mediator to help the two of them establish the zero-tolerance ground rules, here on this neutral public space. If they are adults and acting in good faith, they can establish ground rules, in my opinion. And I do believe that, as stringent as it may be, the only other way to prevent this issue coming up at ANI again, short of a workable and very specific agreement between them, is NJ topic bans for both, or ArbCom if it ever even verges onto ANI again. ArbCom deals with things the community cannot or has not been able to handle, and thus far it seems like the whole dialogue is always so incredibly lengthy no one wants to get involved to decipher it. Can you think of a next step? Or a proposal to headline? All I know is, I'm developing a zero-tolerance for this ever showing up here again, and if it does, I personally (if I see it) will propose a NJ topic ban for both. Softlavender (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm neutral (I'm basically unfamiliar with the editing habits of both Alansohn and Magnolia) but I do agree with Alansohn's analysis that if Alansohn is editing with a predictable pattern and Magnolia is using the pattern to anticipate Alansohn's edits and interfere with them on purpose, that constitutes gaming. I haven't examined the article histories myself, so I won't take a stance for now about whether such anticipation and gaming has actually happened. Magnolia, if you were doing that, it's not good faith editing so please stop. Magnolia's complaint on the other hand was that Alansohn was editing such large numbers of articles as to leave a "footprint" almost everywhere. Alansohn, would it work for you to slow down some, e.g. don't edit more than 50 articles a day? Magnolia could have a similar speed limit.

I unfortunately have too limited availability to be able to mediate this (I'm away a lot of the time). My take on the existing agreement is that it's so legalistically written that it almost asks to be gamed. The only thing missing was "Hear ye, hear ye" at the beginning. Alansohn and Magnolia, could the two of you just divvy up the articles somehow? E.g. Alansohn edits NJ articles from A to M and Magnolia gets N to Z, then switch after a while? Or Magnolia stays away from direct edits on NJ articles (talk page suggestions are fine) and Alansohn stays away from some other state(s) nominated by Magnolia? Does anyone understand the nature of the conflict between Alansohn and Magnolia in individual articles (maybe it's somewhere up there in the tl;dr)? I think that info is needed to get a sense of what kinds of agreements can work. Anyone mediating will have to spend a while looking at older disputes and examining diffs. But the basic idea is reasonable. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

1) Zero-tolerance anything generally doesn't work on Wikipedia, especially when there's a lot of room for gaming. 2) If Alansohn is focusing mostly on NJ while Magnolia is working on all 50 states, why topic ban both from NJ? That stops almost all of Alansohn's editing but only 2% of Magnolia's. Unless I'm missing something we might do better to restrict Magnolia from NJ and Alansohn from the other 49 states or some subset of them. I guess either proposal would require some diff-counting to see how equitible it was. But I think it's better to figure out the root of the conflict if that's possible. Alansohn and Magnolia, could you each name one specific article where you think your disagreement was especially bad before the IBAN, and give your side of what happened in it, with diffs? Maybe we need an arbcom-style presentation, either on an ANI sub-page or by the actual arbcom. Or is there still such a thing as the mediation committee? It looks like MEDCAB is dead. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Tolerance hasn't worked, and has only gotten us these 200,000-byte ANI threads. My zero-tolerance plan (see up above [190]) is for them personally to establish a very specific agreed-upon protocol in which if either of them provably deviates even once, they receive a block (say 24 hours for the first instance). If they both agree, and the plan is very specific, I don't see how that is gameable or unfair. And in terms of mediator, I mean an admin, not an IP; and the agreement should include at least one or two very specific admins to whom either can turn if the pact is transgressed and who will institute the agreed-upon block. (By the way, comments by Liz and BMK below are noted, thank you.) Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It might be a sign of progress that neither Alansohn or Magnolia have returned to discuss this issue so they very well might have gotten over it all. There is no sense in imposing bans and blocks if there is no longer any problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this part of the discussion has been worthwhile, and not that I don't agree with Softlavender that I would be happy not to see the problem arise here again, but I think at this point I'm with Liz and 50.0's earlier comment. Maybe it's best to wait and see if they've somehow fallen into a functional pattern of editing both can live with. I'd be interested in hearing what @John Carter: thinks. BMK (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that I've been clear as to the issue here; I want to be able to edit in peace without having this editor riding my ass out of what appears to be nothing more than spite. Whether before, during or after the implementation of this interaction ban, the other editor seems to be persistently stalking my edits as part of a consistent pattern of harassment. There are multiple examples in the recent past of this deliberate stalking / harassment at articles he has never edited before and which would never appear on his watchlist, such as at Battin High School, Scotch Plains, Robbinsville (CDP) and Seabrook Farms. I have worked over the past few months since he started editing these articles and creating conflicts to stay out of his way, to provide warnings when he appears to be engaging in harassment and to provide the "wide berth" required by the interaction ban; I haven't seen any corresponding effort by the other editor. We've heard BMK, JC and other editor's versions of his story, but without hearing directly from the editor in question with explanations for his recent edits and his plans to avoid further conflicts over the next 360-odd days left in this interaction ban, it's hard to make any substantive suggestions to tighten or modify this Iban. Alansohn (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In response to BMK above, I think Alansohn's last comment above has to be weighed in, and I regret to say that what I see in it tends to indicate that at least Alansohn is exhibiting the same problems that he did earlier in his opinions, which leads me to think that the behavior is likely to return to form unless something is done to change that. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're right, but I'm also afraid that my patience to deal with this issue is very low at this point. BMK (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand. I just hope someone else closes it, taking into account everything said here. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I just had a little laugh after seeing again the overall title of this thread: "Possible quick violation of i-ban." Well, the violation may have been quick, but the resolution certainly hasn't been.

At this point, I doubt that many admins are even going to consider diving into such a deep pool of words, claims and counter-claims. I thought we were on the track to at least starting to clear things up with Medeis' IBan (which, any admin reading this, is still logged, and still remains in effect), but I guess that was an illusion. It's been said many times before that AN/I is not well suited for dealing with complex issues, and my feeling now is that this is going to have to end up at ArbCom before all is said and done. BMK (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've seen childish WP:POINTy edits before, but this edit where the editor in question added an entry to the list of notables in the article for Trenton, New Jersey adding "Chris Christie, as governor, he is closely associated with the state capitol city." I'm not quite sure how I provoked this disruptive edit. It's this kind of bad faith edit at an article this editor has never edited before, that demonstrates the nature of the problem. I too am afraid that my patience to deal with this issue is very low at this point if the other editor is unwilling to edit like a mature adult. Alansohn (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm willing to see this closed, if we can't get the two of them together here to agreeably work out a detailed deal without casting aspersions and making accusations -- on the understanding that if it comes to ANI again (from either side), a proposal for a NJ topic ban for both of them, of whatever length, is likely going to ensue; or ArbCom. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me, at first glance, what is so childish and disruptive about that edit. If Bill Clinton is listed as a notable person from Little Rock, Arkansas because he was governor, why should Christie not be listed as a notable person from Trenton, New Jersey? Or is it just that you don't like Magnolia677, so every edit they make to your area of interest is automatically disruptive? Reyk _YO! 06:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That is an easy one to answer, and if you do not know the answer, a little research would tell you the answer. Clinton lived in Little Rock before he was governor, that is why his presidential library is there. Christie has an office in Trenton as governor, but the official governor's mansion is in Princeton, New Jersey. If we are going to add every politician and civil servant associated with state capitols, that has a Wikipedia article, the list is going to be long. We have governors, state assembly members and both state and federal judges, as well as notable civil servants. We generally do not list people based on where they work, but where they have their residence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm no expert on American politics and took it for granted that a governor's residence would be in the state capital. One has to wonder why, instead of a civil and polite explanation like yours of why an edit is erroneous, Alansohn has to scream and make personal attacks. Reyk _YO! 08:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to add every politician and civil servant associated with state capitols. We aren't talking about "every politician and civil servant" -- we are talking about state governors [notable residents by definition]. The list is for "People who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Trenton". Christie has been governor of the state since 2010, and has been hugely in national and international news as NJ governor because of Hurricane Sandy, etc. Additionally, his firm had an office in Trenton since 1999. I'm not seeing why Christie would not be one of "People who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Trenton". Beyond that, even if someone were for some reason to disagree with that quite rightful-by-definition addition, to call the addition "childish" "POINTy", "disruptive", "bad faith" and "unwilling to edit like a mature adult", after being asked to come here and resolve matters, pretty much speaks for itself. Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Additional note/question: There seems universal agreement on this thread, by those auto-confirmed editors that have investigated the matter (four uninvolved editors here), that Alansohn is the disruptive and/or gaming party. Rather than demonstrating an interest in resolving the matter, immediately above he posted an aspersion. Up above in the thread there was support for a block of Alansohn; but it didn't get put into an organized subtitled proposal, so various lengthy intervening discussions have ensued. My question is, should we: (1) Make a subthread now titled "Proposal: Block of Alansohn"? or (2) Let this thread be closed with a warning that if it comes up again, either ArbCom or a NJ topic-ban will ensue? Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is all Alansohn's fault so there isn't universal agreement. And it's hard to resolve this dispute as long as Magnolia677 stays away and doesn't help address the problems. I do agree that this case should be closed and next time the participants appear at ANI, a topic ban is proposed at the beginning of the discussion, before the conversation has grown cold. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it the point for M77 to disengage as much as possible in order to not interact? 129.9.75.247 (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that part of the IBAN is for the two editors not to use each other's names, etc. At the very least, when asked (or at least pinged, assuming pings are working and that they are checking this thread) to come resolve the matter and hammer out an agreement, Magnolia77 has not come in here and attacked the other party again instead, like Alansohn did above. I'm not taking sides, as I haven't reviewed all of the evidence at hand. I'm just saying that four out of four editors who !voted above supported a block for Alansohn. I was just asking a question. If no one wants to put it to a formal and organized !vote, I suggest that an admin close this thread with a stern warning (and also a warning against gaming by e.g. editing every single NJ article in existence so that the other party cannot "touch" them). Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A note was left on my talk page asking me to write something here. My biggest concern about Alansohn is that he is a bully. He name calls, he makes accusations of stalking and disruptive editing, he intimidates other editors, and looks for battles where there is only good-faith editing (see Battin High School). Owning a US state on Wikipedia is not always a bad thing. Look at the wonderful contributions of User:Coal town guy to West Virginia. My real concern is that bullies--even hard working ones like Alansohn--at some point become a liability, as we've seen in many of our workplaces, and on our kids hockey teams. Their squeeze isn't worth the juice. When there is ownership of a large part of Wikipedia--such as a US state--but no support for new editors, no goodwill, and no open-mindedness to alternative editing styles, you end up with countless articles which all pretty much look the same. How different would those New Jersey articles look if their government sections were trimmed, if other sections were permitted to expand, and if new editors to New Jersey were welcomed and supported? Personally, I feel bullies and mean-spirited editors are a liability and should be kicked the heck off Wikipedia--even if they've made a million edits--but that's just because I dislike bullies (and love Wikipedia). Thanks for listening. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Close with no action

I think closing this with any type of action will require examining more diffs than anyone so far has had the time or masochism to do. So it should probably be closed with no action. Some remarks:

• The thread was originally opened by John Carter, not by Alansohn or Magnolia, so they can't be directly blamed for bringing it here.
• Magnolia's complaint to John Carter was about Alansohn griping on his own talk page about edits that he described as stalkerish, which do seem stalkerish based on the discussion above, though confirming this would take independent investigation that hasn't happened. I note that JzG suggested a block against Magnolia over this, so it's not the case that commenters unanimously sided against Alansohn.
• Magnolia, if you were looking at Alansohn's contribs to decide what to edit, that was stalking. Please don't do that. It suffices for the interaction ban to decide for normal editorial reasons what article you want to edit, then check that article's history to see if the most recent edit was from Alansohn. You don't need to follow Alansohn's edits and doing so is a bad idea. Interaction ban means ignore the person completely, to the extent that you can.
• There was no evidence given that Alansohn's AWB run was an attempt to game the ban. Alansohn is an AWB user who does a lot of those bulk edits, so WP:AGF unless there is actual analysis saying otherwise. He actually did create the original versions of the articles mentioned, that I checked. But, if the number of articles affected is enough to make itself felt via the ban, slowing down could be helpful.
• I agree with Alansohn that the Trenton edit about Chris Christie was of low quality (no idea of its motivation). Clinton is listed as a notable from Little Rock mostly because he became US President. I doubt he'd have been mentioned if he'd only been Arkansas governor, since the AR governor always works in Little Rock and the governor's official residence is there; plus Clinton lived and worked in Little Rock for many years before serving as governor. NJ's official governor's residence is in Princeton, as RAN mentions, and Christie actually resides in his family home in Mendham Township, according to his WP biography. Also, a nitpick: Trenton is NJ's capital, not its capitol. The New Jersey State Capitol is the building in Trenton where Christie's office (and the state legislature) is.
• IMHO Magnolia comes out looking worse than Alansohn in this. I'd ask Alansohn to try to adopt a more straightforward and calmer dispute resolution style but I don't see evidence of misconduct, since Alansohn's original post that Mangolia complained about was a plausible assertion that Magnolia had breached or gamed the ban. It also claimed substandard editing on Magnolia's part, which combined with the Trenton example makes me think the quality of Magnolia's edits is a relevant topic of discussion if this dispute flares up again.
• In any case, further disputes should be presented more concisely, identifying concrete problems being complained about, and documenting them with diffs. Part of the hassle of this thread was having to find the relevant edits because they weren't linked to. As an example, Magnolia claims Alansohn engaged in bullying at the article about Battin High School. A quick look at the article history didn't make this obvious, so diffs are needed to specify exactly where the problem is.
• Overall I don't think there's much more to be done here. So I'd suggest closing with no action. Yes we may end up back here--that's no big deal, many recurring disputes make repeated occurrences here. People who don't wish to read them are not required to do so. But try to do a better job spelling out the problems, as described above.

Sorry this is so long but the thread has been unarchived twice now, unnecessarily both times in my opinion.

50.0.136.194 (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless you are somehow trying to redress the balance of opinion here, I find it odd that an IP with next to no viewable editing history (no matter what the explanation for that is, and all IPs tend to have one) comes down so clearly on the side of one editor in a two-sided dispute. There is no reason that Christie should not be listed as a person associated with and residing in Trenton, much less any reason to call that edit "childish" "POINTy", "disruptive", "bad faith" and "unwilling to edit like a mature adult". There is evidence of bullying on Battin High School -- the addition of a photo of the high school to the article was immediately reverted twice, even after talk-page explanations and citation that the opening date of the school was incorrect in the article. As to who is stalking who, or who is gaming who, well that's a matter for ArbCom if they aren't willing to come here and discuss without name-calling and accusations. Softlavender (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, 1) Christie does not reside in Trenton and apparently never has, as has already been explained twice. So he can't possibly be a notable resident of Trenton. He works there but resides in another town, so at best he is a notable commuter. 2) Even if he did reside there though, that would not make him a contributor to Trenton's notability (and therefore worth mentioning as a notable resident in the Trenton article) any more than Barack Obama is a contributor to Washington DC's notability (Obama is not mentioned in the DC article). Obama is, however, mentioned as a notable person from Honolulu in the article about that city: do you understand the difference? So the Trenton edit really does come across as a childish and pointy. 3) Seems like your own comments have also clearly come down on the side of one editor. 4) Some specific diffs of the Battin High School bullying would be appreciated. I took a quick look at the article history as Magnolia suggested and nothing jumped out at me. I'm not saying nothing happened but if you know anything about Wikipedia dispute resolution, you know that to make a case for sanctioning someone you really need actual diffs. I didn't see any right away and it's not my job to go around digging if none have been offered. But I'll take a look at that photo issue. 5) I do share the concern raised by Alansohn about how Magnolia found his/her way to that article in the first place. If it was by examining Alansohn's contribs, that's not in the spirit of the IBAN that should be weighed against the stalking allegations being made at the time (the IBAN was not yet in effect). 5) See the unblock request on my talk page for my old address and feel free to check its edit history, as it was somewhat more active than the current address. I don't see the relevance though. I looked at the facts of the dispute currently under discussion, and reported what I found. 6) I doubt Arbcom would take this case (which is contained and basically nonsense) but even if they do, they won't sanction anyone without a bunch of diffs presented as /Evidence. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at the edits regarding the photo and there's some historical unclarity (conflicting sources) that should have been discussed more on the talk page. It looks like Joseph Battin donated a residential mansion to the city in 1889, that is shown in the picture and that was opened as a school at that time, but the Newark Star-Ledger article that Alansohn cited indicates that the mansion was later replaced with a new building that served as Battin High School from 1913 to 1976. This photo apparently shows the newer building and it doesn't appear to be the one in the 1907 picture. So I think some more research is needed to straighten out the history. In any case, Alansohn's first reversion of the photo was perfectly fine given the sourcing available at the time, but the second one was after Magnolia's talk page post mentioning the 1889 booklet, so it should have been discussed. Given the conflict that already seems to have existed between Alansohn and Magnolia, interpreting the reversion as bullying would have to be supported by further analysis. It all doesn't seem worth it.

I also forgot to mention, the thread was originally started after Magnolia complained about a post Alansohn made on his own talk page. Magnolia and Alansohn: IBAN means stay away from the other editor: don't study their contribs or hover around their talk page--just check article histories before editing, to avoid crossing paths, but otherwise act as if they don't exist. So that makes the whole thread even less legitimate. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is some more info about the school, from its official site (it is now a middle school, grades 6-8). 50.0.136.194 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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