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

I am rather concerned about this comment by Jonadabsmith. I quote: "Dr Harry Potts, what time would you like us to call round your office on campus for a meeting to discuss your personal attacks on students you are meant to encourage to embrace new political ideas and not silence?". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That Dr. is the real name of User:Bondegezou, a fact which if not immediately shown on his User page is easily accessed via external link. I'm not sure how that fits into any "outing" calculation. More broadly, Jonadabsmith is unhappy about a couple of AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Nash-Jones and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Students for Britain, and his comments at the AfDs and on the article Talk pages would appear to exceed the usual boundaries of WP:NPA and WP:AGF among others. JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it counts as outing, given that Bondegezou has linked to his work profile from his user page. I was more concerned about Jonadabsmith's suggestion that he wants to pay him a visit at work. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's right. But addressing a person by his / her real (and full!) name rather than his User name adds, IMHO, a bit more menace to the comment. I don't know what kind of an actual threat it amounts to but it certainly seems designed to intimidate. JohnInDC (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the assessment here is correct, but agree it is very problematic behavior. Does seem menacing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; it's hardly friendly, even if it's not a threat, per se. GAB^Hello! 21:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Bondegezou places his name and place of work on his profile, he is hardly seeking to hide such, and it is hardly unreasonable for a student of a university to ask to visit a known professor at the same establishment to resolve some difference. I stress, that there was merely a request to visit, not an actual visit. Your implication that such would involve harassment is ridiculous. A friendly chat over a cup of tea is likely to be far more productive than people playing keyboard warriors while shouting acronyms as if they are the Supreme Court. User: Jonadabsmith —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonadabsmith, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, no amount of chatting with Bondegezou is likely to change the outcome of the AfDs. Deletion is not in the gift of Bondegezou and the decision will be taken by consensus. What you need to do is establish the notability of the subjects, not attack other editors for supposedly being biased. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry what would you like me to do to improve the notability of the subjects? More newspaper references? Jonadabsmith

Please see the pages WP:Golden rule and WP:RELIABLE, Jonadabsmith. Those will help you understand what is required. In-depth national newspaper coverage of the subjects would help, yes. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonadabsmith would also do well to read the second and fifth bullet points of Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? -- as others have hinted above, he or she seems to be breaching this policy. MPS1992 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The comment by Jonadabsmith (talk · contribs) (diff) is an outrageous attack on an editor. An immediate and complete repudiation may be sufficient, but the attack combined with the WP:SPA nature of the account suggest that a WP:NOTHERE block is warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an SPI open on this. GAB^Hello! 00:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their constant bringing-up of Bodegezou's political leanings, which they make clear, in the AFD as if it invalidates the fact that most of the sources are from non reliable sources is a clear sign of trying to muddy the AFD. This is unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't even remotely ambiguous. The comment in question includes clear personal attacks, an inability to argue the content issue in question without going after the character of another editor, and a threat to extend harassment over this editing issue into the off-project work environment of a contributor. It's quite probable that the SPI will turn something up on this SPA, but regardless, the evidence for WP:NOTHERE seems pretty absolute. Someone should simply take this directly to an admin. Or we can always make a proposal right here. I know what my !vote will be. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: Yes, all the socks are confirmed to one another and possible to the master. GAB^Hello! 23:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that outcome comes as a shock to anyone. I am a little surprised that Bbb23 decided only to block the sock accounts and left it to another admin to decide whether to also block the likely master--but hopefully another admin will be along shortly to attend to that. It seems a pretty open and shut case of disruption and WP:NOTHERE, so the only thing I feel needs to be reiterated at this point is that Jonadabsmith can/should be blocked for the socking or for the blatant harassment/threats--and hopefully the block length will reflect the aggregate circumstances of the disruption. Personally, I'd fully support an indef in this instance, given this is clearly an SPA here to further a specific agenda--even if it means disrupting process through puppetry (generally grounds for an indef in its own right), to say nothing of threatening the off-wiki professional interests/personal well-being of a contributor. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. At the very least, they should be blocked for the duration of the AFD, as suggested. GAB^Hello! 23:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bondegezou, I'll pop over from the IHR if you need someone to watch your back mate. Bloomin' undergrads 11:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.139.189 (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)‎[reply]

Thanks to everyone for bringing this to ANI. It did feel quite WP:HArass-y. I also note the following behaviour:

• edit-warring at both London Students for Britain ([1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] fail WP:3RR, for example) and Luke Nash-Jones;
• lying about conflict of interests in both articles: see User talk:Jonadabsmith#Conflict of interest; and
• confirmed sock/meatpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonadabsmith, with puppets blocked, but awaiting action on the master account.

Jonadabsmith hasn't edited since Friday night, although there's been weird stuff on both articles since: [6], [7]. The two AfDs are still open, but given that only Jonadabsmith + puppets have voted to keep and numerous editors have voted for delete, I think they are both WP:SNOWable at this point!

It would be nice to close this issue with some administrator action one way or the other. The final SPI decision is still hanging and I hope the additional issues described above are taken into account as well. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Topic Ban

A checkuser has found that Jonadabsmith is at least possibly the master behind a number of related socks reinforcing his perspectives on the articles detailed above. Looking at the greater context and considering the evidence provided by numerous editors both at the SPI and here, I'm going to say that my own assessment is that it is in fact highly probable that these accounts are either Jonadabsmith's socks or, at the very least, meat puppets. I'd encourage anyone voting on the proposal to, of course, review the SPI and the above discussion before coming to their own conclusions as to the relationship between the accounts, but what is not in question is that this user has steadfastly refused to engage in WP:AGF, making liberal use of ad hominem attacks on other users.

Most concerning of all, this user has recently threatened to stop by the workplace of another contributor. Jonadabsmith would have us believe that "for all we know" he was just proposing to have a "cup of tea" and discuss the issues but A) looking at the wording of the comment and the disruptive/argumentative context in which it was made, I think we can all see the intent and motivation here was a clear attempt to chill the efforts of another editor through a threat to harass him at work and, B) even if we were to believe that the suggestion of coming into said user's workspace was for the purpose of civil discussion about how his edits on Wikipedia reflect on his concern for his students and his personal politics, it would still be an entirely inappropriate thing to do, or threaten to do.

This behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. Personally I still feel it would be appropriate for any admin looking into this matter to impose an indefinite block for the fairly obvious sock-/meat-puppetry. Failing that, I'm proposing a community resolution to remove this editor from the topic areas which they are proven they cannot be involved in without disruption of the worst sort (threats to the off-project security and well being of our contributors who chose to reveal their actual names on-project, amongst other issues). Specifically my recommendation is that this user be topic banned from contributing to all areas relating to British student organizations, the Brexit or Britain's relationship to the European Union in general, all broadly construed. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban from all areas relating to British student organizations, the Brexit or Britain's relationship to the European Union in general, all broadly construed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is probably the least that should be done in this case, and a site ban is actually the preferred choice of experienced editors at this point. BTW here is the SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonadabsmith. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC); edited 03:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Siteban (first choice) or topic ban as proposed. A clear case of someone who is trying to use Wikipedia to further an agenda. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know that I should have a !vote as the injured party, so to speak, but if this account is not simply indef blocked, might I suggest a site ban until end of June 2016, i.e. a week after the referendum? Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou, you are most definitely allowed to !vote. A site ban is considered permanent, so there are no short-term "site bans"; perhaps you meant a temporary block (which would also cover socking or block evasion). Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification. Ostensibly, there are bans that are stated to last for a year, numerous Arbcom bans have been handed out in the past where editors were site banned for a a year. Obviously we all know that site bans are rarely fixed term and those site banned are even more rarely allowed to return. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Site ban as 1st choice and Tban as 2nd per Guy. Being zealous about what you believe in is one thing, but hinting at showing up at someone's work place is beyond chilling and into the realm of real world harassment. Blackmane (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support siteban or indef block on grounds that we would indef for legal threats, and IRL ones are even more serious. 09:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)09:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.65.134 (talk)
• Site ban as first choice. I agree with Guy here.--Adam in MO Talk 12:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Site ban This goes beyond just not editing on a specific topic. In my opinion a line was crossed with the comment related to "having a cup of coffee" with Bondegezou. That to me smelled of an attempt to harass the user in person. This is not the type of editor that I personally would want to have on Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Site ban first choice, with a very broadly construed topic ban as a poor alternative which would have to include a one-way interaction ban to stop them finding other ways to needle an editor they oppose. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Site ban as first choice with topic ban as second choice. Using Wikipedia to further an agenda or sock puppetry is a violation of fundamental policies. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Site ban as first choice, topic ban second choice. Precisely the sort of behavior which destroys a collegial, cooperative and good-faith editing environment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have noted another couple of sock or meat puppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonadabsmith. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a site ban or topic ban (second choice), this individual's behavior has been intimidating and disruptive. GAB^Hello! 16:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further issues

All socks (including the two new ones) and the master account have been indef banned. The two original articles have been deleted, although a clone article was created by one of the socks and is up for speedy deletion. There's some odd IP editing going on on related topics; don't know how that fits in. If people could keep an eye out for any new socks or inappropriate IP editing, that would be helpful. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there seems to be some hostility between rival anti-EU groups, which has spilled over on to Wikipedia. Jonadabsmith made this edit to Students for Britain and now we have IP edits such as this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universities for Britain speedily deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• European Graduate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a questionable institution which has been the subject of a very long term campaign by a succession of WP:SPAs over a number of years to whitewash criticism of its accreditation status. The latest is Claidioalv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you review the Talk page you will see that the same demand is repeated over and over and over again. This is a case of WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and WP:TE. I think it is time this user was banned from that article, it is very clear that they are not here to contribute to a neutral body of knowledge, only to whitewash a questionable institution.

I originally blocked the account as a sock and unblock was declined by two admins but a third unblocked because it was likely meatpuppetry not sockpuppetry (fair, but of questionable relevance as we don't really treat the two differently) and the user was "not being disruptive". I would say the user now is being disruptive and actually I'd argue that they always were, since this is part of a long term POV-pushing campaign, but whatever. No criticism of the unblocking admin, who assumed good faith, but WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant Claudioalv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote: the page is fully protected, which kind of nullifies part of the unblocking administrators reasoning that Claudioalv didn't try to edit the article. I had a short look at the French page about the institution, which comes along a little shorter and completely avoids any mention of accreditation status...but I admit the singlemindedness with which the accreditation topic is tackled again and again leaves me suspecting a strong COI and meatpuppetry. Lectonar (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I cannot type for toffee (burn scars on my left hand). Guy (Help!) 16:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article was indefinitely full-protected 10 days ago. There's an RfC which was opened by Vanjagenije a week ago [8], which should resolve at least one issue the user in question (Claudioalv) has been trying to address. By the way no SPI was filed or CU requested, but the user was indef blocked by JzG after only two edits (both to the talk page). While JzG may have some observational behavioral evidence to back that up, he seems to be acting as judge, jury, and executioner on this article and the users trying to edit it. There's also an ArbCom Request on the subject going on at this time. While I think it's commendable that JzG is looking over this article, I think his entire modus operandi is a little excessive and I think that the article and situation needs more eyes and more admin eyes, not a single-handed dictatorship. The article (or user) should have been brought to ANI or to administrative attention prior to this single-handed harshness, in my opinion. As in some other cases, I think JzG needs to dial back his intensity and POV, and allow for the fact that even COI users have a right to attempt to correct items on Wikipedia, and if there is a concern it should probably be brought to ANI or another noticeboard or investigation board before it blows up on so many fronts like this. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: And *sigh* now there's a Request for mediation filed: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/European Graduate School article content - Accreditation issue. In my mind we have a clueless newbie editor and an overzealous admin; not a great mix, especially when in my mind neither of them is really listening to what the other is saying or trying to say. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am presently in the midst of reading Ian Kershaw's two-volume biography of Hitler. Let me assure you, JzG is not imposing a "dictatorship." We have enough problems on Wikipedia without hyperbole like this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, however we phrase it, I have to agree with Softlavender that it is problematic to block an editor after two edits without a CU, unless there is transparent discussion about the behavioural evidence. I trust Guy's perspective here, certainly, but when it comes to blocks, I think policy and appropriate caution require more. I won't say that I can't envisage instances when reflexive blocking might make sense, but I'm sure Guy understands why this can be viewed as problematic, especially when it is not a one-off action, but part of a broader effort that may have some suggestion of WP:INVOLVED. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am heartily sick of this user. Look at the recent edit history, including trying to take this to ArbCom. So we can now add WP:FORUMSHOP to WP:TE, WP:IDHT, WP:RGW, WP:SYN and all the others. Banhammer, please. This is not about an "over zealous admin", check the article's history, there are a mountain of single purpose accounts - including socks and puppeteers. This is a long-term programme of POV-pushing plainly orchestrated by the school, a more aggressive version of what happens at Bircham International University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 12:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Kudos to Guy for reality-based adminning. BMK (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• BMK is correct. There are lots of highly dubious organizations which earn money by selling fake academic qualifications, and their #1 priority is to fix their Wikipedia article. Anyone wanting to support the SPAs should think hard about text they add because this diff shows a claim that the school is accredited in Malta—the ref used to support that has a title starting "School that spawns activists...". Such WP:UNDUE material should not be used to obfuscate the core issue, namely that the organization is not accredited in the U.S., and Texas says it issues "fraudulent or substandard degrees". AGF is great, but reality also needs to be considered. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am glad that someone is reading my contribution and the issue I raised. That is the reason why I joined Wikipedia. I find some information inaccurate, misleading and partially false (i.e. Michigan) about the EGS article and I thought having joined the civil discussion in Wikipedia should have worked. I did not worked so far, but at least some administrators are discussing about the problem. My hope is that people would address the issue in the EGS article, even if I am quite sick of JzG, as he acted like the Supreme Court, the last say of the article (e.g. when a different editor amended the article with the Malta accreditation he reverted the article after half an hour because there is no consensus). What I want to repeat here is that the article was built by JzG in a malicious way because he just did not like EGS. Proof of that statement are 2: i) even if the School was accredited as Higher Education Institute since April 2015 he promply took off this info from EGS article. Now the school is accredited as a University in Malta [Malta is a European and Sovereign country and the link I posted comes from the official governmental body and not "dubious organization" as I read above], three different administrators have written that this info should be included in the RfC (I do not think three of them are crazy and JzG is the only one in his right mind); ii) the accreditation section about US in inaccurate because: a) the Michigan information is false (it is not official because derives from a U.K. link and not the US) and outdated (I have been posted which is the current Michigan Civil Service Commission link and recently I have opened a RfC); b) the Maine information is oudated because their current official statement is "The Maine Department of Education does not mantain the list of unaccredited postsecondary institution"; 3) the Texas info is outdated because the Malta accreditation was not on their record and they are currently reviewing the EGS inclusion "Status under review per European Graduate School's request". Sorry for the lenght, I like to be detailed and I have been posting this information in the talk page, in the RfC, Mediation and Arbitration request (both denied). Everyone can check, I do not want be disruptive, but I want someone who verifies that, because the current EGS article is questionning the EGS reputation and this is not fair, especially if it relies on inaccurate and outdated sources. thanks Claudioalv (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these users User:Mhhossein and User:Saff V. have been involved with me in various content disputes. The pattern of editing is that one of them will place some highly POV or hagiographic text in an article, when it is taken out they will either try to force me to abandon my efforts or they will try to intimidate me. This intimidation involves biating me repeatedly until I say something which they use as a personal attack and shift the topic of discussion from the article to the editor. Their modus operandi involves

1. Reverting my cleanup edits with the sole reason being "You do not have my consent".
2. Repeated reports frivolous and false reports at Administrator noticeboards which were declined with no action. for example This , This huge huge discussion that was useless and this latest discussion.
3. Repeated reverts without giving any reason. Like here
4. Reverting with the excuse that there is "ongoing discussion" even when the discussion at TP agrees with my edits and un involved editors go as far as to thank me.
5. Making statements to the effect that "I just reverted you but I will not discuss It, I am going to ping some of my friends, discuss with them". like here

Now it is quite clear that these reports and long drawn out thread like discussion take a toll on everyone. So I am proposing that as per policy at WP:IBAN an interaction ban be imposed indefinitely.

• Both users are banned from editing my user and talk pages;
• Both users are banned from replying to me discussions;
• Both users are banned from undo my edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;

The gist of the matter is that these guys have been harassing me for like 2 months now and an I-Ban is the best thing for everyone. Admins and other users will not have to waste time in the reports and the long discussions that follow. Hossein and SaffV will be able to edit and add to the wikipedia so we are not loosing editors, and I can get back to editing like a normal person without being dragged to ANI or 3PR everytime I edit an article. I am pinging some people who have been involved in this since the onset. Pinging User:Drmies (who will be pissed that he has pinged once again, but pleased that this will be a permanent solution) and User:Jeppiz(we disagree off and on, so balances out the canvass :P). People with the latest input in this @ 3pr thread were User:Malik Shabazz, User:Dr.K. and User:BlueMoonset. People who contributed to the long debate a month ago were User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and User:HyperGaruda. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not personally seeing enough diffs to justify the accusations of harassment or the extensive I-Ban as proposed. Reverting wholesale removal of cited information, especially when it completely gutted the article, is not harassment. Reverting the removal of a massive amount of cited text while a discussion is ongoing and before there is any consensus or WP:DR is not harassment. Plus you are complaining that one of the users pinged two supporters in a conflict with you, but you just now pinged six+ of your own supporters in this ANI filing. Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender the removal of a massive amount of cited text is allowed when you take a look at the TP and see that everyone except one guy is for removing it. You can check the dates of TP discussion and my "removal". I am not complaining that he pinged other users. My complaint is simpler. "He never bothered to engage in discussion, rather he reverted and told me that he will not even discuss". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your point about that POV/quotefarm-removal edit, but one diff is not enough to prove your case. Also, I don't see SaffV refusing to discuss with you, however I do see him struggling with English and asking for help. And in any case per WP:BRD you needed to gain talk-page consensus for your gutting of the article before attempting to do that again, but there was no such consensus and you edit-warred and kept gutting it. Softlavender (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the I-Ban as construed above. Editing on different sides of contentious topics is no cause to ban someone from reverting one's edits. Better all three editors should receive a widely construed topic ban on all of these sorts of articles. Since that is unrealistic, there are probably Arb sanctions like DS in force for these articles, and if not, perhaps a 1RR or 2RR restriction should be instituted so that WP:DR is always used in these content disputes rather than edit wars and ANI filings. Beyond that, the OP is, like anyone, free to ban anyone from his talk page. Softlavender (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interaction ban with Mhhossein, their baseless accusations have been seen at enough boards over an extended period of time to be considered harrassment now. No comment on other user. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd better take another look at the reports. What you called "baseless accusations" were not actually baseless (see my notes below-#2) . Mhhossein (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To be frank all what came above was to me just Victim playing (I suggest the users to have a look at that page) by trying to "diverting attention away from his acts of abuse" and/or "soliciting sympathy from others". Let's see the real fact behind his accusations.

1. He said:"This intimidation involves biating me repeatedly until I say something which they use as a personal attack!" the users who have experienced interacting with FreeatlastChitchat know that he has repeatedly attacked various users (not only me or the other reported user) and I don't think being "biated" (if we assume has happened) is a suitable reason for calling others "Liar" or telling others that you have "mental disease." Fortunately, the so called huge discussion has turned into a collection of FreeatlastChitchat's personal attacks and uncivilities, where among other things he used the "F" word and its derivatives multiple times and called users "Imbecilic liar" so that he received a heavy warning from an admin [9].
2. What he calls "frivolous and false reports" (such as the mentioned ones) were mostly stemming from his inability to participate in the talk page discussions, tending to make mass removals and using "colorful language", and that's why he's a user of being reported by various users on a monthly basis. By the way, I would not call them "false" as they led to warnings or cautions, at least. For example, in the "huge discussion" the closing admin told me that my comments were fine, followed policy, and were very helpful. Moreover, I think FreeatlastChitchat (the reporter) forgot to mention that this report where the closing admin said there were "major civility issues with FreeatlastChitchat's mode of dialogue with other Wikipedians, as evidenced by their posts here in this discussion and by their talk page contributions elsewhere."
3. Nearly always, I have tried to engage in discussions on the talk page and to build a consensus (you can see my activity on the TPs). Getting thanks from users has no special meaning. At least it does not necessarily prove that one's edit had been toward the consensus, specially where there had been no clear consensus on removing or keeping something.
4. Although per a suggestion from a user, I had aimed to drop some issues off, I have to take fresh personal attacks by FreeatlastChitchat here; He told me that I was "tripping on acid" or "belonged in a place where I should be taken care of on hourly basis", even noted by uninvolved users. Among other occasions as stated above, he violated civility by using "have his arse on a silver platter". I don't deem it a polite language. Do you?
5. As its seen, he did blatantly canvassed nearly six users and I avoid doing so.
6. I don't need "I" or any other types of bans. I can gently interact with users on TPs. I think this is FreeatlastChitchat (blocked multiple times) who does not know how to do it. He was also asked by admins "to treat other Wikipedia contributors with respect and dignity", tone his language down (in the huge discussion) and to practice democracy. Mhhossein (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein you say you feel abused by me. Then an I-Ban is actually in your favor. With the Iban in place I will not be able to talk to you or about you. So basically I am doing you a favor here. If you are actually true in saying that I have abused you then you should be in favor of an I-Ban not against it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No! Now that you've came up with this report, all those uncivilities and personal attacks should be taken care of. I'm not, of course, the only editor whom you offended and abused. So, you've to learn how to interact with others. Mhhossein (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I violated no policy while interacting with you, so Why I-Ban on me? Mhhossein (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just here to say good luck to everyone. One day you will all be blocked indefinitely if you keep going like this--though I guess it's nice of Freeatlast to seek a solution. However, iBans are usually more trouble than they're worth, as the regulars know. Have a great day, Drmies (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies: Thanks, I just wanted to recall you something. You know much more than me, of course. Mhhossein (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Somehow I didn't get the ping by Freeatlast. I came here after checking the report at 3RRN. My only comment here is that I don't appreciate being labeled as Freeatlast's "supporter". I appreciate Freeatlast's removal of the WP:QUOTEFARM from the Iran-US incident and I have thanked him for it. But agreeing with an editor on an edit, does not make you a "supporter" of said editor. This type of characterisation is not helpful because it unnecessarily labels editors who agree on constructive edits. Dr. K. 00:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Maybe if you'd stop pushing a pro-sunni POV, people would stop getting angry with you, freeatlast. 142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest a boomerang: The reporter was unable to show his case as the other user said and his report is nonsensical to me. Moreover, he were impolite enough recently. After calling other users liars, imbecilic liar and saying uncivil things multiple times and after multiple warnings by admins to tone down his language, he still show tendency to make personal attacks and be uncivil. I think this a boomerang case. His major civility issues is not resolved yet. His major civility issues are not resolved yet.

Talk pages are suitable place for talk and after conclusion edit articles. The reporter way is: 1. deleting all text and make an incomplete article without any talk or summary 2. when me or another user revert his/her edit, he/she undo without reliable reasons 3.in the last time when me say to add your reason in the talk page, he/she write meaningless and biased sentences and attack. The reporter must learn to use talk page first and then do major edit. Topic ban is better way for him or her.Saff V. (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support boomerang: Freeatlastchitchat certainly has serious problems regarding WP:CIVILITY issues. I see that he's also done several personal attacks. One of my experiences interacting with him/her was at [[10]], where he was impolite and used sentences like this: “Don't worry we are not blaming you for "decorating" lol” or “It does not matter what you think”. The fact that he do major edits at articles without explaining them at talk page or trying to participate talk page discussions, like what other editors said, is another serious problem of Freeatlastchitchat. This is while some users pointed out to him that observe this rule but he don’t pay attention. Hence, I think Boomerang is a suitable idea. I also see that he has canvassed multiple users! There were many other users participating in those previous reports and It's interesting that he did not canvassed those who opposed him before.Lstfllw203 (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lstfllw203 when you show even a single edit outside an Iran/Shia hagiographic article, then you can give an opinion. Of course you want me banned, so you lot can just continue to add whatever you want to your beloved articles without anyone reverting your pov edits. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:FreeatlastChitchat, do you oppose the view that "Freeatlastchitchat kept on making uncivil comments and making personal attacks" although you were warned by admins to be careful about that?Lstfllw203 (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lstfllw203 I oppose the view that you can give neutral input in this situation, seeing that you are trying your best to WP:CENSOR anything that portrays Iran in a bad light. BTW you appear to be a WP:SPA seeing that you only edit Iran/Shia things and nothing else. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FC's uncivil comments: Fresh cases of Freeatlastchitchat's uncivil comments: " your "just for fun reverts" appear childish to me", "...then just use a thesaurus or ask an adult" and "the English you used was childish and quite wrong" (all in [11]). I don't know when this will finish. --Mhhossein (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein when you revert me "just for fun" I have all the right to say that your edits appear childish to me. Your English WAS childish, to be frank even children write better English. As I said before "If you are writing an article, I have literally no beef whatsoever with what kind of English you use, I will be hay to coy edit your creations". However, when you REVERT me and just for the hell of it replace my English phrases with complete gibberish, then my friend I have all the right to label your English as childish. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never reverted you for fun. I would not call other editors as such! Mhhossein (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein then how can you explain your replacing the words Ardeshir Hosseinpour was killed by gassing with Ardeshir Hosseinpour was died because of gassing. ? What reason do you have? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of interpreting a dubious death as "assassination", you could simply remove that excess "was", what I forgot to do. --Mhhossein (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was so embarrassed on my contributing edits in The Amazing Race (season number) articles. Me and Masem (talk · contribs) are a frequent contributors for the show franchise that we did make shortening summary articles. I made my first edit back in April 2005 in The Amazing Race 7 and became very common ever since. The big problem is I did not give any comments without any explanations of how I cleaned up sentences to meet with the standards of WP:PLOT policy.

Articles have been reported:

• The Amazing Race 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Amazing Race 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My edits on those two articles didn't do a disruptive editing that is having a common on a good Wiki editor. At first, ESAD-Hooker (talk · contribs) became a new "Ryulong" of the Wikipedia-edit race for race/leg summary. Well, I didn't vandalize all of The Amazing Race pages since my account's creation in 2005 and this did not have previous blocks from editing. I may going to be a proper Wiki editor that meets the right standards to be understood. ApprenticeFan ^work 04:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Soooooo..... this isn't anything that needs admin intervention and should therefore be closed as such ? ....., Your edits look fine so I don't get what the problem is ? .... –Davey2010^Talk 04:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010: These both articles were reverted by one editor, the problems are less awkward grammar, cohesion and tone. That would make sure to prove better sentences. ApprenticeFan ^work 04:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right sorry, So have you tried talking to the editors on the respective talkpages?, BTW you need to provide diffs of the issue aswell otherwise your complaint won't get far, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 04:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I checked one on The Amazing Race 27 talk page and there's an analysis of these reports were made by ESAD-Hooker itself, Masem, and etc. ApprenticeFan ^work 07:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be largely a content dispute. WP:DRN may be a better place to discuss this. Blackmane (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. I did make a file at WP:DRN and this was a premature case. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My observation was, on 14 February 2016‎, in less than 1 hour, ApprenticeFan removed over 3,000 bytes. I don't think an article can be pruned with detail in that amount of time. The results of that pruning substantiates my observation ESAD-Hooker (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at DRN was removed because you hadn't fufilled the base requirements: Where was there previous discussion on the Article Talk Page or User Pages? Based on the fact that this is a perenial problem, perhaps opening an RFC to establish consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/The Amazing Race task force (or WikiProject Television in the context of many reality TV series) would be a good idea. Hasteur (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a discussion on Talk:The Amazing Race 25#New TAR Clue Format and Summaries which the now-banned Ryulong made an idea to clean up the race summary, merging with Route Info, Detour, Roadblock or Route Info, Roadblock, Detour through a leg summary in order. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion from 2014 does not constitute The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. and as such the request was dismissed. Please stop slinging mud regarding banned users due to the fact that it only undermines your position. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User reported: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified user: William_M._Connolley at User_talk:William_M._Connolley notifying him of dispute at article Ford Pinto

Since you have had involvement with HughD, you should see how many edits he added to the Ford Pinto article. 200 in the 5 days before it was locked! Seriously, if you are brave you should give it a look.

diff: 21:01 10 March 2016

Spamming; notification of a user "with no significant connection to the topic at hand." Campaigning; non-neutral wording of notice. Vote stacking; active content discussions at article talk. Previous interaction with the targeted editor is not among the listed examples of appropriate reasons for notification to a user talk page at WP:APPNOTE.

Springee recent previous report by Scoobydunk for canvassing 2 December 2015: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#User_Springee_Canvassing

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not canvasing. No suggestion or request to edit the page. I'm simply blow away by HughD's ability to make 255 edits to a page since March 2nd including 3 days when the topic was locked! Springee (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edit shown here is not canvassing. I don't understand what the problem is, nor do I see where Hugh's direct involvement with the talk page conversation is. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could we perhaps boomerang this into an assessment of HughD's editing 'style'. His shotgun attacks on the page, posting at a rate of about 1 edit per hour, night and day,for more than a week, plus the same on the talk page, when combined with a complete inability to answer a straight question with a straight answer, and his tendency to assume his arguments are the only ones that matter, make cooperating with him impossible. Greglocock (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, I agree with Greglocock, an editor on the Pinto page, that HughD's behavior on the Ford Pinto article and talk pages has been disruptive. I'm not sure if boomerang would apply to that or not. However, I think that trying to ping Scoobydunk DOES count as canvasing and would be a boomerang. Why would HughD add a ping to Scoobydunk [12] today (Mar 15th) vs 4 days ago? Scoobydunk has no involvement with the Pinto page. The only reason to notify him of this discussion is the hopes that he can sway the group opinion. That is canvasing. Springee (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former section header: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Edits. EEng

Pinging the following users to this discussion:

@WikiConqueror:, @Loriendrew:, @CactusWriter:, @NawlinWiki:, @Randykitty: @Grandma.ricky: @Ginger1774:

A few days ago I was doing pass through the csd articles with an eye on those that were potentially contested. In that capacity I reviewed the article Lisa Christine Holmberg. (note the period), which was alleged to be csd eligible on G4 grounds (recreation of an article deleted via a deletion discussion). Since I could not find the article's afd I had to search to locate the original article, and discovered that the reason the article had been created with a period was in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the page creation protection at the article's original name Lisa Christine Holmberg. In the course of my review of the article to determine the validity of the csd tag I found the afd, but learned that this article has an apparent fan train behind it. That fan train appears to be pushing an agenda to keep the article on Wikipedia despite having been repeatedly informed that there is currently no place for the actress on this site at present. Over the last several days I have observed the account behind the article and have come to the conclusion that the person pushing to have this article on Wikipedia may have reached the point of disruptive editing, and as such I would like the community and the admin corps take a closer look and decide if any action on this matter is warranted.

Lisa Christine Holmberg is apparently an actress wannabe whose got an apparently small but loyal fan base. She' got no awards, no major casting roles, no schooling history (she was home schooled), and as such, no shelter under any criteria set forth under WP:NOTABILITY for the article remain on site. Even the more specific acting guidelines do not offer any sanctuary for the article to remain. The initial attempt to create this page was shot down under G12 copyright violation as Ginger1774 (talk · contribs) had apparently taken the article from imbd, a source whose use on Wikipedia is questionable based on the manner in which it is employed to begin with. After being deleted by CactusWriter (talk · contribs) for copyright infringement the article was recreated about an hour later by Ginger1774 very near the original version. This recreated version was deleted about four hours later by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). This time only about two hours passed before Ginger1774 recreated the article for a third time. As with the first two csd-based deletions, this version was nearly identically to the first two csd-deleted versions. Again the article was tagged for speedy deletion, but this time I new account going by the name Grandma.ricky (talk · contribs) removed the csd tag (before after) in what looks very much like an orchestrated attempt to keep the article on site. On 30 October 2014, the article was proposed for deletion by Amortias (talk · contribs). At the same time, Amortias sensed something amiss about the article, and posted an ANI notice about a possible sock or meat team working the article. At the time, this was judge to be a non issue, and the post was closed without any action taken. Right about this time Ginger1774 ceased editing, and Grandma.ricky took over the primary editing for the account. A long string of edits were then made by Grandma.ricky up to the article, which at that time was undergoing an afd which was closed as delete on 7 November 2014. A little more than two hours after the afd deletion of this article, Grandma.ricky recreated the article (again), which resulted in a csd tag about 30 minutes later. After this final deletion, CactusWriter creation-protected the article. No further activity occurred with the article until February of this year, when WikiConqueror (talk · contribs) recreated the article at Lisa Christine Holmberg. (note the period) in what looks very much like a deliberate attempt to circumvent the article's creation protection. After a week on site Reddogsix (talk · contribs) tagged the article speedy deletion, resulting in my having moved the article to its actual name and then deleting it once the afd background information was confirmed.

On its own this could be taken as over-zealousness towards the creation of an article, but it goes deeper than that. The three primary accounts that have worked on this article have minor contributions outside the article specifically, but ALL of their edits seem to be focus almost exclusively on Lisa. The Grandma.ricky account made all edits to the Lisa account, as such there is no evidence to show definitively that the this account had brown-nosed others to keep Lisa on site, however after Grandma.ricky's account ceased editing and Ginger1774 started editing that changed. Ginger1774 added Lisa to the list of people from Elgin, Illinois and created a page for The Hemmens Cultural Center (also in Elgin Illinois), where Lisa allegedly had minor vocal performance roles. Edits were also made to the article we have on Elgin, Illionis to link the predominance center in what I am guessing was a conscience effort to get more page views for the actress. The account also edited the article Elgin Community College, however this appears to be the only case where I can not discern a conscience attempt to promote Lisa.

That brings us to the currently active account WikiConqueror (talk · contribs). WikiConqueror's edits have continued to edit for both lisa in particular and for Elgin, Illios generally. These include creating the article Elgin Children's Chorus which Lisa sang in at age 7, Jenne Lennon (apprently someone else from Elgin, Illinois), attempting to add a link to the draft of Lisa int he article name space at List of people from Elgin Illinois, creating the West Suburban Home School Band article which Lisa apparently was a part of, creating the holiday showcase article which Lisa acted in, The Planets Gala Concert with Lenard Nimoy which Lisa participated in, re-adding a link to the recreated Lisa article in our List of People for Elgin Illinois article, creating the page The Neighborhood Watch which Lisa had a role in, creating The Undercover Squad which Lisa had a role in, creating the page A Concert of Remembrance which Lisa had a role in, and creating the Metropolis Performing Arts Cetner where Lisa preformed. On top of that the user has been working religiously on Draft:Lisa Christine Holmberg despite the fact that the article has been repeatedly declined for publication ([13] [14] [15] [16] [17]). In each case the user has been soliciting feedback for the reason for the draft having been declined, however I can not say for sure if this is just the newness of the user or if it is a deliberate attempt be problematic.

Although as I have shown above WikiConqueror (talk · contribs) has been working the Lisa Christine Holmberg article angle hard, it is also a fact that the user has had some useful contributions away from Lisa as a general topic. I think the account could be useful in the long run, but I take the repeated work on Lisa Christine Holmberg on the associated articles for her life's history as red flag, particularly in light of the early attempts by Ginger1774 and Grandma.ricky to protect the article. I am asking for community feedback here on whether or not action should be taken on this matter. Speaking for myself, I would entertain the idea of a topic ban for the WikiConqueror account prohibiting the account from editing any articles on or related to Lisa Christine Holmberg to see if that helps the situation any, but that's me. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, TomStar81. I made the new Lisa Christine Holmberg page, simply because I genuinely thought that the actor met Wikipedia notability. Other users had told me so. But apparently that's very subjective. As you can see, I've taken your advice and stopped working on that article for now. I'm keeping the draft going while I find more information and wait for the subject to become more notable. I do hope to eventually make the article since I've done so much research at this point, but if I need to wait, I understand and will. Notice I didn't recreate it. I know that you're just trying to do what's best for Wikipedia, and I respect that. I did make some articles that were about projects Lisa had worked on, but that's because I'm a fan. Is that a problem? Fans edit all the time on Wikipedia, and they're the ones that are motivated to do the necessary research on the topic. I don't want any trouble, and I'm not making biased articles. I always love it when other users work on my draft, and I encourage that. It helps me learn the encyclopedia and helps the articles be more well rounded. I only submitted the draft multiple times because I wanted feedback from admins in my editing process. I'm a relatively new user (since 2014) and am still learning the ropes. I don't have much draft experience, and you have to start somewhere. I feel like some of the other users that I've interacted with have been over zealous to my article just because of its rough start with the other users. It's not right to judge me based on their behavior. I really am trying hard to make good articles and "useful contributions" as you said. Please don't bully me any more than I already have been by others. I'm just trying to do my best like all of you are. WikiConqueror (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All good points, all correct as well, and ironically from an admin perspective that is where the problem is. Ordinarily this could be construed as disruptive editing, except that you account doesn't appear to have been created for a single purpose - you've got edits outside of the subject area, some a little sloppy, but I've been guilty of contributions at or below those levels (and in fairness standards here change all the time). This reminds me of my fit back in 06 or so when I was on the receiving end of a mass deletion campaign, and I recall being irate and angry and out to prove a point and all those other things you're not suppose to be anchored in on Wikipedia. Some years later I brought myself in line and look at my now: admin, coordinator, etc. That's why I am here. I have no idea what do with this whole thing. I don;t even know if what I've dug up is a thing. A block under these circumstances would be excessive, and frankly unfair. Lisa's non notable at the moment, and I keep see her appear again and again. I'm looking to others here to gain a bigger picture of what we should or shouldn't do. This is one of the big reasons I hate csd - I get involved and my damned investigative nature works against me (or in some cases for me, but that's more the exception than the rule). Hell I may be guilty of low level harassment here, but since I don't know what to do I need input, and thats what brings us here. For now I take I wait and see, depending on what the community decides here we'll proceed according to the will on consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, TomStar81 - While notability is somewhat subjective, there are instances, this being the case where it is readily apparent that the subject does not meet notability criteria. WC does bring up good points in their response above, but I question their intentions. When I got the ANI notice on my talk page, I looked here to see a discussion begun by TomStar81; seeing this one I clicked on the draft, and looking at it wondered: "WTF? Why am I being notified?" But something about the article rang a bell, and looking at the history I noticed I had declined the draft several days ago. However, WC has seen fit to remove the declination notice, along with the comments. On further inspection, they have removed all the prior declination boxes, and all reviewers' comments as well. This makes it appear that they are not very amenable to listening to reviewers' comments. While some of the issues can be attributed to a lack of Wiki experience, when an editor makes willful edits to deceive other editors, that points to a behavioral issue in their editing. Especially after the user has been warned (albeit in a different instance) of the inappropriate removal of tags. All that being said (and btw, thanks TomStar for the wonderful recap above - despite its length, it is actually concise when taking into account all that has happened), I agree that a block is too much at this point. This warning should suffice, but if the editor continues what might be construed as tendatious and deceitful behavior, a block might then be in order. I would also suggest that the editor refrain from deleting any notices on their talk page, as well as on articles they are working on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (Responding to the ping) I discussed some of this recently with WikiConqueror who approached me at my talk page for help with Draft:Lisa_Christine_Holmberg. Our conversation can be read at User talk:CactusWriter#Lisa Christine Holmberg page. Briefly, I informed them that the article was still a promotional piece on a non-notable teenage actress, that my assessment agreed with several editors who had already reviewed and declined it, and that WikiConqueror would be better off leaving it until Holmberg was truly notable, and WikiConqueror should move on to more constructive areas of editing Wikipedia. I do agree there are problems here with COI and agenda-driven editing. (And I've been watchful of a number of images they've uploaded to Commons with copyright issues -- including some fan pics which are cropped to edit out the fan who I would suspect is Holmberg.) If a problem with SPI exists, a case should be filed. However, I don't think we've reached the stage for ANI intervention. I think this can still be handled by direct interaction with WikiConqueror. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (responding to ANI notice) Seconded -- that's exactly what I said to WikiConqueror before -- one needs to realise that this is not possible right now, and should walk away. Nevertheless, it's see you cooperating with us, WC, and there's absolutely no judgement on you here. The issue is not you but the article in question, it's important that those two things are differentiated. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (Sorry for delay, was in transit) It is nice to see such enthusiasm in developing an article. Unfortunately I must agree with the above assessments that the subject is not ready for article status and would likely fail an AfD. One of the major problems with deleted articles (for us non-admins) is that we cannot easily see the history or article creator (pondering a RfC about adding that to AfD headers). It would be been an instant lightbulb in my head to see the names of the COI accounts.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This report relates to user editors SchroCat and Tim riley. It refers to the wiki article John Gielgud. This article seems to have been created by or significantly fleshed out by two editors, SchroCat and Tim riley.

On the 2nd March, I corrected a minor grammatical and stylistic solecism in the text. The change I made is this: the original text read:

"After Hillside, Lewis had won a scholarship to Eton, and Val had done likewise to Rugby, but John, lacking their academic achievement, did not follow them.[10]"

This sentence has three subordinate clauses in one and a quarter lines; contains a category error (i.e. the use of 'academic achievement' when 'academic prowess' or 'academic talent' is clearly meant); and what grammarians call a 'denied conclusion' (i.e. it says 'John... did not follow them' thus implying the question 'Follow them where?' To Rugby? Or to Eton? Or to any public school?).

I changed the sentence to:

"After Hillside, Lewis had won a scholarship to Eton, as Val had done likewise to Rugby, but John, lacking their academic achievement, did not follow them."

By the 6th of March, the change was reverted by Tim riley. I reverted it again (the 3rd edit), and then completely rewrote the lineSchroCat - this was then reverted by SchroCat (which I believe breaks the WP:3RR convention. I opened up a topic in the talk page providing grammatical and stylistic reasons for my changes and asking them not to revert the edit. I did, I admit, ask them not to revert correct changes simply out of loyalty to their own edits.

On the talk page, I was abused by both SchroCat and Tim riley - with SchroCat suggesting, amongst other things, that I was a non-native English speaker who should defer to his own own native English-speaking status. A rude message was posted on my Talk page which I have since deleted.

Today - 12th March - six days after the last edit, I restored the corrected sentence. Within six minutes, it was reverted by SchroCat.

I am therefore making a report here of disruptive editing; I ask that my edit be reviewed; I also request that the page be protected.

The edit itself is the correction of a tiny piece of grammar. However, the unfriendly, discourteous and factually (or at least grammatically) incorrect approach by these two editors is exactly the kind of hostile behaviour that discourages good Wikipedia editors from participating.

Note: I should also say, I am a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia editor - if I have made any incorrect steps in trying to use the Disruptive Editing Report protocols, please inform me and I will correct them. Hubertgrove (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hubertgrove, I'm sorry you were having a bad experience--but you come with guns blazing on that talk page, and if you're dealing with an FA, that's rarely a good idea. I left a note or two on that talk page; I do not (yet) see any need for administrative involvement, though I will be happy to block for anything; now that I went up in the ranks, my block payments have doubled. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your reply, Drmies (talk - which I do take to heart. Perhaps I was not sufficiently gentle in my tone; however I was not abusive and my changes were in fact necessary and correct. However, my complaint I think is still valid. I'm being double-teamed by two editors who are engaged in disruptive reversions of a correct edit. One of whom makes racist allusions. I really don't think this should be dismissed even with the friendly comment: 'Oh, you should have been nicer to them after they reverted you for the third time'. Is there nothing that can be done? Hubertgrove (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is something that can be done, sure, but you may not like it. First, you have to understand this is ANI, where we don't really deal with content but with behavior. Second, what could be done is I could, in much more stern language, point out to you that "you sound like British English is not your first language" or words to that effect is not a racist comment, and that bringing supposed racism into this muddies the water and makes you, in fact, guilty of the kind of thing that WP:NPA warns us about.

      So, your content edit may be valid, but the things you said in relation to it, I'm sorry--they are not. But I'm waiting for SchroCat or Tim riley to come by here to explain, in cool and calm words, how the milk of human kindness is to be distributed. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, thank you for your comment, Drmies. [I am going to pass on your opinion'"you sound like British English is not your first language" or words to that effect is not a racist comment,' though I do personally hope you may return to it. I believe other editors, perhaps from the UK and the Commonwealth too, and perhaps younger, might come to another conclusion. I am also very concerned that you think raising an issue of racism is itself a form of personal abusive; moreso, it seems than the actual real abuse on the talk page].

To the actual issue: You seem to view my complaint from my opening paragraph which while using 'stern language' was still not rude nor abusive, It was, however met with rude and abusive language. I cannot understand how you can let that pass.

With respect, you seem to have missed - or possibly deferred from commenting on - that I rewrote the offending sentence, to which you yourself objected, so that it avoided stylistic and grammatical solecism. It is this sentence which has been reverted without explanation.

I hope you understand that I am really not trying to be argumentative. I am just defending a correct edit and pointing out hostile editor behaviour. Hubertgrove (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert, I think you might be missing the crux of what Drmies is trying to tell you here. Let me preface my own comments with some context: I am quite at-home with British English, but also the dialects of the other anglophone countries I have lived in, all the more so for the fact that I have a degree in comparative linguistics. And I had the exact same reaction to that talk page comment as did Drmies (and apparently Schrocat and Tim riley). This is not a matter of syntactic variation between American and British English, I can assure you. That said, I actually fully agree with you that the phrasing of that statement was/is extremely unwieldy, even borderline garbled, and could use improvement. The problem is not your editorial approach to the content, it's your approach to your fellow contributors and generating consensus amongst them. Maybe you are right, maybe Schorcat and Tim riley are too attached to this content and maintaining it in exactly its current form (or for whatever reason they just don't see the grammatical issue that you do here). But assuming these factors as a given in your very first talk page comment is just a stupendously ill-conceived plan of action for resolving the matter amicably, and indeed borders on a blatant violation of one of Wikipedia crucial behavioural guidelines, WP:Assume good faith.

Drmies is absolutely on-target with their assessment that you went "guns blazing" on this issue, with the predictable result that you dramatically undermined the ability of the editors you needed to work with to view your perspectives in the best possible light. Even if you felt from the edit summary exchanges that you had reason to expect resistance to your editorial stance, the best thing to do in that instance is still to calmly present your argument (based on content and policy) without reference to what you think are the motivations of the editors involved. If they disagree, respond likewise to counter-arguments and if it looks like the issue is becoming intractable, and you think your version of the content is worth contesting over, host a WP:Request for comment or seek WP:Dispute resolution. Only after unambiguous and persistent evidence of a disruptive mindset is it appropriate to start making implication of WP:OWN mentalities or other behavioural accusations. Starting out with that is just begging for raised barriers and a magnificent waste of everyone's time as you struggle to overcome the combative mindsets when they are established at the very beginning of discussion. In this context, I don't think their behaviour was in any way more "rude and abusive" than was yours.

My best advice is that you go back to the talk page, admit you got off on the wrong foot and ask them why they are so married to original wording of the statement. If you feel they are stone-walling without a good policy reason, RfC the issue. If you are correct on the content matter, and garner the necessary consensus to support your view, they will have to accept it. But they definetly don't have to accept (or tolerate) speculative assumptions about their motivations for their editorial decisions, per WP:NPA. Best of luck. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Snow Rise. Hubertgrove, pointing out that "English is not your first language" is not racist. Doing so is silly. The comment can be factual, it can be snarky, it can be full of admiration, it can be lots of things, but it really can't be racist, and you can pass on that comment as much as you like but that only makes the observer question your judgment. As it happens, English is not my first language, and I don't understand where this misdirected anger comes from.

Now, it would be very nice if some other admin, preferably someone more competent in English than I/me/myself, would see if this shouldn't be closed. I think Snow Rise said all that needed to be said--wait, that makes this comment kind of redunda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 00:24, 13 March 1026 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies sadly passed away in the midst of this comment, but not before managing to hit the Enter key. ^[FBDB] clpo13_(talk) 00:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank goodness, it looks like Drmies didn't die afterall; they were simply sent 990 years, 7 months, 28 days, and 13 hours into the past (at least according to sinebot). What a relief! Snow ^{let's rap} 03:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Drmies trying to put in place preparations to stop the Norman invasion of England? Which won't happen for another 40 years....Blackmane (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^[FBDB] Ha, ha! Blackmane used a sentence fragment! Blackmane used a sentence fragment! EEng 13:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all you're getting from me today! Blackmane (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realized I was being redundant and tried to get off that train before it passed the station again. Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated; my demise is of course factual--in fact, it's almost an anagram. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^[FBDB] And indeed, one anagram of Drmies is Die, Mrs.! EEng 19:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lewisthejayhawk (talk · contribs) has made numerous disruptive edits on a variety of women's college basketball pages. This has been discussed by me, Sphilbrick (talk · contribs), and WilliamJE (talk · contribs). We have attempted to contact Lewisthejayhawk and instruct them to stop making these constant disruptive edits, however the user will not oblige. The user has also done this in the past, and has been temporarily banned for a very similar situation.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zachlp, I can see hints of the issues involved on the editor's talk page (including recently deleted comments), but as to the disruption you allege in the articles in question, you must provide diffs if we are to examine the behaviour. Further, when you open a thread about another user here, you must inform them on their talk page. It looks likely that it will simply be deleted with some quasi-cognizable insult in this instance, true, but you still most formally inform them that their behaviour is being discussed here. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: Sure thing. If you don't mind, I am going to copy to here some of the same examples I gave to another user earlier in our discussion. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. For context, we repeatedly tell Lewisthejayhawk to stop making the dates of the CBB Standings to a date that is further in the future than the most recent date played. Even after the user responded to me and Sphilbrick both, this still continues today. This is just one example of their disruptive edits, and I can provide plenty more if need be.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lewisthejayhawk is currently online and making a TON of disruptive edits. Can this be handled quickly, or can someone refer me to how I can resolve this situation faster? Thank you!--Zach Pepsin (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just leave it alone? Damn, you always put it like you had and wonder why I keep changing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisthejayhawk (talk • contribs)

I am currently busy but wiil make a few quick comments. If this thread is still active, I will comment more tomorrow.

• I notified Lewisthejayhawk at his talk page of this thread. This thread wasn't started by me. When I am through with this post I will also notify Sphilbrick.
• Lewisthejayhawk wasn't banned but blocked by Administrator Sphilbrick. That was after I notified SP of Lewisthejayhawk's habit to put in links to nonexistent categories in new articles he was creating. Administrator Bearcat attempted addressing this issue with Lewis even before I did. Relevant talk page threads can be found here[19], here[20], and this one[21] after Lewis was blocked. It wasn't till Lewis was blocked that he responded to other editor's concerns.
• Despite promises to not link to nonexistent categories anymore, Lewis has gone back to that behavior. I addressed[22] him about this at his talk page today and earned this[23] less than stellar reply.
• Lewis does a lot of work on Women's College Basketball articles that few other editors work on.

That is all I can write for now....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is so painful.

I get that most readers of this section couldn’t give a fig about coverage of wbb, but I do, and appreciate the extremely small community of editors who add content in that area. Lewisthejayhawk is one of the more prolific contributors.

However, for reasons that I cannot fathom, he has his own ideas on as of dates for conference results (one can make arguments for more than one convention, but I believe we have established a convention, which Lewis sometimes ignores). More disruptively, he creates category redlinks, despite being told repeatedly not to do that. I happen to think the messages were clear, but maybe I’m biased, because I sent some of them. Maybe a message in different words from a different editor will sink in.

Please note – Lewis is not the usual case on this page, an editor who is mostly disruptive. Lewis contributes a lot of good content, and I honestly don’t think it is his goal to be disruptive, but messages are not getting through.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of pages such as this or this, I add information to the pages, and Lewisthejayhawk promptly removes it without reason within minutes. I gave up on trying to add information until this is resolved because he just keeps taking it down.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please help out with this? Any time I make an edit, Lewisthejayhawk keeps removing them. It's ridiculous at this point. I get that Lewisthejayhawk contributes a lot in an area where there are few contributors, but that should warrant allowing him to keep making these Disruptive edits time and time again without any consequence.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further disruptive edits

Prime examples of these disruptive edits are persisting today. Examples diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

The user keeps removing the same information on multiple pages with no reason or comment. There are other cases with different information where the user is taking similar action of disruptive editing.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does nobody care about this editor and his unexplained reverts that are really vandalism or his editing not signed in to escape detection. Why won't one administrator block him for just 48 hours? That will get the attention of Lewis (It did when Sphilbrick previously blocked him for 24 hours) and maybe get him to change his behavior....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In October last year a report was made of an IP editor persistently disrupting the F1 project here. A block was issued for a week by user:Diannaa and two further blocks were subsequently issued by the same admin. The IP editor however has continued in much the same vein and several members of the F1 project have spent considerable amounts of time, trying to make something of his sub-standard submissions. There have been seven six recent drafts which have been found to be copy-vios two of which have been WP:TE re-submitted several times without fixing issues noted on review and also removing citation tags. There is a tremendous history of disruptive editing by this editor whose IP address changes sometimes more than once a day. He's now up to more than 100 different IPs in the ranges 92.21.240.0/20 and 88.106.224.0/20. Just some of the history of his edits can be seen at User talk:Bretonbanquet who has been one of the editors involved in 'tidying up'. We have tried several times to engage and leave helpful advice on talk-pages but it is not certain which of them he might have seen and he has been known to just blank the page. Here is a diff of him removing a talk page post by another editor and here is one example of an inappropriate edit summary, although he rarely leaves summaries. The F1 project would be grateful for any assistance you can give as we have run out of patience with this editor who has been given plenty of time and more than enough leeway to edit in a conventional manner. I apologise for the long-winded submission. Please let me know if you need any further info. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The latest series of posts on the subject at the F1 project is here. Eagleash (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier threads on the subject here and here. Eagleash (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second all of the above, and I can say I've rarely come across an editor who takes such little notice of notability guidelines, or indeed, any guidelines. He almost never engages with other editors, and when he does it's usually uncivil; he never uses talk pages or heeds advice, and creates a huge amount of work for others. He has created large numbers of articles and templates, all of which were either copy-violations, unreadable or not notable (or a combination of the three), and all of which required rewriting, merging or deleting by other editors. To make it worse, it's hard to track the guy's activity as he is forever switching IPs; so you can't talk to him or pin him down long enough to get him to understand how things work.

This has been going on for a few months now, and some of us seem to spend all our time cleaning up after this guy, when we would rather be doing something more constructive. Any ideas will be gratefully received. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm an AfC reviewer, and another issue that was brought to my attention regarding this editor was possibly gaming the system. Anonymous contributors are not allowed to create articles directly into mainspace—that's why WP:AFC was started. However, this user has tried to circumvent the standard AFC article review process by first requesting the creation of a redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, then turning the redirect into a non-notable article once it is created—effectively creating an article in mainspace. An example is with March 87P. At 20:12, 1 February 2016, the user submitted this request to WP:AFC/R, asking for a redirect from March 87P to March 87B. The issue is, at that time, March 87B was a redirect. Three minutes later, at 20:15, the same editor converts the March 87B redirect into an article, which was found to be non-notable. Then, a few weeks later, the redirect request was accepted, creating March 87P as a redirect, which an IP in the same range converted to an article about the same subject. Mz7 (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the above post, the same editor has recently had deleted, a draft for Wolf Williams, as it was both non-notable and also a copy vio. A re-direct already exists for Wolf Williams to the Williams F1 page. A re-direct has now been requested for "Wolf Williams Racing" , which could mean further attempt to create a Wolf Williams page. Also in relation to the March 87P page, it had to be protected after the IP edit-warred over restoring the re-direct. Eagleash (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, the IP keeps going on daily. It would be really appreciated if an administrator had a look into it our gave us some advice.Tvx1 22:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone going to take a look? Tvx1 17:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User SheriffIsInTown being a shia muslim has made controversial edits [24] with an intent to show Gilgit Baltistan a shia majority area. His edits contained 2 sources which I proved self contradicting with in themselves and also with these 9 independent sources which I provided. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. If you review all the material you will safely conclude that Gilgit Baltistan is a Sunni majority area. I tried very hard to make him understand wiki pedia policy that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content Still he edit warred. I made a balance edit [34] which shows both side of coin containing all 11 sources (9 mine and 2 his) but he and few admin/users influenced by him are not allowing the edits by me. Admins should be restoring Wikipedia policies but un fortunately they are not. Please some independent admin intervene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.15.49 (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes are not decided at ANI. I can see that involved article talk page discussion has been ongoing with editors taking several different position on these content changes. If the dispute is about the reliability of your sources, please bring the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you are unable to resolve the edit questions, please take the dispute to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and enlist the help of a mediator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that there has been sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert at that article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as I am concerned, this IP should be blocked as a sock-puppet of LangaugeXpert and my advice to him is that he should take a break of at least 6 months and then come back and apply for a standard offer and contribute productively instead of creating a new sock-puppet every few days. Only then he might be allowed to edit. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:86.187.161.44 Eik Corell (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New one: User:86.187.160.92. Hope that edit filter comes up soon. Eik Corell (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's blocked too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round 3! User:86.187.166.68 Eik Corell (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a bit of fun whacking those IPs, five in all, but, enough, I've semi-protected the page for a couple of days. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-involved non-admin I saw this discussion and the speed with which the user was blocked without discussion or diffs puzzled me. Looking just at the user's/Ip's edit history there was no context for understanding why this user was blocked. Eventually I saw the article's edit history and the discussion at Talk:Metin2#The p Server Scene (pServers) and it all made sense but even there the behavior is not "trolling", it is just a way over the top case of tendentious editing and apparent multi-IP socking/block evasion. My point is nobody should have to go look this stuff up. An ANI post is supposed to contain the necessary information/diffs/links for others to review. The link to the talk page should have been there at the least and frankly there probably should have been a single post being re-used for the ongoing problem instead of starting a new one cold. @Eik Corell:, Obviously Malcolmxl5 was previously involved and intrinsically understood the problem, but imagine if he was offline for some unforeseen reason (like a power outage) and someone else had to act on the matter. Shortcuts at ANI are not helpful if it means Admins have to go do their own research to find the history of the problem. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, there are two discussions further up the page and others in the history about this IP who is harassing Eik: this one will be helpful. IP-hopping troll, continued. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that. I tend to be a bit of a bulldog and not let stuff go easily so I dug in and found the following:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive911#Returning_troll
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#Latest_IP_of_a_troll
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#IP-hopping_troll
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Latest_IP.27s_of_a_troll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koala Tea Of Mercy (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Another_troll_IP (this post)

Based on all of this is seems it is indeed trolling after all. Seems to me Eik Corell should revisit the ISP and try again, explaining to them that WP does not make its raw server logs available for reasons of user privacy but that the edit time stamps should provide sufficient information to identify the user involved. It has been six years and maybe they have a more enlightened view of WP these days. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It would probably be useful to put together all the reports of this 86.187 IP. I've pulled together a list at User:Malcolmxl5/86.187. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eik Corell, Malcolmxl5, and Koala Tea Of Mercy: If this doesn't qualify for an LTA case, I don't know what does. I'm familiar with the problem having blocked the guy before, but a comprehensive report at LTA would make it much easier for us at AIV to block on sight. Katie^talk 17:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be helpful, if that can be done. Have blocked another two three IPs today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes it feels like this guy is playing his own version of Whack-a-mole, only he's the mole and seems to like it that way! Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 09:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eik Corell: any chance you could find at any examples of this problem from 6 years ago? That would be excellent to add to the LTA case too. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 09:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there's a whole range of IP's in this article's edit history, with edit wars on many video game articles. Note that in some of these early edits, the IP's start with "81." instead of the typical "86." Eik Corell (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Previous discussion: [35]

At Talk:Jewish Bolshevism, a sockmaster keeps on returning under different IPs after a page protection expires. Just recently, a page protection had expired yesterday and the sockmaster has returned today edit warring and being disruptive. Here is a list of their used IPs (bold is the recent one):

Is it even worth filing an SPI complaint or even use a range block? They will just keep coming back. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmemirela: Do you know who the sockmaster is? Smells like Mikemikev or Blastikus to me... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea. I only got myself involved with these IPs through an ANI complaint and have the page on my watchlist ever since. My history with this person is very little. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've just updated the list now the IP is back with another sock. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for 2 weeks. It's not Mikemikev who is now in the UK. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Thanks for the page protection. Doubt it's Blastikus since they're quite stale by this point... but it's possible. Or just a new vandal. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's Blastikus. They are both dumping loads and loads of purported sources on the page and using original research in a pretty characteristic fashion. For example, see the contribs of sock Joel Slovo. GAB^Hello! 22:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's quite a match... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that User:Rjensen has used a race based approach to editing the Reconstruction Era article. Please see African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95)#Merge discussion in progress for complete discussion.

He has stated that "much of the Reconstruction article is about how southern whites should be treated" and "much of the reconstruction literature does not deal with blacks Primarily, but deals Primarily with the treatment of whites". I have asked him to cite sources supporting this claim and he has not complied.

He is currently adding content to an article I proposed to merge into the Reconstruction article. The content he is adding appears informative and accurate. The article looked like this before he began adding content today. However, my main concern is that he will edit the Reconstruction article based on the above stated assertions which are categorically false. I am seeking an administrator to step-in and have this user present reliable sources that support his claim. Otherwise, he needs to cease and merge content to the Reconstruction article to avoid the appearance of segregating content based on his unsubstantiated claims.

I have no problem with moving relevant content from the proposed article African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95) to Reconstruction Era then create new WP:Hatnotes for each lengthy section to comply with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Content forking. However, any attempt to limit content on Reconstruction Era article based on race will be vigorously challenged. Mitchumch (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. our Reconstruction article is very long and is not a good fit for a merger. The African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95) material will get lost in it. They should not be merged. In my opinion The African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95) is an important topic that deserves its own article. I did not start the article (it originated in 2009) and only started work on it yesterday. He APPROVES all my edits to it (The content he is adding appears informative and accurate). He then plays his attack card stating: my main concern is that he will edit the Reconstruction article -- well this is not the place to complain about future edits that have not been written but which he might disagree with. I have no plans right now for any major addition to Reconstruction Era, but new RS appear all the time and I scan them for usable materials. Mitchumch hyas changed his tune--yesterday hedemanded a merger because of an illegal fork, which is false. There is no fork and the articles have no POV battles. Rjensen (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a totally frivolous complaint. Mitchumch has proposed the elimination of a half dozen articles dealing specifically with African American issues. All articles are properly sourced and of significant size. That, to me, seems to suggest that maybe the problem does not lie with other editors. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@North Shoreman: You never addressed the issue nor answered my question. Please leave this matter to someone else willing to do the work. Mitchumch (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all the issues you've raised. I can't help noticing that nobody has agreed with your proposals to delete these articles and at least five people disagree with the proposals. You need to quit wasting people's time. The issue raised here is frivolous and should be withdrawn. Your proposals to delete articles through mergers should be withdrawn since, apparently, you have given up on those proposals. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@North Shoreman:First let me apologize for the tone of my last response to you. I could have stated it much better without sounding like a jerk. I am sorry.

What I am trying to say is you have confused my merger proposal for the issue that was posted on this noticeboard. The reason I posted on this noticeboard is separate from the merger issue.

The merger proposal has been posted less than two days. I am currently discussing the merger proposal issues with participants. The merger proposal is not a small proposal. The articles in question have significant content. I understand the participants are nervous about the merger. They don't see or understand the basis for my proposal. Those participants need time to ask me questions and raise issues that they think require my response.

I appreciate your willingness to respond to my noticeboard post. But, you don't seem to understand the reason I posted on this noticeboard. That is why I stated to please leave this matter to others. I still appreciate the time and effort you have placed into responding to this post. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to London Underground appears to be yet another incarnation of the various IPs offering legal threats regarding Tube Challenge. See 81.101.104.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for one blocked example. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah yes. And so ungrammatical. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked an NHS IP for NLT on my talk page several weeks ago, and I think this is the same person. Similar 'going to personally sue' me and JBW and whoever else. I'd make the block longer than 31 hours but I'm not going to override Drmies. Katie^talk 14:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pages are now semiprotected (not by me). Guy (Help!) 15:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time to contact system administrators at the NHS. It cannot possibly be part if this person's job description to add crap to Wikipedia while at work. They may be able to trace "andi james" down. But then I guess he'll sue them too. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NHS is one of the largest employers in the world. As well as all the employees many NHS services provide public wifi for members of the public to use. (And the NHS deals with over a million patients every 36 hours, which doesn't include carers or relatives). The NHS is not a monolithic organisation - there are CCGs, Hospital Trusts, Ambulance Trusts, Mental Health Trusts, GP surgeries, etc. Telling the NHS is unlikely to achieve anything. DanBCDanBC (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe. Katie, you are always welcome to override me; I did not see much point in blocking that IP address any longer, given that I saw no other similar edits in the last 500 from that IP address. That 81 IP is a different kettle of fish--but HandsomeFella, I don't think the NHS is going to care much for that one edit from the 194 IP. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much perspective to share on how the tools should be used here, but I'm inclined to agree on both observations. The thing about IPs making legal threats is that they are not trolls in the typical sense. That is, their aim isn't disruption in and of itself; they have actually convinced themselves that they can leverage these threats to get their way. The best way to deal with that mentality is to simply to apply the minimal effect block and otherwise WP:DENY them attention until they realize their threats gain them no traction. Sometimes they just go away afterwards, sometimes they switch to tactics that require a greater deal of containment, and maybe once in a blue moon they learn to contribute in a less disruptive fashion. But trying to follow them off-project, aside from being completely infeasible in a majority of cases (this one in particular) only plays into their delusions of influence. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(non admin observation) the 194 IP address is part of a several-node corporate internet gateway for the NHS, so blocking the IP alone is largely pointless, and potentially has some collateral damage. Gricehead (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Semiprotection is the least disruptive way of handling this IMO. It's gone on for way too long, but at a slow burn - and rangeblocks to stop a single not-massively-active vandal are probably not going to fly. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Hopefully, soon some magazine will do a piece about the idiots who think anyone cares about their stupid Tube Challenge, so that the Tube Challenge article can mention the idiocy of said idiots. EEng 20:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or we just delete those silly articles. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-admin observation) The best idea yet. Haploidavey (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A special-purpose account, User:Clairec78, has been trying vigorously (not to say obsessively) for the past two months to create or maintain an article about Mircea Itul, aka Mircua Itu, a Romanian historian. The article has been speedy-deleted once, AfD-deleted once, and draft-declined at AfC three times. The user's persistence and their wall-of-text arguments, at the AfD and at various talk pages, have consumed many hours of Wikipedian time. Here's a summary of the article history:

• January 10, 2016: article created by Clairec78
• January 11, 2016: speedy deleted per A7
• January 16, 2016: article recreated by Clairec78
• January 19, 2016: nominated for AfD, after Clairec78 removed a PROD tag.
• January 27, 2016: deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mircea Itul (which you really have to read to get a sense of this situation)
• January 29, 2016: userfied to Clairec78 at their request
• February 6, 2016: draft moved to Draft:Mircea Itu (more common name)
• February 9: AfC submission declined on grounds of non-notability.
• February 28: AfC submission declined on grounds of non-notability.
• March 12: Clairec78 posted messages on more than 50 33 (I stand corrected) user talk pages, asking people to "please rescue the article on Mircea Itu". I warned them to stop spamming people.
• March 13: AfC submission declined on grounds of non-notability.
• March 14: Clairec78 submitted it to AfC for a fourth time, without making any changes in the article, just complaining on the talk page about how the third review was done.[49]

IMO this behavior is disruptive, and it is high time for this user to be told to accept the community's verdict and abandon their quest for an article on this subject. I think a block would be unnecessarily harsh; maybe a topic ban? --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: March 15: Fourth AfC submission declined on grounds of non-notability. --MelanieN (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a topic-ban, broadly construed, knowing that unless she finds other areas of interest to edit, that would have the same effect as a ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a topic ban of the subject. Would also support and indef block until such time as they acknowledge their disruption and make it clear that they will cease it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Salt the article. A topic ban doesn't really solve the fundamental problem which is the continued creation and recreation of the article. Preventing creation of the article in the first place may encourage clairec78 to go and look elsewhere to learn what notability is all about. Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• extra comment: I would not be surprised if we came to find out that she has a COI with respect to this personage. Blackmane (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a topic ban, and make it clear that continuing to recreate the article after deletion will lead to consequences. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 05:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please be sure this discussion stays open for at least 24 hours, so that the community can chime in and the user can have a chance to respond. --MelanieN (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to my article on Mircea Itu: Thank you user:MelanieN. I take note of your clear warning strike. Those were neither over 50, but 33 and nor spams, but unsuccessful efforts from my side to get in touch with true Wikipedian professionals. As far as anyone can see, there is no communication allowed, except for upwards towards downwards, which is a one way interaction, not a real communication. Please take into consideration that I know the Wikipedia rules that refer to advertising through spamming, and this is not my case. Please also revise previous talk pages on Mircea Itul and Mircea Itu in regards to bias, war edit and vandalism. Please also show me in Wikipedia rules where is it stated that users are not allowed to contact other users on their talk pages in a civilised way, which I did, asking nothing else but support from senior Wikipedia editors professionals? Please also revise previous talk pages on Mircea Itul and Mircea Itu in regards to bias, war edit and vandalism. Clairec78 (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the above "senior Wikipedia editors professionals" have reviewed it. They have found this individual to not be notable. The horse has been beat to death so it's time to drop the stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CANVASS for the policy against canvassing for support. It is one thing to leave a neutral message such as "Please see this AFD and if you are so inclined, please leave a comment". Asking them to "rescue the article" and making your views known is not a neutral message. There are no "senior Wikipedia editors professionals". There are merely those who have been around longer and are more familiar with the expectations here. We are all editors. At this point, the discussion is no longer about whether the subject is notable or not per the notability guidelines but your singleminded drive to have this article in article space. It is becoming disruptive. Blackmane (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, -Serialjoepsycho-. Please give professional reasons of your decision. Please also share professional comments on bias, patronizing, communication, war edits and vandalism on talk pages about the article on Mircea Itul (his real name) and Mircea Itu (his pen name), who is neither 'Mircua Itu', nor 'a Romanian historian', but a Romanian historian of religions. Thank you. Clairec78 (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I put excessive conversation into things that does not actually matter? Because you desire it? I'm not really seeing any bias. What, these MULTIPLE editors are bias because they don't see the subject as notable like you do? Patronizing? It seems reasonable after the article has been speedy-deleted once, AfD-deleted once, and draft-declined at AfC three times that they would be patronizing. Your excessive walls of text also make that reasonable. What I am seeing here seems to be WP:IDHT. I will say what has already been clearly stated, you have failed to show that your subject meets Wikipedia notability criteria. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, -Serialjoepsycho-. Please give the professional reasons for your decision, so that I can understand it. Please also give reasons in this particular subject's fields of study why this academic is considered not notable. Please also share professional comments on bias, patronising, lack of real communication, war edits and vandalism on talk pages of the article on Mircea Itul (his real name) and Mircea Itu (his pen name), who is neither 'Mircua Itu', nor 'a Romanian historian', but a Romanian historian of religions and Indologist. The article received no support, but only two keep votes, that were dismissed in an non-respectful manner to these editors and undemocratic manner to a voting process, so that to reach a consensus. I gave a lot of information in the talk pages about the subject to prove his notability, but information was systematically ignored by some assessors who started the discussion creating a bias. I continuously improved the page and it was systematically rejected, without being given any specific reasons. I was preparing to make other contributions. Please put yourself in my position of a new user who only received threats, lies and no support. I put a lot of effort into this article, not for Mircea Itul (Mircea Itu), but for preserving the truth in regards to an academic from Romania who published mainly in Romanian, so his contributions are not easy to be accessed by everyone, but through Wikipedia. Would you feel comfortable to edit other subjects for the moment? Would you not need some time to reflect under the circumstances whether a huge effort to edit is worthy or not? Who is the horse? Who owns the stick? Who has beaten this imaginary horse? Why? Thank you. I wish you all the best! Thank you Blackmane. Please explain the first line of what User:Biruitorul wrote on the talk page about Mircea Itul which is not neutral and created a bias, and then the line that he wrote that there are no sources either in Romanian and in English about this academic, which is a lie. I won't disturb you again. Sorry for taking your precious time. All the best. Clairec78 (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a topic ban. A fairly blatant case of WP:IDNHT in the diff provided by MelanieN above, where the user claims that 1) there was no rationale given for rejecting the AfC draft, and that 2) the rationale did not "sound correctly [sic]". (As an aside, the present progressive is certainly used in idiomatic English.) Perhaps the user might benefit from having a mentor to work with in order to gain a greater understanding of how Wikipedia's processes work, but if their only interest is in creating an article about a non-eligible subject, that would probably not work either. --bonadea contributions talk 10:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support / salt Support TBAN for the editor, and recommend, as suggested above, salting the article to prevent recreation in the future (until such time as the subject becomes notable.) At this point, I have to agree that she literally doesn't seem to be listening to the community, and indeed doesn't seem to understand what she is being told. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- Judging from the responses of Clairec78, I feel that it may be in the interest of the community on indef block them based on WP:CIR. I question their ability to conversationally use English and am not sure this is a simple case of WP:IDHT. Much time has been put into this and it's failed to bear any fruit.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points of view. I won't disturb you all again. I am sorry for taking your time. All the best to you all. Clairec78 (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Biruitorul, for the record. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have also rolled back all those pleas for help, many of which to long-retired editors, and none of them picked with diligence, it seems. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban, and thank you, Drmies. For the record, I did try and craft a decent article on this subject, but the user in question went ahead and imposed the chaotic version now in the draft. I accept that single-purpose accounts will exist, but accounts that are both single-purpose and single-minded are a real problem, so the topic ban seems the best course. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Three days ago, Clairec78 left this message on my talk page.  I presume she or he left this very cordial and appropriate message because she or he noticed I am an inclusionist.  In looking at her or his edits that day, I see that the three people she or he messaged after me (AndySimpson, Antanaklasis, Anthrophilos) all likewise list themselves as inclusionists.  I have no desire to waste my time checking to see if each and every person she or he messaged that day is likewise an inclusionist, but suffice to it say, Drmies is wrong when she or he claims that "none" of the editors messaged by Clairec78 were "picked with diligence"; I clearly was.

  Today, Drmies edited my talk page to remove Clairec78's message without my consent.  I have since reverted Drmies's edit.

  Sincerely yours,
  allixpeeke (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Picking "inclusionists" is not diligence--in fact, it's canvassing. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note on the contribution claimed by Biruitorul. He cut the draft created by me to a no citing form, using only one bibliographic source with no citations to prove notability. He did not contribute to the article at all. On the contrary. All reviewers after him adviced to add citations. Thank you. Clairec78 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have WP:SALTed the article titles, I suggest we also nuke the doomed draft. If Clairec78 refuses to drop the stick then a topic ban is in order. Claire, you've been pointed at numerous essays highlighting the line between enthusiastic advocacy and disruption. You've crossed it. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am a woman. Please stop this he/she charade. Clairec78 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as an uninvolved editor. The canvassing of 50+ editors and repeated recreations of the article are seriously disruptive. GAB^Hello! 20:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The number is 33, not 50+. Sorry to mention, but my desperate search for a support and for an academic or specialist in the subject's fields of study to advice and to assess the subject's notability is not canvassing. Thank you. Clairec78 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. Crazy canvassing, and a topic ban would give them an opportunity to edit other articles, or just confirm that they're not here to contribute other than their single-purpose article. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban, with appreciation shown to Guy for having taken the initiative with regard to the first order of business of salting the titles. The various violations of policy and other disruptive behaviours of Clairec78 could, not withstanding their volume and bellicosity, be considered growing pains for a new editor, except for the fact that the WP:IDHT mentality and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK suggest very little hope that this single-purpose editor can be brought around to internalizing the project's demands with regard to content neutrality. I think if we are honest with ourselves, we can see this is all likely to end with either an indef for user when they fail to adhere to the conditions of the TBAN, or their voluntarily leaving the project because they have no other motivation in being here. But that shouldn't stop us from affording them the opportunity of the third choice (finding a non-personal topic area to contribute in), unlikely as it is that they will be interested. What we can't do is continue to toss escalating editor work-hours into attempting to restrain and educate an SPA who won't listen. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the result is a WP:Topic ban, somebody is going to have to explain to the editor what that means. I don't think she really understands what we are talking about here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User: 67.81.5.244, has been making a habit of introducing his personal opinions to sourced text to articles about Slavic ethnicities. Specially about the genetical relations between Poles and Belarussians. He is habitually adding text that is contrary to the sources given. He had done so here, here, here, here, here, and specially mind this edit and its edit comment, here and frankly I could go onGerard von Hebel (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at articles talk pages and this users talk page but failing to see where you attempted to discuss the issues you find problematic with this user. Can't really much reason to take action there, Though there is a slow motion edit war going on which is a good reason to take action.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-Serialjoepsycho-, I've tried to explain in the edit summaries that it's problematic when people start to add things to sourced text, that are not in the sources given or is even contradicted by the sources given. Unless of course they come with additional sources. Just saying the source is wrong won't do. I see it happen a lot on articles on ethnicities. Specially with statistics. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some text to the effect to the talk pages of the two articles. Frankly I'm also a bit concerned about al this haplogroup stuff anyway. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ SG Gayashan appears to have two other accounts: Sajithgayashan and SG Gayashan. While this is acknowledged at User:DJ SG Gayashan and User:Sajithgayashan, it is not clear what the purpose of having these multiple accounts is. Those two user pages are also fake articles, which suggests that the user is trying to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action is here - it's not sockpuppetry, but is nonetheless problematic. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What fake articles?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not breaching anything—he's clearly not trying to imitate an encyclopedic article, and consensus has always been that we allow "about myself" and reasonable external links on userpages. Since there's no attempt to deceive, this isn't breaching the multiple accounts policy either. Nothing to see here. ‑ Iridescent 08:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not think that the infoboxes and discographies make the user pages look like articles? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Graeme Bartlett previously blanked User:Sajithgayashan as a fake article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it was not so bad that speedy delete U5 was required. The user was also editing other pages too. But the lower part of the page was unsuitable for a user page. That's why I blanked it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JzG has deleted the two user pages. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The User:Sajithgayashan incarnation also caused problems by taking an unattributed (copyright violating) copy of Draft:Alex Gilbert (which had twice been declined at AFC review) and copying it directly into article space as Alex Gilbert (TV Presenter). I pointed out the problem to him but he contested the prod and then tried to delete the AFD tag after I'd raised an AFD to replace the prod. The copyright-violating article was speedied after I raised an AFD, so hopefully the draft can be allowed to be reviewed again when the original author has done further work on it. We obviously need to keep a careful eye on User:Sajithgayashan and his other accounts. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user Binksternet repeatedly reverts almost all my edits in the article Eurodance and my efforts to improve the article justifying himself my edits as original research and without first using the talk page and follow the rules of WP:DR to resolve our disputes. Instead he behaves aggressively by sending me non civility warnings on my talk page. I have already received two of them from him and one form user Mlpearc (perhaps a friend of him) who never responded to my reaction message. I have a strong reason to believe this is personal, I recently noticed he does the same in other articles as well, removing my edits without any obvious reason, for example: [64] Clicklander (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not harassing Clicklander. What's happening is Clicklander continues to put unreferenced or poorly referenced text into the Eurodance article. Clicklander does not like having this unsupported work questioned or deleted. On the article talk page, Clicklander said there were "many" reliable sources that could be cited, but none of these have been named.[65] Instead Clicklander named www.eurokdj.com which was judged unreliable at RSN since it is a website published by Karine Sanche who is a web designer in France, not a music critic, musicologist or music journalist. If Clicklander was using music textbooks and trade magazines, and if these sources actually talked about Eurodance, then I would not have such a big problem with the edits. Binksternet (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My report concerns your behaviour only. Whether a work in wikipedia should be questioned and deleted or not, is something should be discussed in specific talk pages and has nothing to do with this section. Do not try to confuse the administrators. Clicklander (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Non-administrator comment) I'm afraid that is not necessarilly true. An editor- particular relatively recently joined- should be aware that lodging a report at an administrative noticeboard oftens leads to an examination as to that editor's own behaviour and edit history. That, of course, can all of a sudden have consequences, not to say the least for the complainant. Just sayin'. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not so easily confused. Lots of times on Wikipedia the frustration felt by a new editor is because the work isn't so very well supported by cites. Binksternet (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of feel like there's nothing to see here since I'm seeing nothing. Harassment and other forms of disruption tend to leave evidence trails and there's real evidence no real evidence here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serialjoepsycho, I take it you mean, "and there's no real evidence here"? EEng 16:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, yes and thank you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint was only accompanied by one specific diff, and OP claims it was a removal without any obvious reason. However, there is a clear, and sufficient reason in the edit summary. Looks like nothing to see here, unless OP can identify some specific items of concern.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why you only looked at this diff and not at the editing history of the article I mainly pointed out, but I can help you to see more (if you want to). On the 3rd March I edited Eurodance article for first time by doing some minor improvement in the existing unreferenced parts of the article. Mainly adding some more examples in the list of artists, for example: [66] [67] and reorganized some song examples in chronological order [68] plus trying to find some references in order the existing content to be better supported [69]. Binksternet reverted all my edits twice [70] [71] ignoring my messages to use the talk page first [72] [73]. At the third time he tagged my edits for lacking citations [74], NOT the unreferenced sections but just my edits! I finally moved the tags to the correct place referring to the whole part [75]. After all this I tried to communicate with him in the talk page to order to resolve our dispute by opening a new discussion regarding my edits.

On 4th, 6th and 7th March I attempted some more improvement again to the existing information like removing some unreliable sources as Binksternet suggested [76] added some additional info supported by references [77] [78] [79] and restructuring the chapters in better way [80]. Binksternet proceeded to a massive deletion of the unreferenced parts [81] ,info written by various editors over long time, without notifying first in the talk page for his intentions and let others to express opinions whether this should be done or if some parts could be better supported and kept.

After notifying in the talk page on 8th March I restored the section with the artist examples which was totally screwed up after Binksternet's edits, removed the unsourced parts and added some reference for the rest [82]. I also partially restored the classification part which for me was very important for the article and added a reference to be better supported [83]. Binksternet's reaction once again was not to use the talk page to express his objections, instead he removed once again entirely the classification section and in addition he sent me this aggressive warning for blocking my account [84]. For once again I further tried to resolve our depute in the talk page explaining what I believe should be kept and why, without further restoring this part in order not to lead to edit war and wait for more opinions from other editors.

On 14th March I added one more reference [85] and improved the House music part with some referenced info about Techno music in order the existing examples in this section to be better supported [86]. Binksternet again reverted all my edits [87] again did not use the talk page and again left me another one aggressive warning in my page [88].

And last but not least, regarding his edit in the other article [89] yes he gave a reason for this. This reason however is invalid. Eurodance was in fact his main genre as a solo singer (not as a group member), and that's not only described inside the article but also supported by the reference Nr. 30. There are many ways to improve an article if you really want to, but from all this info to just choose to revert my edit and after all that happened in the Eurodance article for me is suspicious for his real intentions.

Once again I am not judging whether he is right or not to want the poorly unreferenced parts of an article removed. For most parts perhaps he is right and I also agree with him. I am judging the way he does this, his attitude that for me he clearly does not respect the wikipedia's guidance for WP:DR and does not respect the other editors and their efforts. If you guys still think there is nothing to see here and still find his behaviour acceptable, then perhaps we have a different perception about what Civility means. Clicklander (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Clicklander, you need to read WP:BRD. If you make BOLD edits, particularly if they are uncited or poorly cited, it is your responsibility to gain talk-page WP:CONSENSUS for them before attempting to replace them if they are contested or reverted. Binksternet has carefully responded to all of your queries on the article's talk page. However you have failed to achieve any policy-based consensus. Binksternet is a very very experienced editor and he is abiding by policy and by WP:BRD. You, however, are not. If you want to engage in dispute resolution, see WP:DR. There is no harassment here on Binksternet's part; however there is a failure on your part to gain consensus for your changes and a failure on your part to use or provide reliable-source citations. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC); edited 09:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender just for your info Binksternet is wikipedia editor since 2007, I am editor since 2009. That's our difference in experience. And experienced or not this doesn't change the way someone should behave. Clicklander (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clicklander, you are still a novice editor and have made less than 1,150 edits to Wikipedia. Binksternet has made over 172,450 edits to Wikipedia and is a master Wikipedia editor. I think it's time to withdraw this ANI failing and learn to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Continuing to prolong this thread, and failing to listen to the advice you have been given, and failing to abide by the policies and guidelines you have been notified of, may result in a WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please deal with this fellow: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RepRap_project&type=revision&diff=710238548&oldid=710238425

He is also edit warring. CaptainYuge (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the editor that this ANI discussion is ongoing, as should be done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When dealing with this fellow I suggest we give him a barnstar, and lets give a boomerang (smelly) trout to the OP. -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's Vulgarian, I've been to Vulgaria, pleasant country, but go on the off season. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a typo in that dif. Redacted here since I can't do it there: "remove promotional content sourced to a conference abstract. we would not accept rank bullshit like this added to an article about a drug and we don't accept it here" I'm talking with a few people in the RepRap movement on the article Talk page, as part of my efforts to wrest that article from their abuse of WP as a kind of movement webpage, promoting what they have been doing. The goals of their movement are admirable, and I don't think they have understood that they have been abusing Wikipedia, so I am not registering any complaint here. So far the work and discussions on Talk are going relatively OK.. I am not seeking any intervention, just writing this to provide context to the community. And yes, I should use more gentle language, I know. Sometimes the promotionalism gets to me. That is my bad. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You delete two thirds of an article with edits like these [90] [91], then when you're reverted by another editor and invited to discuss it at Talk: your immediate reaction is to repeat the blanking, warn them for edit warring, and now talk about boomerangs here. Just who is doing the edit warring, I wonder? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone may wish to review this user's history. He's got a long trail of bodies and accusations of edit warring (whilst edit warring himself) and of using COI accusations as a cudgel to batter his opponents. Note the talk page for the article in question -- he's already asserting to me a "higher level" of sourcing and notability is required for inclusion in the article, which at a glance reads far and above what is used for general notability and RS standards. Who is he to assign his own personal values above the project? I appear to have fallen in the path of a strongly agenda driven combat editor. CaptainYuge (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. It's really clear who the edit warrior is here. [92] You've been at this for months. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily semi-protected the article. This should not be construed as an endorsement of the current version or any that might be in the history. I trust all parties involved to use the WP:BRD process. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kinu. That was helpful. I understand you are not endorsing any version - I am just glad this might drive discussion of specific content issues. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrning/warring

Please cite this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RepRap_project&type=revision&diff=710248489&oldid=710245750 He keeps RVing my sourced changes with NO discussion of the merits of the edits. He is wholesale undoing over a dozen edits. CaptainYuge (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to out editors

As Andy Digley mentioned this combat editor has been warring on this article for *months* and has been abusing COI policies to attempt to coerce new editors to out themselves from anonymity. CaptainYuge (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: did you really say that Jytdog tries to coerce new editors? Don't see that in this discussion... that from a past discussion? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Months of edit warring, ongoing

He's still not stopping -- this user is unrepentant and should be blocked temporarily to curb his hostile behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RepRap_project&type=revision&diff=710249014&oldid=710248489 CaptainYuge (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention grave threats of harm. Or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now edit warring on the talk page

Now he's removing sections from the talk page. CaptainYuge (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing edit warring on talk page

Can someone please stop this guy? He's out of control. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RepRap_project&action=history CaptainYuge (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, that removal was perfectly acceptable, however I would have preferred that Jytdog not remove it himself per your reaction to when he does anything. That removal is due to WP:TPG where it is stated to Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page. Also, please stop making new sections every time something new comes up. It's really unnecessary. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hu boy... this is going to be one hell of a boomerang... --Tarage (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? I filed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Talk:RepRap_project CaptainYuge (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A request to full-protect an article talk page! Wow, just wow. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means WP:BOOMARANG. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, it means you are not going to get the response you hoped for. You will likely be blocked for this behavior. --Tarage (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. So this guy edit wars like mad for months, gets called out (in this thread!) by admins for it, and I'll be blocked because I drew attention to the problem behavior and harassment by another user? And he's... free to edit war and harass? 21:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainYuge (talk • contribs)

Considering you don't seem to understand that your version of events conflicts with pretty much everyone else who's looking at this's thoughts, I'm doubting you are going to understand. The more you throw a tantrum, the quicker you will be blocked. This will not end well for you. --Tarage (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. Jytdog blanked the article to a stub. I found it. I restored a small subset of the sourced content and he began edit warring within minutes over my edits. He demonstrated on the talk page that he has a "personal" standard for what counts as encycloepdiac content, stating outright that he won't allow things in the article that fail to meet "real world impact" standards. I asked for assistance about his edit warring in response to that, as he is operating off of his own personal standards, and refused to cite what if any policies backed up his position. What exactly in the timeline have I missed? CaptainYuge (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• CaptainYuge has exploded this into some huge drama in their head, very rapidly, and is not discussing in a simple way, the content they disagree about on the article Talk page. They are doing everything but that. Which makes this all feel strangely familiar. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What drama? You are edit warring like mad and ordering people on the page not to include content unless they can demonstrate it shows evidence of a "real world impact", even if it's heavily cited. You are literally edit warring that nothing be included in the article unless your own personal standard that the content has to have some arbitrary 'real world application' is met. Which policy backs that position, exactly? CaptainYuge (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please return to the article Talk page and start working through specific content/sourcing that you believe should be in the article? That would be great. Just simply, one at a time. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think I will first call upon you to cite the specific policy you are using to justify months of edit warring first as part of dispute resolution. Please cite the policy or recuse yourself on all accounts under your control from that article. CaptainYuge (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By refusing to use the talk page to discuss edits, you are setting yourself up to be blocked. --Tarage (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my 22:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC) edit here. I am perfectly willing to discuss any content based on actual accepted policies here. Jytdog is refusing to cite which policies justify ANY of his removals of content. CaptainYuge (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Call me skeptical, but the filer is a brand new account that made a serious of large and complicated edits immediately after registering and knows about various noticeboards... No comment on jytdog's behavior, but CaptainYuge's is a bit suspicious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I told jytdog I edited for years on and off by IP. I finally made an account because why not? CaptainYuge (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so folks are aware, I have filed this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rowssusan. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• and... they have apparently retired. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That constitutes a personal attack, does it not? --Tarage (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For when that gave the wrong result, I see that you've already opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CaptainYuge. When did WP:B-R-SPI become such a popular policy? 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

I've mixed feelings about this, because, looking at the previous versions of the article in question, I understand the concerns regarding promotion that seems to to have motivated Jytdog here. That being said, this looks like a pretty obvious WP:BRD issue to me. This slow moving edit war of the last couple of weeks seems to have started when Jytdog removed nearly 34k of content at once, 30k in one edit. Pretty much every person who has responded to this issue on the talk page regards that as excessive. Now, A) they might largely be COI editors, and B) Jytdog might actually have the right of the content issue here, depending on his policy rationale, numbers aligned against him not withstanding. But, under BRD, because the content in question was part of a longterm stable version of the article (and especially given the boldness of removing so much content at once) the revert should have stood until such time that Jytdog had secured an unambiguous WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. As the party trying to effect a bold change to a stable version of an article, the burden is upon him to secure that consensus, especially in light of objection from every other voice on the talk page (even be that only four editors). If he, or any party, has concerns about the personal involvement/objectivity of editors working in that space, RfC can always be used to solicit additional outside voices. I think the average experienced editor is probably likely to side with Jytdog, or at least fall somewhere in the middle of the two positions but probably closer to Jytdog (as is the case with me), but A) a fuller consensus is still needed here rather than constant back-and-forth reverts or else this is, by definition, an edit war and B) I think some additional experienced editors might be able to put the issues into terms that might better satisfy the concerns of the regulars on that talk page.

Lastly, while I have questions about CaptainYuge's motivation in all of this (after recent events, I won't exactly be gobsmacked if the latest SPI shows a link between him and Rowssusan), I do agree in principle that this discussion ought to be handled in a more WP:CIVIL manner. I understand that Jytdog may be frustrated, but in my opinion, it is never appropriate to swear for emphasis in edit summaries; if nothing else it undermines the ability of other editors to assume that the party using this language is contributing with the calm we expect, and which makes arguments most compelling. Calling another editor's good-faith contributions "rank bullshit" is just never appropriate; there's always got to be a better--that is, more accurate, specific, and collegial--way to describe the shortcomings in the material. Let's remember that most of this material represents the collaborative efforts of a significant number of editors doing their best to present this topic accurately. Those are my thoughts over this dispute; in short, substantial support for Jytdog's position, but a general sense that he could fine-tune his approach to opposition in this instance. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments from me. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Arbcom and the current consensus of the administrative corps in general, it is perfectly OK (for favoured editors/admins) to swear at other editors, call them cunts, call them trolls and tell them to fuck off, and have no absolutely no repercussions despite years of incivility. As repeat offenders blocked or dragged before arbcom get let off with not even a slapped wrist, opinining that it is 'inappropriate to swear in edit summaries' is both naive and factually incorrect with the current crop of administrators. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An angry editor has reverted to a previous version of a page three times inside a space of 32 minutes. [93] to be specific here[94], here[95] and here[96]. YuHuw (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could I draw the attention of User:Liz here too please? Thank you. YuHuw (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've inserted your material three times. He's reverted you three times. You're both at the limit. The fourth revert breaks 3RR. Katie^talk 23:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that Katie, could I invite you to mediate between us here please? I have tried being polite but firm to no avail. YuHuw (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also is it correct that there is a 24 hour time frame within which one must not insert one's information a 4th time? YuHuw (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because if there is, then he is at three and I stopped at 2 well within my limit and brought it here for attention before anyone warned me. I believe in discussion, not war. YuHuw (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me if I do not reply for several hours. YuHuw (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're both at three reverts. Each change, including your first one, counts as a revert. To answer your question, the edit warring page is clear - do not game the system by going just over the 24 hour mark. And sorry, I'm not a mediator. Unless you have an issue with user conduct, this is not the place for admin intervention. Dispute resolution is where you should go if you can't reach a compromise. Katie^talk 23:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Katie said. You both were edit-warring (which doesn't need to go beyond 3 reverts) and so I gave you both warnings. Please do not continue to revert and move to a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Weist.michael is trying to write an autobiography on himself, which in and of itself is not the reason that i am reporting him. The reason is that the user has repeatedly removed reviewer comments as well as review declined submission decisions from the draft. [[97]], [[98]], [[99]] in order to remove criticism and to ask the other parent. Not only that, but this isn't the only version of this submission to be submitted, it was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Weist where in the discussion the user apparently created a sock puppet User:Homie123456790 for the sole purpose of arguing against the AfD (presumably because arguing against the deletion of your own article is a conflict of interest). Flagrant misuse of reviewers time. Please block indefinitely.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that experienced user User:JzG (with pseudonym Guy) is overreaching as explained here in section Unjustified discussion closure. --Asterixf2 (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd duck if I were you. There might be a BOOMERANG headed your way.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if uninvolved users look over Asterixf2's edits, they may agree with me that we are being trolled, and that a boomerang site-ban might just be what's called for. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban for a year is better, its what happened to me and I learned from it. :D  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asterixf2, you've made the decision very difficult for us by immediately blanking your user talk page as soon as a comment is posted there. It's very difficult to see your history without looking at lots of diffs. As you probably know, when a complaint is filed an ANI the conduct of all parties is examined, including yours. Please leave notices on your talk page and archive them, do not delete them. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an honest mistake, I didn't think it would effect things. I was imply trying to clean up my account, I thought all that stuff looked ugly. As previously discussed, I am not the subject. This is not an autobiography. I am a big fan, hence my username, but I am not the subject.