Hello, this is pretty much my first time posting at ANI. Basically, A35821361 seems to be only here to criticise the Baha'i Faith and to attack it. His response to being blocked for edit warring was to blame the "members of the Baha'i Faith" for it. He also complained about how "While 36 hours is a brief time to be banned, this complaint is a pattern of intimidation by members of the Bahá'í Faith on those who wish to shed light on historically accuracy, which is not always the narrative sanctioned by the Bahá'í Administrative Order" -- quote from the diff I've linked to, [1], I humbly submit this editor is clearly NOTHERE. I'm sorry for how poor my post looks...just not the best at this.79.66.4.79 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your diff doesn't work, and I can't figure out what you intended. Please create a diff the way it says here. Also, it might be useful to mention which article he was edit warring on. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Fixed the diff, and A35821361 was edit-warring on the Baha'i Faith page. 79.66.4.79 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A diff from May is not indicative of a current problem. However, poking into User:A35821361's contrib history, I'm not sure WP:NOTHERE is the right issue, but it does look like A35821361 is hostile to Baha'i, and is prone to edit-warring. I don't want to step into this mess, but think some admin or another should. They should probably also notify the user. Argyriou (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank Argyriou (talk) for mentioning my username here, otherwise I would have no inkling that this discussion was underway. In any case, it is true that I frequently contribute to topics related to the Bahá'í Faith. As my contributions are sourced from objective, third-party references they are not always in concordance with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá'í Administrative Order. This has often led to the reversion of these contributions and allegations that they are somehow "hostile," when in fact they are unbiased. If you read the continuation of the quote which 79.66.4.79 (talk) has linked to above, it continues, "In fact, this intimidation has led several prominent academics to leave or be ex-communicated by the Bahá'í Administrative Order (see Juan Cole, Abbas Amanat, Denis MacEoin, and Ehsan Yarshater)." It saddens me that these tactics are now attempted in Wikipedia. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a wikipedia contributor, but just thought i'd chime in to say that some of your first contributions included an entirely uncited claim that Baha'u'llah sold slaves to pay off debts with zero sources, neutral or hostile, given. Getting better at finding citations to support an editorial agenda does not make that editorial agenda cease to exist. None of those academics was actually excommunicated or claimed to have been excommunicated, the closest thing would be Juan Cole claiming to have been threatened with excommunication (with the only source for that claim being Cole himself).UrielvIII (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a Wikipedia editor", indeed, considering that was your first edit. How did you find your way here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I lurk pages I'm interested in, (feel I don't have the writing/citing ability to contribute up to wiki standards though), user in question is a fairly active contributor in a lot of them so I've been lurking his contribution log as well (apologies if that's against wikipedia policy. Feel free to delete if it is).UrielvIII (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A35 certainly seems to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I have a theory as to why he so antagonistic to Baha'i, but that would be casting aspersions. Suggest a topic ban. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP you're using began editing today, but you've been around: you know about WP:casting aspersions, for instance. If you have an account your normally edit with, you should have filed this complaint with that account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I previously brought this up at the noticeboard here and got no response. I later tried more specific complaints about biographies of living persons here and here, also with no response. I think A35821361 was successful at scaring away any admins from looking past the surface by simply declaring himself to be unbiased. Anyone looking through edits and talk pages would recognize deception, but that takes time. The edit warring on biographies of living persons is still ongoing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome anyone to look at my edit and contribution history to Wikipedia, and compare it to the edit and contribution history of other editors on the same articles. Aside from being sourced from objective, third party sources, my edits and contributions are entirely compliant with the guidelines of Wikipedia. On the other hand, one should consider what the objectives of some of the other editors are. For example, Cuñado ☼ - Talk has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and called me a "deceitful attacker" on my talk page. More recently, there has been systematic reversions and deletions to the biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing institution of the Bahá'í Faith whose decisions are deemed infallible by believers. The reason given for these reversions and deletions are that the members of the Universal House of Justice lack notability, when in fact in addition to their religious service to the Bahá'í Administrative Order many these individuals have led successful careers as academics, authors, artists, actors, and the heads of award-winning NGOs. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

This is comical. If there is an admin listening I'd be happy to lay out in detail why A35821361's last comment is deception (maybe delusion?) in line with how he has behaved for the last 9 months. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornton Chase may be of interest. Smkolins (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the article for Thornton Chase and the discussion for the AfD is demonstrative. Thornton Chase was an insurance salesman and is only covered in subjects relating to his position as the first convert to the Bahá’í Faith in the United States to have remained a Bahá’í. He does not pass any other notability guideline. None of the coverage is independent, as it all comes from Bahá’í sources, and priod to the AfD proposal almost entirely from one book written by a Bahá’í. This contrasts sharply with the articles of the members of Universal House of Justice members that have been systematically deleted, which were sourced from multiple different sources regarding various accomplishments of the individuals covered in their respective articles. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Simply false. The biographies were stuffed with references that don't mention the person. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory look at Thornton Chase's article shows citations from a large number of independent newspapers. A skim of the contents of the article also shows that it covers his notable service in the Civil War. (although from the talk page these may have been added recently). By contrast the article for one House of Justice member, Stephen Birkland, contains citations exclusively from either Baha'i sources or Juan Cole, a former Baha'i who leveled accusations of misconduct against Birkland (the article that is not by a Baha'i or Cole only mentions Birkland by citing Cole's statements). Neither of those sources are neutral third parties. In any case the article only contains three paragraphs and could easily be merged into a larger article which is why I assume it would have been deleted (although I can't say that for certain) UrielvIII (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair the Chase article has been developed a ton since it was nominated. But A35821361's skills as a researcher and knowledge are far from mundane. I didn't have to look hard at all for many obvious third party sources. And that's aside from simply looking at the footnotes of Dr. Stockman's research. A35821361 didn't bother while he/she is perfectly willing to spend a great deal of time researching very obscure people for possible personal relationships to other things and beyond. In short he'd rather delete the article on Chase and work on some of these others even if many people agree that Chase is notable and the others several people have found unfounded. Smkolins (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's his prerogative to work on whatever he wants. There is nothing wrong with nominating for deletion. BTW, great job improving the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've always tried to research up rather than dismiss down. It's odd to me that he creates the Robert Stockman article and then dismisses a key subject of Stockman's research for decades. Smkolins (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For added context, it appears the user in question has posted to the following website accusing people of censoring him: https://bahaicensorship.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/bahai-faith-and-slavery-an-example-of-how-bahais-control-information-on-wikipedia/

The most obvious differences between the version of the article in the link and the current "censored" version on wikipedia are that the entirely unreferenced and unsupported claims that Baha'u'llah sold a slave to pay off debts and that attempts were made to have the book 'Black Pearls' suppressed have been removed.

My own thoughts from some browsing the talk pages of some of the more contentious Baha'i articles are that terms like 'official narrative' and 'excommunication' have been used which paints a picture of a point of view being oppressed and marginalized. However repeatedly editing pages to add content deleted/edited by others, dropping out of discussions on said edits/deletions rather than arguing ones point of view until an agreement is reached and adding inflammatory uncited information an is not a reasonable way to participate in a collaborative project.

To my knowledge Baha'is don't actually hold any positions of authority over wikipedia, with everyone being on more or less equal footing, making accusations of censorship and prosletyzing on a third party website seem counterproductive if the goal is to contribute to an unbiased tone on wikipedia. UrielvIII (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I have heard of this web page. The content therein I had shared on Reddit, relating to a discussion on Bahá’í censorship and information control. The owner of the web site you linked to must have cut-and-paste the content from Reddit into his website. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which website it was published to is largely irrelevant. You have complained that you have been called a 'deceitful attacker' and your edits interpreted as hostile on wikipedia, while leveling similar accusations against people you're in disagreement with on an entirely different website rather than raising the issue in the context of an article or with wikipedia adminsUrielvIII (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, upon reading the nothere rules, your articles claims of a cadre devoted to eliminating facts to proselytize is an accusation of a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia", something against wikipedias rules. If this 'cadre' does not actually exist (which in my opinion it does not) then editing with the intention of combating their 'official narrative' would in itself constitute a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia".UrielvIII (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves. Where appropriate, I have engaged other editors in discussions on talk pages in relevant topics and articles, and if you have read them, you will note that topics such as Bahá’í review, censorship, information control, and the posthumous editing of literature^[1] have on occasion been discussed when relevant. What is ironic is that the endeavor of building a comprehensive encyclopedia is undermined not by my efforts but by those of individuals who engage in such practices as ensuring third-party referenced information is eliminated to bring articles in-line with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá’í Administrative Order and by their wholesale deletion of the articles related to the individual members of the Universal House of Justice under the pretenses (in my opinion wholly false) that these individuals do not meet notability standards. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you keep saying that you're crusading against an "officially sanctioned narrative" with unbiased edits doesn't make it true. Accusing people of deleting under false pretenses is casting aspersions. UrielvIII (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For added context here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_and_slavery&oldid=737879646 is one of your first contributions which was edited, it includes these sentences with no citations:

"Bahá'u'lláh officially condemned slavery in 1874, by which time he had actually sold a slave to pay debts.", "a book that, despite efforts at censorship by the Bahá'í Administrative Order, was published by the independent Bahá'í publishing company Kalimát Press.". Your inclusion of these false and baseless claims with no sources shows that at the very least you haven't always been committed to defending third-party sourcing, although your commitment to 'exposing' the "officially sanctioned narrative" has remained constant, sources or no. UrielvIII (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also for context, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gustavo_Correa talkpage on one of the UHJ articles includes a discussion from a month ago of your sourcing, where you're accused of misrepresenting what your cited sources contain. You have not tried to contest the accusation. UrielvIII (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for even more context, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A35821361#Good_morning discussion on your talk page pretty much sums up every other discussion you've had regarding your Members of the UHJ pages, you only imply that the fact you are correct is self evident, offer very little reasoning for why that is the case and then drop out of the discussion when counterpoints are raised. That behaviour is not conducive to cooperatively making an encyclopedia.

Your lack of willingness to co-operate with certain editors may be tied to your accusations in your article (linked above) of a secret cadre existing to proselytize on wikipedia, so we're back to that point you didn't address. If you are actively seeking to combat a group is that not a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia"? Conspiracy theories about the Bahá’í Administrative Order pushing a narrative don't prove that you are unbiased, if anything, the fact you bring them up to justify your edits makes you seem very biased. UrielvIII (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Among the examples of problems that may be of interest in this thread is:

• lacking responding to the points raised in edit comments about material attributed to living people. See my edits for example at [2]. It was my understanding that rather than leave the contentious material in the article and tag it with a citation discussion that material on living people should be deleted and discussed to reach consensus. The discussion went precisely nowhere. And this is related to a network of articles that push something A358 really wants out there, judging from the level of engagement, against the input of multiple editors and been going on for a long time.
• There has also been some mis-attibution of sources in the case of the Kiser Barnes article and was part of the discussion of why that article was deleted. See [3]. A358 did not participate but the matter was acted on.

Perhaps people specialized in editing articles on living people should weigh in rather us having to deal with accusations like "those of individuals who engage in such practices as ensuring third-party referenced information is eliminated to bring articles in-line with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá’í Administrative Order and by their wholesale deletion of the articles related to the individual members of the Universal House of Justice under the pretenses (in my opinion wholly false) that these individuals do not meet notability standards." Smkolins (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past couple of weeks, there have been a couple of articles about cricketers that have been taken to AfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer). During these, Bobo192 (hereafter referred to as Bobo, as displayed in signature) has repeatedly made assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. First, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston:

• Against Premeditated Chaos Bobo repeatedly called this user a "vandal". [4] [5]
• Kept commenting over and over with the same things and accusing others of acting like children, for merely opposing his point of view. [6]
• Then, across both AfDs harrassing Reyk, saying that their "opinion is invalidated" [7], that they were having a "childish temper tantrum" [8] and accusing Reyk of "baiting" people [9].
• At the second of these discussions, Bobo also interacted with BlackJack, making demeaning comments about the AfDs and the people taking part in them; "How long has this lasted without having been argued with on this petty a level?", "an article is therefore deleted based on undefined "rules of thumb" and the lack of "basic details" - when the article so painfully obviously passes WP:CRIN criteria", "Note how something as idiotically woolly and contradictory as WP:GNG didn't exist back then as an apparently legitimate delete vote criterion".

For the sake of clarity, I !voted against Bobo in one discussion, and with him in the other. I feel that in these AfDs, Bobo struggles to debate without resorting to personal attacks and demeaning comments. Harrias ^talk 18:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As regards Whitehead, the nominator has admitted that he misunderstood the notability guideline and has removed his key reason (i.e., non-compliance) for raising the AfD. Bobo was certainly right to defend the guideline in that case because the subject is undeniably notable. Although I do not think Cranston should be deleted, I admit it is much more borderline. In my opinion, Bobo has been provoked by the attitude of Reyk whom I personally think crosses the WP:NOTHERE line – he was reported to ANI earlier this year, by Lugnuts for that very reason. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I agree that Bobo is not taking the existence of opposing views well at all. There's no doubt that he's been badgering participants in those AfD's and trying to bait me in particular into an outburst. I'm not sure why he's singled me out and, though I've made an effort to remain completely civil in the face of this provocation, I do not appreciate being called a liar and a hypocrite. As for an administrative remedy, I would suggest limiting this user to one !vote on individual cricket-related AfDs, and no replies, for a couple of months. It may be that his behaviour will improve once he's accepted that other opinions can legitimately exist. I suggest it's even time to examine WikiProject Cricket as a whole; it's easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia (at least since the ARS faded into obscurity), with a lot of OWNership issues and the same ultra-defensive rhetoric we've seen here. I can think of at least two editors of that WikiProject with the same behavioural issues. Reyk _YO! 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you have a grudge against WP:CRIC which has been evident in comments made by you in at least three AfDs. Your opposition to WP:CRIN, our notability guideline which is part of WP:NSPORTS is worryingly unreasonable, given its wide acceptance by the vast majority of editors and administrators. This is why you are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be NOTHERE – our impression is that you are trying to disrupt our project. Comments like "easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia" are bang out of order and I challenge you to provide a list of all the ownership issues you allege. Furthermore, who are the "at least two" CRIC members? Jack | ^{talk page} 19:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully asking the same question. Who are the "at least two" members with "behavioural issues"? I refuse to descend into namecalling but at the end of the day, if you make a claim and you can't back it up, then the claim is invalid. If you are unable to provide their names here and now, especially in a conversation where I am attempting to remain as rational as possible under questioning, then I suggest you remove this accusation. Bobo. 10:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only person I can remember ever claiming I'm WP:NOTHERE to edit the encyclopedia is you. You've also previously called me a meatpuppet of User:StAnselm, round about the time you were vilifying his religion because he disagreed with you. And, of course, anyone looking at my edit history can see at a glance that the claim of being WP:NOTHERE is false. Reyk _YO! 19:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vilifying his religion? That's a new one. Even I'm not aware that I did that... evidence please. Bobo. 20:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go: User_talk:StAnselm/2015b#Apology_demanded. Reyk _YO! 20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I thought you were referring to me. Sorry. Bobo. 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing to do with "opposing views". This is to do with randomly choosing a cricketer with a single first-class appearance, saying "I don't like", and immediately tagging an article which, somehow, has survived on the site for nine years, with an AfD notice. There are thousands of other WP:CRIC articles that any other user could tag for exactly the same reason. Every single similar AfD discussion since the writing of WP:CRIN has been an utter waste of time. Bobo. 20:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start... ayyy caramba. From the top.

• Yes. As I stated on that page, the entry for Church of Jesus Christ Elvis looks like the kind of CSD G1 nonsense created by bored schoolchildren when their teacher's back is turned. I still don't believe this to be false, and I still cannot believe this is anything other than BJAODN vandalism. I considered the fact that this user even pointed out that they posted it on that very AfD discussion to be... to use a polite term, clumsy.
• My "treated like children" comment actually referred to my wish to ask genuine questions relating to notability criteria and people's continued unwillingness and/or inability to answer, having initially criticized my own judgment.
• Generally speaking, if someone has an opinion they stick to it. I was asking for genuine responses to genuine questions and didn't receive a single one. I endeavoured a courtesy ping to the person who asked the question to be the best way to get them to see the answer. Perhaps the need to ping didn't exist. I purely wanted to make sure that the page came up again when I visited. This was more for my own purposes so that I could follow my own comments on an AfD.
• If someone is against the idea of "a single game", then what is the alternate solution? "I find that this is a problem" is not a valid complaint. "I find that this is a problem and here is a solution I propose given my knowledge on the subject", is. The reason for my ping was more for my own benefit. If this was unnecessary, then I am genuinely sorry.
• If you say, "Please stop badgering!" then this feels like an affront to the user in question. And, by claiming themselves that I "may" [only have] "be[en] badgering", is a very embarrassing climbdown, having set out to make me feel two inches tall. Which was the original intent, I guess, so, job done. If the user in question had simply said, "Would you please consider rephrasing your comment?", I may have done so without a second thought.
• You and I both know that people have been sending articles similar to that of Tom Cranston to AfD without knowing the first thing about cricket, or the generally accepted notability guideline which has existed since I have been a Wikipedian, a single FC appearance is satisfactory. I always thought that as long as these criteria were met, then any complaints of the style, "but I disagree with the article because..." when it clearly meets WP guidelines, are not only unnecessary, but time-wasting.
• GNG was never cited as a deletion reasoning back when the S. Perera article was initially deleted. In that debate or any other. I still don't understand how an incredibly woolly-phrased guideline holds any sway when it is patently obvious that the article passes SNG requirements. Doesn't that make all the "Delete 'cuz GNG" comments look a tad suspicious? Bobo. 19:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer):

• "On the evidence we have access to online, the player does not meet GNG, as there is no significant coverage, what we have is purely statistical." (me)
• "Yes, I know at the end of the day WP:GNG trumps them all..." (you, Bobo)
• "This does not pass WP:NSPORT which clearly says "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline."" (StAnselm)

• As you can see, GNG clearly was cited as deletion reasoning (even by yourself, a proponent of keeping the article) in the S. Perera AfD. But to be honest, that is beside the point anyway. Harrias ^talk 20:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is and will be the first and only ever time I will quote WP:GNG within a deletion discussion. I should have said, "I know that according to other people GNG trumps them all." Frankly I was unaware GNG even existed as an apparently valid reason for deletion until a week before this discussion, when people started quoting it willy-nilly... So, poor phrasing from me, I apologize. Bobo. 20:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The irony here is that I barely even contribute to AfD discussions regarding cricketers because I'm fairly sure that all parties involved are aware of the fact that we have very easy to understand criteria for article inclusion. Bobo. 20:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to make a collective apology to all in this conversation. My frustrations are being escalated by the fact that I am going through a crappy time healthwise, and the fact that I am not taking current personal life events very well. I never do. I have personal problems which cause me to escalate every single stupid little thing to a ridiculously large level. I make absolutely zero excuse for these - the fact that these two issues have coincided is, to me and, I'm sure to everyone reading this, simply an unfortunate coincidence, and, I'm sure you can understand from my point of view, a matter of infinite frustration.

I can do nothing more than promise that, as soon as these stupid petty issues have passed, I will be back to normal, strong and ready to go, ready to collaborate, fully, on a project which every single one of us has taken to so passionately over the last several years. Without meaning to deny anyone else equal credit, all of you know that I consider Jack to be a very close friend, who has helped me with so many things over the years, on and off Wiki.

I am sorry. I never meant for it to get this far. I never intended for my frustrations to manifest themselves in such an angry way. And if you choose to take this apology as plastic, then please do. But know that in spite of all this, I still feel we can collaborate strongly together on a project until we have reached every single one of our goals. Bobo. 21:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would feel better about your apology if you would withdraw your accusations that I am a vandal with some kind of history of vandalizing Wikipedia, which I clearly am not. I fully agree that the article was stupid, but 2003 was a different, and much more stupid time. The article was still live at the time of my 2004 RfA, and no one at that time (or any other) ever accused me of vandalism for posting it, despite it being proudly listed on my then-live brag page for all to see. I mentioned it in an attempt at humor/sympathy and you used it to attack me, just as you have been attacking everyone in that AfD left right and center. Apologizing means nothing if your aggressive behavior remains the same. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I was completely willing to forget that. It was only the fact that you actually pointed it out on the AfD that I had any idea it even existed... and as I say, I was completely willing to forget. I still am. Maybe this was the kind of thing that happened when we only had, what, 200,000 articles on the site? That was how many it was when I joined. Let's not forget WP:BJAODN was still rife (not that I'm connecting the two, just pointing out something which has been long forgotten in the mists of past). Times change, article notability criteria changes. Except, not for cricket articles! And it never has. Heck, I myself even created some Test cricketers, a subset of articles which we all finished rather quickly.

My point in this comment is merely to remind myself of the way things were when I first joined 13 years ago. Very different times. But I still believe I was doing nothing wrong in creating and defending these articles. The fact that I did so in such an angry way is honestly uncharacteristic. Bobo. 22:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're misremembering on purpose, but I brought it up on my talk page and only on my talk page. You are the one who accused me of having a history of vandalizing Wikipedia as a response. You are the one who then brought it up at AfD in an attempt to smear me. You are the one who was unwilling to forget it. You are the one who still has not struck the accusation on the AfD nor admitted that it was wrong here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smear you? That's a teensy bit of an exaggeration. The fact that you willingly put your foot in it, quite another matter entirely. Bobo. 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. So your "apology" above was just as worthless as you said it was and you don't actually care about being civil to other users. Good to know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with my apology "being worthless". The fact is that in my 13 years on Wikipedia, sport inclusion criteria has moved on to a stage where we now have rules that are so easy to follow that a child can understand, and yet people going against those rules because the rules make them sad. Bobo. 07:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have the slightest impression that you're interested in actually reading anything anyone here has posted, but are you at all aware of the RfC on the NSPORTS issue from this June which closed with the conclusive statement that there is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion? You keep going on and on about everyone else refusing to follow consensus-based policy because we're either dumber than children or the rules make us sad or whatever ludicrous nonsense you decide to toss out next but as I've been saying all along, consensus disagrees with you. NSPORTS < GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRIN has always been the same and not a single person has ever rationally challenged it. Bobo. 09:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish I could drop this but it would be hypocritical of me not to say this. Added a question above regarding the "at least two members with behavioural issues". Given that this entire thread is based on my individual frustrations, to call out "at least two" individuals to this extent and refuse to name them is cowardly. I'm sure Jack would appreciate this justification too. Let's face it, if I had made the same accusations, people would probably regard it as me getting on the offensive and making a personal attack.

Reyk, I am sad that I've had to ask this question because I really thought we had reached a point from which we could move on. It should be clear to you and PMC that I consider Jack to be one of my closest Wikipedia friends, a man who knows more about cricket than anyone else I know, and, as you have both seen, a person who is courteous to the level that he is willing to defend me much more readily than I am prepared to defend myself. Bobo. 10:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• comment- check out the last thread on WT:CRIC for a good example of why the wikiproject is toxic. Gossiping and badmouthing me by the three primary people making it a toxic place. Reyk _YO! 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that's toxic, are editors with little or no understanding of a subject area wasting everyone's time with frivolous deletion nominations. Maybe they could spend their time increasing their own knowledge-base, instead of assuming things are non-notable with their ignorance of the topic. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, Lugnuts. The problem is with the users who agree with them, causing articles like S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) to be deleted - after six years as a Wikipedia article - and for two years' worth of shenanigans to follow. Everybody who knows the slightest thing about cricket knows that S. Perera is entitled to an article. Doesn't it seem weird that it took six years for someone - anyone - to say "no like, get rid"?

Anyone who knows anything about anything knows that an article will not last on Wikipedia for six years unless its subject warrants an article... we're talking basic common sense now... Bobo. 18:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - fixed the link for you Reyk otherwise people will be directed to a nonexistent page. Bobo. 16:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse the project of containing "at least two editors of that WikiProject with the same behavioural issues", if you are unwilling or unable to mention who these people are. We have been going around in circles for nearly 24 hours and haven't really gotten anywhere.

Please answer this question at the appropriate place, the statement beginning "Respectfully asking the same question." Otherwise the conversation will be fragmented. Bobo. 16:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal for closing admin. I think User:Reyk has revealed himself for what he is and should be shown the door. He is in breach of WP:NOTHERE because he seeks to disrupt constructive effort on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. His approach is confrontational and his deletion rationales are designed to twist and mislead. There is an undeniable example of this in the Whitehead AfD. His reason for deletion is "biographical article about a non-notable sports person, based on bare statistical database entries and sources so meagre that the person's full name is not even known. I think it goes without saying that WP:CRIN is way too lax in its standards if it encourages the creation of a horde of contentless microstubs like this one". The article has been expanded since then but this is the version he calls a "microstub" about a "non-notable sports person". As anyone can see, the article was a stub with an infobox and a four-line paragraph which states that Whitehead was a patron as well as a player and that he played in fourteen first-class matches, so hardly "non-notable". The bibliography shows that there are several sources, though admittedly unused before the AfD was raised. As Lugnuts said above, Reyk displays complete ignorance when making his illogical and groundless assumptions. In addition to WP:NOTHERE, I would suggest there is a WP:CIR issue too. Finally, badmouthing an entire project because he does not like us disagreeing with him is a serious breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. WP:CRIC isn't perfect but it is constructive, positive and welcoming. It is no different to any other project, no better than and certainly no worse than. Anyone who condemns an entire project as "toxic" should be expelled. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can do nothing but continue to make an honest apology. My frustration is purely down to current circumstance and I can only promise that given time, I will no longer cause the problems I have been causing. It's simply a shame that these two issues have come up at the same time that my frustrations have exacerbated themselves.

I don't think "expulsion" is the answer, Jack. There's a wonderful phrase on Wikipedia. "Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass". I believe that anyone who mangles with inclusion criteria by openly admitting to be a deletionist and pushing their own agenda is in fear of ruining the project. There is zero logic for deletionism other than "Me no likey. Get rid. lol." Project criteria for cricket are identical to project criteria for every other competitive team sport on Wikipedia. Soccer, American football, baseball, ice hockey, basketball. Why should one article suffer for the sake of a project? There is no logical connection between believing in NPOV and believing in deletionism as a philosophy. Okay, in the deep dark mists of Wikipedia I added ECC cricketers. Austria, Belgium... I forget who else off hand.

The sad fact is that there is no logical solution to the S. Perera problem. If we are purely relying on secondary sources, the large part of me assumes that we have to treat S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) and Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) as two different cricketers. And I still believe that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) provides no valid consensus when you consider the source of the deletion votes.

1. Suspicious Delete 1: Me no likey. Get rid. lol. (IP address)
2. Suspicious Delete 2: Account for which we have zero reliable information of whether the user exists and whether the nonexistent account was ever renamed because it doesn't show up as a valid rename in the logs.

Personally I think this says it all. If two of the delete votes are "IP" and "as IP" (neither of which would hold sway in a normal AfD argument), then this invalidates the AfD conversation altogether, regardless of the addresses' opinions. Couple this with the fact that by listifying the cricketers by first-class team without providing links to articles about each player is a blatant violation of NPOV. Bobo. 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do about the fact that no matter what happens from now on, there will always be at least one Kurunegala YCC player missing? Well, there are 106 redlinks still on my players list page, let alone those who have appeared for the team since. By my reckoning, there are 29 players who have played for Kurunegala YCC who have a single first-class appearance, and 162 in total. I can update the master list if you like... sometime later, my brain is fried. Bobo. 00:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly ask that question to the other participants in this conversation as well as Jack. What shall we do about this blatant violation of NPOV, such that we are allowing some cricketers with a single first-class appearance and not others..? Bobo. 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of AfD delete votes at Tom Cranston:

1. Gave him a go. Definitely notable. But get rid anyway. Even though he meets criteria, this is inconsequential.
2. This cricketer definitely passes NSPORTS. But get rid anyway.
3. Meets criteria, but "insignificant contribution".
4. A single game and a listing in a statistical database are insufficient to show notability. (No. This is precisely the point of WP:CRIN...) Bobo. 00:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Every single person reading this conversation can be certain of one thing. Regardless of your Wikipedia "philosophy", this and S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) will most likely end up being re-evaluated at some point in the future... Bobo. 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Jack, as honest and long-term contributors to WP:CRIC, what's our next step? Bobo. 00:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect, that is completely and utterly false and a complete failure to characterize anybody's !vote on that page accurately. The AfD in question is linked for your perusal here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston. A far more accurate depiction of the delete !votes on that page would be that they summarily agree that the article might (barely) pass WP:CRIN or WP:NSPORTS - for examples; may scrape WP:CRIN on basis of the one match (User:Pharaoh of the Wizards) and [t]he reliable sources provided prove that the subject passes, narrowly, the requirements of WP:NSPORTS (User:Hack), but, all decidely also agree that the article does not meet WP:GNG and that the subject is non-notable - for examples; He comprehensively fails WP:GNG (User:Pharaoh of the Wizards) and fails WP:GNG, no evidence article subject has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (User:Hack). So no, nobody is saying that he is [d]efinitely notable [b]ut get rid anyway. What utter tripe. On a less sharp note; it is highly inadviseable to try and summarize opposing viewpoints when you have a decidely obvious point of view. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bingo. This is simply a case of some people not being able to accept the existence of contrary points of view and lashing out because of it. I think it goes without saying that the above "proposal" to ban me is ridiculous, and a perfect example of the poor behaviour on the part of WP:CRIC that I've been trying to draw attention to. I'm not sure if it is intended as a genuine request to have me blocked, or merely an attempt to provoke me. If the former, User:BlackJack should start a separate subsection to make that request. If the latter, well, I'm not going to get upset if someone wants to make my point for me. Reyk _YO! 04:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a difference between contrary points of view and having had guidelines we've stuck to for nearly ten years which have done us absolutely zero harm up until now. So in other words, we will have a complete list of every single first-class cricketer... other than one which people disagreed with? How does that work? This isn't about "contrary points of view". This is about going against very easy to understand criteria which we have held to for many years.

The fact that all three of us are agreed that the article passes WP:CRIN is proof of the fact that it's not WP:CRIC members who are the ones trying to make a point. Bobo. 07:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Asking the same question down here for Reyk as I asked above. To cower away from an accusation like the fact that "at least two" WP:CRIC members have behavioural issues and to not have the cojones to tell us who they are is cowardice. Please justify this, otherwise we will slap a "citation needed" tag on it. Bobo. 07:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already answered this question above. Please stop making personal attacks. If you haven't figured out yet that I won't be baited... Sorry, but I must now concentrate on BlackJack's ban request and preposterous false accusations against me. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading the admin's closing rationale here is greatly amusing.

"Rules of thumb are precisely that and do not replace detailed examination of the article against wider inclusion criteria." (What "wider inclusion criteria"? Some kind of non-policy arguments relating to undefined personal opinions?)

"Since we do not have basic details like date of birth than it seems reasonable to give less weight to arguments for inherant notability than those arguing delete based on wider policy."

The article was deleted because we didn't know the subject's date of birth. Crazy. Bobo. 08:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This whole conversation has become a directionless mess. Summarizing my main questions so that I don't lose the points if people are willing to make them.

• If I were to add articles on the 29 Kurunegala YCC redlinks with a single first-class appearance, am I to assume they will all be deleted by people who, against years of collaboration by WP:CRIC, have suddenly decided that a single FC appearance isn't good enough?
• What is the solution to this problem if we are deciding that random cricketers with one first-class appearance will from now on be tagged willy-nilly?
• Where does WP:CRIC need to go as a project if we are forbidden from adding specific articles about specific cricketers, chosen at random, such that our main purpose of building an encyclopedia is invalidated? Bobo. 10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get back to the main point of this discussion without being distracted by the voluminous reams of red herrings above. The issue here is the behaviour of User:Bobo192 and, to a lesser extent, User:BlackJack and User:Lugnuts who have subjected me to a prolonged barrage of personal abuse for no other reason than that I disagree with WP:CRIC's standards for notability and inclusion. So far these three between them have called me a liar, an idiot, a hypocrite, a coward, disruptive, incompetent, and childish. I have been falsely accused of personal attacks, falsely accused of not being here to edit the encyclopedia, and threatened with blocks and bans. And this is after I after I attempted to withdraw from the argument, which WP:CRIC was apparently unwilling to permit. Let's not get drawn off track by the distraction of Bobo's (currently) irrelevant remarks about individual long-closed AfDs. The real questions that need to be considered are:

• Does the community accept Bobo, Lugnuts, and BlackJack as the sole arbiters of inclusion for cricket-related articles?
• Does the community accept a protracted campaign of personal abuse and harassment against me for disagreeing with those inclusion standards?

I don't accept either. Reyk _YO! 10:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You claim that there is just one topic at hand, and then you switch it to a completely different topic. Oops.

Question 1: I, Jack, and Lugnuts all voted "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer). But we are not the only contributors to the AfD conversation. So no, we are not the "sole arbiters", but the fact that we agree with each other is up to each one of us and to our own personal opinions based on long-established guidelines.

Question 2: In this AfD, you are in the minority. Your being in the minority and disagreeing with us is not the catalyst for a campaign of supposed "personal abuse and harassment". You are not against WP:CRIN for any sort of policy guidelines, just because of the fact that you "don't like" Microsoft Excel files converted to articles. Bobo. 10:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now Reyk is throwing around his own red herring. There are no "sole arbiter", we use the long-established notability consensus. So you should make yourself familar with it to avoid further embarrassment to yourself and stop wasting everyone's time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that articles like S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) get deleted in spite of clearly passing guidelines is proof enough that it's not simply WP:CRIC members who are aware of long-established notability guidelines who contribute to cricket AfD discussions. I still maintain that I believe S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer)'s AfD discussion provided no consensus, especially as two of the delete !votes were provided by users who, a, would not usually be permitted to respond to AfDs, and b, belong to an untraceable account. Bobo. 11:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Bobo wishes to appeal the result of an AfD, the correct venue is WP:DRV. This discussion is about the repeated assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks on me by Bobo and others. I repeat: is it legitimate to subject me to a long-term barrage of abuse just because I disagree with WP:CRIC's interpretation of notability requirements? Let's have some input from someone other than Bobo. Reyk _YO! 14:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to defend a broken project. If there was no such thing as "inclusionist"/"exclusionist" philosophy this wouldn't be a problem. The only problem would be when we had a bunch of new articles to add. As I say, I could write an article for any of the other 29 Kurunegala YCC players with a single first-class appearance. The hypocrisy of exclusionism is that, in spite of long-held guidelines, they would claim, "not enough"... when the article clearly passed guidelines. I'll find another team and work out stats to show that Kurunegala YCC isn't alone. Bobo. 16:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lankan Cricket Club, 114 players, seven with a single first-class appearance, all redlinks.

• Nadun Anuradha
• Pasindu Bimsara
• Deshadi Perera
• Dimuthu Ellawala
• Charith Rajapakshe
• Indunil Kumara
• Tharaka Sampath Bobo. 16:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please get an answer beyond reams and reams of off-topic commentary from Bobo? I feel as though my legitimate complaints are just being flooded out with this garbage. I repeat: is it legitimate to subject me to a relentless barrage of personal abuse simply because I disagree with WP:CRIC on inclusion and notability standards? Reyk _YO! 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in no way irrelevant and for you to label it that way and collapse my comment is disgusting. The two questions you asked above, I answered. Straight on. Nine minutes after you asked them. Seven hours ago. Your entire rationale is that you disagree with guidelines for notability and inclusion, something that, for right or wrong, WP:CRIC have defended to the hilt. Just so that you remember, at the beginning of this section, you began to question my behaviour, claimed you were keeping on topic, and then veered off-topic claiming that three WP:CRIC members were the "sole arbiters" of inclusion. Bobo. 17:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was completely' irrelevant. The purpose of the conversation is that you and your friends think it's acceptable to call people names for disagreeing with you and that you've singled me out for special abuse. It's a behavioural issue, and the behaviour of WP:CRIC has been atrocious:

• calling me childish
• and again
• calling me a liar
• calling me a coward
• calling me an idiot
• calling me NOTHERE, incompetent, dishonest, and threatening to get me blocked or banned.

Can we get someone other than Bobo to weigh in here? All that guy is going to do is continue to flood the conversation with irrelevant complaints about long-closed AfDs and lists of Sri Lankan cricketers to discourage anyone else from commenting. I still say I've done nothing to deserve this ongoing harassment. Reyk _YO! 17:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Irrelevant comments"? You know those two questions you asked? I answered them. Within nine minutes. Bobo. 18:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can see the only person who is in danger of being sanctioned here is User:BlackJack. Jack, if you continue to spray PAs like NOTHERE and CIR (not to mention "idiot" and "ignorant") about against a long-term editor who as far as I can see has done nothing but disagree with a number of issues regarding notability, you will be blocked, that is certain. If I see you do it once more, I will perform that block myself. As regards the notability issue, that is not something that is going to be argued here. Unfortunately we do have a lot of issues with local notability guidelines which don't always mesh perfectly with the global ones, but throwing abuse at anyone who disagrees with your project is not the way to do it. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I hope you don't think I'm pushing the situation aside by saying that how this conversation is going is no longer the real problem. The real problem now is that WP:CRIC has taken a massive hit by this. Not least because no matter how many articles we create we will never be able to complete our true goal of having every cricketer bluelinked as no matter what happens to the Sri Lankan cricketers, S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), which we are all treating as a different cricketer to Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) will never be created without someone slapping it with CSD G4. Someone other than me (conflict of interest and all) needs to take it to WP:RFU and point out that the player meets WP:CRIN. Bobo. 22:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all agree that this conversation has wandered from its original purpose into other subjects and topics - some of which is my fault and some not. As per a user talk page comment I plan to make to the closing admin, I am thinking of suggesting that I send S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) to deletion review based on the fact that the AfD discussion was controversial (based on guidelines) and consensus difficult to determine, and that the article passes generally accepted criteria. For which, of course, I sympathize.

What is the protocol here? Do I need to wait for a response from the closing admin before I go to DRV? Bobo. 03:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and made the suggestion here. Bobo. 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I have sent this article to deletion review as Spartaz's suggestion. Bobo. 10:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So finally we have an answer. According to the deletion review, the problem is with "inadequate sourcing". Which is an interesting one. Given that for a great deal of cricket-related Wikipedia articles, the "sourcing" is completely identical, does that mean every article is "inadequately sourced"? Bobo. 13:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have followed links to this discussion from the deletion review which I !voted on. Now I am not a major cricket editor, but I follow enough articles and have been here long enough to have a general understanding of the project. It sucks when articles you have been working on have been deleted and there is generally a bit of leeway given as emotions do rise, but this has reached an untenable point. Any outsider who looks at this is going to take a dim view of WP:CRICKET, which would be unfair as there are many good editors involved in it. At the end of the day there is no bright line on notability and different editors hold different views on what makes something notable enough to include here. If you can't except that without resorting to the level of badgering and hostility displayed above and at the linked deletion discussions then you are not going to have an enjoyable time here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is so untrue it makes me wonder what the point is of any cricketing editor continuing to work on our project. One major cricketing appearance. Nothing could be more clear. Exactly the same guideline as every single other professional competitive sport. A guideline we've been following diligently for so long that I'm sure it's not just me who is questioning what the point is of defending guidelines any more. No guideline could be clearer. Bobo. 09:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A guideline??? Really??? Where is my article? I've made one major cricketing appearance. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I respectfully suggest that we have moved so directionlessly on from questions about my conduct to that of cricket inclusion criteria that it is now the cricket project which is under more serious threat than me. There is no further point in me attempting to justify my wish to follow some of the most painfully explicit guidelines on the encyclopedia, and frankly I believe the same is true of my friends. And there is no further point in attempting to defend a project which, as is clear from recent debates, both open, dormant, closed, and thrashed like a dead horse, no longer serves its incredibly simple purpose of providing articles for every single first-class cricketer. And that couldn't be less to do with my personal conduct. Bobo. 09:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been accused of bludgeoning by David Eppstein on this page and as per advice raise a notice here. There is a dispute on this page. Recently an article about the subject of the page appeared in a prestigious academic journal to considerable publicity in 'quality' newspapers. Traffic to the page increased greatly. Some long term editors wish to exclude all mention of this article. This appears to be quite against the broad guidelines of wikipedia which says that all mainstream points of view must be represented. Various other editors have stated that the article should be mentioned. I requested comment some days ago but none has been forthcoming. 9and50swans (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify for anyone following along: Plimpton 322 is the article being discussed, not a username. (I have no other interest in this discussion beyond pointing that out).Alephb (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity I changed the title of this section 9and50swans (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reviewed the article's talk page, and this thread simply constitutes yet more bludgeoning by the OP, who possibly deserves a b... a boo... a boom... I won't say it. EEng 12:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A boom lowered on him? --(signed) Inquiring Editor

Maybe a booby prize? --Prize Patrol

Give him the boot? --Just for Kicks

Boom Bang-a-Bang? --Lulu

• as per advice raise a notice here - Where is this advice? I would be interested to see it, but just from what I see here it looks like bad advice. False accusations of bludgeoning are not actionable and may be shrugged off or resolved by respectful and civil discussion with the accuser. And this page is not for resolution of content disputes; see WP:DR. It's for actionable bad editor behavior. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing someone somewhere said the classic, "If you want to keep complaining, take it to ANI." Maybe we should have a rule against that, 'cause threads like this one are what it leads to. EEng 19:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and we can bring people to ANI for violating that rule. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. We'll have a series of meta-ANIs (ANI², ANI³, etc.). See also User:EEng#A_rolling_stone_gathers_no_MOS. EEng 20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_bludgeon_the_process#Dealing_with_being_accused_of_bludgeoning_the_process

If you think a policy is being transgressed, ask an uninvolved administrator for their opinion.

Without quoting chapter and verse Wikipedia is supposed to report all strands of mainstream opinion, and it is clearly not happening here. Mention of a recent article in a respected academic journal is being suppressed. I am rather surprised that this can happen on wikipedia. If there is no easy remedy I suggest that this brings wikipedia into some disrepute. Whatever the outcome on this I am grateful for the education in how wikipedia works, which I will pass on to others 9and50swans (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really are, as you've been told before, bludgeoning. As far as I can tell you're not gaining an education in how Wikipedia works;; rather, the only thing you seem to be learning is that you're not getting what you want. EEng 20:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case the many article talk threads, RFC, and ANI thread here weren't enough, 9and50swans has now started yet another: see WP:NPOVN#Plimpton 322. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to note to suggest we keep this open a bit longer as the OP mentioned he'd be traveling a few days, and I anticipate further trouble. EEng 17:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as if I'm in a time warp. Years ago, some editors tried their damnedest to get "In popular culture" sections banned from en.Wiki, but they failed to do so. There has never been a community consensus to remove IPC sections wholesale, but apparently User:BrightR never got the memo, and his behavior on Nude swimming has become disruptive. Two editors (myself and User:ClemRutter) have disagreed with his removal of that article's IPC section, but BrightR continues to remove it. I've invited him on numerous occasions to discuss any specific issue he may have with specific entries, [10] but he refuses to do so, simply removing the entire section numerous times. Although this is, of course, a content dispute, the issue is being brought here because BrightR's behavior has gone well past the point of WP:Disruption and has become Tendentious.

I ask for no sanctions here, simply the BrightR be told that he must discuss the issues of the entries, and that there is no consensus for the wholesale removal of IPC sections without local consensus to do so, which he does not have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant RfCs and quotes from policy that Beyond My Ken is ignoring (all presented on the talk page of the article in question):

• RfC : in-popular-culture "self-sourcing" example - Beyond My Ken participated in this RfC and was pointed to it several times. The RfC provides almost-unanimous consensus that in-popular-culture examples cannot be sourced to themselves, and require sources that explain why they're "encyclopedic".
• WP:Local consensus - Beyond My Ken repeatedly assets local consensus (or the lack of it) in order to avoid broader consensus and Wikipedia policies, as the case here.
• Both WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS (sections of WP:V) put the onus to provide citations for restoring challenged material, not on removing it. The removed material was poorly sourced, and until it is properly sourced, Wikipedia policy and RfC consensus support its removal.
• Most recently Beyond My Ken complained that I removed the image gallery. This is a separate issue, but generally galleries should be carefully-selected and are subject to consensus, but again this is a minor issue that Beyond My Ken tacked on just now.

In general it appears that Beyond My Ken is attempting to bully his way out of Wikipedia policies and RfC consensus. Bright☀ 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another little bullying trick that is specifically mentioned in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR that Beyond My Ken just used is "reverting to status quo" ("stable version") in order to avoid policy-backed or consensus-backed edits. Bright☀ 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that local consensus cannot override policy, and I've never claimed that it could. What I've claimed (pace the RfC, which was not, and can not be, binding, since it was never made part of the policy, therefore being completely advisory in nature) is that WP:V clearly says that unsourced material can (but not must be) deleted, but this IPC material is sourced by primary sources (not ideal, but acceptable nonetheless) and therefore is not in any practical sense "unsourced", since it can easily be verified by rference to the media material being cited, and therefore cannot be deleted in the manner that BrightR assumes it can.

In any case, however, AN/I is not the place for BrightR and I to repeat the same arguments we've had on the talk page. AN/I is not for the settling of content disputes, and that's not why I brought it here. The relevant question for admins and the community to consider is BrightR's behavior in continuing to remove material over the objections of two editors, without consideration that it might possibly be the case that their position is incorrect.

I have consistently said that I'm more than happy to engage BrightR's concerns about specific problems with specific items, and in that way remove any doubtful or trivial items from the list. I do this all the time, and I agree the IPC lists can grow like topsy if they're not carefully pruned on occasion. I think this is a perfectly reasonable position, but it's one that BrightR refuses to accept. I feel that we can work together, if only he would agree to actually work together and stop removing the section in toto. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• completely advisory in nature - the RfC represents consensus. Broad community consensus, by many community participants, with an almost unanimous consensus that in-popular-culture examples cannot be sourced to themselves or to passing mentions in secondary sources.
• remove material over the objections of two editors - again, local consensus does not override broader community consensus and policy.
• stop removing the section in toto - one item that was properly sourced remained. The rest are not properly sourced, and per consensus were removed. Your insistence on local consensus to override borader community consensus is the problem. Consensus is completely advisory in nature when it suits you... It's not. The issue here is your refusal to follow policy and consensus, which you have done again and again. Bright☀ 19:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• BMK: Most of that section is unsourced. Per WP:V (policy, not just local consensus), "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Please do not restore material such as this without satisfying that burden. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) I'm sorry, but that is inaccurate. A primary source is still a source. It's not a preferred source, but it's still a source.
  • (2) That's a comment pertinent to the content dispute, which you're more than welcome to join at Talk:Nude swimming. AN/I is not for determining content disputes, so it's not relevant here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your behavior in restoring material that has no footnotes at all, after their inclusion was disputed, is relevant here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why the paragraph that starts "I feel as if I'm in a time warp" was written. Has BrightR expressed opposition to IPC sections? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - EEng FTW with the Toto pic! Looks like something that should be mentioned in Ear#In_popular_culture. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 7 reverts is quite a lot, BMK. Fully support removal of these unreferenced sections per WP:V, and editors warring to replace them should be sanctioned. WP:ONUS is worth a look here. --John (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question I am often confronted with unsourced IPC sections with statements like "Toto was played by Pepe the Prawn in The Muppets' Wizard of Oz". You are not permitted to source them to the IMDb. The argument is that the film itself is a primary source for the statement, so it does not require an inline citation. My personal position is that unless the appearance is significant enough to warrant mention elsewhere, it is not worth mentioning in an IPC section. But what is the official position? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with my colleagues immediately above. It's at least once a month that I see added to a serious biography on some obscure political figure a breathless in popular culture that he's mentioned in a video game. I won't go so far as to say that In Popular Culture sections are the worst plague we have at Wikipedia. But they at least get Honorable Mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also generally require reliable secondary sourcing for such entries on the articles I've worked on (example: tesseract) not so much to verify that the concept makes an appearance, but to verify that it was central enough to whatever popcult thing it appeared in to be worthy of note. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we have WP:TRIVIA. IPC sections are magnets for truthful but random bits of information. If a secondary source has noted it, then inclusion is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to think of IPC sections as snapshots of the culture, which are of value to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such snapshots are of value only when reliable independent secondary sources take note of them, saying something like "gorgeous painting A and B movie B made significant contributions to the understanding of nude swimming in popular culture", Beyond My Ken. Otherwise, they are just poorly referenced and non encyclopedic "cruft", if you will excuse the term. Speaking personally, I find this type of content really irritating. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many pictures does it take to illustrate nude swimming?

Are there adults here willing to trim the number of images used in this article? Fifteen images to illustrate the concept of nude swimming seems excessive. We wouldn't put up with this many images in most articles of this length, so why is it ok here? Why is it that anything to do with nudity seems to be controlled by adolescent boys? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as a further note, out of those fifteen pictures, there doesn't seem to be a single image showing an older person. There is one image out of fifteen which shows a person of color. Why have so many images of the same thing: young, white people swimming nude? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different question: apart from posting on AN/I, how should an editor draw attention to a page like this? Neither WP:GA nor WP:AfD is the least bit appropriate for discussion. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have went ahead and trimmed it down further. We did not need thirteen pictures on a relatively small article. I left the most notable piece of art, which was also a featured article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and restored the images. If you wish to remove any particular image at that article, you need to reach consensus for that at Talk:Nude swimming. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barring a second discussion starting about this, FreeKnowledgeCreator, is there something that fifteen images you re-added provide that the four images I left didn't provide about nude swimming? Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, most of them appeared decorative, and distracting to the content of the article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The images cannot be "distracting to the content of the article" when they are specifically about the article's topic. Perhaps some of those images could be removed, but as noted, it is up to you to discuss which images should be removed at Talk:Nude swimming and to gain consensus for removal of those images. Please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Further discussion here serves no purpose. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FreeKnowledgeCreator: I'm not going to make any further comments or start any other discussion about this. It doesn't sound like you either hear me, or want to directly reply. So I'll leave this discussion following this post. However, "The images cannot be "distracting to the content of the article" when they are specifically about the article's topic." is inherently wrong. Staying on a similar topic, if I placed ten more images of random men and women masturbating on the Masturbation article, it is in the scope of the topic, but it's distracting and excessive. Neither this example or the nude swimming article provide enough content or context, especially for the images provided. It is true of any topic though, so just give it a go and attempt it on any other article. Most of the article images are of nude swimming art and there is minimal content, at best. One is a terrible image of a "world record" nude swimming event and it's relevant section is a couple lines. If we're in the business of taking mediocre articles and making them good or featured, then actually following the manual of style of articles that already meet that criteria would be a good start. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have a special Wikimania nude swimming gathering, but nobody would turn up because laptops aren't waterproof. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana, dip anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

says who? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have one, take pictures. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nude backstroke, nude freestyle, nude butterfly, and nude breaststroke. Count Iblis (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it distressing that we have no pictures of people engaging in nude underwater intercourse, which is an excellent nude swimming activity. Pandeist (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few people can hold their breath for long enough. Count Iblis (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People need to lay off and remember Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. WP:LAME much?--Certified Gangsta (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an article on nude swimming might have an image of someone swimming nude. That's what WP:NOTCENSORED means. It doesn't mean that we should have fifteen images of people swimming nude. Reasonable people can see the difference between editorial commonsense and censorship. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but you don't get to unilaterally decide what is "reasonable" and what is not. Just so you know, your self-appointed status as the voice of "reasonable people" and "common sense" won't win you any brownie points. The community here will decide.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You think I'm making a point about the sorry state of editorial oversight here in order to win Brownie points? That's cute. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do we even have a page on nude swimming. Is there a page on swimming in a bathing suit? Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming in a bathing suit is swimming. That's like asking why we have women's studies but not men's studies in college (hint: we do and it's called history) or why we have minority student unions but no white student unions (hint: we do and it's called fraternities) or MRA people drawing false equivalence between "men's rights" and "women's rights". The article belongs.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humorless, much? EEng 04:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7915369.stm Count Iblis (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Towel, and the Throwing Thereof

Well, clearly I ain't gonna prevail here, not when the anti-IPC editors come out in force, supplemented by those Wikipedians who avoid WP:COMMONSENSE whenever possible. It's a shame that Nude swimming will be degraded as an article, a real disservice to our readers, but such things can't be helped, I guess.

I withdraw the complaint, and BrightR can do whatever he likes with Nude swimming, at least as far as I'm concerned: I've taken the article off my watchlist, and I don't intend to edit it again.

I'll crawl back into my hovel, and begin the repeated ritual incantation of the twelfth canto of my "A personal prescription for surviving Wikipedia". Cheers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please do me a favor, I'm trying quite hard to not comment here, because it would inevitably descend into bludgeoning, since I understand your points quite well (really, I assure you that I'm not in any way intellectually disabled), but disagree with them almost entirely. I'm sure you all know that it's much harder to stay away from a place when you're repeatedly being pinged there. So, unless you're an admin who's admonishing or sanctioning me (and not simply expressing a personal editorial opinion) please avoid pinging me to this discussion. I really have nothing much more to say than I already have, and I feel certain that you don't want to hear that again anyway. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I acknowledge to the community at large that edit warring was a piss poor choice on my part to deal with the dispute with BrightR. I can plead frustration, but that's obviously never an acceptable excuse. I do realize that I'm lucky not to have been blocked, and thank those admins who may have considered it, but showed tolerance to both myself and BrightR.

My biggest regret about this whole sordid affair is that my lack of good judgment in this one incident will most likely be the only impediment to my becoming an admin in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Obviously, this isn't your ORCP, but I thought I'd note I don't consider this one discussion to be a dealbreaker for your future request(s) for adminship - no one should be expected to match consensus all the time. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Airbornemihir: Thanks very much for those kinds words, but it was sort of a joke -- I'm sorry I didn't make that more obvious in the writing. I've been pretty clear over the years that I don't want to be an admin, and, practically speaking, I think I've collected enough people with doubts about me that I don't think I would be successful if I tried. I've even said that I wouldn't !vote for me if I ran, given my record!! In any case, I'm happy contributing to the encyclopedia, despite its occasional frustrations, so simply continuing to do that is fine with me. Thanks again, your gesture was appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

Why are we in the business of hosting image of naked, identifiable, living children? One such image is still up on that page after the cull. The problems are so many that I don't know where to start. How would you feel if someone in your workplace pointed out that there was a photograph of you naked and ten years old on the sixth most visited site on the internet? A child is inherently incapable of giving consent in such an image in every jurisdiction I know of. GoldenRing (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean File:Kids skinny dipping in India.jpg. Four of the five subjects are simply unidentifiable because of the directions of their head or because of the water. And even so that the fifth is facing the camera, it's safe to say a fair amount of adults do not look like they did when they were children. Anywho, the Commons is hosting the image, they have had a deletion discussion on this before in 2010, you can head there for more information or to discuss it yourself. Here is a relevant guideline to India-specific consent, because of where this photo was taken. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, I'm sure you aren't the first person to ask that question. As Moe Epsilon points out the answer is "because we can". That seems to be good enough for Commons. The problem may be that, just like on the Nude swimming article, there is no one sensible keeping an eye on things. That's why you get images like File:Naturist girl.png (archive) and File:Naturist young girl.png (archive). Both of those were uploaded seven months ago. I don't even know if we can host those, but should we? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be of the only one who is facing the camera, you can see see about as much of the body as the infamous Virgin Killer album cover as featured in the Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia dispute. And both show less than the infamous Nevermind album cover. In neither of these cases are the people children anymore, but that wouldn't have stopped us. Actually we've even had an article on Spencer Elden since May 2005 [11] which if the DOB on the current article is correct, means since he was 14 years old. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moe Epsilon: yes, yes that is the image I was referring to. Even the guideline you cite says, publishing a photo in a manner that might be "embarrassing, mentally traumatic" or causing "a sense of insecurity about [depicted persons] activities" is illegal under the CoI article 21.. I think this image ought to fall foul of that guideline, for the reasons I gave above.

Whatever your opinion of the album covers mentioned, I think there is a clear difference between posing for the front cover of an album and having your picture taken by a stranger while swimming. My concern here is not so much people looking at pictures of naked boys, it is more in the spirit of our BLP policy of erring on the side of doing no harm to living people. The people in the photograph are presumably still living. At least one is identifiable; you might not have much luck trying to identify him from scratch, but people who know him will recognise him (and will then probably figure out who the others are easily enough). The photograph would be embarrassing to most people, I think. I certainly don't much fancy my childhood photos being posted online, much less ones of me naked. The deletion discussion at commons is pretty horrific; the idea that a child has consented to naked photographs because he appears to be smiling at the camera is wrong on so many levels that, again, I don't really know where to start. GoldenRing (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a baby less than a year old has posed for anything. Clearly someone that young has no concept of consent or even photography whatsoever and can't understand the concept of posing. In other words, if your argument in that the subject although a child may have some slightly more understanding of the implications of the decision when it was a professional work done for an album cover than if it it was some random taking photos, this falls flat when we consider babies since clearly they don't understand more of what's going on whatever the work. Instead you're saying that the parents can make the decision which means you then get a lot of complications, especially in cases where the images were e.g. at a nudist beach or other such places. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The wider issue of course is something you touched on. "The photograph would be embarrassing to most people, I think. I certainly don't much fancy my childhood photos being posted online, much less ones of me naked." Since it was an "I think", no real evidence was provided for the former especially if we are talking about the Western world (particularly parts of Europe). Personally I definitely don't want photos of me naked around although more so as an adult than as a child, but it's definitely far from a universal attitude for people to be embarassed by photos of them doing natural ordinary things like swimming as a child even if naked.

Which gets into your second point. Unless your advocating we remove all photos of children without explicitly consent then you're making a personal judgement about what sort of childhood photos are likely to be embarassing to someone.

I would hardly be surprised if some people are more embarassed by photos here Commons:Category:Street children, Commons:Category:Begging children for example. And I also wouldn't be surprised if for some 18 year olds they may be more embarassed by a photo of their mother or father kissing them as a child (the reverse but I suspect it'll be rare the person is identifiable without further information in that case) than one of them swimming. And I'm sure we have photos of children incidentally caught nose picking, we do have File:Oldwoman cry baby nakba.jpg for example. (Actually I found one which isn't incidental and probably should be deleted that even has the child's name.) I'm sure I could find other examples which someone may find more embarassing but I'm lazy to especially since if anything were to happen this conversation will need to take place somewhere else.

And that's only children. I'm assuming the argument is that a child is less able to understand the implications, such as the possibility of there being a permanent photographic record of it, of doing whatever they may find embarassing in the future in a public place. Still it's clearly not only children who may wish we aren't hosting images which feature them. For example some people may later regret appearing at a white supremecist rally or singing "no means yes, yes means anal" (okay we don't actually have anything from that AFAIK but I'm pretty sure that's primarily because of copyright reasons) or whatever else. Stuff which may have occured when they were young but considered adults, and in some cases possibly drunk. (Actually we do have a Commons:Category:Drunken people and some images I saw there or in subcats looked identifable.) Yet in at least some of these cases, I'm not sure we'd remove the images even if someone appearing in them asks, and even if they aren't iconic. (Well I'd like it like to think we'd always remove images of run of the mill drunk people if they ask, but I'm not sure if we'd do so for photos of a white supremacist rally. Likewise if one of the kids in any of the photos actually asks, I'm assuming we will delete it unless we have very good reason not to.)

Note that I'm explicitly not saying we shouldn't make such judgements, actually I'm pretty sure we and commons already does to a limited extent. I'm simply saying that if you did want to go about this, you'd need to carefully consider under what circumstances we make a value-judgement that a photo is potentially embarassing so should be deleted. That includes issues like what exactly is consent (including who provides it) and whether we only consider such issues for children, and how to handle cases where what's embarassing may be more incidental (e.g. picking the nose in a group photo). Also is this only about these images appearing in articles, because if it's the wider issue of hosting these images, that discussion would need to take place at commons unless you either plan to block these images from appearing on en.wikipedia, or try again to get the WMF so shut down common.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking through this a bit, but I was a bit surprised to even have to think through it.

I think the difference between an album cover and the photograph in question is that the album cover has been published in its own right and Wikipedia is using an image of a thing to describe that thing; if someone queries the use of a naked child on an album cover in a Wikipedia article, we can reasonably say that we have an article on that album and want to illustrate it; it's not like we could choose a different picture of the album cover which didn't have the naked child on it. The use of the image on an album cover also creates the reasonable assumption that someone consented to the image. It probably wasn't the child, but someone with responsibility for the child was almost certainly involved in the production of the image (and someone in such a position is usually able to give consent on a child's behalf to many things, though maybe we're nearing the edge of those limits here). The case of a just-starting-out freelance photographer who took a photograph of someone he happened to see somewhere and posted it on flickr under a license he later regretted is clearly different. Neither you nor I would ever have encountered that picture in the total obscurity of some Frenchman's flickr stream; the only prominence that image has, it has because it is used on Wikipedia.

I don't buy struck; see below a lot of your argument above; if I could paraphrase briefly, it seems to amount tothe portion of what you say that amounts to, "Some people will find anything embarrassing, while others aren't embarrassed by anything, so we should just throw our hands up and have no standards whatsoever." (I realise this is not what you're actually advocating.) Of course some people won't be embarrassed by nude child pictures of themselves, and of course some people will demand that any reference to them be removed; neither of these should determine our actions. The principle we work by is that of conservatively doing no harm to living people and only publishing things about them that are verifiable in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Why should that standard be different just because it's a picture of them, not words about them?

You briefly discuss the issue of children/adults in similar situations and actually I have many of the same concerns about other images used in that article; they are all of presumably-living people, many of them clearly identifiable to people who know them, and some of them in situations where they may well have a reasonable expectation of privacy. File:FYN 04.jpg, for instance, is an upload on commons by a user who ought to be blocked there for violating the username policy; they claim to represent Florida Young Naturists without, as far as I can tell, any evidence of it. Even if they do officially represent that organisation, I'd really like to see some sort of evidence that they have permission to post naked photos of members to heavily-trafficked websites. File:2014 WNBR Brighton beach.jpg is just about reasonable; these people are adults who've just participated in a naked run and if they didn't realise someone might take a photograph of them in the process then they should have. That kind of reasoning doesn't, as far as I can tell, hold for the other images discussed above. GoldenRing (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd planned to leave this discussion, but I need to reply since you made highly offensive comments about me. I never said anything remotely like "Some people will find anything embarrassing, while others aren't embarrassed by anything, so we should just throw our hands up and have no standards whatsoever". I explicitly noted that I am not saying so ("Note that I'm explicitly not saying we shouldn't make such judgements") precisely to avoid this but you ignored my comment and instead made offensive comments about me. Please do not make such highly offensive misleading statements about me ever again. I'm definitely done with this discussion now. Good luck ever getting anything changed when you make such highly offensive misleading claims about what people are saying. Just because people think stuff is complicated, and there are a lot of issues to consider and so we need to think long and hard about how, when and what we do rather so that we don't make sweeping judgements without strong evidence or only deal withone minor portion of a wider issue, doesn't mean they are saying that it should be ignored. It's barely tolerable to suggest they are saying so if the person didn't make it clear they are not say that. When I did make it clear? No fucking way. If you are unable of unwilling to look into the wider issues, that's you choice. If you think you can get stuff changed without looking into the wider issues, that's also you choice. But don't fault someone for bringing up some of the many wider issues. If you do want to consider the wider issues, I have no idea why you'd make such offensive comments about me just because I brought up a few of the wider issues. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: I am distraught to have caused someone such offence. This is genuinely something I'm trying to think through and I was trying to interact with some ideas you'd brought up; I clearly worded that very sloppily and didn't come across well. I apologise unreservedly. GoldenRing (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken wars against consensus - 1RR proposal

Summary of the request: Because of an original content dispute, XIIIfromTokyo has artificially created a discussion on antisemitism, and another one on homophobia, and has blatantly deformed my answers to say I am antisemitic and homophobic, and is repetiting these claims since December 2016 and on different pages in spite of my defense and other contributors' intervention. On top of that, he is doing intimidation, by telling me the press could talk about this and with legal threats to we do not know who. When I try to alert about this, he is changing the subject into a content dispute (talking about the content dispute, the French wikipedia article he wrote, his disputes there, comparison between articles, etc.), even though the content disputes are irrelevant here. When I try to tell him to stop calling me these things and threatening me, he is talking about the articles, and when I try to talk about the articles, he answers with these attacks. And he persists in this attitude in spite of all the warnings.

Please keep in mind that we can talk of the consensus raised on the relevant talk pages of the article, but the content of the articles are off-topic here. I worked on multiple articles and XIII – who has a tendency to paranoia (sorry for the use of the term) – is focusing on two of them to try to show a imaginary bias (even though I have been discussing with other editors on articles, and we managed to have consensus; these two articles were different and needed different answers, as talk pages and administrators decisions show), but whatever, XIII has been obviously wrongfully accusing me of antisemitism and homophobia, and attacking and threatening me for 10 months in talk pages and needs to be banned.

See under the detailed request and quotes, thanks.

--Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear administrators,

XIIIfromTOKYO has been accusing me of antisemitism, homophobia a bit everywhere since last year, and I cannot use a talk page without him going back to these outragious accusations. On top of that, he has been threatening me and constantly using an aggressive language.

ACCUSATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM

Original context

The first student association of Panthéon-Assas University is – at least on Facebook – a Jewish association, UEJF (Union des Étudiants Juifs de France) Assas. Because of that, someone tagged the door of this association office inside the university with a swastika, and the university and the student association asked the public prosecutor to bring charges.

XIII seems to have something against this university, so he is behaving aggressively to change the article, and another institution (this time in favor of it) because he considers they are rivals.

Among many misuse of sources, he gave many articles which related the swastika incident, and others (policemen had been put in the 1990s to protect the university from violent groups, like other Parisian universities). He was saying that it shows that the university has a tradition of antisemitism and racism and of beating (ratonnade) Jews and foreigners! I kindly explained, and wrote in particular: "What you are quoting (some fights sometimes near the university) is not at all what you are saying, ie foreigners and Jews being commonly beaten up in PA (ratonnades) or PA as an institution having or having the reputation to have an enduring tradition of racism and antisemitism!"[12] He was talking of beating people out of racism and antisemitism, so I said that it is absolutely false that foreigners and Jews are beaten up in one of the top institutions of France.

Accusation 1

He deformed what I said and answered:

I explained that I obviously did not write that, but he is continuing since then to write on different pages I intervene that I wrote anti-Semitic things, or to imply I am a neo-nazi, so that I continuously have to defend myself, and so that the wrong is already done with other users.

Accusation 2 [13]

Accusation 3 [14]

Accusation 4 [15]

Accusation 5 [16]

Accusation 6 [18]

I am personally an indirect victim of the Jewish genocide, and I repetitively have to deal with things linked to it in my life, I feel deeply outraged by these constant accusations.

I hope the severity of the sanction to XIII will show that Wikipedia is not taking antisemitism lightly, and that you cannot constantly attack the honour of a contributor by playing with this despicable thing.

ACCUSATIONS OF HOMOPHOBIA

The same system: he transformed something, put it everywhere so I constantly have to defend myself of this accusation.

Original context

Richard Descoings died in mysterious circumstances. He was homosexual and married, and it was controversial. Many newspapers, including gay community newspapers, talked about it.[19][20][21][22][23]) I used in the Sciences Po article the wording used in his article at that time [24], ie that he had a "controversial gay lifestyle", and for example anti-homophobic articles say it was, but it should not be. It was the beginning of constant accusations of homophobia by XIIIfromTokyo.

Accusation 1 [25]

Accusation 2 [26]

XIII never stroke his comment or answered this.

Bad "jokes" [27][28]

One resistant during WW2 accused Sciences Po to have been a place of Collaboration during WW2.

With no link, an article from the Independant says that the system in which is Sciences Po is a machine to produce a "blinkered, often arrogant and frequently incompetent ruling freemasonry".

XIII mixed these things, as such:

Accusation 3 [29]

THREATS

XIII wants me to stop editing, otherwise he is implying he could create a media turmoil with what he accused me in talk pages. Sometimes in French so that other users cannot understand.

Threat 1 [32]

Threat 2 [33]

Translation: You are well aware that everything is public, and that anyone can post in on Twitter […] (with all the media fuss to come due to some expression used in talk page (PDD = page de discussion).

Those "expressions used" are obviously from him.

Threats 3 and 4 [34][35]

These threats are not necessarily directed to me, but I signal that, as EdJohnston pointed out[36], XIII is doing legal threats now, by calling someone a "criminal".

CONSTANT ABUSIVE AND AGRESSIVE LANGUAGE

XIII has very often an abusive language toward me. I have been answering his repetitive personal attacks and repetitive arguments for more than a year, but even if I keep civil, he always turns it into personal attacks. I give just two examples among many.

Example 1: abusive language[37]

Example 2: repetitive claim I did a legal threat [38][[39]

Because I was discussing the fact saying PA has an racist tradition is libelous, which is not a legal threat according to Wikipedia policy ("A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat."[40] He has been reminded it is not a legal threat by other contributors but he continues to claim everywhere I did legal threat.

There are many examples.

GENERAL

This attitude does not seem to be new. XIIIfromTokyo has already been blocked in French Wikipedia three days for "personal attacks and insults" and two weeks for "intimidation attempt or harassment". [41]

There already has been requests here, but discussions were blurred in content discussion over Panthéon-Assas University and Sciences Po. Now, PA article has many sources, and Mr rnddude helped resolve the issues, and there has been a consensus on the lead of Sciences Po, with Robminchin helping. But XIII accusations are continuing, and it is becoming worse and worse.

Whatever the content dispute is, XIII is constant me insulting me by asserting or strongly implying that I am linked to antisemitism or neo-nazism. I repeat what I wrote: I am personally an indirect victim of the Jewish genocide, and I repetitively have to deal with things linked to it in my life, I feel deeply outraged by these constant accusations of antisemitism. I hope the severity of the sanction to XIII will show that Wikipedia is not taking antisemitism lightly, and that you cannot constantly attack the honour of a contributor by playing with this despicable thing.

To show the gravity of such accusations, I hope, on top of public apologies by him, at least a one-year ban will be decided (and a total ban if he does not apologise).

Regards,

--Launebee (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Purely for the administrative purpose of being able to parse out and read this thread (and hopefully to avoid some serious TLDR) I have removed all of the quotes, replacing them either the relevant diffs or links. I have also removed the silly number of subheaders. I took every effort to not actually remove any content added by Launebee. If someone feels this decision was improper they are welcome to replace it with the original content, which can be found here. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I kept the subheaders removed, but put back the quotes, because the sentences are to be found inside long texts, so specific quotes are needed. Your version without the quotes is to found here. Thanks for your help. --Launebee (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I've collapsed the quotes, since that's kind of the point of a collapse template. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to point out the text, you could use the tq template. The tq template highlights quoted text in green, and looks like this: (text being quoted). This might be a better alternative to hatted boxes. Blackmane (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Primefac and Blackmane. Perhaps now is a good compromise, and I hope I will never have again to do this, but if I have to use quotes in the future I will think at the tq templates. I am sorry there are so many examples, but it is because I have been so many times attacked. I added a summary in the beginning, it seems it was needed. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that the reported user has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring on the aforementioned article. ansh666 21:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• When a user has been advised repeatedly that he is making false accusations, and yet persists in repeating the accusations, we have a problem. The subject of this complaint hasn't made many contributions, but he has exacted long-term abuse against a good faith editor. Frankly, I don't see a convincing reason why we need to retain this editor as a member of our community. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• To attempt to summarize the content: the ancient University of Paris ("The Sorbonne") was dissolved into smaller universities in 1970. Panthéon-Assas University was created as a successor school that included the law faculty. There appear to be multiple content disputes between the two editors discussed on the talk page. The fr:Université_Panthéon-Assas article may be useful as a reference. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@power~enwiki: Thanks for your help. Actually, the summary of my message is more that because of a content dispute, XIII created a discussion on antisemitism and then used my answer to claim antisemitism, and has repeated these claims since last December, that he did the same thing with homophobia, that he has been threatening me several times and is constantly aggressive. The content dispute is not relevant here, whatever it is, it has been ten months that I am repetitely wrongfully accused of these things by this user, even though it is obviously absolutely false. (Note also that this user is the principal writer of the French page of that university, so this is not a reference. XIII is precisely blurring the discussion by talking of what happens in the French page that he wrote, or of the content dispute, but all of that is irrelevant. This is a different subject with a talk page, but that talk page is now filled with personal attacks.) I added a summary in the beginning of the request, thanks for the idea. It seems Lepricavark did an even shorter summary of the issue, thanks. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user has kept on making accusations of bias (and other PA'sd long after being asked to stop), as well as other issues.

Accusation of censorhip [42] [43]and of being an agent of a government [44] and prejudice [45]

I asked him to stop

[46]

His response was

[47] and [48]

In addition (just a few more on other pages)

[49]

[50]

[51]

Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is more but I was letting it go a he clearly is not a native English speaker. The problem is this is over multiple pages and even though he now accepts the point is still accusing me of bias.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And has now said that my posting of the alert for this ani is disruptive [52] followed up with this [53]Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want these comments to taken into account:

• "Pahlevun was probably a Muslim :v" [54]
• "We have a proverb says : It's not possible to ride a camel in a bow manner (hiddenly). Having a famous fun superstition(a famous doorway of a mosque) and hidden it?" [55] (Rough translation from Persian language, suggesting that I was doing a "stupid secret job" in case you wonder what's the meaning).
• "I think Pahlevun is censoring... [56]
• "But Pahlevun censors the... [57]
• "I want to add a note, this user Pahlevun has a Persian name... Is it necessary for me to talk about censorship more? Is Wiki an Encyclopedia? Or a political war place? May be wonderful for the staffs in the Jimmy Wales office [58]
• "you can ask why Pahlevun said... I can see prejudices clearly in this talk :v" [59]
• "someone attempts to censor contents... also you can take a whois to find who is behind it. Have some nice dollars :v" [60]
• "Also this is a... fallacy by Pahlevun... Are Pahlevun supporting Islamic Republic? Is Wikipedia for political war?" [61]
• "The problem is when Pahlevun says... this is censorship I told repeatedly"[62]
• "I don't push my IMAGINATIONS to anyone (versus Muslims)... if someone wants to believe there is a Jinn out there or not it is a personal decision based on how much we want to be rational or not." [63]

–Pahlevun (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a notification seven days ago that someone tried to log into my account from a new device I am now being harrassed by a new editor Special:Contributions/South_Derry_Republican who is also clearly operating from the bare IP Special:Contributions/190.52.205.69 as well. They have also now engaged in edit-warring on my talk page [64] despite being reverted by myself and @Arjayay: and notified in my reverts of point three of the infobox at the top of my talk page which states: If I remove your comments, please don't restore them. The same for a discussion. Please respect and abide by Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. If I removed them I clearly don't want to engage in or continue the discussion. Restoring them repeatedly constitutes vandalism

There are two possibilities: a random editor of obvious strong Irish republican viewpoint takes offense to me as my views contrast to theirs; or secondly and most likely it is an existing user on Wikipedia. In this case I can assume it to be the user @Eireabu:, whose username as well as some of their comments to me in the past suggests they are also someone of Irish republican views. They are the only editor I can assume has a big enough grudge against me, in this case over the Red Hand of Ulster article where I completely shattered their viewpoint and arguments by sheer weight of historical and academic evidence as can be seen by a look at the references and bibliography of this edit of mine. Indeed after @Canterbury Tail: blocked the article for a month to prevent a full edit-war I posted quite a lot of reasonings and justifications for my edits and on the many issues in the article. I even copied the article into my sandbox and posted regular updates of work in progress for Eireabu to look at and comment on, and how I took their concerns into account, however they responded once and it was quite clear they had not bothered to look at any of the stuff I presented or said and was intent on carrying on as before. They had no clear intention of collaborating.

I also believe the harrassing [65] end comment to me backs up it is Eireabu: You say: The 'Gaelic' Ulster flag is actually the flag of the Hiberno-Norman Earldom of Ulster, ruled by the de Burgh family? Me say: False. It is the first recorded use, not the origin. The key bones of contention Eireabu seems to have had with my initial edits to the Red Hand article was over the first documented usage of the Red Hand symbol and the source used for it (slates source as POV as well as adding in their own SYN and OR, source as a unreliable "pamphlet" without any supporting evidence.) They also felt the edit "relegated" the Gaelic history of the Red Hand and implied it wasn't a Gaelic symbol. Whilst the IPs comment is factually flawed (the flags origin—not the Red Hand symbol on it—is de Burgh), it strongly looks like a continuation of Eireabu's viewpoint on the matter.

Whether Eireabu is indeed South Derry Republican and the IP is up for debate however both SDR and the IP are harrassing user accounts that should be blocked as they only seem to exist to harrass me. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not!! Nor do I condone such behaviour!! I've better things to do than to get myself involved in such stupid things and I sincerely hope the person detracts from it, I don't have any connections to Derry! Paranoia over myself is a little rash and unfair and an apology is in order. Eireabu (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are grounds for suspicion and I do not apologise for voicing them and I stated that it is up for debate not certifiable fact. You may very well be innocent but these things have only happened since our few interactions over the past couple of months and I can think of no other editor I've interacted with who has a reason to be peeved at me so it is reasonable and quite right to raise the possibility. But as stated it is not fact, just suspicion and suspicion especially raised by the coincidence pointed out above. Anyways the only action I've directly asked for is against SDR and the IP.

Also anyone can make up a username stating anything whether it is true or not, indeed as I enforce the WP:IMOS agreement on the county name it could easily be an intentional choice by someone to have a dig as you cannot enforce IMOS on a username. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I have said on my user page, I hope they stop and I am with you in action against whomever it is. You have made an accusation, for which is wrong, I've better things to be doing than such nonsense!Eireabu (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as I have done at your user page, I thank you for your condemnation. Yet if there is reasonable suspicion it and the reason why must be mentioned whether it is misplaced or not I hope you understand. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't necessarily understand in fairness, it's a big world out there with multiple people with viewpoints, similiar or not. I haven't even noticed the user till you raised it, linking my own username in the process above. Even the quoted point you made above from this user regarding the Ulster flag wasn't something I agree with!! It was always my assumption the flag was largely De Burgo in design and origin, with an O'Neill crest at the centre. Anyway no point crying over spilled milk and alas we must move on! Here's to contentious free contributions and editing here on in. You might have gathered I'm slow with any sort of contributions and quite the amateur, that will never change unfortunately ;) Eireabu (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mabuska, it wouldn't have hurt to have explained to South Derry Republican on their page, before you took them to ANI, that they're not supposed to restore removed comments. New users — which we're supposed to start by assuming they are — don't know that, and most likely don't read edit summaries. Also, this is not the place to voice your suspicions of Eireabu. The way to do that is firstly to ask them, and secondly, if you think you have good evidence, to open an SPI. I agree it's hard to believe South Derry Republican is a bona fide new user — see them using the <blockquote> template a couple of hours after the account was created[66], though not using it very well — but it doesn't by any means have to be Eireabu. I've warned South Derry Republican about harassing you on your page, and about editing logged out. Bishonen | talk 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Considering they hit the revert button with their last edit it is pretty clear they seen my prior edit summary so it is either a lack of competence or lack of willingness to a) read it or b) follow it. Seeing as I clearly stated it was up for debate as to whether it was Eireabu or not, it should be apparent why I didn't file a SPI, and I would be highly surprised if an editor would admit to using a sock to harrass another editor if asked considering the ramifications. Regardless a warning will have to do, thank you. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent (to me) that the dispute resolution process has broken down. The moderator has recused themself after representations from the originating editor. I am not reporting misconduct. Rather, I am requesting oversight. I perceive that this oversight may take the form of a direction as to how to proceed from this point. On the otherhand, it may take the form of a decision in this matter. To this extent, I note that the matter has been discussed fully and that it has been generally notified (as indicated in the subject thread). I am notifying the originating editor specifically and posting a notification of this on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested there, I think a proper, neutrally worded RfC at the article talk page is going to be your best option if you can't find consensus. I doubt you'll get an admin here to "rule" on a content dispute or intervene at DR. -- Begoon 11:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your response. I have bought this here for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is fairly clear that, unless another moderator takes the reins (unlikely?) the DR process has failed. Secondly, the processes to date have closely followed the RfC process. There has been (IMHO) sufficient "debate" of the issues to establish a consensus but this requires a "close", since the opposing positions (one versus several) decline to acknowledge an "outcome" even though the consensus position has been identified by those offering a third opinion and the DR moderator. In making these comments, I do not per-judge any independent arbitration. I would observe that to protract this matter more than necessary would be disruptive. The originating editor at DR has already unambiguously indicated that they will not be bound by any decision at DR. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can request a formal close of any discussion at WP:ANRFC. I don't think it has to be an RfC for that: "The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one...". I'm not sure how long that might take. Or, if you're confident you already have consensus, and the DR is abandoned, you could just go ahead and implement it, consensus does not mean unanimity. I know you know that, but it does bear repeating. -- Begoon 13:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With thanks. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doing this. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just saw what you did - I meant asking at ANRFC for the article talkpage discussion to be closed, since I looked there and that seemed to be what you were saying needed a close when you said "the processes to date have closely followed the RfC process" - the heading you've used looks like you're asking for ANRFC to close the DR, and I don't think that's going to work... Sorry if I misunderstood/misled you. -- Begoon 14:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• While, I am currently evaluating the DRN disc. itself, as a gen. reminder, please don't post any requests about DRN cases to ANRFC.While technically, every editor in good-standing could be a DRN volunteer, approaches at DRN vary widely from RFCs etc. and techniques of closing disc. or moderation varies. And I have not seen any DRN regular sans me frequent ANRFC either.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - crossed wires, probably my fault. Sorry. -- Begoon 14:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Begoon:-Yeah! Prob. he got stuck in the little ambiguous phrasing of your 2nd comment and understood it the wrong way! After all, errors can be fairly expected for people who are prob. not so involved/accustomed with the exact intricacies of our abundance of processes.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my error in that I saw the DR as a continuation of the thread at the ship's talk page. Discussion is continuing at Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) so this has defaulted to your intention in any case. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need for you to apologise, I should be the only one doing that. My suggestion was ambiguous and I should have phrased it far more carefully. Sorry again. -- Begoon 01:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

I tried to moderate this dispute, but it appears that there was rough consensus, to which User:Wingwraith took exception, and first wanted me to express an opinion, which I eventually did (reluctantly), and then wanted a detailed refutation from me. At this point, I withdrew from moderation. I am still willing to assist in the formulation of an RFC. I am requesting administrative attention. I will note that any request at WP:AN or WP:ANI is inconsistent with the way DRN works. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So, Wingwraith made an edit that was reverted as disputed, and unanimously rejected by the local consensus on the talk page. They then requested mediation, and when the mediator didn't agree with them, WW attacked him. Wow. @Wingwraith: this really isn't looking good for you and I'd be strongly inclined to block you if you engage in any further edit warring. Your proposed edit has been rejected. That's it. That's the reality. Beyond that, no one cares if you think you're "right". Your options are quite simply as follows: Drop the stick and move on, attempt to override the existing consensus by starting an RfC on the talk page (the consensus of which you must abide by), or continue edit warring and get blocked from this website. It's up to you. However this project is governed by consensus. Not individuals who say they're "right". This is not merely a content dispute. You're refusing to listen to existing consensus, which constitutes disruption. Swarm ♠ 05:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will state FTR that I dispute some of the points that you have made. I wasn't attacking Robert McClenon when I asked him to clarify how it is that my objection had the quality of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and at no point did I say or imply that I had a problem with how he handled his role as the DRM; the fact that he was willing to recuse himself and request that another volunteer take over as moderator instead of closing the dispute resolution process outright is I think proof enough of the lack of any hostilities between the two of us. I understand the rules around consensus which is what partially motivated my bringing the dispute to the DRN, and I made the comment about my being right under very specific circumstances which I stood by then and stand by now. Even though an administrator is now involved with the dispute resolution on the talkpage which renders the RfC and "edit warring" actions moot, I'm not a IDHT kind of editor: I've throughout the process consistently come up with proposed edits, arguments and ideas which tried to carve out a middle-of-the-road approach to ending the dispute. That was my position then and that remains my position. Wingwraith (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Wingwraith in one detail, and that is that I didn't think that I was attacked, at least not exactly, although I did think that the questioning of my mediation was less than reasonable and less than fair. I would suggest that if Wingwraith doesn't want to be disruptive, they either accept that consensus is against them, or request a wider consensus via a Request for Comments. I would suggest that this thread can then be closed, either with a finding of consensus (minus one) or with agreement to use an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated above, this discussion is continuing at Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56). I will add that the admin Buckshot06 is overseeing the discussion there. As the originator, I am certainly happy for this to be closed. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've noticed Carmaker1 engages in disruptive editing and hasn't been blocked, this is likely because most auto pages have information added primarily by single purpose editors who are easily pushed around. He is changing around the years on the Honda J engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) then when I restored them to the original he refers to this as vandalism. He has repeatedly accused me of being a sock of 212.36.194.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another editor who attempted to engage Carmaker1 in civil discussion but was instead insulted and had his edit reverted. Honda J engine talk page. His edit history features numerous insults and threats of admin intervention. For a recent instance [67], DanaWright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited the page on a single occasion but is threatened anyways.

Now he resorts to canvassing for support. He finds the other active auto editor (OSX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have retired from editing) who changes and reverts year alterations and adds underground messages to inform other editors not to bother changing them since otherwise he'll revert them.[68]. Since most of the auto pages are edited in tiny pieces by single purpose editors this is easily accomplished. By tag teaming the article, Carmaker1 (before it was with OSX) expects to change the page the suit his demands. Even more odd since the Honda J engine is built in Alabama for the North American market and rarely found in exported vehicles. Vortex833 (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the dispute between Vortex833 and Carmaker1 started as a difference between using model years (for the American market) and calendar years (for the rest of the world). Unfortunately, Carmaker1 went in with all guns blazing, insulted Vortex833 and didn't explain his position properly, hence making Vortex833 into a mortal enemy. I'm trying to bring both sides to some form of understanding at Talk:Honda J engine.  Stepho  talk  13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stepho-wrs - Thank you. That is an accurate account, in my opinion. There was a request filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but I had to close it for various reasons, including inadequate prior discussion and personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure calendar years for the rest of the world even exists? Could be original research and endless reverted edits, noticed they refer to the new Camry as 2018 Camry over in Australia as well. [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]

This looks like a content related dispute, and so long as no edit warring occurs, I can leave the article be and encourage you two to resolve your disputes peacefully and citing policy to support your arguments. The concerns I do wish to ask about is the incivility. Vortex833 - Can you provide me with specific diffs that point out the incivility you're talking about here? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here Carmaker1 uses derogatory terminology to insult another editor calling him a dunce. The other editor after being insulted didn't respond. [74] Vortex833 (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stepho's comment on the talk page seems to be helpful, and based on your response you seem to understand and agree with the reasonable notion that presenting "American model years" (which don't necessarily correspond with actual years) without an annotation of some sort, can be confusing for readers. Therefore you're essentially conceding that your edits were in the wrong. I see no reason to action a user under these circumstances. Swarm ♠ 05:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understood this board was for informing admins of patterns of disruptive edits and was not used to resolve content disputes?Vortex833 (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted adding an MY designation for clarification purposes though I don't see it as necessary or useful. On the page no other editors have changed or shown any sort of confusion in all this time, it's just an invented problem.Vortex833 (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without an MY designation the Honda J engine would be highly confusing to its visitors, that's why the years have been added in the existing manner up until Carmaker1 and only Carmaker1 decided to invent an issue to solve and change all the years.Vortex833 (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to realize this "dispute" amounts to pushing original research on automotive pages with an agenda. If sourced material isn't referring to these "calendar dates" then neither should the auto pages. Googling Honda J30A [75] returns dates in the original format not the one Carmaker1 is pushing. Did the same for Honda J35 [76] and it's the same. Vortex833 (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is equivalent to saying that if the source material was written in Japanese then the article must be written in Japanese. CarMaker1 was quite rightly attempting to harmonise the J engine article with the other international engine articles, which the vast majority are in calendar years (although I recognise that whether the article is an American article or an international article is still under discussion). However, he didn't make it clear that he was changing to calendar years (just as the original didn't make it clear it was using model years) and he then responded to reverts in an uncivil manor. His goal was good, but his methods were rough. Be careful to separate the two.  Stepho  talk  22:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've got an IP — 74.243.223.134 — continuing to alter sourced content, via unsourced additions, deletions of sourced material, additions of fringe material, etc., and ignoring all attempts at communication from a number of other editors.

Diffs: [77], [78], [79].

You can easily find more by looking at the user's page if anyone needs them — none of the editing so far has been constructive as far as I can see: [80].

Multiple warnings can be found at: [81]. Alephb (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I haven't been paying much attention, but an article that was a clear POV fork, Table-lookup synthesis, that was created several years ago by User:Clusternote was finally merged to Wavetable synthesis (it probably should have simply been deleted). Now Clusternote is changing the lede of Wavetable synthesis to say, in the very lede sentence, that the term is a misnomer. It's totally without merit. I have reverted his changes and he has reverted it back claiming that I am the vandal. This is going to need help because Clusternote is a very tendentious editor. His English is also quite poor, long ago I was able to locate him in Japan.

We're going to need some help here. 173.48.64.110 (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already looks like a sock puppet has shown up. 173.48.64.110 (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute. You need to discuss it on the article's talk page. The sock puppetry accusation seems to be based on a single revert made by someone who was apparently doing recent changes patrol. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP vandalism on Filipe Oliveira (footballer, born 1995) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) IP address changing with every edit. PP, please? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been protected by Ymblanter. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mhhossein

Hi there, this is a censorship attempt by Mhhossein in the talk page.

• Special:Diff/801105236 (Talk:2017 Tehran attacks)
• Also when I pinged a Wiki Fa admin to be a 3rd opinion in the talk page (as someone is familiar with Farsi language) Special:Diff/801101452 Mhhossein accused me to be friend with the admin User:Sharaky.
• Simultaneously with 3RR in the article history
• When I reminded the user to avoid such edits Special:Diff/801109515/801117300 this user started to accuse me to WP:PA and threatening to WP:ANI in my talk page frequently to WP:RUNAWAY itself means PA.

--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 07:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would someone have to familiar with Farsi language to express a third opinion on an article in English Wikipedia. Also, your having pinged them here invalidates the entire point of WP:3O, which is to get an opinion by a neutral uninvolved third party, not a person chosen by one of the two parties in the dispute. If your Farsi admin has expressed a view, it has literally no values as a 3O "tiebreaker".

Furthermore, with an account name like "IranianNationalist", you should expect other editors to be suspicion that your editing does not adhere to WP:NPOV, since you have expressed your bias right up front. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the sources are in Farsi language such as VOA PNN or BBC Persian --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your first diff shows Mhhossein linking to an article version to replace the duplication of that text on the talk page. I see nothing wrong with that. In your second diff you accuse Mhhosein of censorship, when nothing was censored, a link was substituted for text, and of being uncivil when he questioned why you pinged an editor with 11 edits on en.wiki for an opinion. I'd have done the same, as it seems to me to be an obvious case of WP:CANVASSING, in spirit if not otherwise. Then, it was not Mhhosein who accused you of a WP:PA with your repeated claims of censorship, but another editor altogether, User:Pahlevun. Mhhosein then came to your talk page to warn you that the article was under 1RR, and you again claimed that censorship was taking place, and (I guess) was a justification for breaking 1RR. Mhhosein then warned you that if you kept accusing them of censorship, he would file a report here, which he has a right to do, and which you have now done (so how can you chastise him for warning you that he might do it?) - and you didn't notify him that you opened this, as you are required to do.

I have no idea what you mean regarding WP:RUNAWAY.

In all, nothing in this complaint seems justified, unless a BOOMERANG is worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Also I have question, when the controversial article is about a Persian subject, why do you ask me to avoid pinging a user familiar with Persian language? (Or I say better why do you accuse me to ping a partial user?! the user is a WikiFa admin(at least must be more impartial if you don't know him)) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't get that if you're in a dispute with another editor, your calling in someone you know can;t be considered to be an impartial third opinion. Don't ping me again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"your calling in someone you know can;t be considered to be an impartial third opinion" Had I claimed such a thing? But it is weird when you think the "someone have to familiar with Farsi language" all have to be far away of neutrality!!! --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're misconstruing the meaning of BMK's comment. The issue is not that you pinged a .fa wiki editor, it's that you pinged an editor at all. Doesn't matter whether they are a .en, .fr or .fa editor, what matters is that the 3O was handpicked by you. That is not how 3O's work. A 3O is where you ask for a completely uninvolved editor with whom you have no relations to chime in with their thoughts to try and resolve the dispute. By their very nature you don't ask a specific person for a 3O. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude, can you please and provide some evidences to approve the accusation of any relation between me and Sharaky?
@Sharaky:, Hi there, plz come here and defend yourself :D
@Mr rnddude, Ask yourself when I pinged different WikiFa admins such as Darafsh and Huji in different subjects Why do you (or any other one) claim any relation between me and Sharaky? I even had no vote in any RfC for admin or any other privilege grant... How can I have any relation with any Wiki admins? I'm a slow contributer having less contributions from 2014 (only 94 new Fa articles many of them are tiny articles) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 13:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IranianNationalist did not notify Mhhosein of this complaint. I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... your ping was your relation to the admin. You have already admitted to pinging the admin in your OP. I am making no claim about what kind of relations you have with any .fa admin. Either your English reading comprehension is too limited, or, you're not reading. I'll try this again with as blunt an instrument as possible. When you attempt a 3O, you go to WP:3O and leave a dated, but unsigned, comment there. That way you improve the chances of getting a completely neutral third opinion. When you ping an editor to the discussion, you make the 3O moot as it is presumed you chose that specific person for a reason. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I add : I in different subjects I had pinged different Wiki fa admins such as Darafsh and another admin (I have forgot hist name) for the Farsi-relative articles also experienced non-admin users such as Wikimostafa. But they were busy or not willing to participate in English or they had my gift from other discussions in WikiFa (to avoid conflict of interest. it is rational). @Beyond My Ken So I recommend you have a good view about people talking Persian. Thank you :) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 09:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you don't seem to be understanding what Beyond My Ken is saying, let's try it a different way. Specifically pinging another editor to a discussion, where you are in dispute with another editor, and you expect that the editor you pinged will side with your argument, is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS. If you had some content discussion in other articles, but were not in a dispute with another editor, and had pinged another editor for wider discussion then that would not be a problem. Comparing the two situations is a red herring. It is irrelevant s to what languages are being spoken. The same could be applied to disruption caused by editors with a heavily Eastern European/East Asian/Balkan/African/South East Asian/Conservative/Liberal/Theist/Atheist/etc, etc bias. It is not restricted to any single language nor nationality. Blackmane (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, User:Pahlevun

Having 3RR in the Great Mosque of Kufa and multiple discussions and many other reliable sources added to the article the user Pahlevun doesn't accept (Special:Diff/801055508/801262639) even other user edits such as User:Slatersteven's previous edit here: Special:Diff/801054968/801055508
Also 3RR

• Special:Diff/800487503
• Special:Diff/800642767
• Special:Diff/800732626
• Special:Diff/801262533

And relative consensus discussions :

• Special:Permalink/801346343#Primary_sources_at_Great_Mosque_of_Kufa

Also as a Note : When the article must be merged it was nominated for deletion by this user (I add : all sources about the subject are official or high ranked clerical sources) :

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon gate

--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IranianNationalist did not notify Pahlevun abouut this complaint. I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A related subject: IranianNationalist's signature says "IsNotNationalist, thus contradicting the implicit statement made by the account name itself. Is this a legitimate use of a nickname in a sig? It seems deceptive to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken (no pinging) : Are you trying WP:RUNAWAY ? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken However your criticism of my signature is a WP:RUNAWAY and we should avoid making the discussion busy, but I have to reply to your criticism. I changed my signature to avoid probable prejudices about being a zealot patriot or nationalist like Hitler... DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edit on Great Mosque of Kufa was made after lengthy discussion (on multiple pages) about your arguing the toss that it was called the dragon gate. In fact you accused me of bias for supporting Pahlevun's claim that your sources were questionable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See [82].Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how three reverts in 72 hours could be a 3RR violation. This is not the first time IranianNationalist falsely files for 3RR violation against me (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive350#User:Pahlevun reported by User:IranianNationalist (Result: nothing)). Moreover, There is now a consensus shaped at RSN to not include the content I removed in those diffs (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Primary sources at Great Mosque of Kufa). Pahlevun (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can be deemed to be edit warring even if you do not breach 3RR in a given 24 hour period if (in the eyes of admins) your edits are trying to game the system (such as making 3 edits in 24 hours and then a fourth an hour later).Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how did Notirainainnatioinalist do

[83] (same day as Pahlevun's first revert)

[84]

[85]

Note they both reverted times on the 13th

So if Pahlevun was edit warring so was Iranian nationalist, based upon Iranian nationalist's criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About pinging

@Beyond My Ken, you mentioned many different accusations about me, I don't know answer what one :) I didn't ping the users to let the admins check a more brief of what is happening... and to avoid having a war in ANI before an admin check (however thank you for making a long discussion) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 09:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IranianNationalist:--Beyond My Ken is a highly experienced editor and citing policies like WP:RUNAWAY to counter well-established users in a ad-hominem manner without any minimal basis can be considered as intentional disruption and indulging in such activities along with casting personal attacks is not tolerated.Also, please be adviced that ANI is often witness to boomerang actions.Thank you!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not involved in this in any way, just happened to notice that neither of these pings worked, so courtesy ping for Beyond My Ken. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we close this now with? it is clear both users are POV warriors who are just disrupting the project.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I was a "POV warrior" nor "disrupting the project". Pahlevun (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second.And collapsed a part.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at this entire situation somewhat more closely in the light of day, I agree that both editors are at fault here. And to clarify my "no pings" statement, I wasn't intending to "runaway" from the discussion, I simply didn't want to be called back to it repeatedly at IranianNationaist's whim. In general, I'm perfectly capable of returning to an ongoing discussion on my own, and do not need to have my pants leg constantly tugged to do so. (The ping by Amaury above, though, was reasonable, and I thank them for it.) There was a halcyon era when Wikipedia didn't have pinging at all, and things worked just fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang for IranianNationalist

• support the boomerang suggested by Beyond My Ken ([86]) and mentioned by Winged Blades of Godric ([87]). --Mhhossein ^talk 17:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; these ranting walls of text have taken long enough. Just so you know, the edit warring continues, despite the rough consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Primary sources at Great Mosque of Kufa. On a secondary note, IranianNationalist keeps using that word, WP:RUNAWAY. I don't think it means what he thinks it means... --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say congratulations to some specific users (cooperating here in different discussions in different wiki pages we have similar users having similar opinions and the common thing was me :D should I pride to be such a lovely user for this specific users?) they are continuously in the same front to protect Pahlevun and Mhhossein anyway (You can see them in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon gate and all relative discussions up to now including the relative discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard). You can see them in any location I had an Edit for example Slatersteven in the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sina_Dehghan&action=history and it is not a Wikipedia:Hound but previously there were some similar discussions in WikiFa people (users) calling them as a system of campaigning. Yeah continue to support each other (but it is wonderful when we have some permanent users in different discussions supporting each other). AND THE MAIN SUBJECT WOULD BE FORGOTTEN about some reliable official sources have been censored --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 19:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice combination of WP:Casting aspersions, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:POV. You really should be blocked for this comment alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So "they" go to every page you edit?Slatersteven (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• kickass2.nz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• isohunt.tv: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• torrentproject2.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• isohunt2.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

There is an ongoing problem at these articles: IsoHunt, KickassTorrents and Torrent Project‎. Someone keeps on changing the URLs despite being asked not to do it and the articles being semi-protected recently. It's particularly annoying because it is being done by new user accounts which seem to be a WP:SPA for doing this. Help requested here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation opened: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marylucygril. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pages have also been semiprotected. If there is further disruption related to this, please advise at the SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking but I can tell you that at least one account is cross wiki spamming right now as seen here. We need this link added to the meta blacklist. Beetstra are you around?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: I'm around. Can you give me all domains? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are these the 4 domains in above tracking templates? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just opened an SPI against two of the three editors who opposed him at Talk:Ali Khamenei. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. He also planned to open an SPI, against the third editor, me, as explained at Oshwah's talkpage. The WP:ARBPIA is rife with conflict and disruption. I consider this to be, a new form of disruption. I request a speedy close of the SPI and a warning to the initiator about this type of behaviour. The Ali Khamenei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) also needs more eyes and a check for POV, but I am not at ANI to pursue editorial comments about that article. Thank you. Dr. K. 17:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As background - this began by a series of edits by Mhhossein to Ali Khamenei (some may be viewed as perhaps POVish, some were definitely positive), some of which were challeged and during which Mhhossein performed a 1RR vio ([88] + [89] 1st, [90] 2nd) which he did self-revert upon being warned this was the case [91]. He then removes an-indepth Newsweek piece as "It's just an opinion" which was challenged by several editors, following up with a WP:NEWSORG claim [92] and then claiming Human interest story [93], discounting other opinions [94], followed by an attempt to SPI Dr.K. (which failed on technical grounds due to page protection), and then moved on to SPI me (Icewhiz). And this for an in-depth article on the subject in Newsweek. I might not be available on-wiki for the next few days (travelling on vacation, back next Sunday, probably will check in sparsely).Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI clerk note: I've declined to "speedy close" the case linked above as I see behaviour worth investigating, which I'm now doing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: An admin please close this nonsense and strange report!!! @Dr.K.: Later on, please be careful before accusing others at ANI. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: not so fast, nothing I've said here or at the now-closed case should be taken as an endorsement of your action. I saw something entirely unrelated that was worth checking, in my own opinion. More shortly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what? it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: So what? it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. I beg your pardon? And what does that have to do with Icewhiz, an innocent bystander whom you unjustly accused of socking? Is there no recognition, on your part, of the glaring mistakes you made putting this innocent editor through this ordeal? This is disruptive, because it demonstrates that you do not understand the disruption you have caused and you may repeat it in the future. At a minimum, you owe Icewhiz an apology. You owe one to me as well, but I won't hold my breath that you will apologise to me. Dr. K. 00:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Ok. I see you avoid replying to my request that you apologise to Icewhiz for your error in reporting a good-faith innocent editor to SPI. So, here is the effect of your error: Your creation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz was deleted because: G6: SPI filed in error under an innocent name. So I will ask you for the last time: Will you admit you were in error in filing this SPI using Icewhiz's name and apologise to Icewhiz? Dr. K. 15:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions

• I just wish to note that there are now three discussions on AN/I involving the editing of IranianNationalist, Pahlevun and Mhhossein:
  • Complaint by Slatersteven about IranianNationalist
  • Complaints by IranianNationalist about Mhhossein and Pahlevun
  • This complaint by Dr.K. about Mhhossein

This is probably a good indication that this suite of three editors needs to have their contributions more closely examined in relation to WP:NPOV and WP:ARBPIA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking the same thing, the same edds on related (by religion) topics.Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken: Just a moment, which of my edits was wrong? Can you elaborate on this? I can't understand why Dr.K. is so worried about a sockpeppetry being investigated, this is while there's no name of him in the reprot. Both of the cases opened regarding me are nonsense. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a specific accusation to make, I would have made it, but what I wrote was "this suite of three editors needs to have their contributions more closely examined". No Wikipedian should object to having their edits looked at if there's an indication there might be problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: I can't understand why Dr.K. is so worried about a sockpeppetry being investigated, this is while there's no name of him in the reprot. Please do not misrepresent my words. In fact, I am not worried at all. To prove this point, I quote what you said to Oshwah: I was trying to report Dr.K. at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Thank you again. --Mhhossein talk 06:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC). Wonderful. This is your chance. We are at ANI. Can you explain to everyone here, better still, can you submit your evidence that led you to want to open an SPI against me? Checkusers, SPI clerks, sockhunter admins are all watching for the big reveal with their fingers at the WP:DUCK-block button. I can't wait. Thanks much. Dr. K. 03:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein - I echo Dr.K.'s request: I would like to see the exact evidence you had supporting your sock puppetry accusations, please. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never accused Dr.K.. I've already made enough explanations on why I thought sock-puppetry was happening (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz). You see by the admins' comments that I was much right about the report, at least regarding DarkKing Rayleigh. Naturally, Dr.K. falling on the dubious account's side came into mind at the very first step. But later, when I contacted Oshwah, I was leaning toward others and Oshwah knows it well. However, I really wonder why Dr.K. hastily acted against my Sockpuppet investigations which had nothing to do with him in practice. Also, @Oshwah: Had you seen this page before coming to this discussion? I don't think any policy or guideline prohibits me from thinking on the the possibility that a user can be a puppet. FYI, the case of INeverCry who was an admin in Commons (I doubt if he was an admin here, too) and later found to be a Master playing another account whom was admin, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Beyond My Ken: You're right and I have never had any objections. Tnx. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mhhossein - Accusing me of having any connection with DarkKing Rayleigh was done without a shred of evidence (which you failed to produce in the report, and here). You did this after a content dispute - in which I would say your actions were questionable (calling a serious article in Newsweek a Human Interest Story?!) - and per your own postings to Oshwah's page - you intended to report Dr.K. on the exact same (lack of) grounds - and moved on to me only following technical difficulties (the SPI page was blocked). I'll note that the timing just after MehrdadFR's block (with whom you've been in contact, and who was making similar off base accusations at AE regarding people who disagreed with him, including me) was also odd. Accusing someone of a serious offense, and sockpuppetry is a serious offense, without any evidence (and in this case - an interaction report limited to some 4-6 pages, and totally different editing patterns (he's editing when I'm asleep!)) - could definitely be construed as quite personal in the sense of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Whether you were correct or not of any misconduct regarding DarkKing Rayleigh (of which I have no concrete opinion - since I do not know much of this new account - though your original report seems to be shaky) - is completely irrelevant to an accusation linking him to me, or accusing me of acting as a sock puppeteer. Regarding policy - this would seem to be fishing as per WP:SPCU. I don't have much to fear from a checkuser (other than what I see as an attack, and entry of my account name in a log) - though from what I read (and see in some account pages) such checks can also find random connections (e.g. multiple editors editing from the same office /library / lab (which may contain hundreds of people or more) - which could be difficult to disentangle (as opposed to a situation in a house with few people).Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mhhossein: I never accused Dr.K. Remember: This is ANI, not Comedy Central or a forum for alternative facts. Now I have two quotes to help you refresh your memory:

This is your first question to Oshwah: A question Dear Oshwah, how are you? I'm here per your kind offer of help. I was trying to open a Sockpuppet investigations subpage for a user but the page was protected while I tried it for anther user and it allowed me. What's wrong? Tnx. --Mhhossein talk 04:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC).

This is the followup comment to Oshwah: I was trying to report Dr.K. at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Thank you again. --Mhhossein talk 06:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC).

So, I ask you again. Please supply the evidence that led you to want to open an SPI against me to the point that you had to enquire about it with an admin.

However, I really wonder why Dr.K. hastily acted against my Sockpuppet investigations which had nothing to do with him in practice. Wonder no more. Acting to prevent SPI abuse against Icewhiz, an established and good-faith editor, from someone with a demonstrable lack of skills for opening SPIs, and who seriously intended to open a fact-free SPI against me, was the least I could do to minimise disruption for a colleague, the project and myself. As for your motives, you only know for sure, but if I had a guess, I would think that you were desperate to win the content dispute at Talk:Ali Khamenei. Dr. K. 15:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mhhossein: having reviewed the report in probably a great deal more detail than the others who have commented here, I agree that the situation makes it look like you filed this report frivolously to try to "win" a content dispute by making trouble for your opponents, but there is also the possibility that you don't understand what sockpuppetry is. As an example: sockpuppetry is one user making several accounts to make it look like there is additional support for their side of a dispute. Sockpuppetry is not when several users in good standing who are regular and long-term contributors to a topic area disagree with something you're trying to do. I don't think that your report was entirely in bad faith: a suspicious account did participate in the discussion, but I didn't see any good reason to suspect that that account was being operated by either of the two users you reported (or attempted to). Sockpuppetry is something we look on very poorly, and accusing someone of sockpuppetry without good evidence is often considered a personal attack, and I'll repeat the advisory that this topic area is under discretionary sanctions. If you find yourself in a similar situation again where you have a disagreement you can't resolve on a talk page, a good next step is dispute resolution. Please do not file any more sockpuppetry investigation requests unless you have very good evidence; if you feel the need to file, feel free to ask myself or one of the other SPI clerks to review your case in advance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Icewhiz: - I've removed as much of a trace of the SPI being filed under your name as I can without obfuscating the actual report; I think it's very clear from what's left that you were accused in error. The entry in the Checkuser log can't be removed, but it is only visible to users with CU access (not a lot of people) and is considered protected private information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, none of us saw any good reason to run a CU on Icewhiz, so his CU log is currently empty. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: It's very interesting to see the you are accusing me of disruption (without hearing my narration of the content dispute) while it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. It's even more interesting that you, as an SPI clerk, don't know of "good standing who are regular and long-term contributors to [the project]" which found to be committing sock-puppetry. Now my suggestions for you, next time, before doing such basic level preaches see the user's contributions, articles and awards. By the way, please see WP:AGF. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.K.:Just stop victim playing and making personal attacks, you have nothing to do with this discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You made two baseless sockpuppeting accusations, and the third that actually existed was identified and deal with by Ivanvector himself. I think you've exhausted your good faith allowance for the time being. It doesn't matter if an editor in good standing had sockpuppeted, you don't go around casting aspersions as to the conduct of other editors with zero connecting evidence, save for that they all appeared on the same page, on the basis of somebody else did it too. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: stop denying that you requested a sockpuppetry investigation of Dr.K. on Oshwah's talk page. You did, we can all see it. My suggestion above that maybe you don't understand exactly what sockpuppetry is was me assuming good faith. Your response that you reported these two users because some other completely unrelated user operated sockpuppets in the past is explicitly a bad-faith argument: you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS based on no relevant evidence at all, and it's an equally specious argument to call these users sockpuppets because you were improperly accused in another entirely unrelated case. I haven't commented on the content dispute and don't intend to, it is entirely irrelevant to the sockpuppetry investigation, which is concluded. You may interpret this as a warning: further commentary in defense of this sockpuppetry investigation and/or regarding the motivations of users in this thread is very likely to be taken as a personal attack. I'll reply to your question on my talk page shortly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: It's of not importance whether you believe in what I say. See my comments at Oshwah's talk page. At first I though DR.K. could be a part of the puppetry, later, after Oshwah asked for concrete evidences and looked deeper into the edits, I realized that the two others are much more involved. Regarding "You may interpret...", do as you wish, my sentences are what I said. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: ...later, after Oshwah asked for concrete evidences and looked deeper into the edits, I realized that the two others are much more involved. No problem. I will settle for whatever little involvement in sockpuppetry that you think I had. Can you specify that little bit of socking you think I did? Dr. K. 03:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: No reply here either. Once more, you said that ...the two others are much more involved. That implies that I was "involved" but to a "much lesser degree". Can you describe my small involvement? On the other hand, if you think I had no involvement at all, what prevents you from acknowledging that and apologising to me? Basic intellectual honesty requires that you provide an answer to this simple question Mhhossein. Dr. K. 15:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Mr rnddude: This is one of the reasons I brought this user at ANI. Mhhossein's inability to admit any fault even for the most obvious of his/her transgressions, while at the same time personally attacking the editors he disagrees with, has manifested itself multiple times at Talk:Ali Khamenei, but without repercussions to himself. However, at ANI, his disruption is under scrutiny by the wider community. That gives me a certain sense of comfort. His refusal to get the point of his disruption clearly manifests itself by his personal comments directed against Ivanvector. By the way, I find Ivanvector's analysis of Mhhossein's actions, consummately professional and even-handed, and I thank him for that. I will not reply to Mhhossein's diatribe directed at me, just above, since it is as transparently fact-free as his botched SPIs. Dr. K. 17:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein has resorted to trolling on the talkpage of the blocked sock

• Mhhossein gives trolling reply to my ANI notice on the page of the blocked sock: Thanks for informing him, however he's unfortunately blocked because of "the disruption caused by Mhhossein". --Mhhossein talk 04:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC) I had given the ANI notice to the sock, before there was an SPI about his/her socking. Dr. K. 06:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Now, Mhhossein has resorted to edit-warring adding back the trolling. Dr. K. 06:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Also misused rollback reverting my edit. Dr. K. 06:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverted again. Dr. K. 06:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "This is my right to have this [message]. This message is meant as a sort of response against your accusations". --Mhhossein ^talk 06:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You go WP:GRAVEDANCING on the talkpage of a blocked sock leaving a trolling message and you expect me to reply to it? Dr. K. 06:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your repetitive accusing me with WP:trolling is deemed as personal attack. Wikipedia is not a battle field. You are wasting the time of every one involved in this topic. Btw, the message was to you, not to the blocked user. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is the place to discuss your disruption. You try to avoid this noticeboard and you attempt trolling messages at the talkpage of a blocked sock. Let's wait for the admins to handle your disruption. Dr. K. 07:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, I really don't want to spoil a clean block log over this, but I'm getting tired of seeing new messages here.

@Mhhossein: above, I asked you (warned you, actually) not to comment on this sockpuppetry issue anymore or cast aspersions about editors here. I realize that my wording "in this thread" may be open to interpretation. However, going to the talk page of the blocked sockpuppet to reply to Dr.K.'s administrative note (a note which is required by policy when posting here) with a complaint about this thread is clearly trolling where it's not grave-dancing.

@Dr.K.: I want to assume good faith and you are entitled to ask for an explanation, but 1) Mhhossein had already given one (not a great one, admittedly) and 2) your continued questioning of him here and on their talk page flies directly in the face of my warning to Mhhossein not to comment on the sockpuppetry issue any further. You're not trying to bait them, are you?

To both of you: I'd like to ask you both to drop this back-and-forth and get back to editing articles. There is only going to be something here worth further administrative action if this continues, and I don't see there being anything to gain from such an outcome. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User using IPs 185.26.183.24 and 185.26.183.63 continually changes the standings in 2017–18 Ukrainian Second League Group A by adding a team which has been annulled and omitted from the reference provided by the official source. The user has not returned any reason nor discourse in the talk section of the article. Official source provided does not have the team in the standings. There is ample documentation in the article about the plight of this team. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute rather than something that needs admin intervention. That being said, you are correct that the official source has completely annulled the results. Page protected for 2 weeks. Fenix down (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At [95], [96], and [97] Johnvr4 has violated his topic ban - to avoid editing subjects connected to weapons and Japan, broadly construed - twice within about 24 hours of its imposition. He also appears to have said at his talk page that he intends to continue editing irrespective of the topic ban [98]. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his airing of woes at [99], the last thing he should be doing right now is editing Wikipedia. Support an indef block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support indef block, as clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for six months. When someone's been here for 5½ years, it's rather a stretch to say that he's NOTHERE. Since all his previous blocks, put together, add up to ten days and change, going straight to an indef block is extreme, and I don't think this is an extreme situation that needs an extreme response. Since he's allowed to appeal in six months, I figured I'd just do a block for that long; he may appeal it as soon as the block expires. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to him, even though I have no reason to be since he openly lambasted me for his own actions, an appeal will certainly fail if he remains blocked the entire duration of his topic ban. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That escalated quickly. I was going to propose leniency based on having just been kicked in the face by Hurricane Irma, but when someone's been here 5½ years, it's rather a stretch to say they don't know how a topic ban works, especially when another admin made such an effort to explain it and they posted this diatribe in response to a warning to stop violating it. Citing WP:IAR as a justification for ban evasion is a new one for me. I don't know the history here but in the interest of the leniency I started talking about, can I propose significantly shortening this block (say, 2 weeks?) since it's a first for evasion, with the topic ban timer reset from the end of the block? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your motivation, Ivanvector, but the messages I saw posted give great pause to endorse any shortening of the block period. Assuming good faith, someone with this editor's RL challenges probably shouldn't be concerning themselves with the project. Should they be able to assemble some reasonable request I might be persuaded to reconsider. Tiderolls 18:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Evasion" really isn't the right word, I think; "ban evasion" to me means getting around a ban, not outright rejecting it and editing as if it didn't exist. IAR really is okay for certain ban-ignoring or -evading situations, e.g. if you're I-banned from someone who starts replacing the Main Page with obscenities, it's perfectly fine to leave a note at WP:BN requesting emergency desysop for the obviously compromised account. However, saying "I won't pay attention to this ban because it's intended to prevent me from improving Wikipedia" is quite different, since there's already consensus that your edits aren't an improvement. If this editor were somehow unaware of the ban or unaware that he was violating it, a short block would be appropriate after a warning, but since he's outright said that he's going to ignore it, we're in a different situation here. Bans are placed when we think you can't contribute positively in some manner but you shouldn't be blocked because you can still contribute overall, and if you demonstrate that the ban isn't preventing disruption, it's time to escalate to the next level of preventiveness. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, mostly. My only concern as a disinterested observer to this drama is that it appears that Johnvr4 is in exceptionally reasonable circumstances to be blowing off steam, for which we usually grant some latitude so long as no disruption is occurring, and I don't think it was outside of his diatribe (and before he was warned). Yeah, he swore up and down that he's definitely not going to respect the ban, but we didn't really give him a chance. I guess Tide rolls makes a good point: if Johnvr4 comes back after some reasonable time and/or after their probably very serious real-life concerns are under control and makes a reasonable unblock request, we can talk about it then. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyburton489, with a history of 2 edits, deleted 3,075 bytes from Cognate, with the edit comment

There is no cognates within the same language. Cognates are words derived from different languages.

CodeCat reverted the change within an hour. Then Leonardomicheli297 (1 edit) repeated the deletion, with the identical change comment.

A sockpuppeteer is unlikely to engage in civil discussion. I am going to inform the user on both of these talk pages, but beyond that I request admin assistance here.--Thnidu (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quacking is strong with these ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnsondrake2607 is probably the same editor too - see their restoration of Joeyburton489's reverted edit on Doublet (linguistics). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The three accounts were created closely together in time:

• Joeyburton489 - 18:37 19 September - 2 minutes before making their first edit, to Cognate [100]
• Leonardomicheli - 19:53 19 September - 2 minutes before restoring Jayburton489's edit to Cognate [101]
• Johnsondrake2607 - 22:23 19 September - 1 minute before restoring Joeyburton489's edit to Doublet (linguistics) [102]

Clearly sockpuppets created specifically for the purpose of restoring reverted edits. Can we get some blocks here, or do I really need to file an SPI for such an obvious and trivial case? (SPI being prety badly backed up). I don't think a CU is needed, given that my ears are bleeding from the quacking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's pretty suspicious. Just the same, I can think of a sort of believable explanation for it. I asked Joey on his talk page for his own explanation. If someone else wants to block, that's fine, but I guess I'd like to hear what Joey says before I do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting that the section in question directly contradicts the second sentence of the article's lede and none of its sources employ the term "cognate". – Uanfala 12:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Petr Kellner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am reporting starting problem at Petr Kellner. In a nutshell vandal using misleading username and various IP addresses is inserting hoaxes to biography of living person. We have same problem at cswiki (see article history) spanning for months resulting in longtime article protection and indef user block. Same problem is just starting here.--Jklamo (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, Jklamo, the user has been blocked for a username violation. I guess it would be worth keeping an eye open should he edit using another account or as an IP. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FranzLidz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Franz Lidz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In this edit, this one, and this edit, a person claiming to be the subject of a BLP said, "The Talk page fantasizing and the finger-pointing templates that blanket both pages of my entry are inappropriate, unprofessional, malicious and, in the opinion of PS&E counsel, potentially libelous. And because the pages are on public display, they impugn my professional reputation". This seems like a legal threat to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's a legal threat, but I think he has a point regarding his BLP. I'll take a look. (see WP:DOLT) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Thank you. It seems the issues are comments by users on the talk page rather than in the BLP, but your review would be appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is Franz Lidz. As I just wrote on the Talk page to my entry, I am emphatically not making a legal threat. I am merely underscoring the recklessness of the edits on the Talk page. I am also requesting that the entry and its Talk page be blanked, per the procedure spelled out elsewhere on this website.50.201.240.110 (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors whose comments on the talk page has been blanked, I want to make it clear that I was not accusing Mr. Lidz of any collusion with the paid editing ring, and I think anyone who actually reads my comments in the context which they were posted can see that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in that discussion as well, and it is abundantly clear that nobody was accusing Lidz of anything. The existence of the sockfarm which edited Franz Lidz and added references to his work in many articles is indisputable, but noone at any time has said or implied that Lidz was a party to it - the accusations of responsibility have all been towards his publisher(s) or PR people connected to the publishers. No one was being reckless, there is clear evidence of the sockfarm's actions, including an admission from one of the participating editors, therefore Lidz (if that is Lidz - until he confirms with OTRS we have no way of being sure) is incorrect in claiming "recklessness". Also, the blanking of the comments is a travesty unwarranted, and should be undone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, why are any of these actions (blanking of talk page comments, AFDing based on subject's desire for deletion) being taken before there's even been an identification to OTRS? Or am I mistaken and his identity has been confirmed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BMK; unless there's been an OTRS confirmation of identity, I think we're jumping the gun on the AfD. I also agree that the discussion that got blanked didn't impugn Lidz personally or professionally, though it suggested (based on what I understand to be pretty clear behavioral evidence) that somebody was engaged in conduct that appeared promotional on our page about Lidz. And, contrary to what the IP above says about legal threats, it was a legal threat. I'm not sure it's to the level of a NLT block, but it's definitely disruptive, and I have no doubt it was made to chill participation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding confirmation of identity, it's a private matter that's being handled offline. As for the blanked section, I agree there was no bright-line misconduct in the section, but BLP concerns shouldn't be brushed aside, and on the balance I felt that courtesy blanking the section was a harmless way to address the editor's concern. If anyone really wants to read what was there it's available in the history. And as for the statement being a legal threat: if it was, it was retracted, so the issue is moot. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector: I would never suggest brushing aside a legitimate BLP concern, but I think it was pretty clear that this was being badly misread by the person claiming to be Lidz, most probably based on the "journalism professor"'s characterization of the discussion to them. Regarding the identification of the account and IP as Lidz, if it turns out that they cannot identify themselves to the satisfaction of OTRS, I would suggest that the discussion be un-blanked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd feel much more comfortable with the trusted, trained volunteers who staff OTRS handling identity verification than it being a "private matter" and "handled offline". This is one of the reasons OTRS was created, so we weren't handling potentially private information on an ad hoc basis. Honestly, I'm surprised to hear this suggestion that BLP concerns are being brushed aside: they're certainly not. As to the retraction of the threat: that may be satisfactory from a NLT perspective, but it does not remove the harm done by the editor claiming to be Lidz in making a legal threat deliberately to stifle legitimate discussion about unidentified individuals' promotional activity on his Wikipedia biography. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen warned PAKHIGHWAY about assuming bad faith and alleging nationalist agendas etc. A little over an hour later, PAKHIGHWAY did it again. This has been going on for months now, eg: in August and July. Their targets seem to be random and, while I imagine Bish is aware of the latest example, I suspect PAKHIGHWAY might claim them to be involved, so perhaps it would be better if someone else who has had absolutely no previous conversation with PAKHIGHWAY does whatever needs doing, which in my opinion is a block. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Involved? I'm not involved, , Sitush, and it makes no difference what they might or might not claim in that regard. Warning somebody in my quality as admin is the last thing that would make me involved. I don't think their replies to my post are the best place to plant my foot, though. IMO it's not quite time for a block yet. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• I know re: uninvolved, Bish, but I also know how little PAKHIGHWAY cares about such policies and how quickly they make erroneous connections between contributors. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, I ought to have notified you of my original post here. Sorry, I forgot on this occasion. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked 24 hours. --John (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And now they're coming up with the same nationalist tripe and unfounded allegations of some sort of conspiracy by Indians etc in their unblock request. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And they dtill don't get it! They've even accused me of being Indian, which is laughable. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've extended the block to indefinite based on their talk page comments. --John (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an edit war going on at Talk:Breitbart News regarding comments that several editors (including myself) believe are inappropriate. This probably merits more than a 3RR report. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]