Magnolia677 has long been engaging in a rather blatant pattern of Wikistalking articles that I have edited. Most recently, he has started editing such articles, including this edit, in which he believes he is imposing some sort of policy that prohibits a description of a list of notables. I had made extensive changes to that same article an hour earlier (here). Other edits by Magnolia677 in this latest edit war include this one, in which he insists that a state map must be added to an article that already has one, based on the fact that he saw it in Template:Infobox settlement. The edit he made to Scotch Plains, New Jersey was reverted by me with a warning about Wikistalking; Rather than taking the warning and walking away, Magnolia677 blindly reverted and is actively engaging in further malicious edits of articles that I have edited extensively, including several articles that he has never edited before (including here, here, here and here. A brief block of 48-72 hours, combined with clear editing restrictions, may well end this edit war and prevent further such abuse by User:Magnolia677. No editor should have to put up with this blatant harassment, which is clearly intended to be disruptive. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not an Admin, but you make a compelling case. Jusdafax 06:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't say this is harassment or disruptive, just a disagreement between editors, and it does not yet call for a block on anyone. That said, I agree with you on the specifics of the dispute. There is clearly no call for adding a second map to an infobox that already has one. As for the bullet lists of notable people I don't think it matters very much. I prefer to begin sections with some prose, rather than just an unadorned bullet list, but that's just my own personal taste. Reyk _YO! 14:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling this a "content dispute" utterly trivializes a shameless history of Wikistalking. User:Magnolia677 has done this on dozens of occasions, stalking my edits and manufacturing disputes by misrepresenting "policy" to excuse his actions. We were at ANI in January (here) where he was similarly edit warring at Basking Ridge, New Jersey. As discussed there; 1) he edit wars with impunity, 2) WP:USCITIES is *NOT* policy, nor does it offer any guidance on wording for a notables section, and 3) this wording is used in hundreds of articles and has never been challeneged by anyone other than Magnolia677. Is one edit of an article another editor has edited Wikistalking? Does five, 10 or 20 constitute Wikistalking. Magnolia677 is probably in the hundreds of such edits, each one manufactured to provoke a dispute. Whether Magnolia677 actually *IS* a WP:DICK or merely acts like one in dealing with me, this pattern of abuse needs to end. Just look at his recent edit history and try to concoct a more meaningful excuse for Magnolia677 than a "content dispute". Alansohn (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to see a list of diffs where he started editing a page only after you did. The Editor Interaction Analyzer at https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py is a good tool for doing that sort of research. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This current wave of edit warring is highlighted by Scotch Plains, where User:Magnolia677 took an hour to edit war, but it also includes Oak Valley, Turnersville and Gibbstown on the list of articles that he had never edited before and began edit wars. In the past, Haddon Heights is an example of a case where he edited the article four minutes after I did, while he had never edited the article before. Grantwood took 13 minutes. Linden was a 16-minute wait. Closter had a one-hour delayed edit war. At Mount Holly he waited two hours after my edit. There's Battin High School, where he waited 12 hours. Then there's Basking Ridge, Cinnaminson Township, Secaucus, Lawrence Township, Frenchtown, which are but a handful of the dozens upon dozens of such articles where I had edited before he deliberately jumped in on some manufactured pretense. WP:WIKIHOUNDING is defined as "singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." QED. A block combined with an interaction and topic ban may put this abuse to an end. Alansohn (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "New Jersey is NOT owned by one editor" AN/I, filed by Magnolia677, November 2014
• "Bullying, intimidation, and ownership of articles" AN/I, filed by Magnola677, December 2014)
• "Removal of two edit summaries" AN/I, filed by Magnolia677, January 2015
• "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says User:Magnolia677" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, January 2015
• "User:Alansohn reported by User:Magnolia677 (Result: )" ANEW, February 2015
• "User:Alansohn reported by User:Magnolia677 (Result: Declined)" ANEW, March 2015

My own evaluation over time is that while it takes two to tango, one person is primarily responsible for the problem, for behavior such as described here:

• "Actions of Alansohn in relation to continued WP:POINT disruptions on Wikipedia talk:Schoolcruft" AN/I, filed by Thewinchester, June 2007
• "Inappropriate removal of comment from AfD Disucssion by Alansohn" AN.I, filed by Thewinchester, July 2007
• "Alansohn" AN/I, filed by JzG, September 2007
• "Abusive identification of Legistorm.com as 'spam'" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, December 2007
• "User:Alansohn" AN/I, filed by Runreston, February 2008
• "Requests for Comment/Alansohn" RfCU, May 2008
• ArbCom:

• "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons/Findings of Fact/AlanSohn"
• ""Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons/Remedies/AlanSohn restricted" May 2008

• "Latest edit warring by User:RedSpruce" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, June 2008
• "Apparent WP:COI issues at West Ridge Academy" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, June 2009
• "Dispute between User:Alansohn and User:AdjustShift" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, August 2009
• "Editor with an apparent grudge against a reporter" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, March 2013
• "Personal attack by User:Alansohn" AN/I, filed by Nightscream, May 2013
• "User:Alansohn" AN/I, filed by Coffee, December 2013
• "Alansohn and civility" AN/I, filed by BrownHairedGirl, January 2014

The community has put a lot of time (and read many, many walls of text) in trying to straighten out Alansohn, and our record of success is clearly not very good. It's also unfortunate that another editor -- who may not be entirely blameless, but certainly isn't the prime mover in this dispute -- is in danger of being dragged under as well. I suggest that the time may have come for some radical action, since dealing with problems as they pop up doesn't appear to be working. BMK (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, do you really believe your line of crap here? So User:Magnolia677 is entitled to edit war here -- in a series of actions happening right now and over the past few months where he has been the brazen initiator -- because of an AN/I filed by Thewinchester in June 2007? It takes two to tango, and it's this kind of enabling of abusers like Magnolia677 that lets these problems persist for so long. Alansohn (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the evidence shows what it shows, that you are a valuable content contributor, but you are also an essentially uncollaborative, uncollegial and abusive editor who takes tight ownership of entire categories of articles and fights vigorously anyone who dares to cross the line into your territory. I believe that, and the reports above show that behavior. It's a lot of words to ask people to read, but, unfortunately, there's no other way to get the sense of how you think and operate without delving into your past conflicts. BMK (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that even you don't believe your claim, that my edits eight years ago -- or even a year ago -- justify edit wars initiated by User:Magnolia677 in the past 24 hours. You haven't refuted the fact that he has persistently edit warred in articles he had never edited before, a pattern of abuse that is happening as we speak. I've provided ample evidence that Magnolia677 is the problem here; Prove to us that I started this yesterday or that anything I have ever done over the past ten years justifies his actions. Alansohn (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your unwillingness to accept that I believe what I posted is, in itself, an example of your attitude problems in interacting with other editors: I am not in the habit of posting facts that I think are inaccurate or opinions that I don't believe in.

What you're not getting is this: regardless of the specific case in this specific instance, there is a much bigger picture that the community needs to consider, and that is the sum of your behavior, not just in 2007, but in 2008, 2009, 2013, 2014 and 2015. I have seen since last November that way you have treated Magnolia677 with your obsessive ownership behavior concerning anything about places in New Jersey, and it's very much a question in my mind if Magnolia677 would have behaved as he did if you hadn't, basically, driven him to it. Certainly, he's responsible for his own behavior, and if your report is accurate, he deserves a slap on the wrist (at best), but as far as I am concerned, the primary problem for the community is not Magnolia677, but you. Magnolia677's name would probably never have appeared on a noticeboard if it hadn't been for your treatment of him, and his willingness to resist that, instead of just walking away, as most editors would do when confronted with someone like yourself. BMK (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond. This latest round started yesterday when I made this edit to Turnersville, New Jersey. It was made because finally, some consensus about wording with regards to unincorporated communities had been reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Census-designated places. So, I started making a few changes. No matter. Alansohn disagreed with the consensus.

Also, in the "notable people" section of city and town articles, I delete the line "people who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Foo include" whenever I see it. I'm really not sure who has added this line to so many articles, but I've only ever seen it used in New Jersey, and whenever I've deleted it, only Alansohn has added it back, so I assume it was Alansohn who added it across the Garden State at some point. Anyway, I delete it for two reasons. First, it's incorrect. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people states that the notable people section includes "any famous or notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city". I have told this to Alansohn any number of times, to which he tells me that the US Guidelines aren't policy. I also delete that line because it's unnecessary. It would be like beginning the geography section with "this is the geography section", and so forth. It's just another way to puff up the article without really doing any work.

As for Wikistalking, Alansohn edits almost exclusively on New Jersey articles, and every place in New Jersey has his edits. That means any New Jersey edit he disagrees with could be considered wikistalking. In fact, the only time I have ever seen Alansohn edit outside of New Jersey was when he stalked me here, to Regina, Saskatchewan!

As for adding the state map to New Jersey articles, these are widely used across the US, and there is a place for them in the infobox. I even stated that in my edit summary. But Alansohn hates state maps! In fact, less than an hour after I created Bear Tavern, New Jersey, Alansohn changed the map. See here.

Here's a sample more of his ownership of New Jersey article, and his relentless stalking:

• I created Jericho, Cumberland County, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 27 minutes later here.
• I created Friendship, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 8 minutes later here.
• I created Warrington, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 hours later here.
• I created Townsbury, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 4 hours later here.
• I created Carpentersville, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 hours later here.
• I created Whig Lane, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 1 day later here.
• I created Pointers, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 5 hours later here.
• I created Kernan Corner, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 days later here.
• I created Garrison Corner, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 days later here.
• I created Paulina, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 4 days later here.
• I created Carrs Tavern, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 hours later here.
• I created Pecks Corner, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 5 hours later here.
• I created Crossley, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 4 hours later here.
• I created Aserdaten, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 11 hours later here.
• I created Foul Rift, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 82 minutes later here.
• After I added a history section to Hainesburg, New Jersey here, Alansohn didn't like it so he changed the edit 3 minutes later here.
• After I created Fair Play, New Jersey, Alansohn redirected the article because "article has no content and should not be created until genuinely useful content can be added". It seems Alansohn didn't like my stub article about a New Jersey place. Then, two weeks later, he himself created a bunch of stub articles about New Jersey places, like Acton, Halltown, Portertown, Slapes Corner, Welchville, and Marshalltown.
• After I removed a redirect from Norton, New Jersey, Alansohn liked my edit. It seems I had done it his way "with all of the trimmings", as he wrote on a creepy stalker message to my talk page here.

Alansohn removed one of my edits here, stating in his edit summary "WP:USCITIES is merely advice and "is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style". Then, he reverted my edit here, leaving the edit summary "restore state name in infobox per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline". Huh??

When Alansohn didn't get his way here, he nominated the article for deletion!

This editor is a bully, and this is not good for editors who wish to add new content to New Jersey. I have tried to add some genuine content to New Jersey articles, and have been met by intimidation and insults on nearly every edit. It's because of Alansohn that I have stopped adding new articles to New Jersey in the past few months, and have gone back to Mississippi articles.

A while back I sought the advice of User:Hmains, who is, like Alansohn, one of the 40 most active editors on Wikipedia. Hmains' response seems to capture my experience as well.

Thank you for considering my reply. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) @Magnolia677: You'll note that I said some hard things to Alansohn above, and I stand by what I wrote there, but you, also, seem to have a bit of a problem realizing that when you create an article, it is not yours, and that other editors -- including Alansohn -- can and will change the article if they think its for the better. Alansohn has a lot of experience in creating articles, and that means that he can probably see more easily than you the faults in the articles you create, and can work quickly to correct them. That doesn't mean that he should, without much thought, convert your legitimate articles into redirects, for instance, or that he should treat your article creations differently from those of other editors, or that he should expect that his judgment on every article on a place in New Jersey is going to prevail all the time, and he certainly shouldn't fail to interact with you as a fellow editor -- but neither should you think that simply because the two of you have a long-term dispute, he should stay away from the articles you create.
  Above, I've recommended that the community should do something serious about stopping Alansohn's long-term general pattern of misbehavior, but it may also be the case that the two of you need an interaction ban. In this instance that's going to be difficult, because you both edit New Jersey-based articles, and I don't know how it would be possible to set up an IBan to stop this dispute from dragging on and on, but still allow both of you to edit articles in your common subject. But, obviously, something has to be done about what are possibly two somewhat different subjects, Alansohn's pattern of misbehavior, and the inability of you and Alansohn to work together without conflict. I'm pretty much fresh out of ideas for how to cut the Gordian knot -- do you have any suggestions about what can be done, ones which don't simply involve having the Alansohn blocked or banned? Can you think of ways in which your own behavior can be modified in order to help smooth things over? Because if not, I think the two of you are close to exhausting the community's patience. BMK (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how Alansohn adding images to the infoboxes and filling in missing box parameters is a bad thing. When I start an article one editor adds in categories that I am not aware of. I only found out about authority control and the marriage template when someone added it in a an article I had just started. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Beyond My Ken, let's look at my first dozen interactions with User:Magnolia677: 13 April 2013 - asked for sources for a notable, 13 April - provided examples of why sources are needed, 14 April - thanked him for adding some sources, 16 April - provided clarification as to where sources are needed, 9 July - more edits that need sources, 9 July - another edit the same day without sources, 17 August - uw-unsourced1 warning re edit without sources, - 27 August - uw-unsourced2 warning re additional unsourced edits, 27 August - explanation why policy requires sources, 27 August - explanation why reliable sources are needed for a list entry and 28 August - thanks for adding sources. Somehow, my insisting that sources must be provided justifies all of his belligerent edits up to and including his latest edit war. I haven't dealt with this guy for months, and now he's back haunting my edits out of the blue, starting with Scotch Plains, where User:Magnolia677 took an hour after my edit to start a new edit war, but it also includes Oak Valley, Turnersville and Gibbstown on the list of articles that he had never edited before and began a series of edit wars. This is the very definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. And why exactly is this blatant harassment by Magnolia677 justified by my past requests for sources? Alansohn (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alansohn: Your belligerence and your myopic viewpoint, in which everyone else is always wrong, and you are never at fault, is a major part of your problem. This is confirmed by the number of editors who have had serious concerns about dealing with you over the years. You've been here a damn long time, since 2005, and you've still not found the balance necessary to navigate through Wikipedia without antagonizing people unnecessarily. I suggest you find it, and soon, and stop behaving as if you are incapable of making mistakes, or I believe you are heading not for an interaction ban, but a site ban. BMK (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Beyond My Ken, so you've prejudged this situation and imposed your biases on the evidence that User:Magnolia677 has been maliciously stalking my edits. Somehow, my interactions with other editors and my efforts to advise Magnolia677 to add sources justify his blatant and unprovoked edit warring at a series of articles he has never edited once before. I've done nothing here and you're gunning for a site ban. Magnolia677 should feel blessed to have a shameless apologist like you to ignore the evidence and cover up for his abuse. Apparently neither you nor Magnolia677 is capable of admitting a rather clear example of Wikihounding. Why won't either of you admit your mistakes? Alansohn (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Alansohn, please stop putting words into my mouth, there are quite enough in there already. :) I've written what I think, and exactly what I think, and none of it accords with what you wish it to mean, sorry. BMK (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Beyond My Ken, maybe now it's time to toss your biases aside and look at the evidence that you've ignored. If I triggered this edit war, have me blocked; If it's User:Magnolia677 who came out of the blue to begin the edit war, you'll gain a small measure of credibility by pushing for an appropriate block for him. Maybe it's both of us; maybe an interaction ban is needed. Make your case, but at least try to evaluate this situation with a little bit of honesty, and evaluate the facts of this edit war using the diffs of this scenario, as presented. Alansohn (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the beam in your eye, your continued attempt to make it appear that I'm saying one thing when it should be abundantly clear that I'm really saying something else entirely, and your apparent inability to understand that my argument is much more encompassing than your petty AN/I report, there's really no hope of my ever appearing "credible" in your estimation, so I'm not going to try. Please stop pinging me, I'll be by when I feel like talking to a brick wall again. BMK (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• With BMK gone, that leaves us to deal with undoing Magnolia677's edit war. His edits have revolved largely around his arguments that WP:USCITIES 1) requires the presence of a pushpin map when a map already exists in the article (as here), and 2) that a heading describing a notables section is prohibited (see here). WP:USCITIES is explicit in stating that it merely offers "advice about style" and that it "is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style"; It requires nothing here. As such, Magnolia677's edits will be reverted to the status quo ante. Hopefully he will be able to avoid initiating further such edit wars in the future. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Alansohn, you're constantly picking fights and being obnoxious to people, and you don't seem to realize that acting this way makes people want to disagree with you even when you're right. You really don't see how misrepresenting BMK and then crowing that you've driven him from the conversation makes you look completely unsympathetic? As I have said, I actually agree with you regarding the maps and, as a matter of taste, I prefer not to have plain bullet lists without an introductory sentence. I think you're in the right as far as article content goes. It's your attitude that puts you in the wrong. Magnolia edits a heap of articles about US towns and villages, you edit a lot on New Jersey. It stands to reason that towns and villages in NJ will be an overlap in your interests, and editing those articles doesn't necessarily mean Magnolia is hounding you or edit warring even if *shock! horror!* he disagrees with you on something. Neither of you are blameless here. Both of you seem to prefer screaming at each other in edit summaries, edit warring, and dragging each other to the drama boards, than talking to each other as collaborators with a difference of opinions. This seems to be a common problem with you; every time I see you anywhere, you seem to be shouting at someone. You really need to adjust your attitude. Reyk _YO! 06:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty sure editors used to be blocked just for having a persistently combative attitude. Both BMK and Reyk have summed up Alansohn pretty well. Not to say Magnolia is guilt free but just the tone of, well, everything that Alan says is aggressive. Blackmane (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The bottom line here is that all too often Magnolia677 shows up only to piss on Alansohn's edits immediately after Alansohn makes them and on articles where Magnolia677's obviously never before edited, (unless it was under a previous alias?) A good example from those listed above is the edit history of Turnersville, New Jersey. I am not concerned with content, or Alansohn's prickliness. I am concerned with the fact hat Magnolia677 is rather blatantly stalking Alansohn's edits and "fixing" (a word in many edit summaries) the flaws he sees once Alansohn has passed by. Alansohn may rise to the bait, but it's Magnolia677 who's chumming the waters. Note there's no accusation that Alansohn follows Magnolia677 about, is there? I think a prohibition on Magnolia677 following Alansohn about is entirely warranted, there is plenty to work on other than what Alansohn has just edited, and the behavior is intentionally provocative, and endlessly disruptive. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Note there's no accusation that Alansohn follows Magnolia677 about, is there?" Yes, actually, there is. Magnolia677 makes exactly that claim in his statement above, and has been consistently making that claim since November 2014, when he filed this AN/I report. BMK (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Magnolia677 is "endlessly disruptive." If you take a look above, I listed 6 noticeboard reports involving Mangolia677 and Alansohn, and an additional 14 involving Alansohn, including a 1-year ArbCom-mandated civility parole. Magnolia has a clean block log, while Alansohn's is quite extensive -- although to his great credit the last block was in 2009.
  There's no doubt that these two are like oil and water -- or, better yet, like baking soda and vinegar: when they get together there's bound to be a lot of foaming dispute. If we were a jury in an American civil trial, we'd have to ascribe percentages of blame to the parties in the suit, and, while I don't by any means think that Magnolia677 is blameless, I'd have to put the lion's share of the responsibility for the problem on Alansohn. That's for the dysfunctionality of their entire relationship, not for this particular instance -- but since Alansohn continues to evade any sanctions when Magnolia677 presents his case against him, I can surely understand how he might be pushed into more aggressive behavior, if only to match Alansohn's inherent combativeness. Thus I can't absolve Magnolia677 of responsibility, but I am inclined to think that the bigger picture is more of an issue here. BMK (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, what I hear above is "she's following me around (true) versus he can be prickly (true). Let's assume we're focussed on a solution. I think prohibiting either editor from reverting the other or editing the same article on a NJ topic until some third party has edited it would be a good de-escalation. They could take urgent concerns to an admin or a volunteer like myself who am familiar with much of the state and would be happy to fix actual mistakes, rather than get involved in content disputes. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that would be a good place to start. Why don't you make that into a formal proposal? BMK (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's hear from Alansohn and Magnolia677 first, if they agree to a "no editing immediately after the other IBAN", we are set, and an admin could place a formal note to the effect on their respective talk pages. If they object, the solution will be unlikely to help unless it is draconianly enforced. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)While BMK pointed to my edits from 2007, notice that even Magnolia677 can only point to edits from six months ago. What happened now? Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all of the United States, isn't it a bit unusual that User:Magnolia677 would end up in Scotch Plains, starting an edit war in an article that I had edited in the previous hour and that he had never edited before? Given that I estimate about 100,000 articles for cities, boroughs, towns, townships, villages, CDPs, hamlets and settlements of all kinds across the country, it seems a bit creepy, doesn't it? The odds are pretty darn slim, but then he follows it up with flimsy pretexts to start a series of edit wars at Oak Valley, Turnersville, Mullica Hill, Gibbstown and Maple Shade. With 100,000 articles that he could have started such edit wars, it's rather freaky that he would end up at so many articles that I've edited in such a short period of time, all of which he's never edited before. He's offered no justification or rationalization to account for this one-in-a-trillion coincidence. Isn't that a little stalkerish, to say the least?

• Isn't this the very definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, where Magnolia677 is actively "singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."? I've shown how he's been stalking me, where have I been stalking him? How was he "pushed" into his latest bullshit edit warring.

• Have I edited articles that he's edited? Of course, they were all on my watchlist or it's equivalent. And in the past several months I have stayed as far as I can from any article he has created, wherever they may be. Doesn't it strike anyone as a bit odd that in a two hour span from 21:48 to 23:44 on April 14 Magnolia677 made 31 edits, of which 26 were to articles from New Jersey, half of them to a sequence of six articles he had never edited before? This isn't just an odd coincidence. This is a deliberate unprovoked effort by Magnolia677 to manufacture a confrontation. If anyone can provide the diff of any edit on my part that justifies this creepy harassment that started just days ago, let's see it. On the other hand, I've provided the diffs, listed the articles and shown that I am being consistently Wikihounded and harassed by Magnolia677. A block and topic / interaction ban imposed on him might well help solve the problem.

• I've backed off from seeking confrontations with him; he's worked diligently to create confrontations. I will be more than happy to consider any reasonable suggestion that ends his stalking, including a reciprocal interaction ban, which would only have affected Magnolia677 in his latest attacks. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Magnolia677's account dates from December 2012. Their first New Jersey-related edit I can find in From February 2013. BMK (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In your first edit in this thread YOU brought up 2007. He points to November 2014. Of course I know he started editing / crossing paths in 2013, because I left him a dozen messages and warnings insisting that he had to add sources, as listed above with diffs. My perception is that this is some sick kind of revenge about those first interactions. Even if it did have something to do with those first interactions, I fail to see how I am responsible for stalking by User:Magnolia677 at six articles he's never edited before, including one that I had edited just minutes before. What exactly did I do to provoke this? What is Magnolia677's explanation for this stalking? Alansohn (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see basically two options here, neither of which I really like. The first is an interaction-ban, the second is ArbCom. Given the nature of the history of this, and other, disputes, I would probably prefer the latter, if for no other reason than it takes longer and gives the community more time to try to devise solutions to the problems. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Per BMK's suggestion and given Alansohn's not extremely friendly response above I have drafted a limited IBAN proposal below. I hope both parties will find it acceptable, but expect the community will find it worth imposing regardless, unless we want to go nuclear. μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Limited Interaction Ban between Users Alansohn and Magnolia677[edit]

Be it Nominated that a limited one-year interaction ban of the following terms apply equally to Alansohn and Magnolia677, to continue indefinitely unless both parties ask to have it removed in no less than 12 months or each 12 months thereafter:

(1) Neither party shall mention the other, directly or indirectly, explicitly or by implication, on any page, except once as necessary and with supporting diffs on the WP:ANI board for reporting violations of the IBAN.

(2) Either party may edit the same article space or article space talk page, except that neither party shall either directly revert the other's edits, or edit the same article until at least one third party uninvolved with either of the two has made an intervening edit. Neither party shall follow each other's user contributions.

(3) A neutrally worded and impersonal response to a question posed by one party on the talk page (which we shall assume to be a valid question, aimed at improving the article, not criticizing an editor or edit) shall not be assumed to violate the above terms. In other words, one editor may not pre-empt comments by the other editor on valid issues by being the first to bring up a relevant issue on the talk page.

(4) New Jersey is larger than some 160 nations and dependencies. Both editors are admonished to give the other a wide birth.

(5) Violation of the terms of this IBAN shall result in increasing sanctions (temporary blocks) by any admin, without further warning.

• Support Good fences make good neighbors. (See the immediately preceding complaint, which is one of at least 21 involving the two editors.) This issue has come up far too often to once more be aged off the board. Both editors are mature people and good contributors. This is the least punitive of possible sanctions that might actually address the issue at hand. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support sounds good to me. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (non admin) after reading the above, is there any doubt this should happen at the very least? No. AlbinoFerret 22:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - We have to start somewhere, and this is a good start, very balanced. BMK (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What specifically did I do wrong? I mean, really? Every edit I made was in line with policy (I often added a link to the policy in my edit summary). The reason I made the edits a few days ago was because a consensus had been reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Census-designated places, so I started making a few changes. How is this wikistalking? Or bad faith editing? Did you read my response above? Alansohn spins this ridiculous victim piece like a drama queen, and after enough of it, people actually start to believe it. Do me one favor. Please have a look at the edit history of Bear Tavern, New Jersey. I mean, is this what we expect from a veteran editor? If I was a new editor, or one easily intimidated by a bully, I'd never return. Most of you would have written to the creator of Bear Tavern to thank them for finding another place George Washington stopped for a beer. Instead, this bully tears the article to pieces. Look what happened when I added a photo to Battin High School. Anyone who edits to New Jersey is stalking Alansohn! An interaction ban would mean I am excluded from the state. Why don't you deal with the real issue, and that is that this editor owns New Jersey, and bullies, intimidates and insults anyone who makes edits there he doesn't approve of. So I ask you again, please tell me what policy I have transgressed with my edits, and what I am being sanctioned for? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very limited interaction ban. You're not "excluded from the state". See point 2 in Medeis's proposal. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think of it as having done something wrong. But it's abundantly clear that, for whatever reason, you and this other editor can't get along. So for your benefit, and his, and for the community's benefit, we're going to help you stay apart so that you can both edit constructively. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point #5 says "increasing sanctions". What did I do to deserve a sanction (my first in 18,000+ edits)? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not clear, a first sanction might be a 24 hour block for whomever violated the terms, if they did so--it would be up to the admin. It applies equally to both parties. You'd still have recourse to prompting a third party if an edit were so bad as to be false, and need immediate recourse. You just wouldn't be able to revert it yourself. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't think of it Magnolia677 as anybody having done anything wrong. It's an equal and minimal restriction. Think of it as a very even-handed way that allows both of you to edit very widely (in fact, you're not really banned anywhere except each others talk pages), but to avoid bringing another complaint here, which you have both done how many times? You should be jumping at this, since if it goes to arbcom you're probably both looking at some nice long blocks. To be Solomonic, accept this live baby in foster care, rather than two dead half babies. This really doesn't restrict either of you at all, since every article remains open, and in case of emergencies like a terrible format error contact me or an admin and mention the limited IBAN. From experience I know that a situation like this can be very liberating, since you don't feel like you have to respond to everything the other person does, and neither does he. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Nice long blocks"? Administrators only block editors who have violated the rules. What leads you to suggest I'd face a long block? What did I do wrong? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how on earth have my edits been placed on par with Alansohn's? Did you read the comments so many others have written about this bully? Deal with this guy, or he'll just go on bullying and intimidating others. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677, you're not helping yourself. BMK (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's a system, the interactions between you and Alansoh, and the system doesn't work, so it needs to be fixed. Medeis' proposal fixes the system by evenhandedly dealing with both parts of it, not by eliminating one part in favor of the other, or vice versa. Think of it as protection for both participants from what they each claim the other is doing: neither of you is inhibited from editing in the same area, the restrictions both of you are placed under are limited and reasonable. If this works, it should make editing easier and less onerous for both of you, and the system will be fixed. That's what the community cares about. It really doesn't want to hear endless complaints from either of you, because every one of us has better things to do. BMK (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the above evidence, you have started at least half a dozen ANI complaints against Alansohn, and although there is little sympathy for him there is also little sympathy for you. Frankly, your recent edits of articles he's been editing for a decade smack of stalking by you, especially since they do follow minutes after his.

Having been brought to arbcom and being the happy subject of a current IBAN I have been offering my advice pro bono. This is not about who's right, and the sooner you get over that the better for you. It's about how to settle this matter fairly.

Are you seriously saying that your nemesis's edits are so evul that you need to keep riding him and complaining here when he objects to it? If so, you are demonstrating an inability to play well with others.

NJ has over 9 million inhabitants, more than Ireland, New Zealand, Wales, Denmark, Slovakia or Israel.

If this goes to arbcom, you will indeed face serious sanctions just for wasting their time. I am not an admin, but I am about ready to give up and file a case there for you. Alansohn wasn't very nice in his last edit, but he did at least admit an IBAN might be a solution. I strongly suggest this is a good solution given your own complaint.

But if you want to continue insisting you are the victim (who just chanced upon Alalnsohn's edits minutes after he made them) then feel free. But you will not be serving anyone's interests, especially not your own. No more comments from me at this point, I don't enjoy repeating myself. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't come here? A complaint was made about me. This was followed by a dumping of negative comments, by a number of editors, about the person who made the complaint. Get your facts straight friend. This guy is an abusive bully. Do what you want. I'll agree to an interaction ban with Alansohn. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per Medeis and also per Magnolia677's acceptance of the conditions. IBANs are not about sanctioning one person or the other, but rather a process whereby neither editor would be formally sanctioned. Magnolia and Alansohn, both of you can go about your merry way and nothing will happen as long as neither of you breach this IBAN. Think of it as moving two classmates to opposite ends of the classroom because it is obvious they don't get along. If you're not right there in front of each other, then the hope is that neither of you will be antagonised by the other. Blackmane (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Withdrawal of Support in the Face of Ongoing Abuse I'm more than willing to support the IBAN in theory, as it finally creates the environment in which blocks -- and lengthy ones -- will be imposed for further repetitions of this kind of shameless harassment, blocks that would have -- and should have -- been imposed here. Yet here we are with another set of edits by Magnolia677 to yet another pair of articles he's never edited before, Williamstown and Victory Lakes, where the only meaningful edit seems to be removing the word "CDP" and replacing it with the name of the place a dozen times. This guy has some rather insane understanding of what *NOT* stalking means. I'll be happy to undo all of these edits in this entire edit war, or have someone else do it, but with the same pattern of abuse going on, what is the point of an interaction ban? There are at least 8,000 CDPs in Category:Census-designated places in the United States by state in the 49 other states across the nation with the same "problem" and here he is again trying to start something over an idiotic interpretation of policy. If this can't be resolved, count me out. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just want to point out the obvious, that's while it might be a bit easier to impose an interaction ban if both parties agree to it, it's not necessary that they do. The community has the right to protect itself from disruption by imposing it with or without the parties' approval, so no one should be put off by Alansohn's comment above. BMK (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This limited interaction ban is utterly worthless, if the bad faith edits made at Template:Bergen County, New Jersey and Clayton, New Jersey are any indication of User:Magnolia677 and his efforts to show a spirit of cooperation. The stalking is bad enough, but this guy is spitting in our faces now, showing that he has no intention of respecting the terms of this agreement, either in word or spirit. The "limited" portion of this is clearly useless, if he can't even offer some "wide birth" (which I assume is some weird form of labor and delivery) even at this point in time. Alansohn (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean "wide berth" - a "wide birth" happens to a woman with big hips. :)
  Please don't presume to speak for "us", the other participants in this discussion. There are a wide variety of viewpoints that have been presented here, but the majority of uninvolved commenters in this discussion have come out in support Medeis' interaction ban. I think you are mistaken in thinking that your "conditional" rejection of the IBan is going to derail it. You'd be better off accepting it, I believe, thus showing that you have some regard for what's best for the community. That would, I think, speak well in your favor. BMK (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have placed a neutral pointer to this discussion on the WikiProject New Jersey talk page in order to involve more interested community members in this discussion. It can be found here. BMK (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interaction ban. Seems like a sensible solution. Reyk _YO! 07:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the interaction ban. Both editors have strong opinions on what they think is best for the encyclopedia and both are prepared to argue their points to the death, but neither seems to be willing or able to seek a compromise, so to just stop the semi-regular flow of threads here, it's best that they just stay away from each other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an IBAN. A proportionate solution to an ongoing problem. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Will is be "utterly worthless" and Alansohn claims above? We will see. If it turns out that it is, we can start considering harsher measures. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. And if this doesn't work, full IBAN. And after that, ArbCom if admins cannot handle/contain the situation. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This, exactly. Alansohn is a decent sort, IMO, and highly committed to the project, so I really hope this will not end up at arbitration. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The most troubling thing I've read in the above is that--among those editors who don't seem to have a personal ax of their own to grind--there seems to be a fair recognition that one editor has engaged in stalking. User:Medeis puts it aptly and plainly above. But that editor repeatedly above doesn't admit to it. If the stalking continues, no doubt this will lead to repercussions. But I would urge that editor to refrain from stalking, despite his above statements that he is unclear what he has done that is not appropriate. And I urge him to not take this as a license to just engage in harder-to-detect stalking. A strong spotlight is now on the matter. Without stalking, it appears to me that all other problems discussed above melt away. And we have a happy conclusion. If stalking continues, I have little doubt from what I've read above that this matter will be elevated. Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no admission of guilt is really needed (or wanted by the uninvolved), just an end to it, and both conflicting parties have once again agreed to the terms. We just need an admin to not this on the formal bans page and to formally notify the parties this is closed as agreed and we can all get some well deserved rest. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Request close}}

Formally request Admin Closure, with IBAN adopted per above guidelines[edit]

There are four five independent supports, no opposes, and both parties have agreed to the IBAN:

Do what you want. I'll agree to an interaction ban with Alansohn. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be more than happy to consider any reasonable suggestion... including a reciprocal interaction ban,... Alansohn (talk) 4:22 pm, Today (UTC−4)

I hereby suggest the above ban be noted among the formally listed user bans with an April 30 renewal date, be placed as an admonition on the two user's talk pages, and the matter be closed forthwith. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To possible closing admin: It seems that one of the parties, Alansohn, has now changed his mind and is no longer voluntarily accepting the proposed IBan. However, I've just looked back on the thread in total, and of the seven uninvolved participants who have commented on this issue, all five who have commented on the IBan have endorsed it. Only @Reyk: and @Guy Macon: have not not commented on the IBan so far, yeah or nay. BMK (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responded now. :) Reyk _YO! 07:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that of the 7 uninvolved Wikipedians commenting on this issue, the six who have commented on the proposed IBan have all endorsed it. BMK (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now all 7 of the commenters have endorsed the proposed IBan, plus an additional 2 3 editors who had not commented previously. BMK (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to withdraw the suggested closure at this point given each of the participants still seems intent on his pound of flesh, but the consensus in favor is overwhelming, so I will leave the request for closure stand, have added the formal template, and a notice at WP:AN, and suggest the complainants read what happens to the "villain" of Merchant of Venice at the end, when, technically, he wins his case. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I now completely agree with the IBan. All this feuding doesn't move the project forward, and wastes everyone's time. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too Support the IBAN at this point. The examples of actions that would be covered under the "wide berth" clause have already occurred and I think that there is no ambiguity now that further such actions will be covered. I commit myself to avoid creating confrontations, by exercising the same "wide berth" that I have worked to provide in recent months. Alansohn (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, so we seem to be back to everyone agreeing to the terms of the very limited IBAN and are waiting for any uninvolved admin to close it and state it formally. Frankly, I think everyone will find that a huge relief and burden off their shoulders. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seriously has to stop this guy man. Seattle windshield pitting epidemic was an article which contained the work of vandals when I found it. I began to remove all that but this guy keeps putting it back.

1. . 1st
2. . 2nd

Can someone ban the editor thanks. Jim the Small (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious boomerang, just check the OP's brief contribs history. WP:CIR. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment). Boomerang if anything should hit Mandruss as he is clearly corroborating the restorations of what is without conceivable doubt the work of vandals at an article. --Jim the Small (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit says enough. It's a ref title, and I have verified that it matches the source. WP:CIR and doesn't know it. Dangerous. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not understand what the problem is supposed to be. The original text says "It was originally thought to be the work of vandals but the rate of pitting was so great that residents " and user changed it to "It was originally thought to be the work of vandals but the rate of pitting was so great that residents", saying "I removed the work of vandals". Is this a pun? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's WP:CIR. Or perhaps WP:NOTHERE. Or maybe both. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cane someone please put a couple of rangeblocks in place to stop the IP-hopping block-avoiding vandal documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phillip_Pham#13_April_2015? Constantly reverting the massive amount of vandalism is becoming a real chore. At the minimum, the 2602:306:8b2c:5350:0:0:0:0/64 range and the IPv4 addresses listed there need to be blocked, although blocking 24.153.175.240/28 may not be a bad idea either. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the topic area, especially the applicable discretionary/arbcom sanctions, so can some admins take a deeper look and see if some warnings, blocks, or editing restrictions are called for (or, if this is an AE matter)? Pinging @I JethroBT, Vsmith, HJ Mitchell, Sandstein, GRuban, and CorinneSD: some editors/admins who may be acquainted with user or article history. Abecedare (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I approached the RS noticeboard with a legitimate issue about a newspaper headline alone being used as a source for a claim (since the newspaper article itself does containing any content to support the claim). CorinneSD has accused me of bad faith, accused me of basically faking the issue, by stating that the article does contain content to back up the word used in the headline. I asked this editor to say where in the article is this content, but rather than provide the evidence the editor simply repeated the slur. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might have had a point were it not for the fact that the source in question [48] actually contains the word 'spy' in the body of the text, along with a statement that Bell was "a member of the Arab Bureau, the British intelligence office in Cairo during the war". It is one thing to dispute the reliability of a source, but another to claim that it doesn't contain content which is in plain sight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Complaint checks out. I've blocked this user for one week. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 00:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

66.154.176.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is currently serving a 3 month block, but continues to post personal attacks on his Talk page. I recommend for his Talk page access to be revoked. - Areaseven (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Access to the talk page revoked for the remainder of the block. There is a threat of violence in there, although given its source and the way it's made I'm not sure that it should be considered as "serious". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

IMPORTANT NOTE: I expected I could retract this myself, that is apparently not the case. I officially request that this case be closed as I've learned this is not the appropriate noticeboard for my complaint. EmonyRanger (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

Passages in Lena Dunham's book Not That Kind of Girl sparked controversy and accusations of sexual misconduct. The passages describe three incidents:

1. Examining her sister Grace's genitals when Lena was 7
2. Bribing her sister with candy to kiss her
3. Masturbating in bed while lying next to her sister, when Lena was 17

Another passage describes the rape of Dunham by a college student identified as "Barry."

None of this is contentious. The incidents were described by the subject herself in the book and reported in numerous BLP-compliant RSs. As well, they're the main reason the book is notable. The overwhelming coverage in secondary sources concerns either the accusations of sexual abuse (and defense of those accusations) or the accusation of rape and subsequent investigations.

Complaint[edit]

Since November of last year Grayfell has continually sought to remove or mischaracterize mention to these incidents and their resulting controversy from the article.

In his first edit he changes "she was accused of admitting to sexually molesting her younger sister" (a sourceable statement) to "she describes examining her sister's genitals when Dunham was 7 and her sister was 1, which Williamson characterizes as sexually inappropriate" [66], omitting the other two arguably more serious incidents (implying all accusations concern actions at age 7) and misrepresents Williamson's characterization as "sexually inappropriate"; he is very clear that he feels it's "sexual abuse" saying "There is no non-horrific interpretation". Grayfell also removes all reference to the rape accusation.

Here he removes the sourced text "The Los Angeles Times reported that one sentence written by Lena Dunham from the book stood out: "Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl, I was trying."" claiming in his edit summary: "Inserting this quote without also including the surrounding context is cherry-picking" but instead of adding context he replaces it with: "Dunham denied the charges,[15] and later apologized for the some of the wording in the book, specifically the joking use of the term 'sexual predator', which she described as insensitive."[67] - providing no context to her use of the term "sexual predator" or the apology.

Here he edit wars to preserve that change [68]

Most recently the issue is the following phrase rebutting the accusations of abuse, which had been inserted without consensus (not by Grayfell): "but Lena, Grace, child psychologists, sexual abuse experts, and researchers in human sexuality reject the notion." However the sources we cite don't indicate the overwhelming majority of professionals across these fields "reject the notion" as the text implies. For one, we cite only a handful of experts (as it appears only a handful offered their opinion) and while several outright reject it, several (although fewer) suggest the incidents are ambiguous. Here are the quotes suggesting ambiguity, all from cited RS:

"If it's sexual in nature, if there is the intent to arouse or be aroused, even if it's not fully articulated, then it is a gray line. It's not very black and white." -Laura Berman, Chicago-based sex and relationship therapist

"We could make up a whole story of how Lena was molested. We could paint these behaviors and slant them toward red flags for sexual abuse. But they could just as easily be totally innocent, non-sexual, non-molesting exploratory behaviors." On the face of it, says Berman, "I don't think anything presented is necessarily a huge red flag." -Laura Berman, Chicago-based sex and relationship therapist

"Drawing a conclusion about Dunham’s interactions with her sister is impossible without much more contextual information about her family." -John V. Caffaro, professor at the California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles and author of Sibling Abuse Trauma

"Some draw the line when the interaction includes oral-genital contact or intercourse. Others believe coercion is the difference between natural curiosity and abuse." -John V. Caffaro, professor at the California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles and author of Sibling Abuse Trauma

Initially I changed the text to "but Lena and Grace, and a number of experts reject the notion" which is an objectively favorable interpretation. In the interests of the subject however I found it sufficient, as it was factual and citable unlike the previous statement. Grayfell reverted this change. [69]

Grayfell then changed it to "but several child psychologists, sexual abuse experts, and researchers in human sexuality reject the notion." which other than being needlessly (and arguably incorrectly) specific in its description of the commenters I didn't object to; as it was still a cite-able, factual statement.

He then removes the word "several", [70] returning to the previous "universal rejection." A misrepresentation of sources.

Concurrently Grayfell and I had a similar disagreement on the author's page where he's also attempted to either remove references to these incidents entirely, or misrepresent the multiple incidents of accused abuse as a single incident, picking the least objectionable ("at age 7") of the three. [71] [72] [73] [74]

Eventually in that article we settled on this consensus wording, finalized and largely written by Grayfell: "Passages recounting interactions of a sexual nature with her younger sister Grace attracted controversy. Experts described these passages as either too ambiguous to judge, or as describing behavior consistent with normal childhood development." [75]

Since we had consensus and since (again) it didn't imply universal rejection among experts, I attempted to use similar language on the book's page [76]

Grayfell reverted this with the following talk page explanation: "No, that's not going to work. That sentence on the other article followed a general indicator of a larger controversy. This article is discussing the issue in more detail. No experts are accepting Williamson's characterization of the behavior as sexual abuse. Saying that the the passages are too ambiguous to make that call is another way of rejecting that claim. Just because they are experts on sexuality doesn't mean that the behavior is automatically sexual, that's just ridiculous. The experts are the ones who decide if it's sexual or not, that's the whole point. Grayfell (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)"

Again as I reminder, this is in response to text he himself wrote and accepted on the author's page - with one difference: he objects to my use of the phrase "childhood sexual development" there, preferring "childhood development." I would not mind that, although I feel it's less correct, but he reverted the change wholesale. From his comment it appears he will revert anything that implies the abuse allegations were not universally rejected by experts in the fields of child psychology, sexual abuse and human sexuality - which is simply not citeable. I had hoped to resolve this on the talk page but with limited commenters we're at an impasse. EmonyRanger (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez that's a lot of text. This is reaching back into some old news. A look at the articles' histories show that there's no ownership going on. Between a flurry of activity when the book article was created in Nov. 2014, and the recent changes in the last few days, I've made one single edit to Not That Kind of Girl.[77] It's similar with Dunham's article. The above summary is selectively quoting some of my responses, but not others. To put it simply, I worked with other editors to include specific wording in the Lena Dunham article, and I didn't think it was appropriate to copy/paste that to the article on her book in a slightly different context. I've made my case on the articles' talk pages in full, probably tl:dr detail, and I don't think it's helpful to repeat that. I would, of course, be happy to answer any questions, though.

Did I remove the rape allegation? Maybe? If I did, it was months and months ago, when the article was still in the news and being mentioned by unusable gossip blogs. Why is this the place to bring it up again?

Additionally, EmonyRanger, an account with three days of activity and less than 50 edits, is clearly already familiar with Wikipedia. This editor has focused on highly controversial topics almost immediately. User talk:José Antonio Zapato (who has already been notified, I see) has a very similar editing history. This whole thing is, at best, a waste of time, and that's putting it mildly. Grayfell (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a routine content dispute to me, which should be resolved elsewhere, preferably on the talk pages of the specific articles. Can the OP please explain, succinctly, how use of administrator's tools is required in this situation? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this board is where to bring WP:OWN and source misrepresentation complaints. If there is a more appropriate board I will remove this and post there instead. Discussion on the talk page has been attempted. As I said, the editor rejected even his own wording to characterize these expert's opinions (used in the related article.) At that point I realized further talk page discussion would be fruitless. EmonyRanger (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Cullen, this looks like a garden variety content dispute, and I don't see any bad-faith behavior that requires an admin to block anyone or protect an article or anything like that. Given that, WP:DR lists several options for seeking outside, impartial help in solving bilateral disputes like this. --Jayron32 03:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I first tried to post to the DRN but the fields seemed too limiting to explain the issue sufficiently, and it didn't seem designed to address long-term patterns. I will remove this and re-examine. Thank you. EmonyRanger (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per talk page guidelines, only uninvolved editors should close discussions, and blanking is not the appropriate way to handle that anyway. Blanking bypasses talk page archives, which should be kept as a record, and makes this much harder to reference in the future, should that becomes necessary. Grayfell (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block needed for user with username clearly in violation of WP:USERNAME; possible fraud as well. "User" notified. Quis separabit? 00:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For future reference, usernames that are in obvious violation of of username policy should be reported to WP:UAA. However, I don't see how this is in violation of the policy unless it's obviously referring to a specific person I'm not aware of. Might turn out to be a VOA but it's been warned appropriately so far. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 00:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since my unblock user:Future Perfect at Sunrise has resumed his hounding of my edits. This hounding has been going on since 28 July 2012 Since my return he has stalked me to two newly created articles [78][79] and one I was trying to bring up to GA status.[80] This harassment is obviously ruining any enjoyment I get from editing, and it needs to be stopped Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It has never been "hounding" to occasionally check up on a problematic editor's contribs when it's necessary to correct long-term patterns of bad edits. DS is, without any doubt, a highly problematic editor with a long and well-documented history of source misuse and poor-quality editing, so yes, I have occasionally, since 2012, seen the need to clean up after him. In the present instance, he created a series of odd little articles on rather out-of-the-way topics shortly before he got himself indef-blocked as a ban-evading sock a few months ago. Those articles, on topics of medieval philology, were no doubt a well-intentioned and deserving attempt, but unfortunately they turned out to be riddled with errors (evidently because he's way out of his depth in that field of learning), so I started cleaning some of them up while he was blocked. Obviously that wasn't "hounding" – you can't "hound" a banned user, who isn't supposed to be on Wikipedia in the first place. Who would have foreseen that the Arbcom, in their infinite wisdom, would take the ridiculously ill-conceived step to grant this person yet another chance, with this record of disruption? Anyway, it was hardly my fault that as soon as he was back, he had nothing better to do than to jump right back on that same group of articles and try to edit-war all his old errors back into them again, undoing all the corrections I made [81]. He's been meeting every single edit of mine with immediate blanket reverts [82][83], without any regard to logic, sources or talkpage consensus. See discussions here and here to see that I wasn't the only one to notice the need for cleanup. It's his old pattern of disruptive edit-warring all over again, exactly the same behaviour that earned him his 31(!) distinct blocks for disruption earlier during his editing carreer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Indidentally, it is indicative of the level of bad faith in DS's report above that in the case of the "female infanticide" article he is linking to an edit of mine [84] where I am in fact editing in his favour, reverting a malicious sock who was, indeed, hounding him. It just turned out that I then realized that the sock had a point about one or two details in the edits they were revert-warring over, most notably because DS was trying to insert an unsourced image into the article that is demonstrably meant to show something other than what the article is about, a fact that DS has been utterly inable to counter on the talkpage.[85].) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should thank Fut. Perf. for helping to keep you on the straight and narrow, and consider asking for advice instead of kvetching about corrections. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines If you can prove that user:Future Perfect at Sunrise is involved in vandalism in regard to your quality work or is otherwise making no positive contribution then there will be an issue where the other editor might even be banned. Otherwise please note, no editor owns content. Its not about enjoyment but about suffering (joking) about satisfaction on producing quality, accurate, well presented, well cited work. The last thing that would be relevant would be an interaction ban. I make no judgement here regarding the quality of the work of either of you. GregKaye 21:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of checkuserblocked sockpuppet here [86]. Keri (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On April 18, 2015, User:RGloucester was blocked by User:Beeblebrox ("User seems to have gone off the deep end again, see edits at talk page and AN") following a heated rant at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § I demand immediate assistance. Within 3 minutes of being blocked, RGloucester responded on their talk page (User talk:RGloucester § Hatting discussion at RMs): "I refuse to be blocked. I am not blocked. ..." In response, Beeblebrox blocked RGloucester's access to their talk page and email ("you really, really need to take a break and calm down"). Two issues follow from this.

The first issue is, on viewing this and knowing a bit about the blocking policy, I knew this really sounded like the criteria for a WP:COOLDOWN block, which are not permitted via the blocking policy. Disabling the ability to email other users (in addition to disabling talk page access) is not supposed to happen unless there has been abuse of that feature in the past (which there is no evidence of) or "when administrators feel that email abuse is extremely likely" (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Setting block options). So I left my initial comments about it and a few other users commented, some disagreeing with my evaluation and others agreeing. This included the blocking admin themselves saying that it was within their discretion to disable those options even though it didn't meet the strict definition of "talk page abuse". I, and others, believe those options should be re-enabled, even though the initial block itself is justified. Given the only way to "force an admin's hand" is to report them to one of the noticeboards and have the community take action, here I am. Honestly this shouldn't have been an issue, just re-enable those options and close this. Though there was a few minor issues which at this point, only I noticed/commented on.

The second issue is that a good faithed IP user commented on the proceedings, giving their thoughts (namely, that blocking email access was excessive). User:Bishonen (who had requested that any further discussion be directed to Beeblebrox's talk page) then twice deleted the IP's post (the first time with an uncivil edit summary), a violation of WP:TPO since you're only allowed to remove other people's talk page comments in certain circumstances. Administrator User:Floquenbeam then protected the talk page to prevent further comments being added. I questioned this on Floquenbeam's talk page and they answered: "To stop you from shit stirring was one". The administrator Beeblebrox said they were going to be fully protecting it themselves that Floquenbeam had beat them to it.

What I would like to happen:

• The unblock of RGloucester's talk page rights and email access, as there is no signs of abuse as needed by the blocking policy.
• The full protection of their talk page removed as it is not supported by policy or guideline.

Attribution: The draft was initially created by me and edited by other users. Although posting it under my name, User:Sroc, User:Alakzi and minor ce by User:Floquenbeam contributed.

Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I fail to see what benefit this action would provide to the encyclopedia or the community. Several long-standing admins have concurred on this action and there is no evidence provided that their judgement is flawed or the action was inappropriate beyond a claim of "you can't do that". Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I reverted the IP once and you once, User: Tutelary, because it was you — not the IP — who showed the poor judgement of restoring the IP's post. I agree the IP was probably in good faith. (I have since had a pretty reasonable exchange with them on my own talkpage.) Not so sure about you. You and I have had no previous interaction that I'm aware of, there's no baggage, so I can't imagine why you would first revert me on RGloucester's page with a spoonful of alphabet soup,[87] and then revert my question about it on your page (together also with Beeblebrox's explanation of why RGloucester's page had better be left alone), with the edit summary "I'll be typing out a WP:ANI when I gather the diffs."[88] No chance of a reasonable exchange there. Yes, I know you're entitled to remove posts on your page, please don't trouble to link me to the guideline. I just wonder why. Do you figure stiff-arming people on your page and instead running to ANI improves the encyclopedia? How? Bishonen | talk 21:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Paraphrasing and extending what I said on Flo's page, This isn't RGloucester's first kick at the can and past history has shown that when he's upset, he tends to make really, really unfortunate remarks. Removal of talk page rights was a good call given he was headed in that direction again [89] to prevent further disruption. Your labeling it as a cooldown block is incorrect. If you had concerns, you should have posted to the blocking admin's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• All I can say is that policies are for guidance, they are not the holy word of God with no exceptions. Admins are expected to use their judgement, and I did nothing more than that and firmly believe it was for the best for all concerned. It saddens me that so many Wikipedians no longer seem to realize this, and cannot see that both my actions and those of my fellow admins in this case were as much to protect this user as to protect Wikipedia. This is a person who has basically completely lost it. They need a total break from Wikipedia and they were unwilling to just take it so they got an involuntary break. There is no need to make a big deal out of the settings. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

stricken comments are form an IP being used to evade a community ban.* Comment: Since I was pinged, I will leave a quick non-voting comment. Personally, I am not convinced nor impressed with arguments of "the longstanding admins" said. What I would ask is, what did policy say and which one said it? If Wikipedia's policies (not counting IAR) can be shown to reflect that the action is or is not appropriate, then that should be stated and the appropriate action applied. The rules are there for a reason and should be utilized fairly and in a standard manner not tossed out the window whenever its convenient to the admin performing the action. It does not appear that anyone is arguing against a block and my experience and intuition lead me to believe this discussion will be a waste of time and the admins will do whatever they want anyway, but hopefully someone with some common sense and integrity will follow policy and do that. I have not seen any indication that these particular admins acted intentionally inappropriately but it does seem like some actions are excessive and our of process. In fairness I did not see the comment left by Bishonen about not posting and we have since reconciled the issue on Bishonen's talk page. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• For further clarification, it is my opinion that my edit should not have been reverted though nor should the page be fully protected nor should Email access be revoked. The user already had access to emails offline anyway and if they were abusing that already I suspect that would have come up in these discussions in some form.96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block, good call. With users who go off the deep end like this, such additional measures are sometimes necessary to preserve some sort of order here. I wish, ah I wish, that editors would leave the blocked editor's talk page alone since those comments there are doing no one a favor. This thread is just another little log on the fire of acrimony; Tutelary, sometimes I really wonder what the hell you think you're trying to accomplish, and in my darkest moments I am drawn to the thought that shit-stirring is what you do best and what you like most. That you do this on purpose, and that you don't care that you're doing RGloucester no favor at all. That this is only here because the NCAA championships are over and there's nothing on TV for you. Fortunately I am a cheerful, cheerful person, and I whisk those thoughts away while doing some therapeutic kitchen cleaning. Someone, please close this. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict × 5)While I concur that the revocation of talk privileges was a bit rushed, given the users block log (and what they were posting) it probably would have happened anyway. Revocation of email privileges seemed a bit odd/unneeded, but when it comes down to it a blocked user shouldn't need those anyway, and should request an unblock (if desired) through UTRS. Talk page protection also seems unnecessary, but is somewhat allowed under the protection policy (When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block.. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked editors should not necessarily have to go to UTRS. UTRS is a notoriously bad process that rarely ever unblocks anyone because no one wants to be the one to make the call. Additionally, it is a completely non transparent process. It is far, better to do it in a transparent manner to prevent offline prejudice and abuse or even arguments of it. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My having edited the draft should not be understood as an endorsement of it. Alakzi (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Block was good, revocation of talk page was good per "i am not blocked", protection of talk page was good per other people having fights RG couldn't participate in. Email may have been premature, but I don't see any particular need for it to be enabled (speaking of non-transparency). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - although most admin actions are <sarcasm>undeniably evil and malignant</sarcasm>, I don't see a problem with this block and removal of talk/email access. RG was seriously spinning out of control. However, if y'all decide to overturn the access removal, please ping me so I can get some popcorn and watch. GregJackP Boomer! 21:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greg, I can't tell you how much I hate those "I'll get the popcorn" comments, though I appreciate that you didn't make a funny picture with a poodle or a gorilla in it and a catchy and totally funny quote. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is one of those occasions when someone has to be forcibly and completely disengaged for a while. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The "I am not blocked" comment can only be taken as indicating that the individual who made it is either irrational, intending to engage in sockpuppetry, or intending to use the user talk page as a soapbox. None of which are acceptable. The block was good, it is limited to two weeks, and I cannot see anything productive that can reasonably be done at the user talk page or by e-mail in the period, so there's no reason to object to those being removed separately either. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If I'd been RGloucester, had (correctly) surmised Dicklyon was socking, and couldn't get anyone to listen, I'd be likewise frustrated. I hope I'd acted differently. Despite my empathy, as someone who has largely sided with RGloucester in that user's many disputes with Dicklyon, and as someone who was watching these unfortunate events unfold in real time, I disagree with Tutelary's characterization of the block as cooldown. In the moment I was cautioning RGloucester to take a break from his wild ranting on a public board, fearing a block would soon be imposed by some alert admin. I feel Beeblebrox's block of RGloucester was well-deserved, preventative and certainly within an administrator's discretion. When thanking Beeblebrox for the block I predicted talk page privileges would soon need to be revoked; Beeblebrox had already removed talk page and email access. Removal of talk privileges I thought inevitable, but IMHO removal of email was premature, but still within admin's discretion, given RGloucester's lengthy history of histrionics. I felt page protection of RGloucester's talk perfectly appropriate; that was an inappropriate place for Tutelary to hold Beeblebrox accountable. Tutelary has been around long enough now to show more competence in choosing forums, and I suspect this contributed both to the unkind words Bishonen had for the ip heckler and for Floquenbeam's choice of words in explanation quoted above. In summary, there's nothing to be done by an administrator here, except perhaps admonish Tutelary for needlessly stirring shit. BusterD (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that after rereading RGloucester's "I am not blocked" statement, the final sentence "You do not want to end up in his grasp" was the over-the-top comment that made me feel talk page access needed to be removed quickly. It clearly registered with me at the time, but I didn't remember it until rereading just now. BusterD (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - RGloucestor's history of behavior as well as the behavior which lead to this block thoroughly justified the block and the removal of talk page access. I'm less familiar with whether RGloucestor abused his e-mail privileges during previous blocks (or at any time), but I'm more than willing to trust the discretion of the blocking admin. BMK (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose From here on, the less said about this matter for the next two weeks, the better. Really. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranvirojha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created a few days ago, and has only made just enough edits to become autoconfirmed, before starting a rather odd move circus, moving both articles, including protected pages, and the user pages of other users around. So could someone please take a look at it? Thomas.W ^talk 19:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am not a vandalizing the articles . I just want to say that Mridul is my friend he told me to change his username and delete the user page and talk page. From his friend Ranvir Ojha. Ranvirojha (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranvirojha: He should have logged in himself to do that. Also, moving a user page does not change the username. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That said, it's definitely a pattern of inappropriate page moves. I've reverted several and currently have User talk:Ranvirojha move-protected

User:Mriduls.sharma is the page of a contributor blocked indefinitely. [90] So not only is the move pointless (it doesn't actually change the username), but it could easily be seen as an attempt at block evasion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... the "my friend" thing also doesn't explain why the article Prakash Raj was moved back and forth. He's also continuing his move circus, most recently moving his own user pages to another name. Thomas.W ^talk 19:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and moving pages belonging to other contributors, including one that Mriduls.sharma was in dispute with. Obvious sock is obvious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy you are so smart mama will so proud of you. apna to chutzpah ho gaya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranvirojha (talk • contribs)

That's certainly not a denial. Obvious sockpuppet is blocked obvious sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can obviously still trust my "gut feeling"... Thomas.W ^talk 19:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the most recent WP:Sockpuppet investigation I started on User:Cali11298, Vanjagenije stated, "You are not allowed to revert other user more than three times just because you believe he is a sockpuppet of blocked user." Binksternet went to Vanjagenije's talk page to comment about this, making it clear that a WP:Sockpuppet does not have to be confirmed as a WP:Sockpuppet by a WP:CheckUser to be WP:Blocked as a WP:Sockpuppet. I asked Vanjagenije to de-archive the case so that I could make it clear that not only did I not break the WP:3RR rule because I did not revert more than three times (I reverted twice; a WP:Dummy edit is not a revert), but because reverting WP:Blocked or WP:Banned editors is a WP:3RR exemption. WP:Blocked does not simply apply to the account(s); it applies to the person; same goes for WP:Banned. I told Vanjagenije, "There is a need to de-archive since you accused me of breaking the WP:3RR rule when I did not, and when you are misapplying the WP:3RR policy, which will be believed by less experienced editors. I knew that the editor in question was a WP:Sockpuppet; an editor would have to be an idiot not to know that he is a WP:Sockpuppet. Editors (including WP:Administrators) revert obvious WP:Sockpuppets on the basis that they are WP:Sockpuppets all the time. I am one of those editors." Vanjagenije has insisted that this latest WP:Sockpuppet of Cali11298 is "not obvious at all." I beg to differ.

I still want the case de-archived so that the investigation is not left on the belief that I violated WP:3RR and should not have repeatedly reverted the latest Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet -- Thefiremanx6 (talk · contribs). Cali11298 already misapplies Wikipedia's rules, and acted like I had no right reverting him as Thefiremanx6; the last thing Wikipedia needs is for him to continue believing that he can disrupt Wikipedia all he wants and that he cannot be reverted even in cases where it is blatantly obvious that he is a WP:Sockpuppet. He will try to use Vanjagenije's statement against me, just like he tried to use a WP:Administrator's words against me when commenting as Owlman2015 (talk · contribs). If Vanjagenije will not de-archive the case so that the record is set straight, I ask that Vanjagenije at least strike through that part of the comment. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This reaction by Flyer22 seems hot-headed to me; I don't particularly see the need to de-archive the SPI case just so that one comment can become the seed for a distracting sidebar. I think it would be easy enough for Flyer22 to take the talk page discussion in stride, to note that Vanjagenije disagrees with the position of Flyer22 and myself, and move on. Certainly it would be good to get clarification about whether an obvious sock can be reverted over and over without worrying about 3RR, even when the SPI case has not concluded. Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, thanks for commenting. Yes, I am upset. Perhaps that is why I cannot see this as an overreaction. Or it could be that I know how this WP:Sockpuppet is, and that I simply don't like being wrongly accused on a record where no rebuttal from me is seen. I am inappropriately characterized on record in a WP:Sockpuppet investigation archive, one that will be analyzed by the WP:Sockpuppet in question and misapplied by that WP:Sockpuppet and possibly others. Even if not de-archived, it is not asking for much that Vanjagenije strike through the offending comment. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If no de-archiving or strike-through happens on this matter, the most I can hope for is to make a note of the misapplication in a future Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet investigation that I or someone else starts, since that editor will no doubt continue to WP:Sockpuppet. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, Vanjagenije has de-archived a case before at my request; well, that one was more of an implied request. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And for reasons I already made clear, Bbb23, you are the wrong person to be closing such matters. Your WP:Personal attack of stating that I "need to get a grip" is as out of line as the warning you gave me on my talk page regarding Cali11298. There was nothing at all being harmed by this thread remaining open. Yes, confirmation that your silly WP:3RR interpretation is wrong would be made clear by others in this section, but that would not be harming anything...except your view. Do cease interacting with me unless absolutely necessary. I would ask another WP:Administrator, one of the many that I am friends and/or acquaintances with, to revert this close of yours, but I wouldn't want to incite WP:Wheel warring. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: To close this thread the way that you did, knowing how the archive in question will be perceived, and how that WP:Sockpuppet hangs on your every word because that WP:Sockpuppet used your words to mock me, is a mess. Yes, it's so silly of me to want an error (two errors, in fact) corrected. What the hell ever. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer, please. I'm the one that closed the case and not Vanjagenije. I saw his comment to you but as I considered 3RR exemption to be a perfectly accurate description, I simply closed to forgo the drama. I didn't know this would reach boiling point. I would consider while the thread is here that others may reign in with their interpretation as to whether 3RR exemption applies.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Berean Hunter. You didn't archive the case, though. Vanjagenije did. And I made a simple request that the record be cleared up by either letting me briefly reply at the case page about the WP:3RR matter or by Vanjagenije striking through the comment about it. Either way, I only reverted that WP:Sockpuppet twice at that article. I'm too pissed right now about this, especially because I know how that comment and what Bbb23 stated above will be used by that WP:Sockpuppet. Once I study a WP:Sockpuppet as I have studied Cali11298, I know their editing styles and personality quite well; for example, in this other recent case. So, yes, I know how this WP:Sockpuppet will behave. He is watching now as we discuss this. I am in the process of cooling down about this matter, but this discussion is clearly over anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized to Flyer22 on my talk page today, few seconds before he started this discussion. Like I said in my apology, I was wrong. I accused him of braking the WP:3RR, while in fact, he did not brake it. I see no reason to de-archive the SPI case, as the case is resolved. It would be useless to continue discussing something like 3RR on that page. Flyer22, if anybody tries to use my accusation against you, feel free to point out to my apology. I believe that is enough from me. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije, I was not asking to continue discussing anything at the WP:Sockpuppet investigation; I was asking you to let me note at the WP:Sockpuppet investigation that you are wrong (about two different points). Either that, or that you strike through your previous comment. You have refused to do either, and it will never sit well with me. Comparing the aforementioned case you de-archived at my sort-of-request, this one is more important as far as clarity at the case page goes. That stated, I accept your apology. And I am female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several of us have been trying to explain how things work to Davew123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who may not understand (e.g., editing talk page archives [114] and others' user pages [115], [116]), or may be choosing to not listen (e.g., [117]). He has been creating articles (e.g,. Draft:Nonex [118], Domain validation) and editing articles (e.g., TV Everywhere) to include, either unsourced or from what appear to be self-published sources, references to his own own patents (e.g., [119], [120], [121]).

After being warned about his actions at User_talk:Davew123#April_2015, and informed about WP:COI [122], he attacked @Beeblebrox:, resulting in a recent ANI report [123] and then a block [124] by @Nihonjoe:.

Now that his block has expired, User:Davew123 is back to his same pattern of behavior, adding references to his own work to articles [125], and referring to the "fraud office [having] some questions for you”, with edit summary "Mafia crooks 0%" [126], which appears to be a personal attack. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Session (computer science) still contains stuff he added years ago, again sourced only to himself. 80.189.137.19 (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it [127], thanks. Any others? JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more, two on other language Wikis:

• Weak reference - someone else fixed [128]
• Chinese Wikipedia article “Weak references” - not fixed - still in subsection Java.
• Czech Wikipedia article “Session” - also not fixed, in section Session Management on the Web server fixed JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wain says: All of my articles/amendments are factually correct. Note that commercially sensitive information is not normally published in academic papers. Most of my contributions are backed up with fully granted patents, which is a very exacting process. Other articles such as Moon Elevator (which has not yet been submitted) are designed to be fun and educational. Please read the content because it is thought provoking and correct. Davew123 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave,

Thank you for your civility in this response, and also thank you for not edit warring to restore the reverts of your recent article edits.

• Other than your initial contributions to be auto-confirmed, your contributions to English Wikipedia and other wikipedias have been to add text referring to your your work. Per WP:COI, “COI editing is strongly discouraged. It risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and groups being promoted (see Wikipedia is in the real world), and if it causes disruption to the encyclopedia, accounts may be blocked. "[M]isrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity" is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. The Foundation's terms of use are Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:Terms of use”.
• These additions have either been unsourced or have been self-published. Per WP:SPS, “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.”.
• Finally, that you assert your additions are all factual is insufficient for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

So, what can you do? You could go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to see if references to your patents would be considered reliable. I don’t think so, but I defer to those who volunteer there. Alternatively, you find a published journal article or book that refers to your work. The details you mention are not necessary, but that a 3rd-party or peer-reviewed journal published, vice yourself, is important. Finally, if you really think that the addition of reference to your work adds appropriately (see WP:UNDUE) to a given article, go to the talk page and make a note why it should be added, rather than adding it yourself. Otherwise, your additions are going to be viewed as purely WP:PROMOTIONAL.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fraud office comment should attract an immediate block per WP:NLT. At the minimum, it is a blatant attempt at chilling discussion. Blackmane (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the previous ANI discussion (it still hasn't been archived yet as of this writing), people were already talking about possible WP:NOTHERE issues. Vague legal threats really don't help his situation any. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The overwehelming impression I get from this user is that they have absolutely no intention of even trying to learn how Wikipedia works, and have decided that instead they are going to make Wikipedia work the way they imagine it should. They also seem to enjoy throwing around inflammatory terms and phrases simply for effect without even considering if their remarks make any sense (i.e. the "no ethical or ethnic fraud" remark which is complete gibberish but sounds insulting) They also don't seem to get the distinction between the community and the WMF, which is what all that "fraud office" nonsens s is about. I don't believe they are here to help build an encyclopedia, they are here to show off their patents. They have done nothing but write about their own patents and show utter disdain for every other user who tries to explain things to them, rejecting their help with rudeness and insults. You can't collaborate with someone who doesn't care how this works and has nothing but contempt for pretty much everyone here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to me a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Blocked for a further week.  Philg88 ^♦talk 21:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As he made still more threats after the block I have extended it to indef. the threats were pure nonsense but threats they were, and he had already been explicitly warned to stop making them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following edits made by GogoLive123 (talk · contribs) replaced perfectly sourced information wiht poorly sourced one and, in the last diff, with no sources at all. Please also note that tha user seems to have a problematic behaviour at different Bulgarian airline articles (BH Air for example [149]).

• [150]
• [151]
• [152]
• [153]

All the above diffs have been reverted. Please also note that the user is not using the article talk, where I started a thread regarding the matter.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here? There's another edit made by the user [154] which shows their only intention is to push their preferred version. This last edit is unsourced as well.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better off taking this to WP:ANEW – you'll probably get faster results over there. --IJBall (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to take a look at this [155]. I've promptly removed it from my talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taken to WP:ANEW as suggested [156], but left this thread open too. This is not a matter of just warring but also introduction of unsourced content and therefore a violation of basic policy.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: GogoLive123 blocked for 36 hours at WP:ANEW by CambridgeBayWeather. Will probably need an eye kept on this editor after the block expires, as per: Jetstreamer's other concerns... --IJBall (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two days ago, I agreed to an IBan between myself and User:Alansohn. The details are on my talk page here. So far, this has given me two days without having every edit I make to New Jersey messed with by this editor. Then today, he changed one of my edits here. There was nothing wrong with my edit, and he had no reason to change it. It just has to be his way! This is the annoying stuff I hoped would stop with the IBan. Thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Alansohn's term were exactly the same as Magnolia's, it appears he has left you no choice but to give him a block. John from Idegon (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(non admin observation) The section hasnt even been archived yet link. It looks like a clear violation of the second restriction. AlbinoFerret 02:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be it Nominated that a limited one-year interaction ban of the following terms apply equally to Alansohn and Magnolia677, to continue indefinitely unless both parties ask to have it removed in no less than 12 months or each 12 months thereafter:

(1) Neither party shall mention the other, directly or indirectly, explicitly or by implication, on any page, except once as necessary and with supporting diffs on the WP:ANI board for reporting violations of the IBAN.

(2) Either party may edit the same article space or article space talk page, except that neither party shall either directly revert the other's edits, or edit the same article until at least one third party uninvolved with either of the two has made an intervening edit. Neither party shall follow each other's user contributions.

(3) A neutrally worded and impersonal response to a question posed by one party on the talk page (which we shall assume to be a valid question, aimed at improving the article, not criticizing an editor or edit) shall not be assumed to violate the above terms. In other words, one editor may not pre-empt comments by the other editor on valid issues by being the first to bring up a relevant issue on the talk page.

(4) New Jersey is larger than some 160 nations and dependencies. Both editors are admonished to give the other a wide birth.

(5) Violation of the terms of this IBAN shall result in increasing sanctions (temporary blocks) by any admin, without further warning.

BMK (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that Alansohn clearly violated #2, "neither party shall ... edit the same article until at least one third party uninvolved with either of the two has made an intervening edit". There was no intervening edit between yours here and his here. However, since your edit was made back on December 21, and his was just made today, I think it's a mistake which could easily happen. I would suggest that Alansohn should be given a warning in this instance, and that both editors should be reminded that when they edit articles about places in New Jersey, they need to check the article history before they make the edit to be sure they aren't violating the IBan. The whole IBan thing is new to both of you, so I think a little leeway needs to be provided for this very first event. BMK (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with BMK. This is a blatant violation of condition 2. Blackmane (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No one formerly left Alansohn an ANI notice on his Talk page, and while it may be perfunctory in this case, I've just gone ahead and done that anyway... --IJBall (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually linked to both the exact terms of the ANI RfC and the blocked user listing on both editor's pages, and am surprised this has come up so quickly. I'll refrain from commenting on exact consequences, although in my case the first response was a very explicit warning, not a block. Given the edit is four months old, a severe admonition seems sufficient. Certainly any repeat would deserve a stronger response. This should be taken as a mere opinion, not an uninterested response. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I meant an ANI notice for this topic, not the IBAN (notice for which was clearly left on Alansohn's Talk page earlier...). --IJBall (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure of the difference, but I am also quite sure neither editor is confused as to what's going on, and both can read edit histories. My personal opinion would be to leave it to an admin and advise leniency on such an occasion, but it is only an occasion. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look through my edit history, and you'll find that much of what I do is done using AWB, running through series of articles to make multiple enhancements to each article. In advance of editing articles for CDPs, almost all of which I created, I did this search and removed any article from the processing list that Magnolia677 had edited that came up in the search. This included Manahawkin, New Jersey, New Egypt, New Jersey, Lopatcong Overlook, New Jersey, Cherry Hill Mall, New Jersey and Marlton, New Jersey, plus a number of other articles that I had edited after he did, mostly undoing his stalking. Every one of the article I have edited since the interaction ban is one that I have either created or previously edited often on dozens of occasions. On the other hand, since the interaction ban, the other editor has gone out of his way to edit articles he has never edited before, including Manahawkin, Cherry Hill Mall, Garfield, Lafayette Township and Lopatcong Overlook. The articles selected are edited entirely at random, without reason and without purpose, other than as further stalking. Even more disturbingly, he has stalked my talk page discussions, announcing here a discussion that was begun on another page that involved me and another editor.

Apparently, I did inadvertently edit the article for Marksboro, New Jersey, despite making every reasonable effort to avoid potential conflicts, including a check of edits that goes back four weeks before the interaction ban.

On the other hand, the other editor has gone out of his way to edit articles that I have edited before, most of which he has never edited before and for which the only apparent reason appears to be continued stalking. Whether this is a violation of the "wide birth [sic]" clause of condition 4 or if this is what WP:HOUNDING describes as "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.", it seems to me that this other editor is going out of his way in bad faith to manufacture potential conflicts.

I will redouble my efforts to avoid conflicting edits in every sense of the letter and spirit of this interaction ban, as I have for months. It appears that the other editor has no intention of avoiding conflict.

I had hoped that the harassment will end with the IBAN; It seems that it's only beginning. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my opinion you've committed any grave sin, but the problem is you've got to be careful. The consensus above seems to be that you don't deserve more than a warning. I've gotten such warnings myself. The good part is that it you are very careful you can avoid such warnings entirely, and be justified in asking for blocks. Don't protest too much! μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not protesting the warning; I'm pointing out the pattern of harassment on the part of the other editor. I think it would be useful to get clarification from this editor as to why he has gone out of his way to edit articles that I created / edited, which he had never edited before.

Why Manahawkin?

Why Cherry Hill Mall?

Why Garfield?

Why Lafayette Township?

Why Lopatcong Overlook?

Why on earth is he stalking my talk page discussions?

If these are not explicit violations of the Interaction ban clause 4 "Both editors are admonished to give the other a wide birth" and this isn't malicious harassment, I have no idea what is. Let's hear from the other editor before taking action. Alansohn (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agreed to this IBan, and so far the other editor has violated it 3 times: here and here and here. When I report it, he says I'm wikihounding and editing in bad faith. Oh my. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The persistent bullshit continues. After a series of bad faith edits to articles he has never edited before and stalking of my talk page edits, he filed this ANI report in blatant and deliberate effort to manufacture an excuse for the block he has been looking for since he started editing these articles. While this is going on and after he had been notified multiple times that his edits constituted harassment, he deliberately jumped into the sequence of articles I have been editing, including both Robbinsville CDP (for which I did a self revert, as he had deliberately tried to create an IBAN violation) and Seabrook Farms (which I was about to edit). Can someone get this WP:DICK off my back? Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know what, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that both of you people seem to be hell-bent on getting yourselves site-banned permanently, which is (this is a prediction) what is going to happen eventually if you both don't shut the fuck up about each other and start editing the encyclopedia without bothering the rest of us. Really. BMK (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)And since the previous edits, he's gone on to edit Zarephath, yet another CDP article that he has never edited before, yet another violation of the "wide berth" clause. Now I will "shut the fuck up" and give everyone her the opportunity to review the edits in question. Alansohn (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Non-administrator comment) BMK, I agree that both users are probably heading for blocks if they don't stop going at each other, but your telling them to "shut the fuck up" wasn't exactly the wisest choice of words either. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm certainly more prone to senior moments than I once was, but I almost always choose my words with great care, and these were precisely the words that I thought were most appropriate in the circumstances. If someone wants to make an issue of that, rather than focus on the increasingly disruptive behavior of Magnolia677 and Alansohn, so be it. BMK (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Morgan Evans (born 1995) (talk · contribs)'s creation of "article" Morgan Norbury, which also contains a photoshopped image of Pres. Obama and had been started with the edit-summary "Not much to see here, admins."[157], suggests rather trollish behaviour. The same user has also uploaded the cited nonsense image (File:Obama 4-20.png), currently shown in the "article", to Commons, where it has already been requested for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is some 4-20 humor. We should be on the lookout today for more of this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I didn't even realize the date. (sighs) At least it's not as much of a joke AfD magnet as April Fool's can be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of his other edits have been minor and even then he's still done some vandalism as with this edit (among others) to Ysgol Dewi Sant. I'm going to go ahead and block him for vandalism. His non-vandalism edits aren't major enough to where I think he'd really contribute to Wikipedia, although if he can convince another admin otherwise then he may be unblocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note- it looks like his work wasn't limited to just 4/20 and he'd been doing things like this for a while now. A shame- it looks like he didn't start off as vandalizing, which is likely why he didn't get blocked until now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm requesting admin sanctions against 96.255.215.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This is the third time I'm aware of that this editor (aka "Destructive Destroyer vandal"), who typically edits from Verizon FiOS IPs geolocating to Gaithersburg, Maryland, has been brought to ANI. Previous attempts [158][159]

Other IPs suspected of using:

• 108.48.144.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Gaithersburg, Maryland, US; Verizon FiOS
• 108.48.85.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Gaithersburg, MD; Verizon FiOS
• 108.51.173.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Gaithersburg, MD; Verizon FiOS
• 108.10.240.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - La Quinta, California; Verizon FiOS - this one is weird since it's on the other side of the country. I believe SummerPhD found this one.

There's a significant overlap, between these two IPs, for instance.

Anyhow, most recent edits have been problematic. User's MO in the past has been to include redundant and overly embellished prose "waist-length curly, bushy, and bright fiery orange mane of hair", "slender, slim body", "As an eighteen-year old teenager", etc. When confronted, the editor typically deletes talk page notes without replying, which they are doing from this latest IP. Editor has most recently been warned for:

• Not adhering to British English in articles on British subjects like here.
• Disruptive editing related to repeated submission of improper MOS:HEAD and MOS:DATERANGE formatting [160][161][162]
• Another warning to adhere to British spelling in British articles. [163][164][165]
• Submitting unsourced, speculative content, for instance here where again we have MOS:HEAD and MOS:DATERANGE problems. Also they're contravening WP:CRYSTAL.
• Blanking at Downton Abbey here.
• Another warning for MOS:DATERANGE and MOS:HEAD because of repeated mistakes at Winx Club [166][167].
• Editor also has been apprised that removing talk page warnings is proof that the editor has read them and understands them.

It keeps going on. The editor clearly has no interest in community preferences, participating in discussion, or making compromises, only POV editing. Their silence says loudly that they're not here to take part in a community project. I also believe that given their history of disruption, they are either here to be disruptive, or they lack the competence critical to editing in a manner consistent with Wikipedia standards. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently the same person. Blocked for a month, though they will no doubt be back in due course. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While I have run across, stumbled upon and encountered this editor, I think 108.10.240.190 is a different problem, the "Fictional ages editor(s)". This editor(s) is focused on assigning ages to characters in various kids'/family TV shows (Full House (particularly the season articles), Winx Club, Little Einsteins, 64 Zoo Lane, etc. I say "editor(s)" because the edits are very similar, but the IPs are all over the U.S. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Summer, I've stricken that IP above. I may have gotten confused skimming an old ANI. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Cleaning up after this editor on a daily basis has become a major drain on my time and an ongoing frustration, and I see that others are similarly impacted. This IP disregards repeated requests to adhere to WP:ENGVAR (specifically WP:RETAIN) in British articles (particularly those related to the Downton Abbey series), and the behaviour continues. I have left a series of notices followed by warnings increasing in level, all to no avail. In addition to the spelling and punctuation style changes I have reverted (I'm never sure I have spotted them all), this editor seems to take liberties with content and with the deletion of citations; others have been dealing with those changes. Please protect the articles, as well as easing the load on the hardworking "cleanup squad", by imposing, at the very least, a topic ban of the IP from articles using British (or non-US) English, broadly construed. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, Bgwhite[171] and Magioladitis, both non-neutral parties attempted to remove any message or note that would indicate Kumioko as a sock on the talk page of HJ Mitchell, thus violating the WP:TPG.

Magioladitis has abused rollback.[172]( Magioladitis has recognized this as "mistake".[173] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log))

I don't see what is the reason behind that. Even after this extended and serious discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review, where he was provided standard offer, Kumioko has violated this standard offer multiple times, also check this SPI. And he continues to make up meaningless conspiracies about Arbcom. His ban should be reinstated now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just reverted comments of 3 admins asking you to stop. One more admin reverted your edits. If you keep disruptive editing I'll block you from editing. Consider this as a warning. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except when the comment includes some inflammatory stuff, you can remove them. But when you are removing the comment from others talk page just because you don't like, then it is vandalism. Yes you are causing disruption Magioladitis. Noteswork (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking it personally because of your heavy involvement (WP:INVOLVED) with me and Kumioko, but that is not going to justify that he is a ban-evader. You are not allowed to edit others comments or remove them as long as it is not your talk page. Have you read WP:TPG carefully? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo reverted your edits too. Bishonen left you a message too. How many admins does it take that you stop without a block It's not personal. I am trying to save you. I also left you a message to read WP:HELP in case you need extra help to familirise with this site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs) 09:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one person did something wrong, it doesn't means that you are allowed to abuse rollback. Well you even present Beeblebrox like they are supporting Kumioko,[174] when Beeblebrox refer Kumioko as a "ban evading troll".[175] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a totally non-involved user: Just drop the stick, because this is getting ridiculous. We're here to create an encyclopaedia, not to pursue personal vendettas all over the place. Especially not on other users' talk pages. Thomas.W ^talk 09:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support Kumioko neither in his actions. I do not support you neither in your crusade. I made this clear in the emails you 've been sending me too, -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given your history and recent acts, you do. I haven't sent you any emails related to this incident, what you are talking about? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, Magioladitis and I warned you in the reverted comments on your talk page. Beeblebrox told you. Nick has reverted you today. Ponyo has reverted you today. That is five admins that have either told you to stop or reverted you. You still haven't explained why you left a discretionary sanctions warning on Magioladitis's talk page. This comes on the heels of you not backing off the sockpuppet cases against Zhanzhao and the others you suspected. You pissed off all the SPI clerks. You have been told untold times to drop it and back off. Bgwhite (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox told that one can retrieve the comments of banned editor if they are completely removed. Ponyo didn't reverted for that reason. Thus you are using all of these examples except yours and Magioladitis in completely wrong context. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

Nick told that he is not going to increase block length. Bishonen told it differently. They are not saying that this is not allowed. They are acting within their limits while you are crossing them, by removing the comments on others talk page, when they are alerting about a banned editor. You have also edit warred with Fram on the talk page of Kumioko before. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OZ, HJ Mitchell told you that "if you don't like the IP or you find them boring, just ignore them". -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell didn't knew then that it is a sock, and didn't knew that it is Kumioko. Thus your misrepresentation is likely not going to work. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]