Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Click here to start a new discussion thread
Centralized discussion

Contents

IP hopping troll back?[edit]

A troll who has been hopping on IP range 86.187.x.x (last discussed here) seems to have returned on 31.55.89.19 (talk · contribs). Can somebody investigate and see if a new/revised rangeblock is appropriate? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, same chap. See also 31.55.127.56 (talk · contribs), 31.55.93.53 (talk · contribs) and he reverted Eik Corell, his other m.o., using 31.55.112.2 (talk · contribs) [1] last week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
That's a big range, but there's only about 100 contributions from it since April 1, and a significant plurality of those are disruptive. I'll block 31.55.64.0/18 for one week. ACC is always available. Katietalk 17:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I haven't come into contact with the 31. range, rather, it's still the 86.187 range for me, with the latest being 86.187.161.103 (talk · contribs). Eik Corell (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
They're both BT ranges, Eik. We realised that the 86.187 range meddles with airline articles as did the 31.55 range who also reverted one of your edits. I've blocked the latest IP as straightforward block evasion and will look into this a bit more later today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I just remembered: One of the first IPs this year doing edits in the style of the 86.187 range was indeed an IP in the 31. range. Eik Corell (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that pretty much confirms that it's the same person. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This editor also edits under 31.50, 31.54, and 31.49 I believe, as well as other closely numbered 86.15x IPs. Tends to focus on video games and television from what I can see, and deliberately ignores establish project guidelines and edit war with any editor that reverts, including walking through contribution histories and mass reverting. Talk page messages are undone with no reply. It's a constant back and forth. I haven't been gathering a full list but some of the more recent Mar/Apr ones have been 31.54.6.123, 86.155.134.8, 86.158.232.106, and 81.158.219.34 ... Those four just from Quantum Break. The unfortunate thing is the editor would be making solid contributions if they wouldn't fight against various project guidelines.... -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Latest IP, only one edit so far but it was to revert @Eik Corell again... 86.187.161.15 -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Now on IP 86.187.162.253. -- ferret (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • And now on IP 86.187.167.37. What can be done about a range block? @KrakatoaKatie and Malcolmxl5 -- ferret (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, ferret, I've blocked and semi-protected pages. I'll have another look at all this and the range block.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
And now 217.38.179.4 (talk · contribs). This is another BT range. Not much we can do with those at the moment except block the latest one. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The possibility of contacting their ISP remains. I have contacted them about this user twice. They did respond the first time, after an incredibly long time, but at that point, I was being asked to provide server logs, which I didn't and do not have access to, and the user had stopped their disruptive behavior, so I let it go. With the recent editing, I contacted the ISP again with any and all details I could, including AN/I reports, all IP's used from the beginning of 2016, all the way back to some of the IPs used by the user over 6 years ago to establish that this was a recurring problem. No response so far, but maybe you guys will have more luck if you swing around some big words and phrases when you contact them; Adminstrator on Wikipedia, entire ranges of their dynamic IP's being blocked from editing if they don't act, etc. Oh by the way, new IP. Eik Corell (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The most recent IP addresses are BT Wi-fi ranges so they may not even be a BT customer. If they are, it could be that without server logs the IP addresses are not enough to identify the user. Peter James (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
And 217.38.81.161 (talk · contribs) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Curiously, this one: 78.145.31.100 (talk · contribs), just came back to edit the same article it had edited a few days before. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
109.156.64.61 (talk · contribs) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
These look like two different editors - one undoing edits by Eik Corell on video game articles, the other editing airline articles. This one looks likely for the airport editor (although this time on BT Broadband) but the 78.145 (TalkTalk) IP may be unrelated. Peter James (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Latest with aircraft is 217.38.126.10 (talk · contribs). The guy now uses each IP in short bursts for a few pages, then moves on. Previously, the reverting of Eik and the fiddling with aircraft were done by the same IP while it was in use. Another IP editor with a momentarily coincidental editing pattern could easily be mistaken for them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought so at first, too, but immediately after I reverted some of of the 217. IP edits, this happened. Circumstantial I know, but quite a coincidence. Eik Corell (talk)
I haven't found any IPs that connect them (although I've only looked at the 86.187 range) but haven't found both editing at the same time either so a connection looks likely. Peter James (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There are several articles which this editor returns to war on again and again. Can I suggest that we semi-protect them for a while, until other measures can be refined? Happy to compile a list of the aero ones if asked. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again in the guise of 217.38.148.252‎ (talk · contribs). Pages re-abused this time include:

So please, can we do some damage limitation and semi-protect while the negotiations drag on. This is a hot edit war not a UN negotiation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hot war now[edit]

  • Jet2.com [2][3]
  • Rossiya Airlines [4]
  • China Eastern Airlines [5]

Can somebody PLEASE semi-protect the worst afflicted pages! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Calm down. I'm working on it. I've blocked 217.38.0.0/16 for ten days (which is a big freakin' range but there's 150 edits in last month with lots of disruption), and now I'll look at this guy. Katietalk 18:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I've blocked 86.187.160.0/21 for three months - I've blocked this range before, in February, and Future Perfect blocked it previously as well. I've blocked 86.163.94.157 on its own for now and I'm going to leave your articles unprotected because I want more data from the range. I can't rangeblock him with the other /21 because that's an ISP-level block. Katietalk 18:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I guess being in the front line makes one nervous. Meanwhile I made a request for page protection, you may wish to close that - or should I simply withdraw it myself? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I made a note there. The bot won't archive it until an RFPP template is added so it will stay up until we act. Katietalk 19:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Today it has been 86.163.94.37 and 86.157.42.20 across Thomson Airways, Jet2.com, TUI Airlines Netherlands, TUIfly and Air Côte d'Ivoire, all abused before. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Today, 109.156.65.250 (talk · contribs) at Air Transat] and Jet2.com. 85.150.133.234 (talk · contribs) made similar edits to Turkish Airlines, but that is a fairly busy IP so may not be connected. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems a bit quieter now. There is a random scatter of single edits in similar vein across aviation-related articles by one IP or another, but then there always has been. I don't know how it has been lately for Eik Corell (talk · contribs). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh-oh, back today as 86.157.42.66 (talk · contribs). Edits and return to warring at:

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC) [list updated 17:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)]

I have blocked 86.157.42.66 (talk · contribs) for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Steelpillow asked "does this guy have nothing else to live for", I ask "do you guys have nothing else to live for?" There would be no warring if you were to just stop automatically reverting! Aside from curious decisions on formatting, the IP content edits seem to be just about aircraft types and fleet numbers, and they do not appear to be senseless edits done for content disruption. Just fact tag the questionable content, then delete them if no sources arrive. Maybe all articles concerning businesses or organizations still operating, and BLPs, should be editable only by named accounts. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That was then, this is now, and since when did a little wry humour hurt anyone? You are a bit late to the party. We do get a constant trickle of such edits, fingers crossed the blocks are persuasive and this particularly OTT guy has now found a life so we can return to ours. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Scolaire[edit]

User Scolaire has shown a pattern of uncivil behavior and disruptive editing which I think requires an administrative response. This issue was raised in a previous Administrators’ Noticeboard incident discussion, during which I was asked for evidence of Scolaire's behavior. However that discussion was closed before my evidence had been reviewed. In the intervening time I have prepared the evidence more carefully and added more evidence. I am posting that evidence now.

This will necessarily be a long post, because it contains evidence of a pattern of behavior rather than being a complaint about one specific act.

To summarize my findings: Scolaire seems to regard himself as having the power of a judge or inspector over the pages he edits. He acts as if he were authorized to remove at will contributions made by other users, and from that perspective he makes frequent disruptive cuts. There is a quibbling and arbitrary quality to the intention behind these cuts, even though they may be backed by technical justifications. Sometimes this disruptive behavior escalates to uncivil comments on talk pages, often in an imperious and demeaning tone, and accompanied by stubborn reverts to the opposing editor’s changes. The clear intention is to intimidate and wear down the opposing editor rather than to achieve consensus. In short he seems to want to assert that he is always right, and that anyone who disagrees with him, or does not defer to him, is automatically less authorized than him to make edits.

Scolaire’s deletions and disparaging remarks often provoke other editors into heated replies, which he then labels “personal attacks” or “harassment”. This is not just a form of grandstanding, it is in fact a veiled threat, since the terms "personal attack" and "harassment" constitute punishable offenses in the Wikipedia rules. This move also provides Scolaire with a justification for removing (or "redacting") comments critical of him from article talk pages and from User Talk pages. But in spite of this alleged sensitivity, Scolaire himself has very often intimidated users critical of his edits, especially if they were less experienced than himself, or less adept at citing the rules of Wikipedia.

I think this constitutes disruptive editing (or more precisely disruptive deletion and tendentious editing) accompanied by a kind of incivility that violates many Wikipedia guidelines - including “Don’t bite newcomers”, “Wikipedia is not a battleground”, “Wikipedia is not compulsory”, and “Be bold” (the latter because Scolaire is preventing other people from being bold), and probably others I am not aware of. To put it simply, he is acting against the spirit of open discussion and constructive consensus which is the hallmark of Wikipedia.

Listed below are some examples of Scolaire’s disruptive editing and incivility, along with links to the relevant pages. Examples involving myself have been saved for last, because I want to make the point that this aggressive behavior has also been aimed at many other editors besides me.

Article: The Troubles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1.1.

On the page called The Troubles, Scolaire systematically removed and undid changes made by other editors, without trying to reconcile differences or improve the text. (Examples here, here, here, and here.) On the article talk page, user Gob Lofa posted a comment protesting against what he deemed to be the politically biased nature of Scolaire’s edits. Scolaire replied that Gob Lofa’s criticism was “nonsense” and that his edits had all been simple reverts of Gob Lofa’s edits. (But by that very statement, Scolaire was conceding he had not tried to improve the content.) Scolaire also accused Gob Lofa of bad faith, saying he had introduced “a convenient line break” to “hide other edits”. And Scolaire added: “Don’t complain when somebody does a blanket revert rather than try to sift out the good edits from the bad.” Gob Lofa invited Scolaire to insert “citation needed” templates where he felt more citations were needed. Scolaire replied: “Adding templates is not necessary. You know where citations are needed and for what. If you do not add them, your edit will be reverted.”

The discussion continued in this way for several days, with Scolaire adopting a high-handed and suspicious tone (e.g.: "If it’s not policy-compliant, it can, should and will be reverted” – implying that he Scolaire is the highest authority), while Gob Lofa attempted to appease him, but also argued quite reasonably: “Disliking one part of an edit is no excuse for deleting all of it, that’s just laziness. It’s good that you’ve retreated from your earlier hyperbole but with more care these issues wouldn’t arise.”

Scolaire came back with this: “Wrong edits should and will be reverted, and there is no onus on the person reverting to sift out what may be good parts of the wrong edits. Calling it ‘laziness’ is just being provocative. ... Any of your disputed edits that you cannot explain and source may not be restored. Anything that you can justify and get agreement on can. ... Now, this whole business of recycling the same bogus arguments and haranguing me about stuff that I didn’t even say is verging on trolling. I have made my position crystal clear. Unless you have something new to say and you say it in a civilised way, I’m not going to continue with this any longer. Goodbye and happy editing.”

1.2.

Still on The Troubles, user Lordofsharks added a new section, after having proposed it on the talk page. The material was well-referenced, but Scolaire deleted it wholesale. Lordofsharks wrote in protest on the article talk page: “I do not believe that you should speak for other editors as you were the only one that brought up this specific issue. ... perhaps rather than simply deleting this information you could provide some specific problems with my submission rather than just stating that it has too much information.” Scolaire replied: “If you could present the ‘take-home message’ of your sandbox page in 100 words maximum, I believe it would be a useful addition to the article, but it is up to you to do the editing down. Trying to re-add massive blocks of text will only result in the edit being reverted again.”

The tone of this last remark is typical of Scolaire's talk page comments. His ire in this case is perhaps explained by the fact that he had earlier offered editorial advice to Lordofsharks, which it seems Lordofsharks had not heeded. “I recommend you start small,” Scolaire had advised, “with things like copyediting, correcting small errors of fact and providing citations, and get the feel of it before working up to more major edits. By the way, don’t forget to sign your posts to talk pages by typing '~~~~' at the end. Good luck, and happy editing.”

Lordofsharks ignored this patronizing advice, and suffered the consequences. But after his edit war with Scolaire, Gob Lofa and Cliomania came to the defense of Lordofsharks on the article talk page. Cliomania made the following comment: “Scolaire, could you not try editing the text contributed, rather than removing it wholesale? You might disagree with the length or weight of the entry, but suggesting that all of it is unworthy of inclusion seems to go against the spirit of Wikipedia. I believe all editors are encouraged not to bite the newbies. The alternative to reverting is to make constructive suggestions about what you think is really wrong with LordofSharks’s contribution.” Scolaire replied: “I haven’t said that it is “unworthy” of inclusion. ... I have suggested what might be done: that if Lordofsharks (or you) could present the ‘take-home message’ of his sandbox page in 100 words maximum, it would be a useful addition to the article. So now, can we stop the criticism of my behaviour and start talking about the content?”

– This last exchange is a good illustration of Scolaire's intractability: another editor gently reprimanded him for having an overly harsh attitude, but Scolaire was not willing to accept the criticism or work with it. Instead he recast the criticism as an ad-hominem attack, and stuck to his intransigeant position.

1.3

In the controversy outlined in 1.2, Gob Lofa defended Lordofsharks against Scolaire. Scolaire then took to Gob Lofa's User Talk page to accuse him of “abuse”. The supposedly abusive comment which Scolaire objected was this, from the talk page for The Troubles: “I find your summary of that discussion wanting, Scolaire.” Gob Lofa then replied, still on his own talk page: “I don’t come on article talk pages to abuse you, neither at the talk page you provided a link to nor anywhere else. ... I pulled you up on misrepresenting the views of others there and now you’re misrepresenting my actions. Almost as if you were concerned with scoring points.”

1.4

About a year before the above controversy, but on the same article page, Scolaire removed a whole section of the article. He had proposed the removal on the talk page about ten days earlier, but the section in question had been part of the article for about a year and a half. About two months after Scolaire’s removal, user Jxm remarked on the same talk page: “I obviously wasn’t watching when Scolaire removed this section!” Jxm went on humbly: “I agree that it probably doesn’t merit its own section, as Scolaire notes. Instead, I suggest that we think about reinstating some revised form ... perhaps a few sentences in a footnote or a reference entry directing attention to some suitable sources as appropriate.” In essence Jxm was politely suggesting a compromise where Scolaire would add back some of the deleted text. Scolaire refused this compromise, claiming his existing edit "ought to suffice".
Article: Derry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

2.

The talk page for the article Derry featured a vituperative dispute as to whether to change the article's name to “Londonderry”. Among the participants was a user named Dubs boy. Scolaire and Dubs boy took the dispute onto their User Talk pages for some additional sparring, which both immediately deleted (e.g. this, this, and this. Eventually Scolaire posted a comment addressed to Dubs boy on the Derry talk page, saying that he didn’t want to pursue the discussion with him; and he then immediately posted a comment to Dubs boy's User Talk page saying: “Once again, when I say I’m going to take no further part I mean I’m going to take no further part. Please don’t continue baiting me on Talk:Derry. Also, please do not respond to this by posting to my talk page. I don’t want to say anything more, regardless of whether you think I have engaged or not. Please respect that.”

Dubs boy replied on Scolaire’s talk page: “You can’t tell someone to not post on your talk page while posting on theirs. The sort of hypocrisy that I have come to expect from you. I have not baited you, you have simply fallen into your own net.” Scolaire then initiated a complaint on the Administrators’ Noticeboard, which he titled “Harassment on my Talk page”. On the Noticeboard, no administrators made any comment, but Dubs boy posted many messages in his own defense, including one which resonates with the themes I have been highlighting: “Scolaire has been extremely dismissive of my comments at Talk:Derry, and demeaning of my opinion, without presenting any physical opposition argument, this along with claiming I am a minority in a phoney 11-4 RFC vote, would make anyone struggle to believe that I am the bully and oppressor. I think action should be taken against this user and his disruptive approach to dealing with issues and other peoples opinions.”

Later on, Dubs boy posted a note to his own User Talk page asking Scolaire what the outcome of the Administrators Noticeboard discussion had been. Scolaire admitted that the case had been dropped by the administrators “for lack of interest”. A third editor then commented: “These guys [i.e. Scolaire and others] seem quite determined to block all opposition to their agenda. I don’t know what that editor [Scolaire] means by ‘opened ani’ but it is so indirect and avoiding of the important issues, that it must surely be a threat to comply.”

- This exchange provides insight into the psychology of Scolaire’s pattern of objectionable behavior. The behavior seems to stem from willfulness, condescention, and over-sensitivity to criticism. These factors funnel into an aggressive use of Wikipedia rules and procedures against less educated or less experienced users.
Article: Guy Fawkes Night
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

3.

On the talk page for the article Guy Fawkes Night there was a debate about whether to merge the page with another one called “Bonfire Night”. This led to a heated exchange between Scolaire and an editor named Cassianto, during which Scolaire complained twice of Cassianto’s “ad hominem attacks” (here and here). When the exchange died down, user SchroCat then took the whole text of the exchange and put it into a collapsible box with the title “Complaining about ad hominem comments while insulting others and being petulant isn’t constructive or vaguely sensible.” The implication of this title was that Scolaire’s own comments had been provocative, and therefore to construe the heated replies to such comments as “ad hominem attacks” was hypocritical. Scolaire then insisted on changing the title of the box to “Unrelated discussion”, over several reverts, and gave as his edit summary: “removed personal attack”. SchroCat reverted with the edit summary: “If you want to delete all the vaguely personal comments on this page, do so, but stop editing my signed text. Should I delete all your comments?” SchroCat then posted a message to Scolaire’s User Talk page which said: “Editing other people’s comments ... on the basis that you are ‘removing personal attack’ is laughable, unless you want to strip out all such comments on the talk page. Try that and see how quickly a block will descend.” Scolaire replied: “That was not a comment. It was a hatnote. Hatnotes should be neutral and not contain personal attacks. I seriously considered taking you to AN/I but I can’t be arsed.” The disupte was nonetheless brought to ANI by another editor, and the involved parties were told to calm down or face a block.
Article: Constance Markievicz
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

4.1

On the page for Constance Markievicz, a user giving his name as “Joe kearns” added cited material in support of a point. Scolaire meticulously removed his edits, though giving innocuous-sounding edit summaries for his removals. Joe kearns reintroduced his edits and there ensued a revert war (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) Joe kearns protested on the talk page; Scolaire then replied that he had added a few lines back in to please him, but “the rest of your post is nonsense. ... The ‘controversy’ ... is non-existant outside of the posts on this page by you and your alter-egos 78.18.211.113 and 78.16.86.228. Just peppering the talk page with your assertions doesn’t make it so.”

Joe kearns replied: “I don’t have any alter egos, Scolaire. It would appear that more than one person disagrees with you, that’s all: it happens.”

Not long after this Joe kearns was vindicated, because the point he had been defending was proved true and incorporated into the page.

4.2.

On a related page (Casimir Markievicz), Scolaire removed an item added to the page by the same Joe kearns. Joe kearns protested on the talk page. Scolaire replied: “That’s all bluster.” Kearns then wrote: “You are using Wikipedia to perpetuate a falsehood, for reasons I can only guess at. ... I made my edits in good faith and backed them up with solid citations, and I want you to reinstate them. ... Instead of addressing the facts of the matter, you’re preoccupied with laying down the law on Wikipedia citations (as you see it). If you were interested in finding out the truth and making this article reliable, you would look at the evidence and address the questions it raises instead of quibbling over whether a source is primary or secondary.”
My own controversy with Scolaire
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


5.1.

Over a three day period from 29 March to 1 April 2016, I did a large amount of work on the page for Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, adding a lot of material, but basing my additions on the framework that was already present – so that my modification improved the accuracy, style and referencing of the existing material without challenging it substantively. On 4 April, a user named CanK9 commented on the talk page that among my additions one fact was wrongly cited, and he then supplied better references. On 8 April Scolaire replied to CanK9’s post, confirming that the references I had provided were inaccurate, but claiming as well that the references provided by CanK9 showed that the mis-cited fact was “not of great significance anyway,” and Scolaire therefore concluded: “I’m taking the sentence out.” Which he did. About an hour later he also went on to cut several other passages from the article in quick succession (see here, here and here – in each case without attempting to improve the wording. Another hour later Scolaire posted a note to the talk page stating that the material I had added made the article “totally lopsided,” and suggesting that a related page could be created into which the added material could be parked. Another editor replied disagreeing with the creation of a new page, and Scolaire then replied: “What do you suggest, then? Just cut out the added content?”

The casual tone and aggressive implications of Scolaire’s comment upset me when I read the comment on 10 April, two days after it was posted. I responded in a rather heated fashion on the article’s talk page: “ ‘Just cut out the added content’ - thanks a lot, a-holes, I actually put several days work into that added content that you speak so lightly of cutting. And the added content is most certainly relevant, given that [etc.]. If you’re so concerned about balance with his suffragist work then why don’t you ADD content to that section, instead of achieving balance by CUTTING good content??”

I admit that the foregoing was heated language, but I think that given the context this was not so bad. A dismissive suggestion to cut large blocks of text can be provocative and even offensive. The term “a-holes” in particular was later dug up and used against me, but I don’t think that term is particularly offensive in the context of online discussions today. Nevertheless, I now admit that the above language was a regrettable lapse and distracted from my main contention – namely that Scolaire’s proposal to aggressively delete a large amount of material from the page was a disruptive misuse of editorial privilege.

5.2.

At 08:09 UTC on 11 April I posted a comment about Scolaire to the talk page of an article about Sir Francis Vane, a person linked to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington. The comment read: “User Scolaire deleted material from this page which is informative and valuable. I am undoing his deletion accordingly. The material links this page to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington’s page, and one of Vane’s chief claims to fame is his righteous role in the story of Sheehy-Skeffington’s murder.” To understand this note it is necessary to add that in the course of my work on Sheehy-Skeffington I made several changes to the Francis Vane page on 31 March 2016. Then on 8 April, Scolaire removed a hatnote from the page which had been there since before I had begun editing, and which Scolaire himself had left standing on several previous edits (e.g. here). The hatnote directed readers to the Sheehy-Skeffington page for details on a murder Francis Vane had helped to expose.

At 08:15 I then posted to Scolaire’s talk page: “User Scolaire, your edits to various pages related to the 1916 Easter Rising show alarming signs of political bias. In particular, you are removing material critical of the British Empire. Please cease from doing this and restore wantonly removed material!” Scolaire replied at 08:28: “Tone it down, man! I’ve responded at Talk:Francis Vane.” But the response Scolaire was referring to (made at 08:27) had nothing to do with my message to him, and was only about the minutiae of the edit to that particular page.

5.3

At the time of the discussion summarized in 5.2, and because of the rather heated exchange with Scolaire on the previous day, I had already begun to look over Scolaire's recent "user contributions" (i.e. the pages he had been editing recently). I noticed that they were mostly pages related to the Irish War of Independence. Later I noticed that on the page Partition of Ireland Scolaire had removed an info-box which linked the page to the series History of Ireland. Scolaire gave as his reason for removing the box: “Doesn’t belong here”. The box was in a subsection of the article rather than in the lead, so I presumed Scolaire meant that it didn’t belong in the subsection. Looking through the history of the page I saw that this info-box had been on the page for eight years, but at some point it had migrated from the lead into the subsection. So at 08:33 on 11 April, I put the box back in its original place in the lead of the article. Scolaire undid my edit, claiming the article was “not part of the series”.

I wrote a note to Scolaire on his User Talk page saying: “On the page Partition of Ireland you removed a series box linking to other articles on the History of Ireland. You say you removed it because it did not belong in a sub-heading. Fair enough, but why did you not then paste it into the main title section? Instead you removed it completely. This type of edit is not justifiable - it would have been better to simply leave it there in its imperfect place, than to remove it completely. When your edits of this kind also have a political bias it is hard not to reach the conclusion that you are censoring Wikipedia to conform to your tastes.” Scolaire replied: “I’ve been editing Wikipedia for over ten years. I don’t need you or anybody else telling me what constitutes proper actions. If an article is improved by removing something I remove it, and if somebody disagrees they can make a case on the talk page. The infobox didn’t belong anywhere on the Partition article. It is specifically for articles in the ‘History of Ireland’ series, and that article isn’t one of them.”

– Note Scolaire’s one-sided logic here: he himself can delete at will; anyone wishing to add material must make a case on the talk page.
Scolaire's removal of critical comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

6.

After the above controversy had escalated to the aforementioned complaint on the Administrators' Noticeboard, Scolaire deleted most traces of my ever having criticized him from active pages where other users could see them. He deleted talk page comments of mine that were critical of him here, here, here, here and here – generally under the excuse that they were “personal attacks”. And he even “redacted” a comment of mine and then “replied” to the manipulated comment!

The messages Scolaire described as "personal attacks" were clearly not personal attacks according to the Wikipedia guideline. The offending messages did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire. They were not taunting, jeering, malevolent, or in bad faith. They were not ad-hominem attacks, but substantive criticisms of his editorial behavior. In short my messages were aimed exclusively at his acts as an editor, not at his personal dignity or safety.

I have encountered several other places where Scolaire also removed criticism in a similar fashion: in June 2015, Scolaire and another editor engaged in several rounds of mutual removal of criticism on their respective talk pages (e.g. this, this, this and this). In August 2015, another editor who had experienced Scolaire's mindbending "redaction" of his own talk page comments replied to Scolaire: “Editing other people’s comments ... on the basis that you are ‘removing personal attack’ is laughable.” In October 2015, Scolaire removed another editor’s critical comment from his own talk page and transferred it onto the critic’s talk page.

Conclusion

Scolaire’s practice of arbitrary deletion, and his aggressive reaction to criticism, constitute an unhealthy combination of factors which is both coercive and intimidating to come up against. When this goes unchecked, it creates around it an atmosphere of tension, suspicion and ill-will. I therefore request that some form of non-deletable caution be issued to him, which other users could see in the event they became involved in similar types of conflict with him. Given Scolaire's propensity to erase criticism, something like this is required so that future users are empowered to question his authority.

- Wwallacee (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wwallacee: This really needs to be condensed down. Anything more than a third of what you write here is likely to be ignored. Wall of text posts are not the way to ask for help. Blackmane (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty to hat all of the content for ease of reading. Blackmane (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have not interacted with Wwallacee since his block on 12 April for harrassing me (see previous ANI case here), and he has not interacted with me. The fact that he has spent those fifteen days preparing this "case" against me shows that he did not, after all, learn anything from his block. I'll say no more, except to note that the whole "case" relates to articles that Wwallacee had no involvement in, with the exception of three consecutive edits to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington and one to Francis Vane. Scolaire (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Blackmane, thanks for "hatting" the content. I have taken the liberty of editing the section titles slightly. I agree this post is lengthy, but I am attempting to show a larger pattern of behavior, beyond the incidents that concern me directly.
During the last ANI discussion, I was asked by the administrators to provide evidence. I did provide some evidence at the time, but the discussion was closed before a proper discussion of that evidence could take place. In the meantime, I have considered the evidence more carefully and have provided additional evidence for my complaint against Scolaire. -Wwallacee (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Just a simple question, do any of these diffs happen after your ban on April the 12th?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho: The answer is no. The diffs concern Scolaire's behavior prior and up to the time of my controversy with him on 8-11 April. I have not done any research on Scolaire's behavior since the ANI complaint he filed against me on 11 April.
With reference to the block of my user account, I want to add that it was a temporary block for 48 hours. The administrator who imposed the block wrote on my User Talk page: "If you wish to persist in your case against Scolaire after the block expires, then do so with diffs and a calm, neutral explanation of why the edits are problematic." - Wwallacee (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
So he's preventing people from being bold by reverting them is your complaint or at least in part?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I've read thru almost all of the above and I went back to the talk pages of the article to review most of the conversations. What I'm seeing mostly is WP:BRD. What I'm seeing from you is really a complaint about WP:BRD. Be bold and make a change, if it reverts go to the talk a page and discuss it. This very much seems to be the case for Scolaire. This is not something that requires Admin action as it is the way it should be.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, he is preventing people from being bold. But that is just the beginning of it. Scolaire's pattern of reverting often involves large-scale deletion of material, and he usually does not attempt to compromise or improve the content. There is also intimidation on talk pages of anyone who questions this behavior, and then also removal of critical comments, justified by him with allegations of "personal attack" and "harassment". - Wwallacee (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Wwallacee, you posted to the talk pages of articles where you had no dispute with me, saying that my edits showed alarming signs of political bias, that my procedure was to remove and strip away potentially interesting content, and that my behaviour was wanton. None of that is about content. It is all personal, it is all adverse and it is all untrue. Hence, an unwarranted personal attack (which you repeated 21 times on pages where you had no involvement, hence harassment). Are you seriously saying I should have allowed that smear to remain on the talk page of every article I work on, just because you were mad at me for reverting you once? Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Wwallacee, you need to go back and read WP:BOLD. you don't understand it at all. If you have a problem with people doing large reversions then make smaller incremental changes. The evidence you show, the discussions show that he actually is willing to compromise.. The main thing that I really question is if you are here to build an encyclopedia. JzG told you to come back in a calm neutral manner. Not really seeing the calm or neutral. He also suggested you simply drop the stick. The only thing I've seen with your wikilawyering is that you have an axe to grind with Scolaire. Wikipedia is not a battle ground.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
In reply to Scolaire's comment above: I don't think my own prior behavior, which has already been sanctioned, is fair grounds for discussion here. What is being discussed today is Scolaire's pattern of disruptive editing and incivility.
But for the record, let me give my own account of the messages Scolaire is referring to. On 11 April, I attempted to bring Scolaire’s disruptive editing to the attention of other editors by means of a naive and unorthodox tactic: posting warning messages to a number of article talk pages that I had identified as being Scolaire’s primary territory. These notes stated (with some variation in the specifics) that I thought Scolaire had been arbitrarily deleting material he disagreed with rather than make any attempt to improve it. I solicited other contributors to monitor this and restore wantonly deleted material. Here is an example. These messages were deleted by an administrator about 45 minutes after they were posted, and 30 minutes after Scolaire had opened an ANI complaint about them. I now regard this as an appropriate action, and I regret having posted the messages. A better forum for airing my complaint about Scolaire's behavior would have been the Administrators' Noticeboard, which is where it is now being aired. However, I don't agree that those messages constituted personal attacks according to Wikipedia guidelines: they did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire. Nor were my messages taunting, jeering, or malevolent in tone. Nor were they written in bad faith. In truth, my messages were essentially a kind of grass-roots attempt to raise awareness about Scolaire's editorial behavior without going to the Administrators' Noticeboard – however misguided that may have been (as I now freely admit).
That said, those messages are not relevant to the present discussion. What Scolaire was replying to just now was my allegation that he has deleted comments critical of him. He did this to a number of other messages of mine which are not among the offending messages just described. Examples: here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Scolaire removed (or "redacted") these comments on the grounds they were "personal attacks", which they clearly were not. Again, they did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire.
I am saying that this removal of criticism by Scolaire is a harmful pattern of behavior. Other examples can be found here, here, here, here, here and here.
-Wwallacee (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
From WP:NPA: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (emphasis in original). Any posts of yours that I deleted or edited were insulting and disparaging, and were not about content. Scolaire (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
In reply to Serialjoepsycho, I don't see how my comments here, or the evidence I am presenting, lack calmness or neutrality. I am just trying to present evidence that I was asked for by administrators during the previous ANI discussion (e.g. here). - Wwallacee (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
To get back to the question of whether the main issue here has to do with WP:Be bold... I want to be clear that Scolaire's disruptive editing goes way beyond this. For example, he stubbornly reverts other users when they want to restore material he has deleted (examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) He also engages in wholesale deletion of blocks of text (examples here and here - with talk page objection to his deletions here and here). He also has a pattern of interpreting other editors' critical comments as abuse, and thus shutting down productive discussion of his deletions (examples here, in reply to this; and here, in reply to this; and here and here, with response here). - Wwallacee (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So he revets and they want to restore? how do you know they want to restore? Have the perhaps went to the talk page and made that known? This is all sounding alot like WP:BRD.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Serialjoe, there is an authoritarian quality to Scolaire's deletions and to his talk page comments - as if he does not admit the possibility of error, and so he doesn't think it necessary to compromise - ever. The pattern goes like this, in escalating order: (1) revert the opposing editor; (2) if the opposing editor objects, revert again as often as necessary without attempting to compromise; (3) if the opposing editor objects, intimidate and discredit the opposing editor on the talk page; (4) if the opposing editor objects, make insinuations of abuse; (5) if the opposing editor objects, report the opposing editor to ANI for harassment or personal attack.
In order to get a full sense of this you have to look at examples in context. For instance in example 1.1 above under the heading "Article: The Troubles", I've profiled a sequence of stubborn reverts, followed by a protest on the talk page, followed by a reply from Scolaire that is both dismissive ("nonsense") and attempts to discredit the critic, and this goes on for several cycles until Scolaire accuses his critic of "haranguing" and "trolling". Or look at example 4.1 under the heading "Constance Markievicz", for a similar story. And look at the example given under the heading "Article: Derry", for an example of Scolaire taking his critic to ANI over a critical comment which Scolaire characterized as "harassment". - Wwallacee (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
You have a narrative, but from my personal review of the diffs you provide, the early ones you provided that I reviewed I'm not actually seeing your narrative. MAybe someone else well look and see your narrative.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I would really like an admin, before this gets archived, to quietly tell this person it's time to stop. I want to be able to log on in the morning and not find that another "case" has been opened against me. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
In reply to the above, Scolaire's interventions in this discussion have all had as their only point to avoid the substance of my allegations by trying to discredit me personally. There is nothing objectionable about what I have done here. I was asked to provide evidence and I have done so, scrupulously. Scolaire's latest comment again illustrates one of my main contentions, namely his need to control all criticism of his editorial behavior. - Wwallacee (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, I would ask that an admin tell Wwallacee that what he is saying is not so, that he has had it pointed out to him repeatedly that it is not so, and that it is unacceptable to continue to repeat these allegations. To ignore this campaign of harrassment is to send a message that it is okay to keep doing it. Scolaire (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Scolaire's attempt to label this discussion as "harassment" is another iteration of his well-established pattern of shutting down criticism by framing it as personal attack. I've already given many examples of this behavior prior to my own controversy with Scolaire, but since Scolaire is reiterating, let me also reiterate: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. This kind of behavior is wrong enough, but to seek protection for it is even worse. What would be helpful at this point in my opinion, would be for Scolaire to acknowledge that a pattern of coercive editing has existed, and to commit to changing it. I welcome further comments from administrators. - Wwallacee (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
What would be useful would be for you to re-read what was said about me already. Guy: someone with a long career and who is apparently mainly known for scouting activities not his military career. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: he can edit (within policy and guideline) any pages he likes. OpenFuture: I can't find any edits of his that are objectionable, or even political. Onel5969: I can see nothing objectionable to Scolaire's edits, indeed their removal of commentary and opinion was necessary, in my opinion, Guy again: Anonymous editors adding unsourced POV material into the article. Scolaire seems to be doing the important and necessary job of rolling these back. Not to mention Mabuska on your talk page: Whilst I have often disagreed with Scolaire on many topics for years on Wikipedia I have to say I find Wwallacee's claims to be baffling and not characteristic of Scolaire. None of these people have modified their views as a result of this massive block of "evidence". Instead, Serialjoepsycho said above, "I've read thru almost all of the above and I went back to the talk pages of the article to review most of the conversations. What I'm seeing mostly is WP:BRD...This is not something that requires Admin action as it is the way it should be." And again here, "you need to go back and read WP:BOLD. you don't understand it at all...The evidence you show, the discussions show that he actually is willing to compromise." And again here, "You have a narrative, but from my personal review of the diffs you provide...I'm not actually seeing your narrative." When you were blocked, I said all this to you on your talk page. Jpgordon, in declining your unblock request, said, "Scolaire's evaluation below is correct." Persisting in your allegations in the face of a clear consensus that they are unfounded is unacceptable, and I again ask an admin to say so. Scolaire (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
In this disjointed panegyric to himself, Scolaire has quoted eleven comments, but of these only three are from the currently active discussion on ANI. However, only in the current ANI discussion have I been able to post detailed evidence about Scolaire's disruptive behavior. Of the eight older quotations Scolaire has given, five are from the previous ANI discussion, and four out of five date to before I was able to post evidence. The three quotations Scolaire has posted from the current ANI discussion are all from one editor (Serialjoepsycho). So I do think it would be good if some administrators would comment on the current evidence.
Again I ask for a considered evaluation of the evidence I have supplied here of Scolaire's coercive editorial behavior. - Wwallacee (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
So provide diffs of all the people who have said "oh, my goodness, you're right, Wwallacee, Scolaire's behaviour is appalling, thanks for pointing it out." Scolaire (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I've looked through the evidence that Wwallacee provided, and I can't find any sign of Scolaire doing any of the problematic behavior that Wwallacee accuse him of. As just one example, in the edit where Wwallacee claimed Scolaire had dismissed Gob Lofa's arguments as "nonsense", he did nothing of the sort, but in fact answered the arguments in a constructive manner. He did say it was "nonsense" to say such things like "as your edit implies", and although I disagree that it's nonsense, I also agree that those kinds of arguments are invalid. I'm obviously not going to waste my time on making a detail analysis of every edit that Wwallacee provided, I'm just going to state here that the edits he link to does not contain what he claims they contains. This *is* harassment of Scolaire, and I think this is only going to end if Wwallacee becomes indef blocked. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture has discounted the value of his opinion on this issue since he says he is "not going to waste his time" reading the evidence I have supplied. For the one piece of evidence that he has indeed commented on, he chose only the first in a chain of linked events that exemplify a pattern of uncompromising deletion and coercive talk page comments by Scolaire. For the benefit of those who are reading this for the first time, let me review the full sequence in question: On an article talk page, Gob Lofa posted a comment protesting against what he deemed to be the politically biased nature of Scolaire’s edits. Scolaire replied that Gob Lofa’s criticism was “nonsense” and that his edits had all been simple reverts of Gob Lofa’s edits. Scolaire then tried to discredit Gob Lofa by saying he had introduced “a convenient line break” to “hide other edits”. And Scolaire added: “Don’t complain when somebody does a blanket revert rather than try to sift out the good edits from the bad.” Gob Lofa then invited Scolaire to insert “citation needed” templates where he felt more citations were needed. Scolaire replied: “Adding templates is not necessary. You know where citations are needed and for what. If you do not add them, your edit will be reverted.” The discussion continued in this way, with Scolaire adopting an increasingly coercive tone (e.g.: "If it’s not policy-compliant, it can, should and will be reverted” – implying that he Scolaire is the highest authority), while Gob Lofa attempted to appease him, but also argued quite reasonably: “Disliking one part of an edit is no excuse for deleting all of it, that’s just laziness. It’s good that you’ve retreated from your earlier hyperbole but with more care these issues wouldn’t arise.” Scolaire came back with this: “Wrong edits should and will be reverted, and there is no onus on the person reverting to sift out what may be good parts of the wrong edits. Calling it ‘laziness’ is just being provocative. ... Any of your disputed edits that you cannot explain and source may not be restored. Anything that you can justify and get agreement on can. ... Now, this whole business of recycling the same bogus arguments and haranguing me about stuff that I didn’t even say is verging on trolling.”
As this example shows, careful and balanced evaluation of the evidence is what is required here. For OpenFuture to bandy about threats of an indefinite block to my user account, after barely skimming the evidence he commented, is not appropriate. I welcome a continuing discussion and reading, but I request that this take place in a responsible fashion. - Wwallacee (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Your statement about what I said is in fact the exact opposite of what I said. I *have* read your evidence. Also, I don't threaten you with a block, I'm not an admin, I can't block you. I'm just pointing out that I do not believe you will stop until blocked. I think the problem here is WP:COMPETENCE.--OpenFuture (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I haven't done anything in this discussion that could be construed as a violation of WP:COMPETENCE. But on the other hand I have carefully shown that Scolaire does have significant Competence issues, for example with the following guidelines which are listed as subheadings under Competence: WP:RANCOR, WP:THERAPY, and WP:DONTBITE. I quote from WP:THERAPY: "Overly focused editing on a single subject can be very detrimental to the collaborative editing process, and not infrequently leads to resentments and alienation that eventually spills over into overt incivility. ... Editors who focus edits extensively in a single area tend to invest their egos in the articles, which has resulted in problems with 'ownership' of articles." - Wwallacee (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I would like to have explained to me how the quote from WP:Therapy applies to an editor with almost 20 000 edits to more then 4300 different pages. --T*U (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
If you look at Scolaire's "User contributions" over the last month or two you will see that the vast majority of his edits are focused on the single subject area of Irish independence from the UK. The page "Flag of Northern Ireland" alone (with its Talk page) accounts for an appreciable percentage of all of Scolaire's recent edits. Then if you look at the resentful exchanges he's had with other editors on these Irish pages (some of which I've documented above), you will see that the bits I've quoted from the WP:THERAPY guideline accurately describe the problem I've been trying to diagnose and demonstrate. - Wwallacee (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I can not speak about the user's editing contents, but I really can see nothing wrong with the editing pattern. There is not any sign of any "focus edits extensively in a single area". Many edits to certain pages in certain periods, yes, but who has not done that? We all have our interests, and they guide our editing pattern. I think it is time for you to leave the poor horse in peace. --T*U (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've done an analysis of Scolaire's edits as of a year ago to verify. I looked at his last 500 edits prior to April 30, 2015. Of these 76% had to do with Irish pages (380 edits). And if you consider another 85 edits to Scottish and Welsh pages, that makes 93% of his edits having to do with Celtic nationalism in some way. Sure, it's OK to edit in a single area, but as the WP:THERAPY guideline indicates, this has been known to lead to difficulties with collaboration, such as resentments, alienation and overt incivility. Again, "Editors who focus edits extensively in a single area tend to invest their egos in the articles, which has resulted in problems with 'ownership' of articles." All of this applies explicitly to Scolaire, as I have shown.
In response to T*U's allusion to "flogging a dead horse" - I have done nothing to perpetuate this debate beyond its natural conclusion. I have replied to attempts to discredit me personally, and to vague refutations of my arguments - as I could be expected to do. The amount of disucssion has actually increased in the past couple of days, but that was due to other editors suddenly taking an interest in this thread. And yet, so far, not a single administrator has commented.
Let me add that I am fully willing to draw this debate to a close if others are. I think that whatever the outcome may be, I've raised general awareness about Scolaire's coercive editing practices. And I hope this will contribute to reducing their recurrence. - Wwallacee (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Close[edit]

This has been up since April 27. No real movement has happened to it. It doesn't seem to have a snowballs chance in hell at leading to any action. Well it may lead possible to another block or ban for Wwallacee, but if he hasn't dug the hole deep enough there's no point in letting him dig it further. Seems a good a time as any to close it. Thanks. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Serialjoe, why would you refer to my well-researched plea for administrative action here as "digging a hole"? I was asked during a previous ANI discussion to provide evidence of my allegations about Scolaire's behavior. I provided some evidence but the discussion was closed before that evidence was discussed. The administrator who closed the discussion told me on my talk page that I could reopen the discussion if I had more detailed evidence. And I did have more detailed evidence. So I reopened this discussion, and I did so in a measured and neutral way.
To any other administrators who may be reading this: Given Serialjoe's disrespectful tone in his close request, I request that my evidence be evaluated by other administrators, and in a more neutral fashion. - Wwallacee (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a block or ban on Wwallacee, only an unequivocal statement from an admin that what he's doing is wrong. To close it without that would be to send a message that he should just try again every few weeks. Scolaire (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
PS As far as I know, Serialjoepsycho is not an admin. But he is entitled to comment, and his comments are in line with everything that has been said by everybody else. It is Wwallacee who is disrespectful to the community in general. Scolaire (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Scolaire, you are once again deflecting the discussion away from valid evidence of your coercive behavior by making vague and unsubstantiated allegations. I have no intention of opening this thread again every few weeks as you keep saying - nor have I ever said anything to suggest it. What is notable here is your need to control the discussion by constantly having the last word, and personally disparaging your opponent. As you no doubt remember, you were admonished for this very behavior after a previous ANI complaint lodged against you: the administrator then told you that you had "a pride issue" and that your talk page harassment of another editor "served no significant constructive purpose," and that the only reason you did not let go was "because it requires you to swallow your pride." - Wwallacee (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The_Troubles/Archive_2#Questions_about_recent_edits Here's the full discussion for the troubles discussion you want to Cherry pick from. Seems like a policy minded discussion and one initiated by Scolaire. All of the other items you list are like this and if not it's already resolved administrative matters. The only real problem I see is that you have an axe to grind with Scolaire. This is a waste of the communities time. Other than Blackmane condensing your comments and my comments, your comments,and scolaire defending himself, I'm the only one that's looked at it. 6 days of nothing. It's time for the dropping of the stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens at this point, I am retiring from Wikipedia. There is no satisfaction in editing if any bold edit may lead to a relative stranger vilifying me at ANI and admins just turn a blind eye. I expected better. Scolaire (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Why quit? I've been through worst then what you're going through now & I'm still around. Be calm & carry on. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it would send a very bad signal if this is just ignored. I think it would be very good if an admin could look at this. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification please: DrChrissy and human anatomy edits[edit]

Clarification requested please, with this DrChrissy was Tbanned from "human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions (in accordance with the previous close, and to reduce the possibility of conflict with the same group of users)." The entry at WP:RESTRICT says "DrChrissy is also topic banned from human health and medicine, and WP:MEDRS related discussions, broadly construed." DrChrissy has made edits to articles clearly focused on human anatomy, like [12][13]. This led to this conversation on DrChrissy's User Talk, where it became apparent that there's a bit of open ambiguity as to whether editing human anatomy topic falls under "human medicine... broadly construed". Could we get some clarification please? I am not looking for any further sanctions here, just clarity, as this is apparently good-faith disagreement. Zad68 2:18 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Human anatomy is not in and of itself health related. For example, as an artist I study and work with human anatomy all of the time and my work has nothing to do with health. There may be aspects of articles on human anatomy that relate to health or medicine, and human health obviously references the human being and his or her anatomy. but in and of itself no, not a health related area or areas.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC))
The particular disagreement we were having was whether human anatomy is part of "human medicine". To me it clearly is, it's a foundational element of medicine, and clearly would be included in the Tban when "broadly construed." To DrChrissy it isn't... thanks for your input. Zad68 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The subject matter of the article is anatomy - to describe a normal human penis. There are other penis-related articles which are medically oriented such as Micropenis, Penile cancer and Penile fracture which I have not, and would not, edit. Zad68 directed me to Medicine#Basic sciences to support their argument. Please note that along with Anatomy, this list also includes sciences such as Histology, Biophysics and Cytology. As with anatomy, these all have large areas of study completely unrelated to health and medicine. Please remember that our Medicine article states "Medicine... is the science and practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease." and our Anatomy article states “Anatomy is the branch of biology concerned with the study of the structure of organisms and their parts”. Whilst they are not mutually exclusive, they are very clearly, different. DrChrissy (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yep it's exactly this that we're looking for clarity on. Zad68 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The clarity is that one uses the word "disease" whereas the other does not. DrChrissy (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the important line on the topic ban here is "human health" (especially when "broadly construed"). Even though there are some non-health related aspects to the human anatomy, as suggested above, I think the two areas are so interconnected that the ban would apply. Brianga (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Brianga, do you think the ban applies to Beard, Hair, Earlobe, Moustache...? DrChrissy (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I must say, this does look like a continued exercise in boundary-testing. Aren't there enough topics to edit which don't overlap with human health, broadly construed? And why did you even think to edit Quackery? Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
You critically forget to mention that I immediately self-reverted. Let's play nicely here. DrChrissy (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
You didn't "immediately self-revert"; you struck your comments after being reminded of your TBAN. More boundary testing? Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Just what point are you trying to make here? You are not even commenting on the subject of this thread. You are clearly trying to poison the well by bringing mistakes I made on another page to this one. Please desist. DrChrissy (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The point is that it seems there is a wider pattern whereby you keep pushing your luck and wasting everybody's time in the process. Hasn't this come up at AE (and AN/I) before? Alexbrn (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
It is you that is wasting everybody's time with these spurious accusations. This thread is about whether Human penis is an anatomy article or a medical article. Please stick to the subject. DrChrissy (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
It's a false dichotomy to say "anatomy article or medical article", as if they were separate topics. The question is whether human anatomy should be considered to fall under "human health and medicine ... broadly construed". Zad68 20:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
It is your opinion that it is a false dichotomy. You are entitled to your opinion, but so am I. Medicine is about a process - largely, treating disease. The article Human penis is about a lump of flesh that hangs off the front of men. It is not about disease. DrChrissy (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
No its not Zad. I would disagree strongly. I use human anatomy in both art and dance, but none of what I am doing has to do with health. Human health is a possible subset of human anatomy, as is the knowledge of human anatomy to draw the human figure, and understanding of the anatomy to analyze a skill for example, a jump or turn. To deal with this issue we must clarify both the master topic area and the subsets and then determine which if not all or some fall under "health related". If this is truly a clarification then personal attacks only derail the discussion and delay clarification. This is a larger issue than one editor's ban and probably deserves greater community input. No one's opinion on this can be definitive, and we should have an understanding that all editor's can refer to .(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC))
That isn't the question here, is it? I would say, "maybe" - for hair, it would apply if you are editing about lice, but not a crewcut. But I'm loathe to give an advisory opinion and think we should stick to the issues at hand. Brianga (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
But this is the issue at hand. Zad68 is asking whether I should edit the Human penis page at all, not about the particular edits I made. Contrary to what you think, I can edit about lice at that page, but not on matters relating to human health. I would argue that I should not edit crewcut because that is a fashion and relates to human mental health. This is why topic bans are so stupid. DrChrissy (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This is just my personal opinion based on university classes in biology but I don't think anatomy (and the general area of human biology) necessarily involves health or medicine. I took courses in anatomy and physiology and they had nothing to do with medical treatment or health issues. I think you have to look at the content of the edits, not merely the article title. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this Liz - I totally agree. For many months now, I have edited animal behaviour and animal welfare articles such as Dog meat where there are (totally unfounded) claims of medical benefits. I have steered wide of making any edits to such material. I am not testing the Ban, I am trying very hard to adhere to this, even though it is sometimes to the detriment of articles. I am perfectly happy to discuss my edits at Human penis as to whether they are medical or not, but I would like to suggest this waits until we get consensus on the OP's clarification request. DrChrissy (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concern about boundary testing, particularly after the recent edit to Talk:Quackery, but personally I really don't see edits to articles on human anatomy with no health or medical aspects covered by the topic ban. I'm surprising myself a little here, because in the past I've been critical of DrChrissy's boundary testing, but I don't think that's what's happening here. And I think it's well on this side of the boundary anyway. I guess it's easier to make health or medical-related edits to anatomical articles, and I imagine admins (including me) won't be terribly forgiving if "accidental" health or medical-related edits are made on this type of article. So DrChirssy should exercise extreme caution. And, DrChirssy, the idea of topic bans is not stupid, it's just an understandable problem in execution; if you make them narrowly defined, then someone will always find loophole upon loophole. If you make them broadly defined, then almost by definiton the boundary is poorly defined. Better would be not editing in a way that required inherently imperfect topic bans to be imposed in the first place. But in this particular case, I don't see a topic ban violation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little late to the cockfight here, but I agree entirely with Liz and Floquenbeam. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
As do I. Katietalk 01:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
That raises an interesting question, which I don't know the answer to. Is the "topic" by article, or by edit? In other words, can one edit any article so long as it doesn't implicate the topic at issue; or must one avoid each and every article that involves the topic? Somewhere in the middle? Brianga (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Its a topic ban, so any edits related to the topic are subject to it. Not pages. The key bit is 'broadly construed' - with some articles the subject matter is linked to the topic in such a way that any edits should be avoided. 2 years ago you could have happily made edits to Donald Trump while being banned from American Politics, now it would be incredibly unwise to even attempt it lest accusations of partisan editing come into play. Likewise someone banned from medical articles and human health should *not* be editing articles on human anatomy. Its deliberate boundary pushing and usually gets frowned upon at AE. The main problem with topic bans is that unless they are explicitly broad enough, people subject to them *always* attempt to keep editing in the same area and poking around the edges. Taking anatomy - someone who is making edits regarding human anatomy/physiology in the context of say artistic depiction, would not be falling foul of a human health topic ban. Someone who is making edits in a section about reproductive success, that certainly *is* a health issue, albeit the edits were correcting US-UK English spelling variants. Which is another *amazingly* silly thing to do, if the article is even remotely ambiguous as to if you are topic banned from it or not, you dont go in and dick around (ha) with UK/US spelling. It makes no substantial difference to the article and if it needs to be done, can be done by someone who is not banned at all from the area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Sensible thoughts. Thanks. Brianga (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
However, it is my experience that administrators interpret topic bans in whatever way they like. As a extreme example, Rusavia had a topic ban on editing anything Russia-related, Sandstein pronounced that under that topic ban he could not add to an article about Cuba some pd photos of Cuba because they had been taken by a photographer who was Russian. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Anyone who is banned from the topic Russia who edits Cuba is on thin ice anyway given the involvement of the two countries over the years. I assume you have heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What a surprise, topic banned person decides to be edgy and edit in a gray area because they know that there will, at worst, be some giant multi page bureaucrating hair-splitting discussion on ANI before anything happens to them. Why isn't this person banned yet? I blame society. Here's a lil tip: widely construed means WIDELY CONSTRUED. Instead of editing medical articles, go copyedit articles about creeks or anime or something. Jtrainor (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have been spending most of my time on WP copyediting animal welfare articles and creating new articles. You might like to take a look at Theory of mind in animals and Kype (anatomy) which I created during the last few days. Happy editing. DrChrissy (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Jtrainor, those are outrageous bad faith comments to be making. It is not the topic banned editor who has initiated this report. And the report is asking for "clarification", not some backdated ban on DrChrissy. My opinion is that evolution is not "human health and medicine" broadly construed, and neither is anatomy. Editing restrictions are meant to prevent damage to Wikipedia, to prevent damaging actions by editors, but not to be punitive and vindictive just for the sake of being punitive and vindictive. What damage has been done that that justifies an expansion of the subject areas covered by the topic ban? The two cited edits at the start of the report unquestionably improved the articles in question. For example, "Another evolutionary theory of penis size is female mate choice and its associations with social judgements in modern day society" is obviously superior to the badly phrased and unjustifiably absolutist claim that "Female mate choice has resulted in the evolution of penis size through its associations with social judgments in modern day society". The question of whether to go for UK English or US English in science related articles has nothing to do with the topic ban. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Vivvt[edit]

There was some problem on Kashibai and an user reverted my edit. I started a discussion on the talk page but this user, neither discussed anything nor gave reasons but went on to revert my edit. Please, take a look.Krish | Talk 13:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Good. Your behaviour was unacceptable. Taking your dispute to the talk page is far better than launching personal attacks like you did [14]. --Yamla (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the discussion of whether your edit was an improvement or not has been completely lost. I have no opinion on the edit itself but agree that your use of inflammatory terms is not acceptable, and is the reason why no one is discussing your edit. Please rethink your choice of language and explain why your edit is an improvement to the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
If I said a thing to A, why would B revert my edit? It doesn't make any sense. If I go and revert back then I'll be blocked because of 3RR rule? How disgusting is that? I had given my reasons on the talk page and the reasons are valid but hey, I did a wrong thing? My words were caused by that user's (Dharmadhyaksha) constant bad faith on that article. Check history and you will find.Krish | Talk 13:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you are aware of WP:3RR. Please also make sure you are aware of WP:NPA. "My words were caused by that user's constant bad faith on that article." Maybe so, but if you make personal attacks again, you may be blocked. In any case, there's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. I don't believe any further action is warranted at this time. --Yamla (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This is a case of WP: Own and nothing else. He reverted my ediys wiithout any reasons or explainations, which shows that he owns the article. My reasons are valid. So please give a better reply and an idea to deal with this.Krish | Talk 13:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I put the content back as it was earlier before this particular user thought it to be controversial/unappropriated to the article. I agree that that edit summary was missing and thats because I am using a tool and it was a mobile edit. I dont understand how a single revert warrants for ANI. This is my single (most likely) edit to the article. I dont know how it becomes a case of WP:OWN. Are we becoming so childish in taking such edits/reverts to the board? Simple hopeless! - Vivvt (Talk) 13:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


  • Krish has a history of making personal attacks and has been previously blocked in Dec 2012 for this edit summary and this comment and again in Oct 2013. Not that these two incidences should be considered in current case, but am mentioning them to show that the user is very much aware of WP's NPA policy.
    The user still continues to make PAs as noted below. (Note: I am usually very tolerant about such PAs as many IPs and newbies come barging on my talk page. Some users and admins have been kind enough to revert/revdel them on their own. In case some of these are not really considered PAs, as these are considered case-by-case with no fixed definition, please ignore those ones.)
Towards me

I am not sure if I should point PAs made against other editors, as it should be their case to take it up. But these are too many to ignore. Individual editors can of course comment here and ask to disregard the below mentioned comments.

Towards others

Am hence also pinging the involved editors @EdJohnston, Human3015, Carl Waxman, Vensatry, and Arjann: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What I do on my talk page is none of your business. If someone will threaten me than what sjould be my response. By the way, how about your behaviour? Your behaviour is not very good and its obvious by these hate you have received from lot of people and not only from me.
   "You are being an idiot." - Maunus
   "..idiots like you.." - Maunus
   "You're being ridiculous." - Calvin999
   "Don't like his stuffy attitude." - Bonkers The Clown
   "Your friend (User:Ratnakar.kulkarni) is as bad as you, dishonest and evasive." - Leaky caldron
   "..I hate Dharmadhyaksha and Vivvt for their sheer stupidity." - Vensatry
   "This article was reviewed by editors 10x better than you so fuck yourself hypocrite Dharmadhyaksha-or adharmdhyaksha" - Krish!
   "Use at least little bit of sense" - Krish!
   "Would you please stop being a JERK?" - Krish!
   "I know my job better than you Dharam (your work is just opposite of your name)." - Krish!
   "Dharm, do you want to hear F bombs from me because it's is irritating me. My work was to nominate....this is not my problem if an idiot reviewer didn't found mistakes. Its not my fault. You are what? You call yourself an Indian? Really shame on you." - Krish!
   "...I have never come across a user who is as stupid as you....You and user Vivvt are pathetic and put other users in a harrowing time. I guess, you should stop chasing users and their work. Rather spend some time in improving yourself. Dumb." - Arjann

.Please tell why all these people have had problems with you? And, pointing out my previous maistakes has nothing to do with this incident of your beloved friend. Both of you are players and both work together.Krish | Talk 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Krish!, drop it. Your recent comments are over the line, especially this morning's "barnstar" and your edit summary calling another user a moron. If I see any more breaches of our civility policy, I will block you. This is quite clearly a content dispute, discussion should happen on the talk page of the article, not grumbling here. Dharmadhyaksha, you are complaining largely about issues over 4 months old and he was blocked (for edit warring) around that time, I appreciate that it looks like things are building up here again for you, and I will watch the article, but you need to focus on the content dispute at hand rather than past behaviour. WormTT(talk) 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Well thank you, this was a bad comment i agree I shouldn't have done that. I had stopped fighting and would rather focus on my work here. This is waht I'm trying to tell this user that putting prevbious problems had nothing to do with this. But he went on and on. Plus, this guy is not ready to discuss and would revert things like he owns the article. I would like your help on this matter.Krish | Talk 14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Krish!, you were a hair's breadth from being blocked for that barnstar - I certainly see why Dharmadhyaksha brought up the past, it's your past behaviour which time and again is beyond the pale. You need to be doing the legwork here and you need to drop your complaints. I will be watching, but only as an administrator for poor behaviour. I will not be participating in the dispute. WormTT(talk) 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
...and any specific reason I was brought to ANI? - Vivvt (Talk) 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
User has gone on a wikibreak, for good. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
You never know. Some editors take a wikibreak and never return to editing. Others' long wikibreak ends up just lasting just a week. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This isn't the first time this is happening, a few of Kirsh!'s previous accounts were blocked for similar behavior. Another incident happened last year that I was aware of; unfortunately, I took the step of page protection instead of blocking as explained at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantlovehimself/Archive. —SpacemanSpiff 02:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This retiring-leaving-coming-back-again drama is not new with the Indian editors. This keeps happening with some of them followed by Dont-leave-us-come-back-we-miss-you-glad-you-are-back stuff! This archives nothing than talk pages full of emotional talks. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
What? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantlovehimself/Archive what is this?, I saw this for the first time. SpacemanSpiff just because some editor has a similar name and likes similar subject, doesn't mean it was me who edited from those accounts. I came to know about wikipedia in 2012 (anyone can edit it). and I started writing In MY City article. My first visit to wikipedia was 2012, and I don't need to cry to prove that. I hope people on wikipedia could see the good side of an user, who despite his busy student life have given so much time here.Krish | Talk 03:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The fact that you have contributed content has prevented many from taking admin action when they should have. Your behavior on this account and your previous accounts has been disruptive; in addition to the issue of constant personal attacks against other editors there's also the problem of WP:NPOV issues where you seem to be taking your Priyanka Chopra fandom far too seriously for an encyclopaedia, not just on that particular article but also on other articles. —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
A fandom? I have edited and written other FLs as well and had planned to. By the way, I don't have any problems with NPOV and I support it. KIndly please try to understand, I reported this user because he reverted an edit, when i had already opnened a discussion. I know it was too small to come her, I apolagize, sorry. Now please close this discussion I have my studies to do and I'm taking a long break for a year. Thank you.Krish | Talk 03:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Open an ANI discussion without having a solid ground and now wants to close the discussion because he has studies to do! Other people are marely wasting their time on WP. Admins, please note that this particular user shall not be taken seriously for anything and everything that involves other editors. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I said that because you said above that its small, for me its still big reason. When someone had already started a discussion then you had not rights to revert until the matter was discussed on the talkpage. So, its obvious you are the culprit.Krish | Talk 05:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Sudden studies or WP:BOOMERANG effect? If I get time I am sure I will find many such wikibreaks that have aligned with non-favourable circumstances just to avoid blocks and bans. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
You wish. LOL. This post I wrote on 23 April 2016 dont show its sudden. Check facts before accusing someone of something.Krish | Talk 05:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're going on a wiki break, go on the wiki break. Don't continue editing under the guise that you have 'studies' to do. It's one or the other, and it's quickly approaching the point where a boomerang is in order. --Tarage (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Krish!, you were editing in the past hour which undermines your claim that you are taking a long wikibreak. Liz Read! Talk! 15:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Liz Well, I'm still editing because I have an ongoing discussion about the disputed article. So, Isn't that obvious that I'll be editing? Now please close this discussion as I'm sure the discussion on the article's talk page is enough. Thank you for your time folks.Krish | Talk 15:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Why should it be closed without any action against you? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well this is May 2016, if you want to take action for what i did in 2015 and before then i am very sorry that's not going to happen and I think you are trying to provoke me to do something with your texts but i am not interested to fight with you or anyone. This is not a place where you engage in random fights. This is an encyclopedia its better we respect this site.Krish | Talk 19:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

May 2016 stuff... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you already had mentioned above? and the administrator had already addressed them? Give me a break. Bye Bye......Krish | Talk 06:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Admins should take this into account that his behavioural pattern has not changed over the years and he keeps abusing other editors with the strong words. Involved editors have seen this I-won't-do-this drama several times and its really frustrating that its always the other editor who is asked behave with civility. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Given that the 5 edits were posted 2 days ago, it's obvious Krish! is unrepentant with regards to personal attacks. Those should certainly attract a block, preferably an indefinite one. Blackmane (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear Blackmane only three edits were posted 2 days ago so kindly correct yourself. I don't think i deserve a block. I have contributed so much here. I have written an FA, 9 FLs and 10 GAs and am still working on plenty of subjects including two other FLs and another FA. You can't just take away everything from me. It's not like only I had fights or arguments here. Everyone does. By the way, did i tell you this user (Dharmdhyaksha) has a long history of interfaring with my work or should i say had a problem with me for reasons unkown to me. He tried to take me down by nominating two of my GAs, few days after they passed and he was criticised by everyone and the GAs were kept as GAs.


Plus, he would add a maintenance templates to all my FLs, would remove well-sourced texts, tag the articles with Provide secondary souces, even where everything was sourced perfectly. So tell me what you guys learn about him. What does it mean when you do these kind of things. I still don't know what is his problem with me. My above reactions were for his this behaviour,which I think was wrong as all of my FLs and GAs were reviewed by some established and experienced reviewers. So tell me now.Krish | Talk 05:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned by SpacemanSpiff "The fact that you have contributed content has prevented many from taking admin action when they should have." However, this dos not give you any authority to abuse people. Everybody's trying to do something or other by taking time from their real time. You have no right to insult that time. I dont see a point why should please take your abuse for no good reason. Does not matter if you are admin or wiki founder or feature content writer or a newbie, people are not here to get abused. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, he is not retiring or taking any break for studies. He just nominated another list for FLC. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've corrected my post to reflect this. However, the points still stands that continuing to attack another editor while your previous attacks against other editors was being discussed at ANI is just mind boggling foolishness. Editors get into conflict, this is true, but for the most part it is over content what you have done is made it personal. Regardless of what you have contributed to the project, this is unacceptable. Editors that have contributed 10 times what you have, have been site banned for just this sort of thing. You are very lucky you haven't been indefinitely blocked already. Blackmane (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

Look, It`s time to stop beating around the bush about blocking Krish. I propose an indefinite ban on Krish for long term personal attacks against multiple users, as shown above. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer, this needs to stop and action needs to be taken Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This reeks of punitive blocking, and I do not believe that the edit summaries thereof rise to the level of an indef. Indef blocks should be reserved for outright vandalism. Such is not the case here.--WaltCip (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I had left a warning on the user's talk page a while ago for making some arrogantly abusive personal attacks towards another user. See [15]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Did I tell you this user is friends with Dharmadhyaksha? Yes they are. By the way please tell me if its right to remove well-sourced stuffs from articles which are featured and everything. Just because he didn't like the way article was?
  • I've been here for close to 11 years. I've made a lot of friends and enemies here. That doesn't discount my views. You have the right to remove and add stuff so long as it is compliant with policies and consensus, which isn't the issue here. The issue here is your pathetic behaviour towards others, calling them names, and abusing them, which you did and as a net result I left a warning on your talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Nowhere did I mention studies. I haven't participated in any discussion on Kashibai. Why are you distorting the conversation by inserting it after my comment? -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support long-term ban. This user has, on multiple occasions, made it extremely difficult for me to contribute here. His constant bad-faith and abusive nature made me take a long wikibreak last year, and I wouldn't wish that upon any constructive editor. This has really gone on for far too long, and action must be taken. Pinging some of the other editors (Dr. Blofeld, BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, Kailash29792 and Vensatry), who have been a victim of his abuse. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: Oh my. Look who finally replied to a text related to me. God bless you Krimuk. Please tell the administrators that you used to sen threats on Twitter and troll me there. Please tell the administrators that you have abused me on my talk page and through e-mails. You know I really don't have time for this and I don't think I will show those evidences against you, how much you have abused me here and how uncil you are. You have finally succeeded in breaking me. I really can't take anymore and I feel like it was my biggest mistake to come here and contribute here. I have lost all the energy today and I ask administrators for a long term ban as I'm really fed up of this accusation of being uncivil and abusive, even when the others editors have been as abusive as me. I gave three years of my life to this site, three presious years of my college life. You don't need to ask your friends to come here and ask for a block for me, I am making this job easy for you. I ask for a block so that others can live here freely as I'm the only one who is making there life troubled. Well done Krimuk you have done the impossible and I wish you all the best for your future.Krish | Talk 10:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I believe Krish! would benefit from close mentoring, and Wikipedia would benefit from a mentored Krish! This is what I propose and I'm willing to act as a mentor if the editor will have me as such.--John Cline (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Am not sure and my memory is weak and there have been many user name changes and there have been many editors in similar article domains that keep confusing me.... But i think he has been mentored by @Titodutta: or was it Dr. Blofeld. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Oppose ban I didn't realise this was still open. I don't watch ANI, it is a dreadful place. Now, having read the thread, I have some questions. Why does it matter if Krish says he's going on a wikibreak. Breaks are personal, and can come in many forms - reducing your editing, changing focus and so on. There are a number of very high profile editors who still edit despite having a wikibreak notice, or even a retired notice it does not matter. I told Krish he was a hair's breadth from a block for the Jerk barnstar and his behaviour on 1 May and when I did, he stopped that behaviour. He didn't stop editing, he carried on the discussion civilly at the talk page of the article. On the other hand, I've just had to warn Dharmadhyaksha for provocation at that same article. There are two sides to this case, I certainly don't believe that one side should be banned outright. WormTT(talk) 13:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The discussion has somewhat veered onto a different zone. To begin with, the user in question seems to have apparently misused his rollback privileges on the page. That said, it's high time that Krish's behaviour be monitored. Because this is the nth time that his conduct has been questioned – this being the most recent one: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive305#User:Krish! reported by User:Human3015 (Result: Blocked). He's been around here for 3+ years, yet doesn't have the temperament to deal with people – a few samples (when he was a newbie): 1, 2. And this was just a year ago. I don't see much of a change in his attitude. —Vensatry (Talk) 14:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Worm That Turned, the user's claims of being the victim of abusive messages off-wiki are absurd, because he is the one who has sent me multiple abusive emails. I had then contacted Crisco 1492 and shared screenshots of those messages with him, after which I was advised to block him and the user was warned. In those emails he claimed that the actress Vidya Balan, whose article I significantly contributed to, had payed for my education. I can send you screenshots of those emails if you like. See this, where he misused the "help me" template to write: "These kind of users should be ashamed of themselves and their face should be blackened to show how much they are.." Also, he is the one who, as recently as last month, made accusations of paid writing after I spent working on the articles of three actors who work for Dharma Productions. As many of the editors who have previously interacted with him, the user has a long history of being a nuisance and resorts back to his old ways within days of being warned by administrators. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a site ban. That's a bit extreme for my taste. I'd support an absolute last warning that the next time they make a personal attack on another editor they will be indefinitely blocked. The same goes for Dharmadhyaksha per Worm's post above. Blackmane (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I expressed similar concerns about Prashant/Krish to Ian Rose, Cassianto and SchroCat a few weeks back. Sorry to say but Krish! just never seems to grow up. His recent behaviour is a perfect example of why he's not mature enough to edit here. Incredibly childish and never seems to change as he promises. He does contribute some good work but most of his interactions on here are negative ones and he never seems to learn how to avoid them. I think it's best for everybody if he was banned or at least something severe imposed on interacting with people to stop people having to deal with his nonsense. John Cline and some of the others clearly have little experience of this editor, all the mentoring in the world won't change him. When he doesn't feel threatened and is focused on writing he's productive I think, and at times he can even be pleasant, but as Vensatry says, too many times now and just lacks the control to deal with people. Suggest something severe imposed in terms of interacting with others, that might work, but then you'll still get the same petty squabbles over articles. Irritating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
If the consensus is for more severe sanctions, then it is as the community wills. There may be a small glimmer of self realisation from Krish! that how they're going about things is just not right considering that a ban discussion is underway. Interaction bans are nasty business and really need some strong reform to have bigger teeth. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support sanctions, though not necessarily a site ban. Maybe a two-week ban for incivility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homemade Pencils (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ban/Support Sanctions Not sure if practical but perhaps some sort of escalating scale? Next infraction of WP:Civil 1 week ban, and progressively higher from there. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 04:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Very Strong Support I agree Krish should be blocked just reading this ANI makes me cringe... I firmly believe that this ani should of been closed days ago... It's obvious that consensus is that Krish is needed to be blocked. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Strongly oppose the ban/block The discussion is too lengthy to give in time, though I have had my own frictions with Krish! but banning/blocking him isn't the solution. No one here is so inexperienced that they would do harm to the requisite Wiki page. I believe in the work and dedication by Krimuk90 and Krish!. Coming to Dharmadhyaksha, I really don't appreciate his approach of dealing with fellow users. Arjann (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support We just don't need this sort of thing. Op47 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I took the liberty to break up the discussion a little. Too many sub threads and such. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

    • May I ask for a mentor please? I still don't know many things about wikipedia though I am 3 years old here, was mostly inactive in 2013 and 14. By the way I need someone to guide me through this. I don't have any friends here who encourage me or support me when I am right but I have people who unite when I do something wrong. I don't get it. If neutrality is the policy of wikipedia then shouldn't they support me when I do some good? Dr. Blofeld has taught me several things here, when I was new and would like to ask for help if he can help me through this. I am sure I will do 10x better in someone's guidance than I used to do alone.Krish | Talk 04:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Neutrality is a content policy not a behavioural guideline. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User Galassi at Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry[edit]

I'm finding it impossible to work with User:Galassi. I started re-editing the the page on the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry on 21 April 2016‎, correcting some recent edits and giving my reasons in extensive detail on the talk page The long list of problems was ignored for some days.

  • Several long discussions ensued, but only with other editors. See this section, this section and this section, for several attempts I made calling on reverting editors to discuss the issues.
  • The sum of Galassi’s comments, despite him being the main reverter, consist of one liners that ignore the technical problems and issues, are void of content, except flag waving. Seehere, here, here, here, here, here, and here
  • While ignoring repeated requests to him and other editors to answer the objections on the talk page Galassi has persistently reverted the article ever since, whenever I touch it. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here
  • All of these reverts restore several pieces of material which the talk page argues either fail WP:RS, or do not reflect the source, or push a non-neutral POV, such as saying a theory whose scientific status is uncertain, has been ‘refuted’ etc. The edit summaries are obscure, and often specious, as in this morning's Reverted good faith edits by Nishidani (talk): Per WP:SYNTH. This cannot be true because the passage he reverted out is a straight quote from a source. I didn't synthesize anything. My impression is the editor is just reverting me at sight without examining the talk page, the sources, or anything else. I found this exasperating and told him so, without mentioning WP:HOUND, and asked him to stop telling me to 'cease and desist', as if he were dictating surrender terms. This morning he saw me edit anew, an innocuous inclusion of another quote from a source already accepted, and reverted it, and then posted the same 'cease and desist' nonsense on my talk page. This looks very much to me like an attempt to needle away and fish up a reportable response.

I think, since he just engages in blind reverts, and refuses to use the talk page, that he should be asked to stay away from that particular article.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please, ignore. THis is a RETALIATORY motion. USer Nishidani alone battles against multiple-users' consensus, in violation of WP:OWN, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:POV, WP:FRINGE, WP:POVFORK etc., all of which has been repeatedly pointed to him.--Galassi (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
High-handed? I have twice intervened to stop that editor whom you say I used a personal attack against, from almost certainly getting a topic ban, once quite recently. She uses the talk page, so though she edit wars, and is plainly trying to push a POV, she's amenable to collegial discussion. In that case, I never, never raise an objection to such editors. Galassi refuses to use the talk page, and has consistently edited in execrably bad material the talk page shows fails WP:V. I get pissed off, sure. It took me several months of research to try to master a difficult and controversial topic like Khazars, which I basically wrote, only to find editors frigging about with lazy revert edit-warring to establish a 'truth', while ignoring the scholarly literature. Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
"Which I basically wrote"... So no ownership issues there at all then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
No, no ownership problem, a statement of fact. I write articles - it's time-consuming, and hard work; editors like Galassi revert what's done, whatever, on sight. He effectively by his blind and blanket reverts (he never looked at what he was reverting back to) banned me from that article. If you take the example of just the last revert listed above, he cancelled a direct quotation I introduced from the same source used directly above, stating in the edit-summary WP:SYNTH. A direct quotation, as he knows, cannot be an instance of synthesis, and therefore the edit summary was sheer prevarication, and the revert animated by personal enmity without regard to content. I never even scoured Galassi's history or practices, but in the context of his prior bans, for exactly the same kind of nuisance reverting, this seems to be a consistent pattern of abuse. His revert rights should be restricted to vandalism and IPs: if he wants to challenge constructive editors with 10 years of experience and 45,000 edits, he should be asked to note his objection on the talk page (and not just 'vote' there).Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Galassi has been indefinitely topic-banned from Ukraine-related material since April 2013 for failing to adhere to a personal restriction on the frequency with which reverts could be performed. Galassi's talkpage shows that conflicts have occurred with other editors over editing of Khazar-related material, or that other editors have intervened (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The justification Galassi gives for reverting in example 2, "It is common sense, you see. Elhaik is a charlatan, as he is bent on pushing a theory that proposes that a Caucasoid ethnic group descends from a Mongoloid one. 'Nuf said," is foolish: he libels a research scientist based on his own basic ignorance of who the Khazars were, a level of ignorance that raises questions about whether any of Galassi's contributions on the subject can be beneficial.     ←   ZScarpia   17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That is IRRELEVANT here. User Nishidani failed to secure a consensus for his POV, and he is pushing his anti-zionist envelope elsewhere.--Galassi (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
No. You were reverting me on every edit I made, with no talk page discussion. You never spoke of 'consensus' in your revert edit summaries, but of ostensible policy issues, which I addressed on the page and you ignored.Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Geven your history of antiZionist edits elsewhere: you're nowhere near WP:GOODFAITH.--Galassi (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS: "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns." Galassi and other editors appear to have failed to engage in the consensus-building process, instead simply relying on the fact that they outnumber Nishidani to insist that he doesn't have consensus.
Galassi: "User Nishidani failed to secure a consensus for his POV." Wikipedia articles are supposed to outline the significant points of view contained in reliable sources. Perhaps Galassi is confusing properly sourced points of view with what he calls Nishidani's POV?
    ←   ZScarpia   10:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Of Galassi's last 500 edits in the main space (since January 13, 2015), 270 have had edit summaries beginning "Reverted". During this same period, they have only made 86 talk page edits, and almost none of those are substantial original comments. In their entire edit history they have made more than eight times as many article edits as talk page edits. Propose 1RR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Place Galassi under 1RR[edit]

I propose placing Galassi (talk · contribs) under a one-revert rule, indefinitely, until they can demonstrate that they are willing to engage in constructive discussion on talk pages instead of edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support if duration is to the end of 2016. The restriction should not apply to reverting clear vandalism and block-evading edits by sock puppets. Hijiri88 makes a good case for this. But I do not want this to turn into a first step towards a long block for Galassi. Many of Galassi's reverts are the best thing to do in the circumstances. If the restriction were indefinite, sooner or later he/she would forget and break the restriction, just like he/she did with the more complex revert restriction on Ukraine-related articles. If the restriction were to the end of 2016, he/she would probably remember and obey it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Toddy1: My above-cited "last 500 edits" was a random number determined by my account preferences. The problem was even more pronounced in the previous 500 edits (327/500 article edits are blank reverts, and only 58 talk page edits, most of them related to Jewish Bolshevism). This is a very long-term problem going back more than three years, so limiting the 1RR restriction to seven months is not productive. And speaking as someone who is himself subject to 1RR (a restriction placed on me because of three brief edit wars that took place almost a year before the restriction, mind you), I can tell you that reverting obvious vandalism and block-evasion, etc. are not affected by 1RR, any more than they are affected by 3RR. Additionally, to demonstrate that an indefinite 1RR would do more harm than good, you would need to demonstrate that Galassi has repeatedly made multiple constructive reverts on the same page in a period of 24 hours. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Proposals for restrictions need to be clear.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Not if they follow the standard definitions as laid out on the PAG pages related to the restrictions. There's a reason I linked WP:1RR above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is useless. Galassi rarely makes more than one revert per day on a page, at least during last year. His reverts are usually reasonable, or at least justifiable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: Whether he "rarely" makes more than one revert per day is immaterial. On the article under discussion here, he has very clearly been edit-warring, and if he had been under 1RR he would have been blocked three times in the past week. 1RR is not meant to create excuses to block people; it's meant to prevent edit wars, and in this case it clearly would discourage Galassi from edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
If someone was engaged in edit warring on a certain page, he/she should be reported on WP:3RR, not here. Then admins would definitely look at this, including other editors who also reverted on the same page. I interacted with Galassi on a number of occasions and agree that he makes a lot of reverts, however most of them were reasonable in cases I know about (no, I did not check this Khazar page because this is something beyond my interests). Hence I do not really see a pattern of recent and malicious edit warring by him. My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Not really. If 60% of a user's edits are automatic reverts (not including possible manual reverts), then clearly something is very wrong. Your claim that "rarely makes more than one revert per day on a page" is not backed up by empirical evidence. Other articles on which he has indisputably edit-warred in the past month (read: made more than one revert in under 24 hours) include Muammar Gaddafi, Aristo and Anti-Zionism. In Aristo the edit-warring led to page protection. Whether Galassi was on the "right side" in any of these edit-wars is irrelevant, because edit-warring is disruptive in and of itself. (Please note that reverting a user who isn't using the talk page while you are desperately trying to use the talk page is not, in my opinion, edit-warring; but I'm not a reliable source, because no one disputes that this is what I was doing in my "edit wars" of over a year ago, and I was still placed under 1RR.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Even if someone makes 100% reverts, that might be fine. His reverts are usually like that. Of course I can only tell about my experience of interacting with this user. It was not usually a problem to interact with him. It did not mean we agreed. And no, I do not think his recent editing on page Muammar Gaddafi (for example) was in any way problematic because it was another red-linked account who edit war against multiple users. My very best wishes (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Perhaps the measure proposed should be reformulated. What is obvious is that on the article in question, Galassi repeated exactly the approach, in regard to any edit I made, for which he has been sanctioned or banned from articles twice in the past. On the article in question he made three reverts on April 23 (here, here and and here). On May 1 two (here and and here, the second involving a patent prevarication as an excuse to again block my editing there. He refused for a over a week to use the talk page, and ignored all evidence on that page that what he was on each case restoring was defective (source misrepresentation etc.). Personally, I just think he should be banned from any article regarding the Khazars, something quite specific. If no one can see a problem in his targeting an editor to effectively ban his participation in editing a page, then of course he can get off scot-free and continue the polite but persistent harassment.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hang on - in the period Nishidani speaks of, three editors were reverting him/her: @Ferakp:, @Monochrome Monitor: and Galassi. So basically, Nishidani was edit-warring with three editors....-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Nishidani, Ferakp and Monochrome Monitor all know how to use a talk page. If you discuss on a talk page in between reverts, and new factors emerge to justify reverting, then it is ... still an edit-war, but it's "less" of an edit-war. Users who don't use the talk page (or use the talk page, but only post inane, irrelevant nonsense) are the ones who tend to "poison the well", so to speak. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment I made some edits, others kept reverting to them. I haven't been keeping track. I do think it's bad to single out a single editor if a bunch of editors are doing it... majority rules, no? Right now the majority is a mob, but mob rule is better than chaste autocracy, in my opinion. If he broke 3RR it would be different.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC) But Nish isn't edit warring either. I think the word "edit warring" is overused personally. I think of war as aggressive. This is a disagreement that should be resolved on the talk. Not with a vote necessarily, but simple dialogue is nice. I did this because X.... why did you do that? --Monochrome_Monitor 03:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
This is a disagreement that should be resolved on the talk. Not with a vote necessarily, but simple dialogue is nice. I did this because X.... why did you do that? That appears to be what Nishidani is trying to do, and Galassi has been responding with one-line "No, you're wrong"-type non-replies. Of the latter's talk page posts, only two have been more than nine words each: one was 18 words and was extremely hostile and used ... "questionable" terminology; the other was 36 words and not much better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Toddy1. Both Monochrome and I use the talk page. I have no objection to being reverted if the revert is rational and explained. Ferakp just jumped in to revert me, in a tagteaming fashion, without reading the talk page. He at least had the decency to use it when I protested, and what was the result,? He altered several parts of his revert to conform to the very real objections I outlined. Galassi did not use the talk page, repeatedly reverted anything I added, used false edit summaries, and tried to provoke me on my talk page. This is why I reported him: he has banned my work on that article, something he had no right to do, and secondly his behavior in my regard repeats a pattern he had been, as emerges here, admonished and sanctioned for twice on Wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Due to the ownership issues displayed above and what is clearly a blatant attempt to remove someone with whom they are having a content dispute from the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Only in death: You posted the exact same thing under Nishidani's proposal below. By "displayed above", do you mean in the main thread opened by Nishidani? Or to Nishidani's brief aside immediately above your own post? Or to my opening this proposal? Because if it's the latter it's a pretty bizarre accusation -- I have never edited the article in question even once, nor expressed any interest in it. Even if it refers to Nishidani, how is trying to make edits and seeing them all reverted "ownership"? If anything, the user demonstrating ownership is Galassi -- apparently reverting every edit to the article he/she doesn't like. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Woah. Dude. What the hell? Them's some pretty violent accusations, there -- am I really the one with the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here? If an editor makes almost no edits that aren't reverts, then clearly we have an edit-warrior. Proposing 1RR as a way of dealing with such a poblem is a pretty normal solution. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
There really is no basis for your proposal. It's spurious. Hence the "accusation" (violent? what?). And removing bad material from articles does not make somebody an "edit warrior".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Very strong evidence has been presented that Galassi has been edit-warring in the past week or so on the article in question, and pretty compelling evidence has been presented that this is a recurring problem going back at least three years. On the other hand, your accusation that I have no basis for my proposal is itself, ironically enough, a baseless accusation. An editor whose Wikipedia activity focuses almost exclusively on reverting other users' edits is not the same as an editor who "remov[es] bad material from articles" -- please refrain from putting words in my mouth, as I never said "removing bad material from articles" makes somebody an edit warrior. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Also (just noticed this), VM placed the exact same words under Nishidani's proposal below.[16] So did he/she misread the thread and think that Nishidani opened both proposals? Because accusing me of a "battleground" mentality for coming across a random ANI thread, reading through it, coming to a conclusion about what has been happening and proposing a solution accordingly is pretty hypocritical, when VM is doing the exact same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
This is getting really weird. I gave detailed evidence, which is being ignored. In no edit did I, as Galassi did, (a) restore material that is known to falsify the source (b) nor did I provide false edit summary (c) nor did I accuse someone of WP:SYNTH for copying a key passage from a source which another edited copied only partially (and which Galassi accepted as fair), to complete the picture (d) nor have I a history of mechanical reverting for which sanctions have been twice applied, as does Galassi (e) nor did I tagteam as did Galassi (f) nor did I go ahead and revert without any rationale being provided on the talk page, as Galassi did. Because I exercised judgement (actually reading each source, which Galassi patently didn't),collegiality and restraint, editors are now tending to give Galassi the right of veto over any edit I make to that page. If this is the way Wikipedia operates, well, it's pointless editing further here. All we have is a quick glance at a column of the page edit record, seeing both reverting, and then accusing myself of having no grounds for my reverts, and indeed the major blame because I made a formal complaint against the other reverter. Everything is collapsed to identical behavior, and all distinctions are lost. What I am being told is that care in editing counts for nothing, that prevaricating reverts in silence by the disattentive are on a par with close source control-based reverts. If this kind of slipshod oversight is allowable, there's no point editing here.Nishidani (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban Galassi from editing Khazar-related articles[edit]

Support. This is highly limited, but reflects the fact he broke all the rules to disallow another editor's work on that page.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, you made numerous reverts on this page [17]. You reverted edits made by several contributors. If you are trying to make a point that Galassi and others did not talk with you, that was not the case, as anyone can see on this article talk page [18], [19]. Why it is Galassi, rather than you who should be topic-banned from editing this page? My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Elementary error, equivalent to saying the Chinese and Eskimos have 5 fingers on each hand, therefore their behavior is identical. Look at the differences, there are at least five, listed above.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I do not know much about the subject, but speaking about behavior, I do not really see how this is different: [20],[21],[22]. There is indeed one difference in behavior: Galassi or anyone else did not reported you on ANI, but you did. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
He's welcome to report me. In the 3 diffs, I have edit summaries giving my reasons which I then elaborately extensively on the talk page, where they were systematically ignored. That MM is being ideological and violating both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP is clear from the page as it stands-she even had the rash hide to use a man convicted in an Israeli court for libel against a respected scholar, Steven Plaut,as an authoritative source for evaluating what tenured academics theorize about: a theory espoused even now by several scholars, and by dozens of Jewish scholars in the past, is in wiki's supposedly neutral voice, dismissed as a baseless fantasy, and those who propose it are implied to be anti-Semitic or fringe lunatics. MM sits round, Galassi does the dirty work, and then she adds in crap which I cannot correct or modify. All of the generalizations made there cannot be sourced reliably, but are WP:OR, written to disprove a theory, not describe it.Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Due to the ownership issues displayed above and what is clearly a blatant attempt to remove someone with whom they are having a content dispute from the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Only in death does duty end: How is trying to edit an article a demonstration of OWNership issues? Surely the one who reverts every edit he/she doesn't like is the one demonstrating OWNership issues? Also, same comment as below applies to you.[23][24] Did you seriously analyze both proposals and decide that both proposals should be opposed for the exact same reason? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Please note that Volunteer Marek copy-pasted the same !vote into both my proposal above and this proposal, as indicated by the repeated misprint.[25][26] It's not clear whether he/she actually read one of the proposals and copy-pasted the same response into both, and if so which one he/she actually read. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nishidani edit war on this page for years [27] and requested here to topic ban an "opponent" to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC) I am not sure because I do not know this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't have much time right now, but thought it important to register my support now for this proposal. I will expand in detail this evening (UK time). --NSH001 (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    (now on another computer) Sorry for the delay. I composed a long comment and then lost it due to an intermittent and unpredictable fault on my main computer. In the meantime I see Nishidani has already covered the main points. --NSH001 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Galassi has been topic banned by ArbCom, and also blocked several times by different admins. By continuing to behave disruptively, Galassi's actions now show that he does not understand, or he does not accept, the reasons for his topic ban and blocks. Perhaps a topic ban from Khazar-related articles (a ban covering only a relatively narrow range of WP articles) can convince Galassi to begin to listen to what others are trying to tell him. Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Both Nishidani ant IjonTichy are a part of an antiZionist cabal, so this is way beyond the WP:GOODFAITH.--Galassi (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Ouch! Irondome (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
So, in short, Galassi has admitted why he persists in reverting my every edit to that page. He has imposed his ban on my presence there because he is convinced I am an anti-Zionist, i.e. an anti-Semite (anti-Zionist is in many quarters now a code term for antisemite). I won't trouble to challenge the lie -my views on the problem are identical, if any one is curious, to those of David Dean Shulman (a Zionist, since he made aliyah), eloquently if distressfully outlined recently here in the New York Review of Books. Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on principle Involved parties have no business proposing sanctions against editors with whom them have a dispute. Blackmane (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
A sanction has already been imposed informally, and I am asking for it to be removed. The sanction consists in Galassi reverting every edit I make to the page. Find a solution, whatever. Unless his Pavlovian revert behavior changes, I am denied the right to edit there, since he erases everything I add. If nothing is done to resolve this, then editors here are saying that Galassi has acquired a unique privilege in Wikipedia, the right to target one editor, impose a page ban on him, without having to explain what he is doing, other than saying I am an anti-Semite activist in an Antizionist cabal (a mirror image of the Protocols of Zion bullshit), and which, please observe, is itself a deep violation of WP:AGF.Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Here ([28],[29],[30]) you recently revert edits on this page made not only by Galassi, but by two other contributors. Why Galassi? It seems that you guys are having a content dispute on the page. Try dispute resolution. Or was it tried already? Sorry, I never edited this page and do not know.My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Please actually read and study these diffs. Nishidani is editing constructively here, with detailed edit summaries and extensive reasoning on the talk page. Galassi is just editing destructively, trying to push his own view with the absolute minimum of effort on his part, and serving only to waste other editors' time. --NSH001 (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I do not know the subject, but judging from the diffs, some sources are questionable and possibly not RS. One way forward would be to agree about using only the most reliable sources (per MEDRS), as suggested during this RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It’s fine that you expect of me to respond to questions about my editing behaviour. So far, I have outlined substantial evidence concerning Galassi’s record, yet none of those arguing I’m to blame, or that I am doing exactly what he does, have shown (apart from yourself in the edit above this) a willingness to examine my evidence of Galassi’s behaviour, or pose queries to him. Perhaps that’s useless. He never explains himself. To answer you:
(a)A premise re policy:WP:NPOV.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

(b) To understand what follows, this is how I crafted the line, in accordance with a strict reading of WP:NPOV, on the main Khazars article. Regarding the theory

Several scholars have suggested that the Khazars did not disappear after the dissolution of their Empire, but migrated West to eventually form part of the core of the later Ashkenazi Jewish population of Europe. This hypothesis is greeted with scepticism or caution by most scholars.

Regarding the genetic evidence:

The evidence from historians he (Elhaik) used has been criticized by Shaul Stampfer[294] and the technical response to such a position is dismissive, arguing that, if traces of descent from Khazars exist in the Ashkenazi gene pool, the contribution would be quite minor,[295][296][297][298][299] or insignificant.

Those two formulations have stood for some years, defended by several main editors to that page from POV and IP challenges. It doesn’t take sides: it suggests to the reader this is a theory that most competent area scholars dismiss or regard with diffidence.
So it is reasonable to assume that I am not POV pushing for the Khazar thesis, or as Galassi now proclaims that I edited as some antisemitic/antizionist ideologist jumping at this theory, since in both cases I firmly noted that it is a quite minor position within the respective academic fields.
As to User:Monochrome Monitor I reverted her because of the violation of WP:NPOV. You mention the diff
(c)Blind ideologically- fixated reverting (a) refusing to address page (c) restoring known errors (d)adopting POV Language etc
  • Monochrome Monitor came in with a swag of convictions, beware the true believer (mirroring true believers in the Khazar theory): She had announced on the talk page that one of the scholars, was a ‘crank’, endorsing Galassi’s view that Wexler has been exposed as a ‘fraud’. Both of these are serious WP:BLP violations, of an emeritus scholar still living and still reliably published, and still widely commented on in the secondary literature. As to Eran Elhaik, she said he too was a known ‘crank’. If that were so, it is difficult to understand why after a Phd from John Hopkins University, he obtained a an important research post in genetics at Sheffield University, and regularly published in the top genetics journals in his highly specialized field.
MM believes this historical issue, which to me is a total mystery, has been definitely resolved. I.e. she is passing off as an established fact what is a majority view in a contested field, giving the wiki guernsey to the winners. Worse still she attributed to both the idea that "Jews don't exist",-i.e. she is implying that they have psychiatric problems, leaving in phrasing that connects them sotto voce with anti-Semites, when actually she made a wild concoction of an overheated fantasy, as I explained in detail to her mentor on User:Oncenawhile's talk page. Wexler doesn’t believe in a Jewish ‘race’ (people): Elhaik has nowhere stated that Jews don’t exist. Both are Jews. Another proof that we are dealing with an editor who intervenes on a complex topic with her mind made up, hurling wild accusations at scholars, and editing the page.
In line with the ‘truth’, she has repeatedly written into the article that this theory has been refuted. Well, not quite. The last scientific article supporting a variation of the theory was published just 2 months ago, and no scientist has yet to publish any close analysis of its defects. The finest scholar of the Khazars,Peter Benjamin Golden, has an open mind on the issue and gives Wexler the hearing MM won't tolerate. MM and Ferakp are both preempting scholarship by insisting a still-open issue in scholarship has already been closed. This is a direct subversion of one of the 5 pillars of this encyclopedia. I don't complain of her - I spend a lot of time trying to get her, not to agree with me, God forbid, but to drop the air of certitude, and the idea she must defenda patriotic national cause.
Now that I have given exhaustive explanations as to why and how I do certain edits, can some neutral editor look at the evidence for what Galassi is doing, and suggest an arrangement to allow me to return to editing this page without having to suffer from his automatic reverts, i.e. return to me the right to edit, without an inexplicable pattern of consistent harassment-by-revert?Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
You're disingenuous Nish. If you think whether the khazar theory is true or not is a "total mystery", you obviously haven't informed yourself on the issue nor read the vast genetic evidence refuting it. Arguing it's mostly settled is very different from arguing it's totally settled in the other direction. That's like saying the position that global warming is caused by humans (in light of the vast scientific evidence) is just as crazy as saying it isn't. You're not arguing in good faith. You read books even the New York Times calls antisemitic, "The Holocaust Industry" case in point. I'm not saying you're a jew hater, you're not, which is why it's so upsetting to me that you're fond of reading books like "The Invention of the Jewish People" and "Ashkenazi Jews: a Slavo-Turkic people in search of a Semitic Identity". It's a blind spot you need to address. You're a very smart guy, well-read, worldly, a veritable bibliophile. But your reading comprehension mysteriously fails you when it concerns the State of Israel. On your userpage you offer a netanyahu quote which you interpret in the exact opposite way it was intended. If you were taking an SAT, that's -1 point. You need to do some soul-searching. I certainly did. I used to think "From Time Immemorial" was meticulously researched scholarship and now I read Amos Oz (albeit with a healthy dose of cynicism). Try reading a book like "Jews, God, and History" for a change. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Look at his last edit on the Wexler's own article. He takes a direct quote, and misrepresents it in his edit into 180degree opposite of what it means. That is more than disingenuous. More like sneaky tendentiousness.--Galassi (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Jews, God, and History by Dimont?? Oof! Would that be as reliable as a People Magazine article on Jennifer Aniston? Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 21:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually it's a critically acclaimed classic of Jewish studies. What's wrong with you?--Monochrome_Monitor 21:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Galassi I don't think he'd be deceptive deliberately, it's not his character. But I agree the Wexler article needs a bit of fine-tuning.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Stepping aside of the personal attack, the book is feel-good patriotism, not serious history. It is a puff piece. Americans are familiar with fact-free Americana, and that book is of the same order. Spoiler alert: George Washington did not confess to chopping down a cherry tree. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 23:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
(Says the person who thinks "Zeitgeist" is serious history.) The book is meant to summarize 3000 years of history in a way readers can relate to emotionally. That's why it's called "popular history", that extra pathos gives it a broader appeal. In that regard it's more similar to Wiesel's Night than the Vrba–Wetzler report. It's disgusting to compare it to the cherry tree nonsense. I don't want Nish to read a book that takes a detached approach to its subject. It's written from a pro-Jewish perspective, that's the whole point, I want to expand his horizons. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in Russian soldier's article[edit]

Alexander Prokhorenko meets notability rules. Another editor who is very disruptive and was obviouly wikihounding Mhhossein nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Prokhorenko.

I can't assume any good faith about this nomination, as FreeatlastChitchat is experienced user who have seen this. According to the nominator's ideology The only fault in this article is that the article was edited by Mhhossein, so I will take it to AFD as I am Free to do anything with Chit Chat.

The article was created by a new user from Sri Lanka. FreeatlastChitchat had no right to harass a new user to satisfy his long term goal to harass Mhhossein. Thank You for reading. --2A03:4A80:7:441:2066:60ED:1134:1A99 (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • There is no disruptive editing going on in the article. If you wish to bring a behavioural issue to light, you will need to provide Diffs. Till then, goodbye. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I had checked yesterday that your last block was due to an WP:AE request filed by Mhhossein. Do you want to waste other editor's time by such reckless nomination? You assumed that Mhhossein created the page, but the page was actually created by a new user. Another question is, do you know what a user should do before nominating an article for AFD? Others check for notability, search for reliable sources if the new editor missed something, while you check your rival editor's contributions. If you don't know the process of how to do google to check for references, then you have no right to make any AFD nomination. 2A03:4A80:7:41A:49BF:DD9C:3BF5:686E (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: The problem here is not regarding your 'disruptive editing' on that article rather the OP is mentioning your hounding behavior. I can provide diffs showing your blatant harassment and hounding on multiple pages in spite of being warned against that, at admin's request. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The AFD was closed as Keep with no Delete votes. It was an unsuccessful proposal and Mhhossein was just one editor who was working on this article. Do you have other evidence of harassment because this isn't very convincing. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The article was nominated as Mhhossein edited the article. If such behaviour is allowed then I have no problem . User A can hound user B and nominate for AFD. Then we have to clap. Do you care about the type of introduction User talk:Muvindu Perera got in Wikipedia?2A03:4A80:7:41A:C133:7604:7EE8:C2D8 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course there is convincing evidence. Of course there is convincing evidence. Admins must always believe the statement of an unregistered editor that another editor is disruptive. Oh, wait a minute. On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Just filing an AFD that was closed as Keep isn't harassment. You say that you can provide diffs. Then do so, or a boomerang block is in order for disruptive claims or disruption.
The page creator, who is a new editor from Sri Lanka was not harassed? There was not a single delete vote in that AFD as the nominator didn't check the notability before nominating the article. Sorry, I forgot, "Registered users can make trigger happy nomination to scare new editors like Muvindu Perera." And nobody actually cares whether this new editor will ever get any welcome message. As he hasn't got till now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muvindu_Perera 2A03:4A80:7:41A:C133:7604:7EE8:C2D8 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear Liz: Thanks for your intervention. Freeatlast's behaviroal issues are more than just hounding and I can show you this at your request. Anyway, regarding his hounding, on same cases he was disguised as a normal and good faith editor such as here and here where he was using a very bad language and was clearly hounding me (see the article talk page history), or here where he jumped into the discussion after his seven day block. You can clearly see his clear hounding here where he caused harassment. See his edit here and tell me if it's anything other than hounding and harassment. You can also add his harassments here where he hounded me and got a warning for his bad tone from an uninvolved editor. Also his awkward AFD nominations of my articles had been a question for other editors (see [31], [32], [33]) and I had asked him to be careful about his nominations. These where what I remembered. Thanks --Mhhossein (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mhhossein you have presented like 12 interactions in past 6 months (The majority of which are those where other editors agree with me). This equates to like 2 interactions per month, which is infinitesimally small for editors who are editing in the same genre. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Then it shows you had been hounding me at least for past 6 months. --Mhhossein (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ping @Liz: to see if she is willing to let us know about her feedback. --Mhhossein (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory[edit]

It would be good if an admin or two could try to get User:E.M.Gregory's BLP violations under control at some point so that they can't make anymore without getting blocked e.g. [34][35][36][37] (the last diff is also an example of blatant source falsification by the way). Just in case anyone thinks this is simply a decent human reacting to racism, it's not. This is someone who said of Regavim (NGO), an Israeli organization whose raison d’etre, according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, is to force the Israeli state to speed up/increase home demolitions and forced relocations of Palestinians in the Israeli occupied West Bank and Bedouin in the Israeli Negev[38] - "This is, after all, an organization that has as its core mission such activities as filing lawsuits over illegal Arab construction on park lands and in forest reserves, and illegal Arab grazing of flocks in nature reserves". So, E.M.Gregory's ability to perceive and react to what they regard as racism seems to be dependent on the ethnicity of the target and the degree to which they criticize the actions of the State of Israel. There is no point in me trying to get them to stop because they regard me as one of "Wikipedia's most POV editors", well, that and the fact that I think they should have been topic banned from making ARBPIA related edits long ago because, to put it simply, their personal views mean that they will do harm. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Their recent contributions to Talk:Ken Livingstone, which have involved repeatedly making potentially libellous accusations against the individual in question, have similarly been pretty unconstructive. I'm not sure if that warrants action but if it is part of a wider problem then maybe it does need to be dealt with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • All these diff are related to a couple of notable controversies that are already described on the corresponding pages [39]. This is something well sourced, and discussion on article talk pages should not be a problem. If anyone has BLP concerns, please post it on WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The issue is not whether these controversies should be mentioned in the article, but whether it is a breach of BLP to say of someone described by the local Rabbi as "a friend of the Jews" that she is motivated by "aggressive race-hatred of Jews". RolandR (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Is she? I do not know, but there are multiple publications about it (like here) and a notable controversy and resignation. Not an obvious BLP violation. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
That is the very article in which Rabbi Leavor describes Shah as "a friend of the Jews". Whatever one's view of her reported comments and actions, it is a far (and BLP-breaching) stretch from that to "aggressive race-hatred of Jews". RolandR (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
With respect My very best wishes, I don't think this is good advice or an appropriate and effective response to BLP violations. I'm not here for advice anyway, I'm requesting admin action. These diffs appear to be unambiguous BLP violations by a Wikipedia editor that accuse living people of "race-hatred of Jews" and "advocacy of violent attacks on Armenians". The source is E.M.Gregory's mind and they are expressing their personal views. My understanding is that an editor is allowed to hold any view they like and regardless of any of our opinions about the merits of the views the editor is not allowed to violate BLP by expressing it on talk pages or via article content. When an editor makes a habit of violating BLP something should presumably be done to prevent it happening again. What is going to be done? Something or nothing? If nothing is going to done, that's okay, but I would like confirmation from one or more admins because they are the only people who can ensure that a BLP violation has a cost for an editor who violates BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that relevant portion of the policy is Public figures. The essence of the claim was reliably sourced, belongs to the page and already included. The only question is about wording used during the discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
This is about the behavior of editors, one in particular. It's not about what should or should not be included in the articles based on reliably sourced information. If you ignore the fact that the editor accused a Swedish politician of "advocacy of violent attacks on Armenians" in an article apparently based on nothing, then sure, it's then just about wording used during discussion and whether it's okay for editors to use talk pages to refer to a living person's "race-hatred of X" as a statement of fact because to them it is a fact, while to RS-world it is an opinion. If that kind of behavior is acceptable then let Wikipedia say that it is acceptable and we can all benefit from that freedom of expression. If it's not acceptable then there should be a cost associated with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with Sean here. It is important that admins make it clear as to whether measures will be brought against E. M. Gregory or not. At present we are simply left in limbo, unsure of quite how to respond to their recurring BLP violations on a variety of different pages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
If this user makes "BLP violations on a variety of different pages", one should provide a lot more diffs to prove this point. I can agree that four diffs in the beginning of the thread do not look good, however given that people he mentioned have been accused of antisemitism in multiple RS, retired because of the public scandal(s), and that antisemitism can be viewed as a variety of racism, these four diffs do not really look convincing. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is
  • the acceptable number of BLP violations for any given editor is precisely zero
  • it is not possible to provide a number that represents the limit that separates an acceptable number of BLP violations from an unacceptable number of BLP violations or a valid method to derive that number that remains consistent with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what should be done. I agree that these are (a) BLP violation and (b) pointless and largely useless comments made on talk pages. It's basically the equivalent of saying "there's a POV problem with the article" on each talk page. Now misrepresenting a source is another big no-no. Would a topic ban on the I-P issue be appropriate? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me? My edit about Regavim, made on the talk page of Susya, here: [40] is a paraphrase of the organization's mission statement. It is not a "misrepresentation" of any source. The discussion amounts to a difference of perspective, as is true on the talk pages of many human rights organizations. Frankly, what I remember about that particular, extensive, warlike debate over a minor article is that I walked away from the topic out of distaste for the aggressive POV-pushing. Sadly, the article is still tagged for POV a year later, probably because neutral editors are driven away from the topic area. Nasty, aggressive, POV editing of the type exhibited on that page is one of the most serious problems Wikipedia has. Dragging editors who dip so much as a toe into the Middle East to this page is part of the problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The error I did commit was in regard to the resignation of a Swedish cabinet minister who was forced to resign not, as I misstated, because he called on Turks to murder Armenians, but, rather, because he was linked to a militant organization (Grey Wolves (organization)) that advocates (and acts) on such such calls. Error now corrected. Error-free editing is, of course, impossible, but I think my record can stand up to scrutiny.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
It is fine to say "the allegations of anti-Semitism against X deserve space in the article", but not "X's aggressive race hatred of Jews deserves space in the article". You may think that X is anti-Semitic - that is fine - but keep such thoughts to yourself. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, well said.
  • E.M.Gregory, if you had kept your personal views off the talk pages and edited more carefully to avoid accusing a living person of something they did not do, there would be no ANI report. The cesspool-like nature of anything remotely ARBPIA related in Wikipedia is caused by people doing things they are not supposed to do, things that are more easily not done than done. I reported you because you are part of the problem, you are making things worse not better, you don't seem to care and you need to stop. If you had said something about a vile human being like Eustace Mullins having a race hatred of Jews no one would care apart from delusional neo-Nazis. But what you are doing will always get someone's attention because your actions will look like BLP violations to many people. It's good to see that you corrected your errors at Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice about Mehmet Kaplan to switch from direct guilt to guilt by association, which I suppose is an improvement, but I think you are targeting those articles because of Kaplan's views about the Israel-Palestine conflict and that your edits are colored by your views. Is that not the case? Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia.
  • Can you and will you make an effort to ensure that your personal views do not color your selection and editing of articles so that your actions are consistent with WP:NOTADVOCATE?
  • Can you and will you keep your personal views about the real world to yourself when participating in discussions to the extent that you do not violate BLP? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Outsider Note: I will comment later on the concerns brought up - but I want to point out that the few times I crossed lines with the nominator Sean.hoyland it did appear to me that he/she edits articles very pro Palestinian. I especially noticed this when a disruptive IP randomly canvased the nominator Sean.hoyland (among others) into an article in order to assist in posting negative material on a Pro Israeli minister. At one time (a while back) I remember the nominator was repeatedly advocating (Changed to:) appeared to be siding with a group of users who were dumping negative material (in my opinion undue) on a BLP - all while the subject of the article was undergoing court proceedings and a trial. I must point out that the nominator is much more civil and honest than many other users in this area. However this should be taken into consideration if the motive behind this is to mute and remove an editor due to conflicting POV - especially since both of these editors have been edit warring reverting against each other. Caseeart (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It would have been better to include the diff where I told the IP they were not allowed to edit the article[41], told you that that it is not possible to violate 1RR by reverting the IP because of the 500/30 rule (User_talk:Number_57#Canvasing) i.e. the edit warring report the IP filed was merit-less and did not edit the article or participate in the discussion to which I was canvassed. I don't know who or what "At one time the nominator was repeatedly advocating dumping negative material (in my opinion undue) on a BLP" is referring to. If you make statements like that about editors you should have the integrity to include evidence. The only BLP related discussion I have been involved in recently is Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_20_April_2016 which doesn't match your description. Also, I don't edit war, I stop edit warring. Almost all of my edits are reactive nowadays. If they look "pro-Palestinian" that's because most of the disruption is by editors who presumably consider themselves "pro-Israel". Almost every edit I make nowadays is to a) enforce the 500/30 rule because extended confirmed protection has not been implemented across the topic area or b) address the actions of socks/editors who are making things worse rather than better or c) ensure editors follow WP:BRD in ARBPIA. When the disruption stops or when it is all handled by extended confirmed protection and smart bots, I will stop editing. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Let me clarify - I do not mean to say in any way that you violated any rules. I thus did not feel the need to leave any diffs. On the contrary when the IP "tried" to canvass you to assist in posting negative material on an Israeli minister, you (unlike others) fully followed the rules and even warned the ip which shows a degree of integrity. I just counted that incident as additional evidence that non involved users also view you as pro Palestinian. (I won't go off topic introduce diffs of an old BLP discussion, and I also changed "warring" to "reverting").
Now, in the Israeli Palestinian conflict it often it ends up that whichever side has the majority of votes gets their way - a concern was brought up in one of the arbitration committees (I can't seem to find it) that Pro Israeli editors are routinely banned or topic banned thus leaving the Pro Palestinian side with the majority. (Assumingly because pro Israeli editors don't follow the rules or as I experienced - also because they are strictly scrutinized and more often reported by pro Palestinian editors - [I rarely edit this topic but I encountered a case where no one bothered investigating or blocking an (alleged) pro Palestinian editor who edited under an ip (sock puppet) to call E.M.Gregory a "fucking moron" [42] [43]- Just imagine if this sockpuppet ip instead would have been a pro Israeli editor.......]). I am pointing out that this may be the motive here. CaseeArt (Talk 17:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

<- I see. Thank you for the clarification. What is my motive? Actually it doesn't matter. What matters is whether a rule has been broken by an editor, and if so, what can be done to prevent it being broken again. My intention is fully described in this ANI report and I have tried to ensure that my personal view of this editor, my bias in other words, is included because I'm not an uninvolved observer by any means. Rules are being broken all the time so why report this editor now? The BLP violations were the last straw. To see why they were the last straw, here are all of my interactions with E.M.Gregory since they started editing. I have limited patience with editors who bring what I regard as divisive ethno-nationalist irrationality and aggressive edit warring to articles and talk pages because they just don't seem to care about WP:NOTADVOCATE.

  • The first time I noticed the editor was when they made the statement about Regavim (NGO) that I mentioned in the initial comment[44], one of the more extraordinary statements I have read on a talk page in ARBPIA. My immediate impression was that a person who expressed support for an organization whose activities seemed indistinguishable from ethnic cleansing-lite, as far as I could tell, was probably going to start fires.
  • J Street - [57][58][59] - intervened to stop E.M.Gregory edit warring their view into an article and enforce BRD.

Sean.hoyland - talk 20:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Those seem to be mostly edit disagreements between E.M.Gregory and Sean.hoyland. CaseeArt (Talk 01:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why someone brought up motives, of users, but yes, I know Sean Hoyland is 100% pro-Palestinian, but I haven't found him to be posting against policy. I've dealt with him in the past and when facts are brought up, it's Okey-Dokey, not an edit war. So we should stick to what is on hand and not about users. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Asking why motives are brought up? Once it's established that the possible motive behind this ANI is that a pro Palestinian editor is advocating to ban another pro Israeli editor from editing Palestinian Israeli conflict articles (in order to maintain a majority lead), now we could assess the validity of the case.

    Now in response to the case: When one of the most respected editors on pro Palestinian side was blocked for serious personal attacks, and soon after they sockpuppted under an ip to call E.M.Georgery a "fucking moron" (see my diffs)- and many many more such instances - this seriously disrupts Wikipedia but no one bothered to take action. On the other hand, a few times of E.M.Gregory's choice of wording on the article 'talk page' "Article needs coverage of X's aggressove, race-hatred of Jews." without using words like "alleged" or "possible" - is a lesser problem that does not need ANI - You could respond on the article talk page. A warning at most. (Note: I just moved this comment up because previously I did not realize that Ricky81682 is an admin comming to resolve issue) CaseeArt (Talk 01:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Can we stay on point here? E.M.Gregory, can you understand why (a) it's not helpful; and (b) it's a BLP violation to go to a talk page and say (without including a source) "hey, why aren't we calling this person this in the article"? It doesn't even matter if the name-calling is appropriate, if your only comment is to suggest name-calling without citing a source, it's inappropriate and frankly a useless comment on a talk page. Is the possibility that no one has found a reliable source for the subject possible? I know so much of the joy of the IP conflict is that everyone assumes the opposing side is busily working to do whatever but if you came to the talk page and said "hey, we are missing this issue, here are some sources about it, people would care a lot less (assuming we are talking good quality independent reliable sources). You want to fight about whether that representation is true, good, take it to the talk page but I don't care about that, I first care if you are going to be going around to talk page just posting "hey, why don't we talk about X in this article?" as if that is a useful use of other people's time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


  • The diffs shown in the OP are totally unacceptable and the solution is simple—an uninvolved admin should topic ban E.M.Gregory per WP:ARBPIA. That particularly applies now that the editor has had an opportunity to show they understand the issue. The fact that an IP has been trolling an editor is unrelated to the diffs, and there should be no further dodging of the issues raised in the OP. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
You completely misunderstand what I wrote about the IP. I was presenting evidence that the motive behind the nominator reporting "pro Israeli" editors may be so that Pro Palistinian editors remain the majority, and that it would be unfair and nonconstructive to the articles of this topic if you topic ban this editor (there are almost non Pro Israeli editors left). The user being reported has completed over 12,000 edits and has a clear history with no blocks. I also hope the administrator understands that E.M. Gregory has not got a single warning on his/her talk page about this whole issue, and that a "topic ban" is similar to a full ban from from wikipedia because most of E.M.Gregory's edits are on this topic. Give a warning and it will probably not continue. In either case E.M. Gregory has not logged in yet and has not even had a chance yet to respond to Ricky81682. CaseeArt (Talk 08:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Request block of User:Caseeart[edit]

Caseeart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

For months now, Caseeart has been obsessed with me. They have been accusing me of sockpuppetting since September.[60]][61] Despite being told by many editors that I had done nothing wrong, they filed a sockpuppet report against me. When that didn't go their way, they brought a complaint here. They were told to drop the stick. Instead, they attacked me above—repeating the disproven lie that I had socked—and didn't notify me.[62][63]

Since Caseeart was told they were "about three microns from a WP:BOOMERANG", I request that they be blocked for their recent behavior here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't try to change the story. Every report that I made was valid and well documented and another administrator might even decide to block you now WP:BOOMERANG.
The only reason they did not block Shabbazz was because it was "a few months back". But the purpose of a sockpuppet report is also for the record (as you will see below).
  • DOPPELGÄNGER account The admins also agreed that the account User:MShabazz is not allowed to be a WP:DOPPELGÄNGER account and they asked Shabazz to change it [64] - because it he/she uses it to edit, and "Such accounts should not be used for editing". Shabbazz did not listen until another administrator went onto Shabbazz's page and changed it [65].
  • Previous ANI for "apparent personal attacks by Shabbazz" Let me explain why my ANI was valid. At the sockpuppet investigation - an administrator advised me me about reporting the personal attacks (from the ip's) at ANI which I did. I did not correctly present the case and did not show the list of all the history of personal attacks. -Not everyone bothers looking into all of Shabbazz's history and all the diffs therefore it did not end in a block.

Shabbazz repeatedly laughed at my writing skills:

  • "I'm sorry it took you half an hour...I hope your reading skills improve."[66]
  • "Caseeart demonstrates a disconcerting inability to read"[67]

Here is the list of attacks on other users (I believe that all these were aimed at pro Israeli editors - all within a few days and this brought to Shabbazz's block) See this ANIand this ANI

  • "suck my dick, ass hole"[68][69]
  • "No, you can suck it, sonny boy. What'll you call me next, nigger?"[70]

Shabazz, despite (or in spite of) his block, unrevdels that diff with the summary: "Restoring the truth -- you people can ignore this is [sic] you want, I won't".

After Shabbazz was blocked - it was established by the clerk (because of the valid sockpuppet investigation) that he/she appeared to be editing under these IP's and went on with the attacks:

  • 66.87.114.76 "fucking moron doesn't know what vandalism is or how to leave a warning template"[75]
  • 63.116.31.198 "So shove your threat to block me up your ass." [76][77]
  • Was my ANI really invalid??
  • Above ANI on E.M.Gregory: IP 66.87.114.76 (which was determined to be Shabbazz as mentioned earlier) attacked User:E.M.Gregory and called them a "fucking moron"[78]. This is very relevant to the above discussion since Sean.Hoyland particularly used this diff to report E.M. Gregory calling Hoyland and Shabbaz POV pushers. It was important to show both sides of the story that Shabbazz also attacked E.M. Gregory. But still I deliberately did not name Shabbazz a single time in the ANI in order not to further take the report off track and not to revert the report onto a Shabbazz discussion. (I obviously had no intention at all of reporting Shabbazz - a single diff without name mention - I doubt anyone could even find that diff now).
  • Today's attack Shabbazz just called me a "persistent edit warrior"[79] without providing any evidence. In fact Shabbazz did not respond on the article talk page for a few days [80]. It thus appeared that Shabbazz agreed/left the dispute. I therefore addressed his/her concerns and fixed the edit (to my ability and understanding) and put it back in the article - that is in no way or form edit warring (let me know if I am wrong). (Just now, AFTER Shabbazz again |reverted my edit without responding to our talk page discussion - finally after the revert, another user joined in and responded).


I am finally starting to understand why almost all Pro Israeli editors eventually get banned. I never edited the subject and only recently I was pulled in trying to fix something else. All of the sudden I begin getting warnings and I get reported. Something really needs to be done but this is not the place to discuss.

My Statement: I am not aware of the meaning of "about three microns from a WP:BOOMERANG" I don't understand the words "three microns" and I tried to clarify in this discussion[81] but did not get a response.

I was never blocked and I have no intentions of breaking rules. If an admin determines that I acted inappropriately in any way- please let me know and I will cease to do so, and if necessary will cease to engage in any discussion with Shabbazz for a set period of time and never talk about this issue again.

I will not be available for a while - if any action will be taken (other than closure or warning) please wait until I am back.CaseeArt Talk 16:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a TL;DR acknowledgement that competence is required and you lack competence. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
After this is over I will be taking a short break from editing wikipedia.
Will anyone do anything about the gruesome personal attacks? The first wave of attacks resulted in Blocks for Shabazz and triggered an Arb Comminttee meeting resulting in WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 - very strict rules regarding the Israeli Palistinian articles.
All that did not help, because Shabazz just took it a step further and began Personal attacks against pro Israeli editors using ip addresses (in addition to the attacks on me lately). Does anyone have any solution? CaseeArt (Talk 04:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Caseeart: It is very simple: your last SPI against Malik was closed. Please don't keep alleging that Malik engaged in sock-puppeting. If you want to pursue it, the appropriate venue is SPI. I also don't see why you bring MShabazz into a totally unrelated dispute. You seem to view everything through the lens of "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian". We all have POV, but that does not mean everything we do is determined by our POV. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Kingsindian Contrary to Shabazz's claim, Last sockpuppet report did confirm that Shabbazz was using IP addresses for edit warring and personal attacks. Also read my response - I did not try to bring him into any dispute I presented a mere diff as evidence to the case. CaseeArt Talk 05:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Caseeart: I will not be diverted into a discussion about the merits of the SPI case. It was closed, that's all that matters. If you want to pursue it, open another case at SPI. Or if you want an ANI case against MShabazz, open a separate case here; don't bring him up in a totally unrelated dispute. Keep your allegations about sockpuppeting to yourself in the meantime. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Kingsindian Let me clarify: I was not trying to pursue any case against anyone in any way shape or form, not ANI and not SPI. There is no point of a duplicate SPI - Clerk already warned Shabbaz to stop. I did not metion Shabazz name anywhere, and the Diff was for evidence purposes only. (And if was a mistake on my part to present the "diff" - then let let me be notified (preferably by an admin) that this SPI case is not allowed to be mentioned). CaseeArt Talk 05:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record[edit]

This is to let you know that I have issued a formal warning to Py0alb in respect of his general conduct on the site, specifically a blatant personal attack. I am not requesting any administrative action at present as I would like to see if the warning has the desired effect first, but I would like it noted that I have felt it necessary to take this action. Thank you. Jack | talk page 08:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this in relation to something else here? I don't care but a little context would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think its in relation to this unprovoked personal attack here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HappyWaldo&diff=718296213&oldid=708946288

to which I responded with support for HappyWaldo in a constructive manner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HappyWaldo&diff=next&oldid=718296213

This followed the makings of an edit-war, in which Black Jack refused to follow BRD protocol and left aggressive and threatening edit summaries, see here for an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cricket&diff=718298414&oldid=718281906

Happy Waldo then attempted to diffuse the situation by opening discussions on the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket&diff=718345167&oldid=718244463

He also requested my input on my talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Py0alb&diff=718416782&oldid=702399308

So I commented in a constructive manner here, addressing Jack's refusal to follow protocl: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket&diff=718424370&oldid=718422779

and tried to move the discussion onto more constructive ground here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket&diff=718424979&oldid=718424370

In response to this, BlackJack then posted an unwarranted and unprovoked "warning" on my talk page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Py0alb&diff=718566617&oldid=718416782

and I replied patiently and constructively on his talk page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlackJack&diff=718573957&oldid=718040219


For the record, the motivation behind this attack on myself may be related to a previous disagreement over the validity of the term "major cricket", in which BlackJack lost the argument as the consensus view agreed with my post. I will let you judge for yourself whether that is or is not relevant.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_cricket_(2nd_nomination) and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Major_cricket

Also note that this isn't the first time he has started an ANI against myself (the previous time he repeatedly begged for me to be blocked, but admin sensibly ignored this), see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=701294918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py0alb (talk • contribs) 10:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It is also very much worth noting that at no point has BlackJack alerted me to the presence of this ANI against me despite the big "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" sign above. For an editor of his experience, it would be surprising if this was an accidental oversight.

Py0alb (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@BlackJack: You are the one who made the personal attack, not Py0alb. And you need to try to explain your edit-warring at Cricket, because the boomerang may be about to hit someone. Katietalk 16:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow--if this is the edit that started all of this, yeah, that's a pretty blatant personal attack on the part of BlackJack. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Katie and Drmies. Yes, I'm very much aware of the WP:BOOMERANG risk when reporting a problem and I accept that my initial message to Happy Waldo could have been worded better. Drmies, you need to go back a bit to this substantial edit by me which was the beginning of a, shall we say, WP:BOLD initiative to improve the key article in WP:CRIC which has fallen over the years from FA right back to start-class. In short, "Cricket" is in a bit of a state and needs a complete overhaul, preferably by an experienced editor who has a thorough knowledge of the subject. If you check my contribs history, I think you'll agree that I qualify, although there are some people at CRIC who are even more qualified, given that my speciality is cricket history rather than cricket the game. You will see in the edit summary that I said: "extensive revision commenced", which means exactly what it says. Anyone who was curious about my intentions for this long-neglected article, or anyone who doubted my credentials, had only to visit my talk page and ask me what I was doing. I would have happily explained.
Instead, Happy Waldo summarily reverted a large chunk of my input without discussion. He is not a very experienced editor and I think this is the only cricket article he has previously edited, and then not much. He said in his summary that my changes should be "discussed per BRD". I disagree with that as reverting an obviously genuine and extensive piece of work is not the first course of action. He should have contacted me directly or via the article's talk page to ask what I intended, especially as by then I had already made considerable changes to the article. In his next edit, a minor one, he said in the summary: "some of these recent edits are troubling". Okay, so ask me about them. When I came back to the article, I restored my work and commented that it is "Work in progress; later sections will be edited out", given that he seemed to be concerned about temporary duplication of some content. Again, if he had a problem, he should have consulted me but he chose to revert everything again and said, somewhat rudely, I thought: "then work on it in a sandbox". Well, sorry, but with my knowledge and experience I know what I am doing and I would soon have finished the initial phase of my task, which would have included editing out the temporary duplication (i.e., existing sections and sub-sections which largely need removing or at least drastically reducing). I was annoyed about being summarily reverted twice without any polite enquiry as to my intentions and so I "had words" with Happy Waldo who, for all I knew, might have been a troll. Subsequently, it became apparent that Happy Waldo is a bona fide editor with good intentions but perhaps misguided due to his relative inexperience. We have had talk page communication since then (noticeably ignored by Py0alb above) and we have agreed a way forward for the article's rescue: see this from him to me and this from me to him which were the last contacts we have had as I have been unavailable for the last couple of days. So, yes, we had a bit of a row and I perhaps over-reacted but I could see my genuine attempt at rescuing that article lurching towards a 3RR fiasco if Happy Waldo had reverted a third time. Anyway, and again this is omitted from Py0alb's "description of events", I had already apologised to HW and things have been fine since then.
Right, I accept that my first post to HW was out of order because the "red mist" descended and I retaliated to a double revert that seemed to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and possibly trolling. You now have the full story which provides you with Py0alb's omissions. Taking a step back, however, I would accept that I deserve a warning and maybe even a short-term suspension. In football terms, a yellow card or a red card. If it's a yellow, then please place a suitable warning on my talk page. Unlike the numerous warnings posted to Py0alb's talk page, it will not be summarily deleted and ignored (see below). Any such warning will stay on my page. If you choose a red card, then I'll take that on the chin and come back whenever the suspension ends. Please let me know.
Now I come to Py0alb. This individual has made only 670 edits in over five years and yet he has been hauled before ANI on more than one occasion before this; he has been reported to ANEW and given a formal warning about his conduct; he has been found guilty of blatant copyright violation and given a final warning about his conduct; he has had several warnings posted on his talk page and has summarily blanked and ignored all of them; and, interestingly, he has even been reported to SPI on the basis of certain sock-like comments and behaviour but no sockmaster could be identified.
There are two things I would say about his above input: he is "always the victim"; and what he doesn't say is rather more significant than what he does say.
I did report him to ANI in January for his confrontational and disrespectful attitude before and during the major cricket AfD. He has not mentioned above that he breached process more than once: e.g., reinstating a prod that had been challenged and refusing to proceed to AfD; blanking the article he wanted to delete and making a ridiculous "ban" threat; edit warring; trying to mislead inexperienced contributors in the AfD by stating that only online citations are relevant and not those in "some book that someone once read"; voting twice in the Afd; and generally failing to observe AfD protocol and due process such that, at one point, the admin Bbb23 felt bound to remove a personal attack by him. Py0alb says above that he won the AfD but that is a lie because it was, rightly enough, a "no consensus". He fails to mention that, afterwards, three or four of us in WP:CRIC agreed that "major cricket" is a term not really used widely enough as yet because, unlike "first-class cricket", it is not officially defined. We effectively decided that the article was premature, a bit like creating an article about the 2036 English cricket season, so we decided to do a merger with another article. Py0alb also fails to mention that I fully acquiesced in this decision and performed the redirect, despite my support for the article hitherto, and I personally went around all the articles with links to major cricket and altered the links: see my contribs or check the links and here is one example. As for the ANI in January, the admins made their decision not to block him, despite some significant criticism of him by certain admins (which he has not mentioned above). I accepted the ANI decision, I did not make any protest and I moved on.
After I got annoyed with Happy Waldo and sent my angry message to him as explained above, I was astonished to see Py0alb intervening with what amounts to incitement and at the same time a personal attack directed at me. This was obviously done out of spite after the ANI in January because the issue was none of his business and he is not an admin who would have had the right to step in and calm things down. Instead, he attempted to inflame the situation by inciting Happy Waldo into raising an ANI about me. That would have been for Happy Waldo to decide and it is not for Py0alb to try and push him into something he might not wish to do. Py0alb adds: "I think the majority of the cricket portal (sic) would support you". Would they, now? Can he name one single member of WP:CRIC who would come forward and denounce me, which is what he means? Of course not. I accept that some of them might have suggested to me that I talk to Happy Waldo and, as I mentioned above but Py0alb did not, I have already apologised and we have moved on. I would say that two members of CRIC at least are close friends, in as much as you can have online friends, and with virtually all the others (i.e., the ones who contribute often and whom I "know" reasonably well), my relationship is cordial and, often, co-operative. Py0alb's "opinion" of my standing at CRIC is a lie deliberately intended to damage my reputation on the site, which is why I see his post as a personal attack directed at me, clearly out of spite because I justifiably raised an ANI about him four months ago.
There is also this message to Happy Waldo after I had issued my warning to Py0alb. You will see that he is effectively repeating (and twisting) what I have said to him, which is interesting for reasons I won't go into at this stage and it is nonsense. His idea of a "polite comment" is hardly normal given that it directly attacks another person; he talks about my "constant aggression and antagonism" and says I am not "WP:competent". Can I please see some examples of this constant aggression as there must, perforce, be thousands of them given that I have done way over 60k edits; and, as I'm always willing to learn, can I please see some examples of my incompetence too? Py0alb has himself been told both here and here, for example that he is incompetent in matters of WP standard procedures and protocol.
Am I justified in issuing a warning to Py0alb? I think so, not just because he has made a personal attack on this occasion but because it is yet another incident in an ongoing saga. Remember that this is an account with only 670 edits and yet there have been several complaints about him. A superficial look at his talk page doesn't reveal anything because all the warnings have been blanked out, but they are there in the history. Here are some examples: [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], this, which was effectively a final warning, this, which was a final warning following an ANEW case and this immediate removal of the final warning by Py0alb.
Isn't that rather excessive for someone with only 670 edits? Is he "always the victim"? Is there smoke without fire?
Let me know if you have any questions but please note I am not available much nowadays. I did "retire" a couple of months ago but have found I can still spare some time for WP so I am actually "semi-retired". Jack | talk page 19:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Holy wall of text redux. Conciseness. Find some, please, 'cause this is waaayy too long. Lemme see if I get it: you did the 'bold' part of WP:BRD, you were reverted, and then you wanted the reverter to be the one to initiate and do all the discussing. It doesn't work that way. The burden is on you as the editor who added the content to source your edits. Then I get something something about the absolute audacity of someone with "only 670 edits" to participate in these discussions because he was warned for edit warring three years ago and something something else 670 edits. Oh, and 670 edits. Would somebody else read this and correct me, because my eyes are glazed over. Katietalk 21:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Unless another admin wants to get involved, I suggest we just forget the whole thing and move on. In fact, I will move on. What a waste of time, as usual. Jack | talk page 13:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Harassment by Drmies at their talk page[edit]

NO ACTION NEEDED:

No harassment occurred. It is suggested OP read WP:DTTR NE Ent 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

@Drmies:, with whom I have had a dispute with regarding Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, is harassing me at their talk page. Their content removal at Cheryl Fernandez-Versini didn't appear constructive to me, and the edit summaries seemed quite vague. I restored the removed content and left a {{Uw-delete1}} on their talk page, and left me a sarcastic reponse ("Linguist, thank you for the nice template.") I removed that, but they reverted me, telling me to "buzz off". I understand that I may have made a mistake with the reverting of the content removal and the warning, but I will NOT tolerate being harassed or attacked on Wikipedia. Linguist 111talk 19:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: First off, Drmies is an admin and on ArbCom, so any accusations you make are taken seriously. Second off, don't template the regulars. It's your fault that you didn't take it up with him yourself. TJH2018talk 19:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough on the article, you disagree and revert. This wasn't a mistake yet, just a dispute. Your first mistake, you template a regular breaking WP:DTTR. Then you delete content from Drmies on their own user page in violation of WP:USERTALK. You claim you're being harassed by them when it's YOU going to THEIR talk page. That's like claiming to be harassed by someone every fucking time you ring their doorbell. QUIT GOING TO HIS FUCKING HOUSE. You're the cause of your own problems. Then you create this thread which is going to WP:BOOMERANG hard on your ass. Best advice: run far away from this issue and never speak of it again. (This was the toned down version, the original version would've easily earned me a WP:NPA block).--v/r - TP 19:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh, admin and all that has nothing to do with it. User thinks they can impose etiquette on me when they can't find the proper words to apologize for a silly template, that's all. Close with no admin (boomerang) action needed, please. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DTTR is merely an essay. There's no reason to not template if someone's done something wrong and also, it's easier. It also depends whether you want to interact or not. I'm not saying anything about this dispute but DTTR in general. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  • True. And some regulars need to be templated every now and then. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The only clearly questionable action here is Linguist111's removal of content on Drmies' page. The only person who gets to remove content from Drmies' page is Drmies, unless you're self-reverting. pbp 18:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    • "Self-reverting" And even then, the editor whose page it is can decide to un-revert, if they so desire. BMK (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Userspace subpages issue[edit]

The page title of User:Legacypac/Godsygaming is a personal attack against me, alleging gaming (almost a WP:CSD#G10). I asked the user to rename the page and request the title be deleted. They created another page with the same content, User:Legacypac/Godsymoves, but left the other page untouched. The pages are polemic. Now, they've started linking User:Legacypac/Godsymoves in discussions: Special:Diff/718608736 of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White River Valley Museum. While the content of the userspace subpages only serves to draw attention to work the community has had to undertake because of content they've moved from userspaces other than their own that was not suitable for the mainspace, it is mischaracterizing and invokes my username. I would request User:Legacypac/Godsygaming be deleted as a personal attack and duplicate of User:Legacypac/Godsymoves. I would also request User:Legacypac/Godsymoves be renamed preferably to something neutral, but at the least, something without my username in it. Lastly, I'd request Legacypac be warned about and asked to stop linking to polemic pages/material in discussions. If Legacypac has a problem with my actions, there are appropriate forums to raise the matter.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me that Legacypac is getting ready to initiate the dispute resolution process which is a valid exemption to WP:POLEMIC: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." As this was created May 2nd, I think we're still well within "tiemly".--v/r - TP 23:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@TParis: My issue is not with the existence of the content, rather the inappropriate name and the linking to it in inappropriate places.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I've thrown a warning on their talk page.--v/r - TP 23:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The linking of DR-preparation notes in AfDs for example was not OK. Can those links/references to these pages be removed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Legacypac is going through some turmoil, being slow to adjust to others' concerns, but he is adjusting, and this page appears productive in finding a compromise between him and others who have butted heads against him (including me). It is not overly negative, but factual and current. It is OK while current, but should be removed (or modified to reflect the hopeful resolution) in time.
User:Legacypac/Godsymoves - OK
User:Legacypac/Godsygaming - same as above, perfect copy, but provocatively titled, please delete it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I think an evidence page should not be titled in such a way as to assume bad faith. "Godsygaming" is needlessly provocative. I agree with SmokeyJoe that it should be deleted. As a duplicate of another more neutrally titled page it serves no purpose other than to disparage its subject, in other words a WP:CSD#G10. Unless I hear some compelling reason why it is not I think it should be deleted as such. More specifically it should be history merged to User:Legacypac/Godsymoves to retain its history. HighInBC 00:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Touchy stuff like that is best kept on the PC where only the user can see it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
At least I see a massive Streisand effect here... The Banner talk 09:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Response: I previously blanked the GodsyGaming page (or intended to blank, Wikipedia stopped working in the middle of the process) and copied the info to GodsyMoves in response to Godsy's demands on his talk page (before this ANi) GodsyGaming can be deleted as blanked by the author and with my permission. GodsyGaming was mirroring the title of an ANi about this behaviour, but I apologize for the word choice or any offense it caused.

The page content was copied from Godsy's own talk page [88], (look in now collapsed box near thread bottom) so it is pretty funny to see Godsy open an ANi complaining about a list of links Godsy himself assembled and continues to update even while in a collapse box. It is also humorous to see Godsy seeking deletion of pages in userspace when he is spending so much effort fighting deletion of pages in userspace and making personal attacks far and wide against me for working on stale drafts in userspace. Legacypac (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is going on but the pages have been blanked. I thought the problem was the title, not the content of the page. Can these pages be restored and just moved to a more neutral title? The page should only be blanked by Legacypac indicating that he no longer needs the content on the page. Liz Read! Talk! 16:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The real problem here is not a descriptively named page like GodsyMoves - mostly copied from Godsy's own talk page - but Godsy's obsession with stalking my edits and screwing with my page moves and deletions. He is editing many of the pages I promote, and returning anything to userspace that he can for any flimsy excuse. I can produce a full ANi case, but at this point I've simply been trying to talk sense into him and taking steps to fix the mess he is creating. Evidently that is not working. Legacypac (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by the user Oatitonimly[edit]

This editor seems to be determined to replace all mentions of Turkish-Armenian War to "Turkish invasion of Armenia." There is currently a requested move discussion started by them but they are trying to replace all mentions of Turkish American War in various articles with their preferred POV in the meantime.([89], [90],[91],[92] [93][94][95][96]) Worst of all they even tried to alter the posts of other editors on a talk page.

Tiptoethrutheminefield warned them about this but they seem to be continuing with deleting/replacing the mentions of Turkish-Armenian War to their preferred version as shown in above diffs. There is also evidence of canvassing, [97],[98] where they seem to be notifying the editors they think would support their proposed move. I think Oatitonimly is not here to build an encylopedia but rather to push an agenda, and I think this type of revisionism should not be tolerated. Darwinian Ape talk 03:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't replace all, just some where I thought it necessary. There are multiple redirect links for a reason. Not all those edits are adding the alternate name, some I was removing things that simply didn't belong.[99][100] The problem was Esc reverted many edits I made without even looking at them, he even restored vandalism that I reverted.[101]
He warned me the name were red links so I changed them to make them work. I notified Marshal because he had proposed a previous renaming discussion for the article similar to this, so I wanted to alert him. Oatitonimly (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
You thought altering talk page posts of other editors by removing the mention of "Turkish-Armenian war" was necessary? You also deleted it from see also sections of articles, those sections are for related topics which Turkish-Armenian war clearly was. Forgive me, but I find it hard to see your editing pattern anything but a campaign to remove all the references of "Turkish-Armenian war" from Wikipedia. I also recommend you read WP:CANVASS because notifying an editor because they share your goals on a matter is the definition of canvassing.Darwinian Ape talk 06:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Oatitonimly keeps changing every article that has Turkish-Armenian War mentioned despite being warned and reported which is in fact is nothing less than vandalism, to add insult to injury they are edit warring to keep their changes and claim vandalism in their edit summaries just look at the contribs of the editor, there is nothing but disruptive editing, which is hard to keep up. Darwinian Ape talk 09:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Who are they? if to look on Oatitonimly last edits, he is reverting the same ip 95.208.241.193 which seems to be backed by you like here [102][103] etc. And it is a clear case of content dispute so please assume good faith and don't call it a vandalism. Lkahd (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I use they as a gender-neutral pronoun as it's common in wikipedia. Darwinian Ape talk 10:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Also, WP:NOTSUICIDE it's very hard to believe the editor doctored the talk page posts of other editors in good faith. Darwinian Ape talk 10:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Just glancing over before dinner, anyone reckon WP:ARBAA2 might be applicable? Not that Oatitonimly has been warned about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware the topic was under discretionary sanctions as my involvement started with the proposed move in the Turkish-Armenian War article. But a quick research reveals Oatitonimly was aware of the sanction since they started an AE request based on the same sanction They may not be officially notified but certainly aware of the sanction. Darwinian Ape talk 10:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Lkahd is very correct in that you are lacking in good faith. Just like your IP friend, you keep reverting other changes besides the name, for example you deleted a source to something additional I added here.[104] The first time I wanted to rename all uses, and it was my mistake that I hadn't realized I was doing it on old talk discussions, but this time I only wanted to add the alternate name to a couple pages in order to add some balance. And if you won't object, I'll be undo the reverts you did that took away other changes I made but I'll leave the article name as it is, in order to stop this edit warring. Though I hope you'll realize I was just trying to give the invasion redirect a couple more links and let them remain, I left the majority in the war link. Oatitonimly (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The edits are not actually tendentious: the article had previously been called "Turkish invasion of Armenia (1920)" and many sources have been presented in the renaming discussion that use the "Turkish invasion of Armenia" wording. I reverted Oatitonimly's edit in the AG talk archive [105] and advised him [106] that this was not appropriate editing and that it would also probably be best to wait before altering wikilinks related to the article title currently being discussed. Of course altering another editor's words is a big faux pas, but a one-off incident like this can be put down to inexperience. The same could also be said for the altering of the wikilinks. My objection to them was that Oatitonimly was deleting links that worked and replacing them with dead links (because there is no "Turkish invasion of Armenia" article or redirect). This again is probably down to inexperience. Personally, I think Wikilinks that are "see also" type links should have the exact wording of the article title they lead to, but for wording inside article content there is not a need to make an exact duplication, as long as there is no deception. A wikilinked phrase like "the 1920 Turkish invasion of Armenia" that led to the Turkish-Armenian War article could be completely appropriate wording, depending on how the containing passage is worded. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

NB, I do not think there is any pov as such between "Turkish-Armenian War" and "Turkish invasion of Armenia", however, the latter is more descriptively accurate. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Had the editor stopped after your warning I wouldn't have reported them. But removing links from see also sections of clearly related articles as "doesn't belong" and edit warring to keep their preferred version in every article that mentions Turkish-Armenian war, despite not achieving a consensus in the talk page of the original article combined with the previous behavior shows a clear pattern of disruptive behavior and a lack of respect for consensus building. It's not the content itself I object to, which is just a content dispute, it's the editor's behavior in unilaterally imposing the content change in all articles in Wikipedia behind our back without any sort of consensus. Darwinian Ape talk 17:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
My warning was specifically about altering other editors' words. I don't see that act being repeated. And was also about not turning working wikilinks into dead ones. That too has not been repeated, I think. The rest was just advice. I don't see what you claim to be "revisionism" in the argument about whether "Turkish-Armenian War" should be "Turkish invasion of Armenia" - both terms are in use, but I prefer the latter because it is more accurate descriptively, and because it follows the title format found on many Wikipedia articles, not the least being 2003 invasion of Iraq. And even if the former is the one that consensus decides on for that specific article title, there can still be good reasons to use the latter wording as links in other articles. I haven't gone through all of Oatitonimly's edits on those other articles to check if he has had those good reasons. But I do find Oatitonimly's edits to be rather pointless (and thus, yes, pointlessly causing disruption) because without any accompanying backing argument they can be (and are) easily reverted. He needs to be encouraged to discuss things on the talk pages, present arguments for each major edit change, and realize that not everything needs to be fixed in a day. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I outlined my reasoning for the content dispute on the talk page of related article, I wont reiterate here. The edit pattern of the editor looked to me a clear attempt of whitewashing every instances of the use "Turkish-Armenian war" to bolster their move request and I am not convinced that they were trying to improve the articles by replacing it with their preferred version. I'm glad that you also see these edits as causing disruption. Darwinian Ape talk 19:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, his editing, especially at the start when he was breaking wikilinks and editing other people's words, has been disruptive, one could even say eagerly disruptive - but I think "whitewashing" is overstating the ambition of the edits: both "Turkish-Armenian War" and "Turkish invasion of Armenia" are used by sources, and one is currently the title, the other a past title and now a redirect. "Tendentious" is also overstating things, and the "not here to build an encyclopedia" assertion you made at the start is just not justified. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
When almost every edit of the editor was an attempt to replace the mention of "Turkish-Armenian war" with "Turkish invasion of Armenia" Considering the determination, bordering on zealotry, I think whitewashing is not an overstatement.(there are at least twice as many examples of this replacement campaign as I initially reported) There is also the issue of canvassing, edit warring and altering other editor's posts. And while it's possible to see each of these transgressions alone as inexperience, combined it's a clear NOTHERE like behavior. Darwinian Ape talk 15:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
What, exactly, do you claim is being "whitewashed"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Instances of the usage "Turkish-Armenian War" obviously. See their comment in the move discussion in regards to the common name argument right before they started the rampage of replacement: "Less words will always yield more results. You also have to consider how many of these are Wikipedia WP:FORK"(referring to google search results) I think they believe(erroneously) that by replacing the instances of the usage "Turkish-Armenian war" they will alter the google results or something. But given that the disruption seems to be stopped for now, I am OK if the admins would like to give the editor some rope, hopefully the disruptive behavior will not be repeated, although I'm not optimistic. This is not an area I am particularly interested in so I think it's unlikely we will collaborate in other articles after the move discussion. But I couldn't help but notice there seems to be a general bias in Turkish related subjects.(though limited my experience may be) There are some editors, unfortunately, who seems to be going to some enormous lengths to cast Turks in the worst possible light. I don't doubt there are proTurkish counterparts guilty of similar crimes, but they don't seem to be prevalent. Darwinian Ape talk 22:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Some could think you have just revealed a pov agenda. But, I think, to have said so openly what you have just said is only revealing a failing of some Wikipedia articles to properly convey correct information. Those articles should have informed you enough for you to realize how disturbingly wrong (and actually offensive) that "to cast Turks in the worst possible light" opinion is. The Turkish-Armenian War article is not at all well written - I would like to improve it but it is currently protected thanks to Oatitonimly's unproductive edits. Maybe revisit it in a few weeks or months and see if you still stand by your opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at linguistics articles[edit]

I've come across a pattern of disruptive editing at linguistics articles, notably at Hruso language and Sholaga language. In both of these articles, editors are edit warring to restore various kinds of inappropriate content. Shaiful Ali is adding lengthy notes about what sort of material ought to be added to the article at Hruso language, visible here for instance, while Av1995 has added large amounts of material having nothing whatever to do with the actual language at Sholaga language, visible for example here. This is being done as part of a school project, conducted by Chuck Haberl. The matter was raised at ANI a while ago (see here for the previous discussion), but nothing has been done to stop the ongoing disruption. I think some kind of intervention is needed, as this has become an aggravating problem for editors concerned with linguistics articles. At the very least, it would be proper to request that Chuck Haberl encourage his students not to edit disruptively. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Excuse me. I am Av1995. I am not editing disruptively at all. I was told to research about the language and very little is known about Sholaga, yet however more information is known about the people who speak the language. So my research has highlighted that. To conclude, the final assignment was to compile my research onto the wiki stub. All of the information I have put on the page has to do with Sholaga or about it's speakers, the Soliga tribe. My categories are: classification of the languge(Sholaga), names of the language other than Sholaga, The Soliga Tribe which I have clearly provided information about as the speakers of the language, Geographical Distribution which is where the language is spoken, examples being words translated from english to sholaga, and current events which includes how the Soliga Tribe's children who speak Sholaga are being assimilated into society. Lastly I end with my references and external links. I have shown you how every single section relates to the language Sholaga and therefore should in no way be considered inappropriate or disruptive to the current topic of the article. Please stop deleting my edits as I have not put all of the info up as a waste of time. I spent time researching and learning about the language too. If you want to, you may reference my links to question my information. But this is a very strict request to stop taking all my edits away. Thank you.
Av1995, there are two obvious ways that your edits at Sholaga language have been disruptive. Firstly, you have added content that has nothing to do with the Sholaga language, for instance, "The Soliga tribe used the penis of the Sambar deer to treat hydrocele. They also used the flesh of the House crow to treat anemia. The Soliga Tribe is extremely intelligent and knows much about their environment and the use of resources in its community." That is a very good example of something that does not belong in an article about a language. It is not linguistic information. The fact that it relates to the speakers of the language does not make it appropriate to a specifically linguistic article. Secondly, you have refused to discuss the issue on the talk page, and have reverted multiple users after they removed your additions. You reverted Kwamikagami here and me here. That is not an appropriate thing to do. If your edits are reverted, you need to discuss the dispute on the talk page, especially when multiple editors revert you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I did not make the entire article about that? That was one section of my edit. And I am new to wikipedia so I apologize if I did something wrong. I am unfamiliar on how to talk on the talk page. However, only the two of you have reverted me. Av1995 (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The Soliga's use of the penis of the Sambar dear to treat hydrocele is non-linguistic information. It does not belong in an article about a language at all. The fact that you did not completely fill up the article with information about the medical uses of animal penises does not make it appropriate. The talk page of Sholaga language can be found here. Click on the blue word "here" and it will take you to the page. You should have raised the issue on the talk page as soon as you were reverted. Respecfully, multiple users reverting your edits is generally considered a good reason to stop making the edit on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@Av1995: FHC is correct - you are being disruptive. I've left a message on your talk page explaining our policy on edit warring and the three-revert rule. We were all new here once and we understand you're a student. However, you are in danger of being blocked from editing, so stop this blind reverting and listen to what the other collaborators are trying to tell you. Katietalk 09:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm the instructor in question. FHC summoned me to this conversation. I've been working for several months now with Adam Hyland and the Wiki Education Foundation, and I've noticed a pattern of disruptive behavior as well.
  • An inexperienced (but well-meaning) editor makes changes to a stub page;
  • An experienced (but overzealous) editor reverts all of the new editor's revisions, often without explanation, but sometimes with abusive language (such as claiming that edits made in good faith are actually "disruptive," "unencyclopaedic," or "graffiti," in the hopes of flagging the new editor for punitive measures);
  • The new editor either gives up, frustrated beyond hope, and never makes another edit ever again, or re-reverts the perplexing and ill-explained reverts, opening herself to punitive measures. The overzealous editor(s) then uncharitably declares this to be a "revert war" (despite knowing that they are likely dealing with a new editor operating in good faith) and use the new editor's lack of experience to get her blocked from editing.
This is *not* collaborative. It is, in fact, the very opposite of collaboration. It's obvious to me, with all the prurient discussion of deer penises above, that you have an excellent idea of what is "unencyclopaedic" and what is "encyclopaedic," exceeding that of the average newcomer; if you had spent as much time removing only these elements as you clearly have spent trying to get my students punished, then Wikipedia would have some new editors, a few more collaboratively-edited articles, and a whole lot more good will. That is obviously not the tack that you have decided to take here.Chuck Haberl (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi folks. I'll take a look at the activity above and check back shortly. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Without a comment on the quality of the edits or the nature of the response, these issues can be defused if students don't edit to re-insert their contributions without taking to the talk page first. That's hard, because it puts the onus on the new editor to recognize what is happening, why and engage and allows the more experienced editors to wait and review changes. But if a contribution has multiple problems which might merit heavy revision or removal and it is reverted, re-inserting it will only make the communication problem harder. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Adam (Wiki Ed), why don't student editors simply work on Draft articles or ones in their User space? Then, their instructor can see their work but they won't run into obstacles that occur when they try to make big changes on narrowly defined subjects. Then the instructor or a Wikipedia volunteer can make suggestions or point out problems in their work and the new editors won't run into experienced, "overzealous" editors who are just trying to protect the project. Liz Read! Talk! 16:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Liz. That's normally our suggestion for work like this where a student aims to completely overhaul a page or create a new one. We were not involved with the course when it started up initially and reached out to Chuck in the course of the semester. I suspect that future classes where students use on our training and materials from the start will more heavily involve user sandboxes. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I was originally inclined along those lines, but the tutorial you guys asked me to follow suggested that it was better to get the students involved in editing Wikipedia directly as fast as possible (or did I get something horribly, horribly wrong?). It would have gone better for these students if they had started by making incremental changes to the page first, as I suggested from the start of the semester, rather than large scale revisions at the very end, but as it happens there is currently no way for faculty to mandate that students complete their work in advance rather than submitting it only when it is due.
This is actually the third year I've run this course, and just about every aspect of it works better each year EXCEPT for the Wikipedia part. The first year, in which there were only 30 students and I could monitor things more closely, worked quite well, but the following two years have been trying, to put it lightly. My sense is that the more engaged editors here prefer the stark, clean lines of a stub to what they perceive as amateurish edits, so they revert first and ask questions later. Students panic (because they perceive the other editors' interventions as vandalism), they re-revert, and then the veterans escalate the situation and I get emails (and the ones from Wikipedia editors are seldom very pleasant when it comes to intruders on "their" territory). It basically leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
At its base, it's a problem with the culture, more than anything else. In future years, I'll host a private wiki on our learning management system (we use Sakai) and let the students do their thing without provoking these kinds of unavoidable conflicts.Chuck Haberl (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Haberl, it is quite clear that your students have been editing disruptively at multiple articles. I have attempted, at the talk pages of both Hruso language and Sholaga language, to explain to your students why their edits have been problematic. Shaiful Ali simply ignored me at the talk page of Hruso language, while I had a short and unproductive exchange with Av1995 at the talk page of Sholaga language. Shaiful Ali and Av1995 have both edit warred to restore their changes, and in both cases they've done this even after being reverted by multiple users. That is disruptive behavior. Pointing that out is simply pointing out a fact, not being "abusive". I agree that one has to exercise some tolerance and understanding with new users, but that is different from defending disruptive editing, as you unfortunately appear to be doing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

For crying out loud... you're the one who has appointed yourself "guardian" of these pages, you should have put in a token effort to make yourself clear to the new editor, if you were going to take the responsibility in the first place. And calling a couple of reverts an "edit war" is pretty rich.Chuck Haberl (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Chuck Haberl: FreeKnowledgeCreator and the other editors put in much more than a token effort to explain the changes to Sholaga language, both in the edit summaries and on the talk page. The student's explanation for what appeared to every wikipedian involved as disruptive editing, was:
"[I] was only trying to keep it as the way I had edited it because my professor had said he would grade our finals today and that page was my final."
True, this doesn't seem to have happened on the majority of the pages edited by the other students in this project, but it nevertheless leads me to think that similar incidents could in future be prevented if it's emphasised to students that their contribution will be graded regardless of whether it sticks around or not. Uanfala (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I have indeed emphasized that exact point at several points throughout the semester, Uanfala.Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I would not, however, go so far as to say that all of the other editors put in even a token effort. The stage was set when, after three days of sustained edits on the part of my student, ALL of her effort was summarily reverted by one of your veteran editors, who justified his move with only a few words in the in-group house jargon of a certain class of Wikipedia editors ("rv. non-encyclopedic edits and content forking"). This immediately put her on the defensive and the rest is history.
I appreciate that Wikipedians have aspirations to professionalism, but this is so far removed from my own professional experience both as a writer and an editor, having contributed entries to reputable, peer reviewed journals, and edited entire scholarly volumes as well as authored monographs and journal articles, that I'm not sure what standard of "professionalism" the Wikipedian community is aiming for. If I or one of my past editors had treated a submission made in good faith in the cavalier way that he routinely does, we would likely not have a job in our industry for very long. Editing requires much more than just an encyclopedic content knowledge, it demands patience and close reading, and by reverting my students' work in this manner, he has paradoxically demonstrated that these are attributes he is lacking. Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll definitely let him know. Hopefully our institution has access to that journal through our subscription to JSTOR. If not, there's always ILL.Chuck Haberl (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Chuck, these articles should be tagged as works in progress at Rutger's so that (a) people know to leave them alone for the time being and (b) we can keep track of them to clean them up later. This was agreed to last year when we had the same problem. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that what the tags on the talk page do? If a student editor behaves as if they aren't aware their contribution will be graded regardless of whether it gets reverted, I think it might be up to us to remind them. Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

New and persistent block-evading spammer[edit]

I see we have a persistent new spammer who has now popped up under several different usernames, including at least these:

They are promoting more than one domain. Their current MO involves edit messages saying "I fixed dead link and deleted dead link" (or similar). They seem to be persevering in spite of multiple blocks. They have revisited some pages more than once, eg. Educational Policy Institute, sex education. -- The Anome (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}}
Please take this to WP:SPI. It would be better handled there than at ANI. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Domains blacklisted. MER-C 13:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
When I came across Chaudharijp yesterday, the MO seemed familiar and I think it might have been additional editors besides those you have listed that made me think this. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if a checkuser found more connected accounts. I endorse your checkuser request. Deli nk (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
SPI opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Utpattiecom. MER-C 03:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblocks for the 166 animation hoaxer IP[edit]

If you're not familiar with this LTA, you can check out User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat. Basically, the editor vandalizes animated children's films by adding fake credits, crossovers, and music tracks. For example, changing the Genie in Disney's Aladdin to say that Liam Neeson played him, then adding Rugrats characters to the cast. And, for good measure, maybe changing Liam Nesson's article, too.

While investigating which IP ranges to include in this report, I was pleasantly surprised to find that several ranges have already been blocked, including 166.137.104.0/21, 166.173.48.0/20, and 166.177.96.0/19. So, here are a few more listed by /24, dated by activity, and including links to obvious uses of that range:

  • 166.137.216.0/24: 67, 71, 186, 245 (April)
  • 166.137.217.0/24: 38, 48, 90, 147, 204, 213, 218 (March, April, and May)
  • 166.137.218.0/24: 29, 68, 81, 107, 179 (March, April, and May)
  • 166.173.184.0/24: 36, 73, 100, 123, 125, 252 (February, March, and April)
  • 166.173.185.0/24: 0, 23, 41, 65, 148 (April and May)
  • 166.173.186.0/24: 23, 25, 90, 133, 234 (April)
  • 166.173.187.0/24: 4, 7, 44, 48, 50, 72, 106, 166, 188 (February, March, and April)

Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little busy today but I blocked 166.173.184.0/22, which covers the last four ranges on your list. I'll look at the others when I have time later. Katietalk 18:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Also blocked 166.137.216.0/22 - there was more disruption from this range than the first one. Katietalk 23:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, this is a prolific vandal, and I got a few more limited rangeblocks applied in the past. I had proposed a few /21s and /22s before, but the disruption hadn't yet boiled over enough, I suppose. I think this covers pretty much every IP range used to date. Hopefully, the the vandal will find a new hobby. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
wWhat is with the 166 ranges? There seems to be an unusual concentration of bad editors banned/blocked from this range. Blackmane (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The range belongs to AT&T Mobility. Most likely it's people using their phone's cellular connection instead of their home ISP to avoid identification or blocks. clpo13(talk) 23:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Several 166 subranges are also home to a long-term problem on many articles related to The Weather Channel. That editor is usually in the 166.170 and 166.171 vicinity, and I have blocked a few /24 there. DMacks (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing civility and ownership problems at Obergefell v. Hodges‎[edit]

We have an ongoing problem with WP:CIVILITY and WP:OWNERSHIP at Obergefell v. Hodges‎, a page on a vital US Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage. User Antinoos69 is bullying those who would edit an article which he has admittedly put a fair amount of work into, insulting them via the talk page and via edit summaries.

Civility

Ownership

Problems noted

I've deliberately kept the listing above to the past month, but looking at the talk page will show you that this is not a new situation; the user has called editors "ignoramus", saying "I can see you're being doggedly irrational and there's simply no talking with you", "You have clearly lost your mind and need to be stopped.", etc. The net effect is the creation of a toxic environment which discourages the involvement of other editors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  • More "bullying". When does rudeness or incivility or whatever become bullying? Sorry, side note I suppose, but doesn't one have to be in a position of power to be a bully? Drmies (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    • We could split on terminology; in physical world situations, I'd say that the willingness to use physical aggression is often what creates that power. In an online situation like this, it's the willingness to be uncivil. But if you wish to find a different term, I likely have no complaint. In any case, your attention is appreciated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • At the very least Antinoos is guilty of edit warring, having made this edit three times in the past week. And there's fighting over a word, here and on a few more occasions. Antinoos, I'm beginning to think there is something to this. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Antinoos is clearly aware of this discussion, not just because it was on his user page, but because he responded to a mention of it on the article's talk page (with "Was I meant to be impressed?") During that time, he has engaged in substantive editing on a couple of talk pages. Seemingly, whatever is to be done here will need be done without his input. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Geonotice Attention[edit]

Hello, I have a Geonotice request that has not been responded to and it is now a few days after when I had wanted the Geonotice to begin. Would anyone be willing to take a look for me? Fpl-dmatzrott (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: ^ --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
On my way! Deryck C. 22:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ylevental the Vandal[edit]

(non-admin closure) 31 hour block Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi. Ylevental is generally a bit difficult on autism topics due to advocacy issues but there is a recent behavior, that is intolerable, and has now been repeated.

He vandalized Wikipedia in this dif late on April 8, changing the name "Sanders" in a citation to "Hitler". He was reverted by another user; I saw it and warned him that this was not acceptable.

He wrote to me that he has installed an extension on his browser that changes "Sanders" to "Hitler" that he uses on other websites and forgot to turn it off when he came to Wikipedia. I told him "it's my browser not me" is a bad answer, and he should never do this again. That diff was on an autism-related article and I thought it was some kind of autism universe politics thing. Still unacceptable.

He has done it again, now changing "Hillary" to "Hitlerly". OK, so I get it now, this is plain old politics. Whatever.

He'll probably claim "browser extension" again. I don't care; he has vandalized Wikipedia in a particularly ugly way. Please block this person for a good long time. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Standard 31 hour vandalism block. If he can assure us that this browser extension is done causing these sort of edits - and will stay done - I have no objection to another admin unblocking. SQLQuery me! 15:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - Jytdog (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abusive content at IndyCamp Live[edit]

Given that finding any (current) issue was difficult (as in I couldn't find one), especially considering the recent fixes by Eik and Drmies, and, as Drmies saying that we're done here, we're done here. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 22:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IndyCamp_Live#cite_note-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.58.130 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC) — 2.98.58.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Aside from the annoying ad links on that reference, what's abusive about it? Are you griping about the "Camp Stupid" comment? Do they not allow satire in Scotland? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I've removed a lot of the article. Quite a few issues: Extraneous details, coverage of small developments(i.e the campers representing themselves), confusing language like "The organisers of the camp say they will remain there until one of them cashes a giro". The article just felt like someone came upon it and decided to turn it into not just an attack page, but a bad article all-around. Check out the last paragraph of the article before I edited it. It literally said "The campers have failed to get their eviction proceedings thrown out. They believe that their case will bring about the dissolution of the United Kingdom because they are delusional, self-centered fools." Eik Corell (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
A few characters aren't happy that they lost the referendum. How is this story even newsworthy? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Didn't even think of that angle, that's actually an equally big problem. Eik Corell (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I just want to thank Wikipedia and all its contributors for reminding me of the word giro--a memory of a happier time. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Problem solved. If there was one. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting incident of bullying on wp:Merrick Garland by editors jonathunder, neutrality, and LjL[edit]

WP: Bullying states that editors should immediately report incidents of bullying on this page. I am doing so here. Initially, I wasn't aware of the existence of another page, WP:Merrick Garland Supreme Court Nomination, but that isn't directly relevant. I wanted to include material related to that nomination, but I wanted to start first by laying the groundwork on the Talk page, rather that going in to the main article first. I contend that's the better method in this case. I then added a new section to the Talk Page, NOT the main article, including a paragraph, attempting to explain what I was about to do. I was immediately set upon by rude editor Jonathunder, who did not enter a response; he merely deleted the paragraph that I wrote. Thus, his attempt was to ensure that no consensus could possibly be formed by other editors, which was clearly his intent. I immediately reverted his deletion, as he was obviously wrong at that point. Remember, this was on the Talk page, NOT the main article. Jonathunder was obvioiusly engaged in a WP:Edit War. He proceeded to further misrepresent what he THOUGHT I would be doing in the future, and he was quickly backed up by another thuggish editor, Neutrality. (Evidently, so that it wouldn't be quite so obvious that Jonathunder was continuing an WP:Edit War. Eventually, another thug, LjL came in, helping both Jonathunder and Neutrality continue to obstruct me. This is obviously a pattern of tag-team abuse.

My position is clear: Even if these guys thought that what they figured I was eventually going to do (later, on the main article) was going to be wrong, they had absolutely no business summarily deleting a new non-vandalism paragraph on a Talk page. THAT is bullying. At most, they should have stated their concerns on that same Talk page, arguably to correct me or at least allow a consensus to develop. They did not. They went to abuse, first. I assert that I am entitled to include (my) opinions on Talk page discussion, and the mere presence of those opinions can't properly be used to shut down the discussion and consensus-building, even before it starts. Sadly, I am well aware that WP actual practice has become atrociously abusive, and has been so for many years. Don't try to defend their abusive actions based on what they claim to have thought might eventually happen: The reason that WP has such a terrible reputation of bullying is because many of its editors and administrators are, indeed, bullies.

Note: I will be away for a few days. My lack of an immediate response should not be construed as an abandonment of this complaint and position. 174.25.48.161 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Just some advice, 174.25.48.161, but when you come to ANI and refer to experienced editors, some who have been editing for more than 10 years, as "thugs", you better have diffs/evidence that points to the problems you are encountering. You need to point to edits that you believe are abusive not just provide a narrative that is your side of the story. Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Jonathunder would have done well to have written a better edit summary for this edit. And while that post is chatty, it's not entirely WP:FORUM-y. Having said that, Liz is absolutely correct in that coming out with guns blazing and personal attacks flying around ("bullying"--oh dear) is not a good strategy, or eve strategery. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll agree I should have used an edit summary, not rollback. I was too hasty there. I also appreciate the good Dr. Fleischman's efforts to diffuse the situation. Jonathunder (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Please allow me to provide my take on this as an involved editor. The first edit made by our IP editor--174.25.48.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 75.175.105.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)--was at Talk:Merrick Garland and appeared to four different editors (myself included) to violate WP:NOTFORUM. In fact, in subsequent discussion the IP explained that he/she did not intend that comment to be forum-y but was instead using the talk page in a sandbox-like manner to develop content that he/she wanted to add to the article eventually. I am willing to take him/her at their word. However, my suggestion to create an account and use a sandbox was not taken well to say the least. Since that first contribution the IP has been extremely disruptive and has appeared incapable of listening and communicating in a civil manner or contributing in any way beyond complaining about perceived slights and the shortcomings of Wikipedia. I do not think that a single comment he/she has made since that first one has been be devoid of some sort of incivility. In my view the IP believes that he/she must engage in battle, and if that belief is not quickly dispelled then I do not think he/she is capable of making a meaningful contribution. P.S. I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • My one action in this incident has consisted in reverting what I deemed (like various other editors before me) to be clear WP:NOTFORUM content on the talk page, with an explanatory edit summary that I tried to make as clear as possible. After that, I've silently witnessed myself (like other editors) being called a "bully", a "rude person", purposely "obstructing development of the article", and a "thug". I contributed nothing further, until I was notified of this report. That is all I have to say. LjL (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User Page IP vandal[edit]

Rangeblocked. If they are back, let Bishonen (or another admin) know. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 20:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NewEnglandYankee&diff=718811146&oldid=718811091 This was made by 2601:481:C200:6E20:EC2D:261A:C6AB:5D10. He has been harassing User:NewEnglandYankee. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ANewEnglandYankee&type=revision&diff=718811271&oldid=718811199, and various other spam. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This is 2601:481:C200:6E20:EC2D:261A:C6AB:5D10 (talk · contribs · 2601:481:C200:6E20:EC2D:261A:C6AB:5D10 .html#whois WHOIS). They've also attacked User:Anythingyouwant. I've blocked the IP for now. -- The Anome (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There's not much point blocking them singly, they'll get a new one every time they turn off the computer — or something — anyway, they'll keep getting new ones. There have been two of them already. A /64 range is usually assigned to a single customer, so I've blocked 2601:481:C200:6E20::/64 for 48 hours. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC).
User:Bishonen, if that's true, can you semi-protect my user and talk page, because the IP goes after people who delete his edits. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll notify you again if I see another one. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Platypus, I'd rather not semi right now, because the rangeblock is supposed to mean they can't. That's what it's for. But I'll watch your pages and protect in case they return via a <struck per WP:BEANS>. Do notify me, yes please. Bishonen | talk 20:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wasickta and repeated OUTING / harassment[edit]

BLOCKED:

Wasickta indefinitely blocked by Katie for harassment and threats. Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Wasickta has been removing content from an article, most recently in this edit, where he claims "Discuss on talk page. Alan Sohn you are an elected official of the town of Tenack NJ. Why are you trying to lower house prices in Rumson NJ by scaring people?". The claim that I am able to use Wikipedia to influence home prices in communities 60 miles away from me as part of an effort to benefit myself is patently absurd.

Wasickta has been part of a rather malicious effort at WP:OUTING elsewhere and this only perpetuates this battle. Whether at User talk:Jytdog#COI, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Local Politician Shaping Views Using Wikipedia: Conflict Of Interest, or in any of his other edits at Special:Contributions/Wasickta, there is a rather clear vendetta here.

Can I please ask for a block and to have edits by Wasickta that mention me deleted from history. This harassment has to end. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Alansohn declared in his wikipedia introduction his name and his address: [[107]]. How can we label this an outing when Alansohn himself told everyone his name and address?! Alansohns personal attacks are outrageous! Wasickta (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Why are you constantly pinging him, anyways? GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Wasickta, an edit summary like "Why are you trying to lower house prices in Rumson NJ by scaring people?" is not appropriate. You are imputing motives to an editor simply because of an edit they made on a local high school? This is not about Alansohn's identity, it's been a slow edit war between the two of you on including this negative information on the article. You should stop maligning Alansohn and move the discussion to the article talk page to involve more editors. Attacking the editor, rather than discussing the dispute over the edit, could easily lead to a block should you continue on this path. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I saw all the brouhaha yesterday and assumed it had blown over. I guess not. @Wasickta:, you're now one-way interaction banned from mentioning, interacting with, reverting, or otherwise acknowledging the existence of, Alansohn. If you continue, I'll block you indefinitely. @Alansohn:, I don't think revdeling or oversighting Wasickta's edits from project space (the noticeboards, userpages, etc) is necessary, they're not being i-banned for outing, they're being i-banned from harassment, and there's no squeezing toothpaste back in the tube. I'll revdel where they've made that claim in article histories, as it's a particularly obnoxious place to say that, although I'm not 100% sure that's a completely kosher use of revdel i hope no one minds. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I mind. Would JimboWales consider this you covering up political corruption and trying to influence future NJ elections? Go ahead ban me. You are ending up in the paper just like your friend at University of Auburn is(probably your sock). Wasickta (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that's enough. I've blocked Wasickta indefinitely for harassment. If someone disagrees or wants to shorten the block, I have no objection, but I have a very low tolerance for this kind of harassment and threats. Katietalk 23:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Whoa, someone from Auburn is involved? That's revolting, Floq. Choose your friends/socks more wisely. Roll Tide, Drmies (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent abuse of categorization by IP[edit]

The IP 76.88.107.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been in a sustained effort to add certain categories to pages. While a number of their edits are moderately helpful, a great many of them constitute gross overcategorization. I have been trying to avoid requesting a block for this IP, instead trying to clean up after them and guide them to a better understanding of the principles of categorization (four notices over the last three weeks at User talk:76.88.107.122 § A couple of notes on categories), but they continue without a response to my notices or even a change in the pattern of their edits. The effort it takes to review their high volume of edits is getting to be too much for the handful of editors who have addressed this, myself not least of all. I'm hoping a temporary block, of at least one week, will encourage this editor to check their talk page, take the time to review the guidelines, and hopefully discuss the issue with other editors. Ibadibam (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruption by TrumpErmNo et al.[edit]

So there's a lot going on here. I met this editor on the congressional LGBT article above. There may be more IP's. These are just the ones that converged on that article. I did some work there to remove the refimprove and apparently they take issue with it, and also some content that was there prior, which they attribute to me. I haven't re-revd because it would be basically 3RR entrapment, and this thread needs to happen anyway. Apparently I didn't discuss on the talk, which I created yesterday when I revd their edit.

Five warnings on the registered talk page not including mine today, and an apparently unheeded one from Drmies regarding their username. Two additional warnings on the talk for the 86 IP.

They seem to be centered on politician related pages almost exclusively, lists and bios. There's a lot of unexplained removal of content and a bit of addition. Admittedly, some edits seem to be either neutral or maybe productive(?), but there's a lot of disruption. I figured initially I would history surf a bit, revert, and move on, but given their edits...its gonna be a chore. User has 619 article edits on the registered account alone.

I can't say totally that this is intentional socking without further evidence. May just be forgetting to log in. At any rate, this needs addressed. (Notifying user and IPs of ANI post haste) TimothyJosephWood 21:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit... Should have done this prior (mb). One IP geolocates to the UK and one to the US, so it may likely be coincidence. 147 is at Ball State U, and only has five edits. Probably followed the LGBT article to David Dreier. On the other hand, the 86 IP has 347 edits, geolocates to the UK, and also has a history of editing articles on UK politicians, as does TrumpErmNo. TimothyJosephWood 22:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think a username block of TrumpErmNo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is warranted. Jonathunder (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Disagree. It does not violate the username policy. It has a political sentiment, but is not offensive or disruptive. No comment on other behavior though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, what to say. I am going to block TrumpErmNo for that user name; they just need to change it. I see no evidence of intentional foul play, let's put it that way. EvergreenFir, I hate to disagree with you, but a Trump lover will have a hard time saying "Hey TrumpErmNo, not to get personal, but I really think that the edit you made to the Earl of Hupsaflups's categories is not so great". We want to be a big tent, inclusive of everyone. With a kinder, gentler machine gun hand, so to speak, which is why I made it a softblock. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate an uninvolved undo on the LGBT page. But I can do it myself if need be; I'm only at two. The real issue is the crimes page. There has been a lot of content removal. TimothyJosephWood 22:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Nothing impedes your fixing it. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Is true, but per Caesar's wife, is always best to avoid the appearance of impropriety. As the user is banned, probably not an issue, and over cautiousness on my part.TimothyJosephWood 00:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hypocrisy. Its not okay to have username titled 'TrumpErmNo' but it is okay to refer to Trump as Drumpf? A name John Oliver dug up and described as "Drumpf is much less magical. It's the sound produced when a morbidly obese pigeon flies into the window of a foreclosed Old Navy.". Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Struck per below. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Only in death does duty end, well this is embarrassing. So apparently the John Oliver app installed on the browser I was using changed the comment above. Good thing I don't really edit politics articles. Many thanks to DHeyward for catching. TimothyJosephWood 14:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see what the problem is on List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes, some of the edits are just removing unnecessary headers. As far as List of LGBT members of the United States Congress, it looks like an edit war which is a content dispute. You've started a discussion on the talk page which is the next step, not coming to ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure I disagree, but I have things happening, and will try to respond in more detail in the morning. TimothyJosephWood 01:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I will agree that it looks a lot like a content dispute at first glance, but in detail it's really just disruption.
  • Removal of a {{cn}} on the only uncited person on the list.
  • Removal of the content sure, but removal of the sources serves no purpose. The article had been tagged with {{refimprove}} for two years.
  • Keeping in mind all this started because I initially reverted this edit, where the user added a slew of politicians who were not out, but rather were involved in various sex scandals. (They had a similar conflict on this edit, undone twice on another article.)
  • My revert there led to two attempts to simply remove the sentence stating the list only included out people.
  • Refusal already to discuss, after I began the talk page when I revd their extensive sex scandal edit coupled with the demand that I "should ask the talk page before making these edits," (edit summary) when again, at the time, the talk consisted of one post by me. The content removal may have been bold, but the onus is on the remover to discuss, as I attempted to do.
  • Indication that the removal of the content may have had more to do with me than the content:

"Can I point out that the unnecessary information wasn't there until you edited the page, so clearly all the countless editors before you didn't think adding such trivial stuff was important" (edit summary)

  • Notwithstanding that some of the content removed wasn't added by me.
So in a nutshell, user with a penchant for trying to label not-gay politicians as gay gets their edit reverted, and decides to be disruptive. As I said above, my first impulse was to just clean up the mess, but after looking at their history, and seeing that they've garnered eight different warnings on two accounts in a little more than a month, I figured a report was appropriate.
I'm going to look into more detail on the other article. But this is getting long. TimothyJosephWood 12:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I...don't even know what is going on with List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. TimothyJosephWood 15:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be quite a bit of overlap between TrumpErmNo, the IP, and banned user Huge456. Not sure about CaptainYuge. I'm not really sock-savvy, and someone who is may want to look into the whole ordeal, maybe request a check.
I do notice that Trump was unblocked today by Yamla, and has made it a point to remove warnings from their talk, but not to request a name change. The IP is also continuing to edit, which is an issue if they actually are the same user. TimothyJosephWood 16:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Violent threats[edit]

OP blocked. If you see any page under restrictions from ARBCOM, just request 500/30 protection at WP:RfPP. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

I have been receiving violent threats from User: Huldra and User: SeanHoy(Redacted) and I wanted to know if I can now involve the police? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.156.14 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Simply report yourself to the police or a mental healthcare facility and provide the evidence of the threats of physical and sexual violence you issued. You can copy them from Special:Contributions/101.160.158.29. They should be able to help you. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Obvious block evader blocked. The is the Telstra vandal. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

<- The articles they touched should have extended confirmed protection. They should already have had extended confirmed protection. All of the articles covered by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 should already have had extended confirmed protection applied. If extended confirmed protection had been implemented across ARBPIA, this charming Israel supporter would not have been able to disrupt these articles and all of the others they have disrupted or use them to issue threats of physical and sexual violence via edit summaries which then need to be revdel'd.

  • If there is a server based method available that automates the ARBCOM authorized restrictions in ARBPIA why is it not being used right across ARBPIA?
  • Why are ARBPIA articles still being disrupted by people who don't meet the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 requirements and why are editors still receiving threats of physical and sexual violence via ARBPIA article edit summaries when stopping that is a simple matter of implementing the ARBCOM restrictions via extended confirmed protection? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Charming. More here: User:Huldra/Telstra-socks...and could some-one please rev-del this edit-line? Thanks in advance, Huldra (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe I have rev-del'ed the edit. This is my first time doing so; please check my work. --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-User:Yamla, yes, you have, thanks! And that something is still visible to admins does not bother me.....What bothers me is if "everyone" (including the Telstra-vandal himself) should be able to see it, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You can always ask for my assistance as someone who can explain Wikipedia and ARBPIA to new Israeli users in words they understand.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Bolter21, thanks, but the Telstra-vandal is in Australia (presumably: that is where Telstra operates), and I consider the probability of turning someone who has made countless death and rape threats into a "constructive editor", well, that probability is equal to 0. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I see.. Well maybe I"ll reach into his heart by saying he advocates anti-Israelism among Wikipedians which really disturbs my work.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure whether or to what degree this particular individual encourages anti-Israelism among Wikipedians, but I suspect they may not be a graduate of the Young Ambassadors Program. Rather than reaching into their heart, it might be more effective to throw a copy of Cleckley's very readable The Mask of Sanity at them from a distance and back away slowly. But for interest, I can certainly say that when I started editing Wikipedia I didn't support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and now I do, in part because of extensive exposure to a large number of badly behaved Israel supporters in Wikipedia and the contents of maybe thousands of RS I had to read because of all the sockpuppetry, armchair-activism and WP:NOTADVOCATE violations. Ironic, and I'm guessing that for any given rational agent with no connection to the conflict who spends a significant amount of time in ARBPIA (rare beasts) there is a high probability that they will acquire a net negative change in their opinion of Israel supporters in general and Wikipedia in general, regardless of whether that is fair or accurate. And if they make enough edits that faithfully reflect RS according to policy and revert disruption they will eventually be labeled pro-Palestinian. Eventually they may actually become pro-Palestinian, although it's never clear what that entails exactly or how it differs from being pro-human. I suppose setting a good example as an Israel supporter is the way to counter these things, but if everything was working properly here it should be impossible, or at least very difficult, to figure out anyone's personal views unless they explicitly state them.
Either way, I think a much more important issue is that there are allegedly 1307 admins for English Wikipedia, 552 of them active (as of 2016-05-06) but very few of them are here at ANI responding to requests and questions. They can't all be listening to the new Radiohead song. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor continually removing my comments from a talk page.[edit]

The talkpage refactoring was appropriate. Talkpages are there to discuss how to improve the article. OP banned blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure) (corrected, hope you don't mind - there's an important difference. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC))

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

I shall try to make this as short and sweet as possible.

User:RexxS followed me from a (heated) discussion to an article he had never edited before (or discussed before) and reverted me. I warned him on that article's talk page about following me and requested that he stop following me.

I also discussed my edits with another wikipedian (I had mistakenly removed a reliable source, while removing an unreliable source and explained that it was my mistake and that of course I had no problems with that reliable source remaining on the article)

User:RexxS, however continued to delete my comments (both those directed to him, and to other editors) and edit the title of the thread from my initial title, to something else. I have commented on my talk page, his talk page, the article's talk page, to request that he leave my edits alone. This editor seems to think that my legitimate claims of him harassing me are grounds to call my edits personal attacks and delete them. (why he was deleting my comments to other editors, I don't know) I tried to appease him, and asked him really nicely to stop. He even posted "you are now under legitimate scrutiny. I'll be checking your edits for other examples of you damaging the encyclopedia and I will take action if I find them" I just wanted this guy to leave me alone and he thinks he can delete messages to other editors from me, and explain that I am "under legitimate scrutiny"?

I wouldn't have minded so much if he was just changing the thread title, I changed it myself to something a little more neutral, but he was removing half my comments. I started the thread to discuss his conduct, and he wants to change the title to make it about me? He's completely changing the meaning of what I'm trying to communicate, by changing the thread title.

below are the diffs from him removing my talk page comments.

[[108]] [[109]]

and this is him explaining how he will follow me...

[[110]]

this is my attempt to calm things down.

"I don't wish to fan the flames and increase the drama, but please don't change my comments on talk pages - this of course includes thread titles. If you don't follow me to other articles, our paths are unlikely to cross again, and there will be no need for further unfriendly interaction. Thanks and have a lovely day. "

hmmmm that didn't seem short or sweet, but it's about the best I can manage. I don't need this guy blocked from editing. I don't care about the article he reverted me on, I don't plan to edit it again. I would just like someone to explain to him to leave me alone, don't follow me and don't touch my comments, please. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

No attempt to notify me as required. The timeline below shows clearly that Spacecowboy420 has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and removal of reliably sourced content from articles. It is astonishing that he should accuse me of WP:WIKIHOUNDING after I justifiably reverted him once. Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. My emphasis on repeatedly.
It is well established that baseless claims of WP:WIKIHOUNDING are considered personal attacks and I've used that exception to WP:TPO to refactor the personal attack at Talk:Rodeo, despite Spacecowboy420 restoring the attack twice more. His personal attacks on me are the only reverts I've made on that talk page. The talk page discussion currently has the neutral title that I provided.
This ANI report is a frivolous attempt to deflect blame from Spacecowboy420's unacceptable conduct. It is clear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. All of his edits now require scrutiny from uninvolved editors. I am an experienced editor in good standing and I ask for admin intervention to ensure that I am not subject to further personal attacks from Spacecowboy420. --RexxS (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
You followed me from MontanaBW's talk page, to an article you had never edited before and reverted me.
I explained more than once that the removal of the reliable reference was a mistake. I even posted on the editor in question's talk page and apologized for the removal, again explaining that it was a legitimate mistake.
You removed comments directed to three different editors from the article talk page. If you had only removed comments directed to you, I might not have care. There were three different comments, for three different editors.
If you don't want people to make "personal attacks" by suggesting that you followed them from a talk page, to an article, and reverted them, then don't follow them and revert them. Leave me alone. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Spacecowboy420, just two days ago, you accused Montanabw of wiki-hounding and now RexxS. I think you are a bit quick on the trigger to accuse editors of hounding you. All of these edits occurred over the space of a few days. While both you and RexxS have been a bit uncivil, if you read WP:HOUNDING you'll note that it states there are legitimate reasons for checking another editor's contribution history if "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I don't believe RexxS's aim is one of "creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor". Liz Read! Talk! 13:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Accusations (legitimate or not) about another editor's motives are not appropriate for an article talkpage. They either belong on the editor's talkpage or a relevant noticeboard - so your talkpage edits at Rodeo were ripe for removal/refactoring to remove the personal attacks. TPO is quite clear on this. Likewise Hounding is quite clear that checking another editor's editing history when they have a pattern of related problematic editing is not hounding. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree that perhaps I was a little too quick to make "hounding" accusations (I put that down to one of RexxS's buddies following me from article to article.) And while I wouldn't really mind if RexxS was only removing my comments regarding hounding from the article talk page, I find the editing of my thread title to be misleading (people will think that I made that title) and the removal of my comments to other editors to be unacceptable. My comments to other editors were not related to any interaction that I was having with RexxS and certainly not something to be removed. An "experienced editor in good standing" should not be changing thread titles in order to mislead people, neither should an "experienced editor in good standing" be removing article talk page comments clearly addressed to other editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Surprisingly enough, after looking through previous ANI reports, I came across this: [[111]] Equally surprising is the fact that the other editor who was stalking me (Montanabw, the editor who's talk page RexxS followed me from) is on that ANI report against RexxS, supporting him. Excuse me if I don't assume 100% good faith in the action of these two tag-teaming editors. They turn up to support eachother on ANI, they tag revert me, they both follow me around and act all offended when I call them out on it? I don't care about their silly horse related articles, I am happy to never edit another horse related article again, all I would like is for these two to please leave me alone. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you still insisting that your talk page thread title of "User:RexxS WP:WIKIHOUNDING" is an appropriate title, and that refactoring that is unacceptable? If so, you ought to be taking an enforced break from editing Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you think that when you changed it to "== User:Spacecowboy420 WP:VANDAL ==" it was more appropriate? If so, you ought to be taking an enforced break from editing Wikipedia. Actually, RexxS there are two things that I was curious about. When I changed the title to "== unacceptable editor conduct==" why did you have to edit the title again? Was that title also inappropriate? Also, why did you remove comments clearly for two other editors, that didn't mention you? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you not think that if you had've conducted yourself in a better manner, and not made such poor edits, RexxS might not have felt the need to adjust a title which was designed to harass and then go around clearing up your shoddy edits? I suggest you go and get on with your life somewhere else and not give people the need to have to monitor your behaviour. That includes refraining from posting personal digs at other editors on an article's talk page, unrelated to the editor you have a problem with. No case to answer here as far as I'm concerned. CassiantoTalk 14:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It was also inappropriate, and for that I apologise, but I'm glad it gave Spacecowboy420 a clue about what is inappropriate in a title. I changed that to "Removal of sourced material" once I'd made my point. Twenty-five minutes later Spacecowboy420 chose to make the title "unacceptable editor conduct" - a title unrelated to the Rodeo article (the purpose of the article talk page). --RexxS (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

edit conflict... apologize if this cmt is now redundant

Simplify. Spacecowboy, you removed RS content. Best way to deal with that is simple. Just apologize and move on. The heading to a thread that is blatantly not neutral, that attacks another editor, by WP standards, can and should be removed. Rexx cam be forgiven for responding to your attack and perhaps you could be forgiven for the initial heading had you apologized and not edit warred. People become upset. However, you were edit warring to keep in place a personal attack on an article talk page and pushed that agenda to a notice board attempting to implicate an editor further which extends the initial attack on the talk page. Time to acknowledge that behavor and back away. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC))

Action is needed. He's now back to his "animal cruelty" agenda and edit-warring at Eight Belles - another of the articles mentioned at MontanaBW's talk page. Let's be clear: MontanaBW is a well-respected editor of horse topics, with tons of GAs and FAs. She has every right to have horse-related articles on her watchlist. --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference spam[edit]

39.37.116.188 (talk · contribs) seems to be only here to add references written by one Muhammad Aurang Zeb. Anyone think this is worth a mass revert? They've stopped and may not be around again or for a while. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick search of Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal and found some valid academic sources online (see 1 and 2). It might be a student or scholar who is very familiar with his work. I'd select a few references and judge them based on their merits rather than do a mass revert. I looked at a few and they seem legitimate to me. Liz Read! Talk! 18:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
See his profile at the Durham University where he appears to be a post doc, profile says that he's in Pakistan on a research project. The IP is a mobile IP in Pakistan, not at Durham. I have no idea about this area and don't know if the sources are good or not. —SpacemanSpiff 18:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is clearly inappropriate WP:REFSPAM. So many references to one individual's work across such a variety of articles like this doesn't occur without persistent self-promotion. Deli nk (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure. If the references are useful and pertinent to the statements they are cited to, I don't think it is critical to know who contributed them. I was a graduate student in two different programs and I can easily see myself adding references to the work of one of my professors or advisers to the relevant Wikipedia articles. I think we have to evaluate the references on their own. One I looked at was from a Routledge anthology and they are a well-respected publisher in academia.
Mind you, I am not arguing that all of the reference need to stay, I was just arguing against a mass revert. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It's refspam. 40-50 links added? All to same author's work, even in some places where a ref wasn't really needed? That's a shotgun, not a well-aimed approach, and should be mass-undone pending individual decisions by non-coi editors. Note: I had manually undone/rollbacked a few before I saw there was an ANI; will stop for now pending discussion. DMacks (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
User:119.158.13.23 went on a similar spree for the same author, at the time inserting the apparent PhD thesis. User:DVdm undid them at that time. Now we have a different IP from similar geographic area adding the followup work or replacing the thesis with that later work. That's a few patterns that seem too coicidental. DMacks (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Adding huge numbers of citations here to papers that, although they are published, have received few or no citations in the actual scientific literature? Definitely WP:REFSPAM. Wipe them all. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Mayor of London[edit]

Page requires protection as a matter of urgency to prevent the addition of pre-emptve information as the election is ongoing and the results have not been announced, the page is have information added, which should not be added until the result is announce. There is a high likelihood of an edit war to keep the pre-emptive information off of the article. Sport and politics (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for one day. The results should be clear by tomorrow, right? If not, we can revisit the issue. Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The results should hopefully yes, but the page is now having pre-emptive information added by auto confirmed users now as well. Sport and politics (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like full protection was needed, at least for the next 24 hours. Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The result has been declared [112] DrChrissy (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Wrong Wrong Wrong, only the first round has been counted see London Elects, the only reliable source in this case here. Sport and politics (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
With respect, if I read "Sadiq Khan has secured victory as London mayor...", from an RS, I was not wrong to make the post. It is verifiable, even though it might not be the truth. DrChrissy (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
If you read to the end, you'll see that that's just the first-preference votes, and because no candidate has more than 50 per cent, the second preferences are required. Khan will win, but it is not yet confirmed. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The final result will appear here. Sport and politics (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
...at around midnight UK time, according to BBC Radio 4. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I must say it's kind of nice to see another country besides mine with election angst. Not that angst is good. Just sayin'. It's Friday. I need wine. Katietalk 21:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

And now this edit war has itself made the news (remarks at 20:46). ‑ Iridescent 21:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
This was all entirely predictable. Out of interest, do articles relating to elections ever get pre-emptively protected? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
AFAIK no, and I'd be opposed to us doing so if we do do such a thing. As with sporting scores, election results are one of Wikipedia's most reliable recruiters of new editors, as they're something that require constant updating and are very easy for people without Wikipedia-writing skills to fix. ‑ Iridescent 21:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit too easy, as this shows! If the editors stay and start to make constructive edits, though, then I suppose it's worth the short-term disruption. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
If there's not actual voting still going on, how can the WP article affect the election outcome? It sounds like voting has stopped and they're now trying to figure out the results. I don't see anything for us to pre-empt. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The results have been officially announced (see e.g. [113]) so I have removed the protection from the Mayor of London and Sadiq Khan articles, and made very basic updates to them. More work needs to be done and it would be good to keep an eye out for vandalism, but I'm off to bed now. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

lol @ the yanks, "Londoners elect Muslim"... They elected a fucking lawyer actually :D 151.230.93.81 (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not about us affecting the outcome, 50.0.121.79, just about us being accurate. The rules state that the mayor's term doesn't start until the second day after the results are in, anyway, so Khan isn't officially the mayor until Sunday. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that an M.A. really counts for that much nowadays, in any case. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It turns out that, due to delays with the results, Khan doesn't officially take office until Monday (the relevant legislation states that the mayor's term of office will "begin on the second day after the day on which the last of the successful candidates at the ordinary election is declared to be returned") - see here, here and here. The Mayor of London, London and Sadiq Khan articles keep being edited to say that he took office yesterday, though. I'm not going to edit war over this, but someone needs to step in to correct things. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:Alvyray[edit]

Alvyray has been editing articles about or related to Pixar, and nothing but those articles, since he registered an account on Wikipedia in 2011. Thing is, he co-founded Pixar, which effectively makes these edits WP:COI. So for this reason, I am proposing a topic ban that would prevent him from editing any Pixar-related articles. Anyone agree or disagree? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 21:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

COI editing isn't against policy (as much as many of us would like it to be), but there are resources available for dealing with COI editors. You can add {{connected contributor}} to the article talk pages and user warnings such as {{uw-coi}} at Alvyray's user talk, and if you need help you can post something at WP:COIN. You might be surprised by how many COI editors start cooperating after being educated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this should be the beginning of a discussion not a topic ban. Some of his edits are making corrections about the origin of the company which I would assume he would know well. There is a clear COI here, but I think if the claims are supported by references, his information could enhance the article. He just should be making editing suggestions on the talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Can probably close as a teachable moment. TimothyJosephWood 15:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • i've left Alvyray a message about managing COI. This posting was an over-reaction. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
And he responded very nicely here. I don't anticipate trouble going forward - seems very reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

"Public password Wikipedianism"[edit]

Account blocked and locked by User:Bsadowski1. Pinguinn 🐧 21:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Behold Citizens for a democratic Wikipedia. There are obvious copyright issues associated with the idealistic notion that anyone can edit using this account. I ran across this by way of monitoring the somewhat promotional WaterSafe Installers Scheme (an article re: what seems like a fine idea in principle to my subjective/irrelevant mind; I have no truck whatsoever with the idea), and I surmise that my UAA inquiry regarding the potentially shared nature of the username led to this. I reckon I'm The Man for "tattling" to "the principal" about this, but there you have it. The argument at [114] against deletion of the article may provide some context. I apologize in advance if this turns into a septic poopstorm but, again, there you have it. - The Woman (aka Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC))).

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

FreeatlastChitchat comments and revision need addressing please[edit]

@FreeatlastChitchat: this editor has recently decided to include comments such as this in their reasoning for reverting an entry on the very contentious Talk Page about Yadav, that I have been engaging in the debate on for some weeks. The Masked Man of Mega Might has already warned two (2) other editors to not behave in such a manner, and I feel that even though there is a semi block on the article (which I'm not asking to be fully protected), this sort of language is not conducive to having the debate on content. I request some ANI advice and formal decision, please, on the editors obvious inability to leave POV out of this article. I see that the specific users who have been warned, and involved, do not speak English as a first language and it has become quite problematic in the end to attempt any meaningful debate, though not for a lack of trying by various people. I'm making no requests but some further advice please. I have not informed the user, as I am still working out how to correctly use the 'subt-ANI' above, of which I apologies for. I will put something basic on their talk page though

Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Notified. TimothyJosephWood 00:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

My thanks Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You asked for advice and here is my advice. Try to find a better source, this source has too much POV language in it, for example "Pak of lies", referring to Pakistan as a country. We should not allow such BS sources to begin-with. As for FreeatlastChitchat, he is calling the source what ever he is calling. His description is not intended towards an editor. I suggest closing of thread. FreeatlastChitchat and thread starter has been advised. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
You have misrepresented me in your comments, and you have ignored the language used by the editor, to be blunt.
Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Again, the language was directed at the source so to be blunt, the source uses harsh, hateful and POV language so he might have put it in milder words but considering that Wikipedia is usually edited by grown ups, the language is not that bad, rather your summary language is not any better than his. Leave him alone please, let him edit in peace. Thank you Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • When did calling a SPADE as a "SPADE" become an offence?

A nationalistic and highly POV Indian source has been used to insert the falsehood(what else do you call a Lie in Politically correct terms I have no idea, I could tone it down if you want but falsehood is the most PC word for lying that I have atm) that However, Rouhani dismissed this report, adding that RAW's involvement in Balochistan is a rumour. However this is the exact opposite of what Rouhani has said. Don't take my word for it, just take the word of the economic times and the Hindu, both of which are India papers. Every paper will give the information that 1)Rouhani was asked if there were any talks between PAkistans Chief of Staff and him about RAW's involvement and 2)He dismissed the idea of internal discussions about RAW as a rumor. There is not a SINGLE newspaper that claims Rouhani was asked about RAW's involvement and he said NO, RAW is not involved. He is talking about the rumour of internal discussions, not the involvement. I would also like to point out that this has already been discussed on TP and a consensus achieved. We can see here that The NOM was also pinged to the discussion but he conveniently choose to ignore the ping and has now edit warred about an issue which was already decided. So to sum up

  1. The nom should learn how to edit wikipedia's controversial topics from a mentor who has experience in dealing with controversial topics. Someone like MShahbaz etc if he is free can take up the task if they are willing. He should be mentored by the said experienced editor who should teach him step by step how to deal with text from nationalistic sources. The mentor should teach him that newspapers like this are prone to "twisting" the words of various international figures in order to "make them say" something which they have not said. The mentor should also teach him that when dealing with such sources it is VITAL that the entire article is read line by line instead of just reading the heading. The nom should learn about fact checking basics too, that when dealing with controversial topics editors must check MULTIPLE sources to make sure that they are putting "facts" in an article and not some POV mumbo jumbo.
  2. As far as the (personal attack) WP:NPA about my and other editor's English is concerned, I am willing to let it go if the nom issues an apology.
  3. The next time the nom is irked by an issue, he should make sure that the issue is NOT one that has already been discussed. Thread necromancy is quite hilarious in forums and whatnot, but here on wikipedia it just creates a hassle, so the next time the nom thinks someone is doing something wrong, just give the TP a quick look, maybe the issue has already been discussed.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - FreeatlastChitchat is filibustering about the source, but this is not about the source, rather about him. After responding here last night, he went and did two more reverts at the page with language like:
In the process, he was edit-warring with three or more editors and reaching 3RR, whereas I understand that he promised to voluntarily keep to 1RR under the terms of his last unblock. Later he went and did a huge revert at Balochistan conflict undoing a month's worth of edits. All this in a good day's work. It seems to me like Freeatlast is testing Wikipedia's patience.
(For the uninitiated, Pakistan claimed to have arrested inside its territory an Indian national based in Iran and accused him of being a spy, whereas India suspects that he was abducted from inside Iran or the Iran-Pakistan border. Iran is the only country that can determine the truth between the two claims and the Iranian investigation is quite the key to the whole episode.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no smoking gun in your comment either. It seems like people are brewing a storm in the tea cup! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Dragon Fly is just pushing his POV and dragging Freeatlast because of no valid reason, here's why:
I mean, he fills sections after sections at the talk announcing that sources that make up the current state of article, precisely the New Indian Express is not RS and is (blatantly) nationalistic, and thus should be removed, but when the same source supports his POV, he initiates an edit-war and even report the user at ANI for doubting the source?
This is irrespective of the fact that Dragon Fly has been repeatedly and categorically asked to "prove that the sources are not RS" and to "Point out which precise policy does the article in its current state violates". He has been suggested the same thing by another editor and was also advised by the same editor not to characterize mainstream news sources as "tabloid nationalistic propaganda" and that he needs to check Wikipedia policies. But to no avail. Instead he engages in an edit-war and reports Freeatlast when he challenged him here even though Freeatlast only commented about the source in his edit-summary and not the editor.
I dont know why Dragon Fly is being tendentious and owning the article while saying that he is going to re-write it in its entirety?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment about leniency shown to FreeatlastChitchat[edit]

Already there is an active ANI above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_in_Russian_soldier.27s_article and now this. There is also an WP:AE case going on. I am confused how this user is surviving here. There are many users who had faced harassment from this guy and not limited to one or two. One IP who tried to close the previous discusion two days ago, commented that FreeatalstChitchat is immune to long term sanction. FreeatlastChitchat is not a very good content creator, overall negative to this project. Only those users who like his biased pov support him. No administrator warned him for harassing a new user who created the article about Russian soldier, when he was Wikihounding Mhhossein. 2A03:4A80:7:441:8891:78E4:8E9C:106E (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You are doing nothing but testifying that there is a campaign going on against one editor who I categorize a voice of dissent here on Wikipedia and as every where else in the World, nobody is liking that voice of dissent here as well. People are hell bent to shut that voice. I hope these calls are rejected so that Wikipedia can be edited by people having many different views. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are getting involved, but you consider this as voice of dissent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Prokhorenko. All were wrong with their Keep votes and FreeatlastChitchat was right to check the contributions of Mhhossein and nominated the article for AFD, which harassed the new editor from Sri Lanka who created the article. 2A03:4A80:7:41A:9592:D44A:11A7:480E (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
How about you tell me why I should not get involved and you should? Also, what's wrong with nominating an article for deletion? How about you tell the community what policy he violated in nominating that article for deletion? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have posted my concerns, it is for someone with AN/I rights to make a judgement and any decisions. I'm not going to enter into a commentary on the way SheriffIsInTown, TripWire and the other Pakistani editors are behaving. When asked by someone with authority I will make a statement as to the ENTIRETY of this article and its talk page, as this will be the second time it has been done so by the AN/I. I stand by the full list of my comments as being the basis for my reporting this last effort to the AN/I. If I'm found lacking then so be it, but I think the ENTIRE article needs to be AfD'ed or their needs a long and lengthy ARBCOM by numerous senior editors, and as I feel the latter is something that nobody wants to spend time on, which they should imo, then the former is the best course. I'm at the point of considering this an FA style intervention and with said scrutiny, for anything remotely unbiased to be in the article....
Regards,
Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 03:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wheel-warring by template editor[edit]

Back on 4 May, template editor Jonesey95 decided that the template-protected {{Infobox NRHP}}, with tens of thousands of tranclusions, needed to have an error-tracking category added (no problem there), a change only announced at the relevant wikiproject's talk page yesterday. Because the majority of transclusions included a deprecated parameter (the parameter had previously been included, but a discussion concluded that the parameter's information was trivial and simply removed its functionality), we suddenly had tens of thousands of error pages with no real problems. I therefore restored the parameter with its contents commented out, the goal being to prevent this parameter from producing an error without displaying the trivial information. Within minutes, Jonesey reverted me and announced that he was enforcing project consensus. This is wheel-warring.

With this in mind, I'm asking that this user's template-editor right be removed. It's normal for wheel warring to result in an immediate request for arbitration, with a desysop often being the result even in first-time cases; in the same way, violating the firm statement at WP:TPE, And never wheel war with other admins or template editors, is grounds for immediate removal of this right, especially as this editor added this significant change to the template without even attempting to seek consensus beforehand. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you link to a page that displays the error, for everyone's benefit? Ibadibam (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
All or virtually all pages in Category:Pages using infobox NRHP with unknown parameters alphabetised under "G" are relevant (they're nearly the entire contents of the category); A. B. Leavitt House is one such. Please remember that I'm giving the details about the parameters merely as context for the wheel-warring, not as a fundamental part of the complaint. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I do not see how WP:WW applies to this case. I am not an administrator. I did not "repeat a reversed administrative action". Please help me understand what the problem is here. Nyttend restored the unsupported (not deprecated) parameter without discussion, against WikiProject consensus.
This abrupt escalation of a simple revert to ANI, without meaningful discussion, is uncalled for, as far as I can tell. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Please note that I started the good-faith discussion about this parameter at the WikiProject talk page, specifically noting that one unsupported parameter in particular would cause a large number of articles to be placed in a hidden error-tracking category. Nyttend added the parameter back to the template against WikiProject consensus before contributing to that discussion, and Nyttend reported me here on ANI while that discussion was ongoing and on its way to an amicable outcome.
I have engaged in good faith during this entire process, as I always do here on Wikipedia; I don't have the time or energy for drama. In an effort to extend an olive branch (unrelated to this ANI report), I have removed the parameter in question from the error-checking that the template performs, with a comment in the template code that explains this unusual situation. Readers of this section who visit the "G" section of the category linked above may not see the error message while the job queue catches up with this change. To see an article affected by this error-checking, visit Agat Invasion Beach, which has the unsupported parameter |address= in its infobox. The error is noted via a hidden category and in a red message that appears when you preview your edit, as is the case with most infoboxen that use this error-checking module. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The wording of WP:WW is not applicable, but the principle certainly is—people with advanced rights should not use those rights to revert each other. Nyttend's edit summary in diff is "Restoring the governing body (but as a hidden parameter) so that the thousands of pages with |governing_body= won't show up as template errors" is crystal clear. If it were the case that Nyttend was wrong, the procedure would be to post on the template talk page with a ping to Nyttend, and ask to have the edit summary explained. Wikilawyering about "consensus" is fine for edit warriors pushing some line in articles, but the technical side of Wikipedia is supposed to proceed in a more measured fashion, with technical explanations (not "I've got consensus so I'm reverting"). If there is a technical fix for the problem, that shold be explained on the template talk page. After waiting for any responses, then install the fix—do not revert and patch, particularly on a template that is apparently used in over 57,000 pages. Anyone who doesn't have time for drama should not be reverting other editors without due discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand here. In WW, I'm seeing this:

Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus.

It describes two reverts. I definitely understand the principle that there should not be back-and-forth reverting; the WW policy describes a sort of 2RR, similar to 3RR for normal editing. But in the incident described above, there was only a single revert.
The WW page also says:

Wikipedia works on the spirit of consensus; disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power wrestling. There are few issues so critical that fighting is better than discussion, or worth losing your own good standing for.

That's exactly what I was doing on the talk page, as you can see. In lieu of discussion, Nyttend made an abrupt edit that short-circuited the good-faith discussion and went against the established consensus of the WikiProject. And then instead of following the WW page's advice to "Seek constructive discussion, and aim to cool the situation and bring it back to normal processes, if able," Nyttend escalated the situation by posting here.
Please help me understand what part of this policy I allegedly violated, whether it is found in the strict wording or in the spirit of the wording, so that I can avoid doing so in the future. If this situation is truly wheel-warring, then I believe that the policy's wording is in need of clarification to explain that (1) a single revert can constitute wheel-warring and (2) template-editors, not just administrators, are subject to this policy. Thanks, everyone. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's see. (1) WP:TPE says They [template editors] are also permitted to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you decide that a change won't be controversial, only to find that it is, it's a mistake (but notice that you "should be aware of what kind of changes require gathering consensus beforehand and which don't"), but if you find your changes undone, it's controversial. (2) TPE says This is, fundamentally, an administrative-level right, and you are expected to behave with the accountability and stability that entails. You're subject to admin-type policies when editing template-protected pages. (3) Have you read the "editing disputes" section of TPE? This right should never be used to gain an upper hand in editing disputes. You have a privilege that most people do not have. The normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle does not apply because those without this right are unable to perform the "revert" step. Therefore, if your edit is or may be controversial (see the "When to seek discussion" criteria above), avoid making unilateral decisions, and instead propose the change on the template's talk page, and then make the change if there are no objections after a few days. Do not change the template to your preferred version when consensus has not been achieved yet to resolve the dispute. And never wheel war with other admins or template editors. You changed the template to your preferred version when there obviously wasn't agreement, and "wheel war" is here used to describe this kind of action. (4) Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. John protects a page, it's reversed (i.e. unprotected) by Jane, and John undoes the reversal (i.e. reprotecting). The policy is clear that a single revert can constitute wheel-warring. You caused the template to display an error when it included certain text, I caused it to stop displaying that error, and in a combative fashion, an administrative-level right was used to redo the action. If you revert me on a basis such as "that didn't work like you thought it would", or "this does the same thing more easily", etc., that's different, because you're fixing a technical error, but this wasn't that at all. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for being willing to engage.
(1) I understand this. The change I made was supported by the January 2016 consensus on the project's talk page. The change has been responded to with gratitude by editors who understand that it is highlighting errors in the infoboxes that would otherwise be hidden. I have received similar thanks for editing other infoboxes in the same way. In this case, because a single parameter was causing so many articles to appear in the error category, I started a conversation to let affected editors know and to offer some suggestions about how to address potential problems.
(2) You did not undo my change. The edit you made did not remove the articles in question from the category. If you had tested your change in the sandbox, as is suggested above, you may have noticed this. As you did in this case, I have made edits to templates that did not work, and I have been grateful when other editors have modified or reverted those changes in order to correct my errors. I have never reported those editors for helping me in this way.
(3) It was your edit that had the potential to be controversial, since it went against the project consensus and it was the subject of an ongoing discussion. You are the one who "change[d] the template to your preferred version when consensus has not been achieved yet to resolve the dispute."
(4) In your John/Jane example, there are two reverts. In our situation, there was only one, after which I reimplemented the spirit of your change, but with code that actually worked. You claim that your edit caused the template to stop displaying the error, but that is not true. You would have needed to edit the template's error-checking code in order to stop the affected articles from displaying the error. I reverted your edit in part because it did not achieve what you wanted it to achieve. As I said above, when other editors have done this for me, I have been grateful, not belligerent. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I'm missing something, here, Nyttend; wouldn't a better solution have been to edit the affected pages to remove the now-meaningless parameter (or, more likely, use AWB/ask someone who can to do so)? I guess I don't see how the original change to add error tracking is broken.
  • As for the charge of wheel warring, my personal $.02 is a distinct "meh". If we're being super lawyery about it, WW specifies "admin", not " people with advanced rights"--it's not entirely fair to judge someone on a policy that does not really indicate it applies to them.

    Only slightly less lawyery: it's commonly accepted that it's the third mover that starts to violate WW, but given that Jonesy's first edit was several days before, and the edits were not a straight "edit revert revert" sequence, is enough for me to say that it's not so clear-cut that Jonesy's action was in fact a third move.

    Significantly less lawyery: it seems to me that WW is a thing because wheel wars generally do a lot more collateral damage than simple edit wars on an article. Unblocking/reblocking is an obvious and canonical example; undeleting and redeleting is another. All these actions cause significantly more disruption to other editors than a simple edit war, and thus we have WW to prevent that. In that sense, it's easy to see why template editors should be included in WW in general--such a war on heavily-trafficked sites would be similarly widely disruptive. But in this specific case, there was actually very little disruption: the reader of the affected articles would not notice it at all (the added cat is hidden, after all), and the editor would just get an error message that isn't really incorrect.

    So, all these things considered, I'd personally call it a wash. Go, and edit-war on templates no more. We should probably look into expanding the scope of WW to include template editors and the like, but this is not a good case study for it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Writ Keeper. I was trying to make these same points. I think it might be worthwhile to start a discussion on the WW policy talk page to decide whether template editors, who have a newly minted permission that did not exist when the WW page was created, should be included in this policy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you disputing the basic facts of what Nyttend said (that thousands of pages were blocking a category due to your edit)? Are you disputing that Nyttend fixed that problem by reverting your edit? Are you disputing that Nyttend left a very clear edit summary explaining why the revert had been done? What is the urgency that your edit must be restored right now? In the future, please do not use advanced rights like that. There is no need to make this place more of a bureaucracy because if an editor cannot understand the situation once it has been explained they should not use advanced rights at all. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I dispute all of the above, because they are not facts. I have explained the sequence of events above. I will respond concisely to your individual questions below.
  • It is not true that "thousands of pages were blocking a category". I created an error-tracking category that added articles to an error category. Once I saw that the category had been populated with a popular but unsupported parameter, I posted a notice to that effect at the WikiProject's talk page, suggesting that the project's editors notify me if I had made a mistake: There are 53,000 articles in the error category, which makes me think that there may be an inconsistency between how the template is commonly used and how the template is coded, or that I missed some parameters when I added the check. If the latter is the case, ping me here and I will fix the problem ASAP.
  • It is not true that "Nyttend fixed that problem by reverting your edit". Nyttend did not revert my edit, and Nyttend's edit did not fix the problem, as I explained above.
  • I dispute that Nyttend left a clear, factual edit summary ("Restoring the governing body (but as a hidden parameter) so that the thousands of pages with |governing_body= won't show up as template errors"), because Nyttend's edit did not have the described effect – the pages continued to be listed in the error category, as I explained above.
  • Your next question, "What is the urgency..." does not make sense. My edit was never reverted. This is why I am so confused about how this sequence of events was referred to as a wheel war. Writ Keeper explained my confusion very effectively above.
  • You say "There is no need to make this place more of a bureaucracy because if an editor cannot understand the situation once it has been explained they should not use advanced rights at all." I assume that this is addressed not to me, but to Nyttend, who escalated a good-faith discussion to the bureaucracy of ANI and does not seem to understand what a wheel war is, at least as the policy is currently and clearly written, even after I explained that this situation was not a wheel war. It is possible that the policy has recently changed and that this particular sequence of events used to meet the wheel war criteria, in which case this is a learning opportunity for many of us.
Thank you for your questions. This experience has been educational. I hope that we can all move beyond this unfortunate misunderstanding. I am willing to let it rest, as Writ Keeper has suggested. If there is a discussion about expanding the wheel war criteria to include template editors and certain types of single reverts, which seems like a sensible discussion to have, please ping me, and I will participate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about my imprecision. By "revert" I meant that you had made an edit, and that Nyttend had changed the template in a way that you did not like (and which you undid three minutes later giving no reason other than consensus). I have not examined the edits in question because who is right and who is wrong is irrelevant. If Nyttend's edit broke something, by all means revert giving the technical reason why the edit had to be immediately reverted. Editing templates (particularly those transcluded on 57,000 pages) should not be done with the same approach taken in articles where it is standard procedure for the usual suspects to revert each other using any excuse they can dream up. If Nyttend's edit needed to be reverted immediately, give the reason in the edit summary. Otherwise, discuss it and explain what you believe was Nyttend's error and what you proposed to fix it. It appears you have never edited the sandbox—using the sandbox would avoid the need to make three edits to fix one problem. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Random non sourced bad faith edits[edit]

The user IP address 118.148.186.56 & this is changing the birth place and origins of articles, for the ANI's information, that seem to be disruptive more than anything.

Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 10:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Notified. May want to keep WP:AIV in mind. Usually better with run-of-the-mill vandalism. TimothyJosephWood 11:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
OK cheers will do.
Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 12:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

User exhibiting ownership claims[edit]

First, I hope this is the correct noticeboard to make this report. I am here to report Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for making statements and edits exhibiting WP:OWN of article content. On Captain America: Civil War, after I made some initial adjustments to that article's "Box office" section (the first of a few I was going to do) Joseph undid that change, using the edit summary to state "please let me do all the box office edit part. I've added 100% information there. lemme handle that portion." I restored the change, telling Joseph in my summary that their summary exhibited WP:OWN qualities saying "no one editor "owns" one section or another on an article. this section needs major work, and I'm about to work on cutting it down to a more managable section." (the last bit to tell them my intentions moving forward). Joseph proceeded to undo that edit with their summary a bit heated, as well as attempting to say there is a specific way to present the information (which there isn't).

I then proceeded to tidy up the box office section of the article, here and here, removing some unnecessary records (or "fluff" as I consider it), per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. After making these edits, I placed a notice on Joseph's talk page, where I hoped to expand slightly from my edit summaries why I made the changes I did, since I knew they would be interested in them.

After this, in an edit to the page not to that section, here, Joseph says that they will "have to re write the box office section. all the important informations are removed. lots of work to do" Please note they feel they have to rewrite the section, not readd anything I removed, as I suggested they could do in the talk page post I made to their page. And finally, in a response on my talk, Joseph exhibited some personal attacks, additionally saying that "No one has a problem with any of my 100+ articles edit in the box office section." (their main editing focus on Wikipedia), though this is not the case, if their talk page and contributions are examined. I hope admins or others can help with this situation. I'm not saying the full extent of my tidying edits should stay, that maybe something else can be brought back. But I don't feel it is helpful when one editor is attempting to control every aspect of this section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Very clear WP:OWN problems here. I don't immediately (without much investigation) see anything leading to a personal attack, though there's definitely some edit warring going on. I think perhaps it should be made clear to the editor that they do not get to own the box office section of articles. I wonder if it's worth enforcing restrictions? I'm not sure it is at this time. --Yamla (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Yamla: I felt their response on my talk was a little personal attack-y, but everyone has their own interpretations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
It is never a good idea to try to resolve disputes using edit summaries. Please bring your dispute to Talk:Captain America: Civil War where other editors can weigh in with their thoughts. Going to the article talk page, rather than reverting, should be your first course of action. Liz Read! Talk! 17:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Liz: I don't feel that any dispute was trying to be resolved in edit summaries. The reason I started this discussion here was because of the language Joseph used which cleared seemed to violate WP:OWN in my opinion. Since your comment, they have restored the whole formatting as they had it. Not only did that break reference formatting I adjusted to be consistent with the article on the whole, again, it was the whole section, not just parts they felt should have been added back. I have started a discussion regarding it on the talk page (after restoring the section for the ref formatting and my reasons of WP:INDISCRIMINATE), so I do hope that they join the discussion, here or there, so we can make some head way regarding this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Admin Support at Move Discussion[edit]

Admins are not permitted to make content rulings. If there is no consensus in the move discussion then the article will not be moved. Blackmane (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

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

I request Admin support or comments at a Move Discussion at Talk:Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson#Requested move 2 May 2016, in which it is requested that Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson → Hafthór Júlíus Björnsson – Reason: There is no letter [ þ ] in the English language or on the keyboard. Article title should be in English letters, as per WP:TITLE, and WP:ENGLISH, and WP:UE. While I have provided three Wikipedia policies in support of the move, opposing editors have not supported their position with any Wikipedia policies. The Discussion has been open for six days. Thank you. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No; you haven't got a chance with that one. Sorry- consensus, as well as, conveniently, logic, is firmly against you there. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Boneyard90, this board (and adminstrators in general) do not intervene in content disputes unless there is a specific accusation of editor misconduct. Clearly there is none here. It was ill-advised for you to bring this here. WP:DRN is the place to go for help resolving content disputes. It would be equally ill-advised for you to take this there. There is no content dispute at the article under discussion. Your position simply is not being accepted (unanimously at this time). You are just going to have to accept that. This thread should be closed post haste. John from Idegon (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I disagree in minor detail with User:John from Idegon. This is not the sort of dispute that is appropriate for the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) because DRN does not take disputes for which there is another forum for handling the dispute. This appears to be a move dispute, and the procedure for dealing with them is a Requested Move. A Requested Move normally runs for seven days. I haven't looked at the talk page, but, if the move has been open for six days and is against the OP, the Requested Move will be closed with consensus against the move. It is true that this is a content dispute and that this noticeboard is for conduct issues, but this content issue has its own resolution mechanism and so does not go to DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Thread still should be closed. John from Idegon (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kov 93 on 2016 Magyar Kupa Final[edit]

On article 2016 Magyar Kupa Final there is simulated match done and copied from Romanian Cup by Kov 93. Results will be avalaible after last whistle of this match. --37.248.254.159 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

There did not seem to be sources provided for the information recently added, so I have reverted it. But, surely the final whistle has now happened? MPS1992 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Inorap[edit]

Inorap (talk · contribs) has been changing the rating score at hip hop album articles. For example, the user replaced "7/10" with "{{Rating|3.5|5}}" at Surf (Donnie Trumpet & The Social Experiment album) [115]. Although having been warned by other editors at User talk:Inorap multiple times [116] [117] [118], the user keeps doing these things over and over again [119] [120]. I think it is disruptive behavior and has to be stopped as soon as possible. 153.204.104.88 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR[edit]

User:MehrdadFR is a very problematic editor, who does not appear willing or ready to reform his behavior.

  • On the article Public executions in Iran, he has consistently removed well-sourced information from the human rights organization Amnesty International[121], using edit summaries like "rv propaganda", "rv professional liar", "removed false and propagandist material"
  • On the page Violence against LGBT people, he removed an image of regarding the execution of two Iranian teenagers (Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni) that allegedly engaged in homosexuals acts with the edit summary "pedophile rapists".[122]. After the image was restored by User:Good Olfactory, Mehrdad removed it again without explanation.[123]
  • In Hijab by country, blanked non-controversial information pertaining to Iran without explanation.[124]
  • On the page Ahmad Vahidi, remove well sourced information that this individual is wanted by Interpol for his alleged involvement in the AMIA bombing, falsely citing WP:BLP in his edit summary.[125]

What can be done regarding this problematic editor? Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid only problematic editor here is Plot Spoiler. Point by point:
  • There's an explanation Talk:Public executions in Iran#False claims about alleged "beheading in Iran" which is pure fantasy and unfounded in Iranian law (fully available online). When someone is insisting on disputable information and avoiding conversation on talk page, then we can surely speak about propaganda intentions.
  • Removing image from Violence against LGBT people was consulted with administrator Good Olfactory (here and here).
  • It was blanked because it was biased and without sources. I personally rewritten edited whole section based on first-class academic sources.
  • In article Ahmad Vahidi nothing was removed, sourced information that this individual is wanted by Interpol exists below in text and there's no any dispute about it. Only issue I see is putting it in WP:LEAD because there are much more important information for leading section.
Issues related to Plot Spoiler's editing can be seen here on UANI history where he systematically tries to censor all criticism. Similar problems exist here and so on. --MehrdadFR (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
And even after this request, MehrdadFR is engaging grossly POV editing, like this[126]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
It's properly sourced and factually undisputed. --MehrdadFR (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Eyes on User:Aurevoirbronny[edit]

Looking for a quick sanity check on this. This is an account that sprung from nowhere to create article Jason Falinski, a biography of an aspiring politician in Australia. The "bronny" in the username is presumably Bronwyn Bishop, a soon-to-be-ex-MP who has essentially been deposed from her seat by Falinski. Falinski's notability for an article is somewhat contested, although that's not what this is about. What I'm a little more concerned about is that the account managed to pop a serviceable looking article out of nowhere, linked it to a few places, and then disappeared until showing up on their AFD discussion so they could defend it and get in a few cracks at editors for wasting their precious time, without a single newbie error anywhere. Perhaps they've just RTFM, or more likely they've had another account that they're not using for whatever reason. I was tempted to block as an obvious sock account, especially as User:AusLondonder evidently came to a similar conclusion here, but I am somewhat peripherally involved so I'm bringing it here for further review. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC).

Violation of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR, nationalist pov-warring, and source misrepresentations[edit]

Ferakp (talk · contribs) has repeatedely violated the 1RR restriction on WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR articles.

Other problems of this user are that he continues to insert blatant source misrepresentations in wikipedia articles, which damages wikipedia reputation, through his editorializing of anything that doesn't confirm to a nationalist pov, like anything related to women's rights or minority rights of Christians. @GGT: @Attar-Aram syria:@LouisAragon:@GGT:@Shmayo: @عمرو بن كلثوم: Some previous discussions regarding this user: [134] *[135] [136]--80.254.69.43 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC) — 80.254.69.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I see user Ferakp is cited in an edit-warring case above. I would kindly ask the Admins to look at the contributions of Ferakp (talk · contribs) closely. They are removing sourced material because it simply does not conform with his/her political agenda and definition of reliable sources. Please see the Talk page for Rojava for example. Another example for their negative behavior can be witnessed in their reverts of contributions by user @Beshogur:. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
As I told admins many times before, Kurdish articles are 24/7 under attack of Arab, Turkish and Assyrian nationalists. I have had to clean almost from same users. Users Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, عمرو بن كلثوم and two other users which use random IP are clearly black washing Kurdish articles. I have used talk page in all my edits and called users to dsicuss. I have told them about unreliable sources, WP:NPOV violations, cherry picking and WP:ORIGINAL violations. They still don't use talk pages and continuously involve in POV pushing and edit war and violate WP:FAKE, WP:REALIBLE and WP:ORIGINAL. You can talk pages of all articles I have edited and neutralized, I have mentioned and explained my edits word by word, unlike those Arab users here who are not willing to even discuss. Talk pages, [137], [138], [139], [140] and all other edits are mentioned in the talk page of articles. I would like to remind that the users who reported me are clearly violated all those WP:rules I have listed above. Ferakp (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
One more thing I would like to add, the user User:عمرو بن كلثوم has clearly involved in black washing, violating 6 times WP:NPOV and WP:REALIABLE despite warnings. The users is copy pasting some statements randomly to different sections. His edits: [141], [142].Ferakp (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox should be promptly closed per Speedy Keep #2.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No, this is the latest edition of Godsy's stalking my edits. No reason he needs a hit list of articles I worked on he wants to kill. For several weeks a remarkable number of pages I touch are promptly touched by Godsy - to the point I believe he checks every edit I make. He has moved many pages back into stale userspace instead of improving them. This is deletion without discussion. The correct action, if one thinks a page needs more refs, is to tag or better yet add the refs, especially on uncontroversal topics like a civil war regiment [143] or a museum page in the middle of an AfD. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The only thing I've done is fix unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and correct related problems on multiple articles. You continually disregard WP:STALEDRAFT, by moving content to the mainspace that is unsuitable for it (e.g. User:Abrsinha/Beohar Rammanohar Sinha, Special:Diff/705686655), and have even went as far as moving pages to the mainspace and subsequently personally nominated them for deletion (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard d'Anjolell). You have also moved pages from the userspace of active users (e.g. User:ONUnicorn/Browning Hill Research, User talk:Legacypac#Browning Hill). Lastly, you fail to do basic cleanup of the content you move to the mainspace (e.g. activating categories, fixing obvious manual of style and format errors, etc.), which I've kindly taken up the task of doing. Your nomination of my sandbox is solely to provide a forum for disruption and to harass me.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
It is Godsy that is harassing me. Bringing up two old moves I AfD'd as clearly stated tests that have already been discussed extensively is pretty dumb. As I've pointed out to Godsy - there are over 200,000 pages tagged as having no sources, yet he only focuses on stale drafts I've moved into mainspace that usually contain uncontroversal info that can be easily sourced. Many other editors are happy to perform tagging and cleanup on new pages, but very few editors are skilled at daylighting stale drafts with potential. If I was responsible to get every article I touch up to Good Article status I'd never make much progress on sifting the good stuff from the crap/blank/attack/prohibited copies/etc in userspace. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
And a page that looks like this [144] when I found it amd responds to multiple Redlinks is not "Unsuitable". Now it turns out another editor found some copyvio and deleted that instead of rewriting it, but that is why we work cooperatively. Someone else could restore and rewrite... Except Godsy has relegated the whole page to stale userspace without notice or XfD. Legacypac (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
For example, User:Admfirepanther/The Genius Files (Special:Diff/706182169) then (not that introducing a copyvio into the mainspace is commendable), un-sourced (except to itself) and seemingly un-notable. The problem is, content fails the criteria by which it can be moved to the mainspace, until it is up to a certain standard (i.e. meeting the core content policies and the notability policy). I simply follow the stale draft guideline and occasionally invoke BRD. If you disagree with the stale draft guideline, feel free to propose a change to it.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Godsy does not understand the stale draft guideline and sets a standard for mainspace on articles I daylight that other articles are not required to meet. His actions to rebury content do not improve the encyclopedia for the reader. His restoration of deleted pages into stale userspace does not help the encyclopidia. He is simply harrasising me and whenever I pish back, he drags me to ANi. His latest example is a book series by an author with his own page and pages on most of his other books. If the book series is really not notable as he claims, nominate it for deletion already or better redirect the title amd merge the content to the author's page. Sending the page back into stale draft space and deleting the title helps no one. User_talk:Admfirepanther/The_Genius_Files Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Process is important, and I follow it. "whenever I pish back": Wikipedia is not a battleground. The only other time I've "drag[ged]" you to AN/I is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Userspace subpages issue.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 10:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Godsy should Find some other user to stalk. Process for the sake of process to acbeive a bad result is not important, it's stupid and disruptive. Godsy has been callimg my page moves "undiscussed" like somehow I'm supposed to discuss moving a stale user draft on it's talk page with myself. Yet he is moving many articles out of mainspace without any discussion. I think Godsy should be required to seek consensus on the article talk page, or run the page through AfD before he moves a page into someone else's (usually long gone editor) userspace. Legacypac (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) B- Your moves are unquestionably bold R- Bold edits are often reverted D- You asked me on my talk page and I told you I'd gladly discuss any reverted move with you; Bold, Revert, Discuss. "I consider review of Legacypac's edits to be entirely properly, given that he has previously done bold-bad things", part of the opinion of someone at the MfD.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 11:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I think Legacypac should keep a log of others' userspace pages that he unilaterally moves to mainspace. With that log, these discussions would be informed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: That exists automatically at Special:Log/Legacypac.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 11:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

On the point of general principles, without comment on the particular behavior in this case (which I haven't looked into): In the recent comprehensive RfC on stale drafts, which is still open, there was a question addressing what I think is the central issue here. It asked, Where a userspace draft is moved to mainspace by a user other than its author, but is then found to be unsuitable for mainspace for reasons which would not apply in userspace, should it be returned to userspace rather than deleted? While the RfC is not yet closed, the result in that section at least is a very clear consensus in support of returning to userspace, with many editors commenting. A2soup (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Problem behaviour/edits by User:L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.[edit]

L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk · contribs) is, at least according to his username Lorenzo Iorio (there is a reason this page is salted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio), and is treating Wikipedia as yet another platform to promote his own views concerning frame-dragging, and the surrounding theoretical and experimental results surrounding it with the biggest WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality I have ever witnessed in a published scientist ([145]).

Iorio has published several articles on the topic, and probably know more about frame dragging than many other people, myself included. However, this is a fairly contentious and controversial area in physics, at least in the sense there are major disputes with Iorio and others like Ignazio Ciufolini are going at each other with no holds barred (e.g. doi:10.1002/asi.23238). While I'm not taking a side in the dispute, this area and dispute between Iorio and Ciufolini has spilled over Wikipedia in the past (see Talk:Frame-dragging and Talk:Frame-dragging/Archive 1, Talk:Ignazio Ciufolini#Scientific misconducts, Talk:Ignazio Ciufolini#Legal actions by I. Ciufolini against L. Iorio, etc.), with several IP/sock puppets involved over several years (e.g. Gravitom et al.).

So when he recently edited frame-dragging, inserting several reference to his own publications (and this despite a promise to reduce the number of citations to his own work, I reverted with the edit summary "Clear conflict of interest, while you may comment and flag issues on the article talk page, let others improve the article per WP:COI.)" This has been discussed with him before at the teahouse (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_480#Why I cannot edit the article on frame-dragging, which is a subject I have and I am actively contributing to?).

Of course, that made me the target of Iorio's ire, calling me 'an incompetent jerk', again despite the promise to be cooperating and diplomatic. Going by the past behaviour of socks in this area, most of them pro-Iorio, it's not a stretch of the imagination to say this behaviour is extremely unlikely to subside, and we shouldn't abide such gross violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:COI, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Not to mention WP:PROMOTE/WP:SELF and a bunch of others as well.

So, here we are at ANI. At the very least an editing restriction on Iorio to refrain from editing frame-dragging related articles (broadly construed) is needed because the WP:COI here is just way too high, and I've got little hopes that the next person that make and edit that displeases Iorio will be treated any better than I was. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I've notified WP:PHYS annd WP:AST of this discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Xismrd[edit]

Xismrd (talk · contribs) keeps introducing the same false statements in the article Pantheon-Sorbonne University (it is "La Sorbonne", sentences that make Paris 1 looks like the only inheritor of La Sorbonne, etc.), in spite of the fact that he's already been blocked for his behaviour. It is perhaps the same person as IP users, who had the same kind of editing.

Talk page sections:

  1. [146]
  2. [147]

Examples:

  1. [148]
  2. [149]
  3. [150]
  4. [151]
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160502064743/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI