Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive954

Repeated fair use violations

TechnicianGB (talk · contribs)

Asilah1981 (talk · contribs)

This is a result of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 29#File:Official Köppen climate classification of Spain maded by AEMET.png and is a culmination of many many attempts to get full and valid fair use rationales for every attempted use of the image here: File:Official Köppen climate classification of Spain maded by AEMET.png

I have attempted numerous times to explain to both the above editors how fair use works and that the burden of creating fair use rationales is on the one that wants to place the image on specific articles. I thought I was getting somewhere, but apparently there is either some break down in communication or wanton disregard of our policy on the use of copyrighted images. Frankly, I've had enough. These two editors have now tried numerous times to insert this image into articles without filling out fair use rationales against policy. This is considered a copyright violation. The latest addition to Iberian Peninsula was the final straw and after giving a final warning to Asilah, TechnicianGB went and reinserted the image again without any attempt to fill out a FUR. This has now crossed the line into pure disruption and repeated copyright violations. Asking for an admin to take a look at this and to put a stop to the nonsense. --Majora (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought we all agreed that the page on Iberian Peninsula makes a completely fair use and it's not needed to fulfill a FUR for this article... lol? --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I just did a search of that FFD discussion and I literally said "every" article requires a FUR 5 separate times. So right now you are in clear WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. --Majora (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Now the file will be deleted after May 10. I hope you are happy, you achieved your scope. ;) it's not even worthy for me to write a will to explain why this file must remain on Wikipedia. First the file was scaled to a lower size because it's "not free" meanwhile the copyright of the source clearly states that is free to use without commercial purposes, as it's a own Spanish official / public agency who made it. Not happy with that, now you made this. Enjoy it! You done it. Congratulations! @Majora:. I love how do you think that you improve Wikipedia, deleting useful files. ;) --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we require that for an image to be free, it must be usable and modifyable by all downstream users, so a license that restricts to non-commercial use is not considered a free image here. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

And I wasn't the one that tagged the image. I was trying to get you to a state where the image was acceptable. It was you that refused to listen. So you can take your blame and give it to someone else. In any case, the tagging of the image does not excuse your inherent inability to listen to what people are trying to tell you. Copyright is a huge deal here. If you can't understand what we need then you need to stop editing the file namespace. Period. --Majora (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Best regards to you too, Majora. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: I can upload it with a different type of use? I mean, to not upload it again with a "free image" tag ? I can also make a map by myself... --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason File:Spain map of Köppen climate classification.svg (or anything else in c:Category:Köppen climate classification maps of Spain) won't work for all these use cases? See Geography of South Korea. Non-free maps are hardly ever acceptable unless the map itself is subject of discussion. – Train2104 (t • c) 04:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course: Those maps are extremely bad in relationship to the climatic reality of those zones. Just compare them with the AEMET map (official agency) and see that you can find 13 different climates in Spain, not 8. And many of those represented in that map are extremely bad in comparison with the real life... It's simply a joke for someone who is a climate enthusiast like me. Madrid the same climate as Alicante according to that map... and both have very different climates. --TechnicianGB (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

References

I agree, maps are (very) incorrect so there is no alternative to AEMET official map. Is an additional Fair Use rationale needed for Spain and Iberian Peninsula? They both have prominent climate sections... Also, Majora, don't you think that it would be more productive to add the FUR yourself, thus assisting the Wikipedia project, instead of opening this ANI? It would have taken you less time. Asilah1981 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Majora's extremely aggressive threatening tone is not warranted. Please discuss solutions and build consensus in talk rather than threaten other editors with a block. Thanks. Asilah1981 (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You were told multiple times not to do something. You (both) kept doing it. The solution is to comply with wikipedia's fair use policies. Which you were told to do. So do it. Repeatedly breaching copyright by failing to provide a fair use rationale *after being informed you have to provide one* is grounds for a block. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Instead of squabbling can we at least work together to resolve the issue. The image clearly has to stay in those three articles. If something has to be done (providing a fair use rationale, whatever, can you (plural) do it? I think the main problem is none of us KNOW how to do it except Majora, who so far has not given us specific directions on what to do. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, which has instructions and some sample templates you can use. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

By what I can see it has been done here already. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Official_K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification_of_Spain_maded_by_AEMET.pngAsilah1981 (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

FUR have been created by the only three articles that seem to support a fair-use claim: Climate of Spain, Iberian Peninsula, and Climate of Portugal. As mentioned, it's not rocket science. --Discasto (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The FUR's are there, but I'm still sticking with my belief that this image is violating NFCC criterion 1, as the threshold for non-free media is not just whether a free alternative exists, but whether one could be created. FUR templates are a necessary procedural matter, but our goal is to do more than just go through the motions. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Train2104. I see your point, but I'm afraid it's not that simple. I've had a look at the source and noticed this: "El tratamiento de interpolación y el cartografiado de la variable precipitación y de la clasificación de Köppen han sido realizados por Andrés Chazarra" (The interpolation handling and the mapping of the rain variable as well as the Köppen classification has been carried out by Andrés Chazarra). My understanding is that the generation of the map requires a complete dataset and some specific processing to have it created. That's something that, unless the dataset is available and the processing tools are in place, cannot be reproduced. Of course, it's my (humble) opinion. --Discasto (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The file is going to get deleted on the 10th of May? Why? Where is that discussion taking place?Asilah1981 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: it won't be deleted. Actually I changed the status of the image to disputed, as it can't be replaced. We just had to do that in order to not follow with the removal. I did it, and now we can see this discussion and the FUR are already fullfilled for the 3 articles... (btw, thanks for doing it, as @Discasto: too, which really surprised me). So now I suppose that Majora can't complain more... and you're right, that attitude is not very appropiate. --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Majora's "attitude" is the natural outcome of your refusal to understand fair-use and to comply to Wikipedia's rules. At the end of the day, it's been me and not you the one that have tried to fulfill the fair-use requirements. Ranting and removing templates while still under discussion will eventually lead you to being blocked. --Discasto (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

My attitude is not appropriate? That's rich. Considering you two have repeated violated copyright policy again and again in a clear disruptive string of behavior even though I tried, multiple times, to get you to stop. Asilah, you even did it again after this thread was started [1]. In clear violation of everything everyone was trying to tell you. This is clear disruption. --Majora (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason I tagged the file with {{di-replaceable fair use}} (which may not be removed before the decision to delete the file occurs, which will happen after May 10) is that I agree with Train2104 in that a freely licensed image with the same data could reasonably be created. If you look at other articles on climate (e.g. Climate of the United States), the files on the article are not copyrighted and are freely licensed. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

If you have a look at File:US50states koppen.svg, you'll notice that it's been done by using information openly provided by the University of Oregon. Unfortunately, in Spain the attitude towards open data is really different and such information does not seem to be openly available. --Discasto (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I have a feeling this may be the case; I haven't had a chance to research if but if the weather statistics/data is not published, we can't make a free replacement (it would be improperly OR to try to read that off this graph). It also seems that data can be protected in Spain Copyright law of Spain, so even if there were open databases of weather data, using a substantial portion may be inappropriate. That it, a person in the US could make a "free" image (where data is not protected and we can remake graphs from published data freely), but the data would still have copyright nature to the Spanish agency that collected it, making it a free-er non-free version here. But this is a very high level read, and we might want to see about asking someone at Commons about this who knows more about Spanish copyright law. In lieu of that, this is a reasonable non-free to use, but per NFC, needs to be very limited in its use, and needs a separate rationale for each use. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Point of order Masem. Enwiki does not care about the copyright status of works in other countries. In practice we violate it all the time with {{PD-ineligible-USOnly}}. However, that designation is generally only used for logos that otherwise would not meet the threshold of originality in the US (generally UK logos). So in theory, as long as the data is published and it is uploaded directly to enwiki, Spanish copyright law does not matter at all. In general practice though, everything besides logos we tend to respect the copyright of other countries. It just depends on whether or not we would want to do so in this case. --Majora (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That's sorta what I was trying to get at. I agree that scenario possibly can qualify as PD-USonly (and thus potentially reuable on en.wiki many times), though as you say, I've never seen that applied to anything but logos and workmarks. It's just here, I can't readily tell if the original data is available outside of interpreting off the existing map, which we do not want to do (too much error, OR issues, etc.) --MASEM (t) 21:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Discasto, I didn't know I had to make another template. I thought I had to change the template to disputed, not to make another one. Btw, now it's correctly done. --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please help TechnicianGB make another template?Asilah1981 (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: no worries, I already did it. I just had to create an additional template near the other with the deletion, in order to let know that is disputed and to not remove the file by any means. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Explicit: has deleted the file. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Here, I'll repost my response to Marchjuly on my talk page: Pretty blatant violation of WP:NFCC#1, even in light of the two discussions. I supposed I should expect to be yelled at for it, but I'll clarify now that I have zero intention in restoring the file. This actually reminds me of File:2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Turkey claim.jpg (the first black map), which I deleted under a similar basis. A free image existed (File:Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Syrian-Turkey border.svg) as one does for this topic (File:Spain map of Köppen climate classification.svg), I deleted it under the same criteria, was taken to DRV for it, which resulted in it being listed for deletion and ultimately deleted anyway. My sound judgment there is no different here. ℯxplicit 02:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Explicit: this map (File:Spain map of Köppen climate classification.svg) is extremely bad and inaccurate for the climate of Spain. Then, no images for the article climate of Spain, is enough with the description and climate examples. Regards --TechnicianGB (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Ceoil

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.

---

• Ceoil (talk · contribs)

Edit warring on Template:Francis Bacon (artist). - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Takes two to tango. Why are you reverting his attempts to clean it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.184 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The context for this is in the Another Believer thread above, on the forcefully withdrawn FAC, on FAC talk where I had to apologies for withdrawing an article due to related targeting,[2] the redirects for deletion,[3] on multiple threads on my talk, and the Francis Bacon Nav box template,[4] which has to be read to be believed. Note, initial accusations on my talk seem to be, in seconds, followed my an ip seeming, but incredibly inarticulately, defending me, as in a classic, but clumsy, joe job. [5],

[6]. Check-users might do well to take a look, as there seems to be coordination, to put it nicely. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I hope you are not accusing me of sockpuppetry. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Somebody in your group is logging out, and I would like check users to establish fact. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

My reverts are for WP:REDNOT and WP:EXISTING issues, seems to have nothing to do with your comment. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No, you are applying the letter rather than the spirit of the law to further a grudge. Note the redirects for discussion opened earlier in the week form all of this is failing, both in terms of reasoned argument (where you have none), and editor numbers (you might have a few reserves). Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

What grudge ? I reverted your additions per the guidelines I posted above, you instantly reverted my edit, given your involvement with this template I took your revert as willing to edit war, now we're here. That all there is to it, regardless what you think. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mlpearc, can you please stop templating regulars as you have here, here, and here. Last weekend my watchlist was lit up with the dispute, which is a content dispute, and I'd hoped to try to sneak into Wikipedia without drama this weekend and would very much like to see the swarming around these Francis Bacon articles stop. The issue is this: on a nav template like this we don't blue link and create redirects. We leave the red links for various content related reasons. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

An aside to the dispute, about which I know nowt, but the idea of redlinks in navboxes defies common sense even if there is a guideline about it. You can't navigate to something that doesn't exist. Hence the restriction on redlinks that did (does?) apply to See also sections. We may have an inconsistency here that needs to be discussed elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but such navboxes arranged by type (eg single heads, portraits, triptychs, religious figures etc), and as such give an indication of the artist's breath, and for earlier artists (best example I have is for Jan van Eyck, see also Bosch and Vermeer) serve to indicate the number of attributed works as the work of art historians develops - the JvE box contains a contested section. I dont think we should abandon this to near bot like revenge editing. From the boxes interested readers will also be able to map artistic progression from the combination of formats, dates and titles. See Catalogue raisonné, its not just a whim - for those interested the boxes provide both an overview and links to those articles today covered by the project; if we were to follow AN's reasoning to its logical conclusion we should also abandon categories as useless. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. The issue is this: we don't create 40+ new pages that are either redirects pointing to the biography page or are five word stubs. The idea is that the red links will become real actual articles and that new editors might try to take a crack at them. Clicking a blue link that brings a reader to the biography is counterintuitive for the reader; how to disentangle a redirect to build a page is counterintuitive for a new editor. Yes, it can be addressed elsewhere, but baiting and templating regulars is counterproductive. This is a content dispute and shouldn't keep ending up at AN/I. It's really counterproductive. Victoriaearle (tk) 01:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW in this context (the Bacon Template:Template:Francis Bacon (artist) I find the redlinks informative, educational, valuable and encyclopedic. As mentioned above also a heads up for additional articles...Modernist (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, well in principle I agree. Enabling bluelinks in navboxes by creation of numerous redirects to the same root article - a bio in this case - is not at all helpful and indeed may be misleading. I regularly clean out such stuff in caste-related navboxes and no-one of good standing has ever raised it as an issue ... and those links often are misleading. That doesn't address the concept of redlinks in navboxes but, as I said, it is really an issue for another place. - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting an interaction ban with Mlpearc & Another Believer, so I can edit in peace in an area I have edited in since 2006.[7]. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you're the one that needs interaction bans. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This exactly the place Sitush, as the point is not about the redirects as such (as if they could care less), instead they found a sore spot and are prodding in a sustained way. I am frankly amazed that Mlpearc would turn bring to AN/I such trivial changes, to me that indicates that unless brought to a sharp head a slow wear and tear is intended; again there are logged out edits following all of this stuff, though thats hardly the worst of it. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• People should not pick scabs, and they should not use ANI to help with their campaign to irritate a good editor. It may be possible to argue that Mlpearc is correct and the red links are an abomination only a rule-breaking disrupter (Ceoil) would want, therefore it's up to Mlpearc to push push push until achieving victory. However Wikipedia is a collaborative project and hammering good content builders over trivia is the most destructive form of behavior possible at enwiki. Mlpearc should find something else to do. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Mlpearc, I thought this issue was resolving itself with the discussion about the redirects, so it's disappointing to see it flare up again. Can you not let Ceoil get on with his work on the Bacon articles? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Fine. Template has been removed from my watch, happy editing. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Mlpearc, thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• For General Information- Ceoil has been blocked for 48 hrs for breach of NPA CIVIL and AGF. This is not a resolution of this ANI thread but a response to his abusive behavior on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the thread that led to the block. Ad Orientem, you can't block an editor for engaging with you in a way you dislike. You could simply have stopped responding instead. Please unblock. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Err, Ad Orientem, not a good idea to block an editor you are in an argument with. Strikes me as involved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem, you closed this thread about 45 minutes after I mentioned it was a content issue, which really wasn't enough time to understand the underlying issues here. I'm really tired and haven't been well, but if you haven't bothered to look into the background, I'll take the time tomorrow to post diffs about how we got here. Last weekend Ceoil was repeatedly templated, no discussion took place and from what I could see there was little understanding of the issue. His edits were followed form one venue to the next to the point that someone was edit warring with him when he tried to withdraw a FAC nomination and he was clearly being baited. I'm aware because it lit up my watchlist and I have many of these articles and the template on my watchlist. Now I feel guilty that he's been blocked after I made the mistake of mentioning content dispute that then led to the hatting and his subsequent frustration at not having his grievances taken seriously, when in fact the substance of my post was to ask Mlpearc to stop the templating. It's very discouraging to try to return to editing after a month of absence and see that a single word in a single post at AN/I results in blocking a prolific editor who only edits on weekends. Victoriaearle (tk) 03:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem has unblocked. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem asked me if they thought they had acted improperly in their conversation with Ceoil on their talk page; I believe they had not. They asked Ceoil twice to not post there anymore, and Ceoil's language was quite uncivil, in my opinion. So it's not a single word--it's a series of posts.

Having said that, I did look at the template and the edit war, a few days ago and again earlier this evening. I did not yet see that it required admin intervention, though I am with Ceoil on the substance of the matter--the links in the template--and I also think that Mlpearc's templating was unnecessary. Still, I can't help but think all this was unnecessary: if I read the time stamps correctly, Mlpearc had already stated they were withdrawing from editing the template before the matter really came to a head on Ad Orientem's talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, you've not understood the issues here. I was upset last week when, what to me seemed to be unnecessary edits were made to a FAC I co-wrote with Ceoil. I wasn't able to complain at the time and didn't want a Wikipedia shitstorm. I thought it safe to dip in here tonight, but obviously it's not because the templating started again immediately and no one has bothered to follow all the edits from the Francis Bacon redirects, to the van der Weyden TFA, to all the Bacon articles, to the FAC, to the talk pages of various editors throwing fuel on the fire and creating a swarm, back to the Bacon articles, to AN/I, back to the Bacon, back to AN/i. One person got blocked for using bad language. I can use bad language too, but what's worse than bad language is the drip drip drip of having people follow your edits and spout Wikipedia alphabet soup at an editor whose been here for more than 10 years. This is a textbook case of delving into the core issue and only caring about blindly following alphabet soup. Good luck to all of you. Victoriaearle (tk) 03:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Out of an abundance of caution, I have unblocked Ceoil with due regard to INVOLVED though I believe his grossly uncivil behavior after being told not to post on my talk page does constitute justification. That said I respectfully request an uninvolved Admin to block Ceoil for 48 hrs for gross abuse of CIVIL and NPA. On a side note I agree that my close was precipitous which is why I chose not to contest it's reversion. However none of that can excuse Ceoil' shockingly abusive behavior on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please no one block anyone else. The situation is resolved. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sarah, I hold you in the highest of regard, but this is far from resolved; my opinion of Ad Orientem's ability to explain even the most basic of his/h eradmin action (closing tedious AN/I threads) is not only insufficient but inflammatory. I was blocked here for wanting to continue a discussion, the admin was ill equiped to even give a one line rationale, baited, threatened if i was to continue for even basic explanation would be blocked, then blocked for 36 hrs, conferred minutes later, unblocked minutes later again. Meanwhile I have a new block record, on half grounds,backed by a warning of "I havnt had time to read up but suppose you are wrong because I don't like you" from an arb. The minutes later unblock was marked only by a flippant "corrected" emoticon on AB's talk, in a post that was seemingly in reply to my reposing of the original restated question re my being harassed. The hell? Its not good enough. Ceoil (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You were told repeatedly not to post on someones talk page and continued to do so in an insulting manner. Your block was entirely justified. When someone says to stay off their talk page, you stay off their talk page unless you are required by process to notify them of something. You had adaquate warnings and chose to ignore them. Get over it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Please mind your own business. Your stupid comments are not helping the situation. Cassianto^Talk 10:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I've already blocked Mlpearc once for thinking the edit warring and civility policies only apply to other people, and the more admins that pick up on that, the better, as far as I'm concerned. That said, nobody should have been blocked as a result of this thread; if an editor you're in a dispute with does something you don't like, step away from the banhammer and do something else Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem should not have handed down the block in this situation, but it was an understandable reaction to the abuse that was being thrown at him. Only in death summarized it well. This can probably be closed. Lepricavark (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2017 (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.

Tagging dispute on Mechmont

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.

---

Myself and User:Fixer88 are involved in a dispute on Mechmont. I tried to nominate the article for deletion via CSD and PROD as the article does not provide enough context for those unfamiliar with the subject. After the deletions got contested, I added the {{context}} tag to the article, and Fixer88 keeps reverting the tag addition without explanation. 73.61.16.23 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It won't be deleted because as a commune of France it's unquestionably notable, but equally the tag is undoubtedly inappropriate since an article that reads in full Mechmont is a commune in the Lot département in south-western France. pretty much by definition is too short and lacks context. Regardless of who's right, both of you are behaving appallingly with your edit war, and are lucky you're not both blocked for it. ‑ Iridescent 13:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• 11 words (or 12, depending on your perspective) of content, and 25 edits to achieve nothing of great significance. I suggest both of you take a step back and consider how silly that sounds. Murph9000 (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm also noting the distinct blankness of Talk:Mechmont. ‑ Iridescent 13:33, 13 May 2017 (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.

American college basketball

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.

---

@Lepricavark: User:Lepricavark has systematically emptied dozens of "xxxx-xx in American college basketball" categories. In my opinion this qualifies as disruptive editing. Any comments. DjlnDjln (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Bro, didn't you just come off a block for this? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Notified for you. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• You waited like 3 days, well after I had stopped, to file this report, didn't discuss anything with me at all before bringing it here, and failed to notify me at my talkpage about this discussion. I am not going to waste any time defending myself from a diff-less report. Ciao! Lepricavark (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Djln, it's time to change your behavior on this one. Lepricavark is restoring order from the upheaval you created with your previously un-discussed and much criticized mass edits. If you wish to pursue this endeavor further, please continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#. I have left an explanation and a question for you there. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Thank you. Could you review this edit, made shortly before this report was filed, and confirm or correct my suspicion that it is basically the same thing that got Djln blocked several days ago? In other words, has he returned to unilateral category changes? Lepricavark (talk)

That edit looks fine to me. He justed moving something into an pre-existing, appropriate, more specific category there. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Part of the reason why I haven't further pursued helping with the cleanup is that it is difficult to sort out exactly how the articles were categorized before Djln went on his spree. And it's apparent that Djln has no intention of working with others in restoring order, hence this 3-day late attempt to get me sanctioned for cleaning up after him. Lepricavark (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2017 (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.

Nepal Mathematical Society: addition of unsourced / original research

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.

---

• Nepal Mathematical Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mishrasidharthsiddy619kickass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've hit a problem here, with a new user that's not getting it regarding WP:UNSOURCED and WP:ORIGINAL research. I've reverted 3 times (on the basis of UNSOURCED / OR, with a side issue of inappropriate formatting / style), and am stopping now, as it's not a clear 3RR exemption case. The latest edit summary comment suggests there may be sources, but they are not being presented for Wikipedia's consideration. I've thought about WP:DR, but I'm not disputing the content itself, only the lack of sources. If there was sourcing, I would have just fixed the formatting instead of reverting. The edits appear to be in good faith, but are problematic. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for 10 days. Neutrality^talk 08:51, 14 May 2017 (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.

New editor trying to make Wikipedia an index of his academic papers

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.

---

Rubiat Mustak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ... new user is putting in multiple articles which are summaries and links to his academic papers. I cannot see what he thinks Wikipedia is for. Can an admin please have a look an/or a word? Thank you DBaK (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Now sorted by Anthony Bradbury, thanks. DBaK (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry to reopen this, But I have been checkin his contribs, and take issue with many of them. I get he's an expert in aerodynamics, but Tiger sharks as well? He goes around deleting all sorts of things, and doesn't leave a reason d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 19:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Some of his uploads appear to be likely copyvios -- conference papers usually have copyright transferred to the publisher. Certainly it all appears to be self-promotion. EEng 00:35, 14 May 2017 (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:MjolnirPants on Reliable Sources Noticeboard and other pages

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.

---

MjolnirPants simply will not help build a constructive page on argument from authority. He and I disagree on what sorts of sources are acceptable, so as seems sensible I went to the reliable sources noticeboard. Yet even there, he changes the title of the submission to mockingly include references to “random youtube martial artists” and completely misrepresent the issue. (The sources he presents are not even ones which I have in mind!). Please assist so that a productive, civil discussion can be had. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

<grabs the popcorn> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source. You are in the wrong here. I'll go ahead and revert your changes. --Tarage (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic nitpicking by yours truly. I don't actually disagree on the substance. I just don't like over-simplistic statementsabout how "YouTube isn't a reliable source", as it makes life difficult for those of us who actually do use it as the reliable source that it very often can be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tarage: Sorry to seem like a devil's advocate, but you hit on one of my pet peeves. It has nothing to do with the specific videos in question, but "YouTube" is not normally the source being cited, and as a "source" is not inherently either reliable or unreliable. The publisher (the YouTube channel that uploaded the video) can be reliable or unreliable, and sometimes people link bootleg YouTube videos of documentaries or lectures that were not even originally meant to be posted on YouTube. This latter is an ELNEVER for copyright reasons, but it doesn't mean the video that was bootlegged is itself an unreliable source (I remember, in a talk page discussion, citing a radio interview with Bart Ehrman that I had heard in the form of a likely-bootleg YouTube video that I was unwilling to link, but the content of the interview itself was not unreliable). I remember citing a video from The Young Turks (a left-wing news organization generally considered adequately reliable for uncontroversial statements where no other sources contradict them) to fill in a tag, and I was reverted by an IP who said pretty much the same thing you did above, even though "YouTube" was not my source. Search the RSN archives for "YouTube" and I guarantee you will find dozens of users asking if "YouTube" is a reliable sources and quickly being told that their question somewhat misses the point that "web video" is a medium, not a publisher. In theory, YouTube videos are self-published, and so are subject to normal restrictions on said, but in reality a lot of YouTube videos are not self-published, as the accounts that uploaded them are not operated by the people who are being cited as the sources. This is a well-known example with which both MPants and I are familiar. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC) @Hijiri88: There were plenty of reasons to pick. I went for the easiest out of being lazy. --Tarage (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Cool. As long as no newbies read your comment wihout also reading the title of this collapsed section, no harm done. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read what I am saying: I do not care about any YouTube source. He is misconstruing me with that and has even changed the title of my submission to be about an irrelevant issue. What I did was add a citation of the Medical Press and Circular journal, which was deleted for not being a philosophical source by him. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this an appeal to authority about which sources are authoritative for the article on that fallacy? As curious as that may be philosophically, what administrative action is needed here? Jonathunder (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

He is changing the titles of my submissions in an insulting manner, and will not help build but only reverts to an old version PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Newbies who have been at the receiving end of the undo button often feel that "building" is somehow more protected an activity than "deleting". They are wrong. Deleting bad content is on precisely the same policy-footing as adding good content. In the eyes of Wikipedia's administration, your edits are no better than Mjolnir's. Well, maybe his are better, since he's right. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) what administrative action is needed here? Just taking a wild guess here, but I suspect I may need to be indeffed because I'm such an annoying stickler for using sources by philosophers and logicians in an article about a defeasible argument. You know, as opposed to environmental scientists, youtube personalities, and primary school educators. Or maybe it's because I'm engaged in "rampant ludditism" or because I'm "running wild". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The Shroom's last edit added "is a type of argument which argues that because a person or group seen as having authority on an issue believes something about it, it is likely to be true" and removed the bit about it being fallacious. You may take it on excellent authority (mine) that this is mushroom food. Jonathunder (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is, Shroom, step away before you hurt yourself. You are incorrect. --Tarage (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, Shroom is merely contending that his authorities are more authoritative than my authorities when they lend their authority to the claim that authorities can never be authoritative. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I would not trust Mjolnir's summary of the matter. He has only one advanced userright, so cannot be considered an authority on Wikipedia-related matters. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Damn. You got me. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Bernard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to join in on the above, but couldn't think of anything witty to say, and I'm apparently not very good at it to begin with, so it's probably best I shut up before embarrassing myself by making LOUD NOISES. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Well... THAT escalated quickly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG -- the filing editor is the one causing the problems and edit warring against WP:CONSENSUS and has been warned to stop. I don't mind him/her posting at the talk page--if he or she remains civil and strikes all ad hominems such as "rampant ludditism". As a remedy, I propose a one week prohibition of any changes to the article (not talk page) be imposed (which if violated leads to a one week block) or a different time period at the discretion of an admin. as appropriate. Other editors making similar edits against concensus have received one week blocks, but they are experienced editors so more leniency is appropriate for this editor, who I believe is new. I would support mentoring as well, but I am not volunteering for that job. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

He's about to be blocked for edit warring if he reverts again... --Tarage (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Support boomerang, per my own comment below. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've been keeping my bad eye on this dispute for a while for other reasons, and when I saw this I wasn't sure if the OP had been involved in an off-colour discussion on a user talk page that I had read. He wasn't but it seems like he was the only one on his "side" of the dispute who wasn't. I have to say I find it interesting that two users on the OP's "side" were blocked in quick succession by User:Nyttend, while the only user on MPants's "side" who has recently been blocked was for a completely unrelated reason. On top of this, virtually every time RSN regulars get brought to ANI for their (honestly not all that out-of-line) behaviour on RSN the result is usually either a BOOMERANG or at least a trout for the OP. This happened with Nish a few weeks back (though not specifically for RSN problems), and if memory serves it has happened to MPants as well. That said, I find the content-based core of this dispute to be utterly laughable, and both "sides" should probably be trouted. Wikipedia editors should write article bodies based on external sources, and summarize those bodies in the article leads. Articles leads should not be drafted, redrafted, counterdrafted and !voted upon based on external sources, regardless of whether they just happen to summarize the body anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

To be fair (to me, so I guess what I mean is "To be self-serving-but-still-honest"), drafting the lede wasn't my idea, though I reluctantly supported it. And while the body lacks any coherent definition or analysis of the argument, that is not to say that it has always had such a lack. Me and Original Position had a section defining and analyzing it there about a year ago, but the two blocked editors chipped away at it until it was gone. Currently, the lede is the only part of the article that hasn't been subjected to ~12 months of show POV pushing, and contains the only definition and analysis of the subject. I intend to correct that very soon, in a restructuring that will likely shorten the lede and create at least one new section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know whose fault it was. I just think anyone who has been involved on any deeper level than "What are you talking about? The lead should summarize the body, not the contents of external sources" should be trouted. I edit leads myself a lot of the time, but if a dispute explicitly about the lead of an article as opposed to the body goes on this long, it should have quickly morphed into a dispute about the article as a whole because drafting leads and disputing about leads completely misses he point. The above support for a BOOMERANG is based more on Shroom, and only Shroom, having chosen to take the dispute to ANI rather simply counting himself as lucky not to have been blocked already, when it seems like everyone else has been, than on anything specifically to do with he content of the dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur with your view on the purpose of the lede. The only issue in this case was that the body of the article didn't actually accurately describe the subject of the article. That's being addressed as we speak. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Check out this version. I've taken your concerns to heart and moved the structure and examples to a new section. I've also trimmed out some deceptively edited quotes, and claims that weren't supported by the sources, as well as adding important information to bring some claims in the article into agreement with the sources used. I didn't realize that the body was that bad, but I suspect more eyes will be needed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict with some of the above, and while copy-pasting I thought it wiser to clarify something. Whether or not a ping could ever be considered canvassing (and the jusy is still, apparently, out on that one), my pinging of Nyttend was because of his already being quite involved in this incident (the opening of this ANI thread honestly reads like a last stab at "getting" MjolnirPants now that everyone else has been blocked for disruptive behaviour). I would also honestly rather be pinging any admin other than Nyttend, since he historically has a tendency to show up out of nowhere and block me. He's a good admin who does good work (and one of his suck-punch blocks actually helped me out quite a bit back in 2013), so I'm not trying to make this about him. Just deflecting any possible suspicion of canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, if I were them I'd be really annoyed at getting pinged to this. Poor guy/gal's put up with enough of this crap, and has remained steadfastly dedicated to improving the project throughout. And they've had to deal with me during this, so... Yeah. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You may well be right. As I said, it's my bad eye I've been keeping on the dispute, so I don't know to what degree he may have already tired out of it, or even to what degree he has been involved up to this point. I just thought I should ping him since the OP not doing so when Nyttend's having blocked the other two has probably hurt Shroom's situation a lot more than anything you've done, so it seemed like somewhat GAMEy behaviour. If Nyttend is annoyed at having been pinged, I apologize for causing annoyance. That was not my intent. (In theory I could have used Template:Noping for the same effect, and if I suspected the ping might be annoying I would have done that. But honestly I prefer being pinged to someone mentioning me and not pinging me, unless the piger is only doing it to be antagonistic, i.e., I've already requested that they stop pinging me. The Golden Rule is pretty shitty in a lot of real-life situations but I've found applying it on Wikipedia has a disproportionately positive effect.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You can use "guy". See my userpage; that's the only option for Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Userboxes/Eagle Scout :-) No complaints about the ping; this is entirely reasonable, especially as just a few hours earlier I'd discussed Shroom's actions on this specific article, as well as blocking two other editors for disrupting an article that a year ago I'd blocked them for disrupting and warned them not to edit more. I didn't look at the video situation this time around, but having watched it last time, I know that one of the problems was that people were persistently using it to say what it didn't say — regardless of how reliable or unreliable a source is, using it to say something it doesn't say is hoaxing and thus (in a non-legal sense) fraudulent; see a good summary of the issue. I'm not sure what to do with this article, which basically keeps attracting problems. It's really tempting just to revert the article back about ten or eleven years and then full-protect the article and the talk page. Any more-reasonable suggestions? Any other admin with a good idea and/or with a readiness to handle the situation? Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

So long as the version from ten or eleven years ago is based on sources of the same qualities as those in the lede I've been pushing (in other words; works from logicians and philosophers which specifically cover the topic of this argument), that would be a perfectly acceptable solution to me. That being said, I doubt many others would agree with permanently fully protecting the page, because what if there's a typo? What if some wonderful new example gets written about? What if, what if, what if... etc.

But to be sure, this content argument is a perennial problem on this page, going back to 2007 at the least. I'm a little surprised that there are no sources covering what appears to be a common phenomenon here: people who not only mistakenly believe that appealing to an authority is always a fallacy, but who will appeal to perceived authorities to prove it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Extra header for simpler section editing

• The best solution I can see is actually getting Arbcom to make a ruling on this. They wouldn't, of course, need to take an issue on the content questions, but could implement a set os discretionary sanctions which could be used to nip this sort of problematic POV pushing in the bud. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• I checked some ten-years-old revisions, and they had no sourcing at all. The content appeared to be better, but I'm not cutting out the sourcing, of course. That's one of those "I wish I could" things, not something that I'm actively considering doing. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Most cases focus on one or a few editors, or on a group of articles, but a case for a single article wouldn't be unprecedented; they've had cases for Speed of light and for Tree shaping, for example, and I think there was one on the Monty Hall problem as well. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The more I think about full protection, the less I like it. The sourcing problem you mentioned means we'd have to come up with a "definitive" version of the page (either by restoring old text with new sources, which is a mess of work in and of itself, or by defining a stable version from what's currently there), and while I'm very confident in my own edits, I don't think for one second that means that no-one else could possibly improve upon them. Indeed, I think the article still needs some work. I might try putting together an Arbcom request later during the week. At least then you wouldn't be the only admin dealing with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'm not seriously suggesting doing it. It's one of those situations where the solution would probably be worse than the cure, but the solution would still feel good because we'd be rid of the immediate problem. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you hear that pervasive sound? It's the sound of nobody arguing with you. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't sure of your meaning, and I just wanted to make it clear :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

My first ever request for a boomerang (in an ANI thread about me)

I woke up this morning to this wonderful example of harassment in which PraiseTheShroom tried to make the case that I have been edit warring based on the fact that I made some formatting changes to a section, which included re-adding some bullet points which Endercase had removed as part of a previous edit. This is really getting ridiculous. After being told by every participant here that there is no basis to this complaint, after being told by every participant at RSN that they were wrong about the use of sources, they are still hurling crap at me to see what sticks.

Shroom has already left an edit warring warning on my talk page right after I declined to revert them a third time and left a message on article talk explaining why, already left an incredibly deceptively titled request at RSN, my editing of which was the basis for this thread despite being confirmed as accurate by another participant in the discussion thus far. Shroom has made (lame, but still) personal attacks against myself and David Tornheim in accusing us of engaging in "rampant ludditism" and accusing me of "running wild". And now it's clear they have no intention of stopping.

Can an admin please block this guy so that I can stop dealing with this pointless drama? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The forum shopping to try to get you into trouble is not acceptable, so I have issued a 48h block for continued disruption and harassment. If this continues once the block expires, we should be blocking for longer. Also, with such a disruptive approach, I think a topic ban might gain approval if anyone wants to propose one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Right now, considering the fact that this editor's only real contributions to the project are to this page, I'm pretty sure that a TBAN would be nearly indistinguishable from an indef block, so I'm not too comfortable asking for one just now. However, I see the user has made this edit which continues to push the POV that informed the two blocked editors, and is difficult to verify as the source doesn't exist as an ebook. I've ordered a copy of the book and will be verifying that the claim is supported by the source. If not, then I'll likely change my mind about the TBAN. I was dead serious above about making a request to ArbCom to institute DSes on this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I offer no opinion on the change and I do not know the source, but "Schaum's Easy Outline of Logic" doesn't exactly sound like a rigorous academic volume. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be a college-level supplement, which should be pretty authoritative, assuming it actually supports the claim (that article was shot through with claims that the sources didn't support, including a whole bunch of OR and SYNTH, so I'm suspicious of any source I can't quickly read online which was added by Shroom or the two blocked editors). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK. It's just that books like that tend to strike me as verging on tertiary sources, a bit like encyclopedias (that is, they're collecting and/or summarizing secondary sources). But yes, we'll see what you think when you get your eyes on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that textbooks and supplements are tertiary sources, but I generally contend that they're as reliable (as a whole) as secondary sources, due to the editorial oversight and the expertise of the authors. There are exceptions, of course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair enough. In this case I suspect either the book does not support the assertion at all, or it is specifically talking of deductive reasoning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

No need to order a copy: you can find the relevant page by going on the Amazon listing for that book and searching for the word "authority." Not only does the source not "refer to appeals to authority in general as fallacies," but it has a comically large note in the middle of the page declaring that "Appeals to authority are not fallacious provided we have good evidence that the authorities have adequate justification for their views." Lord Mondegreen (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that (the page does not appear to be available to me). I think it's time for a topic ban proposal, so I have started one below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back, Lord Mondegreen! This was good work (though I assure you that the amazon page didn't permit one to look inside just yesterday; I had to Ctrl+F5 to get it to work). You've saved me 7 dollars, so I suppose I owe you a beer or two. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Yeah, I was gonna propose this myself. I was kind of surprised to see that the Shroom wasn't already blocked. I can't possibly understand what drove him to think opening that ANEW discussion was a good idea, let alone arguing with Ian.thomson (no ping this time, as it hardly seems necessary at this point -- this looks about finished) to keep it open. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I would support a TBAN if it's proposed, but I'm not going to propose it myself, since I think a better solution to the page in question and its apparently insoluble problems would be the revert and permanent full protection option. (And I'm only partly joking.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have just noticed the following comment from PraiseTheShroom:

"Aye, MjolnirPants, I do: a scientist is a natural philosopher responsible for finding useful knowledge, a mundane philosopher is responsible for using as many words as possible while saying as little as he can. If science is what brings useful knowledge while philosophy is what gets a man nowhere (for when has an "advance" in philosophy ever come? It has not, and cannot: such a thing would be as if an "advance" in fiction, for philosophy is about fictions and little else), then if useful knowledge is what a man seeks then he should take the standards of science and avoid the pitfall of this fallacy. But if a man seeks to go nowhere then by all means let him follow the philosophers into their hole. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)"

If that old canard represents his understanding of philosophy in general, then it's arguable that he should not be editing articles about philosophy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC) (Disclaimer: MA Philosophy)

(Your response is shockingly similar to my own at the talk page :D ) If you think a TBAN is appropriate at this time, then I would defer to your judgement. My general reticence to request extensive sanctions is based mostly in a desire to avoid contributing to the drama. But I acknowledge that, on occasion, we need to ramp up the drama levels in the short term to lower them in the long term. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Haha, yes, our responses are indeed quite similar! I won't propose a topic ban myself and I will not opine on one if it is proposed, because I want to stay out of the argument itself so that I can continue to act in an admin capacity if necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Boing, and thanks for intervening here. Even if I weren't tired of the situation, it would help to see another uninvolved admin come in and do what I was inclined to do — it's confirmation that I've been going the right way and evidence that these aren't a few helpless innocent editors being persecuted by one rogue admin who's acting contrary to what all the uninvolved people are thinking. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was bored ;-) (And if you ever do need a rogue admin to persecute anyone, you know where to find me!) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Might I also suggest the Angry Mob Noticeboard as a good venue for procuring rogue-like* behavior?

*Here meaning "having the qualities of a rogue" not "procedurally generated, infuriatingly difficult and experience with which separates the true nerds from the pretenders". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking, should AMN and WP:EYDL be moved to the userspace because they are jokes? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Propose topic ban

Lurker notice: recently inserted by PTS up above evrything else. IDK is it should be moved below or not. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved. —JJBers 17:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The idea of a topic ban for PraiseTheShroom has been raised above, with the editor tendentiously pursuing administrative action against ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants in an apparent attempt to win a content dispute, after having failed to gain consensus both at Talk:Argument from authority and at WP:RSN. Several instances of misuse of sources has also been documented (see above), but I was still reluctant to take the step of proposing a topic ban (as were others).

However, we now have a clear example of deliberately misrepresenting a source. PraiseTheShroom used Nolt, John; Rohatyn, Dennis; Varzi, Achille (2012). Schaum's Easy Outline of Logic. The McGraw-Hill Companies. p. 115. ISBN 0071777539 as a reference for the assertion that "...a minority of others refer to appeals to authority in general as fallacies". (See diff).

Lord Mondegreen has now examined that source and says (copied from above):

Not only does the source not "refer to appeals to authority in general as fallacies," but it has a comically large note in the middle of the page declaring that "Appeals to authority are not fallacious provided we have good evidence that the authorities have adequate justification for their views." Lord Mondegreen (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I therefore propose that PraiseTheShroom be indefinitely banned from editing any page related to Argument from authority and from any discussion of the subject anywhere on Wikipedia, broadly construed, with an appeal at WP:AN allowed no sooner than six months from the day of enactment of the ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• I was waiting on a copy of this book which I ordered from Amazon to arrive so I could verify it. But seeing as we now have verification from an editor (whose return to Wikipedia delights me to no end, welcome back!) who has access to the book already that this is a misuse of the source, I Support this proposal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It's good to see Lord M here, and I hope the good lady is well too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the O'grady was actually an editor here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support I feel the misuse of sources is worse than having none at all. Especially just to start a content dispute. —JJBers 13:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support They haven't learned to let things go and not pursue other editors. Lenght of time should be at least a year. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 19:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support I know I don't actually have to independently support a proposal I already said I would support if someone proposed it, but this thread has been open a while and so is theoretically liable to get archived without a close, and I have seen some subjects of ANI threads pull some pretty weird shit with situations like that ("Stop hounding me", "Drop the stick", "Stop bludgeoning the discussion" and so on when people try to unarchive the thread), not to mention closers pulling some weird shit when proposals have unanimous support from less than some arbitrary number of editors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support I was hoping the editor in question would understand by this point, but given that they haven't edited since being blocked, I have little faith that they have. This seems like a reasonable step. --Tarage (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I know I'm undermining my own support here, but you know the block is still in effect, right? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

My previous comment no longer applies. I'm now a little freaked out by Tarage's psychic skills. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Just because you are blocked doesn't mean you wouldn't, say, edit your talk page. Also I'm good at recognizing patterns. --Tarage (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Very clearly disruptive in this area. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Others take the words of others uncritically (as seen with the YouTube allegations) and use that selfsame slander as proof of guilt. Anyone who would read through the long and detailed discussions now and in the past in the page's Talk could not miss the many and clear sources which give a dissenting opinion, stating that these arguments are fallacies.

Yet just as with the clearly disruptive attempts at shutting down the discussion I initiated at the reliable sources noticeboard being fully tolerated and not once questioned, I see that there is no true investigation of facts being done: the one who speaks loudest is simply taken as an oracle of truth.

Yet there is still a chance for redemption. Truly investigate the matter: read what I have said and done, and see what little resemblance it bears to the creature they parade as my thoughts. See my sincere attempt to determine if scientific sources were permissable, and see it then insultingly derailed. I hold out hope that these shall be ernestly looked into, yet hold much doubt that it shall be done. Finding facts is a hard path that leads only to still harder work in a mine, digging and brushing and polishing until at last a jewel is presentable. Far easier to simply heed the voice of whichever crier is nearest.

So we shall see: are there any who will consider what I have said and conduct an inquiry? Or will you all simply take an accuser at their word? PraiseTheShroom (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Above, PraiseTheShroom characterizes editors here of "tak[ing] the words of others uncritically," eschewing "a true investigation of facts," accepting "the one who speaks loudest ... as an oracle of truth," of not "read[ing] what [they] have said and done," of not "ernestly look[ing] into" sources," of not "consider[ing] what [they] have said and conduct[ing] an inquiry," and of "simply tak[ing] an accuser at their word."

However, they do not support any of these accusations with specific evidence. Furthermore, it is plain from this discussion that these complaints are false. The accusations have not been accepted uncritically or without an investigation of the facts, but rather on the basis of specific facts that are publicly available. For example, in bringing up WP:BOOMERANG, MjolnirPants gave several links to objecionable diffs, including baseless talk page templating, disruptive editing, and personal attacks. Nor have people refused to look into the source; rather, the proposal for this topic ban came about precisely because, in looking into one of the sources that PraiseTheShroom referenced, I found that it had been flagrantly misrepresented. And nobody has to take me at my word, because, as I said at the start, the relevant source can be publicly examined on Amazon.

I'm not going to take a stance for or against a topic ban, because I'm not experienced enough to know in what circumstances topic bans are appropriate. But I wanted to object, in any case, to the accusations I've quoted above. Presumably, nobody in favor of this is going to be impressed merely by being told that they're being unfair. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Lord Mondegreen, the post above looks to be completely baseless. For example, it's trivially easy to disprove (one can clearly see that Shroom reverted to a version which included the youtube link, repeatedly [8] [9]), and the best defense Shroom could mount against that proof was that they were taking the word of others uncritically by assuming it was a valid source. WP:TBAN covers the hows and why's of topic bans, and you can see for yourself that they are intended to cover precisely these sorts of circumstances; wherein editors edit one particular topic disruptively, but seem relatively helpful (or at least to deserve a change to prove they can be helpful) on other topics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR: "I am not wrong and you are wrong for not seeing it the way I see it." My vote stands. --Tarage (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2017 (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.

Competence/WP:OWN issue on ITN 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.

---

There's a very egregious case of WP:CIR going on in the ITN article WannaCry cyber attack. The user is Special:Contributions/GliderMaven. This is an example of his edits. Another example. There are much more serious violations of WP:RS and WP:OR amongst his ~50 edits, but those should be good quick examples of his lack of familiarity with editing.

I initially wrote a lengthy talk page comment addressing the large number of issues, at here. I then spent about 40 minutes meticulously reversing or fixing a large number of his poor edits, including several instances of plagiarism. An hour later, the problem user reverted to his own latest version with no discussion.

I'm hoping for a quick admin note to the user's talk page, advising him to read WP:MoS and gain some experience before essentially WP:OWN-ing a high-traffic article on a topic that he is unfamiliar with. 73.61.20.253 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2017 (UT

The anonymous editor has been unintentionally damaging the article, removing large amounts of text and dozens of reliable source references, and not understanding the references in context. Among many, many other things, he removed the fact that the malware is a computer worm that can spread without user interaction on unpatched systems. I consider him to be well meaning, but his edits have been mostly harmful, and he has been making edits that damaged hypertext markup.GliderMaven (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed duplicate text that was additionally plagiarized from sources with no attribution. I'm not sure if those edits were directly made by you, but it is present in the version of the article that you are reverting to.

Your comment again betrays a lack of experience with basic WP etiquette and guidelines. I strongly recommend that you let go of this and spend some time reading up WP:MoS and WP:OR before you get yourself blocked. You're one of those rare good faith users that are simply awful enough to warrant a ban.73.61.20.253 (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

note: the user was previously warned by an admin for 3RR violations on a content change he made on Human in Feb 2017. He deleted the admin warning then reverted the article again. His edit there was also problematic based on basic WP:MoS guidelines (and is factually incorrect, as far as I can tell). I frankly think a short block is needed, the user clearly isn't prepared to do his due diligence before barging into high-traffic articles, and does not respond to verbal warnings. 73.61.20.253 (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

additional note: admins who want a quick glance at the extensive problem in those edits can compare this current version with the old version that GliderMaven is reverting to.

Note the completely unsourced/OR lines such as "This greatly slowed the spread." in the lede. Note the "WannaCry functionality" section that is both improper style and happens to be copied and pasted from the first two sections.

There's a myriad of other problems; see this frustrated comment for example.

Again, a quick admin intervention would be nice. 73.61.20.253 (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This mostly sounds like a WP:Content dispute which as with all content disputes, should be resolved via some means of WP:Dispute resolution, not via ANI. It doesn't matter whether the article is on ITN. (At most, the article should be removed from ITN, but that can be dealt with at WP:Main Page/Errors if it really comes to it. But there is one area which may have to be dealt with here at ANI namely that of plagiarism, if it rises to the level which gives WP:Copyvio concerns. Can you provide one or more specific examples of this plagiarism and the sources it comes from? Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not a content dispute, or I wouldn't be bringing it up here. Please spend a few minutes to compare the two versions of the article I posted above. Cross-check sections 1, 2 and 3. There is a stable version of that article; it's the article that didn't contain duplicate paragraphs with copy-and-pasted quotes from multiple articles (i.e. plagiarism) with no/incorrect attribution. I agree that some of what I brought up may be dealt with on a talk page, but the most serious problem needs to be immediately dealt with by an admin, and he isn't responding to any attempt at discussion anyway. There are about 5 users on that article who are reverting his errors piece-meal. Just fix this fucking mess. 73.61.20.253 (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

What you're describing sounds exactly like a content dispute. Your claim there is no discussion also isn't true, a simple check of the talk page proves this. And you even participated in this discussion, so your statement here is frankly the second or third most concerning thing after the plagiarism problem (and perhaps edit warring). GliderMaven in fact responded before you posted here, and less than 2 hours after you first posted on the article talk page. (Please don't get into a pointless debate over who should have opened the discussion on the article talk page.) And yes there is a lot of reverting going on in that page, which isn't a good thing, but it's clearly not everyone reverting GliderMaven [10] Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You are significantly misjudging what happened. The revert by the other user came from a similar misjudgment. You'd recognize why if you actually bother to read that user's version of the article. 73.61.20.253 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no discussion. A simple check on the talk page shows that I carefully listed about 20 problems and he did not address a single one of them.

Again, this is not a specific content issue. This is an issue of 50 near consecutive edits made to an article, almost all of which are contrary to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including sourcing and OR issues, not to mention an entire duplicate section. That's not a content dispute. An article of passable quality existed when that item was posted on ITN. The article fell below that quality because of a large number of changes that fail basic. This doesn't go to dispute resolution, this warrants a basic application of your fucking common sense.

I spent hours of my life carefully tracking his incorrect edits and fixing them. It takes literally 5 minutes for you to compare the two versions, see the immense amount of sourcing problems that had been fixed in my version, give the user a brief warning for edit warring, and move on. Instead you prefer to debate with me on the exact definition of a content dispute. 73.61.20.253 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You are still describing a content dispute. The only problem is instead of settling it with small, discussed edits you are reverting a whole version of an article for your preferred version. Now you are acting incredibly hostile because you are told by an uninvolved editor (Nil) that it is indeed a content dispute.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Even if you want to call this a content dispute, it's a clear case of WP:Ignore all rules. Seriously look at his version of the article and tell me you don't see a huge fucking problem, as one of the sections is literally copy and pasted. This is on the front page right now. This is absurd. 73.61.20.253 (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This IP user is severely breaching our civility policy. Would another admin please handle?

I also note GliderMaven has been repeatedly been warned for edit warring over the last year, and queried about OR, but they just blank their talk. A block for both parties might serve to protect this article. Fences&Windows 16:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I second your suggestion that another admin handle the issue. You have spent more time commenting than figuring out the problem.

Meanwhile, the article is still in immediate need of fixing a WP:Plagiarism issue. Which I had fixed, before you came along and accused me of edit warring on a content dispute, a conclusion you made based on reading talk page comments.73.61.20.253 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think Fences gave an accurate summary of the issue above. At ANI, he can't handle content disputes, as you have been told. He can, however, share an opinion on your civility violations and any harmful editing patterns by GliderMaven.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute. It's a clear case of IAR, applying common sense, and telling the amateur user to knock it off with the edit warring. All of that information was available in the first two comments I posted here. Instead, the admin appears to have spend 30 minutes himself to figure out that the user might just be problematic, and is yet to show any indication he's actually read the article and recognized how absurd it is that we're even discussing this as a content dispute. The current version of the article has about 5 duplicate paragraphs that the problem user has disguised as original content. Go read the article. If you don't see the problem within 5 minutes and immediately take up my position, I'll drop the issue. This isn't a content dispute, this is a problem that requires 5 minutes from a clear-headed admin to fix. 73.61.20.253 (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, my position is that other editors are on task, I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of doing any more reverts on the article, I reverted this single incredibly tendentious deletionist IP, twice, I have never, ever plagiarised anything and the discussion is going just fine on the talk page, and I'm fine with whatever happens there.GliderMaven (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"the discussion is going just fine on the talk page"

That is not true. You had a 3 comment back and forth with another editor, which ended with him leaving out of sheer frustration. You have not discussed anything with anyone else. You've ignored the massive amount of edit summaries and explanations for the myriad of serious problems in your edits. You have repeatedly reverted about 5 people's attempts to fix your errors, out of sheer WP:OWNism, and you only bothered to "discuss" with one of us. Another IP (see here) had reverted a highly problematic assertion that you insist on putting into the article, and you've reverted him 10+ times with no discussion. There are a dozen other examples. Your continued portrayal of this as a content dispute between you and me is an outright lie. That lie was what made a regular on ANI go help you revert my 20+ edits with zero attempt at engaging in any discussion or reading any of the policy guidelines that you've violated to the point of being farcical. 73.61.20.253 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. This is WP:OWN coupled with incompetence and repeated edit warring. The user has ignored multiple warnings from admins and other content editors on the same problem, and had curtly removed those warnings himself. Telling me to bring this up to dispute resolution is absolutely absurd. It took me 2 hours to carefully identify all of the problems he inserted into the article. I'm not about to write fifty paragraphs explaining those edits down to the word in some futile effort to engage with this user. This is a clear case of WP:OWN and WP:NOTHERE, that ANI can deal with. This user has reverted a dozen editors' attempts to fix his mistakes, all with zero effort made at reading or understanding other people's comments. An admin here could have just easily banned him from participating in that article two hours ago and I'd have had two more hours to actually work on that article, and he'd have had two more hours to read WP:OR. 73.61.20.253 (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• An/I can't live without the f word for more than 3 days apparently. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:54, 14 May 2017 (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 long term vandalism on female wrestler articles

2605:E000:8404:8500:C922:8842:ECF5:E232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've come across a vandal who consistently adds out of place references to 'brutal hair-pulling' and spandex tights to various articles about independent female professional wrestlers over the span of five years. The edits, while numerous, are pretty minor, but I found the vandal though a line of vandalism that had been there since 2012, so it is problematic. The user has been warned many times on previous IPs. Here are the previous IPs of the same person:

• 75.85.126.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 111.220.121.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 198.72.209.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:E000:8404:8500:7986:3D6C:96BA:B267 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:E000:8404:8500:3D47:3F96:A4D4:AC59 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Cjhard (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

111.220.121.41 Appears to be a vandal cop. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that was me before I logged into my account. Accidentally put myself on the list. Cjhard (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Heh! I was wondering why Redacted was no longer vandalizing the Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx article! Everybody's gotta have a hobby, I suppose. Anmccaff (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

BigHaz

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 what he is accusing me of, but his action must be stopped, he is attacking against me. please see Special:Diff/778442313 Special:Diff/778442489 Special:Diff/778442471 Special:Diff/778442505 Special:Diff/779967949 Special:Diff/780326653. If we have rules in Wikipedia, and were applied to one of AfDs then what stops me from creating a AfD on my own articles, this is ridiculous that people vote based on their interests. This guy have asked other people to vote on my AfDs, he must be stopped from bothering me. Mjbmr (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Nominating your own articles for CSD and AfD seems an awful lot like deliberately wasting other's time, and opening an ANI thread on the whole issue seems an awful lot like suicide by admin. TimothyJosephWood 18:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Timothyjosephwood I'm waiting for someone say something useful, a lot of my articles were deleted by ambushes, that wasn't wasting my time?! Mjbmr (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

By ambushes, do you mean CSD and AfDs? Those are all permitted, in fact, essential to help preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia. This whole ANI thread, as well as the self-nominations of your articles for deletion, are immature ways of dealing with it, sorry to say.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick you can reread Timothyjosephwood comment just avoid, you two make no sense. one says allowed one says no. Mjbmr (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Nominating your own articles for CSD and AfD seems an awful... says User:Timothyjosephwood do you mean CSD and AfDs? Those are all permitted says User:TheGracefulSlick. Mjbmr (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

BigHaz is an admin, and I see no problems with their actions. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and we all humans. Either all articles which were reviewed by Schwede66 (AN ADMIN!) and were deleted by K.e.coffman and Hawkeye75 should be restored or the rest of my articles should be deleted, I spend a whole year writing these articles, I guess that's the way Wikipedia is, but I won't bother writing again, I just don't want to bothered again with this template messages like these: User talk:Mjbmr/Archive 3, you can recreate the rest of my articles with your own name if you want to keep them. Mjbmr (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2017 (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.

Above thread

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.

---

Above thread was closed by User:JJBers while we were talking and comment was removed by User:TheGracefulSlick please take an action. Mjbmr (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Boomerang.jpg TimothyJosephWood 19:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• The thread was closed. Consequently, no comments are supposed to be added after the fact. At this point I feel you are begging to be blocked for your behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I closed it for the fact that it was not a matter for ANI, if you want to talk about it, use the user's talk page instead. —JJBers 19:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick are you threatening me? Mjbmr (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me if you're going to ask me nonsense. No, I'm not threatening you. If you continue to waste people's time, like you are, you will most likely be blocked. That is not a threat, it is logic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

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

RevDel on 208.98.147.72, please?

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.

---

208.98.147.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) said some naughties. If someone has the time and prefers that this stuff not be visible, a bit of revdel might be in order. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, thank you for all that work! Jim1138 (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2017 (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.

Eliyohub spamming me with threatening emails

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.

---

Just now,Eliyohub was spamming with me threatening emails, saying that if ever decide to return to Wikipedia, he'd show up at my home address and have me butchered with an axe. Can he blocked please? I'd also like to get his real identity so I can report him to the police, because I'm really scared for my life.Johndoe4199 (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

What type of axe? Is the blade wrapped up in a sock? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You're account is minutes old...how can you be "returning" to Wikipedia in any capacity? Besides, if you actually are having your life threatened you contact police with the e-mails you supposedly received. I don't think socks have a life to threaten though.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock. This is the likely master. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

If the first edits are trivial creations of user and talk page so as to avoid redlinked attention, sock likelihood is over 9000. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

For the record, no "axe emails" or the like (or any emails at all to Wikipedia contributors, past or present, for that matter), were sent by me. Eliyohub (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Another Believer

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates § Withdrawal

This user is harassing me to the extent that they have now twice reverted my withdraw of an article on FAC[11] There has been persistent targeting in the last hours, which is fine, whatever. But...they need to calm down. I'll take a block fine, but a word about what wikipedia is for is needed. Note I have had a number of seriously ill informed warnings on my talk from a fan base in the mean time. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, ok. I'm going to step away and let others deal with User:Ceoil. There are much better ways to be spending my time improving Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil's behavour is totlly out of line today, [12], is that you posting to your own talk as an IP ? seems to go with your recent behaviour. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Not my style to log out to inelegantly put my view. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Mlpearc, if you're going to make accusations like that you'd better have some evidence. Since the IP geolocates to a different country than Ceoil it seem fairly unlikely. ‑ Iridescent 20:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: That was a question, calm down. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

What? This just seems to be a misunderstanding here. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Its actually a fundamental problem that needs to be nipped in the bud. Another Believer wants to blue link each and every painting by particular artists to a redirect to the arists bio. We had a real mess on the Francis Bacon box today, which isnt a trivial problem, apart from reader utility, a number of us use that template to see what has been covered and what has not, ie planning, also it is useful for tracking recent changes. In other instances, eg with Jan Van Eyck the box is used for tracking trends in canonical attribution. If we are now going to link evry and every thing with bio redirects, ie wikidata all this stuff, there is a significant loss in usability & credibility. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with redirecting works to appropriate parent articles (such as the article about the artist or a list of works by an individual). Stub articles are appropriate for inclusion in navigation templates. The pages being discussed were originally redirects, which were converted to stubs. The stubs should be displayed in the template. What's the problem? I'm not even going to comment on the accusation of harassing Ceoil -- their edits, edit summaries, and actions speak for themselves. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Different problem—I do agree with you that the painting should be kept, although. But, as I said, that is a different problem than the one at hand, and not a serious one where any sanctions are needed. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, just to note, ceoil should probably have told Another Believer that they can withdrawl their own nomination. And, Another Believer should have explained why he was restoring the article to FAC. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with nomination withdrawals. I just assumed blanking the FAC page wasn't the best procedural way to acknowledge the withdrawal. I noted this at the FAC talk page, just like I've started a few talk page discussions today about Ceoil's edits. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but I do think that you should have pointed out in the edit summary your reasoning. Anyways, this seems to be resolved, so a close soon might be appropriate, unless there are other problems. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

With respect Reily, you completely miss the point, and have been less than useless here. Why are you inanely commenting on something you have no idea about? Your just enabling this nonesence. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't useful at all. —JJBers 21:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG: The user who started this discussion has been wiping out its talk page, unaware of recent warnings posted in its history. If you Don't Stop Believin', now this may be the time to say "this time, it's for real". You can argue on both sides, but you cannot really report someone who has been telling the truth beforehand. Slasher405 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You have typed words, but they make no sense. A very shallow reading of events. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I do think that Ceoil's behaviour today hasn't been very good, but to me it seems that this has just been a bad day here for them. Of course, if the behaviour continues, then a block might be in order, but I think that if Ceoil can just get off WP for a bit and we can stop talking about him for a bit, then all should be good. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

No. I mentioned above that there is a matter of substance behind this. Also if you look at the diffs there is (pitifully organised) tag teaming, and editors logging out to discredit others. Children will be children, but notice about 142 reverts; 3 on WP:FAC, where they continued the troll claiming concern with process. And thats apart from the fact that AB irreparably made a mess, deliberately, of a Francis Bacon template I had been working on since 2007. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the occasional incivility (not this, you have been pretty (sorta) civil on here, apart from one comment) today. I do not know whether I would advocate for sanctions against you, but I think that if you continue with your behaviour today, you might have sanctions imposed on you. I do not want an experienced editor blocked. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't followed everything that has happened, but looking at Template:Francis Bacon (artist), I can see why Ceoil is frustrated. The point of these templates is to link to articles about the topics. Instead, Another Believer redirected the titles of paintings to the artist, [13][14][15] then blue-linked them in the template, so you couldn't tell whether a link was going to take you to the painting. When that was reverted, he created micro-stubs on the paintings: "X is a painting by Francis Bacon" (e.g. see Head IV), which is just as unhelpful.
  Another Believer, if you're serious about creating articles on works of art, that's great, but please don't do it for the sake of creating links. That just creates work for other people, who then have to develop the stubs or leave the template pointing to unhelpful pages. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I created the stubs because the redirect pages were nominated for deletion, unnecessarily. Also, there is nothing wrong with stubs, nor with including links to stubs in navigation templates. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The redirects were not nominated for deletion unnecessarily. They were deleted for a valid deletion reason. See WP:RFD#DELETE#10. The target article, Francis_Bacon_(artist), does not discuss the painting at all and it could plausibly be expanded into an article. That is a valid reason to delete a redirect. It actually encourages someone to write an article when they see the redlink. Where the blue link (redirect) won't encourage someone to write an article because they think the article already exists. ~ GB fan 14:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Ah, well, the pages could have easily redirected to the list of works by Bacon, where they are mentioned, and I still don't think a red link is more beneficial to the project than a stub. I was just trying to create stubs from pages that were nominated for deletion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I never said a redlink is more beneficial than a stub. I do think a redlink is more beneficial than a redirect to an article where the painting is not discussed at all. I don't think that a stub that says a painting was done by a painter is helpful to anything. That is what you created. There is no discussion about the painting at all in those three articles. It would have been more helpful to delete the redirects until a proper article was written. ~ GB fan 14:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed, and there is plenty wrong with 8 word stubs that only mislead readers into thinking there is something useful there. They are probably better off sticking to google. Another Believer's editing in this area seems to have crossed the line into the disruptive, and he's just not listening to anyone else. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
      • My edits were disruptive? Did you even review Ceoil's edit history? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I did, well, enough of them. He has a big advantage: on the main issues he is in the right and you are in the wrong. In particular, how can you justify reverting his withdrawal of his FAC? I know you never normally edit there, but being able to withdraw your own nomination is a basic & familar part of WP editing. Your explanations were disingenuous, and it is hard to believe it was not done deliberately to annoy. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I've already explained this multiple times. I have no problem with withdrawing nominations and was simply trying to make sure the page was archived appropriately and the article's talk page updated, if needed. I apologize if my reverts were wrong, but my explanation is not disingenuous. My goal was not to annoy Ceoil. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Another Believer, it seems clear that you followed Ceoil to an FAC nomination. He nominated Fragment of a Crucifixion (a work of Francis Bacon) at 10:10 on 7 May 2017, then changed his mind at 19:33 and blanked the page. You reverted the blanking at 19:34. What made you turn up there? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Oh, for sure I reviewed the editor's history, but I thought this blanking was part of a string of inappropriate edits (in chronological order):

• inappropriate edit and edit summary
• inappropriate removal of appropriate navigation template
• inappropriate removal of navigation template
• ditto
• ditto
• ditto (this happens several more times...)
• blanking of talk page (not inappropriate, but also not common given context)
• blanking of user page (same comment as above)
• removal at FAC (which I reverted for procedural purposes and explained on the FAC talk page)
• user uploads File:Enough.jpg
• user adds this image to profile page with my username as an edit summary
• user mentions me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I was not familiar with this editor and simply thought their editing was inappropriate. Yes, I was monitoring their edits and reviewing their edit history, because I thought they were trolling, not because I was looking to fan the flames. This user was name calling and making offensive statements. I was fine with Ceoil starting this discussion because I assumed other editors would see the inappropriateness of their actions, not mine. I could go dig through edit histories to provide evidence of offensive language, name calling, edit warring, etc., but honestly I'm ready to move on from all of this. This drama is not why I edit Wikipedia, and I'd much rather be improving content. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Everyone comes for the Wikidrama...Right? —JJBers 18:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Most definitely not, lol. So, am I off the hook here now that the FAC nomination page has been deleted? Is there evidence that I was actually harassing anyone? I'm moving on to work on other things now and I don't watchlist this page, so please ping me if needed. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Another Believer, following Ceoil to his FAC certainly looks like wikihounding. I see that you list several FAs on your user page, so you understand that people become passionate about topics they've put a lot of work into. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, so, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from this discussion, apart from the fact that I shouldn't revert an FAC withdrawal. I'll take the slap on the wrist and try to remember not to do this again in the future. Other than this, I think the accusations of harassing Ceoil are completely unjustified. I was just trying to revert what I thought was vandalism and inappropriate editing. I'm ready to move on from this whole ordeal and I'll try to stick to content improvement and let other editors deal with the drama and vandalism. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for saying you'll look out for this kind of thing in future. Ceoil has been editing since 2006, so it's unlikely that he would suddenly start vandalizing, and if something looks that way, it's either being misinterpreted or it means he's upset. Anyway, we all get passionate about our work, and we clash. Best to leave it there. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

We all -- most of us -- also blank our own talk pages sometimes, and that is usually OK. That's why WP:OWNTALK says it is OK. So I am surprised to see such blanking being cited above, more than once, as a problem. I suggest the people who mentioned it should read guidelines carefully, and walk calmly away from this discussion. MPS1992 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Bluelinking by creating redirects, and/or by creating minimal stubs, as pointed out by SarahSV above, can be disturbing and disrupting to ordinary processes by which development goes on, and was so in this case. I don't see User:Another Believer quite acknowledging that. Sorry for butting in "against" you, because I do value our cooperation elsewhere, but this is not isolated. AB has in the past created hundreds of minimal articles on NRHP places in Oregon, which I know really bothers some editors, and IMO the mess it created continues to interfere with development of that area by other editors. One way that it interferes with others enjoyment of editing is that you have butted in and claimed authorship of the topics, forever, and while garnering authorship credit is likely not the other editor's goal, it will always be there in their face that you butted in and disrespected them. (FYI I have been on the receiving end of criticism because of short articles that I created in the past, criticism which I did not think was fair, but I can understand their perspective.) It's AB's prerogative not to cooperate in fixing those NRHP articles by developing them into "proper articles", after being invited to do so by me and perhaps by others, but they shouldn't go to new areas and do the same thing. I see how this is frustrating and depressing to other editors.

Where does this stand, to fix it for Ceoil? Can someone delete the redirects and minimal stub articles (or move them to Draft space without leaving a redirect behind)? Does this have to be handled in an RFD action plus an AFD action, if so where is the link to that. Hey AB, if you could acknowledge that the redirects and stubs don't need to be kept, I think that would be nice, and perhaps an administrator here would feel more empowered to just go through and restore the "status quo ante". --doncram 03:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Doncram, that's a good idea, thanks. Another Believer, would you be okay with those stubs being moved to draft space without a redirect? Ceoil, would that resolve things for you? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Since you asked, and if I'm being honest, I don't view stubs as bad things and I'd much rather there be a stub than a red link or a redirect. So, while I do want this situation to be resolved (I've moved on already), and I acknowledge doncram's opinion about the impact of stub creation, I'm not going to cave and saying something I don't mean. Look, at the end of the day, my life goes on just fine whether or not any redirects or stubs are kept. Also, I'm quite disappointed to be editor here receiving admonishment, knowing how this section was started. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil accused me of harassment, which I don't appreciate or take lightly, especially given their behavior. This user's behavior was completely inappropriate around the time I reverted his FAC nomination, which I did so for procedural purposes and because I thought I was cleaning up erratic editing behavior. I was acting in good faith and trying to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. I may not have done so completely correctly, but I was trying. The stubs I created were back in March, and they have nothing to do with Ceoil's behavior or him accusing me of harassment. He was/is upset because red links at Template:Francis Bacon (artist), which should not have been displayed in the navigation template in the first place, were being turned into redirects and appearing as blue links. It's not my fault the redirects were in the template inappropriately, and I wasn't doing anything wrong by creating redirects for these artworks, or creating stubs after the redirect pages were nominated for deletion. I'd like us to please stay focused on behavior and not the disagreement b/w 2 editors over which entries belong in a template (as you'll see on the template's talk page, I've requested the removal of the redirects from the template). IMO, Ceoil is getting a pass on inappropriate behavior, no one else is accusing me of harassment, and somehow this conversation has turned into asking me to acknowledge that redirects and drafts are better for Wikipedia than stubs, which I don't agree with. Again, I'm moving on to improve Wikipedia now so I'm slowly exiting the room and letting others wrap this up as they see fit. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

He was/is upset because red links at Template:Francis Bacon (artist), *which should not have been displayed in the navigation template in the first place* - Huh? That is 100% incorrect. In VA that is how we build up articles on the particular artist's works. Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Um, ok, sure. Wikipedia:Navigation template says, "Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result." ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Another Believer, according to that, the red links in this case are fine. But unless I'm missing something, those titles (Head III, Head IV, Head V) were unlinked when you arrived. You can surely see that creating redirects for the template might irritate readers—they see the template "Francis Bacon", and a blue link to a painting, but when they click on it, it redirects them back to Francis Bacon. Anyway, Doncram notes there was a similar situation with places in Oregon, so hopefully it can be avoided in future. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not add redirects to the navigation template. I converted the redirect pages to stubs after they were nominated for deletion, then added the stubs to the template. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, the items were on the navigation template and were showing as redlinks. wp:REDLINKS help Wikipedia grow. Using a navigation template essentially as a worklist of articles to be created is commonly done, and creating redirects changes them to bluelinks and confounds that. I don't know what area "VA" is, but I know this was done all the time in wp:SHIPS like to have a template for each class of battleship, and there are navigation templates in wp:NRHP in some U.S. states for all the NRHP listings in a county (which is just like the list-articles of NRHP places do). A huge problem was created years ago by one editor creating redirects for NRHP topics to existing nearby town topics in one state, and it changed my Wikipedia career as I tried to deal with that editor and others butted in. Including that I took on the task of creating big RFDs to address batches of the redirects that they created, which was a big pain but addressed a lot of it over time. --doncram 23:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Here, I wasn't aware that the redirects were created back in March, which seems to be confirmed by several that I've checked. I don't know about other aspects of this whole discussion, but like AB suggests this aspect doesn't seem appropriate for wp:ANI, or at least no one should be harangued too much about it, and AB has heard enough.

But anyhow, in order to do something for Ceoil and perhaps to accomplish some resolution here, can I suggest that the existing redirects confounding the Bacon template be deleted. These redirects are, it seems to me, about 40 in number, which I find from "what links here" on Francis Bacon and clicking on the external tool provided by editor Dispenser for just looking at inbound redirects, i.e. at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=Francis_Bacon_(artist). These are specifically:

1. After Muybridge - Study of the Human Figure in Motion - Woman Emptying a Bowl of Water
2. Blood on the Floor (Painting)
3. Carcase of Meat and Bird of Prey
4. Diptych (Human Body)
5. Dog (Bacon 1952)
6. Double Portrait of Lucian Freud and Frank Auerbach
7. Female Nude Standing in a Doorway
8. Figure Study I
9. In Memory of George Dyer
10. Lying Figure
11. Lying Figure with Hypodermic Syringe
12. Portrait of Lucian Freud (on Orange Couch)
13. Portrait of Michel Leris, 1976
14. Portrait of Michel Leris, 1978
15. Seated Figure (1973)
16. Self-portrait (Bacon, 1972)
17. Self-portrait (Bacon, 1973)
18. Sleeping Figure (Bacon, 1974)
19. Sphinx: Portrait of Muriel Blecher
20. Study for a Portrait (Isabel Rawsthorn)
21. Study for Head of George Dyer
22. Study for the Nurse in the film Battleship Potemkin
23. Study for Three Heads
24. Study from Innocent X
25. Study from the Human Body
26. Three Figures and Portrait
27. Three Studies for a Portrait of George Dyer
28. Three Studies for a Portrait of John Edwards (1980)
29. Three Studies for a Portrait of Lucian Freud
30. Three Studies for a Portrait of Peter Beard
31. Three Studies for a Self Portrait (1973)
32. Three Studies for a Self Portrait (Bacon 1974)
33. Three Studies for a Self Portrait (Bacon 1976)
34. Three Studies for a Self Portrait (Bacon 1979)
35. Three Studies for the Head of Isabel Rawsthorn
36. Three Studies from the Human Head
37. Three Studies of Henrietta Moraes laughing
38. Three Studies of Muriel Belcher
39. Triptych 1976
40. Triptych inspired by T.S Elliot's 'Sweeney Agonistes'
41. Two Figures (Bacon)
42. Two Figures Lying on a bed with Attendants
43. Two Seated Figures

I think that deleting those would be helpful, and I ask that someone just do that. Consider this a fast RFD. Or if someone would open a formal RFD about this, and link to that, that would be great. I would do that but if I recall correctly it is quite hard to do, and requires notices to be posted at every page involved, while there is plenty of attention paid here already. If it turns out that one of these redirects is needed after all, for some reason, it can easily be restored. About the stubs that were created, I am not sure which they are, and I think removing them to Draft space is more objectionable to AB as far as I can tell, so right now I would just drop that, I guess. Could someone take care of those redirects? --doncram 23:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

But of course probably no administrator will do anything, because this is wp:ANI is my brief understanding, and I have gone ahead an opened a cumbersome and slow wp:RFD request at the aptly named section: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 10#Blood on the Floor (Painting). If, contrary to my expectation, someone would just go ahead, that would be great, and the RFD will then be closed. I dunno, maybe having an RFD is helpful for participants to really grok what is bad about redirects wiping out good redlinks. --doncram 01:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I voted to keep the redirects because I believe they serve a purpose, but I'm fine if others feel they must be deleted as some sort of resolution. I cast my vote before reading doncram's comments above, and after seeing this diff by an IP editor in my watchlist. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Another Believer, it would help if you would make clear in the deletion discussion that you're fine with having them deleted if others believe that would be a resolution. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Just passing by — it sounds to me like a technical solution could be helpful here: what if links in navigation templates that go to redirects were brown (like halfway between blue and red, or something)? —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Goldenshimmer:, I like that idea: the Wayback Machine just recently started coloring links on whether they go to pages or redirects to other pages. Wikipedia could do something similar in its nav templates. Also I'd support a special link color for ill links in navigation templates (meaning if a topic has an article in another language Wikipedia, it gets a light blue link or something) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Several violations

1) By HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

a) WP:CIV violation. [16], [17] Take your disruptive editing to the Russian Wikipedia as you did earlier;

one of the many reasons you can't call Qizilbash a 'Turkic group', which is only seen in the Russian/Azeri Wikipedia where no one is there to stop your historical revionistic edits

b) User refuses to discuss the problem. See diffs above. Not even gonna argument with you, since it is simply a fact

c) WP:WAR

[18] edit by user

[19] revert by me

[20] revert of revert by user

2) By Mazandar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:WAR

[21] deletion of consensus information

[22] revert

[23] revert of revert

John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Admins, you might wanna take a look at John Francis Templeson edits, as he is no saint himself (especially when it comes to reverting). I would love to go into details, but I have no time to do so atm. The reason I didn't want to discuss in depths with him, is because he is very hard to discuss with, which can be seen in the last 4 (!) sections of this page [24]. I am just one of the few users who revert his unconstructive edits, which he then takes to the Russian Wikipedia instead. Not to mention at most times he ignores other reliable sources and favour those he likes the most. So yes, it is indeed disruptive editing. Btw [25]. Also, I am pretty sure you can't report someone for something that happened back in February 2017? Not to mention that I made those reverts because he was making falsified information by hiding it behind a source that stated something else, which is against the rules.--HistoryofIran (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Every Wikipedist has his point of view. If you think that my point of view is wrong, you must discuss, not just ignore arguments and violate Wikipedia rules.

If you think that you can violate rules just because I have not much time, you are wrong. Btw I have already informed administrator James Watson in February and in April and he advised me to go here, what I did.

Dear colleagues, please take a look on user's comment. Again user blames me in disruptive editing, making falsification and violations without any concrete proof and diff. It's also rude form of WP:CIV violation, and I demand sanctions for this user. John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I know nothing about this particular issue, but John Francis Templeson, you appear to be under a serious misapprehension about what Wikipedia is and how it works. We don't ask every editor to given their point of view and then discuss which POV to take; we neutrally summarise what the available sources say, giving due weight to each viewpoint (in the case of some fringe views, "due weight" is "no weight"). If you're looking for somewhere that will consistently operate on the basis of "teach the controversy", Wikipedia is probably not the place for you. ‑ Iridescent 19:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I edit Wikipedia in two languages more than year and know what is Wikipedia, dear colleague. You, as experienced user, must know that in some topics there can be different points of view for the same thing, and so we have mediation, third opinion and etc to decide what is wrong and what is right. I am not vandal, support my views with reliable sources that btw ignored by user, so it's not very pleasurable when someone offers me to just leave Wikipedia just because I have a conflict with other user. Thank you. John Francis Templeson (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

John Francis Templeson; My proof is literally up there? You literally did falsification, which thus doesn't make me violate WP:CIV at all. Sure, every Wikipedist have his point of view, but there surely must be a reason when several users are reverting you, right? This is exactly what I am talking about when I am saying that is almost impossible to discuss with this user, who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Iridescents comment pretty much says the rest. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone said, boomerang? Judging from John Francis Templeson's edits(ie. changing ethnicities to Qizilbash), he should refrain from logging out to edit war or push their POV.

IP presenting Qizilbash as an ethnicity:

• 89.147.236.245 [26]

And in this case the IP continued an edit war started by John Francis Templeson;

• 185.34.73.45 [27]

And here the IP removed referenced information;

• 89.147.242.147 [28]

Oddly, John Francis Templeson,[29] has also edited Nawab Fateh Ali Khan Kazilbash(same as the IP(s)).[30]

To me this evidence(all the IPs geolocate back to Baku) indicates that Templeson has been logging out to edit war and push their POV, in hopes of not being caught.

Perhaps it is time to start discussing an AA2 topic ban for John Francis Templeson.--Kansas Bear (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

More, John Francis Templeson also displays battleground mentality

• "So, "someone spoke Armenian in the court" as it provided in source and "the official language of the court was Armenian" as it shown by Iranian colleagues are not equal statements."

Oddly, no one else had mentioned another editor's ethnicity on that talk page, except Templeson. Not to mention, Templeson must have some issues with geography, since I am not located in Iran, nor are my ancestors from anywhere near Iran, the Middle East, Central Asia, Greece, the Balkans, Russia...

And Templeson's straw man argument(ie."the official language of the court was Armenian") is an attempt to mitigate what a reliable source states, since no one else but Templeson said that.

Sorry, I am not convinced this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. Judging from their battleground attitude, blantantly misrepresenting what a reliable source states, logging out to edit war and remove referenced information, I would say they are here to push their opinion into the encyclopedia and ignore what they do not like. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

And the hits just keep on coming;

Issues personal attack against another editor,

• "Good. I guess you have no idea how Wikipedia works.

Please note, Templeson was shown a source stating the Qizilbash were not solely Turcoman(had an open membership and consisted of many ethnicities) and ignored it, twice! A clear case of refusing the get the point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please, not that this page is for incident discussing and reporting, not for discussing contibutions of each other. Also, please, note that such subjective description of other user's contributions without diffs that show concrete violations by user is also WP:CIV (ill-considered accusations of impropriety) and WP:NPA (Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence) violation, so I am asking administrator to check your discussing style too. About Iranian colleagues. You can see in talk page that I have already admitted my fault and I don't repeat it. So it's my sole violation. But when it comes to HistoryofIran, his violations are regular and I can't contribute Wikipedia with such behaviour of user. Btw, HistoryofIran also had made a hint on my ethnicity (not tom mention, it was made far more rudely) here: Not to mention his name = // = his edits. How can someone be called 'John Francis Templeson' and edit Turkic-related articles John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

And the hints just keep on coming. Here we see violation of Blocks should not be used in retaliation against users

Issues personal attack against another editor. Another unsubstantiated accusation against me. Please have a look on Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? and explain me in which paragraph you will attribute this "personal attack". Above you can see the comment of Iridescent of the same kind.

Please note, Templeson was shown a source stating the Qizilbash were not solely Turcoman. Yes I was shown and I got it. And because of this I added to Qizilbash article both of the views — view of scholars that consider Qizilbash as solely Turcoman and view of scholars that do not. [31] But HistoryofIran deleted five (!) reliable sources that was added by me. [32] This is WP:NPV violation (admins, please consider it too).This comment is not finished yet, will add smth later John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

These are incidents, clearly and concisely linked.

• "WP:NPA (Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence) violation, so I am asking administrator to check your discussing style too."

LOL. Comments like that, "I can just smile".

Everything stated has a link. I welcome an Administrator, or would you prefer I notify one? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

As soon as I will answer to your ill-founded accusation, you can notify administrator. John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated blame for second time.

Just note that my first edit dates to March 2016 from anonymous in Russian Wikipedia. I joined Wikipedia in June, my first edit in English Wikipedia was made in October 2016, so I had already account when I joined English Wikipedia. If you think that all users from Baku are solely me, I can just smile. Btw, there is a rule in Wikipedia that prohibits identify Qizilbash as ethnicity? Do you know that there is still ethnicity with this name in Afghanistan?

About Isgander Beg Munshi. Yes, some sources identify him as Persian, but in this case it means either political meaning (citizen of Persia) or cultural meaning (his works were written in Persian language), but definitely not ethnic meaning for person who belonged to Turkoman Turkic tribe. And I supported my point of view with sources that show Munshi's Turkoman or Azeri origin. John Francis Templeson (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I was actually hinting to possible sockpuppetry, I like how you didn't link where I actually wrote this, which was in the Sockpuppet investigations [33]. In fact, it seems you're the one who is fond of focusing on someone's ethnicity [34]. Anyways, boomerang indeed. Not even gonna comment on the Iskandar Beg Munshi issue again, the admins can quite clearly see who is right just by looking at your edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

For the Admins that I have notified: John Francis Templeson was notified of AA2 sanction on 7 February 2017. EdJohnston specifically mentions Templeson's removal of references and referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

庄心勖 on Weapons of the Vietnam War and elsewhere

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.

---

@庄心勖: (possibly Zhuang Xinxu) has been making persistent[35] additions[36] of unsourced content[37] across multiple articles, mainly focusing on Weapons of the Vietnam War and including changing many individual weapon articles to include usage in that conflict. No sources or edit summaries used in any edit. Some of these changes have been to include impossible weapons, such as an aircraft just entering service now[38]. User has been persisting since starting as an IP on 12 April 2017 [39] and has been approached and/or warned multiple times by various editors. User immediately returned to this behavior after previous 36-hour block by @Materialscientist:. Previous report at WP:AIV declined without comment. A previous page protection on Weapons of the Vietnam War only seems to have encouraged this user to create and account and broaden their targets to include adding "Vietnam War" as a conflict to infoboxes to article such as Panzerschreck[40], Madsen machine gun[41], and M22 Locust[42], none of which are supported by sources and all of which are extraordinary claims. Reverting this user's edits has taken efforts from @Anmccaff:, @BilCat:, and @ScrapIronIV:, among others. There has been no interaction from this user except to return to making these edits; no edit summaries, no talk page usage, no user talk replies, etc. A longer block may be necessary at this point. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

Am I off-base here? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't help that most of the Weapons of the Vietnam War page is uncited and there seems to be a lot of dubious stuff on the page event before 庄心勖 started editing the page. Some of their edits are clearly vandalism, so some sort of block may be in order - at least until the editor gives some sort of explanation.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2017 (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:Arredondo ales

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:Arredondo ales/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Arredondo ales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continued re-adding of non-free logos to User:Arredondo ales/sandbox. Logos have been removed three times before per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free files, but have been re-added each time. This is a new user so it's understandable that they are not familiar with relevant policy and attempts at explaining the issue have been made in relevant edit sums and at User talk:Arredondo ales#Non-free image use. However, based upon User talk:Marchjuly#Arredondo ales's Sandbox, the other editor does not seem convinced.

• Diffs of image removal: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Note: The first two removals were done in two stages each: 1st removal (diffs 1 and 2) and 2nd removal (diffs 3 and 4))
• Diffs of reverts: 6, 7 and 8
• Diffs of attempts at explanation: 9, 10 and 11
• Diff of notification of this ANI discussion: 12

I am not asking for a WP:BLOCK per se and certainly do not want to WP:BITE a new editor. Perhaps, an administrator can take a look at this and try and explain that non-free content is simply not allowed in the user namespace and also perhaps explain WP:UP#OWN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2017 (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.

Soapboxing in garment industry

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.

---

Monxogendermigrationclass is using this article as a WP:SOAPBOX ([43]). I am at 3RR-limits, opened a discussion on the article-TP (no response), addressed the user at their TP (no response). It's 3AM over here, I'm tired and I'd like some extra eyes on the article, just to make sure I'm not being paranoid. Kleuske (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thought I'd just mention that the editor has responded on your talk page. Blackmane (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... I just saw that. Responded there. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2017 (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 on User 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.

---

As seen here User is probably just venting, but rules is rules. Scr★pIron^IV 16:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• User warned, user talk watchlisted. I doubt the veracity of this particular threat. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • User blocked for continued disruption as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2017 (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.

Continued disruption by Deciduous Maple

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.

---

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

Deciduous Maple tried to sneak an edit under the radar here. In response to a previous ANI post (archived), this user was previously warned by NeilN on their user talk page about editing on White supremacy and trying to remove "racist" from the lead. See this talk page section for more context. Their disruption apparently is continuing. They were warned a block would result if the behavior continued. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary here says a lot and now we've blown straight through 3RR. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy indef block for WP:NOTHERE. I was just writing the same report myself. The disruptive/problematic behavior here, from 2014-2015 and then again in 2017, makes up 100% of the user's edits. A look at the user's talk page shows repeated warnings, all of which have been disregarded, from Loriendrew, Acroterion, Grayfell, Volunteer Marek, EvergreenFir, ChiveFungi (who identified the off-wiki canvassing), and NeilN (who issued a strong final warning last time). All of these entreaties have been disregarded. User has just blown through 3RR just now as well. Detailed evidence is in box below — let's please get this done. Neutrality^talk 07:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Details of Deciduous Maple disruption.

User:Deciduous Maple has been at ANI in the not-distant past - Archive 948 for off-wiki recruiting/canvassing (trying to recruit editors to change the lead section on the white supremacy article), edit warring, and tendentiously editing. This user registered in 2014 and appears sporadically. A review of the user's contributions shows that all almost all of his edits are either: disruptive edit-warring, against longstanding consensus, at the lead sentence of the white supremacy article (a fixation of his) in 2014, 2015, and 2017, with deceptive edit summaries, and marking non-minor edits as minor. diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7, diff 8, diff 9, diff 10, diff 11, diff 12, diff 13 The user acknowledges the consensus, but disregards it, basically on the idea that everyone else is wrong. fringe-promotional editing (i.e., at diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). This user does not edit outside these topics. His user page proclaims that "I specialize in the removal of subtle (or not so subtle) political and emotional bias from articles" which I think is a safe sign, in conjunction with the continuously bad editing behavior, that he is not here to build an encyclopedia.

"Speedy indef block..." Perhaps when someone makes a worthwhile argument about why "racist" should be in the lede. Deciduous Maple (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 07:42, 17 May 2017 (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.

Un-salting a title

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 some kind soul take care of Talk:Jordan Levin (media executive)#Requested move 9 May 2017?Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz:--Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:51, 17 May 2017 (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 disruptive newbie..

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

---

Can someone look at Human Rights Foundation.First started off by trying to speedy-delete Human Rights Foundation and then opening move requests to move the article to different names(See Talk:Human Rights Foundation.)Also, see the discussions/interactions at User talk:Necrothesp.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Why haven't they been made to change their name for a start? Promotional much? Share use, much? And this, whilst not yet a legal threat, is certainly intended as a threat and to have a chilling effect. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:--Frankly,I feel an indef is the way to go.Going by his edits and an apparent liking for hastily templating other users(has already templated me twice!) , chances are one in a million--he will turn up into a productive contributor.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

And this is borderline trolling!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

As, indeed, is this :) WP:BATTLEGROUND, anyone? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Aaaand- many thanks as ever to User:DESiegel. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel:--Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:53, 17 May 2017 (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 reinstating PROD tag

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.

---

Vedat yenerer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

State-sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has placed a Proposed deletion tag on State-sponsored terrorism, even though it was already contested on the talk page. After I contested it by removing the PROD tag, he reinstated it, with an edit summary like "who gave you the right?" Funnily enough, the user thanked me for removing the PROD tag. It is a pretty new user, but a rather pushy one it seems. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the reinstated PROD - we'll see if the messages you left them make a difference. I don't think any further action is going to be required here -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The user has started an AfD on the article's talk page. That was probably the right thing to do, although it's in the wrong place and the rationale is still weak. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector It has been pointed out that the user shares a name with the Vedat Yenerer, a Turkish journalist who was tried by the regime, which may be a violation of WP:REALNAME. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 23:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No it is definitely a violation of REALNAME, and we need to squash it before it gets picked up, especially because it seems likely to get picked up in a non-English language, and missed by most everyone if it does. TimothyJosephWood 23:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Username blocked. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC).

My apologies for the indecisive statement, I am pretty poor at the whole UAA thing. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries. It doesn't come up much, but when it does, it has about a 10% chance of ending up on the evening news, and that's no bueno. TimothyJosephWood 00:35, 17 May 2017 (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 Somajeeste canvassing

The Isaaq genocide article has been nominated for deletion. The nominator Somajeeste canvassed editor Soupforone [44] to join the discussion. Much of this new deletion nomination has been lifted from a previous attempt at deleting the article, in which Soupforone clearly stated their position in support of its deletion (worthy of noting is that even in that previous discussion, Soupforone has been canvassed as per [45], [46]). Please note that Somajeeste only informed Soupforone about this AfD nomination and no one else, they clearly knew of Soupforone's position as they based this new nomination on the previous nomination, including much of the wording and links. Soupforone clearly stated in the previous discussion their support for deletion. Somajeeste (the nominator) neglected to inform any other editors about this, either those who have made substantial edits to the topic or other editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic, they only informed an editor they knew would vote to delete, this strongly points to this being an attempt to WP:VOTESTACK. They have made a selective notification to an editor who has a predetermined opinion to solicit their support. Furthermore, the AfD nomination has votes to delete from one IP editor [47] and one editor has who registered just today, half an hour before posting in support of deletion [48] which points to possible WP:STEALTH canvassing or even WP:SOCKING.

Additional information: This AfD nomination is the most recent in a series of disruptive editing by Somajeeste. They are rehashing the exact same rational (and sources, the language is identical) of a failed past AfD nomination link. Some examples of disruptive editing, removal of content and vandalism include [49], [50], [51] and [52]. Also retaliatory SPI filing link, edit-warring reports that end up with them getting WP:BOOMERANG blocked [53], their constant edit warring despite clear warning link, the list is long. Kzl55 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

False,Please note this is an editor with clear history of disruptive editing. This is the last in a series of unsubstantiated accusations of harassment against me, he was reported yesterday by [54] by sucketpubeting and still i believe he is one behind these please look these fake suspiciously keep arguing accounts [55] and [56] Dervish state [57]

[58] , Warsangali Sultanate [59] [60] and Somali language:[61] [62] and Somali Democratic Republic [63] and Adal [64] Compared to Kzl55: [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] They are following the same pattern of being constant edit waring ,on five different articles all pages related to an old sockpuppet farm seems highly suspicious. They are also engaging in similar forms of disruptive editing to Somali related pages.[70]Somajeeste (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I've already noted in the AfD discussion that some of the contributions on both the delete and keep sides seem rather suspicious. I am also reminded of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Middayexpress's external canvassing, so am pinging TomStar81, who did some work to try to identify possible socks in response to that incident. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

If Somajeeste erred, it's in forgetting to notify the other parties in the previous deletion discussion as WP:APPNOTE recommends. It's certainly not in notifying me since I was also a party there per that policy. Soupforone (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You were canvassed in the previous discussion also [71], [72], and voted to delete. Somajeeste clearly violated WP:CANVASS when he singled you out to notify of this AfD nomination, and you voted exactly how you voted last time.Kzl55 (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Kzl55 you are the one who is being inexplicably picked on by edit warring long-term admin editors.[73] [74] Sure, is shows how you keep pushing your Somaliland POV,bu it also shows about your comments above that you know nothing about Wikipedia's processes, i did notify other parties involved by WP:APPNOTE recommends.Somajeeste (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide links to the edits where you notified other parties, Somajeeste? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry to clarify things as other party i am talking about this guy kz55 was notified right after the nomination, so i go through the talk page and i found Only Soupforone wasn't notified ( as he was involved in the first place) and i did so.Somajeeste (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

If you look back through Talk:Isaaq genocide#AfD discussion (it's an unnecessarily long discussion), you'll see that there were other contributors, Somajeeste, yet you only notified Soupforone. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Good faith editor fails to communicate (again)

BT101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps creating Canada-road articles of dubious notability, in spite of them being prodded/AfDed every time. Last time, they got a block for failing to communicate, but they do not seem to have understood the memo. If someone manages to make them discuss the issue, that would be great, but otherwise, WP:CIR. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 23:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC) (Not watchlisting, please ping if further info is needed.)

@Tigraan: BT101 hasn't edited since 11 May. I took N216 to AfD but withdrew it as does have a strong claim to notability after all. Other than just letting various articles that are in the deletion procedures run their course, I wouldn't do anything else just yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JamesBolivar

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.

---

JamesBolivar (talk · contribs), who has already been blocked recently for BLP violations, is continuing to create BLPs without any sources [75] [76] as well as a range of other unhelpful & disruptive editing - e.g. adding unnecessary TBA lines to articles [77] , continuing to violate WP:NOTUSA[78]. (these just a couple of examples but the pattern of editing is troubling). Requesting a second temporary block. Past attempts to engage with the user & encourage improved editing have been fruitless --- PageantUpdater (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Support block: Of what PageantUpdater said before, things have been pointless as far as what JamesBolivar has been doing so far. You try to give 'em enough WP:ROPE, but people can break their promises. It could be recommended to give JamesBolivar a block longer than before, maybe indefinite. Slasher405 (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Is someone able to take a look at this? It's been two days and the behaviour is continuing. I'd really like to see some preventative action. [79] [80] --- PageantUpdater (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Admin attention required: For five days straight, this discussion has been posted without any sign of activity from any admins. Wonder what happened? Slasher405 (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Support block per report, in an attempt to get admin attention- not really sure why none of the admins want to handle this? jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a week block for repeated BLP violations and unsourced edits. This is pretty much their last chance I would say. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2017 (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.

47.137.191.83

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 apparently static IP has been blocked before for trolling, but is still trolling away, portraying white people on a par with oppressed minorities, calling the ADL "anti-white", repeating ridiculous politicized talking points and defending white nationalism. Can an admin please block this editor (again)? This is as clear a case of WP:NOTHERE as it gets. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Citing material that took place before the block, yet ignoring contributions since then? The above individual is far from being impartial. I suggest that anyone reviewing the history of this IP take the out of context "evidence" supplied by the user that started this review into consideration.47.137.191.83 (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Might want to remove talk page access as well. He's filed 3 rant-filled unblock requests. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Already did yesterday. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2017 (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 resolved?

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

---

I noticed the IP user 60.243.170.61 post a message to their user talk page [81] in which they claim to be the grandchild of Tripuraneni Maharadhi and state that they have some sort of grievance with edits to the page(though I'm not sure what they are) and go on to threaten "I dont mind lodging a cyber crime case on you for trying to vandalise my Grandfather's page.". When I pointed out that it could be considered a legal threat and they should retract it, they then edited their prior comment to state "I dont mind making it an issue for trying to vandalise my Grandfather's page."(emphasis mine) I posted again to state that probably wasn't enough, and they then removed that line altogether in the next edit.

My question is does the removal of the line resolve the legal threat issue, or do they expressly need to retract it, making a statement doing so? Thank you 331dot (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I would add that they also are demanding to know the identity of those editing the page(comment is still on their user talk) 331dot (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything on their talk page now which could be considered a legal threat. I've left them a note about various other things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your knowledge. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by AbeNaz

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.

---

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

AbeNaz made a legal threat on their user talk page ([82]) regarding the incessant recreation of Forward Racism. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Beat me to it, as I just gave them a warning for this. I'm not sure if this is directed to anyone regarding Wikipedia, or that they plan to "file a suit" on this concept of theirs. Regardless of that, I'm under the opinion that they are WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

They did revert the threat here: [83]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Thank you for addressing the issue with the user. I agree that, currently, they appear to be NOTHERE. The page was salted, though, I wonder what they'll do now. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2017 (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.

Incorrect page title

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 page here has an incorrect title: St. Petersburg is spelled incorrectly. I'm not sure how one goes about fixing that, maybe it's an administrator job, or maybe it requires a merge with a correctly titled page, so I thought I would post it here for someone to take a look at. Cheers, Mramoeba (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Mramoeba, article moved and redirect deletion requested. You can move pages yourself by clicking on "more" and then "move". Then you just have to type in the new page name of the article click before clicking "move page". Then just request an R3 deletion of the old page. Make sure to move article talk with the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Aha, once you know, it's easy :D Thanks. Mramoeba (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2017 (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:Cecil B Pimento

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:Cecil B Pimento, a new user, is starting out their Wikipedia career with a series of abusive edits and edit comments. [84] [85] From the pattern of editing it appears to be the same person that is using the IP 76.79.205.162 [86] - I would request both be blocked. Artw (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced they are the same person. the IP isn't being nearly as nasty as the account. (which has been blocked) From what I'm seeing in the context of these conversations, there may have been some off-wiki canvassing on reddit that drew both uses to the same area. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cecil B Pimento is hardly a new user, in fact: their very first edit after creating blank userpages for themselves was a warning template.[87] Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. I'm not sure about the IP. All right, I fully expect to get yet another edit conflict. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC).

Yeah, that was obviously a good block. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

...aaaaaaaaand talk page access revoked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by Swiftsave

• Swiftsave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A00:23C4:D687:F700:EC50:D463:EFE3:9EB7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.174.17.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.138.185.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Swiftsave was blocked for copyright violations on 23 April following a discussion here, but continues to edit as an IP. I've opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swiftsave (well, Twinkle opened it for me, I thought it would just be reported as vandalism, live and learn). Since it's only IP block evasion (that I'm aware of), I don't expect much of a result there, so brought it here. Rangeblock? Nuke edits? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: it's awkward to deal with a report that's been opened in two places at once. It's fine to report this at SPI, and it leaves a better record of admin actions related to the case. Anyway, I blocked all the IPs and closed the SPI case. You can revert all the edits made by the IPs if you want. Range blocks are tricky. You can read about them in User:NinjaRobotPirate/IP editors, but the short version is that I can range block some of the IP addresses but not others. You'll have to keep an eye out for more 86.xxx IP editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, point taken, NinjaRobotPirate, thanks for dealing with that for now. As for undoing the edits, I'm certainly not going to do that manually. Don't admins have a "nuke edits" button or mass rollback script or something? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

106 vandal edits in the dust bin. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it looks like that resolves the issue. But, no, I don't think there's any built-in functionality for mass-rollback. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not as such, NinjaRobotPirate, but I recommend admins and experienced users to import User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js. As Writ Keeper says, use with caution, but it's very useful in a situation like this. Note that you don't need to be an admin for it — just cautious, you know. I'm not familiar with the other mass rollback script, that Justlettersandnumbers linked to above. Bishonen | talk 14:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC).

I had the original still installed but have made the switch. Justlettersandnumbers, Special:Nuke is a mass deletion tool but it is deletes whole pages and not individual edits. I've closed the SPI case related to this thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• 86.156.55.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Reported at SPI and nuked edits. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 01:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Berean Hunter, that was of course what I was thinking of. Thanks, Bishonen, I tried it but failed … is it possible that I'd need the rollbacker right in order to benefit from that script? Thanks to L3X1 and NinjaRobotPirate for coping with stuff. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That I don't know, Justlettersandnumbers. You could ask Writ Keeper, but maybe it's simpler if I just give you rollback. You want? Bishonen | talk 20:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC).

Thank you, yes, Bishonen. I never thought I needed it, because of Twinkle, but perhaps I do for this – I can't rely on L3X1 every time there's a clean-up to do, can I? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Done, hope it works now. If there's still a problem, you'd better ask Writ. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC).

Thank you so much! The script now shows up; next step … caution! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

James J. Lambden

Hi. James J. Lambden has been removing my comments from the talk page of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The first edit could, in some sort of world, be construed as a mistake (despite being made 15 hours later, it's conceivably an edit conflict of some kind) but they explain on their talk page that they intended to remove my comment, as well as removing it a second time here. I've already mentioned the relevant policies to them, and it's such an egregious breach of civility that I see no other place to turn with an editor who would act in such a manner than here.

Removing other peoples comments from article talk pages because you don't like them: Sort of a no-no, right? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The 2nd diff is a reversion of an edit which removed my comment, ironically with the edit summary: Please do not remove other editor's comments. If the editor had simply restored his own comment I would not have reverted. Note that this editor's last participation on the talk page was over a year ago. They apparently followed me there from an unrelated discussion. I have to step out but I've provided the relevant information and I'm fine with admins judging this complaint on its merits. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Last thought: the situation as I see it:

• Should PeterTheFourth have followed me to the article's talk page to make a comment wholly unrelated to article improvement? No
• Should I have removed that comment? No
• Should he have removed my comment with his reversion? No
• Should I have removed his in reverting that reversion? Again, no.

Bad behavior all around and I acknowledge my own. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: It's good that you claim reticence now, but why not the first time you were informed of talk page policies? You removed that notification. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This is silly. I was unaware striking others comments (even on your own talk page) was discouraged. The editor informed me, I read the guideline and if you click "next edit" in the diff you linked you'll see I removed the strikeout with the edit summary "noted", indicating to the editor I had read and resolved her complaint. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The defense/argument, if I understand correctly, is that "after I inappropriately removed your comment, you didn't do enough work after reverting me to restore the appropriate portion of that diff, so I just removed your comment again in order to re-add my other comments". That's pretty poor justification. No comment on the context aside from to say that it's typically pretty hard to argue hounding (following) when someone has edited the page before, since it's likely on their watchlist. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Contextual Note: James J. Lambden has been warned about stalking by Volunteer Marek on May 2 and again on May 11. JJL maintains a sandbox cataloguing AE sanctions made by pro- / anti-Clinton and pro- / anti-Trump editors (these are his descriptors) that he admits doesn't record successful appeals. He has suggested that a first edit to the article Illegal immigration to the United States was a WP:TAGTEAM issue when reverting, in what was his first edit to the article. He has been involved in an edit war [88] [89] [90] with VM at the Southern Poverty Law Center article, where the talk page discussion is not exactly a model of mutually respectful collaboration, and where a request for full protection was recently declined. I think that JJL's recent editing suggests problematic behaviours beyond removing edits from article talk pages, including edit warring with VM (whose actions may also need scrutiny). EdChem (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what your complaint is other than I've been harassed and caught in edit wars with a known edit warrior. I believe I've handled the harassment appropriately, requesting diffs and suggesting the editor confine his complaints to noticeboards rather than article talk pages.

To take one of your issues: I'm trying to collect sanction data to analyze. Since the records are punitive (sanction) appeals don't easily fit into the model. Would I record an appeal as separate entry, or amend the sanction entry as time between sanction and successful appeal? I don't record time formally so the latter is not an option. That's certainly a deficiency of the data model but you present here as a sort of behavioral problem. I don't see it.

Or to take another, the SPLC page. Srich32977 has made steady and objective improvements, some of which I disagree with but several I've thanked him for. Then you have another editor who swoops in, makes big changes without discussion and if you revert them he reverts you right back! I don't know how best to handle that but allowing any editor to dictate an article without bothering to establish consensus seems at odds with policy.

If you outline specific concerns I can address them. Thus far we have the complaint presented, that I removed another editor's comment. I think I've outlined the timeline in that case clearly and objectively above.

I believe the customary warning is that when you report another editor your own behavior may be scrutinized. The editor who reported me for removing his comment also removed my comment in that same series of diffs. Especially because of that I wouldn't think to report him but he's reported me. And though I mentioned it in my initial reply no one's addressed it except Rhododendrites, to dismiss it as irrelevant.

It is odd that a complaint for behavior which the complainer himself exhibited, which has been resolved (the comment was restored), and which I've agreed was inappropriate, would generate so much drama. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

There are two matters involved here. One is the editing of other editor's comments. This is a no-no unless WP:PA is involved. (And given the history of the SPLC article I can see how editors get rankled about different comments.) I've posted to JJL's talk page with a reminder about WP:TPNO, and since JJL has reviewed the guideline there should be no further concern. The second matter is the "stalking" issue. I'll commend the interested editors to look at WP:WIKIHOUNDING. – S. Rich (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment. Your description is straightforward and offers a simple resolution but here appears to be an effort to turn this into something wholly unrelated to removing a single editor's talk page comment, my first violation of policy in 2 years of editing (excluding an unintentional 3RR violation.) James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup, User:James J. Lambden does maintains essentially a "blacklist" of users he feels should be sanctioned and whom he follows around. His standard MO is to wait for me (I'm guessing that when he refers to somebody as "known edit warrior" - a personal attack - he's talking about me, since I'm the one he stalks) to get into a disagreement with someone else. He then jumps in, supporting whoever the editor on the other side of the argument is, and on many occasions, starts reverting in what looks like (to me) an attempt to get me to violate 3RR so he can report it (no luck there so far) or bring it up in some WP:AE thread (where he always pops up). He is also convinced that User:My Very Best Wishes is "tag teaming" with me (he's not - I have no communication with that person) so his stalking spills over onto MVBW as well. Here are several articles which he had never shown much interest in until I got involved:

• Illegal immigration to the United States - this is a revert of my edit [91]. Lambden had never shown an interest in this article prior to this.
• Southern Poverty Law Center - this is a revert of my edit as can be easily seen. This is Lambden jumping in to edit war on the side of whoever is disagreeing with me. In this instance he had made ONE (just one) edit to the article prior to that
• Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - again, his first edit to the talk page and it just has to be to jump in and disagree with me.
• Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - this is his first edit to the article itself, and again, it is actually a revert of one of my edits [92]
• Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights - talk page of an article, again, an article he's never shown prior interest in. Just jumps in and tries to start an argument with me.
• Syrian Observatory for Human Rights - first edit to the actual article, again, a revert of me (with a particularly useless edit summary which almost screams "I'm just here to fuck with you!")
• Battle of Aleppo talk page - again an article Lambden never showed an interest in until I started questioning the usage of al-Masdar as a source, at which point he felt obligated to jump in.

Those are just the ones I can find quickly, if I had more time I could find others

Now, I'm not the only one that Lambden stalks. He also stalks User:My Very Best Wishes, User:Snooganssnoogans (for example [93] and [94] and also the Peter Navarro article) and to some extent, I think, User:NorthBySouthBaranof

Basically James J. Lambden appears to think that Wikipedia isn't sufficiently "pro-Trump" (take a look at his user page [95]). So he stalks editors he blames for this state of affairs. But he doesn't just keep to Trump-related articles (which would be sort of ok, though it still would be WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) but spills over into only tangentially related stuff like, Syria.

And I am NOT even bringing up James J. Lambden's participation in drama board discussions such as WP:AE or WP:AN, where he always reliably shows up to cast WP:ASPERSIONS and agitate for sanctions (unsuccessfully) against those he seems to have designated as his targets (hence that WP:AE blacklist he keeps).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I half-expected VM to appear. To recap:

1. The initial complaint was filed by an editor who jumped into an edit-war on the side of VM (which ended against them because consensus was against them)
2. Another editor highlights problems with my behavior, in all instances except one citing interactions with VM
3. Then VM himself

The problem with VM's examples of stalking, as I explained on my talk page, is that he has edited almost every controversial political article. It would be more surprising, given the relative age of our accounts and disparity in number of edit, if I didn't edit articles he had already edited. But in fact this interaction analysis shows just that. I count 21 articles (some relatively obscure) which he only edited after I had edited them.

As far as a "blacklist of editors", I don't think anyone has suggested that and I am certain no such thing exists. It is another false aspersion he's cast against me. (I can compile a list if that would be helpful.)

I believe this is only the 2nd complaint against me in my two years here. The first was an unintentional 3RR violation closed with no action after I self-reverted (or after another editor had reverted, I can't recall.) Given the dozens and dozens of complaints filed against VM: here, at AE, at the edit-warring noticeboard, and significant disciplinary sanctions it seems unlikely I am the cause of our interaction difficulties. I stand by my edits to articles and talk pages. They are neutral and abide by policy as best I understand it.

If this will a complaint about my interactions with VM I'd appreciate if that were filed separately or split off so I could respond appropriately and in detail, and others who have faced the similar difficulties with VM in the same articles could respond. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

" It would be more surprising, given the relative age of our accounts and disparity in number of edit, if I didn't edit articles he had already edited" - it's not just that we somehow end up editing the same articles. It's 1) The timing of when you show up, which is immediately after I get into a disagreement with someone and 2) the spill over of your "showing up" to articles, such as Syrian Observatory one, which are really outside the scope of your usual interests. And the Illegal Immigration one - come on, that's pretty obvious, there's no way you can say with a straight face that you weren't checking up my history looking for something to revert.

There's also a bunch of falsehoods in rest of your statements, which has been rehashed before, but here we go again: "Given the dozens and dozens of complaints filed against VM" - yeah, none of which led to any sanctions, and many of which led to WP:BOOMERANGs (sometimes to your buddies). Look, just cuz somebody files a report against you doesn't mean you're guilty - it's just a likely that some crazy person has taken some issue with you trying to make Wikipedia neutral. Unfortunately that's not the case with this particular complaint. " it seems unlikely I am the cause of our interaction difficulties" - you essentially show in middle of disputes and try to pour gasoline on the fire. So maybe you're not the initiator of "interaction difficulties" but you sure as hell don't make them easier. "others who have faced the similar difficulties with VM in the same articles could respond" - really? Getting the ol' gang together and getting ready to canvass'em here? You really want to go through that same old song and dance already? It's been, like, what, a week? Maybe ten days? Before the last time you joined your friends in your "Volunteer Marek won't let me push my POV in peace" ritual over at WP:AN, where it almost boomeranged on a couple of you (more precisely, it boomeranged on a couple fellas, but a few folks managed to duck it just in time).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The reply above I think highlights the root of the problem. When you make a controversial and usually significant edit without consensus many editors including myself will notice that and either revert or engage in opposing discussion. Rather than assuming your edit was inappropriate precisely because a number of editors revert you or disagree, you assume a conspiracy. There is none. Can you highlight non-controversial edit of yours which I've reverted? And further, since editing after someone else is sufficient evidence of stalking, how do you explain the 21 articles and talk pages you discovered only after I had edited them? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"Can you highlight non-controversial edit of yours which I've reverted? " - hey, that's pretty clever. Since you stalk me by always jumping into middle of a dispute to revert on behalf of the other party, I can't do that can I? Which you know of course, which is why you're trying to set this up as the standard of proof for your stalking, rather than just the, you know, usual evidence of you having followed me to articles and reverted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Again: the reasonable assumption when several editors revert a controversial edit or disagree, is that there was likely a problem with the edit. Failure to assume that suggests a significant problem. I can count on one hand the number of editors I've had difficult with – and I don't mean editors with whom I disagree on content: there are many, but we manage to edit collaboratively despite that, which has proven almost impossible in our interactions. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Not when by "several editors" you mean "James J. Lambden, who jumped in to acerbate the edit war and one other guy" like at the Illegal Immigration article. Or not when by "several editors" you mean "James J. Lambden, who jumped in to acerbate the edit war, and some sock puppets" like at the SPLC article. Or not when by "several editors" you mean "James J. Lambden, who jumped in to acerbate the edit war, and a particular and well established tag-team who goes and edits everywhere together" like at the Syria related articles (no, that last one is not a "conspiracy", it's just [[WP:DUCK] and I know you know what I'm talking about). And hey, I manage to edit collaboratively with lots and lots of people I disagree with. But those are the ones that don't do WP:STALK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

But anyway, this has gone off topic. Back to you messing around with PeterTheFourth (another one of your long time targets, no?) comments on talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Acerbate? So: when it is multiple editors they're all sockpuppets except me. Is Srich32977 who commented above one of them because he was involved in the recent edit-war? Maybe JFG is another in my sockpuppet army. How about this: can you point to a single political article where you haven't had difficulty with editors other than myself? And please stop suggesting that if you can't it is only because there's a conspiracy against you. That is not a rational assumption. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No, User:Motsebboh was a sockpuppet, which is who you jumped in to support. And sure I can name an article, recent one too, and in a contentious area too - Dismissal of James Comey. Though honestly, given the nature of the topic area I doubt that it will stay this way. Come on! If you edit in US Politics, or similar areas, you're gonna get into disagreements. These are topic areas where the sock puppets have sock puppets. And just to correct another one of your falsehoods - I've never said there was a "conspiracy" against me. This is what you think I think, apparently. Now, there are a few editors, who I'm sure coordinate off wiki to tag team in some of the articles I'm involved in, as well as to support each other on drama boards. I don't think that rises to the level of conspiracy though. That's more like business as usual on Wikipedia in contentious topic areas *cough*Armenia-Turkey-Greece-Syria*cough*. (Ok that was more like a coughing fit).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(Summoned by ping) Uh? This drama escalation over a minor misunderstanding of the TPO policy looks way overblown with coatrack attacks on J. Lambden's alleged misdeeds. For the record, I haven't edited the articles cited by VM above: Illegal immigration, SPLC or Syria stuff. For the record too, I have never "coordinated" with anyone off-wiki, despite being occasionally suspected of such atrocities by well-meaning editors. (Perhaps when several editors happen to make the same argument against a particular edit, the problem may be with that edit and not with the editors questioning it. Or perhaps I have too much faith in Occam's razor… ) Regarding Lambden's general behaviour, I see him as an opinionated, articulate and polite editor. No more opinionated or combative than VM or a myriad others who donate their free time with the goal to improve Wikipedia articles about controversial topics. Have a great day, y'all! — JFG ^talk 07:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

As much as we disagree I don't think I've ever had any "behavior issues" with your edits or if I did, I've already forgotten about them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: "Articulated and polite". Sometimes, I think people take 'good faith' a little too far into immediately assuming everybody is just the dandiest. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

VM: I have to admit, my review of the Comey article history and talk page shows that's true. I see no edit-warring, no aggressive or profane talk page comments and constructive editor interaction in general. If you repeat that behavior in articles we both edit I can assure you we will have no issues. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So you're basically saying "I will quit stalking you if you fulfill conditions X, Y, and Z, which I will be the arbiter off"? Sorry, not how this works. Just stop stalking my edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Avoiding edit-wars and aggressive and profane comments is policy, not arbitrary conditions I've imposed.

Again: reverting significant changes made without discussion or consensus to articles I have watchlisted is not stalking. If it is you'll have to explain the 21 articles and talk pages you edited only after I had edited them, especially those unrelated to politics. For example: Serial rapist, where:

• Your first edit was to revert an edit I had recently made
• and when you were reverted, another editor (who absolutely does not TAGTEAM your revert wars) shows up to make his first edit to the article to reinstate your revert?

James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I see that both editors should take a IBAN for the above statements. That's if they don't have one already. — JJBers 16:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with JJBers. This discussion about talk page edits has gone off the rails. Before Peter had opened this thread I was seeing personal comments on the talk pages and even edit summaries with personal complaints. At times I've thought about masking the comments with {{rpa}} or hats, but there's been so many of them my other frying fish would suffer. Perhaps the interacting editors might accept self-imposed 1RR restrictions along with the IBAN. – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't have experience with IBANs in practice so estimating the effect is difficult. I don't necessarily object but I'd prefer it were hashed out in a complaint involving our interactions if possible. This complaint is about my removal of a talk page comment by someone other than VM. It's hard to know whether to respond to that or the unrelated, scattershot accusations.

That ambiguity does not make for productive discussion. For example: no one has responded to my claim that PTF (who submitted this complaint ) committed the same violation he brought me here for when he removed my comment from the talk page. Is that not relevant? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

James J. Lambden acknowledges he shouldn't have done that, and now seems to understand the issue now per the latest comment on his talk page. I believe this should be closed so everyone can get back to editing. The last thing this topic area needs is more sanctions. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would not comment on anything above (tl;dr - sorry), but James J. Lambden also recently stalked my edits with personal accusations like here (edit summary). James J. Lambden, why did you do it? Can you stop it, please? This is not for the first time when you do it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: How is this in any way related to the removal of talk page comments? It seems irrelevant but I feel compelled to respond: VM's claim is that I stalked him to get to this article because I hadn't edited the article prior but I have edited a number of articles on immigration. Your first edit to the same article was to revert Natureium after VM hit 4RR. Here is the sequence:

• VM: 1, 2, 3, 4
• Then you: 1, 2, 3

Did you stalk him to the article and if not how did you find it? I only see one other article you've edited related to immigration and in it your first edit was to revert my edit. Did you stalk me to that article?

I don't know how far "off the rails" this thread should get but I have found a disturbing pattern going back several years where your first (and sometimes only) edit to many articles is effectively a 4th revert for VM after he's reached 3RR. For example:

• here (VM: 1, 2, 3)
• here (VM: 1, 2, 3)
• and here (VM: 1, 2, 3).

When I mentioned "TAGTEAM" to you I was referring to this pattern. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes this is unrelated to the issue at hand. However JJL's comments appear to have some standing - there have been accusations of tag teaming regarding you and VM in the past. I'm strongly suggesting once again that we close this issue before everyone reaches for the shovels, raincoats, and pitchforks, and move on to more productive things. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• If James J. Lambden really believes I am acting inappropriately, he must start a thread about me on appropriate noticeboard. But he already commented about this on WP:AE and end up to be wrong. So now he apparently decided to change his approach: just to follow my edits and revert them with personal accusations in edit summaries (see the diff). This should stop. However, based on his response above, James J. Lambden is going to continue. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

He seems entitled to edit that article and he's participating on the talk page. Do you have a response to his diffs? Aspersions seem to be flowing from many parties so again I suggest we drop this and do more productive things. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I am only telling that citing controversial essay WP:Tag team should not be a reason for revert. Would not you and James J. Lambden agree? My very best wishes (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it wasn't the best edit summary. We all could do better to collaborate and AGF. If you're looking for sanctions against him I would suggest AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Abusive harassment from a user

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

---

I am here to report bad behavior of the user Drmies. They have deliberately and with malicious intent, derailed discussions on wiki pages, then they have left malicious unnecessary taunting messages on my user page. Please take appropriate action against this users abusive behavior.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey#Tendentious_editing

This is the page they have attempted to derail and attempted to argue in.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Hardwarz

This is my user page where they clearly left an unnecessary and rude message, which basically outlines their behavior.

I believe that action should be taken against this user to discourage their bad behavior.

Hardwarz (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Complaint about content dispute from editor with three days' experience (not counting the 10 edits four years ago) who doesn't understand what constitutes a reliable source. EEng 04:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

tl;dr: Drmies is right, you're wrong. You need to listen to experienced editors when they're trying to educate you about our policies. A boomerang shouldn't be necessary if this is closed expeditiously with your apologies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• But guys, Drmies said not just "Blah blah," or even "blah blah blah" (which, in every case I've seen, gets at least a three-day block for the first offense), but the (pardon my language but I am just quoting) "blah blah blah blah." That kind of "malicious unnecessary taunting" and "abusive behavior" deserves a site ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

(removed copyvio link)? Notice I am not pinging anyone. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: please don't link to copyright violations on youtube, it's a violation of WP:COPYVIO / WP:ELNEVER. Fram (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• The only other time this user edited, they removed sourced content on the basis that it was written "by minority groups with a racial supremacist agenda against caucasians".[96][97] Now, they're removing sourced, carefully worded content[98][99], claiming that the news is inventing fake stories[100], accusing content creators (and Drmies) of acting in bad faith[101][102], removing others' comments[103], and, in my opinion, refusing to listen to anyone. Oh, and reporting an administrator for...disagreeing with them? It's painfully obvious that this user's personal opinions weigh a little too heavily on their editing here and that they are willing to disrupt the project in order to prevent the delivery of content in our articles. While it is encouraged to raise opposing viewpoints and concerns, one must abide by consensus, which clearly does not agree with this user. The behavior I've observed constitutes, ironically, tendentious editing, and is highly unacceptable on such a controversial article. Per WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:DE, blocking indef. Swarm ♠ 05:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang Clealry a disruptive user. —JJBers 05:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Need a quick button pushed

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.

---

Talk:William Francis Mills V - Something...something... don't ignore legal threats no matter how juvenile. TimothyJosephWood 12:41, 18 May 2017 (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 claiming control over articles

I'm having a problem trying to edit List of alumni of The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. User:Bob80q has left some very accusatory messages on my talk page where he claims that he has "managed" the article for 7 years and is "more qualified" to determine what belongs in the list because of that. He also says that "Its (sic) not up to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the world to decide who qualifies as a notable graduate of the school". The person I am trying to add (Steven Munoz) is an alumnus of the school who has recently been appointed to the White House, which seems pretty notable. Bob80q's issue with this person seems to be that the headline of the reference I am using is "ProPublica: Former Citadel cadet accused of sexual assaults gets Trump administration job". I could choose a different reference, but I don't think that Bob80q should be allowed to singlehandedly decide what gets included in the article and what doesn't. He also seems to control the main article The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute. Honestly, can people please just get a third opinion before going nuclear with ANI? EEng 22:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You think this is about content, and I think it's about conduct. Read User:Bob80q's talk page. This isn't the first time someone's had an issue with him. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)To whatever extent that there are conduct issues, I think that adding a source that raises BLP issues if others are readily available might also be seen as a conduct problem. It comes across as a roundabout way of sneaking pejorative info along with a simple confirmation of other fact. Anmccaff (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Given the fact that someone is mentioned and the only reference we have to go on is a media-report about an alleged rape, I'd say there's a WP:BLP-issue involved. That alone merits deletion on sight. Other than that, If a person does not have an article, notability is an issue. You'd need good reason (and sources) to include him. On that User:Bob80q is right. Kleuske (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I get a feeling that this one is snowballing, and the fellow shortly will be notable, and maybe not in the best kind of way. World's_Lamest_Critic, just wait a week, and all of this might not be an issue. But crystal balls aren't admissible here, so don't add it now. Anmccaff (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

==1) I have not accused him of anything, he seems to have a problem with the fact that someone dared to challenge a clearly questionable edit. 2) This person is an employee of the State Department not the White House so editor does not have his facts straight. 3) An alumnus is clearly in a better position to determine who merits being notable, editor has no connection to the school and has never edited the article before so the timing and motivation are suspicious. 4) Editor does not understand this article isn't about notorious alumni its about distinguished ones who have accomplished exceptional feats. 5) In the context of others who were Generals, Governors, Corporate CEOs, College Presidents and professional athletes a 26 year old mid level government employee who has been on the job for a few weeks is hardly notable. 6) The fact that the reference listed involved allegations of sexual abuse also raises issues of motive, objectivity and relevance; and BTW he was never charged because of lack of evidence,. Thank you Klueske for having the common sense and critical thinking skills some others apparently don't.Bob80q (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)No, unless the school in question is the London School of Notability or the Notable Academy, an alumnus is not "clearly in a better position to determine who merits being notable", as you claim. And your statement that it is "not about notorious alumni" suggests something that a look at the article also supports - that this article is being managed to avoid a neutral point of view, but rather a cherry-picked list intended to make the institution look good. None of this is to say that this particular individual should qualify. (I have deleted some accusations from your response due to BLP concerns; "it is well known among alumni" is not adequate source.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"I have not accused him of anything". Yeah, Bob80q, you did accuse me of something. On my talk page you said my edit "bears the handiwork of a VMI grad who has been vandalizing The Citadel articles for some time". Right here you say I have "never edited the article before so the timing and motivation are suspicious". But that's not the reason I started this discussion. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Obviously, this thread is not greatly filled with fans of John Mortimer and Leo McKern, nor of Teddy Roosevelt and Elihu Root. Anmccaff (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This is absurd. That list should follow the same rules as every other such list. If the person 1) is notable (defined for this purpose as "having an article in Wikipedia about them" which meets our notability criteria; and 2) attended [not graduated, just attended] the school, then they go on the list; else, not. Bob, we don't care a rat's ass about whether the alumnus is "distinguished" or "accomplished exceptional feats"; notability for Wikipedia's purposes may be accomplished by being a pioneering mass marketer, neo-Nazi leader, or international bocce ball champion. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

When the person has an article, they're de facto notable until that article ceases to exist. No article = no mention. There is some sort of guideline about this somewhere but the link escapes me, PEOPLELIST or something like that. Basically, WP:WTAF and then no-one can object, regardless of notoriety. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The guideline is WP:LISTPEOPLE. It permits a bit more flexibility. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yupper, and there are several good examples in the Citadel list. Someone who has done something maybe just shy of broad, general notability, but was the first to do so at the school, or the first at the school to do so? Yeah, that's OK for the list, even if it's otherwise WP:BLP1E.

* If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. Sensible, that. Anmccaff (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This is one for the policy/guideline pages, I think. That exceptions apply in lists such as this, ie: permitting redlinks, is exactly the issue that gives rise to situations such as this. Perhaps there is an ownership issue in this specific case but, unless people agree with that allegation, this is just a content dispute. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you see where he said "An alumnus is clearly in a better position to determine who merits being notable"? I rest my case. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to try applying the WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline to the article. We'll see what happens. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Seraphim System back to edit warring on Judaism and sexuality article

This user, Seraphim System (talk · contribs) is renewing the edit war on Judaism and sexuality,[104][105] despite a recent discussion here (archived here), his recent block and my warning on his talkpage.[106] The place for the content issue is on the talkpage, but this post is about the fact that this user prefers edit warring to discussion, despite the warnings he received for edit warring on this article in the recent past, the detailed and well-argued explanation for my revert in the edit summary, and my warning to him on his talkpage to discuss first and edit later. This editor simply refuses to take to heart the content of Template:Uw-ew. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Debresser does not own this article. This is a frivolous complaint. Last time he filed two complaints on the same day and he was not blocked even though the admins determined that he had violated 3RR and I had not. I wasn't blocked for edit warring, when it became clear his two complaints at ANI were going nowehere, someone else filed at SPI. I have always wondered if they were related. The block was imposed despite opposition from editors, and even one of our admins voiced concerns that the evidence may not have been strong enough to justify a CheckUser.

I really think this complaint needs to end in a WP:BOOMERANG for Debresser - he filed a complaint at ANI because I reverted one edit and opened an RfC? This is the third complaint he has wrongly filed against me at ANI, and there seems no other way to prevent this behavior.

Also, can the admins please ask him to stop posting on my talk page outside required notifications? He has posted twice after I have asked him to stop, insisting that I can not ban him from discussions on my talk page. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have no comments on the merits of Debresser's allegations, but I agree with Seraphim System that Debresser should not post messages on SS's Talk page unless absolutely required. I noticed this the last time and almost said something about it then.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:OWN is hardly the issue here, and the accusation is frivolous. His edit is simply inferior. But the real problem is his resorting to edit warring, which is why I reported him. This post can hardly be considered frivolous, since for that same issue of edit warring on this very same article he was reported here just very recently. The WP:BOOMERANG proposal is his regular tune, but apart from the appealing sound of the term it has no basis in the facts of the matter, and he should be warned not to turn this forum into a playing ground for displaying his knowledge of Wikipedia terminology. On his talkpage I posted in the hope that a warning would avoid an edit war, alas unsuccessfully, and I should be praised for doing so. Obviously I acknowledged his request to refrain from posting on his talkpage, and would not have done so for any other reason but the most justified (including the mandatory WP:ANI warning). Debresser (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You can't ban him from you're talk page, so it WP:BOOMERANG's back at you. Also, It was a "required notification". If not for your longtime presence it would look like a noob throwing accusations around and having a fit. Creeper Ninja (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You can absolutely request that someone refrain from leaving non-essential comments on your talk page. This request falls within the purview of user page guidelines specifically WP:NOBAN; if a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request. Debresser, I'd follow Bbb23's advice. Only here mentioning this because Creeper Ninja, who has been here a month, does not appear to be sufficiently familiar with processes and may provide mixed messages on what should be done. This isn't a formal policy, it's just good etiquette. Creeper Ninja, you're obviously not entirely new here (1st edit to an obscure template that hasn't been touched since 2013), however, this noticeboard is for complaints to be handled by admins and experienced editors. At a glance, you're nowhere near any form of "experienced". I can't stop you from posting on this noticeboard, but, please show greater care and awareness of policy, guidelines and essays before posting poorly referenced commentary. You're fitting quite well the "editing beyond one's means" category of CIR. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: I don't know if you know this, but keep the toys in the crib. Stop going to ANI for no reason. —JJBers 20:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers I am sorry you feel that an edit war by a previously warned edit warrior is "going to ANI for no reason". I am afraid, however, that your take on this issue is not normative, even a bit frivolous. In any case, I'll come back tomorrow morning, to give the opportunity for free discussion, and will see what my betters think on this subject then. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Diffs or it never happened. I can find the diff where Debresser was previous warned. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Debresser has reverted again while the RfC is still open. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• A lot of heat but little light tends to get generated by these repeated discussions on this article. Maybe we can shed a little, starting when Seraphim System returned to the article earlier today:

1. Seraphim System expands text contrasting Jewish and Christian attitudes towards sexuality to "Attitude towards sexuality" section with citations to BBC and three academic texts [107]
2. Debresser reverts accusing Seraphim System of multiple POV and sourcing errors [108]
3. Seraphim System reverts and states opening of RfC on talk page [109], which they create with multiple citations [110]
4. Debresser reverts again and drags this back to here. [111]

If there is an edit war, it is clearly started by Debresser's reverts in this instance. Seraphim System supplied sources and citations and went to the talkpage as WP:BRD asks editors to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Number 3 proves you wrong, since it answers the definition of an edit war. Please also notice that my revert was explained with a reference to several policy based reasons, which so far are echoed by most editors in the Rfc. By the way, are you familiar with WP:BRD and the rational behind it? Debresser (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, "Stupefying!" I like that one! Let's make this clear: If Seraphim's second revert is your definition of edit-warring, such a definition must apply equally to you. Not to mention the very plain sequence of four reverts on May 8/9 to 112.211.214.39's edits. So, if Seraphim is edit-warring, what are your many reverts? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be "restoring stable version in view of persistent edit warring". Debresser (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "restoring stable version" is explicitly not part of the exceptions for edit-warring. By stating you are restoring the "stable" version you are effectively admitting to the exact same behavior you accuse Seraphim System of. (I also note the edit history shows that there isn't any "stable" version to revert to.) Your POV on what should be the stable version is not relevant to behavioral inquiry. The behavior -- that is, multiple reverts without substantial discussion -- is what defines edit-warring: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. You are repeatedly overriding Seraphim System's and other editors' contributions based on your POV, and that sword cuts both ways. Create all the justifications you want for this, but unless you can demonstrate your reverts fall into one of the limited safe harbors, you have no justification for calling out others for doing the same thing you are. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No overall comment on this conflict but that's not what BRD says. Seraphim's edit was bold, then reverted at which point they are supposed to take it to the talk page, not revert back to their bold edit and then take it to the talk page. Capeo (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point. Reverting and going to the talk page near-simultaneously is obviously not optimal and not in strictest compliance with that essay. Seraphim System may deserve a minnowing for it. It is better than double-reverting and then crying "edit war" and shuffling off to ANI. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely, it would seem to me Seraphim is clearly in the wrong here. They were reverted, which means their edit didn't have consensus, yet they reverted back and instantly, and pointedly, started an RFC then above claim that Debresser reverted during an RFC. Just because you start an RFC doesn't mean your version, against consensus, gets to stay there. That's silly. Everyone in a content dispute would do that then. This is also a good example where edit warring policy is easily gamed. The person reverting a non-consensus edit will hit three reverts first depending on what's considered the first revert. Capeo (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't touched it since then. Debresser's second revert was reverted by another editor and restored by a fourth editor. It doesnt seem right for me to push my own edit through while the RfC is open. An accusation that I am trying to "game" something is unwarranted here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And there is a good chance that the only reason you "haven't touched it since" is because of this report. There can be no doubt that your insistence on your change to the previous version was by all criteria the start of an edit war. Debresser (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Apologies to everyone, but my personal policy with personal attacks is that I will not reply directly to editors who make personal attacks, even when admins refuse to warn or sanction them. It is still possible for us to work on the same articles and participate in the same RfCs but Debresser, I don't see any reason for us to interact directly here, or anywhere else. Regardless of what the admins do or do not do, I am not going to have discussions with an editor who is routinely uncivil, disruptive and who insults me. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"uncivil"? "disruptive" "insults me"? If you view my reverts of your edit warring as "disruptive", that is simply funny and raises WP:COMPETENCE questions. I don't think I was ever uncivil, all the more so "insulting" to you. I always posted fair warnings, and reverted with explanatory edit summaries. If you don't want to discuss, please leave this project, because Wikipedia is about community editing, and such an approach can not be tolerated per WP:NOTHERE. Debresser (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a free tip: when you argue that you aren't being uncivil and insulting to SS, you probably shouldn't frame your argument in a manner that is uncivil and insulting to SS. Just a thought. Lepricavark (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding Debresser; I count 17 reverts on the article for the past two weeks. 10 of which belong to Debresser. None of which meet 3RRNO. Of these 10 reverts, one series of reverts is an explicit breach of 3RR and one meets the exact boundary of 3RR. Breach; 21:11, May 1, 09:48, May 2, 17:01, May 2 (Here you even had the gaul to give a warning to someone else for edit-warring), 17:32, May 2. 3RR met; 19:15 May 8, 03:50 May 9, 15:58, May 9. Debresser you don't show anywhere above that you're aware that edit-warring goes both ways. This is concerning. Moreso given the 5 separate blocks you've received since 2010 for breaching XRR or edit-warring. I would put a asterisk and say a sixth was earned, but, either unreported or unnoticed. What concerns me more, however, is the obvious ownership issue that you have with this article; Restore my version. Editor warned for edit warring. I think that Debresser should receive a solid warning for ownership and edit-warring for this filing. I also looked at talk page discussion, there is a substantial improvement in composure from you when discussing on a talk page as compared to the inflammatory edit summaries used in the article.
  Regarding Seraphim System; I'll address this first; routinely uncivil, disruptive and who insults me. Yes, edit-warring is disruptive and it's been routine on the article that incited this AN/I filing. SS has received a warning from Debresser for edit-warring across a total of 4 reverts over a period of almost two weeks over two mildly different bits of material; this first and this second. Debresser, you should not be handing out these warnings. With regard to routinely uncivil and insulting ... I'm not seeing it. I'm reading Debresser's comments in a very authoritative tone because that's how they come across, but, I'm not seeing incivility and definitely not insult. The more I read Debresser's comments, the more I find them problematic in terms of tone; Please do not make unilateral edits to that paragraph and any attempt to disrupt this article by editing without obtaining prior consensus. Debresser – I think this is necessary – this is a warning, do not tell other editors where they can and cannot edit. That is not acceptable. Nobody requires your personal permission to edit any article. I do agree that if there is a dispute, BRD it to the talk page. That said, SS you're being slightly too sensitive in regards to Debresser's comments. I can understand the reaction of your blood simmering under your skin. Indeed, reading Debresser's edit summaries and comments on your talk page, I am having the same reaction as you, however, I'm not clouded enough to view that inflammation as insult. In terms of the content of the edits being discussed, I agree with Debresser. Simply put, Debresser is in the right regarding the content (in my opinion), but, needs to tone it down pronto. You're carrying a big stick, should be speaking softly. At this time, SS doesn't need a warning or a block, but, they also need to tone down the accusatory tone that is present in comments like the one I quoted above. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Being blocked 5 times for the exact same problem? I feel there's a WP:CIR issue here. — JJBers 16:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Being blocked 5 times for the same thing over a long-term period, plus at least one 3RR he wasn't blocked for means he should in indeff'ed not warned. If being blocked 5 times hasn't stopped him, a warning won't. I disagree with User:Mr rnddude, derogatory comments directed at editors behavior without evidence, as where he accuses me of lying above, are personal attacks. Further repeatedly posting on my talk page after he has been asked to stop and replying with further insults when I have said I don't want to interact with him directly (basically saying that if I don't talk to him I am NOTHERE), is not only routine incivility, it is also a sign of a serious behavioral problem. This comment If you don't want to discuss, please leave this project, because Wikipedia is about community editing, and such an approach can not be tolerated per WP:NOTHERE. is insulting, and I don't have to discuss anything with an editor who behaves this way. WP:BRD will not be helpful with an editor who has this behavior pattern. I can't force the admins to indeff him, which is what they should be considering doing (or at least a long term block or TBAN), but I'm not going to talk to someone who has insulted me. Period, end of discussion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You can request a two-way IBAN in that case. Though I suspect that will be summarily denied because it almost always causes more problems than it solves and is only ever offered in extreme circumstances. I know editors whose contributions to the project are invaluable and who also have the longest possible block logs imaginable. Indefinites for long-term editors are last resorts once every single person has given up on them. No admin is going to hand down an indefinite here. I'm sorry, but, that's the way it is.
[D]erogatory comments directed at editors behavior without evidence and accuses me of lying above go well with diffs or it didn't happen. I re-read all of Debresser's comments above (twice), I don't see him accusing you of lying anywhere. The accusations of edit-warring, however, are derogatory.
If you don't want to discuss, please leave this project, because Wikipedia is about community editing, and such an approach can not be tolerated per WP:NOTHERE. Well... he's right. This is a collaborative project. If you are working on the same article and come into conflict you must try to resolve the dispute. It doesn't matter whether you want to talk to them, you must talk to them. I routinely interact with editors who I disagree with and even back them up when they are right. I don't think I'm on bad terms with anybody, or rather, nobody is on bad terms with me.
Furthermore, you must both be civil. You may not respond to incivility with incivility. Neither of these things are optional – discussion and civility I mean. If there is a problem with civility, that can be addressed. As it stands, I think NPA has been breached with the repeated assertions of "unilateral" edit-warring while simultaneously edit-warring. At the same time, a third party can be brought in to help a dispute be resolved if dispute resolution between the two parties can't be resolved. In this instance you started an RfC, that's a form of DR that brings in many "third opinions".
I notice nobody is going to mention that the 5 EW and XRR breaches logged in Debresser's block log are split into three parts. Three blocks pre-2012, one in 2015, and one in 2017. These are sporadic, few and, in the instance of the last three blocks, far between (2011 -> 2015 -> 2017). WP:BRD will not be helpful with an editor who has this behavior pattern. Then you really aren't trying to think of a solution, you're just retaliating. Spite will not earn you any favours. Editors with problems sticking to 3RR can be given 1RR or 0RR restrictions. The first puts you on a forced BRD passage, and the second removes your revert rights completely. It's a common solution for editors who have a long history of edit-warring, but, who otherwise produce valuable content. As for civility and NPA ... that's more difficult. Many solutions are easy to game and it's impossible to enforce a civility standard. Are you aware that telling someone to "fuck off" from your talk page is (generally) considered acceptable? but doing the same on article or wikipedia space pages is not.
My comments here are only to present or examine evidence, to provide my persepective on events (third opinion) and where necessary advise appropriate courses of action if I feel they are necessary. I have done that above. It is exceptionally rare that I will take unilateral action (such as warnings and closes), on this occassion I have delivered a sternly worded warning to Debresser regarding their giving orders to other editors. Nothing boils my blood quicker than abuse of authority or perceived authority.
Side note; I fixed your ping template, there's a space between mr and rnddude. Don't worry about it though, I just hate redlinks. Also fixed Debresser's competence link. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think IBANs are necessary most of the time. Debresser and I aren't really active in the same areas. I am more active in Wikiproject Christianity and he is active in Wikiproject Judaism. There is just overlap on this one article because I don't think it is acceptable to negatively compare one religion to another without providing context. In general, one-sentence paragraphs are not an acceptable standard for writing of any kind. If an editor is civil, this should not be a problem, don't post on my talk page. Simple, most editors honor these requests. It shouldn't escalate beyond that. Where he says above that I left the edit alone because of this complaint, yes he is effectively calling me a liar. I have already said that I judged it would be inappropriate to push an edit through while it was in RfC. Replying to that by saying I am lying, which is the meaning of what he said, I consider a baseless personal attack. What happens if I do respond to it? And he trolls me again, and back and forth, on and on. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

In general, one-sentence paragraphs are not an acceptable standard for writing of any kind. Welcome to Wikipedia the most articles are still shit encyclopaedia. Simple, most editors honor these requests. Most editors also don't need to make these kinds of requests of other editors, but, I've already re-affirmed Bbb23's recommendation regarding that. You may do so, and you have done so. Where he says above that I left the edit alone because of this complaint, yes he is effectively calling me a liar. Mmm ... I can see how you read it like that. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I seem to remember that I suggested the possibility that this report stopped Seraphim System short of turning the issue into a full-fledged edit war. Is there anybody here who can deny that possibility? I don't think a good faith assumption has to be made in this regards, being that Seraphim System had de facto already started an edit war. Saying that y offering this suggestion I am calling somebody a liar, goes way too far. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's impossible to know what he would have done if you had not filed this report. That was a purely hypothetical claim and I suggest you drop it. I am far more interested in finding out why you don't seem to realize you are also edit-warring, and to a far greater extent than SS. Less hypothetical speculation and more real talk, please. Lepricavark (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @Mr rnddude, for your analysis of the situation. I large and by agree with it. I would like to explain, however, that when dealing with an editor who has shown in the past that he is willing to edit war, and already started a new edit war, there is not much one can do to not sound, as you call it, "authoritative". Contrary to what you say, I - and any other editor - can and even should tell other editors what edits they can and can not make. That is what WP:EDIT WAR is all about: that edit wars can not be tolerated, and an editor who knowingly and willingly starts an edit war, should be told in no unclear terms that such behavior will not be tolerated. It would have been nice if another editor than me would have been around to do so, however, that didn't happen. Could I expressed myself kinder? Don't think that is possible. So I agree with you that "toning it down" would have been nice, but Seraphim System's insistence on his edit - in defiance of Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made and Do not edit war even if you believe you are right made that impossible in this specific case. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Debresser you don't show anywhere above that you're aware that edit-warring goes both ways.

an editor who knowingly and willingly starts an edit war, should be told in no unclear terms that such behavior will not be tolerated.

Yup... can't make 'em listen though. TimothyJosephWood 19:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, you too are willing to edit-war. That is half the point. If you yourself were unwilling to edit war, then there couldn't be an edit-war. I have never heard of a war with just one party, usually that party would just be called leader. Regarding the warning, you worded yourself so as to imply that SS requires permission to edit the article. They do not. At the end of the day, somebody has to go to "D" to end the war, that can either be you or them. I myself hate it when somebody introduces an edit that I think reduces the quality of the article and will revert on sight, but, if it becomes a dispute I try to take it straight to the talk page. I have a number of times even said that I'd leave it in if reverted. Remember, there is no deadline. If the article is in bad shape today, it can be fixed tomorrow or the day after or even after a week. If it's not vitally important to immediately fix, then it can wait if necessary. 99% (really 100%) of articles on the encyclopaedia are sub-par, in need of sources, expansion, copy-editing, etc. That one article won't make a difference if it has to wait a few days. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That is also true. On the other hand, only all too often aggressive editors rely on the inertia of editors to push their version through. I have seen it so many times, and I have come to detest the insolent and violating approach of such editors, that reverting on sight has become an automatic reaction for me. I am sure it has helped in many cases to keep a consensus version in place. Seraphim System has tried that approach twice now, but it seems the Rfc he opened is proving him to draw the short straw. All I wanted to do is to force him to discuss and to acknowledge that there is actually a consensus version, which is not his version. That is why I reverted him, that is why I came here. And it seems to have worked. He stopped edit warring and he opened an Rfc (in continuation of previous discussions on the talkpage). Sorry for being a bit incoherent at this late hour. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, engaging in multiple reverts is not an acceptable way to "force him to discuss and to acknowledge that there is actually a consensus version, which is not his version". That is in fact edit warring, and is just as blcockable as anything that Seraphim System did in this matter, if not more so. Please consider this a formal warning, act in this way again and you will be blocked for edit warring. Mr rnddude is absolutely correct above, the urgency of change the WP:WRONGVERSION does not justify prolonging an edit war, which is what continuing to revert does, whoever might be judged to have started the war. You should know better. Please don't do this sort of thing again. DES ^(talk) 23:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The one starting the edit war, is the one who ignores WP:BRD, which was Seraphim System. It is his belligerent attitude which forced my hand. I know what you are saying, Mr rnddude and DESiegel, since I am a 9-year editor on this project, with close to 100,0000 edits. Doesn't mean I think that is completely fair though. I think the editor starting an edit war knowingly and willingly while ignoring a warning posted on his talkpage, is far more disruptive than the editor trying to stop him. No need to try and convince me of the opposite or to repeat your stated opinions, I am well aware. But I would like to see you both falling over Seraphim System at least as much as you are falling over me now. Debresser (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved trouts required

I stupidly started Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 11#Template:Infobox person/Wikidata in the vain hope that uninvolved, neutral editors would give their input. Instead, the same actors of the previous attempt (including myself) again are making the same show of much noise and little substance. Discussing things in this way is very frustrating and not really likely to lead to any actual result, so...

Can some uninvolved editors (admins, non-admins, doesn't matter) please come over and simply look at two things:

• the personal comments leveled at each other, and decide which stray (too far) into personal attack territory
• the factual claims made, and who is simply wrong on facts (not on opinions)

and then apply some trouting and common sense where needed.

Everyone who wants to is also invited to look at the actual TfD and give their opinion of course, but perhaps wait until the dust has settled a bit :-) Fram (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Fram: After reading the entire discussion, I am temped to provide buckets of ice, instead of trouts, to stick assorted heads in, since tempers seem to be flaring and that does not help the discussion. Several of the issues you raised transcend the scope of TfD, but address a far more fundamental issues concerning Wikidata (No BLP/Verification policies, poor anti-vandalism track record, bugs in the code, incomprehensible edit summaries). It may be wise to start an RfC concerning those, rather than a deletion discussion. Kleuske (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Largely pointless, for the same reasons. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It may very well be pointless, but AFAIK, it's the best we've got. The trouble is that compared to Commons (nice pics to look at) and Wikipedia (articles to read) Wikidata, being a database, is as sexy as a sack of potatoes and about as intuitive as Quantum Mechanics to a Sunday school teacher, hence the lack of contributors (both in this discussion and on Wikidata). Wikidata is a good idea in principle, but the praxis is a tad more complicated, especially if it's supposed to function as a central repository of data (which must be agreed upon, globally). Even if restricted to a replacement of oldschool interwiki's, things are not simple as you might think, since various wiki's may not agree on whether a given page describes one subject or more, a problem I've encountered on several occasions. Kleuske (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As might be guessed, I'm the other editor involved. My perspective is that Fram made a 19-paragraph, 800-word statement to re-litigate a TfD discussion that was closed as 'keep' just three months ago. I made a 3-paragraph keep statement rebutting what I see as obvious inaccuracies in the nomination. Fram, however, has felt the need to argue with each of the other commentators in 12 further posts at that discussion. I have stupidly felt obliged to reply on 7 occasions. Trout me.

I strongly resent being told my replies to concerns raised Fram raised at Template talk:Infobox person/Wikidata "were definitely not constructive" and I'd be happy for someone else to check whether Fram's assessment of my replies there are accurate, particularly in light of Template talk:Infobox person/Wikidata #Please remove citizenship. If I'm being unconstructive, then please sanction me.

If someone uninvolved is willing to arbitrate on exactly who started the personal attacks and who was responding in kind, I'd be grateful as well.

If somebody uninvolved can explain to me clearly just what the problem is concerning data from Russian Wikipedia that Fram is so worked up about, I'd be very grateful. There may well be problems with the code that I can fix, but I can't find an article here that is importing data sourced only to the Russian Wikipedia to get a handle on what might be wrong.

Any help appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I skimmed this up and down in strips to get a feel for the issues as a whole without pinning anything to anyone in particular; it seems like there's a disconnect between those concerned about output - "look at the crap that can result from vandalism" and those concerned about input "Bob and Mary have done a lot of work on this..." and "It'll take a lot of work to change that...". That almost always gets nasty, look at the recent business with Fabartus. I'm not looking anything past that, since I have a potential for bias. Anmccaff (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Jeez, not still that Russian business surely? Let's see.

• On 13 May, 14.17 "an IP" changed the Willem Kloos item on Wikidata[112], and at 15.15 the same day RexxS uploads a file[113] showing that there is no Qnumber in the Willem Kloos infobox (one of the examples in the TfD).
• On 13 May, 14.26 "the same IP" changed the Elisabeth Schiemann item on Wikidata[114], and on 15.09 RexxS uploads a file[115] showing that the Elisabeth Schiemann article no longer has dusplicate data on enwiki.
• On 15 May, 12.15 "the very same IP" changed the Stefan Andres item on Wikidata[116], and on 12.34 RexxS claims at the TfD[117] " I can't duplicate the problem you report" and here and now he claims "I can't find an article here that is importing data sourced only to the Russian Wikipedia to get a handle on what might be wrong."

Now, either RexxS is not that IP and he just happened to follow his edits very closely every time, or he is that IP and then he knows perfectcly well what the problem was, but he changed the Wikidata item to make it look as if the problem was only in my imagination and lied about it repeatedly. This is not siply a difference of opinion, but very, very dubious behaviour which makes collaborating impossible. Correcting Wikidata to make a problem reported here go away at that example article, but claiming before and after the fact that no such problem exists (or at least that he can't find it, which is clearly false) makes it impossible to have any trust in RexxS actions and words. Fram (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• RexxS's userpage says he lives in the West Midlands of England, which is exactly where the IP geolocates to (Wolverhampton). That is far too big a coincidence, in my opinion, and places RexxS's behaviour in a very poor light. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I mean, where no one knows your a dog, it could be false location [of where the user lives]. Then again, it does look like it is to close to be a simple IP flyby. — JJBers 17:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's unlikely to be RexxS, as I've never known him to do anything logged out without making it immediately obvious that the edits are his. (What incentive would he have to be anonymous in this particular case, anyway?) AGF and all that means I can't point fingers, but I can certainly think of at least one resident of the West Midlands who's generally near the top of the list when there's Wikidata-related disruption going on; I'm fairly certain you can, too. ‑ Iridescent 17:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on, look at those timestamps. AGF only goes so far. Thats 3 separate articles, linked by both the IP and Rexx. And even if you were to assume it was someone else behind the IP on wikidata, they would have to be psychic to know in advance what Rexx *might* respond to, in order to fix the raised problem in advance on wikidata so Rexx can subsequently deny there is a problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I assure you, Fram is well aware of who I'm referring to and why the timestamps are likely to be in sync. ‑ Iridescent 17:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, that IP is me, without any doubt. I do seem to be logged out quite often on Wikidata, but don't worry too much about it. I certainly wasn't trying to avoid scrutiny. For avoidance of doubt, my IP is currently 86.24.232.177 and has been for some time. I'm perfectly prepared to own my edits.

• On 13 May, 14.17, I changed Willem Kloos (Q2574395) to make the 'D.A. Thiemeprijs' preferred, but that was a test to ensure all values are returned, nothing to do with Q-numbers showing up in an infobox. That problem was fixed by Andy in this edit on 12 May. I've reverted my test edit and anybody can check that it makes no difference to Q-numbers.
• On 13 May, 14.26, I removed the duplicate award received (P166) because that's how the problem of duplicate values is best fixed. I've never said anything different. That's how you fix it. I haven't concealed anything.
• Today I tried setting one value for Stefan Andres to preferred and the other to deprecated to see whether it made any difference to the article. It doesn't, but I then remembered that Fram had actually changed the infobox on that article from {{infobox person/Wikidata}} to {{infobox person}} a week ago. No wonder I can't track down problems.

I very much resent the insinuations by Fram that I've tried to be anything other than straight. I wasted half-an-hour earlier today trying to track down a problem he reported on Stratis Myrivilis, only to find that it didn't exist. His response to that was "That you used the wrong example to test this is too bad." Nevertheless I have identified a problem with the way that the API returns values when multiple values exist where only one is expected. I'm happy to do my best to fix it in the hope that it's there that Fram's problem is located, but not one article that Fram has drawn my attention to has displayed the problem that he saw. I believe that he saw it, but it's no help at all when I can't see the same problem. I'm not a mind-reader. Oh - and Black Kite: ABF much? --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I very much resent the insinuation that being anything other than straight is a bad thing. EEng 00:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Old, incorrect version of Stefan Andres, using onlysourced=yes but returning wrong info from Russian Wikipedia instead

Current, correct version of infobox, using the standard template, summarizing the data in the artcle instead of taking information from elsewhere

• RexxS, you can very, very easily check whether it makes any difference at the article, by using the last version before my edits, this one. Until your Wikidata edits, you could reprouce the problem there every time you wanted to, that's how I made the screenshot showing the problem after you claimed that you couldn't reproduce the problem. After that screenshot, you still claimed that you couldn't reproduce the problem, then you went to Wikidata to change the problematic data in a way that it no longer shows up at the Andres article in the old version, and then you came here to claim here that you still can't reproduce the problem... Do we really have to believe that you didn't know, through all this, that you could look at the old version of the article, the one from the time I reported the problem, and see it there? Anyway, you can revert your changes at Wikidata and then you finally can reproduce this, just like everybody else could do for all this time. But please stop with the claim that "not one article that Fram has drawn my attention to has displayed the problem that he saw." as it was there all along. I even gave you two screenshots with an explanatory caption (reproduced here), so I don't get why you had any problem with this or why you still make claims as if I imagined the problem and faked the screenshot.

I don't think you imagined a problem or faked a screenshot. I just didn't see any point in pursuing a problem that you had already fixed, because the article was consistent when I looked at it. I stand by my claim that "not one article that Fram has drawn my attention to has displayed the problem that he saw." Although I should add "when my attention was drawn to it". You do realise that is the first time you've done me the courtesy of supplying a link to the version of the article you were complaining about? If you'd like me to revert my edits on Wikidata (which actually fix any problem of multiple dates of death for everybody) and restore {{infobox person/Wikidata}} to Stefan Andres, then please say so. In the meantime, I'll carry on testing with Paul Morand (Q272) / Paul Morand where I think I can check any code modifications without re-introducing errors in the Wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think an editor with your experience needed a link to find a pervious version of an article when the screenshots clearly say "Old, incorrect version" and "Current version". What did you think "old version" meant? I also said at the TfD " I "fixed" the issue by replacing the /Wikidata infobox with the standard one, which is what I propose to do with all articles which use this version of the infobox. I'm glad you approve of my fix. Fram (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC) " Yet you still needed a link to the last version before my edits, or else you were unable to find the problem? If you really need that much help in finding such a problem, you indeed ned to stay away from templates, and you need to learn to ask for a link instead of continuously stating that you can't reproduce the problem as if that is in any way relevant and meaningful.

You knew the article was changed to eliminate the problem in the current version, you knew how it was changed, you knew what to change on Wikidata to eliminate the problem on that side, but still you couldn't find the problem because I never provided a link to the last version of the article before my changes (i.e. the version of the article at the time of my first post about it at the template talk page, the then-current version). Right... Fram (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You see Fram, this is what happened: On 8 May, you complained about Q-numbers showing up in Julien Benda. I replied that "It's a signal to an editor that the entry has no English site label. That means that anyone who is interested in maintaining our projects as a whole can choose to add labels to entries such as The Treason of the Intellectuals (Q3213238) and Morgue and other poems (Q22281590). Why would we want to discourage editors from doing that?" and you argued about that. The fix was to simply supply an English label (The Treason of the Intellectuals) on Wikidata. I did that.

On the same day, You wanted 'citizenship' not to be fetched from Wikidata. I agreed and made the change.

A day later, you wanted me to write code to ensure that duplicate values could not be returned. I saw that and realised that the way to fix those sort of problems is by removing the duplicates from Wikidata - it's obviously an error and essy to fix. Mike Peel had already replied and I was busy so didn't comment.

On the same day, you complained that "Stefan Andres has 'onlysourced=yes' and gives 'Died 29 July 1970'" I followed the link to Stefan Andres that you provided and saw that it actually had the same dates as in the body of the article. My reaction was "fuck this for a game of soldiers" and I left it. That's when the actual link was needed. Do you have no concept of courtesy?

Two days later, you hadn't got your own way, so in a fit of pique, you re-nominated the template for deletion. What a ludicrous waste of everybody's time.

If you'd bothered to show a link in the first place, I would have taken your complaint more seriously. As it was, in your epic deletion-nomination statement, you caused further confusion by pointing to yet another problem that didn't exist. Now frankly, I'm not at your beck-and-call here and I do have other things I need to spend my time on, so it's no use losing your rag when everything isn't fixed within 48 hours of you making a badly worded complaint.

Nevertheless, this afternoon I've overhauled all of the getValue code in Module:WikidataIB. I reverted my changes to Stefan Andres (Q68036) and checked the version of Stefan Andres that you supplied earlier today. As far as I can see in that version, the problem that you saw is resolved. I've now restored the proper ranks in Wikidata and checked by previewing {{infobox person/Wikidata}} in a few articles that have multiple dates that the code doesn't return any unsourced values by default. No doubt there will be further issues to resolve, but it won't be by trying to do an end-run around the long-standing consensus that permits us to include Wikidata in infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"Yet another problem that didn't exist". You know that there is quite a huge gap between "a problem I can't find unless someone holds my hand at every step" and "a problem that doesn't exist"? I'm done with you. Fram (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, another problem that didn't exist. Here's what I told you at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 11: I've just spent a wasted half-hour ... looking through the code of Module:WikidataIB to fix the problem you reported in your nomination statement: "Articles showing the wrong date, again taken from Russian Wikipedia[118]" I was puzzled about why my code was returning the date of birth of Stratis Myrivilis from Wikidata when it was only sourced to the Russian Wikipedia. Then I spotted that the IP editor had set |onlysourced=no, so naturally it returned an unsourced value. Nikkimaria fixed that soon after by changing it to |onlysourced=yes" There was no problem with Wikidata that needed to be fixed; there was no problem with the Lua code that needed to be fixed; there was no problem with Template:Infobox person/Wikidata that needed to be fixed. Nikki spotted what the IP had done and quickly put it right in the article. If you're so fucking clever, why couldn't you have simply done the same? --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I know that you see no problem with using Russian (or whatever) Wikipedia as a source and don't feel that this should be changed at Wikidata or removed as a possibility from the infobox. That's a problem with Wikidata, with the infobox, and with you vs. our policies. And that still doesn't explain why you insist on labeling "the problem you couldn't find because you don't understand how to use a page history and because you can't see the difference between a good infobox and the Wikidata one, even though it is quite clear visually and because you can't be bothered to actually read anything I write apparently" as "a problem that didn't exist" but for which you changed the Wikidata item (to fix the individual example at Wikidata, I had it fixed and improved here already) and the lua code (to fix the underlying problem). Your excuses and attacks are becoming more and more transparent the longer you keep peddling them. Fram (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

All of that would be meaningful if there was any truth in I know that you see no problem with using Russian (or whatever) Wikipedia as a source and don't feel that this should be changed at Wikidata or removed as a possibility from the infobox. But there isn't. I've spent a lot of time writing and improving code that filters out values that are only sourced to Russian or any other Wikipedia. And the sad thing is, you know that. You must be getting very desperate to try to peddle such a transparent untruth. For the record: I don't want to see any data displayed that can only be sourced to Wikipedia of any language; I do think that it would be very helpful if the Wikidata community ditched such worthless "references"; I don't want infoboxes to display unsourced information; I do maintain that it may be useful for checking, debugging and development if there exists an option that allows an editor to see all of the Wikidata, including the unsourced stuff. Perhaps I should modify the code to only allow that in preview mode? The rest of the problems you claim to see exist only in your imagination. That's the real problem here. You're so invested in your campaign to stop any information being imported from Wikidata – even sourced information – that you have to create battles to fight with anyone who disagrees with you. I'm quite happy to put in the time to fix real problems that exist in the code that I write, but I'll be damned if I'm going to chase down your half-baked reports just because you want to pick a fight. If you want me to fix a problem in future, you give me chapter and verse on the problem, or you can fix it yourself. Oh, wait, you can't, can you? --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't intend to interact with you if I can avoid it. "The rest of the problems you claim to see exist only in your imagination." despite the fact that I provided the articles and screenshots, and that you "fixed" the examples and claimed that that fixed the underlying problem. I have better things to do with my time than reply to the same ramblings over and over again while you wallow in your dreams of superiority. Fram (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• User:Fram by attacking RexxS this way, you are shooting yourself (and others like me who are concerned about Wikidata in en-WP) in the foot. RexxS understands WikiData very well and understands the policy-basis of en-WP very well - is one of the few people I know who are clueful in both contexts, and helped me resolve an issue with content about Wikidata coming into infoboxes about health. Please do take the advice about cooling down. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • He has shown very little clue in this discussion though, and continues to show the same problems. Fram (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • You aren't really suggesting RexxS is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, are you? If not, and I assume you're not, getting fed up, frustrated or angry does not help solve the problem. Using TfD as a venue to discuss what is basically a systemic problem, may not have been a good idea. There are better platforms to raise this issue and it's well worth raising, IMHO. There are problems to be solved, but TfD is not the place to do that. Kleuske (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm really suggesting that. Apparently I should have provided RexxS with a link to an old revision of a page because he didn't give a reply at the template talk page. That's the last in a long list of excuses for why he didn't find the problem for a week, even though it was obvious for all but him to see and was explained at length afterwards. I'm indeed utterly fed up with his actions in this episode (and in the pervious round, where he tried the same kind of tricks). I can not work with RexxS as I don't trust him one bit. His neverending insistence that he has fixed a problem when he has fixed the example given instead of the root cause behind it is just another example of the uselessness of discussing these things with him. His last reply here mentions me "pointing to yet another problem that didn't exist." Since the other problem clearly existed (but RexxS was unable to use a page history without anyoçne holding his hand), the "yet another" is obviously false. And the problem he supposedly means when he says "yet another" wasn't false either. RexxS is very good at being seemingly cooperative and patient, but in reality he is obfuscating by making one false claim after another. You are right that instead of a TfD, I should just go for an RfC. But you (in plural) are quite wrong in your positive assessment of RexxS. He is good at manipulating people in this way apparently, but I've seen the discrepancy between his words and reality too often now. Fram (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Mass rollback needed...

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

---

Can somebody mass-rollback my last 9 edits.The swap-history script malfunctioned midway leaving a mess behind.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:  Done Should be good now. Let me know if there's still something that needs to be done. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury:--Something is amiss!Reduced instruction set computer is a red link!I thibk this will need some careful manual work given a chain of bad loops, double redir. etc.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Administrator eyes may be best here, then. Perhaps Oshwah could take a look at this. It also might help to list out exactly what needs to be done as "revert my last nine edits" was pretty vague. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I got your ping. I'm taking a look - stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I actually closed the disc. at Talk:Reduced instruction set computing#Requested move 10 May 2017 as moved.Since the target page had trivial history, I went for a swap using User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap.But the script messed up, after the 1st step(moving the targets to draft space).And that's the reason,I'm here--looking for some experienced eyes.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric - I deleted all of the redirects left behind. You should be able to manually move the pages where you need them. If you need more help or if I missed something, let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah:--Thanks. It's all  Done.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:21, 19 May 2017 (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.

Dismissal of James Comey

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

---

For the past several days, Google News has included a link to this Wikipedia article near the top of its list of headlines. So, it's a high profile article, and it's a BLP with respect to lots of people including Trump and Comey. I am requesting that admins watch this page and enforce Wikipedia policy. Recent violations of policy (not merely guidelines) include the following.

User:Casprings has deleted this:

“ The White House responded that "the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn". ”

References

According to WP:BLP, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." I also note another Wikipedia policy: WP:UNRESPONSIVE, which says "Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary." Caspring's deletion was unaccompanied by any edit summary, much less any discussion at the article talk page.

Other recent edits violate another policy, WP:Preserve, which says: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia". Content was completely deleted from the BLP by User:Volunteer Marek, with this edit summary: "belongs in response section not lede - lede too long anyway".[119] But Marek made no effort to move the content or preserve it, and instead made it disappear with no further discussion.

I have cited three separate policy violations here. Please enforce, or at least start watching the article. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I'm not seeing where you tried to engage the user in dialogue or start a discussion about the edits other than a copy-paste of this complaint on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey about 18 minutes ago... So why are you posting this here? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The three violations listed above are the tip of the iceberg. I'd like some admin eyes on the page. These are all experienced editors who know better, and I have asked them both at the talk page to stop it, with no reply so far anyway. This is just a slight part of the non-stale stuff going on there, and it's been impossible to edit the article due to all the policy violations. If these two suddenly reverse themselves, then I'd be glad to withdraw this matter from ANI, but the page still needs admin eyes. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, so I guess I should go that route instead of posting here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2017 (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.

Suggestion to implement "Wikipedia is not news"

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.

---

• Just to renew my voice-in-the-wilderness call that breaking events shouldn't even have articles until they're been out of the headlines for at least three months and things have settled down. Our readers should look to us for the long view and get their news from news sources. Controversial topics are hard enough; controversial topics with new stuff coming out every day overtax the community's resources to no long-term benefit -- the long-term article can be written in the fullness of time. EEng 11:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Three months seems reasonable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Excellent idea. How we do we start the process? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've always thought of this as one of my they'll-never-go-for-it ideas. It would be a seismic shift in policy, and one can see many problems of definition and gaming. I feed we'd need the support of very respected editors to even get this started. Good ideas for how to proceed are welcome -- someone's opened a thread on my talk page so let's continue the discussion there. EEng 06:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

So, under such a policy, if Wikipedia was around in 1945, breaking news about the end of WW2 would have been unmentionable until 2nd December 1945? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a news website. SQL^{Query me!} 19:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, it's never gonna happen. Several years back I actually argued for a 1 year moratorium on "breaking news". But these are the rules we have so these are the rules we follow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Good ideas for how to proceed are welcome

Well, the best way to start might to first drive a stake through its heart, then chop off its head, stuff it with garlic, and bury the pieces at a crossroad at midnight. And maybe set it on fire, just to be sure.

Our readers should look to us for the long view

No, they look to Wikipedia for a precis of information. Imposing an artificial constraint on a dynamic information site because the editing process makes you uncomfortable is a profoundly dumb idea. James J. Lambden's and Anythingyouwant's sudden interest in suppressing the documenting of recent events is understandable, but I can't imagine why anyone else who actually cares about Wikipedia being up-to-date would go along with this. --Calton | Talk 03:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I was merely responding to a suggestion above by another editor. Wikipedia claims that it is not a news site, but actually Wikipedia documents unfolding news all the time, when passions still run high, facts remain uncertain, and the Wikipedia article in question is listed at the top of Google News. On the other hand, the point above is a valid one: "So, under such a policy, if Wikipedia was around in 1945, breaking news about the end of WW2 would have been unmentionable until 2nd December 1945?" My view is that there are much more urgent things about Wikipedia that need to be fixed than the newsiness of it (see my user page). Anyway, Calton, there's no need to equate "not news" to "suppression", when the only thing suggested above by User talk:EEng#s was a time delay. And I fail to understand why EEng would have a "sudden interest in suppressing the documenting of recent events". Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Under this proposal the end of WW2 could be immediately added to the article on WW2; but new article on End of WW2 would be embargoed for a while. As someone JFG has pointed out (see bold below) there are a lot of reasons to think that new facts added to existing articles will cause much less trouble than from-scratch articles on a breaking topic. See the bold for more. EEng 23:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Calton: It's fine to disagree with EEng's suggestion. I happen to agree with you that it is not a good idea. But why must you attack the intelligence and/or motives of those on the other side of the discussion? Your comment falls distinctly into the "more heat than light" category. Lepricavark (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• This would not work. Donald Trump has had an article since 2004. James Comey has had an article since 2005. If you tried to suppress the specific article about their recent interactions then the editing would just shift to a section like Donald_Trump#Dismissal_of_James_Comey or James_Comey#Dismissal. The only practical way to shut out news would be to exclude sources which have a recent date. This would then force Wikipedia to be out-of-date and it would then be inaccurate because, for example, it would not be able to correctly name the President of France. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Not a problem at all. Following your examples, James Comey would have received a new section about his dismissal, and perhaps one about his purported memo(s); meanwhile all the infighting at Firing of FBI Director James Comey, no, Dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, sorry, Talk:Dismissal of James Comey and at Comey memo, no, Comey memos, would have been seriously curtailed. Then, after three days, some level-headed editors could have created a vastly superior Dismissal of James Comey article summarizing the key developments in a dispassionate tone. Upon election night in France, we would have simply updated the pre-existing articles about Emmanuel Macron, Marine Le Pen, President of France and French presidential election, 2017. The "breaking news" chaos mostly applies to knee-jerk articles created in reaction to the shocking or gossip news of the day. For a less-contentious example, see 2017 Mexico–United States diplomatic crisis: created end January over a cancelled meeting between Peña and Trump, then nothing happened, there is no "diplomatic crisis" and the article is still only worth a few lines after several months; it's been proposed for merge into Mexico–United States relations. — JFG ^talk 00:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is a ludicrous idea. We write encyclopedic content about the stuff that matters, no matter when it happened, as long as there are reliable sources available. I find it hard to grasp how anyone could think being deliberately out of date would be a good thing. The world already has plenty of out-of-date encyclopedias; head down to your local library and crack open some dusty old volume if you like to pretend you are living in the past. Everyking (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I guess you're deliberately missing the point. We have posted things as blurbs (e.g. the death of the Fast and Furious actor as a blurb) and not posted things as blurbs (e.g. the death of Johann Cruyff, arguably top three association footballer ever to have lived), and we've posted things erroneously and we've posted things that need endless tinkering. Maybe, just maybe, what we're coming to a conclusion on here is that we completely eliminate ITN from the front page of Wikipedia. After all, Jimbo Wales has initiated WIkitribune and, as we all know, Wikinews is deader than a dead thing. Wikipedia should not be a vessel for fast-moving news, yet it happens to have become so because of the vast number and diversity of its contributors. Generally it does a reasonable job, and keeping most of the Trump yawn bullshit off the mainpage serves the project very well indeed. Perhaps let's look at removing recentism entirely from the main page and pushing it to Wikitribune!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Everyking, It's certainly not a ludicrous idea (though it may be an unworkable one for practical reasons -- that's what we're trying to figure out). You say, as if it's self-evident, that We write encyclopedic content about the stuff that matters, no matter when it happened, but we might very well decide that it's not worth the sturm and drang to adhere to that simplistic idea: maybe we should see sacrifice a certain amount of up-to-dateness -- on "new" topics only, not new information about existing topics -- exactly so we can redirect the very substantial resources, currently lavished on refereeing disputes about breaking-news new topics, on other pursuits of more permanent worth (since, almost by definition, early versions of articles on breaking news will almost certainly end up on the trash heap before too long).

Our colleague JFG made some great points about such an idea on my talk page recently. I've excerpted and bulletted them here, folding in a suggestion I made later in the same discussion:

• a 3-day ban on creating new articles based on "breaking news", defined as a new article on a topic where all the sources forming the basis of that topic's notability are less than X days old.
• People could still add such stuff in existing articles, but at least they would get some eyeballs to evaluate due weight, and we might avoid AfD drama, link-spamming of navboxes or See also sections in dozens of marginally related articles, and monstrous cleanup tasks when finally the pile of rambling "he said-she said" quotes has to be sorted and summarized into something vaguely encyclopedic
• Another bonus: existing articles on controversial subjects are often restricted to some degree (e.g. protected, or subject to AE/DS sanctions etc.) whereas new articles are a free-for-all until an admin wakes up and slaps an 1RR/DS restriction which nobody understands, and we spend more time explaining the sanctions than editing or even arguing the merits of the edits.
• Another argument favouring such a cool-off period: in the heat of the news cycle, as mere mortals feverishly scan their TV while editing, reporters who missed the initial scoop come and pickup further clues on Wikipedia, resulting in a fertile breeding ground for citogenesis.

There are many foreseeable problems with such a proposal, which may or may not be susceptible to being engineered out, but it's certainly not ludicrous. EEng 22:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I know I'm gonna get yelled at for failing to AGF (which, is, btw, a guideline not a policy) but I can't help noticing the curious correlation between this proposal to "embargo" breaking news developments and the stream of reliably-sourced stories that highlight Donald Trump's problems and actions that have come out recently. Where were the people who want this "embargo" now two years ago? Year ago? It's not like something has changed - Wikipedia always included stuff on new occurrences. Yet, it's only now that some folks have discovered that they don't like this coverage of up to date topics.

Ok, go ahead and yell at me for not AGFing now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I guess you missed the part where EEng said he was renewing his call for this change. Lepricavark (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Since you asked for it, Volunteer Marek, here goes: That's the dumbest thing I've heard since since someone called me "a supporter of Donald Trump" [120]. EEng 22:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Not talking about EEng. Talking 'bout those who went and prompted them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No one prompted me. Look at the opening of this thread. I've had this idea for years, nothing to do with Trump, though with someone many think is an incompetent, corrupt narcissist in the White House it certainly would be a good time to make any changes we can that will help things stay cool. (I'm not saying Trump's an incompetent, corrupt narcissist myself, of course, just pointing out that many people think that Trump's an incompetent, corrupt narcissist. People are free to decide for themselves either that Trump's an incompetent, corrupt narcissist or that Trump's not an incompetent, corrupt narcissist. The bottom-line question of whether Trump's an incompetent, corrupt narcissist is one everyone must make for himself. So whatever you do don't say that I said that Trump's an incompetent, corrupt narcissist.) EEng 22:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And it's not just about who is in the White House. The culture war that has been brewing over the last several years is leading to a far-less objective press that make writing "breaking news" while staying neutral nearly impossible, if editors can't keep level-heads about it. Add this political battle, and the situation is ten times worse, hence the need to put something in place per EEng's suggestion. We do not need to be current, we have no deadline to meet. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: YELL!!! Seriously, AGF man. I don't care if it's about Trump, Hillary or the Pope: it's simply too much work, hassle and aggravation to sort all the WP:NOTNEWSY stuff which comes out every day. The trend is to create a new article for every headline these days. By all means, let's cover up-to-the-minute news but keep them in existing articles, with a balance of experienced contributors and appropriate anti-vandal restrictions, until the immediacy and hyperventilation subsides. At least in politics; astronomy discoveries are safe (unless it's the Chelyabinsk meteor). — JFG ^talk 22:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC) edited 22:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a few things that are breaking news we cover well: sporting events, natural/manmade disasters, ongoing conflicts, natural events (ala the meteor), etc. Here, there's very little place for opinion in reporting, its events that happen and they can be quickly documented. What's going on with politics is all speculation on motive, intent, goals, collosion, etc. and nothing that will ever be objectively known in the short term. So we should limit ourselves in these areas to the facts, eg like Comey was let go, no question, and avoid the speculation and opinions until the matter had had time to settle down. And if people really want to write about breaking news, that's why we have Wikinews. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I notice you do a lot of editing about recent video games (like, games released this month). So I take it you want to exclude content about recent political events, but keep the new video games? Everyking (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's only on topics that are not as objective or that bring controversy, which right now broadly encompasses pretty much anything the Trump administration, Congress, or the press themselves are directly involved with. An objective picture with appropriate hindsight of the most important factors in these areas is not going to develop for several weeks, months, or even years out. We can still report the fundamental facts, such that Comey was let go, for instance, since that's objective statement, but the rumor milling and mudslinging that goes with that are things we should not be writing about until the world has had time to sort it out. As what that turns into here is prolonged AN/ANI/AE debates in the same topic areas again and again. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Surely you know that some of those video games get mixed reviews. How long will it take before historians can make an objective assessment of, say, Prey (2017 video game)? Now, seriously, we have a tried and proven method here on Wikipedia of practicing NPOV and citing reliable sources to create content about any notable subject. We can do it about video games, and we can do it about Trump, too. If in the future assessments of an event change, we mention that—but it doesn't mean the earlier assessments shouldn't also be recorded, or that important information should be omitted because "it's too soon to talk about it". Everyking (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It takes a few days for most video games, maybe a week. Which is why I usually don't touch reception sections until a week or so has passed - but everything else is objective material. And if reception changes due to events, we can update that when we get a feel for that. But these are also not controversial areas that draw as much editor warring as political topics. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Just voicing support for this. Based on the outpouring of keep !votes for just about every NOTNEWS article, I think it would be a tough sell, but a conservative proposal (along the lines of the 3-7 day moratorium on stand-alone articles about events with no prohibition on including in existing articles), may have half a chance. I nominate EEng to start a draft of the RfC in his userspace. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Those who want to help shape a proposal, please sign up at User_talk:EEng#Shaping_a_proposal. I'm just gathering names for now. (This is partly a test to see how serious people are about really helping.) Thanks to the community for tolerating this somewhat off-topic discussion here at ANI. EEng 01:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

BREAKING: Look, another "breaking news" turned into a stub within minutes: Russian Intercepts on Michael Flynn. Sorry, I pushed that to AfD. Why can't people just edit existing articles such as Michael T. Flynn or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? — JFG ^talk 01:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thing was spammed into the main Trump sidebar for good measure…[121] Facepalm This is borderline WP:ADVOCACY. — JFG ^talk 02:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Many of the articles created quickly after "breaking news" will likely be important 10 years from now. These include Dismissal of James Comey, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia. 2. When historical stuff happens, it might help an encyclopedia to have editors work on articles about those historical things when they are interested in them. You will always be able to come back in 10 years and make the article better. Seems like a much easier job for that editor in 10 years. 3. You already have a process. Its called WP:AFD. In sum, don't break what isn't broken.Casprings (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2017 (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.

Harassment from XIIIfromTokyo

• XIIIfromTOKYO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Launebee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Panthéon-Assas University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sciences Po (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I was trying to contribute to Wikipedia about more and more French universities, but XIIIfromTokyo is harassing me so that now I cannot help for something else than 2 articles, and his harrassement is becoming threats now.

For a very long time, he has been watching all my writings, changing what I obviously said, accusing me of things and being agressive. Few examples:

• XIIIfromTOKYO stated that I wrote racist and antisemitic statements several times [122][123]
• Mr rnddude asked him to strike its claim of "homophobic slurs" against me otherwise he would be sanctioned but XIIIfromTOKYO has never done so
• He is very aggressive against me in his way of talking with me, deforming what I say. For example, he is accusing me of accusing Sciences Po of nazism and freemasonery (even though I was only quoting about the WW2 for nazism, and freemasonery is a quote but the author is only talking from a matter of speaking, nothing to do with the actual freemasonry of course), Kautilya3 had to strike its attacks and the answer I had to give. And now he writing the exact same kind of things in a new section
• He is constantly changing the talk page to a place of attacks against me. Sometimes putting the same attacks in several pages. [124] [125]
• I was saying that he was confusing the discussion on ranking and the one on reputation, so that his answer was off-topic, and he answered : "You are lying to an other contributor just to try to gain some time. It's relevant because it shows that you know that you are lying when you write this article."
• He stated to the administrators "I already had to face legal threat from this contributor, so any administrator has to be aware that it could accur to him or her as well." Even though Mr rnddude clearly reminded him several times that I did not threat him with legal actions. But he is continuing to accuse me to all sort of things.

Now, he is threatening me, in two languages, to call the journalists against me and go on Twitter, reminding "my actions" on the pages I must focus on, even though I would like to help on other articles:

• "All the process is public, so your actions here, with Eduniversal and/or Panthéon-Assas University... will be available to anyone. Contributors, journalists..."
• "Tu es bien conscient que tout es public, et que n'importe qui peut poster ça sur Twitter, avec ton exploit sur Eduniversal et Science-Po (avec tout le basard médiatique à prévoir vu certaines expressions utilisées en PDD ) ?" Here, he is talking about a "media turmoil" that would cause "some expressions used in talk page". In other words, he used himself a lot of expressions about nazis, etc., (saying that he is copying the sources he gives, but obviously not at all), to then say if I continue to edit on Wikipedia it will cause trouble on newspapers.

I am not focused on PA, Sciences Po and Eduniversal, it is just that this user is saying again and again the same things on all the talk page I am to harass me, so now I don’t have to do something else than answering again and again to the same attacks from him in all talk pages.

--Launebee (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Just check the first references. Launebee has made up this "racist and antisemitic statements" months ago, failed to convince anyone since then, and is just trying to buy some time with this trick. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I have expressed last week my intention to start the Arbcom process[126]

An other contributor has backed my project. Let me quote @SalimJah: : ""Launebee has exhausted my time an emotional resources with this kind of behavior (...) good faith collaboration is extremely costly to maintain and largely failing in this case. The history of Launebee's contributions speaks for itself. I support the Arbcom process. "" [127]. At his point, using the incident board is a GAME case. Launebee is trying to postpone the launch of the procedure. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The editing at Sciences Po was discussed at ANI twice last fall:

• September 2016: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Agressive comments over Sciences Po page
• December 2016: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#Admin attention needed at Sciences Po / Sciences Po talk

Is there some uninvolved editor who could look over the dispute and say what it's about? And figure out if others should be notified? Now leaving a ping for User:CambridgeBayWeather since he just full-protected Sciences Po. At first glance the matter does not look ready for Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Still another ANI thread: April 2017: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive952#Personal attacks from XIIIfromTOKYO As a result of that thread, both User:XIIIfromTOKYO and User:Launebee were blocked 24 hours by User:CambridgeBayWeather for edit warring.
• To see what the issues in dispute are, trying reading through Talk:Sciences Po. There is an actual RfC, opened by Launebee, at Talk:Sciences Po#RfC about an edit-war in the lead. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Just back. The protection would have probably been in response to a request at WP:RFPP. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Input from Jytdog

• This is kind of long, sorry. I looked at what is going on a while back, in one of the former ANIs. In my view there is a bunch of advocacy (for and against) as well as undeclared COI going on here. To be honest I just barfed a little and walked away. Universities are by far some of the worst abusers of Wikipedia with regard to turning Wikipedia pages into promotional webhosts (which is what WP:BOOSTER is about), and in my view the disputes over just how promotional they should be, are what have been disrupting these articles continuously since last year.
  • With regard to Launebee:

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

edit count tool results

In my view this analysis of Launebee's behavior was accurate (inappropriate for an article talk page, but accurate) - their edits have promoted Panthéon-Assas University and denigrated Sciences Po.

Now, the Sciences Po article was full of promotional garbage and stuff that abuses WP:NOTWEBHOST before Launebee's first edit - see this version. This is again, sadly typical of articles about universities in Wikipedia. I am grateful to the work cleaning that article up, but trying to load up the other article with promotional stuff pretty much negates that work.

• • On the other "side"....

There was an account here called User:Harvard SciencesPo that was created and soft-blocked per USERNAME back in 2011, and folks from Sciences Po apparently intended to do some kind of research study here back then, which was the subject of a long AN thread in March 2011 here, when they asked permission to use a bot to run it. The message was signed by "The Harvard / Sciences Po research team." which was wikisigned by User:SalimJah. They apparently ended up using some kind of banner ad in Wikipedia in December 2011 and this became the subject of an ANI thread, here.

• SalimJah has been in the thick of the content dispute that is the subject of this thread per Special:Contributions/SalimJah, and pretty much of all their edits have been about SciencesPo, Beckman, or people connected to it. Nothing terribly promotional, but there are obviously present in WP only to edit about schools/people to which they are connected. There is no obvious disclosure of his/her connection to the school, anywhere that I can find; and I find the last sentence of their post at one of the previous ANIs here to be clearly an intent to deceive or mislead.
• User:AttwinS (mostly inactive but came back briefly in July 2016 per Special:Contributions/AttwinS). Perhaps is successor account to Harvard SciencesPo account per this?
• User:Lilaroja last active in December 2016. Was connected to the study per a disclosure on their userpage. Not active in the study but perhaps can shed some light on presence of people from Po. Special:Contributions/Lilaroja

In addition there are a number of SPA accounts, including IPs:

• MePhisto who disclosed here that they had edited under several IPs, and kept being a SPA under their named account. All that this person has done in WP is argue against Launebee and add or argue for promotional content.
• MePhisto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 2003:42:2E00:1DB3:C09:D546:69B8:84C7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2003:42:2E34:1105:8F8:10CD:6577:4006 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2003:42:2E34:1158:78D3:DDA5:7E1A:D570 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2003:42:2E66:436A:98D:9112:7EC7:E8BE (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.179.49.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.61.160.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• somebody in Canada, apparently

• 75.156.54.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• (same person?) 64.114.29.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• • Then there is XIIIfromTOKYO.

• XIIIfromTOKYO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• edit count tool results
• edit history at Panthéon-Assas_University, is all deleting edits by Launebee and removing promotional content
• edits at Sciences Po (none!)
• edits at Talk:Sciences Po - many! All arguing with Launebee.

I have reviewed all that, and I find their behavior to be ugly and inappropriate for article Talk pages, but their editing seems OK.

When I review all that, here is what I recommend, in response to the many, many threads that have been generated from these disputes:

• For Launebee: a TBAN from editing any content about anything related to French academic institutions or people. This is a disruptive SPA account.
• For MePhisto: a TBAN from editing any content about anything related to French academic institutions or people. This is a disruptive SPA account.
• For SalimJah, : a TBAN from editing any content about anything related to French academic institutions or people. This is a disruptive SPA account and the user hid his/her connection with Sciences Po.
• For XIIIfromTOKYO, a warning to discuss content, not contributors, on article Talk pages, and to handle issues with possible COI or promotional editing in a more civil manner, and to bring things to boards with diffs when there are issues instead of turning article Talk pages into slugfests.

I don't know what to do with regard to the Canadian IP. I do wonder about socking with pro-Sciences Po editors who have been active at the page.

Content-wise both the main articles being argued over are still full of unsourced, SPS-sourced promotional BOOSTERism.

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a little different from most boosterism. SciPo is certainly one of the greatest universities in its field, and also on the 2 or 3 greatest French universities in any field. This has two implications: first, that van attempt at promotionalism is totally unnecessary, but also that even the plainest of descriptions will sound to some degree like promotionalism , because it simply is that important. We've been sensitized by promotionalism for things that are not of any great intrinsic significance except for the hype, and we know by now how to deal with that. But how do we deal with things that are truly superlative? Not. I hope, by trying to downgrade their significance until they seem ordinary. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course not. But if you look at the actual Sciences Po article you will see that well over half of it is the extremely typical and extremely boring listing of its various research centers etc sourced entirely from their website. It is typical hijacking of a WP page into a proxy for their website, and fails to use independent sources to describe, neutrally, how exceptional the school is. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I thank you for the time you've taken to go through this material. I see that you're interpreting this post of mine as an attempt at deceiving people. This is something that I take very seriously, so I'd like to explain myself and bring clarity to this issue. The first thing you need to realize is that Launebee has tried to put my legitimacy and good faith into question numerous times over the past year, using arguments such as "he is a SPA" or "he is paid by Sciences Po". My contribution history speaks for itself: I've always refused to start playing this game, and never accused Launebee of anything of that sort. I stick to discussing his edits, not his person. Period. The above post needs to be put in this context. It is the mere reflection of the fact that I refuse to get drawn into personal arguments. Why is that? Simply because I ask to be judged by the substance of my edits and the reasons I provide for them, not my credentials. If you can point me to any edit I've made which was blatantly promotional and/or not appropriately supported by sources, I'd be glad to recognize my mistake and recant. But if this is not the case, why should I accept being drawn into an argument about my legitimacy as a contributor, effectively diverting the conversation from the substantive questions of interest? If details about my personal background are indeed relevant and needed, I am glad to share those in an appropriate and controlled way -- not as a reaction to a heated post that's questioning my motives without providing any substantive reason to do so. Thanks. SalimJah (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The situation is messy with poor behavior all around, as I noted. It is not a matter of "credentials" of anyone. Two of the problems with undisclosed COI are that on the one hand, people who have a COI don't behave or edit with appropriate mindfulness of their own potential bias, and on the other, the suspicion caused by the unmanaged WP:APPARENTCOI can lead others to behave badly. With regard to yourself, please do review the WP:COI guideline and please state your relationship with Sciences Po. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I am grateful for your anwser. Very well then. I am a graduate from Sciences Po. I was affiliated with this University as a PhD student until August 2014. To be sure, I have never been paid, either directly or indirectly, to contribute. This account is my own, together with the edits I make with it. I am also a Wikipedia researcher (notably involved with this project which you mentioned), but this is probably irrelevant, as it's unrelated to my editing activity. As a behavioral scientist, I am well aware of the biases that you point out, and I don't see that my editing activity features the kind of unbalanced / unsourced statements which typically lead to COI suspicion and SPA hand waving. If you do think that I've made problematic edits or that my behavior has been "poor", please let me know and I'll be glad to confront and acknowledge it. If not, could you explain why you describe my activity as "disruptive", and recommend a TBAN against me? SalimJah (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You do realize that everything you have written in WP is in the record, right? Above you claimed that you didn't participate in any of personalized "gotcha" stuff, but there is this. Right? Your first substantial edit to the article added to the pile of promotional garbage in article (diff). And like many people who are too closely connected to the subjects they edit, your talk page contributions speak over and over based on your personal knowledge (and indignation) alone (diff, diff, diff), when what is needed in any difficult talk page discussion are a) dispassion and b) citing of reliable and ideally independent sources that actually support the position you are arguing for - which is one reason why myself and others looked in, and then walked away rather than get dragged into a morass of unsourced advocacy. You did a pretty OK job editing as an undisclosed advocate, but your presence at the article did not improve things, but only provided the counter-pole to Launebee's (arguably more) disruptive advocacy. If you had shown that you were more here to build an encyclopedia and had contributed to other articles I probably would not have recommended a TBAN but you are pretty much a WP:SPA and here only to defend/promote Sciences Po. I still find your ANI comment to be... deceptive and your "explanation" of it to be... infelicitous as best. You actively mislead everyone. "Period", as it were. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I acknowledge that a careful reading of the full talk page discussion is involved and difficult. But you are making very strong claims based on my edit history, which I think are unfounded. First, my first Wikipedia edit was certainly not perfect, but hey, that was my first edit, which I made 6 years ago! This is unrelated to the subject matter. Second, following some rather serious elements brought to the Sciences Po talk page by XIIIfromTOKYO, I did reiterate SashiRolls’s request that Launebee clarifies his relationship to the account which had recently been blocked on French wp for a similar pattern of editing across the Sciences Po / Panthéon Assas pages. Launebee ignored both requests, and I never came back to it. Third, you point to those three posts of mine (here, here and here) as evidence that I’m mostly speaking out of personal experience as opposed to citing reliable/independent sources that support my claims. This is incorrect. The first 2 posts are responses to specific questions I had been asked. A lot of the info I provide there is peripheral to the main issues being discussed with respect to the article lead, which were relatively trivial in comparison (e.g., should we call Sciences Po a “university”). So I did not feel like those peripheral points deserved hours of additional investment in careful referencing at this stage. The beginning of my first post makes this distinction very clear. For all of the substantive issues in the lead, I provided carefully articulated arguments and references. The 3rd post is actually an instance of me trying to compromise so that progress could be made, while discussing the meaning of the sources put forward but Launebee.

Please note that my initial involvement in this dispute has nothing to do with me trying to push a personal agenda. I had none. Launebee’s editing practices simply struck me as violent, especially to new users who were investing in the page without necessarily understanding all the rules (yet), and had their material reverted repeatedly without an explanation. A collaborative atmosphere had to be restored so that we could collectively make progress. This was my initial concern (diff, diff, diff, diff). It will not surprise you that I did not succeed. After a while it was only me and Launebee left, so I defended some of the arguments initially brought by others that I thought made a lot of sense (e.g., Sciences Po is a university). Did I achieve much? No. Especially given the costs involved in maintaining the discussion focused, which would not have been possible without Kautilya3 's involvement. Was it useful? I think that providing a sourced and informed "counter-pole" to Launebee's extreme positions definitely was. Am I an "undisclosed advocate", who's "actively misleading everyone" (please note that my connection to Sciences Po has always been public information) and "not here to build an encyclopedia"? Those are very strong and hurtful personal attacks, and I don't think that my editing history supports any of that. I'll let others arrive at their own conclusion on this issue. SalimJah (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:Thanks for you work. However, I sincerely don’t understand your conclusion. I am not at all a SPA, I worked on a lot of universities webpages, as you can see in my edit history. I just came across one account wanting to denigrate PA at any cost, and other wanting to do academic boosterism on SP at any cost, so I ended up editing a lot these pages, but not on purpose.

• Please see if there is one edit in SP where I put promotional content on purpose on PA article, ie when after discussion I did persist on putting academic boosterism? You will see all my edits are with sources, and, Mr rnddude, who is neutral here, agrees with most of my edits, he agrees with the last ones and is inquiring about some. (There was a previous version with the right sources, but badly written, he explained why, I immediately changed. Now we have a fair and open discussion, whereas XIII keeps nearly insulting me like "you are lying", etc.) Indeed, I had to edit it a lot but because I faced a contributor who constantly removed sources, facts with no discussion but that he felt was "in favor" in PA, etc.
• On SP webpage, you can see the article before I came: a promotional catalogue. I shortened it and put more neutral statements, but then it led to an edit warring in the lede. It is why I had to create a section about all the judicial condemmnations of SP. And then they still wanted to edit war to put promotional content: it is why I ended up putting the information about the very strong criticism, with some serious sources (like Le Monde, an academic paper from the former SP director himself, etc.). Now you can see that a lot of editors want to put "Sciences Po is widely considered to be one of Europe's most prestigious academic institutions" in the lead, even if no source in the whole article is talking about some prestige in Europe. I do not feel I am "denigrating" SP by working on removing such a promotional statement (because there is absolutely no source for that).

Thank you for recognizing my work on the SP article, but you can see I did not put any promotional content in the PA page. Everything is sourced. For example, I put the good Eduniversal ranking of SP in its webpage, nobody told me it was promotional, I do the same with the PA article, and XIII is writing everywhere that it is academic boosterism. It is not, for any of them. There is currently an ad template on the PA page, because Mr rnddude asked me to keep it for now, the time he finishes his inquiries, but there is no promotional content in the article at all. And most importantly, I has always discussed things respectfully, and changed my mind when if it suited, eg when Mr rnddude explained why some things had to be changed.

Actually, my request is somehow different. Even if you find one promotional content in PA page (it means a statement without a strong source that I insisted on keeping in), which you won’t, it is forbidden on Wikipedia to insult people or to threat them anyway. And XIII is constantly doing so. You can see he is talking about Twitter and newspapers, etc.

--Launebee (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation of your work in WP. This is a community board and others will arrive at their own judgements. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I did some minor cleanup on the Science Po page, particularly the lists (I don't find the excessive--I think it could almost be worth moving into a breakout article, as has been dons for some other major universities-- but it can be stated more compactly to avoid looking disproportionate--and to avoid repeating the university's name dozens of times.) I will now do some adjustment of the puffery in the lede. I know its protected but I think what I did is uncontroversial cleanup, but jytdog, you can revert if you think I made things worse.

The list of criticism seems outdated--it needs updating, and possibly a better choice of which are major enough to include, but I do not intend to work on that part myself.

I've looked at a lot of university pages here. Almost all of them have some promotional wording, typically copied or paraphrased from the university web site or press releases. About half of them are much worse than this. Usually the problem is clearly due to the university PR office, but sometimes is zealous students or alumni. are to some extent unduly promotional. The main difference from promotional articles on companies is that major companies usually have better PR staff than universities can afford. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:I don’t understand. You say you don’t agree but in the same time you are not providing any example of me putting promotional content in PA page. You cannot accuse me of things without proving it, can you? You can see in talk page with Mr rnddude that what I put has sources. For example, on PA article, the lead contains the fact that it is ranked first by Eduniversal with source, XIII says it is promotional. But, for SP, I supported the inclusion of the best ranking of a SP field (not even the best ranking of SP in total), but there, nobody sees ad, even if it is very particular, and I am still accused of denigrating. --Launebee (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Input from Kautilya3

I got pulled into the debates at Talk:Sciences Po by the RfC bot. Seeing that things were in pretty bad shape, I stayed there, trying to moderate the discussions. It was exhausting; the quality of debate was pretty low. Some of it is probably inevitable because most of the editors are native French speakers and they have a weak understanding of English Wikipedia policies. But there are definitely behind-the-scenes agendas, which probably arise from the unequal treatment of the universities in the French system. The Grandes ecoles play a role similar to private universities in the Anglo-American world, with enormous resources and very few contraints, whereas the traditional universities play a role similar to public universities with a strong regulatory regimen. The tensions between the two are being played out here.

Jytdog has done an exhaustive analysis of all the editors involved, which I more or less agree with:

• Launebee is actively involved in denigrating the Grandes ecoles and promoting the traditional universities. See for example this proposed text, where they claim that there is consensus among the sources as well as editors that Sciences Po provides "fake education". A TBAN for all French academic institutions is appropriate and would be helpful in cleaning up the editing culture on these pages.
• SalimJah, I feel a bit more sympathetic to. Their input in the discussions, even if it was from private knowledge, was helpful, and they gave me the appearance of an WP:NPOV editor. The undisclosed COI is not a deal-breaker to me. We do not prohibit the alumni of a university in contributing to their university pages. I would recommend a short-term TBAN of about 2 months for Sciences Po only.
• MePhisto should be dealt with for their socking history. I am not sure if a TBAN is necessary in this case.
• For XIIIfromTOKYO, a warning against personal attacks, stating that any repeat of this behaviour would be strictly dealt with.
• In addition, I would propose that Sciences Po and Panthéon-Assas University be indefinitely sem-protected to prohibit socking. Any other French university pages that end up in this situation would also need to be promptly semi-protected.

I would say that urgent action is indeed needed for these two pages if they are ever to improve. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• fwiw I am fine with the recommendations here. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:

• I don’t understand why you are disagreeing with the "fake" education criticism. You asked yourself to check on Google Scholar, with a paper by Richard Descoing, saying himself that the nickname "Sciences Pipeau" is old and still well-spread ("a la vie dure"), and Pipeau means "fake" in French. It seems unfair to state that somehow it is my invention, where Le Monde is mentioning an "old debate" about "Sciences Pipeau" (Sciences Fake) and France Inter makes a whole one-hour programme on this criticism. "Sciences Po for Dummies" has a chapter on 10 "Common ideas on Sciences Po" and among them there is "Sciences Pipeau". And there are many other sources. I don’t understand how one can say I am "denigrating" SP, if I am just reporting what sources say.
• I don’t understand also why you are saying "these two pages". In PA article, everything is sourced, and I am following the fair comments of Mr rnddude, who is absolutely neutral here.
• I find unfair too, that you are strongly supporting the inclusion of the sentence "Sciences Po is widely considered to be one of Europe's most prestigious academic institutions" in the lead, even if no source in the whole article is talking about some prestige in Europe, but that you are saying I am biased against SP by wanting to remove such a false statement from the lead. --Launebee (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If you think "nickname" means "criticism", then I think you have a problem of WP:CIR. If you know that it doesn't mean that but make up a criticism claim anyway, then you are WP:POV pushing. What do you want it to be? In this comment, I suggested that you look at sources given by Google Scholar. But you haven't used any of these sources; nor did you explain what they said about the issue. The very first source (by Chemin) said, according to Google translate, "They are often graduates of the Political, Economic and Social (PES) section, the one we call Pipeau and Solo, lucid on the effort...", which suggests that it was a nickname used by Sciences Po people themselves. Without consulting these sources, you continued to use newspaper opinion columns and blog posts to make the claim of "criticism" and, even worse, you said that that is what the consensus of the editors was even though practically nobody agreed with it. I am not getting into any further content discussion here. This is not the place for it. But the "Pipeau" issue highlights your agenda quite clearly, I think. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You write "which suggests that it was a nickname used by Sciences Po people themselves", as if it was contrary to what I say, but I included it in the article already, with sources: students also nickname SP as such. Why do you say it is contrary to what I say? Students nickname it as such, because they don’t see the problem, and it became a cricism outside SP.

The consensus I was asking about was about the lead. I was answered no, then I never said there is anyway.

Why do you say I use only columns? Le Monde article is, for example, not at all a column, but clearly states that the criticisms about SP education reminds the "old debate" Sciences Pipeau. And why are you telling me that here, and not on the talk page? I would, as always, have read you and we could have discussed it.

So you still think making a request for comment and opposing to "Sciences Po is widely considered to be one of Europe's most prestigious academic institutions", with absolutely no source saying so, in the lead is denigrating SP? And you support such a statement? Whereas I also agreed on the inclusion on the lead, among rankings, of the best ranking of SP best degree? With all due respect, I am not sure you are really neutral here.

--Launebee (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry. You are obfuscating all over again. I gave a specific link to your proposed text for the lead, which you claimed represented the consensus of the editors. The text said that Sciences Pipo was giving fake education, based on one newspaper opinion column and one blog post. Another editor who knows French recently removed this interpretation saying that the sources do not mean it. That is all I wish to say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I use the word consensus, because nobody was saying anything about that for 5 days. I wrote it in the talk page to see what people think about it, and when one editor told me he disagreed with the version, I did not follow up.

Pipeau means "fake", I am not inventing it, it is the dictionary So, when Le Monde (not column or blog), France Inter, Sciences Po for Dummies, Richard Descoings himself are talking about a this "common idea" about Sciences Po, that it would be "Sciences Pipeau" (pronounced "Pipo"), indeed they say that it is a school giving a "fake education". The columns are only saying more about it.

You have a point of view the article and are in favour of putting "Sciences Po is widely considered to be one of Europe's most prestigious academic institutions". But you can’t use the discussion here to force your opinions on contents.

--Launebee (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Input from User:Mr rnddude

Since for some reason everybody else is doing it, and I've been specifically requested to leave a comment here by the instigating party to this thread, I'll just follow suit with the separate header for my comments. First and foremost, I'll say that I don't know anything that's going at Talk:Sciences Po. I have been avoiding that page like the plague and trying to help out at Pantheon Assas. I'll be discussing XIIIfromTOKYO and Launebee only since these are the only editors I have interacted with.

On the topic of XIIIfromTOKYO; I don't think XIII is particularly interested in the article in the sense of fixing it. Rather I think that XIII wants to note the issues with the article and leave it to interested editors to fix it. I say this because XIII hasn't been contributing material to the article directly, at least, I have not observed it. For the most part, XIII has stuck to leaving comments on the talk page for myself and Launeebee and reverting Launebee's edits. I agree with the above assessments about personal attacks and think a warning should be given. I don't see the need to take further action against XIII. I translated their French comment with google translate, couldn't make heads or tails of it, the thing started talking about "helping with partials", some random shit about legal capacity and complaints, and finished of with something about a "PDD". It did read threateningly though and Launebee's explanation about bringing in reporters and the such makes sense.

On the topic of Launebee; Her edits there do not seem all that ... eh, promotional. I detect some promotionalism in regards to describing Pantheon Assas in a positive light, but, nothing worth TBANing over. The worst offender I would say is making sure that the Eduniversal "1st in Law in France" material is placed in the lede. I don't think rankings should be in the lede at all, but, so many University articles do this anyway. It's subjective material and most University Ranking sites don't list PA at all in their top 1000 universities overall with the exception of QS which puts in 801+ overall, 101-150 in law in the world, and 3rd in France in law. I had intended to resolve the dispute by the previous weekend (14th May) and to bring the article to B-class, but, ran into the brick wall of not speaking French and most sources for PA are in French. So instead I decided to try and resolve the content dispute and do a general copy-edit for prose. As of the filing of this AN/I case I have not touched the PA article. I might try to do a couple edits today. I am easily sidetracked by many other things on Wikipedia including this page. Hello to all the other threads I have commented on over the past few days. I think that Launebee's been a bit impatient with their editing at PA. We'd agree on one thing and Launebee would fix that one thing but also re-introduce everything else as well in the same edit. Also removing maintenance templates leading to edit-warring. This needed to be a piece-by-piece engagement. I've said repeatedly I agree with part of the disputed edit and disagree with part of it as well. It's up to the community to decide what to do, but, from my interactions with Launebee, I don't have any reason to want any kind of P/TBAN or block. Really, I just want to clean up PA and move-on to articles that interest me personally. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Input from User:Hijiri88

• Somewhat off-topic question: Is there a reason this is formatted like an arbitration request? ANI is supposed to be for discussion, and having separate subthreads named for the users posting in them is really awkward. (And yes, I'm aware of the irony of writing this in my own subsection. It's called humour. Anyone who accuses me of WP:POINT because of this clearly doesn't understand what the ... point ... of WP:POINT is.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No reason other than the fact that the comments were pretty long. I am not sure how this is going to play out here any way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Diamond Foundry suspicious re-creation, possible compromised account

I came across the creation of the page Diamond Foundry under two titles - the correct capitalization as well as Diamond foundry. I assumed it was a mistake by a new user and tagged the wrong one for deletion, but then they continued to edit the wrong one, so I tagged the correct one for deletion to make way for a move. User:Kudpung deleted the page, and I moved the wrong title to it and tagged the redirect for deletion. However, I'm finding a log entry regarding this page being recreated by a blocked/banned editor - Jeremy112233 - in violation of their block. Upon further inspection, the user who has now re-created it, Greenfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not edit for nine years, then suddenly came back to re-create this article and leave an interesting message at the article's talk page. Something tells me this account has actually been compromised in order to re-create this article, and I therefore would like opinions from here. Home Lander (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sleeper? See this sock farm. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, I suppose it could be, though if it is, it's actually older than the "master". I'll open an SPI and see where that leads. Home Lander (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not Jeremy112233. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Greenfan is an WP:SPA around Martin Roscheisen (and the creator of it), presumably undisclosed COI editor. It's trivial to see a connection offwiki. Widefox; talk 15:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So, Greenfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dfgphr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are apparently the same. The article now has enough notability to be saved, but I suppose these two accounts can go bye-bye. Home Lander (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC

Please review the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Don_Reitz.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think a boomerang is required. This user has now reverted the addition of COI templates from articles they've been paid to write multiple today on each of Don Reitz [128] [129] and Bonin Bough [130] [131] [132] and is now edit warring to make it seem as if they are allowed to do this: [133] [134]. SmartSE (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, since that post at WP:COIN is essentially a complaint about me, it might have been courteous to mention that you had posted here, Janweh64. I don't know what the problem is here, but it seems that the editor just will not listen to anything anyone says. There've already been two discussions here – both started by me – about Janweh moving his/her own WP:paid drafts to mainspace. Now we have edit-warring on articles where there's a declared COI, attempting to edit the guidance for COI editors in relation to maintenance templates to make that all right, and at least one more copyright violation (a single sentence, copied verbatim from a book; this was added long after the problems at George Ronald Richards had been sorted out). I'm also having difficulty seeing the sudden new interest in pages that I have created (1, 2) as anything but purely disruptive in intent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You are both forumshopping. Please read WP:APPNOTE. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Janweh64 has now moved into purely disruptive activity, edit warring at Help:Maintenance template removal to change the instructions regarding removal of tags by paid editors:

• diff 13:51, 17 May 2017
• diff 14:00, 17 May 2017
• diff 16:41, 17 May 2017

This is reminiscent of the behavior of 009o9 who also attempted to game guidelines and template help instructions to aid their paid editing. We indeffed that editor, here, in June 2016.

There were already threads here about Janweh's aggressive editing to support their paid editing work (here from February 2017 and here from last month)

In my view it is time for a significant block, and a strong warning that one more instance of aggressive editing to support their paid editing work will result in an indef.

It is good that Janweh is trying to be part of the community and disclose their paid editing, but they are not getting it, that the community will not tolerate disruption and taking up the community's time so that they can get paid more quickly. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox copyvio-revdel needed

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

---

Posting here due there being little chance of a {{copyvio-revdel}} tag surviving on the page.

• Wikipedia:Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• URL: http://www.politonline.ru/interpretation/22890331.html
• 780453274 to 780453278 (2 revs) (copyvios)
• 780667557 to 780667564 (2 revs) (copyvios)

I don't know for certain what the actual copyright status is, I just know it turns very red in Earwig's, and seems quite likely to be a copyvio of a Russian news article.

Thanks.

Murph9000 (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2017 (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 or something deeper?

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.

---

Just come across this at Talk:Hacking (rugby). It may just be a simple piece of vandalism but something in me seems to think this could be something else. For some reason I seem to be thinking its some form of message being sent to other persons unknown. It may be harmless vandalism but I just thought I'd bring it to the admins attention. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone is quite bored, and they are going to have to find somewhere else to play. Indef'ed for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2017 (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 Suicide Threat "I may do death" by IP

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

---

On February 27 this ES: Made all of the – inline In the births section. It was bugging me so I put a bit of my time into editing it and making it look a little bit better. Please accept this edit as it will stop bugging me and many other people who this may bug.I may do death.) IDK what the last sentence means, and whether or not this is worthy of WMF911 time because it's an IP. IP not notified. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

From the looks of it, no, it does not. It just looks like a IP who added himself to the list. — JJBers 17:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• The IP was making some formatting changes to February 27#Births. It seems clear enough to me that "I may do death" is referring to editing February 27#Deaths next. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I see another vandal cop has beaten me to the revert. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Other than the self-entry, the edit seemed pretty useful. — JJBers 17:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Just to remind everyone, procedures for handling threats (including suicide threats) are at WP:EMERGENCY. Don't post at high-traffic boards like ANI.

Also, can someone change the purple edit notice for this page (i.e. ANI) to point to WP:EMERGENCY? I've tried before but it's either protected, or buried in a maze of includes, and I couldn't figure out how to do it. EEng 17:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Taken care of. It's an editnotice, so even if you'd found it you'd have to get an admin to do it; the secret is to click on the small page notice link right underneath the title in the edit window. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. KnowItAll! EEng 17:49, 19 May 2017 (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.

Codename Lisa’s WP:TPO violations and edit 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.

---

Resolved

 – Stern warning issued to Codename Lisa and OP blocked for 72 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) has been edit warring, repeatedly changing my signature, also violating WP:TPO. Here is the most recent revision. WP:TPO states that “fixing format errors that render material difficult to read” is permitted, but Codename Lisa changed <br> to <br/>; <br> is not a format error, nor does it render any material difficult to read.

Codename Lisa has also attempted to provoke me (Finally. He is in my talk page and I have the freedom to suppress this annoying <br> into <br/>. What a relief!), and she has violated the talk page policy yet again, by personally attacking me (Still, in comparison to this User:PapiDimmi, the sock was an angel.). I was not even involved in this discussion, and when I tried to confront her, she removed my comment. Here is the discussion about changing my line break tags.

Codename Lisa has removed several of my comments, so I cannot discuss this issue with her any further, as she clearly does not want me to. I do not want my signature changed, and it does not need to be changed. WP:TPO only allows one to change a formatting error if it makes the page hard to read, and <br> is neither a formatting error, nor does it make anything difficult to read. There is absolutely no functional difference between <br> and <br/> (or even <br />, for that matter).
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

When XHTML was the standard html produced by most up-to-date websites, it was necessary to make single tags like <br> into self-closing tags like this: <br /> for it to be valid XHTML. Now that we have all adopted HTML5, those constraints have disappeared and <br> is now perfectly valid markup. However, old habits die hard and perhaps Codename Lisa has forgotten that the change has occurred. I'd counsel further efforts to explain to her; despite it being very important to you right now, it probably doesn't "amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world". When a user removes comments from their talk page, it is taken as an acknowledgement that they have been read, so you ought not to give up too soon. --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa has not forgotten anything. She’s well aware that <br> is a perfectly fine tag; however, she chooses to ignore and remove my comments and keep editing my signature, despite I and others telling her not to. The only thing I want Codename Lisa to do is to stop editing my signature, yet she refuses to.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

As there is absolutely no functional difference, would it not be better to just apply WP:DGAF, and worry about something that actually does matter? Yes, I understand the importance of not defacing someone's sig, but I don't see any real defacement here. There is no material change to the meaning of the talk messages. Obviously there's some form of conflict between the two of you, and the simplest resolution seems to me for either of you to just walk away from it, without involving AN/I in a change which is a null change after rendering. If it's limited to Lisa's user talk page and apparently helps with some (arguably broken) tool she uses, walking away seems like a reasonable response. Escalation seems unnecessary and inappropriate to me. Either of you can "be the bigger person" (or equivalent, and for which there is no tangible prize) by just dropping it. I'm not saying you are "wrong", only suggesting a peaceful resolution which is available to you. Murph9000 (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What Murph said. Of course come back if she starts fiddling with your signature on any page other than her own user/talk page. Editors have quite wide leeway on their own userpages as long as they are not distorting or altering other editors comments in any manner. A minor pointless tweak to your signature that makes no actual difference would be unlikely to qualify. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, her change of your signature is definitely against TPO, so no, she can't do that, and the personal attack you mentioned is definitely an attack, Codename Lisa definitely needs to cool it with the personal attacks.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  16:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No comment on this current matter but only because I was aware this happened, PapiDimmi has recently been blocked over a tussle with Codename Lisa before over TPO-related issues, so this might be a bit BITEY as well. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by “bitey,” but I was blocked due to edit warring on the Template talk:Cleanup page. Codename Lisa wasn’t really involved, but rather, FleetCommand (talk · contribs) was the one who violated WP:TPO and continued to edit my signature, just like Codename Lisa. Both I and FleetCommand were blocked for twenty-four hours.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa filed the edit warring report against you, and there was extended discussion from you with them on your talk page after the block, and seemingly over the same issue of formatting and TPO. This exists and could be an influence why this report is being made, so those reviewing this should be aware of that situation. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason I posted this is that I want Codename Lisa to stop editing my signature. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@PapiDimmi: Would you care to explain why you just needlessly edited my comment in this edit? I deliberately use double spaces between sentences, partly due to my visual impairment. It does not apply outside of articles, but even MOS:PUNCTSPACE specifically caters to those of us who prefer the traditional double space at the end of a sentence. What other changes did you try to sneak into the preceding conversation? Kindly do not edit the text of my comments ever again! Murph9000 (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

All right, I apologize for my mistake. I did not realize that these trifling formatting errors which make it were deliberate. I will kindly not edit the text of your comments ever again!
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I uncollapsed the above. It isn't really off topic as it is discussing alteration of editor's comments. This time by the OP. It is ironic that during a discussion about altering a post the complaining editor is altering others posts. ~ GB fan 17:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This post is about Codename Lisa’s vandalism, when she changed <br> to <br/> in my signature, violating Wikipedia’s talk page guidelines. Murph9000 discussed me removing double and triple spaces in his comment, which is not relevant to this incident discussion and thus needs to be collapsed, per WP:TPO.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@PapiDimmi: They are not trifling formatting errors, or any type of error. They are a very deliberate choice to use traditional typography. It makes the source text considerably easier for me to read when composing and reviewing my comments (and while it would give greater WP:ACCESSIBILITY for me, I do not change other people's comments to achieve that). Murph9000 (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Murph9000: I understand. I’ve apologized for my mistake, and I won’t edit the spacing in your comments in the future. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 18:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, while <br> is valid HTML5, it's still treated like an unclosed tag when using the syntax highlighter gadget and that affects the highlighting. It's just a minor quibble, though. As far as page rendering goes, nothing's affected. clpo13_(talk) 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I’m not familiar with the syntax highlighter, but it’s up to whomever maintains this tool to fix issues like this, not me or Codename Lisa. Like you said, <br> is not a formatting error which renders the page difficult to read, thus changing it in somebody else’s signature violates WP:TPO, like I’ve said numerous times before.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@PapiDimmi: Can I ask a question? Ignoring all aspects of people being rude, violating talk page guidelines, edit warring, assuming things they shouldn't assume, etc., etc. ... would you mind tweaking your signature to use a <br/> tag going forward? As far as I can tell it would do you no harm, and might make people using the syntax highlighter happy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I prefer the unclosed line break tag, as I think that it looks nicer. HTML5 fully supports it, and I don’t use the syntax highlighter myself, so this isn’t an issue for me. If it’s so annoying, why can’t whoever maintains the syntax highlight tool fix it? It sounds like a simple fix to me.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 18:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean you think it looks nicer? They're functionally equivalent in the way they look on the rendered page. You mean you like the way it looks in the edit window? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You mean you like the way it looks in the edit window? Indeed, I do. As we both know, <br> causes no issues outside the syntax highlighter. If the tag caused serious issues, I’d obviously fix my signature, but this has been my signature for an eternity, and I do not wish to change it. Like I said, if it’s such a big issue, the person or people who maintain the syntax highlighter can fix the bug which causes <br> not to be highlighted properly (or whatever the issue is).
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 18:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, so you value the way it looks in the edit window over doing a favor for people who do use the syntax highlighter gadget. Got it. Thank you for the information. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It’s not my duty to change something in my life just to please a small amount of people.

Here’s an analogy: Would you throw away one of your sweaters if some lady walks up to you whilst you’re shopping and tells you that the sweater you’re wearing’s colour is too bright and disrupts her focus? I take it you wouldn’t.

Adding a slash to the line break tag is yet another character to add to my signature, making every talk page I post on slightly longer, which is unnecessary, is it not? Like I’ve said several times, if it’s such a big issue, get the syntax highlighter people to fix the damn issue. It’s not my job, nor is it Codename Lisa’s.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 18:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What a ridiculous analogy. Wait, nevermind, sorry, but this conflict doesn't directly affect me, and we've just established that you think we should only act on things that directly affect ourselves. If I were to do something here to help you, in a way that doesn't directly benefit me, then I'd feel taken advantage of. I'm a little surprised you're not ashamed to ask others to do something that doesn't directly affect them; it seems a little hypocritical. Instead, I suggest you and Codename Lisa both continue to cause each other unnecessary stress and heartache, with no interference from anyone else, since it is clearly what you both deserve, and may indeed be what you both want. It's a shame that this also wastes the time of people looking at this thread, but that doesn't directly affect me. Plus, if they're smart, they'll realize upon completion of this sentence that they should stop reading this thread, and no one will comment further on it, limiting the damage. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason I won’t permanently change my signature is not that it doesn’t directly affect me. The reason is that I am not obliged to change something just because one person wants me to. I don’t want to change my signature; therefore, I don’t have to. Does that make me a bad person?

Codename Lisa has decided that she wants to go out of her way and start multiple edit wars where she edits my signature, violating WP:TPO. I wish for this behaviour of hers to stop, which is why I created this section in the first place. I don’t know what I can say that I haven’t already said. Like I’ve said a thousand times, <br> is not a formatting error which renders any material difficult to read. Since it, apparently, affects the syntax highlighter, get whomever maintains this tool to fix this issue, rather than continuously plaguing me.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 19:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• PapiDimmi, the signature guideline states:

1. A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. For example, some editors find that long formatting disrupts discourse on talk pages, or makes working in the edit window more difficult.
2. "Do not add line breaks (<br />), which can also negatively affect nearby text display. The use of non-breaking spaces to ensure that the signature displays on one line is recommended.

(emphasis added in both cases)

Your signature is unsuitable. Removing the line break will both bring it into compliance with the guideline, and avoid future problems with editors fixing it to accommodate the way they edit the project. As you've stated the reasons for keeping your signature the way it is are purely cosmetic, I think it's a reasonable request to ask you to remove the line break as it will not otherwise alter your signature. Or if you insist on keeping the line break in contravention of the guideline, I think as a compromise you could at least add the trailing slash as other users have indicated that it will otherwise remain problematic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I don't think anyone's mentioned it, but isn't it possible that whatever editor Codename Lisa is using is adding the trailing slash automatically, if it interprets the markup as noncompliant code? Remember all the problems with the Drumpf extension? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If you actually look at her revisions on User talk:Codename Lisa, you’ll see that her revisions are definitely not automatic in any way.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 20:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, PapiDimmi, my observation that your signature is being edited because it is causing inconvenience for other users and is in contravention of the guideline is most certainly not "off-topic". Why should all of us tip-toe around your failure to follow the guideline? The solution to your noncompliant signature being edited into compliance is for you to make your signature compliant yourself. Or are you just here to stir up shit? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that Codename Lisa should receive a trout the size of a whale for interfering with what is after all first and foremost something private of PapiDimmi, and that PapiDimmi should add the slash to his signature himself since that is the most correct and ideal way of writing code. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sure this will get collapsed also as Off-topic, but here goes. It is amazing that PapiDimmi gets to decide what is is not on topic here and collapses anything they don't think is on-topic. ~ GB fan 20:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. @PapiDimmi:, read WP:BOOMERANG, and don't collapse any more comments in this thread. If something is off-topic someone else will deal with it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked the OP for continuing this ridiculous disruption and I am seriously starting to doubt that they are here in good faith. I will also issue a warning to Codename Lisa for their sub-optimal actions which have contributed to this charade. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Using <br> is best at Wikipedia. That comes straight from the top. It's going to take time for the word to get out, but those advising otherwise are fighting the tide. Johnuniq (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I would interpret that post otherwise, and in any case think with the slash is better, whatever this developer may say. By the way, these last posts (mine and Johnuniq's) should be collapsed IMHO. Debresser (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't help but chuckle when people say this or that formatting style for talk comments is better and that other styles will die out. I don't really care whether my way of formatting my talk comments is considered antiquated by employees of the WMF; as long as it still works, I'm almost certain to continue doing it, and the same is probably true of 99% of Wikipedians who have been here a long time.

That, said, I really don't see what this thread is still open. It's an interesting point for discussion, but belongs at the Village Pump, not ANI.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The above two comments misunderstand the link I gave. That's unimportant, but several posts in the above have given opinions about br—opinions which are based on old ideas that are not relevant to Wikipedia. If anything, the bickering about changing someone else's signatures/comments should be collapsed since it is obvious to (nearly) everyone that such actions are undesirable, so nothing there needs further consideration. OTOH, it is clear that misconceptions about br are prevalent and, while off-topic for ANI, hiding useful information would not be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't read the link you gave, beyond checking who it was from ("employees of the WMF", which I misspelled as "employers of the WMF"). I was more referring to the Using <br> is best at Wikipedia [...] take time for the word to get out [...] fighting the tide, as I don't think there exists a tide to fight. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:43, 18 May 2017 (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:331dot

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 gave the user a ANI-notice before i came here

before HE grossly accuse me like that why dont you read the whole conversation i had with User:Sjö!!!! see User_talk:Sjö#east_german_communist_party and Talk:List of totalitarian regimes for no reason he gave me this little message:

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

i prsume before he grossly accuse me like that why dont he read the whole conversation i had with User:Sjö!!!! see User_talk:Sjö#east_german_communist_party and Talk:List of totalitarian regimes

my messsega on User:Sjö talkpage is simply APOLOGIZING FOR MY SLIGHTLY SLIGHTLY BAD ENGLISH LANGUAGE! he fully understood what i meant and even thanked me on my user notice box! ADMINS FEEL FREE TO CHECK THAT!

before that user says anything else check my user contributions https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ukrainetz1! i never edit warred, "attacked", "attacked" anyone and while i admit i made some minor factual errors i have improved myselved and consider myself a good editor to our community

i created the National Corps wikipedia article, i happened to improve my english skills and both factually and visually corrected List of totalitarian regimes article, i spent alot of time learning wiki code for that! Ukrainetz1 (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for making a mistake and giving offense but when I see someone post "if wikipedia users are going to be even more stupider than this then by 2050 here what wikipedia would look like:" [135] it's hard to see it as anything other than an attack on other users. Bringing me here for this seems excessive for a simple mistake that I admit to; this page is meant to request administrator intervention. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

is that your apology? oh my...youre getting yourself deeper and deeper into trouble my friend! see Category:Wikipedia humor this was the title of my PERSONAL SUBPAGE IN WHICH I TRIED TO MAKE A JOKE TO EVERYONE HERE AT WIKIPEDIA INCLUDING YOU... YOU INTERUPET ME WITH YOUR LITTLE "warning" while i was User:Ukrainetz1/Nazi Germany was supposed to be a parody about nazi germany and wikipedia itself NOT WIKIPEDIA USERS! and it all seems "seems excessive" to you Ukrainetz1 (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

actually thanks to you after all of this attention my well meant joke is gone...hours of work gone into the gutter Ukrainetz1 (talk) —Preceding undated Ukrainetz1 (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I unconditionally apologize. I'm not sure what more you want from me, or what you want the administrators to do. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• THANK YOU 331dot this is the only thing i wanted, you are forgiven! i only posted it here because i toguht i got into trouble and wanted to come here before you did! i guess is could start over with my parodies about a historical periods and internet websites. ADMINS CLOSE THIS THREAD! Ukrainetz1 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ukrainetz1: Are you intending to create articles? This is an encyclopedia, and not free web space for you to just create parodies. What is the purpose of your parodies? 331dot (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

ADMINS!

i and 331dot resoloved this ourself no need for any admin action. so please: ADMINS PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD! Ukrainetz1 (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2017 (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

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.

---

@Historybuff19956: See here, here, here and here Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:AIV

 – Someone probably will block them shortly, but AIV is normally the best place for the completely obvious cases, especially aggravated cases (e.g. the homophobic content in these edits, but also things like racist, antisemitic, etc). That's unless there's something more complex that I'm missing, which requires more debate in addition to the WP:RBI. Murph9000 (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Apollo The Logician: Oh, and just to be clear, thanks for being concerned, reverting, reporting, etc. Reporting anywhere reasonably visible is far better than not reporting. The above is mostly to help you and others find the right place in future cases. Murph9000 (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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

BLP violations by Conspiracy theory user spamming links to AIPAC and anti-Israel on unrelated pages

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.

---

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

WP:BLP violations by Conspiracy theory user spamming links to AIPAC and anti-Israel on unrelated pages

Examples:

[136] adds "AIPAC" to see also for Foreign Agents Registration Act.

[137] adds wholly unsourced WP:BLP violations about a living person. Reverted by KGirlTrucker81.

[138] adds spurious personal commentary into article space.

[139] POV pushing, reverted by ValarianB.

[140] revealing edit summary, "AIPAC Foreign Agents", reveals user's POV pushing bent nonsense. Reverted by JamesLucas.

Admin action needed here. Sagecandor (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for persistent NPOV issues, as well as the BLP violation. There's clearly point-of-view pushing going on, and it's clear that action was needed in order to stop it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much to Oshwah, the users above I'm sure are thankful as well. Sagecandor (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You bet. Closing report as resolved. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:53, 19 May 2017 (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.

Reverting closure without 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.

---

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:AN

I had closed an RFC at Talk:Catalan Countries (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) based on a request at WP:AN/RFC (Request). The user Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted my closure (diff) with a note calling it personal opinion. I reverted his edit (diff) and took the matter to the talk page asking him to present his reason for overturning my closure (diff). I asked him to show me any points I missed. Before I could reply to his assertions (here), he again removed the RFC closing statement (diff) and left a note asking any other editor to close the discussion.
My reply to his assertions (here) were actually written before he reverted my edits. I asked other editors to comment on my closure. I was working as per WP:closure review where I would have reviewed my own closure and changed the statement had anything meaningful been brought before me or if most of the participants were unhappy with my closure.
Please correct me if my closure was wrong or take action against him if I was in the correct place. Also, I only wanted to resolve the issue with proper discussion but this reverting of closures isn't really helpful. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe WP:AN is better place for this. Capitals00 (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved to WP:AN § Reverting closure without discussion

. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2017 (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.

Page protection backlog.

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 go through the 50ish requests at wp:rpp. Thanks! Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 17:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There are still about 20 not done yet, some from 15+ hours ago. Softlavender (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2017 (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 war

I'm not really sure if this belongs in edit warring as I am not really involved in this. I came across 2017 Geneva Open and Scrabble Scribble (talk · contribs) and Dooom84 (talk · contribs) seem to be having a disagreement. It seems both have broken 3RR and no communication is taking place. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

67.10.167.124

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 anon IP is edit-warring so actively across multiple Wikipedia articles that three editors just today have each independently posted warnings on his talk page, which he's removed each time:

• At 05:53, 21 May 2017 by User:Amaury ("Warning: Edit warring on List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2017.")
• At 16:04, 21 May 2017 by myself, for his edit-warring at Jesse Watters
• At 16:23, 21 May 2017 by User:Bennv3771 ("Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Esther Ku.")

In two of the above cases, he's adding incendiary, non-neutral claims at biography articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for MPFitz1968 in case he wants to add anything as he's also involved. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

IP continued his vandalism on Esther Ku after final warning, so I reported him to WP:AIV and he has been blocked. Bennv3771 (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2017 (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:Hjahangiry

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.

---

Hjahangiry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Made a legal threat here. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:17, 21 May 2017 (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.

Disruption from 2601:18D:8880:21B0:*

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 has been disruption on cartoon/TV articles from the IPv6 range 2601:18D:8880:21B0:* (see here). This mostly takes the form of airdate vandalism. Requesting a range block. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Range blocked one week. Let me know if it starts up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2017 (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.

Gurbaksh Chahal and 96.8.1.144

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 page continues to be a problem. 96.8.1.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked twice already for his conduct on this article and now the disruption has resumed. I'm tired and fed up with dealing with WP:IDHT behavior, which is demonstrated by repeated misuse of edit summaries and a threatening message posted on Sportsfan 1234's talk page. I'd greatly appreciate it if someone else, perhaps with blocking powers, would deal with this. Lepricavark (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2017 (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.

Balfour Declaration

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

---

I was recently involved in a conversation at Talk:Balfour Declaration about the citations and explanatory notes present in the article Balfour Declaration. The problem is that there's more than 6,000 words of quotations, mostly from copyright works. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text says that "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." The editors of the article have reverted removal of the material twice, and we are at an impasse. Hence I am posting here to get opinions from others as to whether this amount of copying from copyright material should be permitted to remain in the article. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

As the editor who removed 37k of quoted material from the notes alone, I too would welcome comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I tried to get Diannaa to examine one-by-one her massive deletion of multiple quotes from different sources but she declined for lack of time. She seems not to have read the article carefully and does not ask why quotes from scholars are needed in validating one of the most controversial topics in 20th century history. Diannaa asserted: our non-free content policy does not permit this amount of non-free content without a very good reason for each quote. In my opinion she has misread and mis-paraphrased the rule. It actually says Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used . Yes indeed. The rule also says Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. -- the word 'text' is singular and refers to one text. We do not have extensive quotation from one source--the longest quote is 365 words long. The article is 140,000 bytes long or about 20,000 words. My counting shows there are 33 brief quotations under copyright from 28 different scholars. The average length is 109 words. I have read them all and in my judgment each quote is appropriate and helps validate a highly controversial issue. That is, I judge there is "a very good reason for each quote." Rjensen (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Another point. Arab-Israeli issues, such as the Balfour Declaration, are highly controversial in a historical sense of the word and in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. See Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict for the strong warnings. The WP:QUOTE rule is: When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia". In other words, Wiki rules strongly recommend quotations for high-octane disputes, and I think many of the 33 quotes under discussion here fall under that policy. (Here are two examples of this controversial POV rhetoric: 1) quoting Renton: "The myth of British 'proto-Zionism’, which has had such a longstanding influence on the historiography of the Balfour Declaration, was thus produced, so as to serve the needs of Zionist propagandists working for the British Government."; 2) another example: quoting Gelvin: "Zionism itself was also defined by its opposition to the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of the region. Both the 'conquest of land' and the 'conquest of labor' slogans that became central to the dominant strain of Zionism in the Yishuv originated as a result of the Zionist confrontation with the Palestinian 'other'. ") Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to text, the question should be asked as to how much of the individual works are used in our article, and should not be how many total quotes are used (But I do note that WP:QUOTEFARM is something to avoid when possible. Without a detailed read, it does seem like most of the quotes are coming from a variety of sources on the matter, so this would be acceptable. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The length of these quotations is appropriate as a means to provide critical documentation in a controversial article. This is a model of what we should be doing across articles in Wikipedia as a best practice. There is no justification under policy to remove these quotations. Alansohn (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Except that quotation in Wikipedia is acceptable only within narrow limits, as we know. Our policy says "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts …". The guideline says "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. […] Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". The notes alone (not the references, which are separate) in that article constitute more than a quarter of the whole page; much, though not all, of that is from copyright sources. The article itself makes heavy use of quotation too. The quotations in the notes are not treated transformatively – they are not the subject of discussion in the text, and their only real purpose appears to be to save readers the trouble of checking the actual sources if they want to. That isn't how we write an encyclopaedia article, and nor should it be. Far from being best practice, it is one we should strenuously avoid. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

These are all brief quotations that specify the specific portions of text from often-lengthy sources that is being used as a reference, without any hand waving or misdirection; their function here is to "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea" and they fulfill that objective properly. This is a best practice in scholarly works and a model to be followed by Wikipedia. I agree that no editor should be forced to add quotations, nor should they be arbitrarily removed. Alansohn (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

There are other reasons we don't use excessive quotes - often heavy use of quotation is a sign of WP:OR, which there are examples of in this particular article. If an editor writes something like: "These quotes summarize the main idea from this primary source" or "This collection of quotes supports an implicit argument" it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - yes, quotes can be used legitimately, but when the page is half quotes those quotes are probably being pieced together to support a thesis - not ok. Anyway, what I am getting at is there is are very good reasons to NOT write articles this way. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• I must strongly agree with Rjensen and Alansohn that multiple short quotations not be deleted under the auspices of non-free content policy. It is quite obvious that the policy is meant to warn against excessive quotation from a single text, which could jeopardize its copyright. Quotations of the length exhibited here are absolutely the norm in serious scholarship and can greatly enhance the quality of an article. Whether the quotations in Balfour Declaration are appropriate must be considered on their merits as part of the article, not on a priori grounds. Emphatically, groupuscule (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• I also agree. It is excessive quotation from a single source that is prohibited. It is true that multiple quotes of this sort are usually inappropriate when used to document reviews or a book or similar purposes, where a link will suffice. Nor is WP a scholarly journal, where every individual item is referenced and quoted n full detail with the notes often taking more space than the text. In this particular case. for the reasons given above, we have the ideal situation for using them appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

DGG, you (unlike me) probably have a pretty good knowledge of US copyright law. Can you explain how you think this usage conforms with our requirement for transformative use? And how it satisfies De minimis, when about half the page is quotation? This search leads to a number of cases where these principles have been discussed; I suggest that they reflect our long-standing best practice here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there not two issues here? - within the article proper, quotes from multiple sources would not be a problem as they are brief quotes (of their respective works) used to illustrate the points concerned - this is in line with our policies. The notes section should be nuked however, its copying all the relevant work from the texts used as references, its not necessary for an understanding the topic or the sections they cover. I cant see how that falls in line with our policies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

For the secondary sources: de minimis refers to each individual source; we never use more than a paragraph. Transformative use: we are producing an encyclopedia, they were producing scholarly books/articles. The quotations here do not detract from the market for the originals, and we're an educational use: 4/4. I think recent decisions emphasise the commercial impact part,and we have none on the original market--if anything, we stimulate it. For the historical sources, our work is totally transformative, as they were producing documents or advocacy, not discussion. I don't think there;'s any qy of copyright law . The copyvio question is only our NFCC policies for text, which are deliberately stricter than the US law. And the other question is style, about we can make whatever exceptions seem suitable.But I am a librarian, not a lawyer. (Personally, I'd prefer a style using few secondary quotes and trying to reduce them to about half the length each--it's more effective that way) DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that multiple short quotations, especially from different sources, should not be removed as a rule. There's clear indication that length is the chief concern in the WP:NFC passage which says: Unacceptable use - Text - Excessively long copyrighted excerpts. From a Stanford libraries guideline on US copyright law, I note the following: "Because the dissemination of facts or information benefits the public, you have more leeway to copy from factual works such as biographies than you do from fictional works such as plays or novels" (emphasis mine). Considering benefit to the public, I think it is important to note a special role that short quotes placed in footnotes have on WP. In cases of contentious points, they provide reference material for future disputes and benefit the public by helping to ensure that our content is consistent with NPOV and other WP policies. Eperoton (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: What I see in the article are several spots, such as the long quoteboxes, where quotes are overlong and overdone. There are some places where a direct quote is the safest way to avoid OR or close paraphrasing, but keeping these to a sentence or so is best. Too much direct quotation becomes just lazy writing. Montanabw^(talk) 09:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Commont What I see is a content dispute. Close, please. EEng 11:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've re-opened this thread, which was inappropriately closed by an inexperienced editor (and then archived). Pinging Diannaa, Justlettersandnumbers, Rjensen, Masem, Alansohn, Seraphim System, Groupuscule, DGG, Eperoton, Montanabw. Softlavender (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, what is it you're hoping will happen here? EEng 20:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

EEng#s, I think Softlavender may have re-opened this thread in response to a request from me to an inexperienced user who'd prematurely closed it, perhaps influenced by your "commont" above. This not a content dispute, but an attempt to discover what is the consensus interpretation of our policy and guideline on the use of quoted material in general, and in particular whether the extensive use of quoted material at Balfour Declaration is appropriate by those standards. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. That sounds like a fancy way of saying it's a content dispute. All those quotes may or may not serve the reader well (the content question) but I think it's clear it's policy compliant (the not-content-dispute question). EEng 21:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC) A commont is like a comment, only much better.

Wait...why was this re-opened? This is just a content dispute. Requesting non-WP:INVOLVED close. —JJBers 20:59, 21 May 2017 (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.

Addition of unsoured content by Checco

We are in an AfD in National liberalism, I'm trying to keep it clean of WP:OR, the article has being tagged since 2012. I removed the unsourced material citing WP:OR and Checco deliberately re added it without citations. And stated that the sources mention national liberalism, which they not. I warned him several times in the summaries, in his/her talk page [141][142][143] and in the AdF and in the article talk page as you can see. With the instigation of other users like E.M.Gregory and User:Autospark, received thanks and comments in the article's talk page, they have been re adding the unsourced material and removing tags without consistent explanation [144][145][146][147][148][149], and accusing me of bad faith as you can see in the talk page and in the AfD. Their will to maintein OR and the syntheis of the article it's really problematic. That's why I decided to report it. Rupert Loup (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I am very sorry about this. My edits were based on consensus and, in doing them, I was supported by other users: User:E.M.Gregory (who has been also reverting User:Rupert loup) and User:Autospark. I should have reported User:Rupert loup here, but I preferred not to do it because I always favour discussion. The user in question thinks that he/she can tell right from wrong and that others' opinions count for nothing. A fan of total rollbacks, he/she has even violated the 3R rule today at National liberalism. Very disappointed by all this, I am thus asking the administrators to stop this user from doing what he/she wants. --Checco (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that the reverts got out of hand. Attempts to discuss issues like the validity of sources and teh need to obtain consensus on the talk page with uere:loup have proven fruitless. I had though of bringing this here, but hoped that we could work things out, or that an editor would close the AfD (this dispute regards political ideal popular in the 1800s that was kept after a previous AfD discussion.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: What you were reverting was not vandalism. Is there any reason why you shouldn't be blocked for violating WP:3RR? @E.M.Gregory and Checco: A couple editors cannot overturn our verifiability policy and call it "consensus". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

All three of us (there is also User:Autospark) know that, but we are talking about content that has been there for five years with no opposition and/or perfectly sourced material. There is no reason why User:Rupert loup should not be blocked, but I am not asking for that, I am just asking to return to the previous, consensual version of the article and let the discussion continue. --Checco (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Checco, you don't seem very sorry, calling for an "administrators to stop this user from doing what he/she wants", and you E.M.Gregory, I asked for sources and you don't engage in the talk, you accused me of bad faith, didn't talk in the talk page about this incident way before I reverted the vandalism of Checco. And then you join Checco in the re addion of unsourced content, I warning you about this. I want a sincere apology. Neil, the purposely act of trying to maintain unsourced content in Wikipedia, despite the constant warnings, is not vandalism? then what is it? If they did it in good faith ok, but I showed to them the policies several times, there are in my talk page, in the article page, in their talk page and in the AfD, and they keep doing it calling that there was consensus. Where we reach consensus for that? I don't know. That's basically the problem, that I warned them several times and they didn't listened, in fact they ignored me on purpose, for example here, he said "I simply did not want to be dragged into an edit war by a edit-war- and not consensus-oriented guy like you", he didn't care about about the policies that I showed and then keep warring and adding unsourced content. I just wan't that the adding of unsourced material stop, and an apology would be nice but it's not really necessary. Rupert Loup (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I am very sorry for what you have done, indeed: I am quite offended for having been reported here. --Checco (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: The first paragraph of WP:VANDALISM tells you exactly what it is. Repeatedly adding unsourced or poorly sourced content may be disruptive, but it is not vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, most of what we are talking about was the established version of the article. Three users oppose Rupert loup's deletions and want those parts to be re-instated after Ruper loup's repeted rollbacks. Who is the vandal? --Checco (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Checco: No one is the vandal. It does not matter if the material was longstanding - see WP:BURDEN. @Rupert loup: Are you willing to undo your last reverts to avoid a block for violating 3RR? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I know that vandalism and disrupting editing are different things, thus I agree with you. The problem is that I and other users have been extensively accused of being vandals by Rupert loup for days. It would be great if you or Rupert loup were to rollback his/her latest rollback and re-instate the other version, which currently gets more support from users, but if he/she accepts to refrain from editing in a disruptive way and impose his/her version, especially during an AfD, a block will not not be necessary. --Checco (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, WP:VANDALISM says that "intentionally making abusive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block." and "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.". There was no good-faith effort. They purposly did the edits knowing that was against a policy. Checco stated that. He said that he was here since 10 years and he know the policies. But then said that I don't have the power to block him/her and that many users gave thanks for his/her edits and continue with the edits. That's the problem, good faith states that "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." They mocked me saying that my edits were "inept" and that I had bad faith. It's not only what they did, it's how they did it. However, I don't think that anyone here should be blocked, with this is just enough. But I would assume good faith and if you said that Checco wasn't vandalic ok. However he apologized and then accuse me of vandal. Is he really sorry about this? I want that this nonsense stop. Rupert Loup (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I never apologized about anything. Please understand that the only disrupting editing is yours! --Checco (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Given a chance, now blocked for 24 hours. Asking for a page number [150] does not merit a sixth revert in 24 hours. This is not an invitation for other editors to re-revert. All editors should work out sourcing issues on talk page. Any more comments about vandalism or bad faith editing may result in more blocks. You may sharply disagree with the actions of other editors, but that doesn't mean they're vandals. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure the block was necessary, however I think we can rollack Rupert loup's latest rollbacks. Why not? --Checco (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Checco: Because we don't need yet more edit warring on that article. Let everyone take a deep breath for a day or two and then move forward on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Unblocked per agreement not to edit article for the next 48 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have been involved in many hotly contested AfDs, most recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis, a nasty I/P related fight in which I confess to having been out of my depth. But even in that vicious (I/P) arena, the discussion was conducted according to recognizable rules, as I think that talk page shows. Here, Rupert loup, an appearingly experienced editor, seems to have been playing some bizarre game. It is, for example, usual for editors to be careful about deleting RS material while arguing for deletion. But here, shortly after the AfD began, Checco reverts a large deletion by loup, edit summary: "ok AfD, but pleas do not remove the article's content" [151]. loup responds by repeating the deletion with the perplexing comment "no, its unsourced" [152]. Checco restores the material [153] with the edit summary "ongoing AfD discussion: please do not edit in the meantime", and [154], edit summary: [yes, it says exactly that — please do not remove sources]; loup deletes it again [155] edit summary: "Reverting vandalism." This sort of deletion went on and on for 2 days. All of this is odd because while you do get intense disputes involving a lot of fields - including ethnic nationalist movement, theory of nationalism is not usually all that heated. So, yes, I lost my cool a little, and apologize for that. But I do think the proper out come here is some sort of WP:BOOMERANG for Rupert loup, perhaps involving a look at his editing history.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, just I want to point that you stated "this is not an invitation for other editors to re-revert", well it's been reverted and not by me. I was just for doing that when I saw that E.M.Gregory just did it. Edit warring goes both ways but I was the only blocked, just pointing that. I tried to engage in the talk page and in the talk page of the article. I was sure that it was vandalism, now I don't think it any more. I also want to point these edit by me [156], I said "No, its unsourced WP:OR, you can re-add it if you add citations" and then the numerous templates that I added in their talk pages, it's not that I didn't try to engage. I don't accusing anyone of anything. Just pointing what I said and what I did. I'm sorry for the warring. I read WP:DDE and now I know what I should do in this cases. But I always explained what I was doing and why I was doing it. However, I'm really think that someone should explain them the policies about WP:OR and WP:CONSENSUS clearly. Because like Checco point out above when said "Please understand that the only disrupting editing is yours!" and E.M.Gregory edit warring despite that you said that we shouldn't do that, it seems seems that they do not understand what went wrong. If nothing has been learned, what is the point of all these? I'm acknowledged my disruptive edits. Sorry for that again. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: I've also replied on your talk page but yes, you're right. Checco was incorrect when they singled you out as the only disruptive editor and needs to realize this revert was disruptive and the edit summary was just as incorrect as your prior edit summaries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@User:NeilN: I full acknowledge that mentioning "vandalism" was a mistake, but, apart from that, I was restoring a version supported by the majority of the users involved. However, I mentioned "vandalism" just once, while User:Rupert loup always mentioned it. --Checco (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment "Responsibility for providing citations", which is policy, says, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Disregarding policy, Checco restored text that had been removed, saying "re-introduce long-time contents of the article,"[157] This violation is particularly egregious, since the article has been nominated for deletion on the basis that it lacks notability owing to a lack of reliable sources. (Disclosure: Checco created this article in 2007 and I nominated it for deletion in 2010.) I do not understand why Checco is so defensive of this article. From the last AfD eight years ago until the second AfD, he has made 4 minor edits. I do not know whether sources exist and he has not bothered to add them or no sources exist so he cannot find them. TFD (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I am a convinced inclusionist, thus I do not like to see the deletion of material that might be interesting. The material we are talking about was included by an IP user on 11 September 2012 and I copyedited it. Yes, the article was nominated for deletion in 2009 (not 2010) and the result was an (overwhelming) keep. I do not understand the furor of some uses against this article. The new AfD was a good thing because the article has been greatly improved since, especially by User:E.M.Gregory. Now I have several more reasons to defend the article. --Checco (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Checco I'm talking about me here. I don't really care if the article stays or is deleted. If the consensus is keep or delete is the same to me. I just want the OR out of Wikipedia and the subject of the article to me is not notable. Wikipedia is an enciclopedia, not a place to add opinions "that might be interesting". If stays I will sure you that the OR will not. You have my word that I will proceed as WP:DDE states if the addition of synthesis and OR continues. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Southeast Asian religion: disruptive forumshopping

• Terabar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Drivarum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ProudIndian007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marvellous Spider-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Criticism of Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of converts to Islam from Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ok this is a total mess, and I apologize for this long post. Over about the last week a number of editors have been flinging sockpuppetry accusations at each other over a series of very long disputes over Islam and Hindiusm and other Southeast Asian topics. I think I've done my part over at SPI but I'm putting this over to the community for longer term solutions.

I became involved in this from a post on Bbb23's talk page, linking to a case in which Terabar accused Capitals00 of socking with several other accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capitals00/Archive#12 May 2017). I judged this to be retaliatory, based on Terabar having just coming off a block for starting a revert war at Criticism of Hinduism and having mostly just repeated an investigation that had been done already twice before by CheckUsers. I advised Terabar that rehashing this case again would likely be considered harassment, and warned them not to do it again. See the collapsed section at the bottom of the archive for Terabar pushing back on this; I fully expected this was not the last of it.

Some time later, ProudIndian007 appeared on my talk page alleging that Terabar's report is linked to an Indian government deep intel conspiracy or something, which I have not investigated at all because it's complete nonsense. However, that account had not edited at all in three and a half years before making that post, and then went on to accuse a twice-CU-confirmed-but-now-only-suspected OccultZone sock of having a new account. Following that, Marvellous Spider-Man showed up on my page to reply, mentioning having been pinged by Capitals00 (I can't find what this refers to, Capitals00 hadn't posted on my page), wondering who ProudIndian007 is, and asking KrakatoaKatie (another CheckUser) to "have a look". I accidentally rolled back Marvellous Spider-Man but responded later that they were welcome to file an SPI if they had any evidence at all. I have no idea what to make of this sequence of events but it's clearly related.

Today I woke up to a number of emails from posts on my talk page. Capitals00 had filed an SPI against Drivarum, whose first non-userspace edit was perpetuating another of Terabar's revert wars at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. The evidence provided by Capitals00 also showed that Drivarum was restoring long-since-removed edits of a CU-confirmed Anatha Gulati sock, so I made a judgement call blocking them as a sock instead of blocking them for hitting 8RR(!) but either way they were going to be blocked. (Drivarum has emailed and pinged me just now so I'm using this post to respond).

In retaliation for today's SPI, Drivarum posted another complaint to Bbb23's talk page once again accusing Capitals00 of sockpuppetry, which Terabar was more than happy to piggy-back on. The timing and nature of this complaint indicates off-wiki collusion to me, if Terabar and Drivarum aren't simply the same person. Terabar went on to repeat the same allegations again at the second SPI, and for that I would have blocked them based on my earlier warning, except I hadn't decided yet whether to post this here or at ArbCom.

Now back to OccultZone: this is a case I'm not particularly familiar with, but from what I've familiarized myself with over the weekend, OZ is an editor who previously edited in this topic area who was sitebanned in 2015 over an obsession with accusing opponents of sockpuppetry and refusing to listen to a multitude of administrators who told them to stop repeatedly filing spurious SPIs, and reverting well beyond 3RR using (unproven) sockpuppetry as an excuse. I'm mentioning this only because Terabar is also lining up for a siteban over insisting on rehashing old SPI cases, refusing to listen when they've been told repeatedly that their SPI allegation is wrong, because Terabar mentioned OccultZone in one of their reverts as a justification, and because of the weird sequence of events on my talk page. Again I'm not sure what to make of this, I feel that with all the sockpuppet activity in this area (and all the CU investigations) if Terabar was someone's sock this would have been discovered by now.

Again, sorry for the long post. I'm not sure here whether to go ahead and block Terabar for harassment based on my prior warning, or if something more tailored to the situation might be more appropriate. Perhaps Terabar should be (one-way?) interaction-banned from commenting on Capitals00 and D4iNa4? Maybe Terabar should be subject to a 1RR restriction? Maybe we need discretionary sanctions here? Maybe something else?

I think I've notified everyone I mentioned here, as a matter of process. Apologies if I missed anyone. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Also, since Drivarum is blocked and cannot respond here, please check their talk page for comments. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban on all South Asian articles - WP:CIR, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:STICK. Terabar has mentality of calling everyone a sock (WP:ALLSOCKS) whoever disagree with him. Example[158]( first discuss on the talk page. Or either you are a sock account), the editor is not a sock. I don't remember seeing Terabar ever making productive edits, rather always finding a way to WP:WIKIHOUND my or edits of others no matter if his edits are going to end up getting rejected.[159][160] He has grossly violated WP:CANVASS,[161][162][163][164] whenever he creates trouble (WP:BATTLE). He believes he is flawless[165][166], arguing admins how he is correct and they are wrong. He don't even see that he is involved in WP:BLP violation when he is edit warring, and he rejects any attempts that any of us have made to discuss content,[167] he is always trying to justify his disruption because "you are sock". Looking at his block log, it is full of edit warring blocks on South Asian articles, he hasn't improved, hence topic ban would be good. Capitals00 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• False allegations by Capitals First of all I am not in the habit of calling everyone a sock who disagrees with me. Capitals is falsely alleging me and distorting the facts. The edit which he is referring to in which I accused someone for sockpuppetry was suspected by me only because there were exactly same edits made previously by Tender Nuke. See the edits [168] [169] [170] [171] Only on this basis I accused him of sockpuppetry. And later Tender Nuke was blocked for Sockpuppetry. Check his blocklog. Secondly, I was reported once by the confirmed sockpuppet of Occultzone, namely Ekvastra. I was blocked due to that sock report. Later it was found that he was abusing multiple accounts. Again Check Blocklog of Ekvastra. [172] Bladesmulti, another sock of Occultzone talked to me aggresively on my talkpage. See Only after that I became suspicious of sockpuppetry in Indian related articles.

As far as productive edits are concerned, Human3015 gave me a barnstar [173] and Joshua Jonathan thanked me for my contribution. Terabar (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• ((edit conflict), indenting fixed) TenderNuke (talk · contribs) is not blocked, and was not blocked for sockpuppetry. The four diffs you posted as your basis for accusing them of sockpuppetry were all done by the same editor. I don't know what you think sockpuppetry is but it's not that. All of those edits are identical because you spent the better part of January in a revert war with that editor: [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182]. Not to mention the fact that you were blocked at the same time: [183]. When you came off that block and then reverted that same edit again you should have been blocked again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

All of your previous blocks have also been for edit warring, not for sockpuppetry. Perhaps you don't know what sockpuppetry is? Not that that would excuse your edit warring. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Terabar, looks like you have not stopped WP:GAMING the system. You claimed that Dr. Sayyad Mohd Arshi to be a possible sock when he wasn't. Ekvastra is not a sockpuppet of OccultZone, and you tried to fit that frivolous tag on Ekvastra[184] which was removed by a CU. But it seems that your obsession with making false allegations and you are still continuing them even after this detailed ANI report. Capitals00 (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User: Ivanvector, yes he was blocked for sockpuppetry as he was evading the block through an IP I reported him on my talkpage and Yamla blocked him. Check his blocklog [185]. Terabar (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00, don't falsely accuse me with baseless allegations. I only based accused him because previous edits of another user were exactly same. I am repeating this for the second time. And you were blocked for Sockpuppetry, so don't think that you are very pious. Terabar (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I see what you're trying to say, but you want to link to the block log of the IP: [186]. However this appears to be inconclusive: other editors variously added or removed this information after this incident, and they are neither your nor TenderNuke's socks. This typifies the "everyone is a sock!" issue Capitals00 has pointed out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User: Capitals00, Ekvastra is a sockpuppet as mentioned by User: Bbb23 in the blocklog and contribution section. 15:20 Bbb23 wrote "15 September 2016 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) blocked Ekvastra (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) checkuserblock-account Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OccultZone" Now who is lying and gaming the system? Terabar (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I hate to get involved in this circus, but I never blocked Ekvastra as a sock of OccultZone. The reference I made to the OccultZone SPI is because of comments I made there: "Ekvastra is confirmed to AmritasyaPutra. I've blocked the two confirmed accounts without tags. I have no comment as to any relationship between any of these accounts and OccultZone other than noting AmritasyaPutra's history. I'll leave it to others who are more familiar with OccultZone to address that issue." (see this section of the SPI).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Terabar, its because the SPI was created under that wikipedia space. "confirmed sockpuppet of Occultzone," you claimed. You even attempted to turn it around that way[187] like I said, but you failed,[188] even after that you just can't drop the stick, you find it better to pursue with false allegations. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User: Capitals00, can you explain how did you come to know that you were sharing IP with Rzvas? Don't think that you are very pious as you and your companion User: D4iNa4 were blocked for sockpuppetry. In my opinion (not allegation) you were using the D4iNa4 in several pages to escape 3RR. Terabar (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• TBAN and possibly Block This is clearly unwarranted, and should possibly lead into regular blocks if this continues. — JJBers 17:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - the IP connection is one of the evidences at SPI that Terabar was warned not to bring up again, though not explicitly. But even with this thread open, they are still trying to forumshop admin action (on my talk page no less) and trying to dig up old dirt to connect the two editors that three admins have told them are not connected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• I've blocked Terabar for 72 hours. That doesn't preclude more discussion regarding a different/additional remedy for their behavior, but I suspect this is the easiest way to deal with their behavior for the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think that a topic ban for a while would be a good idea, although I have a feeling that it will evolve into an indefinite block. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• I would support temporary block but it has been already provided to him. Support indef topic ban on whole Indian Subcontinent/South Asia subjects. These articles fall under arbcom sanctions. And we really dont need an editor who makes up baseless accusations of socking as reason for pushing his POV that is likely going to get reverted all time. It appears he has been mailing other editors so that they can also help him with his outrageous accusations. Complete waste of time. D4iNa4 (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I want to know if this discussion is regarding all the involved editors on the articles listed at the top or is this regarding what action to be taken against User:Terabar only? Drivarum (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It's to get to the bottom of the disruptive situation so that it can be resolved and then collegial editing can hopefully resume. It's not only Terabar that has been disruptive although at the moment they do seem to be at the center of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Southeast Asia proposal

After letting this unfold yesterday, my observation is that revert warring is a problem in areas where Terabar edits, but it's certainly not only Terabar who is causing that disruption; at least Capitals00 and D4iNa4 have also revert-warred against the spirit of WP:EW even if they haven't technically broken 3RR, but I don't have a lot of faith in bright-line rules when it's evident the editors intend to continue treating this topic area as their own little battleground. This is an area with discretionary sanctions, although only D4iNa4 has been adequately alerted. Therefore I propose:

1. Terabar and Capitals00 are properly alerted of the discretionary sanctions;
2. All three editors are subject to an indefinite, strict (i.e. no WP:3RRNO exceptions) 1RR restriction when reverting each other's edits. Per WP:BRD, the one of them who reverts is to immediately start a discussion on the article's talk page, and not revert again until the issue is resolved. They are to seek dispute resolution if they cannot come to an agreement themselves.
3. Terabar is indefinitely topic-banned from SPI and from commenting anywhere on Wikipedia on other editors' use of multiple accounts, broadly construed, excepting if they are mentioned by name in an open sockpuppet investigation.

Thoughts? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose BRD? Yes I do follow it.([189][190] [191][192]) 1RR restriction is for those who have recent blocks for edit warring or frequent complaints. I am not blocked for over 4 years and my first few blocks would've never taken place if I was more aware of Wikipedia policies. Evidence is that since my return to Wikipedia after serving blocks in mid July 2013, no one ever filed a complaint against me in entire 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. Capitals00 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What happened over the last two days at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism paints a different story. You've camped on the article since May 4, tag-team reverting anyone who edits the page. Although you did start a discussion with one of the editors, you didn't stop reverting. Instead you dug out a flimsy (and incorrect) excuse to justify edit-warring well beyond 3RR, and none of you stopped until an administrator protected the page. You caused that disruption as much as anyone else did. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

So far only disrupted SPAs and socks have disrupted it by always restoring what constitutes as WP:BLP violation and against broad consensus on talk page.[193] I was only protecting BLP and you dont get sanctioned for it. It is libelous to call living person a convert of/from religion that they never admitted. Other admin warned Drivarum for BLP violation as well.[194] I had stopped reverting after Drivarum reverted even after getting reported on 3RR.[195] I did discussed with both editors too after reverting[196][197], I started discussion on their userpage because they kept disrupting multiple articles. Now because these editors can't hear, they deserve topic ban, not me who has been correct with edits as per other admin too.[198] I even requested page protection but removed request[199] after I reported on WP:ANEW. Which step did I missed? Capitals00 (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support After reviewing the article, its talk page and the edit warring history at Criticism of Hinduism, the disruptive behavior and SPI/etc allegations between the parties, I support Ivanvector's generous proposal. I was thinking of a limited IBAN; plus limited 1RR on topics under ARBIPA umbrella; plus an indef or 1-year SPI restrictions for Terabar. Ivanvector's proposal is more thought out, better. Include the recently registered new account of Drivarum listed above, in alerts and limited sanctions.(ps @Ivanvector: you mean South Asia, not Southeast Asia?) Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits made to the article were correct and within consensus (4 in support, 1 in oppose), Terabar should not be counted because he is going to get blocked soon by admins for socking for over 9 years and SPI also revealed a new sock farm. So where do you see any disruption? Capitals00 (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

See Ivanvector's comments above, plus this and this. While the behavioral SPI evidence needs a clerk/admin review, the sock farm is not directly confirmed to be of Terabar. FWIW, Terabar and my paths have crossed in past where they falsely alleged and attributed something to Basham and Zysk (see pink text). I found Terabar's behavior disruptive in past years, but all that is stale and I feel it is inappropriate to react over someone's past mistakes. Our goal is not to seek revenge, but to help improve wikipedia project. Only recent disruption and WP:TE by Terabar/others is a compelling cause for action, and per Ivanvector's presentation above, some action is appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Terabar also had feud with you like you told, because he is entirely disruptive. So I ask again, where was the disruption? Only a WP:NOTHERE editor would want to edit war to violate WP:BLPCAT and ignore consensus. Capitals00 (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Terabar has an annoying habit of pestering administrators and other users, but his complaints against D4iNa4 and Capitals00 are not without merit. Neither account edits very much (mainly on a handful of articles about controversies involving India), but when they do, their edits are strikingly similar to each other's and are often just a few minutes apart, see Editor Interaction Analyser. Although exonerated by CheckUser in the most recent case, D4iNa4 is known to have used proxies worldwide to evade detection [200] and Capitals00 is also known to have operated several sock accounts, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Capitals00. In my opinion, D4iNa4 and Capitals00 are either the same user or WP:MEAT. -Zanhe (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zanhe: So you are basing your vote on by making up false accusations of sock puppetry like Terabar? Despite the firovolous SPI[] you made before and it got rejected.[201] How about you drop WP:STICK already? You are still making connections with sock puppets that got blocked 4 years ago(!). "In my opinion" is accurately baseless and same kind of attitude for what Terabar is blocked too,[202] I would ask you to back it up(not possible) or just remove the false allegation. Capitals00 (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you point out which part of the evidence I presented above is false or inaccurate? CheckUser is an imperfect tool; it can be easily evaded and cannot detect WP:MEAT, but the Editor Interaction Analyser does not lie. Yes, you and D4iNa4 were both blocked 3-4 years ago, but four years later, both accounts are still making the same edits that your confirmed sock BatteriesStaff did back then, see BatteriesStaff, Capitals00, D4iNa4. -Zanhe (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you are not hearing either and have to misrepresent events in order to make sense. D4ina4 was blocked in 2014, and I was temporarily blocked in 2013. My account was created in 2012 and D4ina4 was created in 2014. We shared any edits only from November 2015 as per your analyzer. So it took us 4 years to edit only a few same articles? Years of difference doesn't qualify WP:MEAT, it has to be within/hours/days at best. There are many editors on wikipedia who revert disruptive edits on same articles. Just because you couldn't Right Great Wrongs on Nathu Laand Cho La incidents with other 2 or 3 editors disagreeing with you, it doesn't means we become socks (WP:ALLSOCKS). Only editor who agreed with you was soon blocked as sock of topic banned editor.[203] Capitals00 (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00, why you're not answering how you know that user:Rzvas shares same IP address with you? You have been asked this question several times already.Drivarum (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drivarum (and everyone else): the issue of Capitals00 and Rzvas sharing an IP is a private matter and has already been addressed to the CheckUser team, as far as I understand. You can stop bringing it up now please. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose "only disrupted SPAs and socks have disrupted it", I find this agreeable. I was having same difficult time on List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson where things are improving since this year. I still have to come time to time to check if the article is stable or not. Although I would advise these users to always post on WP:BLPN, just like I had.[204] Not just once but whenever the article gets disrupted. Articles can be also indefinitely protected like List of best-selling music artists if disruption is too high among new users. Excelse (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Note to admin/reviewer: Excelse has been a dormant account, with a total of ~100 edits. Its edit history shows many the user's few edits has been on admin talk pages / admin boards. It once again became active on May 19 after a period of dormancy. FWIW, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Also interesting that Excelse account has 120 edits and is nearly as old account as yours. Seems like not everyone has Wiki obsession. Capitals00 (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Capitals00: What do you mean? Editors and admins shouldn't be volunteering their time, if and when they feel like or as they please, to the wikipedia project? Something wrong with users/admins such as Ivanvector and Bbb23 with 20,000 or lot more edits? I support Ivanvector's proposal that you, Capitals00, be cautioned of the discretionary sanctions. I hope you will take Ivanvector's concerns and suggestions on your talk page seriously. Maintaining a healthy collaborative environment within wikipedia is important and necessary. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't looked into this enough to !vote, but remedy 2 has an issue in that it turns BRD on its head. Typically, the one who is required to open a discussion is the one who is editing against the status quo. Placing the burden of discussion on the one who reverts back to the status quo is almost never a good idea, and seems like, even with the 1RR restriction, it would encourage slow-motion edit-warring and gaming of the system. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly Hijiri88. From what I have understood that there these two editors(capitals00, d4ina4) worked on talk page and had consensus for the edits by taking input from others with aim to secure WP:BLP (probably biggest wikipedia credibility), and unfortunately they were harshly reverted by other editor who violated the policy with the aim of creating mischief.[205] I don't see engagement on talk page even once.[206] It seems so obvious on wikipedia, even I had same situation[207]. The editor engaged in disruption would never join the discussion. I really don't see why those editors should be punished when they built consensus and followed Wikipedia policies. Excelse (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Excelse: Again, I haven't checked to see if what you are saying is accurate, but if it is then my point is the opposite of the one you think I am making. If one or two users agreed to make an edit to article, and were then reverted, then the burden should be on the one or two users to open a discussion. Two users is not usually considered a "consensus". And yes, BLP is often seen as an acceptable "excuse" for "edit-warring" (it can sometimes be considered an exception to 3RR), but BLP doesn't apply to the edit you link; Dasgupta has been dead for over forty years, and Rahman ... citing Wikipedia is never acceptable, but in this case all one would need to do is replace the citation with a citation of the Times of India or Rolling Stone (the Wordpress link isn't the actual source, although it may be a copyvio link). Please don't misrepresent me as agreeing with your opinion; I don't know your opinion, but I don't agree with most of the above comment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88: yes there was consensus from few other editors[208][209], and very soon Hema Malini was being misrepresented as convert too.[210] Although WP:BLPCAT says that the concerning individual should admit it, none of these sources work enough for that. Capitals00 (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Excelse, you are not involved in this and you're not even an admin. You were blocked several times also. I do not know how you suddenly commenting here accusing other editors but FYI, I always insisted on discussion but my initiation was "harshly reverted" with a bold accusation[211]. I started discussion on my talk page when they informed me[212]. Took it to the article's talk page[213]. I reverted them because they were not explaining even when I kept adding reliable sources[214], [215], [216], [217], [218] etc. but their next edit would be removing all my source additions without any discussion. You can see their reverts and more on my talk page. Clearly, they know many Wikipedia guidelines and policies yet they filed a wrong complaint against me and never stooped reverting. Drivarum (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drivarum: Excelse has only been blocked once, not "several times". The block was for socking, which doesn't appear to be relevant. Non-admins, including third-parties, are also free to comment in ANI discussions. It's why we have Template:Nacc. I don't like his reply to me above, but your remarks about them are simply unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Thanks for explaining. I made the assumptions by looking at their talk page. I am sorry @Excelse: as I thought only admins can decide what measures should be taken. Drivarum (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this proposal does turn BRD on its head a bit but it is in the spirit of BRD, which is that if you're in a disagreement with an editor, it's your (everybody's) responsibility to stop reverting and go to the talk page. One of the ways that these editors game 3RR is by arguing about who is the first one to revert, and thus who is the one who ought to start a discussion. And so they go back-and-forth, reverting each other, each expecting that it's the other editor who should be responsible for going to the talk page, and the matter is only solved when an admin gets involved. The idea of my proposal is to say strictly: if you revert, start talking, and not in edit summaries. In my view the alternative is 0RR which I dislike for other reasons, but it may be how this conflict needs to go. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Highly Oppose Edits have consensus of editors before and after reversions, including the uninvolved admin. I agree posting on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard could be another good option. These things also happen on other articles like Excelse mentions, and very frequently on Caste articles all the time. The area has lots of disruptive editors, in last 7 days we found 3 long term sock masters, Faizan, ProudIndian007, and probably Terabar. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Now I'm only going to say this once in this thread: if you want to accuse someone of sockpuppetry, compile evidence and go to sockpuppet investigations. There is far too much "I don't have to talk to you because you're probably a sock" going on in this topic area. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel

Establishing a case of WP: Tag team I think. They have established a two-editor consensus, that declares sources unreliable in their personal opinion. They insist and deleting swathes of information, and retaining a tag of "unreliable sources", with no support from the historiography. I am hoping for some sort of resolution, nothing more. Dapi89 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)c

This is part of an editorial war already reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dapi89 reported by User:K.e.coffman¨ I suppose its better if all matters are resolved in one forum. Otherwise, I think its rather a case of WP:OWN on behalf of User:Dapi89, proven by such statements by him as: Editors opinions count for nothing and I will do as I please. There are three editors who agrees. Creuzbourg (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Dishonest. I said I will do as I please on my talk page, not the article. Also, our collecrive opinions dont matter, its the sources that should prevail. That is the point i made quite clearly. Please dont lie. Dapi89 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89:, you are required to notify users when starting a discussion about them, see the big orange edit notice at the top of the edit page. I have notified them both for you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I feel I am involved. I did not edit the article, but contributed on the talk page. I notice that Dapi89 has voiced the first accusation of tag teaming on 4 April 2017.[219] Since then the editor has made no attempt of WP:DR, but confined him/herself to short comments speaking of a possible "destruction" of the article that he/she has to prevent. Thus the editor seems to perceive anyone who is not with him as being against him.(from WP:AN3RR). The editor routinely resorts to accusations. From today [220]--Assayer (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

For the administrator who look into this case: Wikipedia editor Creuzbourg (person who started to mass remove material on the Rudel page) tagged the article as containing excessive intricate details and contains unreliable sources even though is a GA article that requires to meet the comprehensiveness criteria and is throughly reviewed, has also tagged with the same tags these following pages:

→ FA article: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Albert_Kesselring&type=revision&diff=777161722&oldid=776657232

→ FA article: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Werner_Mölders&type=revision&diff=777174753&oldid=776113712

→ GA article: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Galland&type=revision&diff=777163959&oldid=776113388

→ GA article: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Erich_Hartmann&type=revision&diff=777160461&oldid=777010274

I don't believe Creuzbourg editing of these articles is being done in good faith, he acts as if he have consensus for tagging and removal of sourced material on these Featured Articles and Good Articles. In other words, from my observations he is biased and agend-driven editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.237.138.234 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

IP 104.237.XX, please log in to your account if you wish to attack people on ANI (or for that matter on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history). Nobody believes you don't have one. Evading scrutiny on noticeboards is inappropriate. Bishonen | talk 20:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

I do not believe that Featured Articles and Good Articles are beyond criticism. I am not driven by any agenda. I do not normally write about WW2 German military history or biography, but tried to improve an article that I found faulty. I tagged it and started a discussion on the discussion pages. I did not want to do, what most WP-editors do, i.e. just leave a tag and run; however the tag was immediately removed, the discussion thwarted. I am immensely disappointed with Wikipedia that such disruptive behavior can go on and on and on, and extremely tired of the whole thing. I am perfectly willing to be banned from editing Rudel or any of above articles, as long as Dapi89 also will be banned. The articles are faulty, and the tags should not be removed before consensus is reached. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Update and request: Dapi89 has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring (in a conflict which is relevant to their OP complaint of tag teaming). They ought really to be able to comment here without any cumbersome please-move-this-to-ANI system, so I've offered to unblock on condition that they edit nothing other than this ANI thread for as long as the block would have lasted. They're not online and I have to go out now. If they agree to the condition, I'd appreciate it if any passing admin would kindly unblock, with a note about conditions in the log. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC).

Response by Dapi89: Then no, on principle. I'll agree to leave the Rudel page alone for 72 hours, if the same rule is also applied to the tag team operating there . Dapi89 12:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC) (Diff). Assayer (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Assayer. So much for that, then; he'll remain blocked, AFAIC. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC).

Boomerang proposal: 30-day topic ban for User:Dapi89

• WP:BOOMERANG: the reporting editor has a long pattern of uncivility and ad hominem arguments. Just today, at the WP:3RRN, he suggested that he can also provide evidence of Coffman of violating the 3RR rule on many occasions (diff). When I invited him to file such a report, he responded with On reflection, this is a case of Wikipedia:Tag team without providing any proof for this claim: diff. Substantiation is lacking from this report as well, which I consider frivolous & without merit.

This has been an-going pattern with the editor, please see some of the edit summaries by Dapi89 from the Rudel article as well as others:

• Undid revision 773585302 by Creuzbourg (talk) poor editing; dumbing down; no sense in removing these details; eliminated tag. Related discussion: Rudel#Intricate details. From the Talk page: BS.
• rev deletions by Coffmann, ignorant, dishonest, disruptive. Related discussion: Lütjens#External links
• ridiculous. Related discussion: Lent#Alt text.
• reverted edits by Coffman. Ignorance (...). Related discussion: Uncited content previously cited to Franz Kurowski
• spurious tag and vandalism. Related discussion: Recent edit
• "No Stephan, no. A clear lack of understanding", with comments such as: No Stephan, that is how it works. The onus is on those making the allegation to prove their case. And yes it is Stephan. In Talk:Otto Kittel#Kurowski (the article was ultimately delisted as a Good Article: GAR).
• Etc.

This pattern of behaviour is disruptive and a topic ban from Luftwaffe / WWII articles (perhaps starting at 30 days, same duration as floated at the 3RRN) may be in order: diff from 3RRN. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Although this has many appearances of a content dispute, I agree with @K.e.coffman: that @Dapi89:'s POV edits and source disputes are problematic. This user has every appearance of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to preserving "their" sources and interpretations. They frequently accuse "opposing" editors of lying, rambling, dissembling, and incompetence. Their block log shows 6 blocks for disruptive editing, personal attacks, and/or harassment. This is behavior that has persisted and show no signs of abatement after these blocks. Examples just since their last block include, but are certainly not limited to (in no particular order):

• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_149#Talk:Malcolm Wanklyn#Dandolo.2C_.27Avieri-class_destroyer.27.2C_imaginary_submarine_etc.: ...if you can't understand that you've no chance of understanding the issue.... I don't give a damn what you think, I'll drown you in sources on the FAA if I have to.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive897#Blatant case of WP:OWN stemming from This edit on Malcolm Wanklyn: ...cease from this. This is not a requirement and it looks awful. You're not a main contributor, so your opinions are not important. (In edit summary) and Well let me spell out the obvious; his opinions on the bibliography are not important....That is quiet clearly a lie Shem.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Fringe source in WWII bio article ...His {User:K.e.coffman} attacks on the German-related articles, specifically related to World War II, looks like a crusade.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr The argument he {User:K.e.coffman again} gives is that is non neutral point-of-view. I'm saying that's BS. (Disclosure: this comment made in response to me)
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 65#Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany No, I was in favour of only Bundesluftwaffe and objected to it's removal. No need for dishonesty. (Disclosure: I was also involved in this discussion)
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 204#Franz Kurowski for a GA article (WWII) ...It is beyond absurd. The opinions of a few editors on Wikipedia is not enough. One editor described that it as lazy analysis, I'd go further....
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_216 ...Other editors should beware before being drawn in to this agenda-driven bull shit.
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#Additional input sought for a GAR re sources ...Such an assumption is colossally stupid and exposes your own bias.

Dapi89 clearly has an issue with K.e.coffman and seems incapable of participating in any discussion of WWII topics, especially ones in which the latter is involved, without resorting to accusations of bias and incivility. Equally clearly, there needs to be some resolution of these issues. Since I am also tangentially involved, I refrain from suggesting any specific remedies but trust to the evaluations of the folks here. Thank you for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Dapi89 and coffman clearly have issues with each other;l I'm very reluctant to say it's on DAPI. I'd say it's a two way street. The discussion to which coffman refers is often not a discussion at all but a barrage of wiki-rules and wikietiquette and wikipolicies, followed by edit summaries, links to old pages, and so on. It is a brilliant use of wikipedia's user guidelines to obfuscate the issue, which is fundamentally that one editor wants to control and limit the sources relating to Nazi-era articles, and another wants to include a wider array of sources. One editorial group wants to trim articles of all details, including things that are important, that might be of human interest, and that relate to post-war activities, and another editorial group who think those details might be interesting. auntieruth (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• I've attempted to discuss issues with the editor previously, but it was not successful; see: User_talk:Dapi89#Edit summaries. I've also attempted to engage the user in the discussion at WP:Notability (people)#Current consensus, but apart from an erroneous claim, no dialog was offered. Another contributor pointed out the personal attacks (Talk page), but the response was: I'm not going to rephrase. There is a history of disruption with this editor and I will make the point in which ever way I like and the standard ad hominem about the suspect agendas of arch-polemicists. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- despite being warned about a potential block and / or while blocked, User:Dapi89 has continued to cast aspersions and belittle other editors, as in

• cant seem to distinguish the wood from the trees (diff);
• it appears as if you have taken sides (diff);
• Dishonest. (...) Please dont lie (diff).

He has offered no substantiation to the claims at this ANI discussion, while insisting that there's a tag team operating at the Rudel article. I have concerns that once unblocked in the next 36 hours, the user would continue this pattern of behaviour, and I thus reiterate my topic ban proposal. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support TB Luftwaffe Length of time is immaterial to me. And an instant 24 the next time he is incivil or makes PA/aspersions.L3X1 (distant write) 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose TB Luftwaffe This argument between DAPI and 2 other editors seems to have degenerated on all sides, and I object to banning a professional historian who specializes in aerial warfare. auntieruth (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's not just two other editors, as documented above. While this particular incident started with Dapi89's accusation of tag-teaming against two editors, but his bad-faith accusations over many, many WWII content disputes are not limited by target. The statement "degenerated on all sides" is also an apparent mis-interpretation of events. In this dispute, as in others involving Dapi89, his interlocutors have refrained from the personal attacks and incivility that are clear in his own statements. As to the professional historian charge, even professionals are expected to edit by consensus and good sources. Every time Dapi89's sources are challenged he becomes very, well, unprofessional. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

• not sure who posted this, but I will say that the whole discussion is out of control. I'm more likely to support an "all fighters to their corners" approach to give everyone a breather. Including those of us who are trying to keep up with the opus-like volume of material posted on why such and such is bad, or good, or problematic. auntieruth (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• You're correct, I missed adding my sig. Apologies and added now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• The allegations of incessant bickering (diff) & the discussion having degenerated on all sides are without merit. @Auntieruth55: please provide diffs to substantiate this statement; alternatively, please strike it. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I refer you to your own posts. This demonstrates incessant bickering. Every week I'm reviewing something that you're editing; some of your material is very good, especially on the Russian and Ukrainian fronts.--I like it very much. As for the "diffs", I don't have time. Papers to grade, exams to write, articles to edit, reviews to do. Anyone looking at the history of the pages in question can see it. As for degenerating, the name calling -- whoever does it-- needs to stop. The bickering is not helpful, No one has time for it, and I wish it would stop. auntieruth (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Auntieruth, I understand you may well have better things to do in real life than to provide evidence (diffs) for your accusations against K.e.coffman. But in such a case, the proper course of action is to refrain from posting those accusations. Seriously. I don't see how K.e.coffman is to be expected to answer something so unspecific as "your own posts ... demonstrate incessant bickering". Especially since uninvolved editors such as me can see K.e.coffman's posts, they're right above, and I don't see any bickering in them. Except indeed in their many quotations of bickering and intemperate remarks by Dapi89. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC).

• As a comment, not all academic or other experts are able to properly edit WP. A professional historian obtains importance in their field by finding new data or original reinterpretations; aWP editor must do neither. An academic is expected to have a distinct personal POV, and to firmly defend their hypotheses as superior to those of other people; a WP editor must do neither. Some professional historians , especially those known for writing general textbooks, are able to write and interact in WP mode; some are not. The ones who cannot resist OWNership are usually banned from even a topic area where they are experts. Their ideas are not banned: they can still contribute by their published works, which can then be used by other editors. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you for clearing that up. This all goes back to a discussion of whether a specific source is considered reliable: Just, Günther (1986). Stuka Pilot Hans Ulrich Rudel. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military History. ISBN 978-0-88740-252-4. Schiffer is a private, family owned publisher. They have a wide array of books. I'm just not convinced that this is an alt-right wing publisher promoting fascism. There has been a focused effort by one or two editors to limit the publications that are considered neutral for this range of articles, and I just don't understand the problem with it. I don't think it's DAPI's effort--although he/she is sometimes a bit abrupt--but I also think coffmann can be off target on these things too. I'm concerned that a series of articles that have been collectively valued and reviewed by the project are being taken apart unnecessarily. Can they use some discreet editing? Probably yes, but not on the scale that has been happening. Two of the editors involved seem to expect instant responses to their posts, and that just doesn't happen. We all of us have "real life" and cannot be expected to drop everything because they have posted a question. I do appreciate that coffmann is now (most of the time) posting questions on the talk page before massively unilaterally deleting information, or bilaterally doing so with the other editor's approval. I'm just not convinced yet that this is the right thing to do. auntieruth (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor who routinely says things like: "I don't give a damn what you think," and "Your opinions are not important," and "Such an assumption is colossally stupid" is not "a bit abrupt". This minimizes and papers over the very persistent attempts by Dapi89 to bully and badger editors into acquiescing to his position. Couching this behavior in terms of the dispute over Schiffer is also inaccurate. As noted above, this behavior has involved other editors besides User:K.e.coffman and User:Creuzbourg. This is hardly behavior provoked by one content dispute. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

As can be seen on the talk page, the "conflict" evolved with a discussion about "intricate details". It was actually me who first questioned the bias of Günther Just's work on Rudel on 2 April 2017, not because of its American publisher, however, but because of Just's close personal ties to Rudel, the NPD and, later, the DVU. In short, Just is a well known journalist of the extreme right and his work is strongly biased. A little to my dismay that did not become a major issue during the ensuing debate and it was never commented upon by Creuzbourg. Instead the discussion focused upon style, intricate details and GA criteria (i.e. question of "comprehensivenes"). There is one thread on "sources". But what has been reverted by Dapi89 ever since were mainly copy edits.7 April 2017 or 25 April all the while he only minimally contributed to the discussion. --Assayer (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Concerning Dapi89's habits as a "professional historian" of aerial warfare I might point out that they recently made mutually exclusive claims about two different persons. On 10 February 2017 they claimed that Friedrich Rumpelhardt was Most successful radar operator in the Luftwaffe, part of the most successful night-fighting team in air warfare , whereas on 9 April 2017 they claimed that Erich Handke was The most successful night fighter operator of the war Both statements obviously contradict each other. Dapi89 still also found words to belittle K.e.coffman on each occasion.--Assayer (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban as proposed, i. e. from Luftwaffe and WWII, not just from Luftwaffe, for 30 days. 30 days, which would be a long time for a block, is short for a topic ban, in my experience, and I'd also support a longer ban, such as three months. Reverting an established and obviously good faith editor with an edit summary of "rev deletions by Coffmann, ignorant, dishonest, disruptive" is pretty scandalous, no matter how much you disagree with them. It's the kind of aggressiveness that's likely to ruin the experience of Wikipedia editing, not just for the target of the abuse, but for other people who are deterred from discussion by it. As for the accusations above and at Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel that coffman has also taken part in "bickering", I can't see that they have any merit. I've noticed further examples by dipping into Coffman's userpage, which names no names, but is full of juicy quotes with links to who said them. That's far too much for me to go into, or indeed read, but for a recent example, check out the history of Günther Lütjens on and around 10 March, which is where the edit summary I quoted comes from. There we see coffman removing the external links with polite references to the talkpage, and Dapi reinstalling them with name-calling. (The talkpage discussion is also interesting.) The quotes offered by Eggishorn above add to the impression of a battleground editor. Bishonen | talk 15:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC).
• Support 3 month topic ban from WW2 broadly construed per Bishonen. Coffman is certainly a contentious editor within the WW2 field, but he is respectful and follows WP conduct policy and content policy. People's issues with his views on sourcing being Nazi propaganda, etc. are a content dispute not best handled at ANI. That doesn't matter here though, as those issues are content disputes. The question is whether or not Dapi's behavior in WW2 articles is enough for a topic ban. The name calling of editors who are perceived as being on the opposite side of a content dispute in WW2 is disruptive to the project. A topic ban would not be punishment: it would allow steam to escape and hopefully encourage future collaboration. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - A topic ban as proposed, i. e. from Luftwaffe, for 14 days, should be enough time for him to be reflective and cool his heels, if one is to be imposed. Kierzek (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as auntieruth has said many of us have greater 'real life' priorities, and most of us can't keep up with the sheer volume of edits coming through. I can appreciate Dapi's level of frustration has reached breaking point. I acknowledge I also have history with coffman's practices and it has left me dispirited and resigned that quantity and rules-lawyering will win out a common sense approach on Wikipedia. As I was approaching a breaking-point, I did a self-imposed exile from the topic unwilling to put wasted time and effort to either compile and argue for a case or to write new material when it would likely be reverted without discussion. I also acknowledge that neither side can see merits in the other's case and I don't know how this can be resolved. I would prefer auntieruth's proposal that both sides be given a timeout instead of just one being singled out for punishment and reprimand when both have exhibited questionable behaviour by different means and methods. Philby NZ (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I would consider editor Philby NZ to be involved given the prior interactions; for example, here's commentary from an AfD on an article that I created (AfD: J.J. Fedorowicz), where he commented on my editing reputation, while suggesting that the article's purpose was to act as [my] platform to show how shoddy its publication reliability is (diff).

The disagreements that Philby NZ describes were due in part to copyvios on the Luftwaffe articles that he contributed to; pls see for example: User_talk:Diannaa:Copyvio (where he had described my contributions as sabotage). Likewise, past disagreements with Dapi included in part the placing of copyvio-revdel tags in articles. Dapi insisted on removing such tags, such as here: Talk:Gustav_Rödel#Copyvio, which also showed Dapi's rather surprising lack of awareness about how Wikipedia handles copyvios. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

yes and that it why I mentioned my conflict-of-interest. The copy-vios were related to some of my original writings on Wikipedia. The tribulations of dealing with you since have meant I have barely written any article-expansions since on this topic in the last few years. Philby NZ (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Poke The current 3RR block expires today so Dapi89 can contribute his understanding of concerns expressed the above. I'm poking this thread because it is currently unclear if his return at that time will be conditional or not. Aside from the standard conditions that apply to every editor, that is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not conditional. Dapi89 was offered an earlier unblock on certain conditions, but did not accept them, so those conditions are a thing of the past. His 72-hour block will expire in about three hours, with no conditions. He'll be free to edit all of Wikipedia after that. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

Okay, below are a few edit diffs (my grading is finished for the week) that I have dredged up.

• I don't think it's reasonable to expect an editor to respond in short order to another editors demands. see this conversation
• I call this an unreasonable action on the part of another editor
• acknowledgment of an editorial war here.
• and here. Since these articles involve WP:MilHist, it may be that we have some housecleaning to do on our guidelines. Would you suggest that? I can bring it to the project's attention (again). auntieruth (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• adding another. This edit was done a while ago, changing what had been an alttext description of a picture (remember when alt-text was required?) to delete "details. See here. auntieruth (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you posted the diff's you intended? It is very easy to get the oldid parameters mixed up when posting diff's, hence my question. These tend to document poor behavior by Dapi89 with the exception of the conversation with me on K.e. coffman's talk page (at worst general frustration with a wikiproject) and the changes to Sayn-Wittgenstein (K.e.coffman has made no secret of their disdain for romanticism in WWII German officer articles and doesn't do so disruptively there). In fact, some duplicate some of the earlier-posted quotes of Dapi89's behavior. I think that history is already well-established. Did you mean to add to the record or to support the earlier statements about "bickering"? If the latter, I'm very confused as to how these help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well, yes, I guess. I don't like pulling up old edit posts, because it seems like water unbder the bridge. And yes I did meant to chose those, because they show another side to the story. auntieruth (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict while I was adding this.

• I realize that WWII is a contentious subject. I found a reddit page with all kinds of instructions about how to disrupt wikipedia's efforts to provide some coverage of the German military. I have it bookmarked and I could post the page here, but I'm not sure it would be productive. Its instructions were very clear on how to disrupt the wikipedia processes. One of the complaints was the the abundance of articles on the Knights Cross and lack of articles on Heroes of the Soviet. I'd like to see more of those. auntieruth (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- indeed, the romanticisation of the German WWII war effort is not only being discussed on the internet, but is also a subject of serious academic study. I would recommend:

• The Myth of the Eastern Front by Ronald Smelser & Edward J. Davies, and
• The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality by Wolfram Wette

(Disclaimer, all these articles have been created by me). I would suggest either one as required reading to anyone who would like to edit on WWII topics as they related to the German war effort.

Separately, I believe Auntieruth55 to be involved; please see: ANI: Attempted doxxing / casting aspersions by Auntieruth55 below. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support The evidence in the first two comments under "Boomerang proposal" is compelling, as is the attitude shown at User talk:Dapi89#Blocked (diff if needed). Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose TB I have my problems with Dapi's editing style as well as coffman's, but both editors have engaged in battleground behaviour, and have an unswerving certainty of the "rightness" of their views. As auntieruth has pointed out, the never-ending threads and streams of wikilawyering and pointy behaviour that come from coffman are hard to keep up with. WP would benefit from both editors showing a bit more respect for consensus. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Its not just between User:Dapi89 and User:K.e.coffman, its also about User:Dapi89's behavior towards me when I tried to copy edit the Rudel article. When it comes to unsubstantiated claims of "professionalism" and hints of academic employment in the present discussion, that's just ludicrous. Any real academic, whether tenured or not, is swamped with teaching, trying desperately to get time to do real research, and publish real articles; not spending their valuable time writing and fighting rear-guard actions on Wikipedia. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67 please provide evidence of battleground behaviour and streams of wikilawyering and pointy behaviour. Please also show how I've demonstrated insufficient respect for consensus. Otherwise, please retract your statement. (Such accusations from the user are quite typical, as in Yet more wikilawyering and pointy behaviour while apparently describing WP:BURDEN as an essay: diff).

For the record, I make a distinction between community-wide and project-specific consensus; see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS -- more wikilawyering! :-) In the Rudel article where the tag team accusations have stemmed from, such consensus has resulted in an article consisting of talkative expositions and meticulous investigations of insignificant details (see Intricate details, with participation by Peacemaker67, MisterBee1966, Dapi89 & Auntieruth55). A similar protracted discussion took place at Hartenstein#OR. Talk page participants included MisterBee1966, Dapi89 and Auntieruth55 over a month's time. Likewise, see Gollob#Recent edits, in multiple parts, with participation by MisterBee1966, Dapi89, Peacemaker67 and Auntieruth55.

The project coords might want to consider whether its best practices are in agreement with the wider community norms, or even with its own project members. In the thread that Auntieruth55 started as part of this dispute (Massive changes of FA articles), one member commented that the articles in question should be delisted because the sources are too old or too Nazi: diff. This is while the OP states: I don't know what the problem is with these sources , which seems odd for a professional historian. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy to. Give me a couple of days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand what I meant - you did not mean that I considered the sources inadequate, but that some editors considered them inappropriate. The complete failure to find any sort of consensus or compromise and the associated edit warring is what renders the articles unstable and prime for delisting. The strident appeals to ANI to try to get anyone who opposes you to be blocked or banned, and the twisting, whether intentional or not, of what others say to make your point, only makes the situation worse. (By the way, I thought that I was meant to be informed when someone involves me in an ANI discussion).Nigel Ish (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

In response to a request that I “put up or shut up” (my words) about K.e.coffman’s unpleasant and aggressive editing behaviour, in the context of Dapi's behaviour, I have looked at some articles where K.e.coffman and I have interacted. I assert that these are indicative of his general aggressive editing style. Most of the highlighted articles are about senior German officers who served in Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia in WWII being my main area of interest). Given his prolific editing rate, no doubt his demonstrated behaviour on these articles has been repeated hundreds of times on articles I am not aware of. So, these are just a few examples from where our interests intersect. As I have noted, when challenged he gets very pointy. As another editor has noted, this manifests in “discussion” which is often not a discussion at all, but a barrage of links to wiki-rules, wikietiquette and wikipolicies, followed by edit summaries, links to old pages, and so on. I have found his editing style to be quite aggressive and unhelpful to the encyclopaedia, so I have avoided interacting where possible given my interests. While not condoning Dapi'd editing and communication style, I think coffman's also has to be taken into account here, it can be intensely aggressive and frustrating.

Some aspects of the behaviour which I describe as problematic with these articles can be placed under several headings. I am highlighting just three aspects here:

(1) removal of reliable sources he has personally decided are unnecessary or “militaria” books, despite their having clear encyclopaedic value for the future expansion of an article, using a number of spurious justifications, including that their use is “over-citation”, when in fact in most cases it is only the second citation for a given piece of information. He sometimes removes the citations, then subsequently states the source is “unused” and removes it. This is not in the interests of the encyclopaedia, as it removes potential sources of information for those that might wish to expand an article; [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235]

(2) highly selective removal/commenting out of what he personally refers to as “intricate detail” such as dates of promotion, family details, awards etc from biographical articles, despite long-term and clear consensus that such information is part of meeting the comprehensiveness criteria on military history articles; [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246]

(3) edit warring against consensus to get his way; [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs) (added here)

This is exactly the kind of behavior I was talking about below, particularly the edit-warring demonstrated in the third point. If Dapi needs a ban (topic or otherwise), then K.e.coffman needs one too. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see a smoking gun in the diffs above. The first two sections show a mild disagreement over the interpretation of “comprehensiveness” vs “summary style” requirements, how uncited content should be handled and what constitutes overcite. These diffs do not show me referring to anyone as “dishonest, ignorant, disruptive”; a “vandal”; a “virtual-SPA newcomer” whose behaviour is “deplorable”; or telling them to “get off your high horse”, etc.

I don’t see evidence of the “edit warring against consensus to get his way” either. Many of the edit summaries provided by Peacemaker in the 3rd section point to Talk pages where I attempt to discuss the edits. Sample edit summaries: (1) “Pls see: NPOVN" or (2) “BRD -- insufficient discussion on Talk page; pls see: Overly detailed article” (the last one is interesting as it was Peacemaker who had in the past quick failed the article's GA nomination “due to a significant amount of unnecessary detail”; see: GA Nomination).

The diff from the Kübler article is similar, with Peacemaker's revert: "please familiarise yourself with how en WP does biographical articles". I've not performed a single revert on that article; how is that edit warring? Instead, there’s a discussion on the Talk page: Recent revert, where a response to a 3rd opinion request sided with my interpretation of BURDEN: [254]. Unless one editor embodies the “Wikipedia consensus” (and also decides what is and what isn't edit warring), I don’t see how this is outside of the normal BRD & dispute resolution processes.

In any case, I consider Peacemaker’s “Oppose” vote to come from an involved admin, as he has participated in the reverting at the Rudel article: [255]. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Take the example of the first link in point 3, one of K.e.coffman's reverts on Gordon Gollob. If one looks at the article history, we see you edit-warring with Dapi and Misterbee (i.e., K.e.coffman's reverts here, here, here, here, and here) over the span of a couple of months. Based on the discussion, or lack thereof on the talk page, K.e.coffman seems to believe that if the other editor has not responded within a couple days, he is justified in reverting. This is not evidence of collaborative behavior.

As for Peacemaker being "involved", this is not the first time I've seen you cite policies and guidelines you do not understand. WP:INVOLVED only prevents Peacemaker from using the admin tools in a dispute with you, it does not prohibit him from commenting on this discussion and voicing an opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Much of this is about content. Potential sources of information can be anything regardless of WP:RS and whether the sources in question have a clear encyclopaedic value for the future expansion of an article is indeed questionable. If an editor is actively editing, but does not care to respond on the talk page, how long is one expected to wait? For example, on 12 March 2017, while they did not find time to visit the talk page of Gordon Gollob, Dapi89 reverted K.e.Coffman on Günter Lütjens[256], commenting rev deletions by Coffmann, ignorant, dishonest, disruptive, and, on the talk page[257] There is only one opposing it. The consensus has remained for several years. Reverted. As a side note, not only has none of the linked websites been written by a recognized authority, one even took its text directly from Wikipedia. Overall this does not create the impression that it would be worth waiting for an editor who clearly shows no willingness for collaborative behavior. Once again the editing styles of two editors, who strongly disagree on content issues, are linked in a causal manner instead of viewing them seperately. Interestingly though, only one editor is given the benefit of it. Their proposed TB is opposed because of alleged "battleground behavior" on both sides, or at least, that's another conclusion, both are to be banned. Uncivility seems to earn a bonus when it's directed against the right person. --Assayer (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously I cannot speak for Dapi's editing habits, and don't much care to, frankly. But it does seem a little disingenuous to look at this one case in a vacuum, which is to say, Dapi and K.e.coffman have been fighting over this stuff for, what, 2 years now? Neither one is much interested in collaborative behavior, at least with regard to each other. It seems to me that the only substantial difference between the two is that K.e.coffman is simply better at making Dapi look the aggressor (as evidenced by the clear gamesmanship that took place at Hans-Ulrich Rudel that produced this whole discussion, which is to say, K.e.coffman reverting 3 times in 11 minutes, and then waiting until the next day [and after Dapi was blocked] to make a 4th revert - if anyone believes that was not intentional, I happen have the deed for the Brooklyn Bridge, and I'd be happy to let it go for a pittance). Can you please address both editors' long history of edit-warring?. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Breaches of the 3RR have been reported to and dealt with at the appropriate noticeboard. I do not see that the discussion was produced by the clear gamesmanship that took place at Hans-Ulrich Rudel . Dapi89 has frequently stated that they would report K.e.Coffman to ANI for "disruptive" editing and they finally did so by reporting Creuzbourg and K.e.Coffman for alleged tag teaming. Hardly anyone here addresses this charge, whether it's substantiated or not. Neither do I see Dapi and Coffman to be basically of the same ilk. This thread is about the Dapi89's long pattern of uncivility and ad hominem arguments . That pattern of behavior is not at all limited to their disputes with K.e.Coffman and has come under scrutiny way before K.e.Coffman's first appearance. You know that, so if you want to get a more complete picture, please do not focus merely on the conflict between these two editors. I fail to see how anyone who happens to disagree with Dapi89 is exempt to his wrath. Thus I also do not see how dealing with Dapi and Coffman alike (banning both of them vs. banning noone) will resolve the conflict. --Assayer (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'd like to hear your explanation for the fact that K.e.coffman made 3 reverts in 11 minutes, and then waited a day to make a 4th edit, after Dapi was blocked. Coincidence? Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• I note that in the course of this ANI, I’ve been variously accused of “relentless streams of wikilawyering”, "pointy behaviour", "incessant bickering" and "barrage of wikietiquette", etc. I've also been accused of “edit warring” (in an article where I’ve not reverted once & in another article for, I paraphrase: ‘four five reverts over two months!’).

If there are still concerns about edit warring, including at the Rudel article, then please start a new report at WP:3RRN. Alternatively, please use the section above to substantiate Dapi’s tag-teaming allegations. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If you can't present things in a factual manner, you are not helping your case. You did not make "four reverts over four months", you made "four reverts over 30-some odd hours, with three of them in the span of eleven minutes." Can you, K.e.coffman, explain why you waited to make your fourth revert after the window for a 3RR violation passed, and after Dapi was blocked, in any way that doesn't involve you gaming the system? Parsecboy (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to this statement: we see you edit-warring with Dapi and Misterbee (i.e., K.e.coffman's reverts here, here, here, here, and here) over the span of a couple of months" (emphasis mine); also see Talk page discussions linked from the edit summaries. Re: Rudel, as I previously suggested, please file a new report at WP:3RRN instead of re-litigating Dapi's block here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for ignoring my question - that doesn't speak volumes about your editing tactics at all.

3RRN is for on-going edit-warring, obviously it is the incorrect venue to discuss your behavior from over two weeks ago. ANI, on the other hand, is the right place. Parsecboy (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The appropriate course of action would be to start a new ANI thread, as I've suggested over a week ago re: Parsecboy's comment that "we will be heading to ANI": [258] (emphasis in the original). Otherwise, this looks like an attempt to re-litigate Dapi's 3RR block here. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No, here is a perfectly acceptable location to discuss your disruptive editing, given that you are here, trying to get another editor topic-banned. Your behavior in the dispute is eminently relevant to the discussion (which you can't seem to help but continue in the above reply, taking what I said out of context). Parsecboy (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Since I was explicitly asked: I cannot explain why Dapi89 or K.e.Coffman reverted as they did, neither do I care to do so. Both can speak for themselves and this thread is not about violations of 3RR. --Assayer (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, so can you explain why you think it's a problem for Dapi to behave that way, but it's perfectly acceptable for K.e.coffman? Parsecboy (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose TB Never had any interaction with any of the participants here. After a quick review I am incredibly unimpressed by User:K.e.coffman's approach to the "content dispute". For instance He raises the reliability of the source "Obermaier, Ernst" on Talk:Werner Mölders#Tags. Obermaier is a source for tens of articles on Wikipedia, a handful of which have now been tagged. Very frustrating that instead of choosing raise this issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, he is on here trying to knock out a fellow editor Bosley John Bosley (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Bosley John Bosley:, it hardly seems fair to accuse K.e.coffman of being "on here trying to knock out a fellow editor". This ANI thread was started by Dapi89, trying to "knock out" (if you like to put it like that) two fellow editors, K.e.coffman and Creuzbourg, on a charge of tag-teaming (which has yet to be substantiated). Those two editors should reasonably be permitted to respond. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC).

This ANI thread was started after K.e.coffman initiated the WP:Blocking Games Here. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - while I have had my problems with Dapi in the past, I don't believe his behavior is any more problematic than Coffman's (in fact, I said as much in the ANEW post that resulted in Dapi's block, though that was seemingly ignored). Coupled with behavior like this (deliberately hiding my rebuttal of his deletion rationale as "off topic"), I actually have more trouble with Coffman's activities than I do Dapi's. Parsecboy (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It seems odd that those editors who oppose a topic ban hardly ever care to comment on Dapi's "name calling of editors" and accusations, which are by no means limited to disputes with K.e.coffman (see difflinks provided by Eggishorn above). Sure, some admit of having problems with Dapi here and there, but maintain that K.e.Coffman's behavior is at least as problematic as Dapi's (if not more so). To a large degree, however, this discontent seems to be based upon content issues (awaiting Peacemaker67's evidence, that is). The problem of sources used for the FA article on Werner Mölders has been raised by me on 21 February 2017, see Talk:Werner Mölders#Update on the literature. Still Auntieruth55 started a thread at MilHist Project claiming I don't know what the problem is with these sources. Everything is checked and double checked. It seems to me that one editor wants these articles to go in a specific direction. Instead of arguing why there would be no problems with the sources, which is a content issue, many contributors engage in constructing a case of "promoting an agenda and for self-aggrandizement" (see auntieruth below) by K.e.Coffman. Strangely enough for them it seems to be clear that only one side in the conflict is "promoting an agenda". It is obvious that some editors feel that they have "more trouble with Coffman's activities" than with Dapi's, for the simple reason that they agree more on content issues with the latter. But I wonder how they would phrase their position once their deletion rationale had been called false and dishonest. or once they would have been commented upon: Nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor. You're views are personal and tendentious. You're a polemist. End of story. That's just a small collection from my few discussions with Dapi89.--Assayer (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Given that I'm one of the people you're discussing, Assayer, I figure I'll respond. I didn't come here so much to defend Dapi as to oppose K.e.coffman. Coffman's behavior is classic - edit-war over an article, then head to the drama board first to get the other side blocked (carefully framing the case to omit any wrong-doing on his own part). Why we reward this behavior has always amazed me. Why Coffman (and Creuzbourg) was not similarly blocked for his edit-warring on the Rudel article over the course of the past month (or even admonished) is, frankly, inexplicable. Which is to say, if 1, 2, 3 reverts in eleven minutes, followed by a 4th a very cautious 31 hours later (after Dapi was already blocked) is not edit-warring, we have a very serious definitional problem. And since you seemingly acknowledge that both sides are pushing a POV, one wonders why you (and others) tolerate one and threaten the other with a topic ban. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• This thread is about a proposed topic ban for Dapi89, because of his long record of uncivility and ad hominem arguments uttered against various editors on various occasions. So far you and other editors opposing such a ban have mainly pointed to K.e.Coffman as being the (at least as) guilty party. And, yes, that argument is construed to defend Dapi's behavior. You might perceive it as if you were adding context to that conflict. I perceive it as apologetic. It gives me the impression that you tolerate Dapi's behavior, or somehow even approve of it, as if certain editors deserve that kind of treatment or have asked for it. If you consider K.e.Coffman's behavior to be disruptive, start a thread about it, present your arguments, support it with difflinks and make your suggestions, how you think that the community should deal with it.

Re:POV I am of the opinion that anybody has a point of view and that neutrality is acchieved within a collaborative process defined and guided by the various editorial guidelines, for example WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:ONUS and so forth. I have stated this point before and the reaction was kind of "He said Jehovah", or, in the words of Dapi89: That encapsulates the problem Assayer, with you and K.e.Coffman: "I think" and "IMHO". Editor opinions count for nothing. Assayer and K.e.coffman have used Wikipedia to attack sources about any German serviceman who served in World War II if it dares to complement their personal bravery or service record. I did not threaten a topic ban, btw, I merely would like to see that pattern of uncivility being stopped. What's your suggestion? So far I perceive your argument as something like: Make Coffman disappear and everything is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assayer (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Dapi's incivility is not limited to this topic - if your problem is his uncivil behavior, a topic ban is not the solution.
• I am categorically opposed to sanctioning one editor in a conflict and allowing the other to get away with the same behavior, simply because they ran to the drama boards first. That is why I'm here. I am no friend of Dapi - this is the last time I tried to help save him from himself, and you can see what I got for my efforts. Frankly, I'd be happy to see them both indef'd, but unfortunately we're probably not there yet (and to return to my earlier comment, why the community allows this level of disruption for as long as it does is beyond me). Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy:, the narrative you laid out above fails on the very basic fact that user:K.e.coffman did not start this thread, user:Dapi89 did. Also, Dapi89's problems are not limited to K.e.coffmann. They are consistently incivil and insulting to any editor they perceive as an enemy. I see no recognition in your remarks so far in your thread that you are taking consideration of the actual facts involved. Statements like Coffman's behavior is classic - edit-war over an article, then head to the drama board first to get the other side blocked seem to be motivated instead by personal prejudgments. Dapi89's initial allegations of tag-taming were never supported and seem to have been rejected by most here. K.e.coffman's accusations of incivility and personal attacks, however, are amply supported by statements above and even trivial searching will find more. There have been additional accusations of K.e.coffman's poor behavior, again without evidence. I would think an admin would at least attempt to substantiate ANI postings about another editor. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:, as someone else pointed out above, and you either missed or ignored, Coffman went to ANEW before Dapi started this thread. No evidence of Coffman's poor behavior? Are you bothering to read anything I've said? Try the bit I am bolding for your attention now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy:, I might reasonably ask the same of you, especially since the "someone else...above" was me. I am quite aware that I posted about Dapi89 being reported to 3RR. I note that such reporting was reviewed, accepted, bocked, and then the block was also reviewed and endorsed. Holding K.e.coffman's feet to the fire over a report that 3 admins had a hand in seems really unjustified, not to mention disrespectful. If you want call K.e.coffman's edits gaming the 3RR rule, well, I can't tell you otherwise. I note that the full history actually stretches out over five days, involves at least four editors, and was accompanied by talk page posts. It seems like edit warring and WP:BRD playing out simultaneously, making the behavior of anyone not crossing bright lines a matter of interpretation. I also note that this thread has gone from accusing K.e.coffman of tag-teaming to accusing them of incivility to accusing them of bickering to now accusing them of edit warring. Are we going to keep moving goalposts until we can find something to catch them on? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: - I was referring to Bosley John Bosley's comment directly above my original statement, not yours. If you were aware that Coffman went to ANEW first, on what basis did you challenge my "narrative"?

Obviously I cannot comment on why the other admins ignored Coffman's behavior on the article - but surely you would not subscribe to the idea that admins are infallible? On the article in question - take a look further in the history, and you'll see that the three editors have been reverting each other for over a month now.

As to the rest, where have I accused Coffman of incivility, bickering, or tag-teaming? Surely you cannot insist I defend arguments I didn't make, can you? Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy:, I challenged it on the basis that you said: ...then head to the drama board first. I have always seen "the drama board" refer to this one. I cannot recall any expansion of that phrase in general use to refer to 3RR. Perhaps "the drama boards" (plural) including all the WP:AN sub-boards is what you meant. The narrative of events on this board, however, clearly started with Dapi89's unsubstantiated complaint.

I don't, obviously, think admins are infallible or else I would not have challenged your postings, would I? When three admins, including one as respected as @Bishonen:, agree on a set of actions, however, I tend to think they might be on to something.

I did take a look at the history. I would not have made the 3RR/BRD comment unless I had. The history shows it is not a case of simply reverting and re-reverting. Different formulations are added, refactored, reverted, partially re-added, etc. Combined with the talk page discussion, that means calling a three-party edit war is missing important qualities.

My last point above refers to the general trajectory of the thread. I'm not asking you to defend Dapi89's or auntieruth55's comments. I do think that continually adding new charges for an editor to defend to the same thread is unfair. I get that K.e.coffman is out of step with a number of MilHist editors (and I honestly don't know if you are one of them) and that creates disputes. I think I documented that Dapi89 has crossed very clear lines of behavior. I also think that K.e.coffman tries very hard to "color inside the lines," so to speak. If walking up to the line and not crossing it repeatedly is itself sanctionable, however, then there are rules I'm not aware of in play. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: - argue semantics all you want, the point that Coffman ran to a drama board to present a one-sided version of events that resulted in Dapi's block stands.

I tend to think that means they just didn't examine the situation all that thoroughly. No one is perfect, whatever their reputation is.

Look, you can split all the hairs you want, but the long and the short of it is, the three editors were editing over each other, trying to force their version of the article in for the past month. It doesn't matter in the slightest that they reformulated things as they went—in fact, 3RR specifically states "whether involving the same or different material".

{{xt|" If walking up to the line and not crossing it repeatedly is itself sanctionable, however, then there are rules I'm not aware of in play." - indeed there are. From the intro to WP:EW: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.". And when Coffman made 3 reverts, and then waited a full day to make a 4th, it seems blindingly obvious he knew what he was doing. Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Oddly enough, stating some-one is "arguing semantics" and "splitting hairs" is a classic hair-splitting semantic tactic to dismiss arguments and avoid addressing their merits. You were the one that spoke of a repeated pattern of K.e.coffman "running to the drama board" and then changed what that meant. You were the one that posted all of one example of this supposed repeated pattern. You were the one that imputed motives to K.e.coffman that you expect others to accept just because it's what you think happened. This is all uninspiring evidence of your version of events, and I think I am well within the rules to point it out. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit - you dismissed my claim because I didn't make clear exactly what drama board Coffman ran to, when you yourself admit you knew exactly what I meant. Want more evidence? Look a few threads down, for another example of Coffman running to this drama board, trying to get another editor sanctioned for a ridiculously false doxing claim. There, you will see two other similar cases linked, where his activities succeeded, at least in part.

Ironic that your reply, where you accuse me of dismissing arguments rather than rebutting them, completely ignores my point about Coffman's edit-warring. Pot? That's an awfully dark shade of black you're wearing. Parsecboy (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Could k.e.coffman provide one evidence that his contributions to Luftwaffe articles on Wikipedia (topic ban k.e.coffman wants for Dapi89) have been made for any other reason than for the advancement of article quality. We would like to see contributions to Luftwaffe articles you improved, contributed or developed. I could provide the opposite. I would like to ask for your action on an Luftwaffe article: Otto Kittel. This article was rebuild by Dapi89 and MisterBee1966 starting with 16 February 2017 (it was rebuild with different sources as k.e.coffman raised the question about using kurowski and community accepted that he is unreliable) and since then until Dapi89 was blocked, the article was stable. Once Dapi89 was blocked you edited the article and remove literally everything. See the difference: [259] Could you please explain your action on just this article. You removed literally everything, all sourced material including Obermeier, Bergström, Constable-Toliver, Trautloft etc. Are really this source non-reliable? Can you provide here or on the Otto Kittel talkpage sources that state that? This discussion is very important for you conduct here on Wikipedia as some persons raised the question for a topic ban for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.237.138.234 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Um, did you miss this from above? IP 104.237.XX, please log in to your account if you wish to attack people on ANI...Evading scrutiny on noticeboards is inappropriate. This post makes it impossible to believe that you are new since January (as the IP contributions would imply). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment on timeline: For anyone who's keeping score on who has reported whom and to which board, here's the timeline: At 16:46, 25 April 2017, Dapi89 posted to this board over a dispute at his talk page, requesting that Creuzbourg be "blocked from his Talk page" [260]. Shortly thereafter, I posted to 3RRN, at 16:55, 25 April 2017. Dapi immediately used that forum for spurious claims directed at Creuzbourg and me (see the hatted section of the post: link to 3RRN archive). At that point I invited him to post to ANI, which he did, at 17:18, 25 April 2017. Hope this clarifies. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment on the proposal: I followed the link provided by Parsecboy, and then another -- this was quite illuminating. Sample diffs: "I will (as the greatest contributor to the article) change the altered passages as I see fit (...). I don't need to discuss it nor do I require your permission" [261]; "Weak Parky. (...) Understandable as it is a struggle to make sense of what you say. Careful how you write" [262]; "Yes it does Peter. (...) Please buy the Collins German dictionary" [263], etc.

Although these predate my interactions with Dapi89, mine have been similar: "The Germans do not refer to the current air force as the "German Air Force"! I suggest some reading is in order for you" [264]. This dispute took a side trip to NPOVN to resolve.

The diffs show that Dapi89 is quite passionate about WW2 topics and considers himself to be an expert. But, as DGG has pointed out, this often leads to the inability to edit articles neutrally or collaboratively. Anybody with different point of view is considered "ignorant", "disruptive", "dishonest", a "vandal", "tag team", and so on, as is obvious in this case.

This can also lead to situations when the immersion in a particular topic leads to original research or fast & loose handling of citations. I can provide diffs/links if needed. Dapi's behaviour has led to on-going disruptions over many years and a topic ban is indeed needed, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Support 3 month general ban on Dapi89 for incivility, bullying and aggressive tactics. Carlotm (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Seeing the discussion above, and my own look through, I think that this is well needed. —JJBers 05:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• 5 days no action, is the 30 day TB law now? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Not at all clear to me how you can interpret the above discussion as consensus for any action here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

POV !vote tracking. 5-5. I still support it. Either way something needs to be done about it. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the editor who participated in the reverting on the Rudel article (from which the tag-teaming accusation has arisen) is free to iVote here: "it does not prohibit him from (...) voicing an opinion". I note that that editors Eggishorn, Assayer and Creuzbourg have essentially recused themselves from casting a vote because of prior interactions with Dapi. @L3X1: would it be appropriate for them to do so?

Speaking of Dapi, here's him calling another editor a "sniveling little child" after one of his prior blocks. Much of this predates me joining Wikipedia and has gone on for far too long. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman I have seen involved editors !vote in AN/I proposals, so I would think so, and would count any comment with specific intent-judgements as a !vote. As for Dapi, his block log is filled with administrative action for NPA and civility violations. He hasn't edited for 2 weeks though. The diff you give is from 2011 which for me make mes want him to get a long long block. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 02:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

At this time, I note that Dapi89 has effectively given himself a 14-day block (on top of the 72-hour edit-warring block from Lord Roem, which matches the length of his longest block so far. Perhaps a topic ban is moot. I don't think that can be known until (if?) he returns. For the time being, at least, I think this should remain open and in abeyance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: - how on earth do you figure a rough 50/50 !vote is consensus for anything? If you were running at RfA, and you had roughly 50/50 supports/opposes, do you think your RfA would be likely to pass? Parsecboy (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing even approaching a consensus for a boomerang ban here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I am done here; I will not vote in a conflict that I am part of. Neither will I cast any more pearls before the swine; I solemnly promise to never again edit, update, improve or add images to any article I haven't originally created. Let the dogs return to their vomit; I will not. The most I will do is to add a link to an article I have begun in another editor's article. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Parsecboy I just reread the entire thread. If you are so bent on making sure nobody gets away with anything (which BTW I am also for, slow mo EW is EW) then drop K.e.c a 24 hour and give Dapi time for each bad comment! And as for how on earth do you figure a rough 50/50 !vote is consensus for anything I believe I began this sub thread with is the 30 day TB law now?, a simple yes or no question. For the time being, at least, I think this should remain open and in abeyance I fail to see how that achieve anything. For the past week I have scrolled past these 400K bytes of monster discussion (combined from all the large arguments) to the bottom of the page. From the lack of activies, (5 days no action) I assume most other have been to. Do you want to leave this up for another 2 weeks when the proposed TB (if enacted) would have expired? Things are brought to AN/I to be resolved, not left to rot in a stalemate !vote. The stalemate can be broken mny ways: either an RfC can be held to bring in new eyes, or an admin (such as Parsecboy) could declare one way or the other. Parsecboy could of closed this as Stale, no consensus, OP hasn't edited in 2 weeks or something along those lines, couldn't you? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC) PS.

I'm a wee bit too involved to be blocking anybody here. It also wouldn't be appropriate for me to close this thread. My problem was your characterization that the issue was settled, when it is not, irrespective of whether Dapi returns to edit or not. Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• It seems that everyone acknowledges that Dapi89 exhibits a pattern of uncivil behavior quite regularly. Some seem to argue, however, that they should not be blocked, because K.e.Coffman's behavior was at least as bad. I got the impression that for some it became more important to settle their score with K.e.Coffman than to seriously discuss the issue at stake. Be that as it may, as someone who has also been subject of Dapi89's contempt, I would like to hear from those who oppose the proposed topic ban how they would like to proceed. Let Dapi89 have their way? Impose a ban on Dapi89 and K.e.Coffman? Why not impose a topic ban on all those who have interacted with Dapi89 and K.e.Coffman on WW II issues? Since Dapi89 chose not to comment, I have no idea what they are up to. As an involved party I will cast no vote.--Assayer (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Frankly, Assayer, I've had enough of your indirect, snide remarks. If you're going to talk about me or my arguments, I'd rather you did so directly. I have no "score" with K.e.coffman to "settle" - what I do have is a problem with an editor who is here to push a particular POV, exhibits a battleground mentality, and games the rules. Why you have no problem with any of that, I have no idea. Parsecboy (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Parsecboy: I am not talking just about you and your arguments. You at least took your time to reply to my concerns, we had some discussion and I appreciate that, even if we don't agree. But you are not the only one who used this thread rather to talk about K.e.coffman's behavior than about Dapi89's, and I take the liberty to put that in a pointed manner. If you think that Dapi89 are not here to push a particular POV, that they do not exhibit a battleground mentality, and that they respect the rules, please say so. Since you obviously think that K.e.coffman are here to push a particular POV, exhibits a battleground mentality, and games the rules, please start a thread about it. The whole thread here would have been much slimmer if participants would have dicussed each editor's behavior for its own merits. This would not have precluded to point to possible interactions between editors, but it would have allowed for a much clearer picture of what has to be settled. --Assayer (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• There is no reason to open another thread. Their behavior is not occurring in a vacuum, and in fact, it is their interaction that causes much of the problem. I have said repeatedly that I do not endorse or defend Dapi's behavior, and that he is a problematic editor, but I do not believe him to be ideologically motivated in his editing, unlike K.e.coffman. I also do not believe him to be trying to game the system, again, unlike K.e.coffman. Dapi is, in a nutshell, a garden variety uncivil, arrogant editor. On the other hand, one− need look no further than his user page than to see that K.e.coffman is here to right great wrongs. On the face of it, there is obviously nothing wrong with removing Nazi apologist trash, but K.e.coffman takes his crusade a bit too far, deleting any material he believes to be problematic, regardless of what anyone else thinks, or whether it is actually Nazi apologist trash or not. Then there are collections like this, which does not particularly convey to me that K.e.coffman is here in the interest of editing collaboratively. It reminds me of point 18 (and point 48) of this excellent essay. In fact, quite a number of points there apply to this situation (particularly 3, 11, and 13, among others). Parsecboy (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• As one of the "other" editors, I concur with what Parsecboy has written about both editors. Frankly, the facts speak for themselves. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Parsecboy:, @Peacemaker67: Thank's for clarification. I'll leave it at that. But what's your take on how to deal with this incident right now? L3X1 has raised a few questions that are still unandressed. Since Dap89 is, according to your words, a garden variety uncivil, arrogant editor , is this a kind of behavior Wikipedians have to put up with? And is the case of WP:Tag team, that got this whole thing started, settled by now?--Assayer (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've already said I'd like to see them both be banned indefinitely. Unfortunately, I think my views are not in line with the mainstream, so yes, this is the kind of behavior—from both of them—that Wikipedians are expected to put up with. It seems it takes a lot to exhaust the community's patience, at least with regards to editors who at least in part are constructive. Parsecboy (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Parsecboy, both of these types of editing behaviour appear to be routinely accepted on en WP because few are willing to do the work necessary for the community to be convinced to censure editors that are at least partly constructive. That can change if someone not involved in a dispute puts the effort into developing a comprehensive case against an individual whose net benefit for the encyclopaedia is marginal. I'll add, for Assayer's benefit, that boomerang requests naturally result in closer attention to the editing behaviour of the person requesting the boomerang to ensure that the requester isn't gaming the system/taking advantage of a merit-worthy but relatively unsophisticated ANI report. That is why K.e.coffman's behaviour has been scrutinised here in some detail and compared with Dapi's. With boomerang requests, if the requester lacks clean hands, that is often detected and pointed out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• OPPOSE A Boomerang's inappropriate when both sides have been uncivil and done battleground behavior to the degree User:K.e.coffman and Dapi89 have. Sanction both, or neither. loupgarous (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• No action K.e.coffman is a deletionist who's afraid the Nazis look "too cool", i.e. popular culture glorifying panzer or fighter aces and even kids who play video games. He wants to remove what he calls "intrinsic detail" and books by some popular authors who aren't considered highly by some modern academic authors. The content creators, on the other hand, are genuinely interested in the topic area and want to include things like the names of the training camps and other military enthusiast details. Certainly these people who write the articles need to be questioned just like everyone if needed, but what's happening now is that K.e.coffman is bullying them away one at a time. And what comes to books about military. There are some problematic books for sure, but let's be honest here, detailed biographies can't be written without popular non-academic books, simply because academics don't write biographies about every notable fighter ace or general. --Pudeo (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I won't bother stating an opinion on the proposal. But I just read quite a long thread, and am struck by the last comment. Firstly, by the implied disparagement of K.e.coffman's editing (including scare quotes). Secondly by the lack of any supporting diffs. Finally, by the rather amazing model of circular reasoning in the last sentence: Non-notable Luftwaffe pilots don't have reliable sources about them (otherwise they would be notable), so we gladly rely on non-reliable sources. Wow. Jd2718 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support

Regardless of one's opinion on whether WWII German generals were Nazis, a key problem, as is obvious above, is OWNership--The editor seems to be actively trying to chase other people away from articles where he is the "greatest contributor" That attitude is incompatible with cooperative editing. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If we're talking about Dapi89 OWNership, there is beyond a reasonable doubt that K.e.coffman is guilty of the same charge, or even worst. You haven't read what the fellow editors wrote above, did you? The fact is that K.e.coffman have took OWNership of all Nazi Germany military articles (strong emphasis on personnel but also other topics) and HE is the person who decide which article should be deleted or redirected, what it should contain, in what format, what is intricate detail, what an infobox should contain, which sources are reliable et cetera. Coupled with being a tendentious editor, using disrupting cite-tagging (recent example on multiple FA and GA Luftwaffe personnel articles without giving an explanation), use tag team for consensus building (with editor Assayer and recently with Creuzbourg), point illustration and wiki lawyering, and campaigning to drive away productive contributors. Because of these, he's been constantly engaged in incidents, disputes and disagreements, as well as edit warring with multiple veteran editors from Milhst community: Peacemaker67, MisterBee1966, Sturmvogel 66, auntieruth, OberRanks, Parsecboy ― to name a few, and now Dapi89. Some of them were successfully eliminated or silenced by K.e.coffman, some of them are still active but avoiding him, as one of them pointed here "avoided interacting [with him] where possible given my interests". Talking about cooperative editing, DGG. I think we will have better chance of achieving consensus on ban or TB on both of them, Dapi89 and K.e.coffman, than on only one. Bot editors are unpleasant and displaying aggressive editing behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.154.255.180 (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If you are not a dynamic, please log in. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor obsessed with changing links to redirects into piped direct link

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

Editor DSmurf seems to be obsessed with violating WP:NOTBROKEN, i.e. changing links to redirects into piped direct links. His contribution log barely lists any other types of edits. For example:

21 May 2017

• [265]
• [266]
• [267]
• [268]

20 May 2017

• [269]
• [270]
• [271]
• [272]
• [273]
• [274]
• [275]
• [276]
• [277]
• [278]

There are more. This is pretty much the only thing this person does.

Am I overconcerned? Is this something bad? Or should I just go ahead and delete the whole WP:NOTBROKEN? MOS:STABILITY mentions a couple of ArbCom bans on obsessive editing. Does it fall into that criteria?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Chrissymad and Arthur Rubin might have somethings to say in this discussion, based on their warning in his talk page. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The funny thing is, also on his talk page is a warning about creating excessive redirects. In other words, he like to create redirects, but hates seeing them actually get used. EEng 10:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It makes no difference beyond the piped link points at the actual article instead of a redirect page. The redirect could be redirected elsewhere or deleted more easily than the target article. For this to be 'disruptive' you would have to make a decent argument that keeping a piped link to a redirect is worse for the encyclopedia than a piped link to the target article. If the redirect is linking to a specific part of an article, that would qualify. The Windows example: You can use Windows in context, and there is no functional difference between Windows and Windows except that you are not using a redirect. You should just use Windows and let the windows redirect handle it. WP:NOTBROKEN is about using piped links to avoid redirects, not using piped links when you have to in a more specific way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

NOTBROKEN is also about people's watchlists being cluttered with unnecessary edits, and the time it takes to investigate them. Any edit which serves no real purpose can be an annoyance, and especially so if this editor is doing them in bulk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest your assumption 'redirect could be redirected elsewhere or deleted more easily than the target article' is incorrect. It depends on what the link is supposed to point to. You cannot assume that the current target article is actually the clear intended target.

If for example, you link to kitten and it currently redirects to cat (from what I can tell, it never did but I can't be bothered remembering/finding a real example) but you are talking about kittens, then the fact that the redirect from kitten may be changed is probably a good thing. You want to follow where kitten actually points to, perhaps nowhere if it develops into a standalone article. There is a slight risk someone may change kitten into something which isn't actually suitable, say a disambiguation page and does so without fixing the links but again, there's no reason to think this is more likely than the more than kitten pointing to a better place.

Notably if someone changes kitten to point to somewhere more suitable, or changes it into an article; it's unlikely any mistakes were made just because links to the cat article section on kittens weren't changed. (Whereas as stated, it's generally expected that people are supposed to fix links to a page if they change it to something other than what it was before.)

Note this also applies to your last point. Even if someone makes a link to a specific subsection of a target article, the subsection could change. The redirect should hopefully be fixed at some stage, which will fix all links to it. Any links directly to the old subsection aren't going to be fixed in that way. In other words, there are many good reasons why links to a redirect are actually the best link. (Incidentally, I'm sure this is covered somewhere.)

This obviously doesn't apply when the link should be pointing to the target article and there's no reason for it to point to the redirect. In other words, the key point is whether the link should be to the redirect or to the target article.

And I would suggest it's the responbility of the person making mass changes to demonstrate that they're making sure they're only changing cases where the link to the redirect serves no purpose.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

[279] in particular strongly suggests to me the editor mentioned isn't properly looking at what they are doing. Their change seems to be a clear net negative. I see no reason why we should call it "2016 Bangladesh Bank heist" in that timeline article considering it's in the 2016 subsection (the title of which is only one paragraph up) when the target article is Bangladesh Bank heist. I assume what happened here is the 2016 Bangladesh Bank heist article was renamed because there was no other significant Bangladesh Bank heist. It makes sense to just remove 2016 from the link in our article. It does not make sense to keep 2016 in our article but point to the article without 2016. In fact, if there is a new Bangladesh Bank heist, the old link would likely still point to the right article but the new link will not. Someone will need to fix it (which as said above, they should when changing the article but this doesn't always happen). Note that this means it would actually have made more sense to do the reverse, i.e. keep the link to 2016, but change it to simply Bangladesh Bank heist although simply removing 2016 is still IMO the best choice. Incidentally, I'm not sure there's any real need to link to Bangladesh Bank either. Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, if "Heist" is in that title, it needs to be changed, since it is slang and not encyclopedic English. "Robbery" is the correct word. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I did it myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

IIRC, the ones I reverted were clearly appropriate as a redirect; the pipe was unnecessary and more likely to change.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

If [[A]] redirects to [[B]], then changing [[A]] to [[B|A]] is almost always a mistake. Changing [[A]] to [[B]] is potentially sensible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Watch out, Rubin, or you'll trigger my Bayes' Rule–related PTSD. EEng 00:46, 22 May 2017 (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.

Reopened page move discussion immediately after close with snow oppose

Requested page move WannaCry ransomware attack → WannaCry discussion was non admin closed at 22:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC) with a Snow oppose:

Talk:WannaCry_ransomware_attack#Requested_move_15_May_2017

New page move discussion that covered one of the same page moves was opened less than 2 hours later at 00:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC) by the same person:

Talk:WannaCry_ransomware_attack#Requested_move_19_May_2017

I'm thinking this is bad. Could we get an admin closure on this please? I suppose it's technically WP:DISRUPTION but I think they're just being overenthusiastic.

Many thanks.GliderMaven (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• By my count, six editors expressed support for a move which would normally make the invocation of WP:SNOW questionable. That being said the early close was probably the right call because it brought up the fact that it was malformed and thus had no chance of passing from a procedural standpoint anyway. Due to the fact that the first discussion was closed early, along with the fact that there were procedural problems with it, the other RM should be allowed to take place and should not be closed early. It's technically a different request that offers a clear-cut rationale. We don't have to follow process if there's literally no point—that's what SNOW is about. However, a SNOW close of a discussion that is nowhere near unanimous should not be enforced. Swarm ♠ 04:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, but there were 15 oppose !votes, and all of them were very, very clear they opposed this very move that was opened 2 hours later, 14 out of 15 were even specifically listed as 'oppose all variants'.

And it wasn't a third party, the guy that started it, closed it himself, and then promptly opened it back up again apparently because it got the 'wrong' answer. I don't see how the same one guy can do that. That really stinks. (actually somebody else opened it, but that doesn't make it much better overall.)

Anyway, it ran for 5 days, they usually run for seven, even if there's minor mistakes, if it wasn't SNOW we should reopen it for two more days, in which case the second move request is invalid.GliderMaven (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It ran for less than 4 days and reopening the original discussion is not an option given that it was malformed and technically no real request was made. Given that another RM has already been made, it would be simplest to just leave the new one to run. This is a reasonable attempt building a formal consensus the correct way, and that's ultimately what we're supposed to be doing. If the consensus is as strong as you claim, then you should have no problem letting it be formally established with an accepted process. Also, 0 or 1 support to 15 oppose is a SNOW situation. 6 support to 15 oppose is not a SNOW situation. Swarm ♠ 05:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

User repeatedly making unfounded sockpuppet allegations

I trust that I have the right venue for this having been pointed here.

Burninthruthesky (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is repeatedly making sock puppet allegations as an excuse to revert edits he clearly does not like. There is no record of a block for the user and no evidence is offered at WP:SPI (the ONLY correct place to make allegations with evidence.

diff1: Allegation, but no evidence offered.

diff2: Allegation against me. Again no evidence offered, but claims "SPI is linked to user page". Whatever that nonsense is meant to mean, there is no link established anywhere.

diff3: A further claim is made here, but if a previously blocked user was IP hopping, that means that a lot of IP address editors are implicated, because every IP user in this part of the world is saddled with a dynamic IP address that constantly changes, and we have no control over it.

diff4: Link to previous allegation not directly related to current problem. Again an edit he wants to revert, so claim it is the same editor making it (in fact the edit history shows a number of similar reversion conveniently branded sockpuppetry often with no evidence offered anywhere but especially not at WP:SPI.

At the very least, Burninthruthesky should be reminded that allegations of sockpuppetry should be made at WP:SPI and must be accompanied by proper and convincing evidence. Vague statements in edit summaries or elsewhere should not cut the mustard. 185.69.145.73 (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Burninthruthesky believes you to be I B Wright (talk · contribs). For the sockpuppet investigation archives, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright/Archive and, further back, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/I B Wright. It would help this discussion if you stated for the record whether or not you are I B Wright (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Probably a fair question in the circumstances. I am not this I B Wright (interesting name though). I had a look at the SPI entry in question (chasing the supposed evidence claimed at diff2).

All of the allegations against IP editors rely on geo-locating IP edits. The problem is that geo-locate does not tell you what you think it is telling you. The complainant is assuming (as I believe that a lot of people do) that it tells you where the edit was made from. Not the case. It reports the current location of the IP address (with a deliberate and random error if allocated). Three of the four IP addresses in that report all geo-locate to Guildford, UK. A quick IP trace reveals that they are currently unallocated to customers, which doesn't help anyone (Guildford is the known location of the BT IP address server for south England which is what it is reporting without error - and if you map the co-ordinates, they resolve, not unsurprisingly, to dead centre of Guildford telephone exchange), which doesn't help anyone. The fourth IP address is allocated and currently locates to Stroud, also in the UK. 185.69.145.73 (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I see no convincing evidence of socking here, and Burninthruthesky has done more burning of heretics lately than sky - he opened an SPI on me too.

That said, I do see your edits as disruptive. The contested content, 'was "magee" a nickname for cavity magnetrons' has one very solid source given for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Burninthruthesky is now retrospectively editing the archived SPI cases to remove past complaints of him using SPI for harassment, and continually making such groundless accusations.

AGF applies to IP editors and even socks too. If there is no evidence to support an SPI, then we have to keep silent on it and not throw around wild accusations, just to defame another editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Point of order: It was not my edit. I merely reverted a malicious accusation of sockpuppetry that was not supported by any evidence. 85.255.236.188 (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm referring to this (86.145.209.23), (148.252.128.135) and this (185.69.145.73 ) 3RR removal of sourced content. If you're claiming that all three of these IPs are the same editor, yourself, then I think you can see why one might suspect them to be a sock. Registering an account provides some demonstration of a consistent identity for other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

As I already indicated: the first edit that you provided is the edit that I originally spotted as an unfounded allegation. I was not responsible for that edit. I do not see your point about 3RR because there is one edit from 86.145... and only two reverts from myself reverting malicious allegations (148.252..., 185.69..., 85.255... and whatever my IP address is now are myself. If you have a problem with the IP address changing, then please feel free to direct your complaint to my ISP as I have no control over it. Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit (including unregistered editors). 85.255.234.96 (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

So you're not 86.145.209.23, thus not the editor with long experience as a radar engineer? But you're still reverting, despite not being the guy with the hands-on familiarity?

But you are 148.252.128.135 "No block in force. No evidence presented at WP:SPI which is the ONLY venue at which allegations may be made." and are reverting because of a thorough knowledge of whether 86.145.209.23 is blocked or not?

So it's either simply disruptive, or there's a connection between IPs that you're denying, even though it would have been permitted anyway? I'll have to leave that one there I think, I have laundry to do. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I've heard if you add enough AGF to the wash, your socks come out smelling of roses Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This might come as a bit a shock to you, but there is more than one radar engineer in the world. I work with around thirty others at Heathrow Airport. I am nowhere near old enough to have worked on exclusively valve based radar systems, but thermionic devices hung around just long enough to work alongside solid state devices to trespass on my early career. Though I am also not old enough to have worked with H2S, it was required reading during my university days. I have just dug up my notes from the time, and the scan generation system for the H2S refers to, "... a syncro transmitter, often called a 'magslip' (or colloquially a 'magie') ..." (so my recollection of the spelling was slightly wrong if not the use of the term).

As for a, "thorough knowledge of whether 86.145.209.23 is blocked or not": this thorough knowledge can be easily found by any editor. All you have to do is click "block log" at the top of their contributions page. For instance, I can see that you are not currently blocked (which I could have guessed) but have been blocked four times in the past. 85.255.234.241 (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Visokor

User:Visokor has a checkered history of uploading text ripped directly from manuals or web sites, mostly of plot-related information for games or films. I've reverted some of their edits previously.

One such removal of the copyrighted material, that on Gex (video game), was reverted by them with the rationale that the "article has every right to have a plot section." I reverted this again, and warned them with a talk page message referencing WP:COPYPASTE and WP:CV.

Today I notice that they have continued to upload material from elsewhere, including plot descriptions for The Pink Panther (1993 TV series) which a quick Google search reveals to be directly from the official YouTube channel of the episodes.

Their edit history is extensive and frequent, and I don't have the time to check many of the entries for violations. But considering that they haven't understood the implications from my or any of the previous warnings (some going back a few years, that are still visible on their talk page), I'm referring the user here to you. AtomCrusher (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

potential IP sock

IP user 47.147.39.254 is persistently making disruptive edits to Knower (band) by adding unsourced genres/categories to this, and other music articles. [280] [281] When he adds a source, they are from fansites, blogs or other unreliable sources and makes no effort to discuss.[282] Instead all he does is edit war, and is unwilling to talk it out.

I also have confirmed, based on his conduct/reactions in his edit descriptions, that this user is an IP sockpuppet of Users Boaxy & Phrasia, who were both indefinitely blocked for similar misconduct, as well as personal attacking, thus completely indicating that Boaxy/Phrasia is using an IP address to evade his indefinite block.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Chris

Edit war, sock farm, disruption

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

---

Hey folks! There is some disruption from sockpuppet IP addresses, as well as the registered account N738139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think a block is in order. See [283] and [284]. This has been at AIV for several hours, but no one has intervened and the disruption continues. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Warned for 3RR violations. It's not really vandalism, so I have a hard time blocking for that. However, he's been around long enough to know what edit warring is, and his 'source' is silly. I'm just AGFing all over the place today, so he gets one last chance. Katie^talk 21:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. However, WP:CIR may well be an issue, given recent interactions. Kleuske (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2017 (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.

Ownership behaviour

Since the discussion a year ago on Talk:Koren Specific Technique #Selective merge showed clear support for merging Koren Specific Technique (a stub since 2015), the creator of the article, Valoem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has edit-warred to revert the redirect on 8 separate occasions against 4 separate editors:

1. reverts QuackGuru [285]
2. reverts CFCF [286]
3. reverts CFCF [287]
4. reverts CFCF [288]
5. reverts CFCF [289]
6. reverts Edward321 [290]
7. reverts RexxS [291]
8. reverts RexxS [292]

The redirect is to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Koren Specific Technique, where the entire content of the Koren Specific Technique article can be found along with similar single-paragraph sections about numerous other techniques. This kind of ownership of articles is unhealthy and is symptomatic of Valoem's obsession with the articles he has created. I first came across Valoem yesterday at Talk:PAX Labs, where he was badgering all the other editors who wanted to merge Juul (electronic cigarette) (a stub that Valoem created) into PAX Labs (a two-paragraph article). I don't intend playing any more revert-games with this editor.

He has now posted 6 times on my talk page since this morning:

1. Template:uw-harass1: [293]
2. "Don't do it again you would stand change against me at ANI." [294]
3. "Do not participate in articles I am involved in. Also do not proceed further in the current discussion and we well have no issues going forward." [295]
4. "You ask me to stop posting on your talk page, but then revert my edits I don't think so." [296]
5. [297]
6. [298]

including 2 templated warnings and those little gems instructing me where I can and cannot participate.

In full disclosure, I edit regularly on medical topics and am an active member of WP:WikiProject Medicine, where I have a long history of trying to defend medical articles from undue fringe content and promotion. Having been told on Talk:PAX Labs "I recommend you review my history", I did that today – see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Valoem?offset=201705181600 – and the Chiropractic-related revert at Koren Specific Technique – marked as a minor edit! – lead me to the sorry behaviour of Valoem at that article. I'd like to see some action to stop him edit-warring (even slowly) over chiropractic and to give other editors a chance to discuss e-cigs. I would be nice if he could keep off my talk page as well, but that's less important. --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Not seeing this in the above, I would like Valoem to explain striking RexxS' !vote. What policy or guideline backs you up on doing that?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Berean Hunter, I warned Valoem specifically about the striking-out, which also had an egregious edit summary, but their only response was to remove my warning as "improper".[299] They have now posted on my page, complaining that I didn't warn RexxS too, and bafflingly telling me "Bishonen you've dealt with me before".[300] I don't know what that refers to, but I will (of course) not take any admin action wrt any of these events, as RexxS is a good friend who helps me with technical stuff. (I told Valoem that up front and got it thrown back in my face: "So i received a warning because he is your friend?".) Leaving this to uninvolved admins. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC).

@Berean Hunter:, that was miscommunication. I asked him to stop his attacks ... he said he would not. Then I left him a message to be uninvolved in the topic if he doesn't want to change his behavior. Instead of responding he reverted my edit which I took as a sign he didn't want to be involved. After he made it clear he wanted to make personal attacks and be involved I unstruck his vote and restore my response which he removed.

• Response I am surprised to see such a bad faith attack from RexxS (talk · contribs). Everything he said is completely unfounded and false. This article Koren Specific Technique survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koren Specific Technique (AfD). This AfD was rampant with WP:IDONTLIKEIT bias and was nominated by ScienceApologist. After the topic survived editor, CFCF, bold merged and showed multiple biases against fringe topics. I argued that this is notable quackery and we document things such as this here. There again was a discussion here and here which both came to no consensus. Again it was bold merged without consensus when I wasn't paying attention. I spoke with DGG (talk · contribs) here regarding Gonstead technique which was also nominated for deletion due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, he came to the same conclusion I did, the possibility of bias and prejudice. He also has seen in the past editors with certain biases eventually merging content surreptitiously to a parent article before finally removing the section entirely. Therefore I was fighting a bias with consensus on my side. Those who favored inclusion have moved on to other subjects. Editors then continued to merged the article without discussion showing systematic bias. So I am not reverting due to ownership, I am reverting due to consensus and in an attempt to stop the rampant anti-fringe bias prevalent here on Wikipedia. Here are all the prior discussions for merge all closing with no consensus:
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koren Specific Technique (against merge)
• Fringe noticeboard first discussion (no consensus to merge)
• Fringe noticeboard second discussion (no consensus to merge)
• here is a discussion I had with Jimbo Wales on the subject , He agrees we should cover this and there is a form of bias.

Now the article was still merged without consensus, does this seem like ownership? Or maintaining consensus? Perhaps RexxS was unaware of the article history.

When it come to RexxS (talk · contribs) he began by attacking me for no reason here. Every post he highlighted above was in defense. Here is the chronology of events:

1. (20:25, 16 May 2017) Discussion before RexxS entrance, We had a friendly civil discussion here.
2. (20:46, 16 May 2017) RexxS: Enters discussion with unprovoked attack, He wrote "And I'm always saddened to see a shill desperately trying to preserve free advertising for their company in such a naked manner." he wrote in the comments field (let's not beat around the bush)
3. (21:58, 16 May 2017) Me: response by lettting him know that I am not a "shill" advertising for the company and we are equally qualified, and to please assume good faith.
4. (22:31, 16 May 2017) RexxS: He said "I've not misjudged what your doing here: you're defending having two articles when it's obvious that there's barely enough encyclopedic material for one. What your reasons for that mistake are, is something for you to ponder. Don't bother trying to threaten me, because you're obviously nowhere near as qualified as I"
5. (23:56, 16 May 2017) Me: Warning I gave him a warning for his personal attack. Which he reverted.
6. (00:03, 17 May 2017) RexxS: Told me to stay off his page Instead of apologizing he told me to not engage.
7. (00:08, 17 May 2017) Me: I responded here I ask him to not participate in the discussion any further if he refused to act in good faith. He then reverted my request. So I assumed he wanted no further part of the discussion.
8. (00:47, 17 May 2017) Me: I removed his remark, under the impression that he did not want to participate I removed his remark and left a message explaining his initial attack and requesting an apology. I admit the removal of his remark was miscommunication due to the revert of my comment with no responses from RexxS that he wanted to engage. Regardless this error was corrected.
9. (00:49, 17 May 2017) RexxS: then restored his comment which he is allowed to, but also removed my comment.
10. (00:52, 17 May 2017) Me: I then restored his remark and also my comment and noted the error of thinking he did not want to participate.
11. (00:59, 17 May 2017) RexxS: responses with another attack He wrote "And you really want me to apologise for pointing out how your arguments here appear? I don't know which is funnier. Almost as funny as you thinking you decide where I can edit: "Do not participate in articles I am involved in. Also do not proceed further in the current discussion and we well have no issues going forward." Well here I am, participating in the discussion. What are you going to do about it? I promise you, I'll still be defending this project from articles like this long after you've given up and gone. Now stop being rude to your elders and betters – didn't your mom teach you any manners?"
12. (01:22, 17 May 2017) Me: I politely responsed I showed him that I was providing sources and recommend AfD where more than just fringe eCigs editors can be involved.
13. (02:28, 17 May 2017) RexxS: Started as a polite response, but then claimed I was attacking him. He wrote at the end "I don't se any sign of you offering them apologies for your ad hominem attack. How dare you suggest that others are not here to build an encyclopedia, when you've demonstrated that your only debating tactic is to attack other editors?". I've been on the defensive the whole time. RexxS first comment was an accusation that I was a "shill"
14. (11:19, 17 May 2017) RexxS: Hours later reverts Koren Specific Technique, another article I worked on It seems like a personal attack.
15. (14:02, 17 May 2017) Me: I ask him to stop looking for articles I've written and merging them.

I have not revert @Edward321: as I don't believe it to be a personal attack. This is the exact order of what happened. There are also other editors who support merge, but have come in the friendly manner, I have no qualms about editors disagreeing with me, only when they attack me. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen:, Perhaps we've had a misunderstanding, I hope after I've highlighted everything which occurred you can understand some sympathy as to my initial irritation with the warning. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It is common sense to merge a stub-like article. The merge was done about a year ago. Virtually the same content is found at the main article. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_50#General_Discussion_of_Above_Chiropractic_Articles and Talk:Koren_Specific_Technique#Comments_on_selective_merge for previous discussions. Unless it is too big for the main article there is no reason for a stand alone article. There is only a small paragraph at Chiropractic_treatment_techniques#Koren_Specific_Technique. The page was redirected again recently because is it duplication of the same content from the main article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I understand where you are coming from, but I think the ownership accusation from RexxS borderlines bad faith given the prior discussions we've all engaged. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably not in the best position to be complaining about bad faith. A comment you should, just by and by, probably thanked me for, since the other option I was considering was a judicious ANEW report, given your open edit warring. TimothyJosephWood 18:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: As told you on my talk page I am getting attacked by eCig fringe group. eCig's have been a heated area with many sanctions, none of which I am involved in. You left a friendly message on my talk page and I responded with a friendly gesture of the being attack by a specific editor for defending an article. Also as you can see I am currently engaged in sources adding and discussion with other editors regarding this subject, where have I edit warred? I have not violated and 3RR. I did the three reverts on Koren Specific Technique because of the reason I highlighted above. An editor from another discussion whom I am in a dispute with reverts my edits, of course intentions can be questioned. I done no such reverts since you've spoken with me. My comment "Getting trolled by anti-fringe right now" is a humorous gesture to what is happening I don't know how you can interpret that as bad faith. (Oh you thought I was directing the comment at you, I wasn't) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

where have I edit warred? I have not violated and 3RR If you can spend ten years here and not understand that those are not the same thing, then you have bigger problems. On Koren Specific Technique you reverted I count five consecutive times on May of last year over this exact issue, the article went dormant for a year, and then you picked up exactly where you left off starting 16 May of this year. Not edit warring doesn't mean discussing in between pushes of the revert button, it means not continuing to push it. TimothyJosephWood 19:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Tim, you are confused here, during the time of those reverts, I was the one patrolling, CFCF, was merging against consensus, so I was in fact preventing an edit war. The article had survived AfD and then suddenly bold merged by CFCF. I unmerged and he opened a merge discussion and began merging without any consensus. Eventually there was no consensus to merge hence article retention. It's unfortunate to see my links to the entire history of this not being read.

• Fringe noticeboard first discussion (no consensus to merge)
• Fringe noticeboard second discussion (no consensus to merge)

At the time I had gathered enough support through consensus and discussion to not have a merge. The selective merge section showed no consensus to merge. There for my revert was seen as proper hence why the article remained for a year until May 16, 2017, when it was suddenly reverted again without any discussion whatsoever. How could you accuse me of editing warring, when I am maintaining consensus which was against merge and actively taking to editors who disregarded the results of the AfD? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel like this is about the sixth time this has been explained on this page today, but repeatedly reverting isn't "preventing an edit war" it is an edit war. It's a bit like saying "I wanted to prevent a war from breaking out so I went and killed all those soldiers in the other army".

Consensus is not an exception to WP:EW, and you shouldn't need to be told that. TimothyJosephWood 19:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So if an AfD closes as keep then someone just bold merges, if I unmerge I am guilty of editing war? How does that make any sense? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No, what makes it an edit war is when they bold merge, you bold unmerge, they bold merge, you bold unmerge, they bold merge, you bold unmerge. Are you feigning ignorance or do you actually need this explained to you? TimothyJosephWood 19:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hold on, we have to break this down ever further ... so if I open a discussion and the consensus is to retain the article. Then someone merges, there is nothing I can do about it? When lose a discussion you open another one and keep fighting for consensus, the never give up attitude is how an encyclopedia is built and how history is documented. Now your telling me to give up when I win? There was a discussion it was against the merge then CFCF merged it, so I guess deletionism wins since apparently if I unmerge I'm being disruptive? Is that how it works here? I didn't know. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

As it turns out, we have an entire page on what edit warring is, why you shouldn't do it, and how to avoid it. Please see Wikipedia:Edit warring because apparently you are patently WP:NOTGETTINGIT. TimothyJosephWood 20:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Valoem: I'm concerned with your behaviour, not a content dispute, but it's simply untrue that consensus is on your side concerning the merge of Koren Specific Technique. You refer to an AfD in March 2016, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koren Specific Technique as "(against merge)". It was a deletion discussion and the deletion was closed "no consensus". The reply to you from Jimbo in May 2016 never once mentioned the word 'merge'. In the only discussion specifically about merging at Talk:Koren Specific Technique #Selective merge] in April 2016, there were 4 editors !voting in favour of merge (QuackGuru, Chrisvls, Permstrump, WhatamIdoing) and 2 !voting against (Valoem and Moxy). Since then 3 more editors, (CFCF, RexxS, Edward321) have tried to carry out the merge. That's 7 to 2 in favour of merging and the article was first merged 5 May 2016. On what planet does that equate to your claims above: "CFCF, was merging against consensus" and "I open a discussion and the consensus is to retain the article". You're pretending that anyone who has agreed we should cover the subject of 'Koren Specific Technique' is automatically in favour of having a stand-alone article and against covering the topic as part of a larger article on chiropractic techniques. They aren't. Consensus is against you on the issue. Sadly you seem incapable of accepting that other good-faith editors can genuinely hold different views from you, leading to your comment above: "I am getting attacked by eCig fringe group". You're not. --RexxS (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

In 2005 it was determine and discussion closed as no consensus default to keep. This is the third attempt, your questioning is based on the May 2016 edits which focus on this and this from the fringe noticeboards. In the last discussion most editors in favor of separate article have left for other topics, including myself. The last vote by Moxy was for keep and isnt finished, nor is the discussion closed. The prior three discussions all had no consensus to merge. I'm surprised you are concerned about my behavior when you initiate personal attacks. I am someone who responded sternly to editors with aggressive attitudes as you've come to know. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• There was no consensus to merge, so an editor who objects to efforts to merge it is exercising proper concern for the integrity of the article, not ownership. I've re-read the AfD. I think Sandstein's close says it just right "Most seem to agree that we should cover this topic somehow, but there's no agreement about whether it's notable enough to warrant a separate article. Perhaps a merge proposal to some appropriate other article might be better placed to find consensus" That discussion still needs to be held, but not here . DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• There was no consensus to delete on 21:18, 4 April 2016 for the AFD. See: "The result was no consensus. Most seem to agree that we should cover this topic somehow, but there's no agreement about whether it's notable enough to warrant a separate article. Perhaps a merge proposal to some appropriate other article might be better placed to find consensus."[301]
• After the AFD there was more discussion. There was a discussion on the talk page and elsewhere. There appears to be consensus for a merge. No logical argument has been made to have a separate page for only one small paragraph for the same content. QuackGuru (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• What happened was editors from the discussion who voted against merge have essentially move on to different topics. All that remains are those from the fringe noticeboard who always favored deletion. In order to have a fair discussion you would need to ping BullRangifer, Cunard, DGG, and Tigraan. AfD is a much better option as a wide range of editors from different fields see the subject in question. This create objectivity, if you exclude those other editors by holding a small merge discussion among the fringe notice group, who disdain for anything fringe is no secret, then of course the "consensus" would be merge. But is this true consensus? Or a show trial?

Regardless, fighting to keep a three sentence article is redundant. However accusing me of ownership is another. RexxS believes he is a king who can call editors shills without receiving backlash. He considered my well reasoned response a threat and then stalked my other articles for a merge and accuses me of ownership when I reverted his edit. Unhappy, with my resistance RexxS decides to open an ANI to waste everyone's time. This ANI ducks me as a threat, instead of a true call for arbitration. It does make one wonder whose behavior really needs adjusting. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• What is the solid argument for a stand alone article for a single small paragraph that is the same content found at Chiropractic_treatment_techniques#Koren_Specific_Technique? QuackGuru (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I already answered that above, at this point it's redundant. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• No one knows whether an editor is actually a shill so I assume any suggestion along those lines was simply a brief way of claiming that the editor was consistently supporting inappropriate text in articles—text that unduly promoted a product or idea. Some time should be spent considering why such a claim might have been made. Things like using rollback to preserve fringe text that is duplicated elsewhere might give the impression of undue enthusiasm for a topic. Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

sooo... Valoem, Rex, I suggest that mebbe both of you edit other articles for a few days, cool off, then come back, and start an RfC on the matter. only real way anybody is ever going to determine a consensus. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I interpreted there to be strong consensus to merge in 2016, and going back to read any discussions I still see it as such. Valoem has a history of calling out anyone who opposes him as "anti-fringe", and sees relationships between edits that do not exist. I edit most medical topics, and of course we will come across each other once in a while then. That we disagree fundamentally is not because "my motives are questionable" — but because Valeom has not based any of his edits on proper sources or science. Wanting good sources is not anti-fringe, it is being pro-Wikipedia, pro-science, and pro-WP:VERIFIABILITY. As for what anti-fringe actually is supposed to mean, I don't have a clue… Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you claim there is "strong" consensus to merge, even after I posted the links to the discussions:

• AfD closed as no consensus
• Koren Specific Technique (again) Second discussion, Support Merge: QuackGuru, Oppose merge: Valoem, BullRangifer (talk · contribs), 2-1 in favor of keep, no consensus.
• Third discussion General Support merge: QuackGuru, CFCF, Ozzie10aaaa, Johnuniq, LuckyLouie, and Permstump. Against merge: Valoem, BullRangifer, Moxy, DGG, Wnt, and Cunard (talk · contribs), 7-6 in favor of merge, no consensus.

You asked for sources, I provided Aetna Healthcare, NHS and ND Human Services. When such sources are provided and reject, biases begin to surface. Despite lack of consensus an editor bold merges against consensus, this is clear evidence of anti-fringe bias. CFCF, why lie about the outcome of the discussions when we can look in the history? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There was discussion in the interim between those two periods, and really you fundamentally misinterpret the second discussion — ignoring entirely the article talk-page, which is tellingly in favor of merge — and easily supercedes a 2-1 "no-consensus" discussion on AN/I.

The sources you use are not high quality, and even accepting them they do not cover the topic sufficiently to expand it beyond a stub. It belong as a subsection of the main article, not as a non-edited stub.

That you accuse me of lying is very telling, and is in fact a large part of the problem. I don't have the time to refute every repeated nonsensical arguement — and that is exactly what the WP:OWNERSHIP-accusation is about. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

An AFD was opened to determined if the sources were acceptable, it was closed as no consensus defaulting to keep. You said there is strong consensus I showed you three discussions with no consensus and the stats of the votes (6-5 (afd), 2-1, 6-7), therefore you lied when you said "strong consensus" ... unless you have a different definition of "strong consensus". Many editors in the AfD determines the sources were notable, you personally disagreed and reverted against consensus, I showed all the links of your behavior. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

while that is true, there was a Proposed merge in 2016 that appears to have a weak consensus for merging, but an RfC is probably required to get a better consensus with more participants. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aunva6: You are talking about this discussion correct? This discussion was open at the same time the other discussions on the fringe noticeboards were ongoing. I was the only participant in the discussion until Moxy (talk · contribs) jumped in. Editors from the fringe noticeboard didn't even wait a day, the instant they saw consensus favoring inclusion another discussion was opened, a more private discussion, in order to skew consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, aunva6, that's exactly what happened. After the "no consensus" AfD was closed on 4 April 2016, a merge proposal was made on 9 April 2016 at the article's talk page: Talk:Koren Specific Technique #Selective merge. Please read it and see the subsequent article history for the consequences. There are now 7 editors in favour of a merge: QuackGuru, Chrisvls, Permstrump, WhatamIdoing (commenting on talk page), CFCF, Edward321, RexxS (attempting to carry out the merge). There are 2 editors opposed (Valoem and Moxy). That's as the most recent consensus and Valorem has not only failed to respect it by edit-warring against it, he now blatantly misrepresents the consensus to try to justify his actions. That's unacceptable and he needs to be kept away from the article. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

i have filed for a requested close at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:Koren_Specific_Technique.23Selective_merge for the PM. just so the "it's not closed" is no longer an issue. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban Valoem from Koren Specific Technique

Valorem has repeatedly edit-warred over the course of the last year to force his version onto the Koren Specific Technique article against a 7-2 majority of editors in favour of a merge. The most recent being yesterday when he reverted two different editors three times. In this very thread he has sought to justify his actions by obfuscation, referring to earlier discussion that had no consensus to delete the article, which are irrelevant to the issue of a merger.

• Support as proposer. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Given my principal concern has been met and Valoem has collaboratively worked to help the merge take place,I feel it best to draw a line under this. --RexxS (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment, this is a pure bad faith attack on the ANI boards, what should we do about this? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The bad faith is all on your part. I see you call CFCF a liar above, despite the fact that there is a strong 7-2 consensus in favour of a merge. That's your consistent tactic: attack anybody who disagrees with you. You ought to count yourself lucky nobody has asked for you to be blocked for personal attacks like that one. --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @RexxS: CFCF is talking about the discussion from LAST YEAR not this current one. Where did I call CFCF (talk · contribs) a LIAR? I said his statement was a lie, he was saying there is a strong consensus for merge last year, that is false I provided two closed discussions. You have made numerous personal attacks on me first, so you should also be in contention for a topic ban. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      • You still don't get it, do you? There's clear consensus at the most recent merge proposal at the article talk page and 3 more editors have added to that since. You've edit-warred as recently as yesterday, and attacked everybody who points out your problems. You've badgered every commentator on this page with irrelevant discussions that had no consensus. It's time you either stopped edit-warring voluntarily or by being forced to. Your choice. --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Where did I call CFCF (talk · contribs) a LIAR? → "CFCF, why lie about the outcome of the discussions when we can look in the history?" - Valoem 13:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC). Are you trying to pretend that you didn't say that CFC was lying? How can you possible think that's an acceptable comment to make against a fellow editor, even if they disagree with you? --RexxS (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
        • @RexxS:, The comment was clearly false, therefore a lie, I am allow to say someone's comment is false, it does not mean I am calling him a liar. Are you suggesting you can not say people are making false comments? Because almost every editor here has said at one point or another that a comment is false, yourself included. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
          • The comment was not false, and you're not allowed to make a personal attack by directly saying say someone is lying - you used the verb: "CFCF, why lie". You're trying to worm out of that PA by pretending that you didn't say what everybody can see you said. --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

*Support user clearly WP:NOTGETTINGIT. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What am I not getting? I haven't reverted anything nor have I been disruptive what's going on here? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• • Oppose user appears to ahve dropped the stick -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as discussed above, there has not yet been such consensus for a merge. This needs to be discussed at settled as a content problem, not pre-empted by ANI. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @DGG: If there's no consensus for a merge, how do you interpret the most recent merger proposal at the article's own talk page and the three other editors who have since attempted to implement that consensus? The behaviour of repeated reversions by Valoem and his unwillingness to accept other views that don't coincide with his own is the issue here. Or do you condone his edit-warring now? --RexxS (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I report accurately the close of the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• • • Where is the edit warring, I never revert Edward's edit after he reverted, I don't intent to either. I reverted your edit because your prior attack ducks your revert as bad faith. It stays merged, your attempt to block me is due to personal reasons not policy. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      • revert of Edward321, revert of RexxS, revert of RexxS. Three reverts in 12 hours. There's your edit-warring. And quit calling me bad-faith. There's a limit to how many personal attacks you can make. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • see Talk:Koren_Specific_Technique#Selective_merge -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)
    • @Aunva6: That discussion has not been closed, I also do not care if three lines are merged. I reverted Edward321 because he wrote in the comment field (info already exists) and I was going to ping previous editors to further that discussion, however it was only three lines if Edward321 or another editor reverted again I would move on or open a discussion, but for three lines ... its redundant. However RexxS reverting is a completely different meaning, he recently attacked me and then jumped to an article I wrote which he never edited to merge, obviously his merge cannot be in good faith even if consensus coincidentally agreed. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      • it may as well be. there have been no additions to the discussion in over a year. the edist following the discussion also reinforce the consensus in favor of merge. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
        • @Aunva6:, but given the prior discussion more participates would be needed, however after reevaluating 3 sentences its not worth it, so I kept it merge. Can you please strike your vote, I am content creation editor and rarely deal with back pages and as you can see by my defense I am a good faith editor who is here to build any encyclopedia. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • See here where DGG supporting keeping the page and here where it was explained there is consensus for a merge with a link to the talk page. DGG, please strike your comments or explain why you claim there is no consensus for a merge. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I have been civil through this discussion. I have had no violation of 3RR, I haven't even edited that article in 24 hours. Are proposing to ban me with no violations? This is an attack ANI, which violates Wikipedia policy. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (1) "civil": You've accused CFCF of lying. (2) "no violation of 3RR": you edit-warred right up to the WP:3RR bright line despite "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." You need to own your behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't know about a TBAN, but I for one would be willing to support a six month 1RR project wide. I'm not surprise that experienced editors get frustrated and edit war, I am ... completely befuddled that exceptionally experienced editors can do so and be completely oblivious to it, even when it is pointed out repeatedly. TimothyJosephWood 18:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Timothyjosephwood:, in the past I've always had support for my revert, right now I reverted RexxS but not Edwards, I am knowledgeable enough to not revert without consensus. My revert on Edward321 was due to the fact I intended to reengage in the discussion and ping other editors back in. RexxS, already personally attacking me, then suddenly reverted, what would you do here so I revert his edit. At the end of the day I haven't violated the 3RR, any sanctions would be unfair. I am clearly here is good faith. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • You've never had support for your reverting. Here's where you reverted Edward321 yesterday. Do you think nobody can read the diff? Do you agree you reverted him or not? Did you reengage with the discussion? No. What you do is not edit war. You need to understand that.
    • Timothyjosephwood - you quite right, actually. That would be a far better solution and address my principal concern, while allowing Valoem to still contribute to an article that he's so invested in. So how about it, Valoem? Would you accept a voluntary 1RR restriction site-wide for six months? If you're willing to, I'll withdraw this proposal and ask for closure. --RexxS (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: I am not reverting anything even once, at this point after a year the article hasn't been expanded its three lines are merged, I'm fine with that no need for any sanction at all. I haven't even edit anything with chiropractic until QuackGuru pinged me into the issue, consider this over, however you still owe me an apology calling me a shill in Juul article I am not the kind of person that takes personal attacks lightly. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Valoem: OK, if I have your assurance that you're not going to be reverting in future, then I'm willing to accept that my principal concern has been met. Indeed, I do owe you an apology for jumping to the conclusion that you had an undisclosed interest in eCigs – I can only say I spend too much time trying to defend medical articles from POV editors. So, I apologise unreservedly for calling you a 'shill'. Whatever differences we may have on the topic of Juul/PAX, they are not due to any undisclosed conflict of interest on your part. --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS:, Thank you accepted, we could have just done this on the talk page saved a lot of time :), anyways if we are done here, could you strike your vote and request this discussion be closed, I am most likely going to merge to Juul article as well. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• comment valorem appears to be gaming the system, and has posted on my talk page, asking me to strike my vote. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  I am asking you to reconsider in a friendly post. I think you are jumping the gun. I've barely edited any chiropractic articles in the last year, why am I on the defensive here? If you don't want to talk to me that's fine, but I am not sure why you would accuse me of gaming the system ... asking an editor to reevaluate their position by reviewing my history is good faith is it not? Especially in cases of TBANs. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Got a ping! feels good sometimes. I still think we can serve our readers better with a stand alone article. Dont be afraid of telling our readers about BS...pls see the short essay Wikipedia:Does deletion help?. That rant over......consensus is for a merger.....by those most familiar with the topic. Time to move on......drop the hammer and put ones efforts on other articles.--Moxy (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I am in full agreement right now, Three lines is not worth defending, but it is ironic the edit RexxS who introduced himself to me by calling me a shill, is trying to TBAN reverting his edit after he jump articles to something I worked on. Keep in mind RexxS edit warred as well reverting me twice. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support AfD discussion =/= Merger discussion. I am puzzled by this year long crusade to preserve a few sentences stub as an article, when WP:MERGEREASON #3 and #4 support merger, and even the side shadow discussion over time has suggested merger. The main article Chiropractic treatment techniques provides a more comprehensive context of Koren Specific Technique to the reader, and improves understanding. We have a redirect too. In other words, the merge improved things, and did no harm to the goals of wikipedia project. RexxS should be thanked, not mocked. The edit warring and the provocation by Valoem has been an unnecessary time sink for all concerned, over a period of time, and a limited TBAN may help (if a voluntary constructive proposal from Valoem isn't forthcoming). RexxS's proposal limits it to Koren Specific Technique, which is fine. A broader TBAN on Chiropractic treatment techniques may be worth considering. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Ms Sarah Welch:, I am a bit puzzled I've barely edited chiropractic articles I've only done 3 reverts this year, and it hasn't happened since. I've been editing Wikipedia for quite sometime, I'm not editing these articles any more, I've work hard here, any disciplinary action would result in me leaving the encyclopedia, I've never been sanctioned and have a near perfect record, do you think sanctions is a bit too much since I am dropping the issue and have had no issues in the past? Also the person attempting the sanction started with personal attacks against me. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Close without action This "dropping the issue" is the voluntary proposal/assurance I was hoping for. Given your record and the assurance, I have struck out my support. I would urge an introspection on the AfD discussion =/= Merger discussion part. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

As the OP, following Valoem's assurance that is not going to be reverting any further, and his collaborative actions in helping with the merge, I no longer feel any administrative action is needed. If an uninvolved admin agrees with my assessment, then I'd be happy to see this closed. --RexxS (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Close - The moral of the story is:

1. Don't assume bad faith, especially when you're dealing with a 10+ year editor. In 99% of cases where the word "shill" is used on the internet it means "someone I disagree with so much I have entirely lost the ability to even pretend to empathize with their position".
2. When you have a disagreement, it's not going to kill anyone for an article to stay on "the wrong version" for a few days while further discussion takes place. And for the record, agreeing not to revert further is not a sanction, not even a self imposed one; it's the standard everyone is expected to follow. So let's forget this ever happened and move on with our lives. TimothyJosephWood 12:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)←

We are almost done. According to DGG, "I report accurately the close of the AfD."[302] But this is not about the AFD. There were additional discussions after the close. See Talk:Koren_Specific_Technique#Selective_merge. QuackGuru (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support alternative medicine topic ban AND/OR project-wide 1RR restriction — There is a serious issue of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, here as well as elsewhere. This would be the best course for the encyclopedia. The WP:EW-violations are sufficient to support at project-wide 1RR restriction. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. The discussion is continuing at Talk:Koren Specific Technique#Comments on selective merge. I think it needs a close, even after the page was merged. QuackGuru (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 2601:648:8200:6D50:*

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.

---

Encountered this IP range making vandalism/hoax edits on muppet-related pages. An LTA page created by Cyphoidbomb already exists at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Muppets LTA. Range contribs here. Please block. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I endorse! And if there are any other ranges for the Indiana-based vandal that could be blocked, that'd be appreciated. This has been an ongoing irritant. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2017 (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.

Suspect Cali11298 has returned

I ran into a particularly determined IP (well, group of IP's) bouncing around several articles pushing POV. Logged a sock puppet investigation request against Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cavalierman only to run across the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cali11298 demonstrating similar pattern of behaviour. Long Term Abuse page requests a case be raised here, so I am doing. Not sure who I am supposed to notify as the IP switches between several IP's by this point. Koncorde (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)