Dan56 (talk · contribs)

User repeatedly violates WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, is stubbornly Wikilawyering, and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he willfully pushes his view without considering other editors' input.

• AGF: [1], [2], [3], [4]
• Recent edit warring, & WP:POINT in article editing (in the first diff, he disruptively removes [while I was still improving the section] reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: [5] + my response: [6] + [7]; [8] + [9]; [10] + [11] + [12] + [13]; [14] + [15] + [16] + [17] (←linked to Wikiproject discussion in which he said himself recently it was only a guide)

I'd addressed his behavior in article and talk page with a cordial message on his page, asking him to stop disrupting and start working collaboratively.

I know I have a disadvantage here as Dan56 has promoted many GAs or FAs (reading over ANI, that apparently tends to give you automatic pardon of Wiki guideline violations), but this user has a history of eschewing collaboration, of disruptive and tendentious editing, pushing POV, OWN attitudes, WP:battleground, disrupting editing to make a point, not assuming good faith, genre warring, accusing others of what he is exactly doing or has done, and many editors have called him out on his behavior and editing practices in the past, on various article talk pages (particularly RfCs). Dan56 evidently is not interested in changing his behavior as he feels his promotion of GAs absolves him of any responsibility for his actions and that he's potentially answerable to no one (as his unsanctioned acts would lead him to believe), evidenced, recently, here and here. Most of my encounters with him have been on the band Garbage's articles, at which he arrived about 7 months ago after being canvassed by another editor (who possibly didn't know about the policy then) in a content discussion, and where he willfully employed the same editing tactics and violations he's still willfully and freely employing.

Please see see this relevant RfC here, which is the (recent) source of this dispute, and where much of the aforementioned is evident further. Dan56 does not appear to want to contribute to a collaborative, disruption-free environment at this band's pages, where he has quarreled with me and engaged in all the aforementioned countless times. My request is a topic ban for this band's articles. What he's contributed (e.g., copy edit of reviews, date formats) (by essentially shutting out others, really) can just as easily be and have been contributed by myself or any of the other editors watching the article. And, as I pointed out in the RfC, If Dan56 had actually bothered to give me a minute or two to copy edit and fix issues and continue improving and augmenting the article, as opposed to just reverting and disrupting constructive edits none of that would occur. Of course, that appears to not be in his nature, particularly for these Garbage articles, for which he, going by all prior indication, has a bias against. --Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lapadite77 is personalizing a dispute which stems from my involvement at Talk:Garbage (album)#Album genres and the subsequent RfC for those genres, which didn't go Lapadite's way exactly, partly because I was invited by Andrzejbanas to weigh in and sided with him. Last October ([18]), I began cleaning up and expanding a section at Version 2.0 and have been involved there since. My recent revisions to Lapadite's edits were justified by guidelines I don't feel he can fully grasp at the on-going RfC, where he canvassed two of his recent collaborators at other "Garbage" articles to weigh in. Lapadite argued for his version of the article by drawing comparisons to other stuff in the RfC, so I dont believe he had any intention to drastically trim and properly paraphrase the quote farm he added to the article in question. The section in question is essentially complete, considering the notability of the reviewers and the viewpoints researched, so this is appears to be another attempt at creative control. Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention Dan56 had a history of accusing people of things, never admitting he has done anything wrong, and creating striking lies and misleading statements which are easily refuted by the actual, readable evidence? In that Garbage album RfC, which one can readily see, toward the end, editors called him out on his intentionally misleading tactics (for which he took 0 responsibility for and ignored the comments, and which he again similarly employed in this recent RfC, which I commented on). I created a new poll, because the other was corrupted by Dan56's tactics and lies and more useful content had also been included in the article, with an updated proposal based on recent article edits, and it went smooth and successfully. Exactly the opposite of what he claims here. This accusation - "this is appears to be another attempt at creative control" - and the hypocrisy is utterly laughable. As you can see, in accordance with my report, Dan56 does not believe he does anything wrong. All of the aforementioned, articles and diffs linked, speaks for itself, regardless of how Dan disregards and reinterprets his actions and assumes of others'. If one were to bring all the editors that have called out Dan56 on his disruptive behavior and editing practices throughout various articles they would all agree with this. I don't link to past talk discussions not directly pertaining to this dispute because it may be tacky and doing so might be interpreted negatively but I have no problem doing so if asked. This is far from a personal dispute or vendetta, which I don't care for. You can see my cordial message on his page, and after that Garbage album content dispute he linked, I had very amicably discussed with him on his page some content matters on another article; unlike him, I don't hold grudges and I'm not here for battlegrounds and disruptive practices, only to improve articles. Dan56's presence at this band's articles has been continually disruptive as his POINTy, POV-pushing, OWN, Wikilawyering, NPOV/Stick to sources-eschewal, genre warring (a significant issue during that album article discussion he linked) and lack of collaboration inhibits progress. For instance, If he hadn't disrupted improvement of that article's section (specifically the start of my constructive edits which, as I said in the RfC [contrary to what he too claims here] were far from finished) that section would've been completed right soon and without the need of all that came after it. Of course he credits the current version (which needs a checking of sources and copyediting for POV, cherry picking, sticking to source) to his mighty self, since, liked I stated above, he shut editors out and steamrolled his edits, and while RfC had just started. Again, this isn't the first time here Dan56 inhibits or significantly slows down progress here, takes ownership of an article and disregards collaboration, in the process perpetuating an environment of only disputes (as I remarked near the end of the current RfC I linked: "Is there an RfC that's not a battleground with you? To which he replied, "that's cute and all".). I strongly believe a topic ban is best. --Lapadite (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to file a report here. I recommend including only good evidence in the form of diffs. This thread will likely be closed, by someone else, accordingly. Or do you expect an admin to jump in and block the user per this report? Doc talk 08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expected admins to comment on ANI and consider the irrefutable content in all the links provided. Why do you think I should file a report there instead? That page says it is inactive, and the topic dispute isn't limited to RfC conduct, it also, and primarily, regards editor conduct on this band's articles, hence my request of a topic ban, and not another kind; WP:TBAN →"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia.". --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Another tendentious edit, which I partially restored. --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Another tendentious edit and reversal of copyedit/improvements, demonstrating again WP:OWN, POV, and Wikilawyering issues:

I copyedited, as edit summary details: [19]

He wrote, in another section on the talk page, at 10:08: [20] and 2 minutes later, made the following revert (including restoring of his tendentious, NPOV, undue weight-violating ratings replacement [mentioned in the first "Another tendentious edit" diff above]): [21]. The pre-copyediting version (his) that he restored is in many respects cherry picking, giving undue weight, and not sticking to source.

My response to his talk page post: [22])

I sincerely hope what has been provided and continues to be provided (obviously, again Dan56 has no plans to change his habits here) is more than enough to see why I, with reason, request a topic ban for Dan56, due to his considerable, disruptive OWN issues on this band's article, his complete disregard for collaboration, his consistent tendentious editing, knee-jerk reverts of improvements he disagrees with, violations of WP:PRESERVE and all else aforementioned.

Can any admins bother to tend to this thread? All that continues to happen is disruptive and more disruptive editing from Dan56. Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging a couple of editors, spotted while skimming ANI, that I believe are admins, to see if maybe this could start getting some attention (sorry if you're not one): Drmies, Stalwart111

I understand what Lapadite is saying, as some of my debates with Dan56 were similar in the past, but unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully, where he can come off as rude or abrasive, not its not really bad enough to warrant a block. Unless it starts escalating to personal attacks or hounding, I think a better approach would be to just keep starting discussions or RFC's, to come to a consensus that combats the WP:OWN issues. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the disruptive editing guideline mentions some "tread the line" behaviors these kinds of editors may engage in such as: "Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article". Dan56 doesn't do blunt personal attacks, although others may disagree, and this isn't a report on personal attacks nor a proposal to ban him from editing Wikipedia but a request for a topic ban, to rid of his considerable, still ongoing (after 7 months) pattern of disruption at this band's articles, his considerable OWN and WP:POINTy behavior, and considerable disregard for collaboration. He's still doing it, still reverting. And presumably this guy has many editors not wanting to speak against him, perhaps admins. Pretty much every other thread at ANI has several comments. This is just ridiculous. --Lapadite (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More tendentious editing: [23] --Lapadite (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Dan56's tendentious edits, is (first mentioned above) the constant replacing of a positive score with a negative score in the album ratings box (which already contains 10 review scores). It has been called out and explained multiple times on the talk page, noted how it's not only tendentious, but violates WP:UNDUE and WP:PRESERVE, but Dan56 keeps restoring it. There's also the persistent claim that reviews that agree on some element of an album are virtually incompatible in that regard in a reception section; summaries of reviews can't include similar opinions, unless of course for something that contradicts positive notions. Any admin's care about this pattern of disruption, OWN and tendentious editing? Seriously, this article would've been completely improved by now if Dan56 hadn't gone (and still continue) on a disruptive, tendentious crusade. --Lapadite (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this thread still open? Dan56 does like to ram a point home when he thinks he's right, the problem with that of course is that sometimes he is right. He's been very helpfully sorting out the "critical response" sections to numerous album articles to the extent that when I start improving one for WP:ALBUMS/500 I look at that and think, "good stuff, Dan's done it". With that in mind I'm just reluctant to come down like a ton of bricks on him. As others have said, he's never crossed the line into personal attacks, so all I can really advise is to just stick to the article and forget about who's saying what. It's the only sane method. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't pretend I've read all of this thread, but I'm not at all surprised to see Dan56's behaviour become the subject of another discussion. Just over a year ago, I talked GabeMc out of opening an RFC/U on this user, when Gabe and several others were fed up with him, and, although I could be wrong, I believe this was the near-miss referred to in a subsequent RfC on Dan56, in August 2014. I chose not to have any input into that discussion either, but the references there to Dan56 being so obviously pro-Robert Christgau and overly controlling of article content were all too familiar. My direct contact with Dan56 has been limited mainly to tedious discussions about album genres at Talk:All Things Must Pass and Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#"Heavy metal album"; I've seen numerous, similar discussions going on over the last year or two – for instance, at Talk:Crime of the Century, Talk:Are You Experienced (can't access the archive for that page), Talk:Sgt. Pepper's – but, quite honestly, just the sight of his username is enough to ward me off, unless I consider speaking up really important. Ritchie's correct when he says that "sometimes he is right", but at the same time, Dan56 behaves as if, by divine right, he must be so at all times – there's no element of compromise, nor any awareness that he might be making working on music articles a miserable experience for others. He drives editors away from the encyclopaedia, I'm convinced of it – and I can't help thinking that's fine by him, if he alone is left working on album articles here.

Doc commented above that Lapadite needed to supply specific diffs rather than launching an unsupported attack. I don't doubt that that's the correct way to proceed, but I sympathise with the frustration that Lapadite seems to be expressing. As Sergecross73 says about Dan 56: "unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully …" So, by and large, everything appears correct per the letter of the law but (I think) at the same time he's continually falling foul of the spirit of Wikipedia – pillars four and five, as I understand them.

Dan56 is the only editor I've ever felt the need to watch, and for all the wrong reasons. I see him constantly laying down the law with new editors and regularly removing the protests that arrive on his talk page, when those editors are not time-wasters but have a case to present. He initiated the removal of terms such as "favourable", "mixed", "unfavourable" from the album reviewer ratings template without (as far as I can see) posting any notice at all on relevant project pages such as Albums or Rock; if those terms have to go in favour of recognised scores and ratings, then fine, but anyone proposing such far-reaching changes, you'd think, would want as broad a consensus as possible. A select few were similarly invited to a proposal on alphabetising album articles' personnel sections (after which Mudwater and I put the word out to a wider audience). To me, along with the other actions mentioned, these are examples of how this user wants to – and does, unfortunately – dominate album articles on the encyclopedia. I don't have bad feelings towards anyone on Wikipedia but I think admins need to address this behaviour. I said to John around the time of an episode in March 2014, it's not just about looking at diffs and specifics, it's about the entire way this user conducts himself on Wikipedia. That's the problem, that's why a thread like this gets opened, and it's why there'll be another one about him within six months. And as I've mentioned, there are other conflicts concerning Dan56 (the January 2014 episode) that don't even get the attention they deserve. JG66 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you hit the nail on the head JG66. That is precisely the grand problem. My frustration is exactly because this concerns a longstanding pattern and is far from the first time Dan56 does this on this band’s articles - which I discussed above. Dan56 certainly has had numerous disputes with other editors on other articles regarding this kind of behavior, and he does immediately delete all objections and warnings he gets from his page, sometimes mocking the editor that leaves a message or asserting his ‘status' (e.g., here and when I left him a disruptive editing notice in September of 2014. I’d actually mentioned a few of those past disputes, admittedly inappropriately, out of frustration, in that Garbage album talk page (inside the “off topic” shell) he linked in his post here. If what admins need is more proof of Dan56’s pattern of disruption I personally and perhaps others would have no problem linking several examples there and elsewhere. But like I said before, this is a topic ban proposal for this bands’ articles as my own interactions with Dan56 have mostly been there, and his constant disruption, disregard for collaboration, and POV pushing there is intolerable at this point. The problem is Dan56, as usual, might temporarily stop his overtly tendentious disruption and then start up later after ANI thread is closed, but especially if objecting editors leave the article. Like JG66 said, It will certainly reemerge, again (like it did months after the last album dispute); editors like Dan56 who don’t get sanctioned for their disruptive actions never learn and change; obviously they'd have nothing to learn from since, as they mask POINTy, OWN and tendentious behavior largely through Wikilawyering and 'status', hiding behind it and professing no wrong doing (others are at fault and personalizing), they normally don't see consequences, beyond a ‘don’t do it again’ slap on the wrist. In fact, the lack of consequences only reinforces that behavior. I’ve personally stopped improving this particular article, at least temporarily, as I find it futile; only thing I'm still doing is restoring Dan56's tendentious, POV edits/his inability to stick to source when it doesn't suit his bias. Like JG66 mentioned, Dan56 likes to appropriate an article, shutting out others who object to his editing practices, wanting to be left to his own devices. Other editors in the past have noted how he edits tendentiously on articles of artists he does not like, but he also edits tendentiously on artists he does like (for example, the reception section of this album - an article he wrote, and fixed after much FA dispute [ironically, concerning things of which he has accused others]). You can see this in his comments in both talk pages initially linked here. I don’t know how many more diffs from this particular article are needed; figured I’d linked enough and was already tired of linking as the thread received no comments. The page history is plenty evidence of how much revert/restoring happened there as a result. Much of that has been linked here, as well as the talk page discussion. 

In the recent RfC that I'd linked, the three editors that responded clearly want nothing to do with the dispute, understandably. At the start of the RfC you can see that one editor noted the inappropriateness of removing the initial reviews I’d added from the album ratings box ("simply removing everything Lapadite added seems drastic").  I'd be shocked that anyone would agree with Dan56’s egregious behavior unless they’ve agreed with Dan’s POV editing in the past. That he may be “sometimes right” - everyone is at least “sometimes right” at some point - does not remotely null or invalidate his history of disputes and disruption, disruption at this band’s articles, or any he makes in the future there and elsewhere. --Lapadite (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More, under false pretexts: [24], [25]. For how long would this need to go on? 5, 10 revision history pages? Lapadite (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56 apparently went on overdrive instead; More again, this being the first of multiple edits largely of the same nature as previous ones and as described above (his edit summary merely repeating what I stated in the previous edit): [26]. Restored by me here, with some fixes and additions on further edits. --Lapadite (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Action needed here; proposal

• Dan56 was the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56 in October 2014, which (despite the stricken participation of a sock) was closed by Beeblebrox with findings that Dan56 be reminded of WP:COPYVIO, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN.
• AN/I threads involving Dan26 after his RFC: [27], [28]

This is a complex case that I think is headed to ArbCom if it doesn't get resolved here. I have observed Dan56 in many places (he's difficult to miss if you work on any music articles) but I assert that the primary sources of his conflicts on Wikipedia are: plagiarism, music reviews, and music genres. I will attempt to concisely demonstrate that Dan has continued to exhibit problems with WP:COPYVIO, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN pursuant to these three items since his RFC, and then propose a remedy in an attempt to avoid ArbCom.

You haven't concisely demonstrated anything. If anything, you've barely inspected what flimsy evidence you provided below. Also, the second AN/I thread you cited above was opened by a frustrated, genre-warring IP, since blocked for being the sock I suspected. You're building a flimsy case just to draw more attention to me, simply to have some action done to me. Also, since my RfC, I fixed the close paraphrasing issues at Talk:Of Human Feelings and performed source checks before I reopened its FAC. I haven't exhibited any problems with WP:COPYVIO since then. Dan56 (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

I last interacted with Dan56 directly at this FAC where 3 different editors expressed concern about plagiarism and close paraphrasing in his writing. I was surprised by his aggressive and uncivil response to such concerns, and to my own concerns. By the second nomination, I had given up dealing with him and so had anyone else who initially offered constructive criticism. He then asked for it to be withdrawn, saying it was "tainted" because he believed one of the objectors to be a sock. Rather than conceding that Rationalobserver had any legitimate objections to his nomination, he accused her of being a sock with a grudge against him who was only opposing his nomination out of spite. He succeeding in getting Rationalobserver blocked as a sock of Jazzerino (talk · contribs), which was later demonstrated incorrect. However, Dan56 edit warred to maintain a note in the second FAC nomination calling Rationalobserver a sock. I will note that Rationalobserver will not be commenting here because she actually agreed to an interaction ban with Dan56 to demonstrate that she wasn't here just to harass him. I will also add that I thought it was sneaky that Dan56 opened this second nomination and notified several editors, but specifically did not notify the editors who opposed the first one.

The situation at Xx (album) demonstrates that the plagiarism problem has continued despite the RFC, and demonstrates how Dan56 reacts to normal constructive criticism in this realm.

I stand %100 by my suspicions and what I had to say on that matter, a matter which I did not provide the deciding evidence but @Mike V: had, who then offered this cryptic explanation as to why that decision was overturned--it'd be great for the purposes of this insulting thread that you get your facts straight about the situations and disputes you decide to use as "evidence" here, because I feel you're painting an inaccurate picture of that situation in broad strokes. I find it equally dubious that you pretend to forget I responded to what you claim as finding "sneaky" at that FAC page. You're forcing me to explain and discuss a dispute I've been warned not to, so it's incumbent upon you not to misrepresent it. Btw, you do realize I have an open FAC for Of Human Feelings where I "reacted to normal constructive criticism"? Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music reviews

One of the constant sources of conflict for Dan56 is his interminable addition and removal of music album ratings and reviews to suit his personal opinion, many times with a fixation on Robert Christgau. Lapadite77 provided diffs above for recent conflicts involving reviews and ratings at Garbage-related articles. I'm concerned that Dan cherry-picks and promotes/demotes sources to back up his preferred vision for how the reviews and rating should be reflected. Here is a good example of his removing a source he doesn't like under an unclear and disingenuous edit summary. You would think he was simply adding Newsweek and NME, but he is also removing a source he has argued against without clear rationale or consensus. These are clear WP:OWN violations post-RFC.

I'm tired of having to defend myself against this type of nonsense. Being as active and involved as I am means you're going to butt heads with some fancruft and POV-driven editors from time to time, but I'm offended by your accusation that I add or remove ratings or reviews based on my personal opinion--on one hand you say I'm fixated on Robert Christgau, yet support Lapadite77's assertion that I have a negative opinion of an album (article) which Christgau gave a positive review of? I addressed and explained my role in this "Garbage-related" dispute already in my comment above on 3 February. Furthermore, your above example demonstrates what a flimsy case you are making--did you bother to read anything at the article's talk page where the review sources were being discussed?... because that edit was made when I made a case for a source I had originally added be removed in favor of obviously more notable sources per MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception. Either make a close inspection of this dispute--that article's talk page, each editor's edit summaries and arguments--or don't bother slinging vague accusations of ownership at me when the same could and should be said about the other guy (WP:BOOMERANG). The burden is on you to read through Talk:Version 2.0#Revisions to Critical reception and the corresponding revisions made to the article during that discussion, if you're to introduce it here as some kind of evidence of disruptive editing made on my part. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This, for the record, is emblematic of the ownership issues exhibited by Lapadite77 on Garbage-related articles, articles I hardly care about, with the exception of Version 2.0, whose Critical reception I took upon myself to improve and expand starting last October, with (take a guess)... positive reviews! ([29]) But then I continued my research and found reviews not to the liking of Lapadite77. Dan56 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music genres

Again for anyone editing music articles, you will see Dan56 all over your watchlist because he reverts anonymous and established editors who attempt to alter the genres on any article he watches, without any rationale or explanation. This is well-documented in his RFC, and he has continued the behavior despite the RFC findings. You needn't go further than the first page of his contributions to find him reverting genre changes calling them vandalism ("rvv"). Most of the time he's changing one unsourced genre to another. This violates WP:BITE (calling people's good-faith contributions vandalism) and WP:OWN (attempting to control the genres on large selections of articles without sources or discussion).

Untrue. Also, the link you provided is my revision restoring the genre sourced in the body of the article. With what I've contributed to Wikipedia, including the improvements I stand by at Version 2.0, I deserve for my accusers to get their facts straight rather than relying on their impression of isolated disputes I've been involved in. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions

We need some help here. Beeblebrox, since you closed the RFC, perhaps you can be of some assistance in putting this to bed. I don't think any progress has been made since the RFC. Therefore, I propose the following:

1. Dan56 is required to solicit an independent plagiarism review for any article he's developing before nominating it for either GA or FA status.
2. Dan56 is prohibited from editing reviews or ratings on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status.
3. Dan56 is prohibited from adding, removing, or changing genres on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The genre warring too characteristic of past dispute at the album Garbage article. I support the proposed solutions, especially the second and third. However, Dan56 could just use the 'preparing article' as a pretext, augmenting the OWN and WP:POINT issues. --Lapadite (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dan56 characterizes the aforementioned as "isolated disputes". Let's see, a scan through the ANI archives of the past year also brings up: [30]; [31]; [32], where an editor who initially disagreed with the OP of the report said:

"All that said, I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Wikipedia doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers ... I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Wikipedia is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers. Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly)."

and [33], where Dan56 is reminded: "I see the changes as improvements, albeit minor ones. Just because the article is an FA, does not mean that it cannot be improved or changed for the better. Please remember it is a collaborative project, repeatedly templating good faith editors is just not good practice and often invites a hostile response." --Lapadite (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both the report and the ANI threads you are referring to involve editors who were found to be sock puppets or IPs evading a block--Harmelodix and 5.81.225.225. Just like in your research for the articles you edit, you haven't critically assessed the sources for the case you are trying to make and instead are relying on making a lot of noise with weak evidence in hopes that whoever makes a decision on this matter wont carefully look through it. Dan56 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan's insubstantial, retaliation claims shtick was addressed in the talk page here, where he first professed them. On that note, again the start of more disruption and WP:TE of the same from Dan56, likewise just mimicking my previous restore edit summary (mentioned in above section). Does he care, think he's at fault in anything, or believe he will see any real consequences? Clearly not. He is still reverting what has already been called out for multiple guideline-violations or cleared up on the talk page. Given the nature of some of the content in this subsection created by Spike Wilbury, I'd remind that after the first disagreement and dispute with Dan56 at this article he too accused me of Wikihounding (addressed here), as previously noted in the first post of this ANI thread. --Lapadite (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Shtick"? That's cute, you used a word from the Newsweek review you've removed numerous times without explanation. And on that note, the start of more "disruption and WP:TE of the same" from Lapadite77, who is still reverting after having been called out for multiple guideline-violations or cleared up on the talk page. Given the nature of this insulting thread, I'd like to bring up the fact that Lapadite made these edits here while editing had grown hot and tempered between us at Version 2.0. In any case, I've opened multiple RfCs now at the article's talk page, because Lapadite is showing little civility or competence concerning the guidelines his edits are violating. Dan56 (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear Dan56 is merely repeating exactly what I've said to him regarding his gross guideline-violating behavior and edits, on talk page and edit summaries, and projecting exactly what he's been accused of doing. Everything is on the talk page and page history, and detailed above. Dan56 opened two more RfCs (with multiple misleading statements, unsurprisingly) and restored his WP:TE, WP:POV, possibly WP:OR edit again, which was questioned and challenged on the talk page; one of his reverts states: "unexplained removal", which is not the case and is something one of the editors quoted above from a past ANI questions Dan56 on *. It is beyond clear, from all that has been discussed and linked, how much WP:OWN is exhibited, and how disruptive, biased, and uncollaborative Dan56 is; particularly at this band's articles. He has been called out and warned multiple times on various talk pages and ANIs before, and, looking through ANI, edit warring, and SPI archives, Dan56 appears to been been blocked multiple times in the past for disruptive behaviors, largely edit warring. It is clear he has not learned and has no plans to. Nor does he appear to have read the entire ANI thread as I pointed out more than once his lack of ASG and baseless accusation of Wikihounding, which, like I'd said. and linked, was addressed on the talk page.

* An editor's comments from a past ANI thread are relevant here again:

I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Wikipedia doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers ... I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Wikipedia is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers. Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly)."

--Lapadite (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77. Upon being warned by BlackCab and myself on their talk page to discontinue their disruptive editing, User:73.11.72.255 deleted our warnings and put our names on a list of "Known Apostates" they created (since reverted by BlackCab with an additional warning by both myself and him). While I realize this is a quick request for a block, as they have only been editing for a few days, the reversions with no attempt at discussion and in particular the creation of the "Known Apostates" section I believe is warranted of an immediate block.

Diffs at User's talk page

1 2 3

Diffs at pages mentioned

Organizational Structure-4 5 6 7 8

Governing Body-9 10 11 12

Vyselink (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a copyedit after the editor's initial edits on the two articles indicated above. I retained some parts of the editor's initial changes where the changes did not misrepresent the cited sources. Since then, the IP editor restored their other changes and falsely claimed those changes were according to "consensus",[34] but the editor has not made any attempt to discuss any changes. The editor's subsequent personal attacks on BlackCab and Vyselink strongly suggests that the IP editor is unlikely to make any reasonable effort to work collaboratively on articles related to the religious denomination that is the subject of the articles above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A silly dispute about nothing. "User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77." It is called editing, and is in the nature of developing articles at Wikipedia. Is the HQ in New York HQ for JW, Governing Body or "the Society"? Could it be both, or even all three? I've followed this topic for several years, and Jeffro77's and BlackCab's oneminded critical view of all aspects of the religion is way undercommunicated. To state the views of former members well known for their highly critical view of the topic, like the IP has done, as "claims" rather than "state[ment]s", is may very fair. Dr. Penton have clearly stated the prosecution of JW during WWII was their own mistake, or at least a result of Rutherford's critic of the Nazi regime, a classic technique used by historical revisionists and right wing extremists about Jews. Further dr. Penton have, in the sourced book, expressed strong sympathy and long time correspondence for/with a mentioned Swedish historical revisionist. JW had disassociated with the revisionist because of his extreme views, while dr. Penton failed to communicate that the Swedish historical revisionist being one, and forgotten to mention the Swede's past as a former convict in Sweden (a modern, democratic country) for his extreme right wing Holocaust denial expressions. To use dr. Penton as a source for statements about JW, represents same quality of source selections as using nazists as a source for statements about the Jews: It is may worth mentioning his view, but as a view rather than a statement. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has made no attempt to discuss their changes despite being asked. They are edit warring against a consensus view, which can be dealt with at the appropriate notice board, but it is unacceptable behaviour to label two editors with whom one disagrees as "known apostates". This is mindless hate behaviour and pretty extreme. BlackCab (TALK) 20:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grrahnbahr's claim that I have a "one minded critical view" of the religion is demonstrated to be false by the many times I have also removed negative information about the religion. Additionally, far from being "undercommunicated", various editors—particularly Grrahnbahr himself—have frequently attempted to malign my motives (and those of BlackCab) when disputes arise about articles related to JWs. In fact, Grrahnbahr has previously reported me for supposed "edit warring"[35] in regard to four words in one sentence[36] that was the subject of discussion at Talk. (In that protracted ordeal, I actually restored the sentence to the same version that Grrahnbahr had restored five days prior,[37] which had been the stable version for many months; yet Grrahnbahr still attempted to impugn me by claiming that I had introduced an 'unsourced claim'. Clearly Grrahnbahr has an axe to grind. The article Talk discussion is at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_59#Biblical_Christianity; the discussion resulting from Grrahnbahr's frivolous accusation is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive236#User:Jeffro77 reported by User:Grrahnbahr (Result: Fully-protected).)

Regarding Grrahnbahr's assessment of the content of the IP editor's changes, this can be discussed at the article's Talk page, and per WP:BRD, the IP editor should have done exactly that after their edits were initially changed (though they were not completely reverted). But the IP editor has made no attempt to discuss anything, despite the editor's false claim of restoring "consensus". Grrahnbahr's description of the IP editor's persistent reversions without any discussion as simply "editing" is quite dishonest. The IP editor's initial edit was "editing", but the subsequent repeated reversions without discussion is "edit-warring". Grrahnbahr is well aware that disputed changes should be discussed at the article Talk page.

In an attempt to distract from various distortions introduced by the IP editor about what the cited sources actually say, Grrahnbahr has attempted to highlight some of the minor semantic changes instead, such as the IP editor's less accurate description of the headquarters. Additionally, Grrahnbahr's deviation into Penton's supposed views of the Holocaust has no relevance to any of the disputed changes. Most of the changes are to text that isn't even sourced to Penton, and none relate to the Holocaust.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have been trying to straighten out articles in certain religious areas from pervasive bias. There are 2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion, and these same editors persist in re-adding negative information about that religion to certain lightly-viewed articles. There is a strong feeling of ownership over these articles by these few critics, and a reading of the talk page will show their continued attempts to overcome well-intentioned and clearly-sourced corrections. Jeffro, BlackCab, and to a lesser extent Vyselink have been editing these religious articles continuously for many years, and their apparent negative personal experiences with the religious group affect their edits. Perhaps they should step back and let fresh eyes wash away any unintentional bias. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about "2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion" is a lie. Only BlackCab has such a Userbox. As I have previously stated when falsely accused by pro-JW editors on Wikipedia, I have never personally accepted JW beliefs, though I have relatives in the religion.

It is not clear what "negative information" has been added to the articles being discussed, and this is the first time the IP editor has made any attempt to discuss any of their changes. The editor is still yet to engage in any discussion about the specific content at the article's Talk page.

For several years, I have edited Wikipedia articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The pro-JW editors call me 'anti-JW' and the anti-JW editors call me 'pro-JW'. Overall, it's a pretty good sign that my edits on the subject are neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has also added a bogus warning about supposedly 'biased content' at Vyselink's User Talk page, but Vyselink has only restored the stable version of the article that was already supported by existing sources.

When the IP editor initially made their changes, I removed only the parts of their changes that did not properly represent the cited sources, as well some mundane issues such as wordiness. Other elements of the IP editor's changes were retained. However, the IP editor has shown no desire to work collaboratively, or to discuss any element of article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that BlackCab has such a userbox, while Vyselink states the same in the text of his user page. It appears that your close coordination with them in attempting to override clear consensus caused me to lump you in with them unfairly. I thank you for your attempts to be unbiased, however after extensive discussion we have decided to move forward with the proposed changes. If you have any concerns, you are welcome to explain them in the usual manner. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's as close to an apology as I will get from you in regard to the lie about the Userbox and religious affiliation.

There has not been any discussion of the proposed changes. If you believe there are problems with bias in the articles, you should start a relevant section at the articles' Talk pages raising your specific concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop saying I lied. You were working with two editors who had a disclosed bias against a certain religious group; I somehow got it in my head that you had the same bias. It was a mistake that was quickly uncovered. The repeated undesirable edits are more of a problem. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been 'working with' the other editors any more than I've been 'working with' you. Except that you refuse to discuss your changes. You haven't indicated anything about what is supposedly 'undesirable'. As an example, you've claimed in your edit summary that referring to the Watch Tower Society's publications as "Watch Tower Society literature" and calling their headquarters their headquarters and saying the Governing Body don't call themselves "leaders" are all "inappropriate". You need to articulate why you believe those things to be "inappropriate", since they are plain statements of fact that are more accurate than the wording you keep asserting. You should do so at the articles' Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the editor User:2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0, who has been making the same edits in tandem with the other IP editor named above, is now playing tedious games. After I advised the editor that the changes they are seeking to introduce to the stable version of the article should be explained at Talk after they've been disputed, the editor is childishly claiming that it's actually me who introduced changes to the article. With this kind of behaviour, it seems unlikely that the editor will ever be able to meaningfully contribute to Wikipedia. See User_talk:2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (only one Talk section).--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Grrahnbahr has the correct view above. Jeffro and 1 or 2 others have been editing these articles for many years, and seem to strongly resist any changes not made by them. However, we have been working to resolve all the disputes, but Jeffro has not yet shown any willingness to work collaboratively. Instead, he and one of his associates have repeatedly made threats of blocking and banning rather than discussing using normal Wikipedia processes - processes I have used for over 5 years. He may need a preventative block for 24 hours to regain perspective if he does not stop the disruptive editing. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no 'associates' on Wikipedia.

It remains contingent on you as the editor who is insisting on changes to the stable version of the article to indicate why you believe them to be improvements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of "I didn't hear that" behavior that has become troubling and makes me feel Jeffro has developed ownership feelings toward the article. He insists on his preferred version as the "good version", and pretends not to understand that by "associates" I mean "the 1 or 2 other people who are making the same types of edits you are - edits against the consensus" 73.11.72.255 (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not insisted on 'my' version of the article at all, but simply the stable version of the article from before you began making changes and then refusing to discuss them. No 'consensus' whatsoever has been established for your edits. Based on the principles at WP:BRD, after your initial edits were challenged, it is contingent on you to discuss your changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IP editor has finally begun 'discussing' at article Talk, in a highly combative manner and apparently under duress after repeated warnings of their inappropriate conduct. The editor is continuing to misrepresent their changes to the article as the stable version. It seems unlikely that it will be possible to work with the editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Jeffro77 possibly needed - Jeffro77 continues making personal attacks above despite repeated warnings. He is dismissive of any views other than his own, and is determined to force through his preferred versions over the versions supported by sources and the other IP editors. I remain very open to discussion once he stops making attacks and threats and is ready to move forward in a collaborative fashion. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's just lying outright about alleged personal attacks. There have been no personal attacks. The editors continue to misrepresent their recent changes as the 'stable version', which is another lie. It is not possible to work with these two IP editors, who are clearly working in collusion. (Earlier in this thread, one of the editors said "extensive discussion we have decided", but no on-Wiki discussion exists, so they are collaborating off-site.) I'm going to leave the article for a while until admins have addressed the edit-warring and belligerent behaviour of the IP editors involved here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet alert: It is still unclear whether identical edits from the two IP addresses are being made by one person or two. This edit, however, from an IPv6 address, was signed as the IP editor 73.11.72.255. That same IPv6 address was later used to continue the edit war at Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, using precisely the same edit as IP editor 73.11.72.255. (See [38][39] and the whole edit-warring sequence at that article). In any case 73.11.72.255 on his own is on the verge of breaching 3RR.

It is also highly amusing that the declaration on my user page that I am ex-JW proves "bias", while the IP editor whose edits bear all the hallmarks of a JW member is just trying to, you know, "straighten out" the article. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this thread began with a complaint that the IP editor had decided on his user page to brand me and another editor as "known apostates"[40]. That sort of cranky religious hate language, a term widely used by JWs to denigrate former members, is a fairly good indicator of the motives of this editor in trying to "straighten out" the article and, indeed, have a long-standing editor blocked. BlackCab (TALK) 12:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:73.11.72.255's "warning" on my talk page is interesting, as I have (as has been stated by other editors above) not INSERTED any new information, but reverted to the original information which, at the time of my revert, had not been discussed. I see that they have now, belatedly, started discussions in a very contentious manner on those pages, while attempting to shift the blame to myself and other editors for "changing" information, which is categorically false and verifiable by anyone who looks at the pages edit history. As for being in collusion with "1 or 2" other editors (I assume BlackCab and Jeffro77) this claim has been made in the past and it is false. I do not know BlackCab or Jeffro77, and my talk page clearly states that I was raised a JW, but have never believed, and that I rarely edit those articles except in the cases of obvious vandalism, such as the IP editors are currently engaged in. I have no bias against JW's, as (current IP editors aside) they have been nothing but great to me personally, and have changed my mother's life very much for the better, allowing her to stop smoking and drinking and generally be a much better and happier person because of it. I have made exactly 4 edits to the "Governing Body" page, all in response to vandalism, and until the recent vandalism, the one I had made before that was in 2012, which was also in response to vandalsim. As for the "Organizational Structure" page, the only edits I have ever made to that page have been to reverse the current IP editors vandalism. Both editors have mistakenly asserted that there is "consensus" for their changes, and I agree with BlackCab's sock puppet warning as being something that an admin should take a closer look into. Vyselink (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close? - This complaint can probably be closed now. Jeffro has calmed down, and the other two editors on his side, BlackCab and Vyselink, are acting in a less militant fashion. The bit about sockpuppetry is a diversion. My IP address changes between IPv4 and IPv6, I don't know why as it is the same connection. There are some edits from an IP that are not me, so I think there are at least 2 IP editors, perhaps 3, editing under dynamic addresses. 2601:7:1980:5B5:21C2:E1D6:3861:74AB (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. The suggestion that the complaint "can probably be closed now" comes from the subject of the complaint himself who, after removing from his talk page warnings for 3RR and sock-puppetry [41] continues to edit-war under dual IP accounts. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. The user admits he is behind both IP addresses[49] but disingenuously suggests other editors are sharing his IP address, presumably to reinstate his own material. BlackCab (TALK) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? You and I have both been the subject of recent "complaints" and I want to encourage you to stop personal attacks and focus on the articles. I have said for some time that my IP address sometimes shows up as IPv4 and sometimes as IPv6, I don't know why. However, there are other IP addresses editing these articles that I have nothing to do with. There is nothing odd or suspicious about any of this... 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any other IP edits in other ranges that have been editing the articles recently, and certainly not in support of your edits. Of recent edits to the articles you've been editing, which IP edits are you claiming are not your edits? There has actually been only one other IP edit on only one of the articles you've edited. That editor introduced a copyright violation, which you persist in restoring when I've tried to remove it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been edits from seven separate IPv6 addresses on the relevant articles. All of the addresses begin with "2601:7:1980:5B5", confirming that they are all on the same network. If they are not the same person, they are different persons on the same network colluding together.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77, BlackCab, and Vyselink conspiring - I have tried at great length to deal with you in a kind manner. However, additional efforts may be necessary to overcome the apparent schemes that involve conspiring and colluding to produce lies. I will no longer be editing any of these articles. But you are put on warning that you will have to answer for your error. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I'm "evil" for pointing out that you lied about IP addresses being unrelated. You've edit warred for several days and only attempted to superficially engage in discussion after you were reported to admins. You have lied about the stable version of the article. You have lied about consensus for your changes. You have lied about providing new sources. I'm not sure what is intended by "harsher chastisement", but I certainly hope its not intended as a legal threat.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lies by anti-religious activist Jeffro77 - I have never lied about anything. I told you from the beginning that my IP kept changing. Another IP posted some things about creationism in one of the articles that you reverted at the same time, so I didn't want to take credit for all IP contributions. You sure know how to play the Wikipedia game with your NLT accusations.2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum... now I'm an "activist". Where do I find the time!

So your threat about "harsher chastisement" it was just a meaningless assertion about an irrelevant theological opinion? Rightio. You're most welcome to imagine whatever scenario you like where I'm tortured and killed by your preferred deity. Enjoy. (Who even says "chastisement" anymore?)

You claimed there "there are some edits from an IP that are not me" and that there were "at least 2 IP editors, perhaps 3". The only other IP editor has only made one edit (pasting an entire article form the source, which is a copyright violation) on one article, and that article isn't one of the two that generated this discussion. You suggested that "they" are "editing under dynamic addresses", which is a conclusion no one could draw from a single edit by one editor. Your new claim that you only referred to that one editor is therefore false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's been some historical revisionism of the IP editor's 'kindness'.[50]--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admins Please Take Notice: At this point I believe that the block on both the IP originally addressed in the complaint and also for the other IP he has been using (2601:7 etc just above) is called for immediately and permanently. While he may insist that he will no longer be editing it is irrelevant at this point. His latest edit at my talk page, as well as I believe at Jeffro77's, clearly shows he has absolutely no intention of attempting to reach consensus and having a reasonable debate about his changes. The veiled threat of being "put on warning that you will answer for your error" (mentioned above here) and the veiled threat at my talk page (see link, but it reads "you may face serious consequences for your actions") while obviously the ramblings of a disgruntled IP user who can't get his own way, seal the deal as far as a permanent block is concerned. The history of the IP users edits, his original personal attack on myself and BlackCab by naming us a "Known Apostates", and his complete refusal to even tell the truth about what he himself has said is getting absurd, and taking valuable time from myself, BlackCab, and Jeffro77 to continually attempt to mitigate the damage, as well as wasting space on this ANI noticeboard. Vyselink (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vyselink may need preventative block - Like Jeffro and BlackCab, Vyselink is part of a group trying to invent reasons to block people who disagree with him. I suggest a topic ban for the three of them from this area. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After making bizarre religious threats to editors who have reverted him,[51][52][53][54] IP editor has since gone on a rampage of blatant POV editing on a range of JW articles. EdJohnston has blocked IP access to some articles he has already tampered with, but he continues to find others, including Charles Taze Russell, Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Jehovah's Witnesses practices. Some prompt blocking action would be appreciated. BlackCab (TALK) 09:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us more about "religious threats"... what does that mean to you exactly? I tried to disengage from the two of you but you have taken to following me around to revert my edits on sight. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of events - BlackCab has been editing articles related to certain religious denominations in a way that reflects bias in favor of the denomination. Perhaps he is a member? In any event, Jeffro77 has a similar ownership tendency along a different POV. All the new editors to these articles are being chased away by their automatic reverts going back 5+ years - look at the article histories. I told them they would need to discuss matters rather than just ignore earnest efforts to improve neutrality and sourcing. BlackCab and Jeffro now stalk me and revert my edits on other articles. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP 73.11 has clear POV issues with this area e.g. this amongst many others - I would suggest a topic ban initially, followed by blocks if that does not work. GiantSnowman 11:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP have no more POV issues than some of the other users contributing to the topic. The IP may need to adjust and adapt to be a productive editor, but the ban proposal seems to be based on the IP's views rather than behave. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor's behaviour is indeed certainly a significant problem. The editor has lied about consensus,[55] about sources[56] (none of the editor's changes provide additional sources), about who has introduced changes,[57] and about his identify as other IPs (says multiple IPs weren't him[58]; says all but one were him[59]). Subsequently, the editor has engaged in retributive editing, refusing to comment on content instead of contributors, and bizarre threats about 'judgement by god'.[60]

It is also telling that at the outset of this discussion you characterised the editor's repeated reversions to their preferred version of significant changes to multiple articles as merely "editing", but you have previously reported me for changing four words in one sentence (diffs supplied earlier in discussion). As such, there are indeed some POV problems to be addressed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To lie about anything is not a reason for imposing bans, even less if it is not intentional ("lie" imply it is done on purpose). Presenting "religious threaths" is may not good conduct, but probably no reason for a ban, while legal threaths are. Making use of puppets could be a reason. User:GiantSnowman introduced users with clear POV issues, while I can't see the IP being in a more POV positions than other users editing topic-related articles. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the userlinks:

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

I've blocked 73.11.72.255 (talk · contribs) for engaging in a long-term pattern of edit warring about the Jehovah's Witnesses and being unwilling to wait for consensus. This editor appear to be switching between this IP and 2601:7:1980:5b5:0::/64 in conducting these wars. Consensus can change, and nothing prevents our articles about the Jehovah's Witnesses from being updated by reaching agreement on talk pages, using the normal steps of WP:Dispute resolution when needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:, can you also give closer consideration to Grrahnbahr's behaviour in this matter, along with his history of attacking my edits? He has characterised this IP editor's edit-warring as simply "editing"; he's claimed that the IPs editor's dishonest assertions about consensus, sources, stable article versions and IPs were not "done on purpose"; he has previously reported me for much less (as indicated above and with full details in the earlier linked discussion—that was for restoring the same edit he did, and he admitted during that debacle that he had a separate agenda). It is evident that Grrahnbahr has an agenda to support pro-JW editors and argue against editors who provide a more neutral view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) I am not the subject for this AN/I 2) @Jeffro77: havent discussed his concern on my talk page ("Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page") 3) Jeffro77 is suggesting an investigation of me, without notyfying me, or even pinging me ("When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page"). The IP was blocked, and it was not given I would return to this discussion. I was not a subject of any discussion until Jeffro77's last post. 4) The reasons for a suggested investigation was me alleged having an agenda of supporting "pro-JW" editors. I find any allegations of me arguing against editors who provide a neutral view of any topic, the mentioned one included, as ridiculous. 5) I've produced tens of thousands edits in several wikimedia projects, and have started a four digit articles in several languages, and a number of featured articles and lists in the same projects, including one directly related to this topic. It is not an excuse for anything related to conduct, but, a couple of editors from English JW-related articles are the only editors complaining about my conduct. 6) It is not a violation against anything to support a new editor at wikipedia. The IP will probably never return for editing now, so good work! I'll leave this discussion, since this isn't my AN/I. Any investigations or actions against me will be taken seriously, and would thus require a proper notification on my userpage. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have simply responded to the comments that you have already made in this ANI. Your claim that you haven't been advised is therefore disingenuous, as is your claim that your actions had not been called into question until my immediately previous comment. In the scope of this ANI, I first raised the problems with your ongoing bias on 6 February after your response at this ANI on 5 February. It is incredibly dogmatic to insist that I 'advise' you about a discussion in which you're already involved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not obvious, I would also point out that Grrahnbahr complains that 'he is not the subject of this ANI', yet in his very first comment at this thread, he specifically sought to implicate my editing history on articles about JWs, though I was neither the subject of this ANI, nor the editor who raised it. I received no 'warning' from Grrahnbahr that he was disputing my conduct. Why does Grrahnbahr have a hypocritical double-standard here? And yet he characterised the IP editor's repeated edit warring and blatant dishonesty as "a dispute about nothing".--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just closed the requested move at Talk:2014 Odessa clashes. RGloucester (talk · contribs) was against the move, and is apparently trying to game the outcome of the RM by removing all article content at the new title and turning it into a DAB page, presumably ending up with the other page being back at his preferred title.

I reverted his edit to restore the article, and asked him not to do so, but he immediately reverted back to his DAB page.

Some action is clearly needed here, so can some other admins please intervene. Locking the article might be a start. Cheers, Number 57 23:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article has changed. The move is fine, as the editors involved must've wanted an article on the other Odessa incidents of 2014. Therefore, I'm happy to oblige, as I said in the move discussion. This is now a summary article, and the individual incidents will get their own articles. There is no other way to move forward. The RM participants decided they wanted an increased scope, and I'm granting them that wish. If they did not want to broaden the scope of the article, they should not've have voiced support for this proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I have administrator assistance please? I've just finished writing the new summary article on the 2014 Odessa clashes, in line with the RM result. I now need the old edit history transferred to 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes, so that article can be restored. I'll start working on the December clashes article shortly. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I requested, the history logs were moved to May 2014 Odessa clashes from 2014 Odessa clashes. --George Ho (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho and Anthony Appleyard: Can I ask why you have moved the pages? The 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes article was moved to 2014 Odessa clashes as the result of an RM now located at Talk:2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 30 December 2014. The claim above that the summary article was written " in line with the RM result" is a blatant falsehood, and I'm not sure why anyone has fallen for it. This is a clear gaming of the system – an article which there was clear consensus to move has now ended up back at the title preferred by the sole opposer. Number 57 21:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article changed with the move to "2014 Odessa clashes", to encompass all 2014 clashes in Odessa. I've done this expansion, wrote a new article on the subject to match the RM result. The 2 May clashes have their own article, and a summary section in the 2014 clashes article. RGloucester — ☎ 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back then, I probably would have been aware of the December bombings in Odessa. However, I was uncertain about its notability because no mainstream media have reported such event. Also, voters were not aware of it, and RGloucester neglected to notify us about the bombings. I requested that the mess be cleaned up, but I see that consensus must be adhered. Unfortunately, the discussion has become useless and void since the mess. George Ho (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See (A) User talk:Anthony Appleyard#!!!! and (B) this edit of the history-merge request page. In (B) I realize that I may have misunderstood what "the proposed article" and "that article" meant :: that is another reason for people writing instructions to repeat names and avoid elegant variation. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I told RGloucester that, if he can't create a separate "May 2014 Odessa clashes" soon, I'll re-propose a page move on the same article with only one name, and that's final. George Ho (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What a mess! Where is the move discussion? I can't find it in the links above... Cavarrone 22:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When any given IP user gets accused of being a sockpuppet of a named user (which should only be done if the IP user was abusing the system at the time of their writing, but is unfortunately sometimes done even without abuse from that IP user), and then if, for some dumb reason, that IP user is given the suspected-sockpuppet label, how long must it stay there--even if that IP user was never blocked, and regardless of how long, if for any time, the named user the IP is accused of socking was blocked? Is it just like that for the remainder of the Wikipedia's existence, or... what, exactly? And whose decision is that supposed to be, anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remainder of Wikipedia's existence would be more like it. It's the decision of SPI clerks entirely. And they can only be over-ruled by ArbCom. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 08:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, QEDK. But why, if most IP addresses are shared, and so a new person using that address then has to hold onto that label, as well as the named user never being let go of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shared IP addresses are blocked for a short period of time (the maximum can be ~2 months) - keeping in mind that it's shared. However, if we find a LTA from such an IP for years, admins will indef block the IP. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 08:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe IPs are almost never indef blocked - static ones are blocked for long definite periods. By the way, I think the relevant term is dynamic (vs static) rather than shared - dynamic ones are re-allocated at intervals, sometimes very short ones, and I don't think sock tags would be left on those for very long. Squinge (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By shared, he does mean "shared" i.e. when one IP is used by a number of people. For example, intranets which have only one exit point to the internet have one external IP address only and a WHOIS will only point to that intranet and not be able to pinpoint a specific computer in it, since all have the same IP address. Since, institutions and work places have a lot of computers, shared IP addresses save resources (i.e. hardware load and money) because only one or a few addresses need to be allocated. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he did mean "shared" (and yep, I know what it means, thanks), but I think the difference between dynamic and static is also relevant here, especially when people are suggesting IP address are indef blocked (they should almost never be), and it's really only static IPs (shared or not) that get long blocks. Squinge (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well guys, I don't mean "blocked" necessarily, but even just being suspected of sockpuppetry. How long must an IP user hold the "suspected of sockpuppetry" label as slapped on by an assuming admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IPsock or another template like it can be removed by anyone at any time (assuming it is not checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry, which for an IP is unlikely). That is, they are not listed at WP:UP#CMT as needing to remain on the user talk page so removal is only subject to the edit warring and blocking (edits by blocked users) policies.

@QEDK: just to clarify something you said SPI clerks are just like any other user except they are trained and trusted by the checkusers to keep SPI functioning. Blocks (and other actions) by SPI clerks can be appealed and overturned by any administrator. Blocks made by checkusers (and marked as a checkuser block - see WP:CUBL) can only be overturned by another checkuser or the Arbitration Committee because they rely on private evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, @Callanecc:. Only a few SPI clerks have the CU right and coincidentally all CUs are admins AFAIK, right? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, QEDK, then why is it that when I have once had another IP address and I went to remove that stupid notice from IP editors I know, those admins think it's their duty to keep replacing that notice and also add me as one of the sock suspects? When does that stupid practice die, and after how long do those addresses get to go back to normal (they'll stop insisting that those are permanently marked)? Do we have to have admins that just keep adding those back as well as adding new ones indefinitely? Do they not have better things to do than maintain those indefinitely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be considered too impatient if reasked now if anyone has an update to my latest paragraph here now? Autosigned by 75.162.166.13 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

If you are on a suspected sockmaster's shared IP, your recourse would be to make an account and file an appeal to BASC citing that your IP is shared. And well, your account and IP will be either freed from the sockpuppet trademark or you'll gain IPBlockExempt status. But then, you seem to be on a static and clean IP till now. What's the problem? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My IP address hasn't changed for now. But I bet if I use it to go remove those accusations again, they will just replace them again and then add this address to their stupid list.

I'm just annoyed that if I go remove the accusation from my old IP addresses, those admins think they have to return it to those addresses and then add the one I was using to that, too. I just wonder how long they think they'd have to keep that up even if someone keeps removing those things. I wonder how long until they will just let those things stay removed and not add each new IP address of someone who removes them. That's why I asked here. It's really lame, ya know?

75.162.166.13 (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My respectful suggestion to someone who was blocked and then evaded their block by editing as an IP is to stop evading the block - request an unblock and move on. The reason for tagging is simply to keep track of a user's continued block evasion, which will be considered when an unblock is requested. Keeping the old IPs tagged helps accumulate these block evasions, as the category is maintained. However, WP's history function works well enough. Regardless, the focus for such a user should be to stop block evading. User:IDriveAStickShift is one example that springs to mind, who used IPs not only to blank tags from IPs used for WP:DE, but also vandalized - just two examples are [61], [62]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, Joe, for the example you gave, even if that main user was never unblocked (let's say if he or she were to request unblock and the admins declined--well, I assume you are one because of how you knew of that example), but then a non-admin (where you just assume that every new address is a sock too just because they were trying to help those other IPs not stay marked, although you don't know that) kept clearing those tags from the new IPs that you assume are that same blocked person, how much longer would you replace the tags? Let's say you're an admin. You'd never get tired of returning them and then adding the new one for the rest of the time you were an admin here (probably the rest of your working life or longer)?

75.162.166.13 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should delete the whole "suspected sockpuppets" categories. We don't allow speculation elsewhere but if people suspect that others are sockpuppets, they should file an SPI and have it confirmed (the WP:DUCK exception and how admins deal with them with another matter). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has declared on the Libertarianism talk page that libertarians should like capitalism and that libertarian socialism, libertarian communism and libertarian marxism are (apparently) some kind of myth. The editor has chosen to expunge that myth from WP by starting up edit wars on just about any page describing libertarian socialist politics:

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

None of these mentions of libsoc are the least bit controversial, to my knowledge, and the political groups in question all describe themselves as libertarian, as typically confirmed by native-language articles. Offering citations doesn't seem to make any difference at all, so I don't know how to proceed. fi (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the ref for PPK and Darkstar1st appears to be correct. All references to liberarianism are in reference to Öcalan, not PPK. Can't comment on others, but the user does seem to be editing specifically on this issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reference on PKK describes it as communalist, which is a strain of libertartarian socialism, and aligns it with Murray Bookchin, a prominent libertarian socialist. fi (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need an RS that says specifically that it's libertarian socialist. Otherwise it's OR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. That document does specifically identify it as libertarian socialist unambiguously, in exactly the same way that a manifesto proclaiming Maoism would identify a group as Marxist-Leninist. Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism, just like a lemon is a type citrus fruit. B ⊃ A fi (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're assuming the result you want. You say a lemon is a citrus fruit, but another editor objects, unless you have a citation from a reliable source that says that a lemon is a citrus fruit, you can't use that in an article. If someone disputes it, you need a citation from a reliable source that says Maoism is a form of Marxist-Leninism, or you can't use it. Does your source say specifically that "Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism" (or words to that effect)? If it doesn't, then it's not the source you need. Your prior knowledge is not sufficient, you need a source. BMK (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't specifically say it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just patently silly. Wikipedia (on the articles for communalism, Murray Bookchin, libertarian socialism, for example) is absolutely plastered in references confirming that Bookchin's communalism is uncontroversially a type of libertarian socialism. What you're saying is like saying it's OR to call a "poet" a "writer" because a source explicitly called him a "poet" and there's no reference literally saying "writer." I'm not offering my personal knowledge as a reference; it's just documented all over Wikipedia that one is a superset of the other. A square is a rectangle, so we don't need a reference on something being a rectangle if we have a source saying it's a square. More importantly, the editor has not objected as you say and has brought no credible objection or dispute to the discussion. This is just a continuation of the abuse already on the editor's rap sheet. fi (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Common sense", for want of a better word, tells us that a lemon is a citrus fruit, and a poet is a writer. It tells us no such thing about the relationship between Bookchin's communalism and libertarian socialism. It is way outside the bounds of common knowledge, and therefore needs a source. BMK (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then "common sense" tells us, in the exact same way, that a Maoist is a Marxist-Leninist, especially when there's dozens of citations, all over WP, saying B ⊃ A -- same as references describing Bookchin, communalism and (shockingly) libertarian municipalism as libertarian. You can pick your favorite reference, but you're the first person to challenge this, as User:Darkstar1st did not. So, I don't even understand why we're talking about it. fi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does common sense tell us that the World Socialist Party of the United States is libertarian socialist? Contrary to your claim upthread, I'm not aware of them ever having described themselves as such. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WSPUS was the US contingent of the World Socialist Movement, which was described as libertarian socialist, for example, in Anarchy Magazine, Volume 3, 1963, page 178 (can't link directly, so search for "World Socialist Movement" and "non-state libertarian socialists"), among numerous other sources. "Common sense" would just be transitive logic. If we know where a superset belongs, we know how to describe a subset. fi (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transitive logic works only if you accept the premise. Perhaps you're not aware of just how contentious political labels can be? I'd advise you to find multiple reliable sources before slapping labels on political organizations, especially when (as in the current case) the organization itself rejects or has never used that label. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a premise is wrong is another thing, while this is about validity: if A and B then also C. If someone's arguing that it's valid but unsound, could you please link me to the discussion? Like I said though, I am aware of zero controversy and I rather doubt WSPUS would have rejected being called libertarian Marxist (had the term been more widely used in the early 20th century) or libertarian socialist (had the term not been associated almost exclusively with anarchist communism then). It's just the most accurate description of their politics and it's not considered pejorative... not that it particularly matters if they *had* rejected it. Whether a group likes the label they're given or not is hardly the one criterion for verifiability. Anyway, I still don't understand why we're talking about this when Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists, historically. fi (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it seems you're just making stuff up. Darkstar1st's stated contention for the removal in question was the reliability of the source, not with his distaste for the idea of libertarian socialism in general. You even linked to his edit summary upthread. (And as a matter of fact, your doubts about the label are without merit; the WSP(US) denies that it is "Marxist" so it's a safe bet it would also take issue with "libertarian Marxist".) Of course, disputes about our categorizations of parties are best resolved on article talk pages, not here. There's already a talk page discussion about the categorization of this particular party, to which you're welcome to contribute. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you even talking about? WSM and WSPUS were founded by anti-Bolshevik Classical Marxists. It's pretty much the first thing both articles say. So far as the editor in question and that editor's POV crusade, I can back up everything I've said with diffs, like the user's insistence that libertarian socialism isn't real libertarianism, refusal to enter into discussion and the removal of perfectly legitimate sources on statements contradicting that POV. I'm here to talk about that editor's conduct. fi (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to build a case for Darkstar1st's POV, then it help if you got the facts of your complaint straight, and demonstrated a modicum of familiarity with the examples you're invoking. First you stated upthread that Darkstar1st removed the "libertarian socialist" label from the WSP(US) article, even though you claim they "describe themselves as libertarian". However, the WSP(US) has never referred to itself as libertarian. Then you said that "Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists" (my emphasis), though your own diffs show a variety of stated contentions on his part, including objections to the reliability of one citation (a perfectly reasonable argument, even though it proved to be mistaken) and to another's language (much less reasonable grounds, but still nothing to do with political ideology). Then you claim that the WSP(US) would refer to itself as Marxist, when in fact they have always quite vocally rejected this label. In short, I'd be taking your complaint a lot more seriously if it wasn't so easy to poke holes in your evidence. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WSM is commonly labeled libertarian socialist and describes itself as Marxist, which takes all of ten seconds to verify. If you have some reason to believe both the WSM and WSPUS articles are 100% wrong in their descriptions of these groups, please fully rewrite these articles accordingly: articles presently describing anti-Leninist Classical Marxists. So far as Darkstar1st's removal of the source for being unreliable, that source was a pamphlet published by WSPUS, so I find it difficult to believe that the WSPUS is not a relevant source on the topic. There may be a worthwhile discussion to be had about whether this Marxist group (according to every source available on all relevant WP articles) is more accurately described as impossiblist, libsoc, both or neither, but the editor was not interested in having one. I encourage you to take your own advise and stay on topic. fi (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is your failure to present a coherent argument about Darkstar1st's disruptive editing. Neither the document you just cited nor the one Darkstar1st originally objected to say what you claim they say, and in this thread you continue to argue against strawmen. (I never said that the WSP(US) is not Marxist or libertarian socialist, and I never said that our articles shouldn't describe them as such.) I think I've seen enough of your line of reasoning (such as it is) to come to a conclusion as to what needs to be done here. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't backpedal. Nearly everything you've tried to derail this with has been total nonsense and just factually wrong; e.g. apparently WSPUS is so adamant about rejecting allegations of Marxism that they devoted a quarter of their website to a "Study Guide to Marxism." I'm sorry you tried to grandstand and got called on it. Good call on bailing out. fi (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In one edit Darkstar reverts the addition of a Spanish language source (in an article on a Chilean political party) with the edit summary "Engligh language sources only please". That is unjustified. We have no requirement for sources to be in English. For writing about political parties in non-English speaking countries particularly it would seem a particularly silly requirement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Finx may well be wrong, that is a content issue for discussion. However, if, as they claim, User:Darkstar1st is not discussing the disagreement, we have a behaviour issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
  
  • A quick look shows that, for example, this edit by Darkstar1st does have an edit summary that points to the a discussion section on the talk page. I think, therefore, that it would be a better plan to engage on the article talk pages than pursue this AN/I. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
    

On the face of it, this certainly appears to be a behavioural issue - and if Darkstar1st thinks that it is appropriate to remove all mention of a significant trend in the historical development of socialist thought from Wikipedia, as appears to be his/her objective, we need to do something about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, as of now, the user is still edit warring and Wikilawyering all over the place. I don't feel like getting into fifteen separate games of revert pong, so I'll just let this roll on until someone wants to do something about the continuing pattern of disruptive behavior. fi (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend admin action. Well there is some pretty obvious POV pushing. It's a systematic removal of references to left wing libertarianism, presumably to POV push that it does not exist, and only right-wing libertarianism exists. So in effect it is vandalism, as a clear pattern has emerged. If left unhindered he may remove all mentions of left-wing libertarianism. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's a larger problem involving libertarian editors and articles. For an example, look what's happened to our article on free society.[63] This kind of assimiliation of a non-libertarian topic, takeover, and OR is going on everywhere. Darkstar1st is only one of many editors engaging in this kind of behavior. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think part of the problem is that User:Finx is a bit clueless about citations and original research. (See example.) In the example, Citation A, did not support the statement, but Citation B did. User:Finx did not understand that Citation B needed to be by the statement, not Citation A. Regarding original research, User:Finx seems to think that if a party is socialist, and says it has liberal/libertarian values, that makes it a libertarian-socialist party. [The same non-English word translates as "liberal" or "libertarian".] What Darkstar1st seems to be trying to do is to clean up this kind of thing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't stoop to personal attacks, but if you want to charge me with being "clueless" on ANI, let's review the absolutely mind-boggling level of incompetence you have displayed on the Freedom and Solidarity Party article. First of all, the citation already present before the titular POV warrior arrived used the word "özgürlükçü" which, beyond any reasonable doubt (as was explained), translates to "libertarian" in this context. So, no further citation was even needed. Assuming good faith, however, (and way beyond what is reasonable) the very first thing I did was add an inline English-language citation from a respected authority on the subject with a quote that just could not possibly be any clearer: "the ODP, or Freedom and Solidarity Party, is a Turkish socialist libertarian party founded in 1996." This was removed and ignored. When I pointed this out, it was ignored again by both yourself and the POV warrior, followed by complaints about the original reference using "özgürlükçü" instead of "liberter" -- which are synonyms, as can be seen here. When that objection clearly fell apart, the Wikilawyering moved on to ridiculous claims of OR: it's OR to assume that political groups claiming to be libertarian are... libertarian. I mean, this is just comedy. "Liberal" and "libertarian" are mutually exclusive groups: one is capitalist, the other, in this (and practically any) context, anticapitalist. That is also not original research. It's the most basic level of comprehension you can have on the topic. Libertarian, outside of its isolated use in the US as another word for advocacy of laissez faire "free market" capitalism, universally means socialist. The libertarian qualifier in libsoc qualifies the type of socialism (to distinguish from state-socialism), not the other way around, i.e. the type of libertarianism. When a socialist political organization declares itself libertarian, that means one thing only: libertarian socialism. If you are this confused or just know absolutely nothing about these topics, why not ask for clarification instead of calling others "clueless"? And, speaking of clueless, I invite you to find me one article on Wikipedia -- or anywhere else for that matter -- where "özgürlükçü" translates to liberal, let alone where that's a reasonable translation in the context of describing far-left socialist groups. The only thing in your contributions so far that would have even vaguely resembled a rational thought -- had it been concerning a non-socialist party -- is based off a funny Google translation error which you couldn't be bothered to verify when it produced an obvious absurdity. fi (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban proposal for User:Darkstar1st

Normally I would recommend a topic ban from libertarianian-related articles, but the editor's history shows that he has not made a positive contribution anywhere, and has carried out this type of editing in other areas such as the Tea Party movement. He's had years to change, but seems more interested in conflict than improvement of articles. So probably best to ban the editor and avoid having to discuss him at ANI again and again. TFD (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Site ban for Darkstar1st. This battleground behavior and tendentious editing has been going on for years in many articles related to his interests. He has failed to respond to the many requests and warnings to stop. There's no reason to believe that his behavior will improve in the future. I think he has exhausted the patience that has been extended to him. SPECIFICO talk 04:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any action against Darkstar1st. The editor who brought this complaint has failed to make a coherent case for any serious disruption by Darkstar1st, willful or otherwise. Most of the edits I've checked seem to be correctly, or at least plausibly, tagging or removing claims which are not supported by citations. And for cases where the edits are disputed he has requested and/or engaged in talk page discussions. He seems to have been confused about the acceptability of non-English sources, though solving that ought to have involved drawing his attention to WP:NONENG rather than dragging him to WP:ANI. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychonaut:This disruptive behavior is just the latest in a long history of such conduct in articles on related subjects. This user repeatedly either ignores or fails to understand warnings and guidance as to behavioral and sourcing policy. He's been blocked numerous times for misconduct. Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect things to get any better. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose At worst he got into an edit war on Equality_Party_(Chile), but it was such a slow burning edit war that he never came close to violating WP:3RR (and he wasn't trying to game the system either doing reverts every 24 hours) and he tried to just use tags for the part he thought failed verification but those were removed. He did misunderstand WP:NONENG and removed sources that were not in English. And I should note that when WP:NONENG was pointed out to him on his talk page he said "thank you both for the clarification. Mea culpa" This is far from siteban worthy (I don't think it is even topic ban worthy). --Obsidi (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said below, it made no difference if the sources were in English and it made no difference if they said what the article said, verbatim. Nothing was read or considered. If previous comments on the talk pages of libertarianism, libertarian socialism, etc, are any indication, it's hard to imagine how one can suspend enough disbelief to see this behavior as something done in good faith. Nonsense like this seems to happen all the time and I'm tired of it, for one. fi (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only English source that he removed did not support the statement (sense been corrected by a different editor). --Obsidi (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely, 100% false as I've already explained three times now, here and on the article's talk page. fi (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per clearly WP:NOTHERE "Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods". His editing resembles a WP:SPA purely to WP:POVPUSH his view that libertarian socialism is not a movement, and thus removes references to libertarian socialism from numerous articles, To further his cause he uses edit-warring, pretends he can't translate, and uses the deceitful practices of double-editing (first removing the reference and tagging, then removing the actual statement a few hours later). This whole process causes considerable time wasting and acrimony. This isn't just recent behavior but a long-term problem, just look at his record. WP would be a better place without him. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I wasn't sure until reading the objections, but now it's clear that this is all pretty disingenuous, and that some people are just repeating the same falsehoods in defense of this user, no matter what anyone says. Five years is plenty of time for someone to change their behavior. fi (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Wikipedia works best if people question flaky citations, and that is what Darkstar1st has been doing. Finx and Mrjulesd feel threatened by that and so are campaigning to have Darkstar1st blocked. This is wrong. Various editors have looked into their objections to Darkstar1st, and found that the accusations did not really stand up. Mrjulesd claimed that Darkstar1st was edit warring in a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive271#User:Darkstar1st reported by User:Mrjulesd (Result: declined, leaving up to WP:ANI), but when I looked into the accusations, the case against Darkstar1st had been overstated, and Finx and Mrjulesd had edit-warred just as much on the page in question as Darkstar1st, and none of them had broken the 3 revert rule. As for accusations of POV pushing - Finx and Mrjulesd make statements like: "non-Marxist communists are generally known as libertarians"!-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the context on that quote, which is totally and verifiably true in context (as explained in the article on anarchist a.k.a. libertarian communism), see this discussion thread started by Darkstar1st's wanting to remove libsoc from the article on libertarianism. I find it hilarious that I'm supposed to be in some kind of conspiracy with Mrjulesd, who only stepped into this matter after seeing it on ANI, AFAIK. fi (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look if we're all wrong he really needs to come to ANI to defend his position, and give an explanation for his editing patterns. These are serious allegations, his lack of input here is plainly unsatisfactory. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Have we really been discussing this problem for five years? I think that's enough time to come to a decision. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with WP:STANDARDOFFER, which would of course entail a topic ban if he were ever reinstated. If someone so clearly WP:NOTHERE is to get the message, he needs an indef ban. Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, why are people complaining that Darkstar1st removed political labels which had no reference? Finx is adding labels with no reference or bad references, so Finx is breaking policy, not Darkstar1st. Spumuq (talq) 12:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I done this? None of those labels were originally added by me and I was usually not the first to revert their removal. I did provide sources on four occasions: three from the concerned parties' own publications, one from a respected American academic and authority on regional politics and several others on talk pages (from pertinent and well known political journals, Kevin Carson's think tank, etc). I'm not sure where I broke policy. fi (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of articles about socialist groups are old and have few if any references. Your first example, Socialist Party (Netherlands, interbellum) is entirely unsourced. Rather than improve articles on socialism, Darkstar1st has decided to remove any reference to libertarianian in them, believing that libertarianism and socialism are incompatible. He has also as mentioned above removed sources before deleting text, and argues that reliable sources are using incorrect translations when they call foreign groups libertarian. But it is no defense at ANI to say one is right - that is an issue of content that should be decided in the relevant content noticeboards. Right or wrong, editors must work collaboratively with others, which Darkstar1st vehemently refuses to do. TFD (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken. If you look at (for example) Talk:Freedom and Solidarity Party you will see useful collaborative behaviour by Darkstar1st, Mrjulesd, Finx and other editors that resulted in better citations in the article. None of that would have happened if Darkstar1st had not questioned a the citation to the statement that the party were socialist libertarians.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is just the latest in a succession of clueless campaigns of POV editing and WP:IDONTHEAR from Darkstar1st. For example he has repeatedly tried to insert ill-sourced contentious material about Paul Krugman and other left-of-center figures, and he tried repeatedly to portray Adolf Hitler and Nazism as a leftist socialist. Check his contributions if you wish to familiarize yourself with his history. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored this section from archive: Request admin attention

I've restored this section from the archive Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#User:Darkstar1st_on_a_site-wide_purge_of_any_mention_of_.22libertarian_socialism.22 as he is back to his old tricks: removing references to libertarian socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Party_%28Chile%29&diff=prev&oldid=646028069

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands,_interbellum%29&diff=prev&oldid=646028553

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=646028899

He previously removed references to these ideologies, put on tags, and now he is removing the socialist libertariansim, pretending that he did not put on these tags.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Party_%28Chile%29&diff=645713026&oldid=645692112

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands,_interbellum%29&diff=645669261&oldid=645538134

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States&diff=645518380&oldid=645442331

I've reported him for edit warring, which is pending. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Darkstar1st_reported_by_User:Mrjulesd_.28Result:_.29

Also see the original diffs. Definite POV pattern to his editing, I request admin action.

--Mrjulesd (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've invited Darkstar1st to join this conversation, and let them know that the discussion is currently moving towards their being blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't care if he is changing 100 articles, if he is doing so for good policy based reasons. To ask for a source for a disputed claim is fine (which is what most of his edits have been). He did get into a bit of an edit war on Equality_Party_(Chile). That was wrong, he should have gone to the talk page after he got reverted. He did remove some content that was sourced to a site in a foreign language, he should have asked for a translation if he disputed it before removing. Other then that I don't see the problem --Obsidi (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't that suggest a POV pusher? Removing references to "Libertarian" from lots of socialist political parties? And that's all he's been doing. And there are ample references he's ignoring. There is a definite pattern to his editing suggesting heavy POV against libertarian socialism, like he doesn't like that it exists. --Mrjulesd (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVPUSHEditing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing. If there are references he is ignoring, first make sure that he is aware of them, and then it becomes behavior issue if he continues. Demanding sources and removing unsourced labels (until a source is provided) even on multiple pages is not quite enough to be a problem. If he was repeatedly adding, especially fringe material or expanding sections beyond what would be due weight that would be far more of a problem which is what POV pushing is. --Obsidi (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor "asked" for sources and then deleted them when they were provided, or when clarification on the correct and already present sources was offered. fi (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did see a few that he removed even after a source was provided because the source was not in English. That was wrong. And if he persists and keeps removing it, he should be blocked until he acknowledges that he cannot remove sourced material just because it isn't in English. So far I have seen him remove stuff cited in other languages because it wasn't in English, but after it was added back in he doesn't appear to have kept removing it (meaning a block isn't yet appropriate for that). --Obsidi (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word, as well. There were up to six or seven reverts on about dozen separate articles, each. Indiscriminate mass deletions by political POV warriors call for a complete topic ban, at the very least, IMO, though I'm tempted to agree with TFD that it might be too lenient in this case. Honestly, the editor above who pointed out that US libertarians are a site-wide problem hit the nail right on the head. I don't know of any other political group here that causes so many problems repeatedly, or spends so much time on shameless appropriation and recuperation of absolutely anything that has some imaginary tenuous connection to the USLP marketing campaign. The issue, as far as I can see, is religious fanaticism. fi (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide diffs for those in which he "removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word"? There are a lot of different articles and lots of different edits, I have been through all the diffs posted on this thread so far. --Obsidi (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sure fi (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I followed the link for the source cited in the diff and got "Aradığınız sayfa sistemde kayıtlı değildir" which is Turkish for "System is not registered on the page you are looking for" did you get something different? Oh, I see now, your talking about the ref to the book (he didn't remove any content just the ref to the book) I am not sure why he did that, that doesn't seem right. His edit summary seems to be related to the other two edits he made about the weird Turkish page not found message. --Obsidi (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he felt that it did not support the statement. The text in Wikipedia is "The prominent grouping within the party is Revolutionary Solidarity (former Devrimci Yol (Revolutionary Path) - also known as Dev-Yol) which was formed following the split of Libertarian Socialism Platform in 2007." But the source only says "The remnant of Del Yol, now called the Libertarian Socialism Platform, is also a member of the ODP." Close, but a bit different (or at least doesn't support all the sentence). --Obsidi (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source explicitly says: "the ODP...is a Turkish socialist libertarian party" -- which was made clear about four or five times, by my count. fi (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, and like I said that is a good source for that. But he removed the reference in the diff above for a different sentence not dealing with if it is a socialist libertarian party. --Obsidi (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if an editor is following content policy and is not something we can decide here. TFD (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion above about a possible site ban for Darkstar1st. I have just created the heading "Site ban proposal for User:Darkstar1st". Please give your views there. --Mrjulesd (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user keeps reverting the article content for the whole week removing huge portion of the referenced text along the references verifying it. For details see here and specifically here, here, here, here, here

He was warned here after which he reverted the article content again.

He put the http://magnumcrimen.org/ link under External links of the Magnum Crimen article. This is a commercial site selling this book, which is against the Wikipedia no advertisement policy.

He was blocked 6 times in the past for the vandalism, edit warring, and harassment.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing to my past behaviour which has nothing to do with you or the article in question here. For the record, User:Michelle Ridomi seems to be a sock/meat puppet of User:Milos zankov. Both of them have been engaged in censoring edits to Magnum Crimen - a controversial book originally published in 1948 claiming that Catholic clergy was closely related to Croatian fascists during World War II and which seems to have a special place in Serbian nationalists' hearts. They have been doing this in an effort to keep our article word-for-word identical to what has been posted to magnumcrimen.org, an external website set up to promote English-language edition of the book. The text over there is a mirror of a previous version of our Wikipedia article, much of which had been added in 2010 by a user blocked since, and which had plagiarised verbatim a 1950 book review, including a few glaring factographical mistakes. Correcting these (or at least rephrasing to avoid obvious plagiarism issues) is virtually impossible due to these two editors' never-ending reverts.

Only after User:Milos zankov (a recently registered account) opened an RfC (which was ciriticised already for overall tone and lack of good faith assumption by a passing by editor) and after Milos reported me here twice did Michelle Ridomi (yet another recently registered account) appear out of the blue to start blowing the same trumpet. I think we would all have to be imbeciles not to assume these two are puppets and not to assume they have a vested interest in this article because of a political axe to grind. Perhaps I should have reported both to WP:SPI. I see now I should have, and I will, once this thread is concluded. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"They have been doing this in an effort to keep our article word-for-word identical to what has been posted to magnumcrimen.org, an external website set up to promote English-language edition of the book." It is quite clear that magnumcrimen.org copied most of the text from the Wikipedia Magnum Crimen. The time stamp here shows that the word-for-word text existed in the Magnum Crimen as of 27 August 2010. The magnumcrimen.org site claims its copyright as of 2015. If there is a copyright violation, it is on the magnumcrimen.org side. We tried several times to explain that the time does not run backward which this user kept rejecting. Collaborating in a constructive way, which I did when commenting and submitting changes to Magnum Crimen, is not puppeteering.
"and which had plagiarised verbatim a 1950 book review" In 2010 a portion of this text was not referenced. The un-referenced text was reworded by Milos zankov and the reference added which makes no sense to call it a plagiarism now, nor remove the whole section from the article.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained what happened quite clearly - an entire 1950 book review was pasted into our article years ago (unattributed). The article was then mirrored at magnumcrimen.org (unattributed to either Wikipedia or original source), which claims copyright to it. Milos and Michelle are now edit-warring and speficically reverting any re-wording of the said text, many, many, many, many, many times. They also deleted external link back to magnumcrimen.org (the book's official website) several times, they deleted sections on criticism of the book, and they pretend they don't see factual mistakes in the quoted review itself (the book was not banned by the Catholic church; its author was not a priest, etc, etc.). They even oppose translating the title in English exactly the same way it is printed on its English-language edition cover. Milos and Michelle are just here to revert whatever anyone does on the article. And they have no intention of behaving otherwise since they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Timbouctou (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Timbouctou I'll respond to a few issues mentioned by this user.

• "an entire 1950 book review was pasted into our article years ago (unattributed)" -> the fact is just these two sentences were "unattributed": Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples. which I attributed properly. The whole book review is in front of me and has four pages. As a proof that the "entire 1950 book review" is never pasted into Magnum Crimen I'll offer this snippet from the O. Neuman book review: "The invasion and disruption of Jugoslavia in the spring of 1941 has served the author as the dividing line of the period to be covered in the third part of this trilogy. The magnum crimen is not and individual or isolated action: the author uses the the term to designate the activities of that part of the Croat hierarchy which cast their lot with the poglavnik of NDH. Ante Pavelic and endorsed his policy, friendly to the Axis and hostile to the Serbian people, and in general to all those who even after the forceful dismemberment of the country remained faithful to the idea of Yugoslavia. Two long chapters covering over 500 pages, have been reserved for the description of conditions prevailing in the NDH". The Google search will show you this
• "its author was not a priest, not banned by the Catholic church" A Corrupt Tree: An Encyclopaedia of Crimes committed by the Church of Rome against Humanity and the Human Spirit, A.S., Xlibris Corporation, Jan 13, 2014 page 803 Novak, Viktor, ex Catholic priest, professor, historian, anathema pronounced against him, 537 Magnum Crimen ... placed on the Index, 537. See also Autor je Viktor Novak (1889–1977), hrvatski rimokatolički sveštenik i profesor Univerziteta u Beogradu translated as The author, Victor Novak (1889-1977) , is a Croatian Roman Catholic priest and a University of Belgrade professor--Milos zankov (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Milos. Too bad you have no clue where "A Corrupt Tree" got that information from since page 537 is missing from Google Books preview you plucked this from. Also, too bad you don't actually use references when editing the article itself instead of reverting. And reverting. And reverting. And reverting. And then some more reverting. Timbouctou (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did not add a single reference. Moreover, you added "official site" which is just an advertisement despite the fact that advertising inside Wikipedia articles is strictly forbidden to advertise. Milos zankov added eight new references.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zankov added very little, and the article is still mostly reliant on primary sources (although, oddly enough, things like author's priesthood and prohibition are not). You, on the other hand, had deleted entire sections about the book's criticism and you are still edit-warring over petty crap, such as the book's English-language title, external link (which is its official website), copyedited 1950 review and a myriad of other stuff that has been touched upon in the talk page. The idea that the external link is merely advertisement is pretty interesting since Milos and yours version of the article body is a verbatim copy of what is on that website. Timbouctou (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:timbouctou is known to delete any reference s/he does not like, e.g. the image in the article on Extreme right politics in Croatia ( q.v. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Croatia&diff=645719162&oldid=645701856 )

Seems instead of disciplining and civilising extreme right wing Wikipedia in Croatian (which in all discussions calls itself "Croatin wikipedia"), shich was attempted last year, when it escalated so much that Croatian (left wing) government and Wikipedia founders were involved, we just got the same pro-Ustashi Croatian extreme right policies promoted on Wikipedia in Enlgish now. What User:timbouctou and his/her cohort user:Joy do by removing anything remotely critical of the pro-fascist extreme right wing Croatian worldview or of the Roman Catholic church in Croatia is what people with integrity should abhor and reject and those users should be banned indefinitely.

109.245.135.87 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even read all of the above but it's fairly clear to me that the party dragging Timbouctou through the mud here is WP:NOTHERE and needs to be axed. I don't currently have the time to go through an analysis of the abusive accounts, can someone else please tend to it? TIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think we can safely add above IP to the list. This one is obsessed with adding an unrelated image to the article on Croatian nationalism. Timbouctou (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Joy [shallot] Looks like this admin is again solicited to intervene on behalf of Timbouctou. See the earlier WP:CANVASS here and here.--Milos zankov (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Joy: It's clear that this administrator is solicited. An additional solicitation is here. It is noteworthy to write that this administrator was already blocked for abusing administrative rights. For details, see here. After being solicited by Timboctou, administrator Joy attacked Milos zankov saying I'm not sure if this account is yet another sockpuppet of User:Velebit or what, but in any event, I'm issuing a final warning. The same Joy attacked other users as sockpuppets of Velebit which was rejected recently .. and this particular SPI file seems to be a dumping ground without any serious evidence that the mass of accounts connected to Velebit are indeed connected. My proposal is to "review" activity of this administrator equally as we reviewing Timboctou's vandalism and edit warring.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, following a discussion at ANI [115], user Dr. Feldinger was indefinitely blocked after a serious of personal attacks. Since then, the user has returned with a never-ending number of socks, both registered socks and IP-socks

• 79.183.4.32 [116]
• 109.67.170.12 [117]
• 79.176.169.95 [118]
• 79.182.166.92 [119]
• 85.76.74.120 [120]
• 85.240.221.26 [121]
• 91.153.218.39 [122]
• 80.223.7.98 [123]
• 92.251.12.101 [124]
• Meg2015 [125]
• Three Whole Words [126]

Could something more effective be done rather than just continue to block the socks one by one as they appear?Jeppiz (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page has been semi-protected. I like trolling when it's funny, but I'm not keen on being called anti-Semitic in a serious context (my Jewish mother and grandma wouldn't approve) and I doubt the other users, Jewish and gentile, like it either when they're just trying to fix an article that is the target of constant fighting and politically-motivated nonsense. He seems to be on the war-path right now, but hopefully it'll taper off. Also, I think this might belong on WP:SPI if I'm not mistaken. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 20 Shevat 5775 17:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that someone actually bothered with all that IP-changing and registering. What's even more awkward is that he's cloaked himself with some really nice proxy/VPN because his primary subnet's different so we can't issue a rangeblock. Still a geotrace won't hurt (given respectively):

• Israel Petah Tikva Bezeq International-ltd
• Israel Petah Tikva Bezeq International-ltd
• Israel Tel Aviv Bezeq International-ltd
• Israel Petah Tikva Bezeq International-ltd
• Finland Tampere Sl Cgn
• Portugal Lisbon Pt Comunicacoes S.a.
• Finland Helsinki Elisa Oyj
• Finland Helsinki Broadband Access Pool
• Malta Luqa Melita Plc

Seems like a VPN. Multiple login changes the server everytime. Or, maybe, maybe, a new Tor exit node. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 17:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately it just continues, the latest IP sock (85.23.156.94) was just blocked but there will soon be other ones.Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another sock (79.180.180.146). The user seem determined to continue.Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize he just bans Israeli IP's which all share the same patterns? Are all Israelis to be blamed because of one? That's a discrimination against the rules of Wikipedia. Let Israelis comment and express their thoughts on Talk:Israel. 79.180.180.146 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Israelis are perfectly free to express their thoughts, and all Israeli users who have commented are fed up with you. You are not allowed to, as you're blocked. You could have appealed the block instead of just creating sock after sock, but you chose to be disruptive. That's your issue, it has nothing to do with Israelis, and we have loads of great Israeli contributors.Jeppiz (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This new user has been creating a string of non notable album articles which when Prodded he de-prods. A lot now sitting at AfD. Can we block him for a few days? I will suggest he understands what makes a notable album on his talk page Gbawden (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PROD tags can be removed by anyone in this world for absolutely any reason in the world. If at AfD, we'll just await the decisions and then I guess we'll recommend him to Teahouse. Blocking is definitely not for editor retention. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 12:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a block is necessary unless they continue after the warnings from myself and Gbawden. And as QEDK says, they're allowed to remove PROD tags. Sam Walton (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

105.228.18.240 (talk · contribs) is making a large amount of edits to Beatles related articles, changing "the Beatles" to "The Beatles", and (inadvertently or otherwise) going against a long drawn-out request for mediation on the issue. eg: [127], [128], [129]. Can somebody help clean up on this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also changed United States to USA against guidelines. Good faith or not, these were deliberate actions and this IP did a lot of damage in a very short period of time (about 100 articles in 2 hours). Piriczki (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a 4im and will roll back. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, while the edits were undeniably disruptive and against consensus, I would not go as far as to call them "vandalism" - you don't know whether they were fixing "wrong" stuff, or deliberately changing caps "for the lulz". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right and I have undone that warning, the user stopped editing prior to the message regarding this discussion. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've posted a notice to their talkpage explaining the mass reverts per WP:ROLLBACK. Please take care to look at each of their edits before rolling back, because some of them combine correct and useful changes. --Laser brain (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This IP has recently made a similar change to London Calling. They've also made some good edits. Yaris678 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajuyadav999 (talk · contribs) has, over the past two days, created almost 50 articles about villages in Bijapur. All of these articles appear to be built on two separate templates, such that the information in the articles is all identical (right down to the geo coordinates and population figures). All articles are unsourced or are vaguely sourced to the Bijapur page at nic.in, which says nothing about the villages in question. It is unclear whether these villages exist or not, but the creation of dozens of article with identical information is not helping. I have asked the user to stop and explain themself, to no avail. I believe a temporary block will allow time to interact with the user to ascertain what is going on with these articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May be related to Rajkumaryadav123 (talk · contribs). Both accounts appear to have created or recreated Shri M.G.Kori and Dr.B.G.Byakod P U College. --220 of ^Borg 17:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say almost definite. The prior account is probably too old to investigate using CU tools at SPI, but perhaps a behavioral call can be made to block as a block-evading sock. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pertinent to point out that Rajkumaryadav123 was also brought to this notice board, here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think this is probably a competence problem. Just looking at the user's last two article creations, Bramhadevanmadu and Bolachikkalaki are recognized by Google Maps as being legitimate communities—just not at the coordinates specified in the infoboxes of those articles. I suppose that the the user is just copying infoboxes from elsewhere in WP without understanding what he's doing. That doesn't mean that the user shouldn't be blocked, though, if it is judged that his/hers contributions are more trouble than they're worth. Deor (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought: Seconding that it's probably just lack of competence. I'm not an admin, but I do think it would be good for the towns to have articles, but with the real information about them... maybe the user plans to fill the articles in? IDK. Anyway, signing off for now... Goldenshimmer (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldenshimmer: and @Deor: If it were just a case of copied infoboxes, I'd say fine: that can be fixed. The entire article texts are identical between mutliple communities, with the exception of the name of the town. Since none of the information on any of the towns if cited, it's impossible to know which (if any) of the towns the stated information actually pertains to. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: Yeah I'm not suggesting that the copypasticles should be saved, just that the villages should probably have articles. At some time or other. Saying something different on each page, obviously. Goldenshimmer (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, more evidence they're possibly the same account: both edited this page.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenshimmer (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block given, along with an explanation of what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajuyadav has not taken the opportunity address their actions at their talk page. I suspect that as soon as their block lifts, their questionable edits will resume. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajuyadav's block has expired, and they have not continued posting new articles. Nor have they chosen to explain their actions. What is to be done with the spate of bad articles that were created? Should I just take the matter to WP:SPI as a fairly obvious case, and then tag all articles for WP:CSD#G5 deletion once the SPI case is resolved? Or would it be better to bring all the articles to WP:AFD. The point has been made that all of these places verifiably exist through Google searches, so they all probably merit a page; just not the pages that we presently have. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G3 "includes blatant and obvious misinformation", so given that the information in these articles are obviously wrong, they should be subject to speedy deletion. I see no reason to put these through AFD as anybody wanting to save these would need to create them from scratch. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: The only problem is that, unless the reviewing admin has seen this discussion, the information is not "blatant and obvious misinformation". I suppose I can post a link to this discussion on each of the talk pages to alert the reviewing admins. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I would imagine the talk page note would be the best way. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged all village articles created by this user, with a note on their respective talk pages linking to this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the current version of the articles need to be rewritten from scratch or deleted, as misinformation is worse than no information. Pinging @Titodutta and RegentsPark:, who may be able to help and cut-through the beauracracy. Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at some of these and believe they should all be deleted. It is possible one or two are legitimate, but it would take too much time to figure out which are legitimate and which are poor copies. I;m in the process of deleting some of them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel most (at least) some of these villages exist. But, yes those should be deleted. They have just copied and pasted same content everywhere (same literacy rate in every village). Notability of these villages might be difficult to establish, see WP:INDAFDKI. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally agree - this information is completely unreliable at this point. Kudos to WikiDan61 for spotting the issue.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen edited a scaled-down version of File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg, which was hosted on Commons for some time. It has, after a recent discussion, been deleted from there. Lecen reuploaded it here as File:Dom Pedro I.JPG, with no indication that it was modified. I moved it to File:Dom Pedro I edit.JPG, and added a note.

However, they really, really want to present this as an unmodified file, see for example, [130].

Quite simply, we can't change the original scan, then attempt to pass it off as the original. That's misleading.

Now, I don't think this is a good edit, and am also concerned about the rationale for it given that Lecen threw out wild accusations of racism against whites in response to defenses of the original images' colours. But, if it's carefully marked as being an edit, with the changes noted, well, it's miseducating the public, but I don't know how much time it's worth spending on this, since Lecen's clearly not going to stop. I mean, they even uploaded a version on Commons with a fake source. See commons:File:Dom Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG (now speedy deleted) if you're an admin there, and compare to File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg - it claimed to be from a 1972 book, but had no evidence of half-toning, and had many of the little unique features of the Google image (same crop, exact same orientation, same spots, etc.), albeit with a rather odd colour shift.

I don't know what Lecen's up to. Frankly, I'm not sure Lecen knows. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden seems to be the edit warrior in this case. Having pushed his preference for a certain file used on a featured article to multiple fora without garnering support from other editors,[131][132][133][134] he now brings it here. Notwithstanding the inaccurate claim that any photograph's digital file is somehow more "original" than another, using this forum to raise new arguments seems to be WP:BATTLE behavior when it comes to this subject. • Astynax ^talk 18:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It seems to me that you are forum shopping to win this dispute after you failed to win it at Talk:Pedro I of Brazil. There seems to be healthy disagreement over the true nature of the image, and you are not getting your way. You then tried opening an FAR for the entire article based on the dispute over one image, which was procedurally closed and you were advised to open an RFC and otherwise contain the dispute to where it belongs. So now you are here at yet another venue. Neither the "racist" remark or the edit warring on the image page are excusable, but you've already been advised about how to go about solving the conflict. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When we take a file from somewhere else, the default is that its appearance is not modified; it's standard practice to have a comment noting the modifications if any have been made, so users can assume that a file with no such comment has not been modified. When you modify a file and reupload it without such a comment, you've forgotten to include an important piece of information, and it's unambiguously helpful for someone else to add a comment. If you remove that comment, you're suddenly telling reusers that no, it was not modified: you're presenting a hoax, and it would be absurd to sanction someone for fighting a hoaxer. Lecen, if you continue hoaxing on this image, you will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...if you continue hoaxing on this image, you will be blocked". I'll be blocked after a single warning? Really? So Adam Cuerden is allowed to enter into an edit war with several editors and nothing happens to him? First he tried to impose his file by edit warring. No one agreed with him. Then he opened a discussion on the article's talk page. No one agreed with him. Then he opened a FAR just because he didn't like the file, and no one agreed with him. After that he tried to upload his version over my file. An administrator stopped him. Then Adam Cuerden tried to get the file erased on Commons. No one agreed with him and the file was kept. Then a friend of his erased the file (that had been in use by all other Wikipedia websites) without any discussion. Then he harasses me creating this topic here. He does all that and nothing happens to him. I try to at least maintain the original file and I get threated with a block after a single warning? All I know is that if I get blocked I'll go all the way to the ArbCom. --Lecen (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hoaxing. Intentionally falsifying a description, including removing an indication that the file has been digitally manipulated, is grounds for rapid blocking. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, Adam Cuerden's prejudicial "heavily modified" description, which is what Lecen reverted, should also qualify. Moreover, and as has been pointed out, there are several photographic copies of this image out there that do not reflect Adam Cuerden's preferred image in its oversaturation and lighting choices. • Astynax ^talk 18:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incredibly inaccurate summary. You've basically cut out everyone who agreed with me from your summary, claiming I had no supporters, and also apparently created a connection between Yann and me from whole cloth. I don't think it's worth engaging with you. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are completely accurate. You've shopped this to death and won't let it go. Not garnering support on Wikipedia for your preferred version of an in-use image, you took it over to Wikimedia to delete an in-use image and force your preferred image into the article. That is a frustrating abuse of process and blatant battleground behavior. • Astynax ^talk 18:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My popcorn stocks say the accessibility folks should get involved here. --NE2 02:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I seeing correctly, that the primary complaint boils down to the difference in skin tone between the two versions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a line here that's frequently difficult to draw. Any photograph of a painting is going to alter the painting in some way, depending on lighting, exposure, etc. There's no real "original" except the painting itself. When this came up recently for me, one version looked distinctly better to me than the Google version, and I initially preferred that version -- until I looked at the version of the painting on the site of the museum where it was located, and the Google version was much, much closer to the museum's version than to the one I had preferred. If the museum staff thought that the photograph on their site best represented the painting, I had to accept that, even though the other version seemed better.

Is there a version in this case that has the imprimatur of the museum in which it is located? BMK (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the painting hanging on a wall. Compare it to the "google project version". --Lecen (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm.... I think if you gave a bit of thought to it, you would see that a photograph of the painting hanging on the wall is not the reference we need -- it's just another image subject to all the same problems as other images. What we need is something propagated by the professionals at the museum as an authooritative guide to what the painting looks like. BMK (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also point out that's not even the same painting? The Google Art Project copy is at the Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo, Brazil. That painting is a different copy at Queluz National Palace, Lisbon, Spain. Lecen is entirely aware that multiple copies of this painting exist, but would rather modify the painting themselves than source any of the other copies. Seriously, that was my suggestion on what to do if they didn't like aspwects of the version from Google Art Project the subjective months ago this debate has been simmering, and I've suggested it ever since, and Lecen now acts as if they're completely unaware that multiple copies by multiple artists exist of this painting, because it suits them to. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to see if we can solve this by uploading a file that everyone agrees is both color accurate and high resolution. There's a potential one at https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/asset-viewer/pedro-duke-of-bragan%C3%A7a/9AGSwGL-RuUKqw?projectId=art-project but I don't know how to download it from google. DrKiernan (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Downloading the hires images would be against Googles Terms of use. It would not be too hard to write a script to do so, but I doubt we could keep them. I could write a script but I would not upload them. 80.132.71.83 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that were true, we'd also have to delete the Google Art Project file of Adam's. The terms of use say "You may not use content from our Services unless you obtain permission from its owner or are otherwise permitted by law." It's the position of the wikimedia foundation that we are permitted by United States law to use scans or photographs of out-of-copyright 2D artworks. This new file is now uploaded. I'm just waiting for someone to say "it's too pale". DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening messages from Lecen

Lecen has been leaving me threatening, harassing messages for the last couple weeks. There is a dispute about his edits to a picture, which I, the collective wisdom of Commons, where it is now deleted and failing to get consensus for an undeletion, and various other people have turned against, by and large.

But that's a content dispute. Lecen... is increasingly insisting on taking this further and further. Here's a brief summary of some of his behaviour. It started off on a bad foot before I even joined.

• "He was white, you ignorant racist. Read the article before coming here with your disgusting stereotypes on latins. --Lecen (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

But he's now decided that if anyone does something that he doesn't like, that I'm supposedly sending friends to harass him. Said "friends" have so far been people who I have had minimal communication with, who, because I posted on talk forums about the image, decided to act. Here's him on commons, responding to an administrator acting on a post I made to tghe Vaillage Pump, promising his vengeance will fall upon me.

Just to note, Yann, who deleted the image, isn't someone I actually know, other than in the vague "I've seen them editing Commons before" way. But Lecen seems convinced that only people I'm personally friends with would agree with me. He harassed them too. [135] [136]

Oh, and, um... here's him running to his friends to complain about Yann and recruit them into the dispute. [137] .

And here's his latest harassment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAdam_Cuerden&diff=646721885&oldid=646713670

"Stop following my contributions around. I will report you later on, I can assure you. You went too far. I will first begin with the usual Admin board which I know will lead to nothing. Then I'll move upward all the way to ArbCom. I'm patient. I don't write articles anymore. I gave up doing that a long time ago. I will ask for you to be topic banned, in your case, from anything related to pictures. A few months from now I want you tell me if fighting so hard over the painting of a historical figure that you know nothing about was worth it. P.S.: The painting will eventually return to Commons. Not every administrator there is a friend of yours that can side with you. As I said, I'm in no hurry. --Lecen (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

Seriously? Because I think he made bad edits to an image that ruined its historical value - and got people to agree with me by using verbal argument, he's going to institute a campaign of harassment which he assures me willend in me being banned from working on images. At the same time as announcing he will not be doing anything constructive on Wikipedia, as he "gave up [writing articles] a long time ago".

Is there any reason why this user should be kept around? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have any warnings been posted to Lecen's talk page? Has he even been notified of this ANI discussion? I am not seeing any and a look in the talk page history did not show any either. It's possible I missed them. As to the comments, they strike me as being intemperate and definitely worth dropping a cautionary note on the user's talk page. That's where I'd start. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was schlepped here just yesterday for basically the same problem. Calling someone "racist" because they prefer a somewhat-brighter version of a picture is a heavy charge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to link him, but wanted to add another note, and keep edit conflicting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Block or Admonish - For disruptive editing, If this same user has already been dragged here for the same problem then something isn't working right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the section above I have struck the block option as I can see there is more to this story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly? The rest of the story is this: I don't think that a photograph painting that's been heavily modified should be presented as the original image, particularly when the comments defending the image have elements that are very dodgy - Lecen's "He was white, you ignorant racist." accusations happened before I had even gotten involved; having merely been informed that a good painting exists. What really got me was a line in the early arguments - this isn't by Lecen, but one of his close collaborators: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedro_I_of_Brazil&diff=prev&oldid=642645289 "There have been attempts in populist revisionism to adjust portrayals of fair-featured popular leaders to make them look more like the general populations of today."

So we have an image that's being modified, by someone who gets really, really upset if you say that the person looks "olive skinned" or "tanned" - and then begins shouting about how the person saying that is apparently racist against whites. And we have another person claiming that whites are being airbrushed out of Brazilian history.

And then we have the same person very aggressively accusing people of racism against whites becoming increasingly irrational and harassing. Proof? No. Lecen has edited a lot of images. I'd consider many of them highly problematic (he really likes posterizing images), but there's no possibility of racist overtones to them. On the other hand, he's willing to lie about sources to get a copy up that fits his preferred editing. He did so on Commons with commons:File:Dom Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG - if you're a Commons admin and can see the deleted file, Flicking between it and File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg will show that, other than Lecen having tweaked the colours, they are the same file. However, Lecen claimed the source of that new image is "Sousa, Otávio Tarquínio de (1972). A vida de D. Pedro I (in Portuguese) 3. Rio de Janeiro: José Olímpio." - a 1972 book with no evidence whatsoever of half-toning, and the exact same orientation and crop as the Google Art Project scan, as well as a lot of little details I wouldn't expect to remain the same between two photos forty years apart with different lighting and equipment. The above discussion is about him trying to keep an image from being marked as not being the original Google Art Project scan. It's all... really, really bizarre, and I've not seen a situation where a really problematic image was being rigorously defended on English Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a combination Caution/ANI notice which they promptly reverted. But the message was delivered. Let's see if things calm down. If the problems persist we can take it to the next level. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion but this section should be combined with the one above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-warring to conceal that a file has been modified from its original form because it is the same editor having the issue about just about the same thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's a continuation of the same argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved this as a sub-header - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pep2co was indeed edit warring against multiple editors, so the block was justified, however, Pep2co is also correct that there appears to be a coterie of entrenched editors who control the page to make sure that no fact which could conceivably be considered to show the British in a bad light makes its way into the article. My own attempt to find a compromise placement for what is, after sall, an undisputed fact (that Gilbratar is on the UN's list of non-self-governing territories) was stomped on by Wee Curry Monster without discussion or even, from the timestamps, a lick of forethought.

  That appears to be a content dispute, but when a group of editors works together to control the content of an article, that is a behavioral problem. However, it's one beyond the capacity of AN/I to correct, and would have to be handled by ArbCom.

  In the meantime, I would suggest that uninvolved and neutral editors take a good look at Gilbraltar to make sure that it is written from a WP:NPOV, that the content is fairly presented, and that all viewpoints are given appropriate coverage. BMK (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Pep2co is also correct that there appears to be a coterie of entrenched editors who control the page to make sure that no fact which could conceivably be considered to show the British in a bad light makes its way into the article." — What. A. Surprise. Carrite (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On cue, the House POV is locked down with Full Protection. Carrite (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I suspect by a google search that the so-called "2014 Saunders Nurse Handbook" is just a mistake for the "Saunders Nursing Drug Handbook 2014", not actually an invention of the editor... :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Betfair has been targeted since October by a string of SPA's focused on adding every bit of material they can find that casts the subject in a negative light, the latest being Petefox1. A few were blocked in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betfairmole/Archive, but new ones keep popping up. They are particularly fond of the "Tennis courtsiding" section of the article, a large block of NOTNEWS with violations of UNDUE, NPOV, and sprinklings of BLP. I've tried to replace it with a short neutral description of the relevant facts, but am always reverted. I would suggest that Petefox1 be blocked and the page be semi-protected for at least 3 months. Toohool (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paolowalter has made a personal attack upon me on a public talkpage,while i was making an edit,he reverted my edit based on a reliable source and also took the issue to the talkpage,launching multiple personal attacks and this isn't the first time he launch a personal attack against me,calling for my account to be locked for a year,and calling me a vandal https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&oldid=646550963#Daraa.3F i urge an admin to deal with his continued harassments against me.Alhanuty (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skyline201 has been blocked twice for not heeding warnings about file uploads, and is still not getting it, maybe a longer block is needed. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New block levied, effective until the end of the month. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Thank you, Would you have a minute to delete their files I have tagged, as they will not be able to address the issues ? If not no problem, they'll get deleted after the grace period. Thanx for your response. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. While going through the user's past uploads, I noticed some (example) that someone else had fixed up. If we wait until the time's up, it won't hurt, but deleting them now would make improvements of this sort impossible. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you block Randkitty from editing the following pages: R. Bruce Bury, Stanley E. Trauth, Malcolm L. McCallum, Walter E. Meshaka, Christopher T. McAllister. This individual is applying his own personal opinions regarding content to the pages I have been developing. The opinions of this individual may apply to whatever discipline he/she got their PHD in, but it sure does not apply to my discipline in which I have earned my PHD. IN fact, his comments are largely completely incorrect EXCEPT when it is in regard to technical issues directly related to Wikipedia pages. The only alternative that is possible is that this individual is a confrontational adversary (and very well could be) who desires to suppress information about these people. This would be a direct conflict of interest as inappropriate as writing your own bio on here. These pages have been raked over by multiple other editors and the ONLY one who has randomly deleted material without warning is Randkitty. I believe it is an intentional attack and has nothing to do with Wikipedia appropriateness. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't find a user named Randkitty; are you sure you spelled that right, Herpetology2? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Randykitty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, you mean Randykitty. I haven't read into the whole dispute yet, but what I can say is this...Randykitty is an admin, so for him/her to be flat-out blocked for a content dispute due to a new user's request would be an extreme thing to happen, imo. Also, please read the instructions directly above this text area:

I did that, however. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you also 71.50.25.97 ,Herpetology2 (talk · contribs) ? seicer | talk | contribs 05:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nope, sorry; I don't sock. BTW, Herpetology2, comments like this are a violation of WP:NPA, so I suggest you start being more courteous. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't referring to you. seicer | talk | contribs 05:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Herpetology2: I've looked at a couple of these articles, and what I see is Randykitty removing "academic genealogies" that are both redundant - the articles already state where the subject earned the doctorate and in what year - and unencyclopedic. Notability is not inherited, and it does someone no favors to suggest they would be less of a scholar had they studied under someone else, now does it? Also, while we appreciate your writing these articles, and I know how much work it takes, this is a collaborative project and it's important for you to realize that no one "owns" the articles they write to the extent of being able to decree that others may not edit them. If you feel edits are diminishing an article, rather than edit war, you need to discuss the matter - either on the article talk page or, without insults and threats, on the talk page of the editor if the same person is doing something you object to on multiple pages. But you may not be right, and in this instance, so far as the "academic genealogy" goes at least, I fear you are not. We don't have such sections on Wikipedia unless, as Randykitty has said, a reliable source has pointed to that as a significant feature of someone's career. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • First off, does not wikipedia state taht we are not to delete material without discussion? I remember reading something to that effect. Second, I did not feel the comments were all that insulting, especially considering not being given the curtisy to make corrections myself with a warning in even a single edit made. YOu will notice that if you look through my correspondenses with other editors, it is less confrontational, because they ahve actually been more-or-less helpful. I did not threaten the guy/gal either. I informed him/her I was requesting he/she be blocked exactly as it says we must do. But, whatever you want to call it, it does not matter. As for notability and geneologies. Is this ONLY purpose of wikipedia to assess notability? Because this is not the purpose of the geneologies. The ideals, approaches, and philosophies of academics stem from their mentors and their mentor's mentor's on down the line. Therefore, when you provide the academic lineage, it is clear that certain things are more than likely true of that lineage. For example, some lineages value writing for the public, others value only writing for the highest journals, others value conservation over evolution and vise versa. These are not fluff. They tell a lot about a person. It is no coincidence that when you discuss a topic with another academic and that academic came out of E.O. Wilson's lab that it will reflect on his/her importance and say a lot about who these people are. IN fact, those who came out of Archie Carr's lab are largely conservation-minded and interested in informing the layman. THis is not restricted to his lab, but it certainly stems from that lab and bleeds all the way down through the descendents. This is not a foreign concept, in fact, when doctoral students are advised to choose their mentors, they are largely informed to understand where their prospective advisor came from, hence what is hsi/her academic line. This has been outlined and discussed widely in the academic sector, which simply mystifies me how this individual has not heard of it. It has been discussed in Advice to a Young Scientist, which was only written by a Nobelaureate. It was discussed in courses I took at three different universities. It was mentioned to me by not by a few, but by dozens of scientists in biology, chemistry, EVS, and mathematics. But, if Wikipedia feels that it would rather have their pages be LESS informative than more, so be it. However, this problem with RandKitty is not limited to geneologies. This person has deleted citations, then turned around and deleted text stating it was not cited at least once. IN another case, he/she deleted part of a sentence, changing the meaning, then coming back and stating the info was wrong. Later, he/she listed a section as unsupported by citations which literally had the citation right there at the end of the paragraph and outside the final period as is proper to indicate that citation is for the entire paragraph, not just the sentence. I guess I could have pasted it after every sentence, but it seemed pretty obvious to me at the time. THen, he/she deleted a News release claiming it was "some email on a forum post." An official news release from a national organization is in his mind nothing more than an email? This is what makes me believe this person is in a field with very different standards of communication and which uses media in much different ways, thus making his/her opinion (although valid in his/her field) destructive to the pages I have constructed. As I said, every single editor has been largely polite and mostly helpful. But this person has been neither, refering to material as silly? That is an insult. Referring to it as fluff? border-line insult. Heck, I have interviewed every one of these people, then have been tracking down citations to fill in their background to make sure it is supported. It is pretty difficult to tweak these things when someone is editing all your material every few hours. It seems like you might give it a week or something. Does this person have a day job or are they paid by Wikipedia to do this (seriously?). IN one case I was making corrections and tried to save, only to have the guy/gal delete the section I was correcting before I could save it....because I had saved the text first, then went back to add in the cites. With all the pages on Wikipedia, why is one person dedicating so much time to deleting everything that is uncited, when some of it was up for maybe an hour, a day, or a little longer. No one else was doing this in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to draw Herpetology2's attention to WP:BOLD regarding the fact that I made edits to "their" articles without first asking their permission. In addition, I have provided long and detailed edit summaries, as well as explanations on talk pages. Herpetology2 inists on adding peacock stuff that is either unsourced or not supported by the sources given, source stuff to [cherokeecountykansas.yuku.com/topic/382/quotJoseph-T-Collinsquot-Kansas-Herpetological-Society?page=14#.VNgWg_54pcQ news releases posted on some email list], or claim that Christopher T. McAllister is a "prominent coccidiologist of international stature" based on a simple list of names of coccidiologists that uses none of these qualifications. Herpetology2 also insists on inserting OR/SYNTH by comparing numbers of publications of an individual with the mean number of publications of other people in their fields (for example, here. There's a long-standing consensus at WP:ACADEMIC that just having large numbers of publications does not add to an academic's notability, what counts is whether these publications have had a significant impact. Herpetology2 is also edit warring on Herpetological Conservation and Biology, insisting on inserting citation data that (per consensus at the academic journals wikiproject, see also the journal article writing guide) should not be listed in articles on academic journals, including at least one measure ("Universal Impact Factor") that is known to be fraudulent (see this list by Jeffrey Beall). I have at each stage pointed Herpetology2 to the relevant policies and guidelines, to no avail. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like theres's a little WP:IDHT going on here; in addition, Herpetology2, please direct your attention to WP:TLDR. Longer arguments aren't necessarily going to help you get your point across, especially after that point has been rejected. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 11:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Beal's list is just a list on the internet. What makes that more important than any other list? Further, UIF was removed from the page and I left it off. However, the labeling it as fake is HIS OPINION and not a fact. They do calcuate an impact factor, and you know what else? Thomson Reuters selects their journals based on such completely objective metrics as "Will the journal expand their market share in another country!" Basing a decision like this on a simple list on the internet is, I don't know, kind of like placing a link to a list of coccidiologists put together by three coccidiologists who listed only those coccidiologists who were meritable. Logic seems flawed, but hey, I do more international research than wikipedia pages so I'll just fall in line with your biased opinoin. Enjoy your life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm growing increasingly concerned about somewhat aggressive behaviour from SveinFalk (talk · contribs) towards other editors, in particular this comment on Fenix down's talk page, this comment and this exchange on their own talk page, and their comments directed at me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patipan Unop. Normally, I wouldn't mind so much. I'd much rather they vent their frustration at me than at someone who might be driven away from Wikipedia, or worse retaliate, but they've been warned several times about this sort of thing already. Most recently, they received this warning from GiantSnowman. More significantly, they were given a final warning following another ANI three months ago failed to come to a satisfactory close. (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#I really stepped into it: South-east Asian association football article problems). I'm hoping a brief block will make it clear to them that this sort behaviour is unacceptable and that final warnings need to be respected. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC):[reply]

I agree with everything above. More irritating than anything else. SveinFalk is clearly here to build an encyclopedia, it's just he has created a significant amount of content that a number of editors have highllighted as of questionalble notability. Rather than attempt to discuss or improve the articles, he has got a bit own-y, highlighted by his talk page comments above and examples such as this, this and this which were the rather tedious results of his "declaration of war", although this at least seems to have stopped.

There have been repeated attempts to engage with SveinFalk and repeated warnings as to his general conduct, but whilst he is here with good intentions he needs to be aware that WP is not a repository for any and all information, that he has no ownership of Thai football articles and that he needs to engage with other editors in a productive way when the notability of his work is questioned. Given the history noted above I would approve of a block, although I note he is involved in a number of AfDs relating to his articles and would not want his ability to continue with these to be impeded. Fenix down (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously INVOLVED here, as I have !voted on a number of these AFDs, and yes I have advised this editor to calm down. Their content work is good (even if their grasp of notability requirements are not) but their attitude just stinks. He has threatened to edit war and block evade - on balance I would suggest we topic ban from creating new articles, let him work on improving existing ones. If that doesn't work he should be blocked. GiantSnowman 13:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too was drawn into this circle by another editor who edited in an area that I watch (North American association football articles). I followed that editor to Thai and South Asian association football articles a few months ago and SveinFalk is an editor of those articles. The subject's understanding of the content is good. That's unquestionable. The editor is not, however, a WP:RS and does not support edits with RSes. That's a problem, but one that can be fixed. As an editor who has been blocked for edit warring myself, I certainly can't point fingers, but I have never promised "wars" and understand that block evasion is inappropriate. I agree with GiantSnowman that the editor's attitude stinks. The examples are concerning and merit a block. I would argue that its duration should be determined by SveinFalk's response. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SveinFalk: your input here would be welcome, as would input from other, non-INVOLVED parties. GiantSnowman 19:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered a new user, User:Yahad-In Unum who, starting in December, is going through the towns of Ukraine adding trivial detail about Nazi atrocities to dozens of articles. While that, in itself, is not a violation of Wikipedia policy, although the content is generally unencyclopedic, the user is citing his own original (non-Wikipedia) research and using his own website as the sole source. While I could go through and revert all these edits, at this level of violation, it would be better coming from an admin. --Taivo (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and revert all of them. Then, leave a lengthy warning on his talk page explaining why the hell are his edits nonconstructive. After that, close your eyes for a minute and pray to God, that he reads it. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But what is the policy that says, "You can't quote yourself?" It's used so rarely that I don't remember what it's called. --Taivo (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo: Verifability#Sources that are usually not reliable(section#Self-published sources) would be it. COI is when the person is related to/involved as a subject and is preemptively being asked not to edit because of probable bias (which is normal, according to human nature). --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what problem there is here. This user's contributions appear to me not only encyclopedic and on-topic, but very much needed: the history of the extermination of Jewish communities in Ukraine by the Nazis is a crucial part of the history of the Holocaust, and one that is much less known than extermination camps such as Auschwitz and Treblinka. Jews often were the majority of inhabitants in these towns, and that the articles' history sections did not mention either their existence or their mass murder was not to the credit of Wikipedia. Furthermore, I doubt that Taivo's characterization of these edits as COI and/or non-reliable sourcing is accurate: the user's name could denote interest in the organization's work rather than membership in it. Yahad-In Unum, as its well-referenced article shows, is a respected NGO that works with various universities and has received praise for their work documenting Nazi atrocities. We could discuss it better on WP:RSN, but at first glance, information published on their website seems reliable. Susuman77 (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Susuman77: Well, the issue is that - this account is operated by YU and according to our conflict of interest policies that is strictly disallowed. Furthermore, they evaded their self-declaration of COI (and also, people failed to notice) and went to to add sources violating WP:SPS. I say is because firstly no uninvolved individual would ever undertake work just in this category, so it's either someone from the organization or someone who's involved with the incident. I don't think any random person would take up the NGO's name as their username and randomly edit only such niched articles citing YU as sources. Just my two cents. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: Sorry, but I fail to see an explicit "self-declaration of COI" by User:Yahad-In Unum. Maybe we should ask them about it directly, and if they're not affiliated with YI-U they should change their user name. If on the other hand they indeed are affiliated with the NGO, we should ask them to mostly make edit suggestions on the talk pages of the articles, if I remember the COI guidelines correctly. I don't understand your assertion that "no uninvolved individual would ever undertake work just in this category", as many people are indeed interested in the history of the Holocaust in Ukraine, and YI-U has provided in the last years much new information on the subject. I guess that in order to prove that, I'll have to undertake some editing of my own... Last, I still contest that YI-U is a WP:SPS: the "interactive map" is a misleading title as I can't see any ways for users to directly add info to it, and it rather seems to be the fruit of historical research by their team which, once again, has been widely lauded by specialists in the field. Would you object to me opening a thread on WP:RSN on this matter? Susuman77 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS is for stuff that's self-published by average people, e.g. personal websites or AuthorHouse books, and it applies regardless of who adds it. When your organisation's produced reliable documentation on its website, citing that documentation isn't an SPS problem; we don't object on self-publishing grounds to the use of stuff from the US Census Bureau, a federal government agency, even though it's published by the federal government. The only thing that matters here is whether Yahad-In Unum's publications are reliable: if they're not, this is a problem regardless of who's added it, and if they are, this is fine regardless of who's added it. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Susuman77: You said, "... but I fail to see an explicit "self-declaration of COI...". That is what the problem is. He never declared that he has a COI w.r.t. the articles. And he added yet-unreliable sources. I would prefer you go to the RSN noticeboard - that's a place more befitting to establish consensus for reliability for the sources as they currently violate WP:SPS. But then, the COI issue can't be forgone. @Nyttend: Well yes (except for BLPs which is an exception). But then, we haven't yet established reliability, just as you stated. Then, we have the COI of course. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread at WP:RSN#Use of Yahad-In Unum. Feel free to comment there regarding reliability of the source. Susuman77 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I broke Wikipedia's policy - I am somewhat new to Wikipedia. My point was simply to add results of Yahad-In Unum's research that I thought would be useful. I don't think this information is trivial and there isn't much content about this on Wikipedia (for instance, there is no article about the Holocaust by bullet on Wikipedia). The information I used is the result of original, extensive and continuous field research. The process is validated by historians and recognized worldwide. I used links to Yahad's map, because this is the only website with this specific kind of information. This map is updated regularly, with information about villages where the atrocities went, new information and videos of witnesses. Please advise me on how to go forward and if I need to modify my edits.Yahad-In Unum (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yahad-In Unum, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope this experience is not too unpleasant for you... I generally share your opinion regarding the usefulness of the information you've been adding. In my mind, there is just one issue related to Wikipedia's rules regarding conflict of interest: someone affiliated with an organization (company or NGO) should avoid directly adding info sourced to their employer to articles. So the tough question is: do you work/volunteer at Y-I U? If not, in order to clarify it, you should request a change of user name (I can help you do that). If you do, first it would also be a good idea to change your user name to a more individual one (like "John at Y-I U" or whatever) and figure out together how you can add info to the encyclopedia without infringing the policy. Please tell us so that we can move forward. Thanks! Susuman77 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the indentation, guys. Fixed for now. And I would recommend a response from YU before any resolutions for this thread. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and responses Susuman77. Yes, I am involved with Yahad-In Unum and I will change my username right now. Please let me know how to go forward from here and how I need to modify my posts. I am a bit confused as to why it's against Wikipedia policy for "encyclopedic" information (facts and statistics) to be posted by someone involved with a non-governmental organization that is investigating and confirming these facts. Thanks for alerting me to the problem.Yahad-In Unum (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 79.97.222.210 is at present trying to enforce controversial and highly POV's edits on various articles by editing warring and a by on large refusal to discuss. I've decided to break the evidence down to an article by article basis rather than a daily one as it fans out a bit:

The Troubles

• On 26th January I reverted [156] several edits made that day by this IP to the sensitive and can be highly charged The Troubles article. The edits involved rewording and rearranging sentences/paragraphs to push an underlying bias making the section worse off. I called these "Nonsense edits".
• They then restored their edit [157] claiming it improved the article. I again reverted it citing to them WP:BRD and saying that "Improvement is a matter of opinion".
• After that they stopped trying to push it.

Military Reaction Force

• On 26th January the IP made a [158] large alteration to the Military Reaction Force article, which like The Troubles article is a contentious article. The edit consisted of rearranging the lede to give prominence to a "Death Squad" claim and the addition of unsourced statements with highly selective and bias wording. They claimed that they where "removed systemic bias, if it would be called a death squad in the developing world, it should be called one in an English speaking country".
• On same day I reverted this edit [159], though I admit with a bit of sarcasm with the summary "Reverting systematic bias". I was thanked for this edit by User:Asarlaí who has done most of the work on this article.
• The IP restored their edit on 1st February [160] with exact same edit summary: "removed systemic bias, if it would be called a death squad in the developing world, it should be called one in an English speaking country". I reverted [161] telling them to take it to talk.
• Again, on the 5th February, they restore it [162], to which I revert again on the 6th February [163] stating "What do you not understand about WP:BRD and taking it to talk?".
• I then make a follow up edit [164] edit to the article to reflect the sources actually used.

Republicanism in the United Kingdom

• On 26th January IP made the following additions: [165] and [166] to this article.
• On same day I reverted [167] because the information was irrelevant to the article.
• IP restores [168] citing the fact that it is sourced, as if that alone is enough for it to be added. Yet they also include unsourced additions.
• I reverted [169] stating "Sourced doesn't make it better. Please abide by WP;BRD".
• IP restores edt [170] on 30th January stating "irish republicanism IS republicanism in the united kingdom and extremely relevant", despite fact most of what they add has nothing to do with republicanism of any kind. I again revert [171] stating "Please abide by WP:BRD. Discuss your controversial addition and get consensus first.".
• IP again restores [172] stating "No, because nobody is objecting to it. You have to give a reason why republicans from the united kingdom shouldn't be in this article". This time another editor, User:Red Jay, reverts them [173] stating "Irish Republicanism although present with in the UK is separate issue, and is already mentioned on this page. I have added a see also to Irish Republicanism".

Parachute Regiment

• On 30th January IP [174] makes a large addition giving in my view undue weight to one event, the prominence of which is open to debate.
• I revert on 2nd February [175] on the basis that this was already detailed in the article.
• On 5th February [176] IP restores stating "it should be in lead as it is their most famous action along with normandy and market garden", which is open to debate. I revert [177] telling them to abide by WP:BRD.
• The IP then finally opens a discussion about it on the talk page [178], however that itself is troublesome: the title and opening sentence of it tries to imply that I am removing something established in the article from it. This is willful deception.
• By opening this discussion the IP then decides to re-add [179] their edit stating "re added per talk" despite the fact they where thr only particpant in their discussion. I revert [180] and respond to the discussion. After two comments I no longer respond so that other editors can give their view without an endless too'ing and frow'ing between us.
• On 10th February they again [181] reinsert their edit citing "readded per talk" despite no other participation by anyone in it and no consensus. They are then reverted by another editor [182] User:Edward321 who states "rv - no consensus on talk page,its barely even been discussed yet".

Universal suffrage

• On 6th February at [183] and [184] at the Universal suffrage article, which includes removing accurate sourced info and adding inaccurate unsourced info whilst stating in their edit summary "removed unsourced bias". I revert this [185] stating "Controversial and biased".
• On 10th February the IP restores their edit [186]. This is despite me posting a rebuttal of their edit on their talk page on February 6th.
• On 11th February User:Vyselink reverts the IP [187] stating "rvt unexplained removal of sources, changing of information".

Young Turks

• As far back as 16th December they make this edit. It is reverted by User:Melikbilge on 22 January who states "Already resolved long ago, see Talk".
• On 9th February the IP restores their viewpoint [188] stating "there's nothing progressive about murdering people because of their religion".
• As the addition is unsourced and the fact the sentence in question is on about an idiom I revert [189].
• I alter the statement altogether to better reflect the source [190].
• IP restores edit [191] with a highly subjective response of no "sources" deny the Turkish genocides despite the fact the source and statement is on about an idiom.
• IP is then reverted [192] by User:Herostratus who states this period of Turkish history" is associated with a lot of things. Here we're talking about the phrase "Young Turks" and what it actually means in English, not what you think it ought to mean.
• On 11th february IP again restores their edit [193], stating it's so important to include because genocide is the opposite of liberal, which young turks are described as. They then open a discussion with the first statement once again implying that editors are removing an established edit.
• Herostratus once again reverts the IP [194] stating Reverted per WP:BRD, thread opened on talk page, take it to talk and make your case there. Herostratuopens a discussion with a full response.

Notifications to IP

• On 26th January I posted a message on the IP's talk page detailing the problems with their edit and to abide by WP:BRD.
• On 30th January I issued a caution on their talk page explaining again Wikipedia is a collaboration and to get consensus.
• On 2nd February I issue a disruptive editing warning. On 5th February I issue a further two warnings. [195]
• On 6th February I posted a lengthy response to their edits at Military Reaction Force, Springhill Massacre and Universal suffrage.

Note the IP responds to none of my cautions, warnings or responses.

Conclusion As far I can see this is everything covered, if not my apologies. I have given this IP numourous notifications of WP:BRD, to take it to talk, and warnings to desist trying to push their edits. I have even explained to them on their talk page why many of those edits are wrong. Several other editors have also reverted them with one or two given them WP:BRD notices. They have ignored them all and continue to insist on pushing their agenda, and agenda which belies in all but the Young Turks article an anti-British establishment bias. As such I believe a sanction of some form is required to try to encourage this editor to behave more appropriately.

Mabuska ^(talk) 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to comment only because I was notified by User:Mabuska that he had pinged me in the ANI for reverting the changes made at the "Universal Suffrage" page. I had not noticed this ANI before then, and other than that one revert have no knowledge of the situation. I happened to look up the article for my own research, noticed that it looked odd, saw the edit and undid it.

As for the revert at the "Universal Suffrage" page (diff above added by Mabuska), the IP editor removed sourced information, the source itself, and drastically changed that particular part of the page. While I can't comment on his overall bias/lack-there-of etc, that change was extreme and incorrect as far as information and removal of sources. Vyselink (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are content disputes in which no rules have been broken and nobody is behaving disruptively. Mabuska claims I am a POV pusher. I am involved in discussions on several of these talk pages, and whether my edits are correct or not is not a matter for ANI.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe "The Troubles" is covered by ARBCOM sanctions (not sure if they are general or discretionary). I think if this was a dispute about content on one article, it would be best resolved on the talk page or in DR but if there is a pattern of disruptive editing and failed attempts at resolution, then this belongs at AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the past people a 1RR has been enforced on some editors of article relating to the Troubles. However, a content addition, a talk page post and 1-3 reverts all over a periods ranging from 5 days to 58 days hardly constitutes a breach of 1RR, never mind 3RR. Additionally in the Troubles case Arbcom passed "editing in someone else's area of interest in retaliation is inappropriate", and Mabuska has followed me to articles unrelated to the troubles to revert my edits, which he shouldn't do. However, I do not think this warrants sanctions either.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This AN/I was opened not because of the exact content but due to your persistent pushing of your edits regardless of protocol, which the above evidence shows quite clearly. You have been told many times to discuss and take it to talk. You have only done so twice, and both times implied the reverting editor is at fault. You also used the opening of a discussion as reason enough to re-add your edit twice!

What is your defense for your going on despite warnings and ignoring the responses I left you on your talk page which made it clear you should discuss? The ignoring of reasons why your edits where POV and incorrect. How many times have you been told of WP:BRD (by more than myself) in the past 2 weeks and ignored it completely?

In regards to following you, as a long-time established Wikipedia user, I have a responsibility to revert vandalism and try and keep tabs on troublesome and disruptive editors, which you have proven yourself to be. This means checking your contributions to this site, which in the past few weeks shows quit a bit of disruptive editing on your behalf. This is not "retaliation" and not a sanctioning offense. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also your current edit to the Parachute Regiment is also fraught with issues, containing a convolution of the source to push a more scathing sentence about the Parachute Regiment that the source does not explicitly say. This can be classified as an example of your POV-pushing.

I would suggest you leave editing these articles alone at present and stick to their talk pages until this AN/I has concluded. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the opening of this AN/I and statements that they are discussin edits, the IP is still going around trying to enforce their edits. This time a different editor is reverting them.

• Removed this information from Etruscan society citing "removed racist theory", which is stretching it. Edward321 reverted it [196] to which the IP does it again [197] citing "Unsourced information can be remove by any editor who questions it. If you dispute my changes, please say so in an edit summary and we can take it to talk". The fact they where reverted makes it obvious enough that the edit is disputed and that they should take it to talk. Edward321 then again reverts [198].
• At Idealism in international relations the IP removes detailed information [199] highly relevant to the article citing "removed needless focus on american politics in the intro". Edward321 once again reverts this vandalism rightly citing "rv to better version" before the IP restores it [200].
• The IP then clearly gets annoyed with their edit summary in that last edit: "Why are you following me around reverting every single edit I make without giving any reason in your edit summary?". Though having already giving the IP an answer above to that question when they posed it to me, it should be quite clear to them that their edits are detrimental to Wikipedia and add next to nothing to site to improve it.

This IP should be placed on some form of editing restriction, such as if they are reverted they must take it to talk and seek consensus. If they restore it (tweaked or otherwise) then they should get a temporary block that lengthens each time they violate. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zzaxx1 (talk · contribs) has been edit warring across multiple pages and templates against multiple editors. The main article being List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, which resulted in page protection but the user has continued to add the disputed content to other articles and linking articles to pages outside of articlespace, despite warnings not to do so. He has also ignored invitations to discuss the matter with the rest of the community. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I have a certain amount of sympathy for your position, it does appear that you've been edit warring to remove cited material as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that I have not removed cited material, as the sources did not cite what was being expressed, but regardless I have not crossed WP:3rr unlike the above user. But if it helps, I'll excuse myself from editing anything about the disputed content anywhere on Wikipedia until consensus is reached.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example, here -- it appears that the text you removed correctly explains the content of that link. Holding off on article editing while discussion is ongoing is probably a good thing, though. You can edit war without violating 3RR, after all.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can here that particular bit of information was already present under the subject heading Sony Pictures. The edit was redundant and mislead readers by placing it under the wrong heading. Maybe a better edit summary would have been in this instance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not what your getting, it has been confirmed by both Marvel and Sony, that Spider-Man (though the character and the film rights will stay at Sony) will appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, will appear in a Marvel movie which would be distributed by Disney, before the character's standalone movie. Heres the source that was from the Wall Street Journal confirming what I just said.^[1] I honestly don't get why we are having this discussion its been confirmed by Marvel that Spider-Man will appear in the MCU, and its completely unnecessary for Triiple to disgorge edits that editors on Wikipedia put with confirming sources stating that Spider-Man is in the MCU, like Marvel.com, Wall Street Journal, Variety but he keeps on deleting them and saying there is a discussion which is totally unnecessary. --Zzaxx1 (talk), 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Zzaxx1: If you would join the discussion then you would see the arguments being made by myself and other editors. I am not alone in my reasoning and your reverting of other editors besides me shows that. None of the sources you cited state that the proposed Spider-Man film is a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe only that they reached a deal for the Spider-Man character to appear in the MCU and that they are "exploring opportunities" for MCU characters to appear in future Spider-Man films. However this is not the place to discuss content but behavior. It seems you still have not gotten the idea that discussion is a crucial part of collaborative editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention that in early January OccultZone, Jackninja5, National Names 2000, and <Ser Amantio di Nicolao mass created hundreds of Year is Country articles. Most of which remain completely empty a month later. The Year in Jordan articles have now all been deleted under A3 (by other admins) or moved to draft space (by me before I realized the extent of the problem). Now I see there are literally over 1000 of these worthless "articles". For a random example, see 1996 in Estonia. I would like 1) to know how these users all simultaneously came to start creating these. And 2) consensus to mass delete these. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create any of those articles. Edit them, yes - I AWB'ed some talk pages once they had been created. But I didn't create any. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Ser Amantio di Nicolao appears to have only created talk pages, for the article after they were created by one of the others. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/National Names 2000. No comment on other editors. Chillum 17:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Put them in a blank userpage, only the links. Nuke them using Twinkle's batchdelete function. Voila! --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 18:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I am aware of the tool to do the deletion. I didn't, however, want to just deleted 1000+ articles (and an equal number of talk pages) without any discussion. There is also the oddity that two well-established users and one newish user all started creating these at the same time. I think some sort of explanation is in order. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The empty shells should all be deleted IMO. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]