Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive856

There are two editors on the Anarcho-capitalism page who insist that the article be composed from an anarcho-capitalist POV.

• User:Knight of BAAWA
• User:JLMadrigal
• User:Netoholic

A

, and I think reading their comments in the RfC are indicative of their battleground behavior.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Since this dispute, the article has been in several edit wars, leading to two page protections:

• [4]

JLMadrigal and Netoholic have explicitly demanded ownership:

• "The problem with the disputed text is that it describes viewpoints about anarcho-capitalism held by those outside of the movement - in this case criticisms of anarcho-capitalism." - JLMadrigal ([5])
• "That's not the issue at all. The concern is due weight: this article is the only place where AnCap descriptions of their own movement is relevant and in fact necessary to give a clear definition of the viewpoints that make up this philosophy." - Netoholic ([6])
• "It does not follow that 'well-documented' means it should feature 'prominently' in this article. For the reasons I said above, article space in this article must give more weight to descriptions of anarcho-capitalism from people within the movement since this article is the only reasonable place that content (also 'well-documented') belongs" - Netoholic ([7])

Outside attempts to include relevant information in the lead are either reverted or modified to reflect an anarcho-capitalist POV:

• [8]
• [9]

The reasons they provide for opposing changes are clearly post-hoc justifications for their POV, as sources are never presented and we are supposed to merely take them at their word, which often disagrees with reality:

• JLMadrigal says "anarcho-capitalism is not presented as a 'form of anarchism' in the lede" ([10]), despite the many signs: the Anarchism sidebar, several synonyms which ascribe adjectives to the word anarchism, and claims that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."
• JLMadrigal acknowledges the fact that anarcho-capitalists believe they are practicing anarchism ([11]) and clearly believes the same (see the aforementioned modifications to outside attempts), but waffles when asked a simple, straightforward question: Is anarcho-capitalism anarchism? "If the absence of the state is the determining factor, then yes. If suppressing capital is required, then no." ([12]) So it appears that he understands the controversy surrounding identification as an anarchist... he just doesn't want it mentioned in the lead.
• "Anarcho-capitalist never make the claim that anarcho-capitalism is part of the leftist school - as these editors posit." ([13]) For the record, no editor has claimed that anarcho-capitalism is part of the left.
• Netoholic states that, "As far as I know, there is no AnCap literature that attempts to imply that AnCap is a sub-type of the Anarchist movement, so all this defensiveness from left-Anarchists is unwarranted." But, again, the claim is right there, in the article, sourced to the founder of anarcho-capitalism himself.
• [14]
• [15]

Knight of BAAWA was blocked on 11 July for "personal attacks, incivility and battleground behaviour."

• [16]

Examples of his battleground behavior:

• [17]
• [18]

Drawing irrelevant analogies:

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]

I reported him again when he returned and continued to insult others by "stealthily" using the same pejorative that led to his block (statist). I am still awaiting admin attention on this issue, but it has gone into an Incident Archive and I don't think anyone is going to look at it:

• [23]
• [24]
• [25]

He has continued to threaten me with action if I don't submit to his demands:

• [26]
• [27]
• [28]

A

was opened on 26 July by JLMadrigal, who phrased the whole dispute as occurring between left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists despite the fact that only one editor in the "left-anarchist" camp is an anarchist (me). The noticeboard did receive the following third-party comments though:

• User:Robert McClenon: "The issue is not one of so-called left-anarchists holding the article hostage, but of anarchocapitalists apparently demanding ownership of the article." ([29])
• User:Dyrnych: "It appears that the argument against including the debate in the lead amounts to: "An-cap defines itself as anarchism, so its view and only its view should be reflected in the lead; reflecting any other views amounts to diluting the description of an-cap." But that (1) isolates the legitimate purpose of defining the topic to the exclusion of other purposes of the lead, which include "establish[ing] context"; and (2) assumes that NPOV requires that descriptions of an ideology are made only by adherents of that ideology. Both of these are counter to Wikipedia policies, as other editors have noted." ([30]
  )

I waited for resolution at the NPOV Noticeboards until recently, when I was informed that these boards rarely receive admin attention. But this has gone on too long, and cost Wikipedia a valuable editor (User:N-HH). It is clear to me that admin attention is necessary to resolve this dispute. I am hoping to see topic bans for two of the individuals in question, but perhaps the admins here will have a better solution. The third user here named (Netoholic) has not been active on the Anarcho-capitalism article for some time and I am therefore not seeking any admin action against him. Thanks! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. I don't have anything to add to my previous comments but will restate them. There had been an RFC. I

ownership of the article. I won't comment further at this time, except that the NPOV thread, like most NPOV threads, has been open too long. Robert McClenon (talk

) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I was also asked to comment. However, my participation in the article has been minimal, and I have resisted any further participation; it's too exhausting to deal with such incessant arguing and ownership issues. At the Featured Article review, I attempted to contribute, but the back-and-forth arguing drowned out any constructive discussion and drove me away. At some point, I think sanctions will be required to keep this article maintainable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What actually is shown that that MisterDub believes that he owns the article. Anything he doesn't like he mis-tags as POV just so he can get his own way. He is holding the page hostage to his demands--and that is unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor. I have warned him on his talk page of his article-ownership behavior. If anything, it is MisterDub who should be sanctioned for claiming that others are trying to own the article when in fact it is he who is so attempting. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

With all respect, what I have seen at that article does not make me think that your editing there has been in any way beneficial. MisterDub seems to have valid concerns about your behavior. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, he doesn't, whereas I have valid concerns about his attempt to single-handedly own the page--and I have warned him about this. His behavior is precisely that of "If I can't have it exactly my way, I will tag it with POV and/or claim the editor is being uncivil". That is not the proper behavior of a Wikipedia editor. He has made it very clear that he does not want real discussion; he will give it lip-service, but only to ensure that things are exactly the way he wants them. His desire to own the article is the root of the problem here. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

So the remaining dispute concerns the following wording:

Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, ... and other anarchists who reject capitalism and seek to abolish or restrict the accumulation of property and capital.

...which MisterDub has tagged as "disputed", and

Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, ... and other anarchists who reject capitalism on the grounds that it is incompatible with social and economic equality.

which he permits.

If the administrators are considering taking action against me for supporting the former, then I will yield to the latter - albeit while scratching my head. JLMadrigal @ 02:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Back on the 26th August 2014, I made this edit [31] on the

)

Stevepeterson considers the 2012-2014 vandal edit the 'stable' version. My ire!

User:Taivo agreed with me, as did User:Dr.K., who did not revert my edits. User:Cplakidas initially reverted my edit, on the basis of my 'ignorance'. User:Taivo then told User:Cplakidas that consensus had been reached previously for the wording, and that was it, User:Cplakidas apologised and that was it. User:Stevepeterson decided to make an entry into what was now a settled question. He made this edit ([35]) pushing the 'Ancient Greek' version, against consensus (reached twice, once in 2009 and now in 2014 (by myself, User:Taivo and User:Cplakidas) to keep the wording 'Ancient Kingdom')

He then posted on the talk page ([36])

“

I thought this topic was closed, unfortunately we are becoming again victims of hotheads from the aegean and vardar macedonian parts. At least make a resolution here and dont affect the quality of the site with edit wars. and good luck guys with your wasting of enormous amounts of hours fighting here. I will only make one humble comment: winning such an internet debate is like wining the paraolympics. You might win it but you remain disabled. Stevepeterson (talk) 12:56 am, 28 August 2014, Thursday (29 days ago) (UTC+10)

”

Here, as can be seen by that comment, is derogatory to people with disabilities, and is also in violation of

. He also claims that he will make one, humble edit. Obviously not.

This then ensued in an edit war with myself and Taivo, aided by

. His reverts are:

([37]) ([38]) ([39]) ([40]) ([41])

Stevepeterson obviously saw Taivo and I as vandals, when it was clear both he and User:Gtrbolivar were going against the consensus, edit warring and vandalising. Realising that he was wrong, he started a sockpuppet investigation, with User:Taivo as the sockpuppeteer and myself as the sockpuppet.

([42])

This was branded an attack page, and had he even bothered to look at our contribs, he would have seen that Taivo and I edit at opposite timeframes, and radically different articles (I mainly edited Australian articles). Stevepeterson did not even bother to alert Taivo or myself to this faux investigation, and, when an editor alerted Taivo that he was under investigation, Stevepeterson replied to that comment in a very smart-arsed way, sarcastically and uninterestedly saying "Great Stuff" ([43])

then a 5-day rest between all editors (by this time, I gave up on the article, I had stopped editing it since 29th August), and then the warring starts again between Gtrbolivar, Stevepeterson and Taivo, with the first 2 users insulting both myself and User:Taivo's intellectual capacity. His final revert:

([44])

The subsequent page was protected by User:Ronhjones, hoping that it would be resolved on the talk page, but the bad blood continued on the talk page, with barbs traded by all editors (including myself), not just User:Stevepeterson

The lede of an article is to describe the article and provide a short summary, without the need of sources. Including the 'Ancient Greek' qualifier would require sources, and as such should not be included in the lede of an article, and the use of the term 'Ancient Kingdom' is not biased in any way, not to the 'proSlavMacedonian' side, nor to the 'proGreek' side.

Yet, Stevepeterson continued his slanderous behaviour, with many barbs traded, as can be seem in his contribs

This user is obviously here to promote the use of the qualifier 'Greek' on all related articles, and is actually not contributing to Wikipedia, as you can see his contribs, since late 2012/early 2013, he only edits articles related to Ancient Macedon/Greece, arguing with a plethora of editors, and is obviously a

.

Stevepeterson then commented on User:AkiiraGhioni (another

) his edit as his claims are ludicrous and degrading. He then claims that I 'refactored' his obvious vandal edit.

Stevepeterson then commented on User:Reaper7 talk page ([47]) stating that User:Macedoniarulez and I are the same editor, a farcical claim.

Stevepeterson then went to User:Gtrbolivar talk page and wants to lodge a sockpuppetry case saying that myself and User:Macedoniarulez are the same user, implying that User:Macedoniarulez created my account in July 2013, editing primarily Aussie articles until late winter/early spring 2014 just to argue in his favour. This is a farce and this editor should be blocked indefinitely. The below link is to his edit.

([48])

His claims are apparently I switch between 2 accounts so as to avoid violations of 3RR rules. Farcical.

Now, I am not saying that I am innocent, as I have refactored his edit (29th Aug;[49]) which I later apologised for ([50]) not only once, but many times (I cant find the revisions). Stevepeterson did not accept the apologies.

Stevepeterson, in summary, is:

• unwilling to compromise
• unwilling to negotiate
• assumes bad faith, fails to assume good faith
• not her to create an encyclopedia
• single purpose account
• edit warrior
• vandal
• disruptive editing
• wikibully

I would like to see him blocked indefinitely due to his farcical claims and obvious disruptive editing. Please pass on your judgement.

Luxure (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, I will not go into much details on the extend of personal attacks I (and other users) have received from this user, who is extremely rude and destructive. I believe that he brought me here because he is afraid that I would bring him first. I received the SPA because I added a request for consensus to the article not because I was destructive. This is evident from the explanation that I received from the administrator who issued the alert:

Alert

I realize that you are trying to restore neutrality to a polarized topic. However, I gave the alert, which says that implies no wrong-doing, to everyone who posted about the pseudo-RFC. As you have seen, a few of the editors are out of line. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Luxure has openly accepted that he has no intention to respect me:

I wish I could respect you, but your childish behaviour prevents it Luxure (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC) [51]

• He has used 18 different words to insult me in a similar case where he brought User:Gtrbolivar(i cant find the text above because the issue was closed). I just wondered why no administrator blocked/warned him then
• He refactored my comments because he disagreed with my neutral terminology (
  Slavic Macedonian to address ethnic groups in the region of Macedonia) which opposes what nationalists in the region believe that teh term Macedonian should be exclusively used by their ethnic group only).[52] Although he claims to have apologised for this particular refactoring, he has never done it. He once announced to all insulted users in the talk page that he apologises for all past behaviour. Even if I accept his hollow apology, I brought it here because it is evidence of his pro nationalism
  biased POV and his bullying manners.
• Although he claims to have apologised for refactoring my edits, he did it again yesterday [[53]]. He undid my comment to a talk page which is equivalent to deleting/refactoring my communication with the other user.
• below is an example of his tone when speaking to other contributors such as the respectful
  User:AkiiraGhioni
  :

Your assumptions are severely degrading and they are wrong. When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME. The '2012-2014' version was NOT a stable version. It was a vandal edit, and I am serious questioning your capacity to see things which are obvious.

• Together with
  Ancient Macedonia
  ), reverting, attacking and insulting in a rotating so that none alone is charged with the total volume of reversions. They have the same tone and rhetoric and attack the same users who disagree with their radical opinions. He claims to be a newcomer but he is very experienced with Wikipedia, more experienced than me editing for 9 years.

Although unfair I personally don't mind if you block me, I have received far too many insults by this gang of users that I can quit editing at any time, after 9 years of editing without experiencing any problem with other editors. H ebrought me here because he is afraid that I would bring him first, although I had no intention to deal with him and/or

.

Stevepeterson (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It is now 10.45pm here and I don't have enough time to search up and find my apologies, but I assure, I will find them. This is typical of Stevepeterson, playing the victim card, as if he is the one being marginalised. I was not afraid of his attack page faux sockpuppet investigation, in fact, I await it, to prove that he really is here to disrupt rather than collaborate. The ASSUME (ASS U ME) is a common phrase in English-speaking countries, and my only past behaviour for which I could apologise for is my refactoring of his edit, which I did apologise for. He is not here for an encyclopaedia, he only pushes his views on articles, only for a single purpose. I also lost respect for him due to his behaviour Luxure (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

These two users continue to add

) 14:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Those pages are ads and also copyvios. I've deleted accordingly as G11/G12. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, they were copies of Shridhar University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was created by User:LNDV and has been heavily edited by User:LeninDev. I tagged it today for multiple issues requiring clean up. It may also have copyvio, or simply be a "custom made" advert. I'll try to look into it more closely tomorrow. Meanwhile, shortly after I added the maintenance tags, they were removed by an IP [55]. I have restored them, but I have no idea how long they'll stay there. Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That was the second removal by the same IP. The tags had been removed earlier, & the IP had been warned & the tags reapplied, but the IP repeated the offence. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How is that image any more of a copyvio than this, for example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's just that you can't use them in user space. Neatsfoot (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio isn't the issue, you can't use any non-free media outside article space. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Below, Seraphim continues to insist it's a copyvio. Which of you two has it right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Both of us. The mainspace article (

WP:NFCC#9. Black Kite (talk)

22:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So there's no problem with the image itself, only with how it was being used?←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite - if the article existed in mainspace, it could be used there. Technically, though, the image could currently be deleted per

WP:CSD#F5 as unused. Black Kite (talk)

22:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's standard procedure for fair-use images not in use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The mainspace one was a copyvio (and ad) as well, and has been deleted correspondingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted it again and salted it. The university is probably notable, but unless we actually have a non-copyright-violating article to put there, leaving it unprotected seems to be considered an invitation to re-post the same copyvio spam. Huon (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Back again as Shridhar University, Pilani. Same authors, same copy-vios. As a serial (and sometimes unfairly snarky) India-related CSD decliner, I've noticed you can quite often find passing mentions of secondary schools in the usual English language press sources that confirm they at least exist, independently of the schools' websites. It seems curious that there is no mention at all in G-news for a university opened in 2008. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• There is also plenty of text in
  Stefan2 (talk
  ) 14:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

On 17 September I was invited to vote in Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)#Request_for_CONSENSUS. One of the given options was Macedonia was an Ancient Slavic Kingdom and I chose this option which I further developed into Macedonia was a Protoslavic kingdom. I immediately became subject of attacks from User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise who deleted my comment twice and called me "an idiot from the opposing Greek side" and that I was selecting the slavic/protoslavic option to make Macedonians look stupid:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AleksanderDonski&diff=625917152&oldid=625915379

before I could even find time to respond to his insults he went on to block me:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AleksanderDonski&diff=625919317&oldid=625917152

Futureperfect acting as if he was Judge Dredd abused his administrator capacity, he insulted me and disallowed me to further express my opinion or vote in the discussion.

He clearly did not assume good faith or spend a minute to discuss and investigate the case. I should clarify that I am not the first person in the world to express such an opinion, that Ancient Macedonian spoke an Indoeuropean language that has many similarities with proto-slavic languages. There are many websites and publications that have supported the theory and examples are below: [56] [57] [58]

Perhaps it would be worth mentioning that FuturePerfect had earlier confused my nickname Aleksander Donski, a short of ALEKSANDER MakeDONSKI, (my favourite Ancient Macedonian warlord), with a modern Macedonian Historian whose name AleksandAR Donski has similar spelling (~AR instead or ~ER). Apparently there is a story between User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise and the modern Historian, Future perfect disagrees with Donski's work and in 2010 he voted to delete his article speaking with prerogative and arrogant tone for the Historian: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aleksandar_Donski&diff=375330700&oldid=375324774 This might have influenced his decision because he mentioned the Historical in my talk-page. I propose that you warn him or revise User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise's right to block users without investigation.

AleksanderDonski (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Futureperfect, I tried to inform you about the report but I couldn't, it says that your page is semiprotected. Fortunately someone else informed you. AleksanderDonski (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The contentious diff is [59]. That content seems fairly nonsensical, pointlessly inflammatory, and was made by a newly created account named after a rather controversial real-world person. We could harp on

WP:BITE here, but in this context, I'm not particularly optimistic that there's any point in accommodating this apparent flamebait. YMMV. --Joy [shallot] (talk

) 14:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the comment was provocative, but it was only on a talk page, and there is often considerable latitude for talk page comments. Since

Arbitration Enforcement? Robert McClenon (talk

) 14:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• FPaS is probably entirely right about the issue, but I'm not
  not sure why he would think it's okay to block someone on that article.--v/r - TP
  17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not really, practically all of FPaS' edits on the article are either uncontentious fixes, copyedits or removing obvious disruption (and no edits for 18 months). I don't really see a problem there. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Participation on the talk page is much more recent than 18 months.--v/r - TP 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Again, either uncontentious, reverting obvious trolling (or in one case, pointing out to one such editor why their edit will never stand). I don't see any evidence of anything approaching INVOLVED ("an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved"). As an aside, this is a similar issue to that of User:Sitush on Indian subcontinent articles; we are too over-reliant on one editor to hold back the tide of nationalistic POV warriors and it is very easy for them to claim INVOLVED; we shouldn't be helping them. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• There is that strange policy prejudice about "involvedness" having to do with ever having edited an article. Fortunately, that has never been what the admin policy actually entails. Being involved or not is not a function of what articles you have or haven't edited, but a function of whether or not you have an editorial position of your own at stake with respect to the specific situation at hand. Don't take admin actions to advance your own position in a dispute; that's what it says. In fact, I would never block some of the other people currently involved in the fracas on that article, because with them I actually do have an editorial difference of opinion pertinent to the situation (if I thought it okay to block them, I would have handed out half a dozen blocks weeks ago, believe me.) But I have no editorial dispute with "AleksanderDonski" here. Determining, as I did, that the opinions he wishes to promote on that page are miles outside the bounds of what could legitimately be defended as a constructive, policy-conformant editorial position, and that his additions to the debate were nothing but disruptive flamebait, is not an editorial opinion but a administrative observation that any other competent administrator who knows the area would equally arrive at. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is one of the cases where a totally "uninvolved" admin would have to spend a couple of hours working out what the underlying issue is, and would still be unsure of which claims on the talk page were based on reliable sources and which were nationalist POV pushing. AleksanderDonski should be congratulated for their detailed ANI report as their eighth edit but nothing further is required here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is a case of fringe POV-pushing about the origin of the Ancient Macedonians which rises to the level of trolling. FPaS was justified in blocking this editor for disruption. Now the same editor is adding this fringe stuff into the article of Alexander the Great. This is very disruptive and I think FPaS should be able to stop this disruption in the future as well. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

IP 108.215.8.245 has been engaging in prolonged edit warring at Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. The IP has repeatedly tried to insert contested material, and has reverted both Goethean and myself multiple times. Many examples could be given, but see here and here. More recently, the IP has popped up on my talk page making personal attacks, visible here, where I am described as "a Christopher Hitchens-worshipping, Richard Dawkins-idoling new atheist fanatic", although the IP actually knows nothing about my personal religious or philosophical views. I realize that Wikipedia's administrators cannot be everywhere and take note of every single problem that occurs on this site, but this particular little dispute has gone on for long enough and does need attention. I suggest the IP be blocked per

) 01:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(IP has also edit warred at Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, as visible here). ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually at first Gothean removed the information that I posted, claiming that the scholarship was too old. I kindly notified Gothean that early accounts of a historical figure's life are more reliable than later accounts, which tend to be embellished. My contribution was than removed by ImprovingWiki, who said that I had to give a reason for undoing Gothean's undue. I then did so, and contacted both individuals to settle the matter, explaining to them why my contribution was valuable, as it is derived from information much closer to Goethe's actual lifetime than some of the other sources. Both have to date mostly ignored me, or have said that they are disinterested in further discussing the issue. So what then? No other users have taken umbrage with what I've written, and both the users who do don't want to debate the issue to any further extent. Why do the keep editing my writing than? I apologize to ImprovingWiki for the personal attack, but I am also deeply offended by his incessant undoing of my writing without any attempt at reaching a common ground, only false promises that the issue will be discussed at a later time. When I asked him to justify his actions, he only called my writing "pompous drivel," again ignoring my views at all on the matter.

Concerning the "edit warring" on Leibniz's page; I only undid an undue once. By definition a edit war occurs when a user repeatedly undoes another users writing, which at once demonstrates that ImprovingWiki's claim is fictitious. Moreover, considering ImprovingWiki edited that page shortly after myself, and did not undue my writing there, does that not mean that he agreed that it was reliable? Why does he now not hold that view when it serves his purpose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You are missing a fairly basic point here, which is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It operates by consensus. If your changes are not accepted by other editors, then they do not go in the article, and you need to accept that. Making repeated reverts to try to get your way is unacceptable. Your behavior at the Leibniz article has not, so far, been as extreme as your behavior at the Goethe article, but it forms part of a worrying pattern nevertheless. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A contribution is only undone when a person takes umbrage with what is written. To date, only you and Gothean have taken umbrage with what I've written, and neither you nor Gothean are interested in explaining why you take umbrage with it or arriving at common ground. I have repeatedly tried to contact both of you to no avail, and you yourself said that you have no interest in discussing the issue with me. If you are so indifferent, so impartial, so nonchalante about the issue, then why go to such great lengths to undue it? Your actions indicate that you have very grave reasons for removing it, but your responses suggest that you couldn't care less about what is written on the page. That is my entire gripe with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Contributions are reverted whenever they are deemed unhelpful. Both Goethean and I have reverted you, and we have done that because we find your contributions to the Goethe article unhelpful. Goethean has explained himself perfectly clearly. Your "gripe" with me personally is not relevant. Your behavior already deserves a block. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor

WP:3RR at Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. EdJohnston (talk

) 03:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I realize that I should have tried to find a better solution than making multiple reverts at an earlier stage. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The argument that historical sources closer to the individual's lifetime are to be preferred is spurious, since it confuses the value of primary sources with secondary sources. The most recent secondary sources generally to be preferred, though the quality of the source has to be taken into account. You were quoting from a 1926 biography to justify inserting stuff like "the claim that Goethe's early faith was shaken by the Lisbon earthquake is disputed by earlier accounts, leading some to speculate that such claims are the fabrications on the part of later secular historians." The only person speculating about such supposed fabrications is you. Paul B (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this intentional vandalism? en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashgar&diff=prev&oldid=625419913 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.141 (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 22:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If not, what then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.159 (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The guy is obviously trolling. Kashgar has nothing to do with Kashi. (I mean the Indian city also called Varanasi). Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

On September 25,

. Additionally, I am unaware of any guideline indicating that it is acceptable to categorize an article based on its presence at a list article.

Apparently my concerns were a moot point, as rather than

Cathy has reinserted the category.

I believe Cathy's conduct is inappropriate and am requesting that they have their access to

revoked until they show a willingness to pursue a consensus rather than brush aside concerns regarding their application of categories, unless they are willing to revert their recent edits pending a consensus on the matter.

Thank you for your consideration. DonIago (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Postcard Cathy shouldn't be adding categories to biography articles wherein the content of the article does not support the inclusion of the category. Although it is perhaps not the most contentious of categories,

WP:BLPCAT does not apply in this case. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

16:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Please advise as to whether I should undo their re-addition of the category or take no action at this time. Due to the significant number of articles involved I don't want to make changes just to have them reverted (again). DonIago (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I've asked Postcard Cathy to refrain from adding the alumni categories unless supported by sourced article content and to stop reverting if they are removed citing sourcing concerns. There is no reason the categories cannot be removed on a case by case basis if there is no material in the BLP supporting its inclusion, though it would be nice to cross-check with the list being used to import references if they exist.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW it may be the case that PC (and other editors for that matter) needs to look a little deeper into the names on the

Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts. A read through of High School of Performing Arts#Development of a new building and a joint school shows that the merge between the two schools did not occur until 1961 when DeLuise would have been 28. I know that PC is no longer adding the category to article so I am posting this only for its informational value - such as that may be. MarnetteD|Talk

21:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a complete outrage!

IP 62.168.13.98: death threat to other user

IP 62.168.13.98 is long term abuser, with long history of uncivil conduct, racist and vulgar language. For example "czechofile is worse than a pedophile", "You are Czech C..t" and "yopie is czech phanatic idiot". He was blocked four times [71]. But today he crossed the line with this [72], it is in Czech and in English it means "This is your end, pig". Link is to Youtube video "Slaughter in Mexico (Warning Disturbing)" with really bloody killing of pigs. I feel it as

) 18:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

E-mailed @emergency, section already removed by OP. Amortias (T)(C) 18:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 3 months. De728631 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Would it be worth revdel the two offending posts as well, dont think theres a particually valid need to keep them about. Amortias (T)(C) 20:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've taken care of that. De728631 (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

) 10:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned with

) 08:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

[76] user notified per requirement.

talk

) 08:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• An argument attacking "Hell in a Bucket" as a username is silly. I will withhold comment on the all the horrible connotations that the username "Neotarf" could possibly raise if I followed the same logic.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin please swiftly block the violators of

at Talk:Paris. Check the history of the page, the new users who have created accounts to push their urban image agenda from skyscraper.com are all regulars see here and here. Two of them are moderators and it is very clear canvassing is going on off sites to push and try to force a change. The main offending editors are Users Sesto Elemento, Minato ku, and Clouchicloucha. There is already a thread or two further up here related to existing editors and the canvassing offwiki, but this needs to be dealt with asap. The article is already protected from being changed. More meatpuppets from the website are going to keep turning up if nothing is done, what needs to be done is a] Indefinitely block all new accounts directed at trying to sway consensus on the talk page b] Remove all posts on the talk page by the violators, c] place a protection also on the talk page to stop new puppets coming in and disrupting it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If the article is already protected, this doesn't seem like a four-alarm fire. Your off-Wikipedia links show no actual canvassing; they don't mention Wikipedia or changing Wikipedia at all. I see no evidence of any direct canvassing or any appeals off-Wiki for people to participate on Wikipedia in this debate; I see editors with an interest in Paris and Parisian architecture, as evidenced by your links to their participation in an off-Wiki forum previous months ago. I don't see where this dangerous flood of new editors is supposed to come from, sans any actual off-Wiki appeal.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Three editors from a skyscraper forum turn up in close succession purely to try to push an urban image on wikipedia. There doesn't need to be any mention of wikipedia there, the fact that the three are from such a website, two of them moderators there should be enough for an admin to warn them about meatpuppetry and to lock the talk page from further new editors, even if nobody is willing to block because of no direct proof.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Same vandalism, different IP

Earlier this month

) 16:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember this one. Semi protection of Art Bell would probably be reasonable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And now it's been done again by a third IP.[83] I think you are right. I will go and request page protectin. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Tiderolls 21:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! That was fast! --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been noticing a range of IP's, all from

23:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You might try asking to have the templates protected at

WP:RFPP. FWIW those IP's with long numbers (there is a specific term for them but it escapes me at the moment) show up in the WHOIS as Mt Laurel NJ, Richardson TX or one other city (which also escapes me) - that doesn't mean that all of the editors are in those three cities. I haven't explained this very well. Hopefully another editor or admin will add the info we need. MarnetteD|Talk

01:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

They're IPv6 addresses. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I would consider it, but with the IP groups usually being around most of the newly-signed Bears players (like with

Mati

00:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP Special:Contributions/12.27.243.245 was recently blocked for vandalism, but continues to vandalize their own talk page, by adding inappropriate images. Please advise (and revoke talk page access). --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

TP access revoked. Acroterion (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Is redaction of these diffs necessary or optional? – Epicgenius (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's the usual sort of image vandalism. I think a delete/restore might be in order just to clear it for any future user of the IP. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Overuse of UK

Gigs suggested I bring this here. The background is the debate about using "England, UK" or just "England" (also Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). There was a discussion that Gigs closed with instruction that changes should stop at [94]. I stopped removing "UK". The editor adding "UK" kept adding it. The editor is identified by having a Orange Broadband IP address. I have put some examples in my sandbox, from the last month or so. What to do? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Put diff's of the evidence in this report as evidence of the issue as per

WP:D&L

.

You also need to put the {{subst:ANI-notice}} info on their talk page to advise them that your reporting them here and it might not be a bad idea to advise what their actual IP or username is so we know who were looking at. Amortias (T)(C) 22:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP changes a lot, maybe every hour. I do not know how to find the last one, can I just pick any? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Article names are best bet in that case so the IP's can be looked at. Amortias (T)(C) 22:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Orange IP are 2.24-31.*.* 95.144-151.*.* 91.105-109.*.*. A list of pages is in my sandbox, it is a bit big, do I have to copy it here? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Theres quite a large range of pages there some of which havent been edited in a couple of weeks, 2 or 3 recent examples would be best, if there arent any within the last 48 hours or so it might need to be held off until they edit again. Amortias (T)(C) 22:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am somewhat familiar with this as I was involved in the initial discussion and I have discussed this on Narrow Feint's talk page. NF says "the editor adding "UK" kept adding it". That isn't really the fact of the matter as a) there was no one editor who was identified as persistently adding it in the first place (unless NF has an editor in mind), b) there seems to be more than one editor at work here, and c) those editors were almost certainly not involved in the discussion that concluded these changes were to stop, so they are probably not aware that they're doing anything wrong. However, at first glance, it looks likely that a lot of these edits are one person using IPs from Salford, so basically we just need to identify those IPs who are adding it regularly or often, and tell them on their talk pages to stop. I did say to NF that I would do that, but I haven't had the chance yet (his list is rather long), and he has decided to come here first. I'm not really sure this is ANI material, not yet anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

On second glance, the Salford editor with the Orange IPs does seem to be the main person doing this, but he uses a different IP every day, only going back to it maybe a couple of weeks later. It's rather hard to find the most recent, and I'm not sure he'd see a warning if we left him one. How do we grab his attention? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if this works, but use the articles' talk pages first, since this is a dynamic IP, title a new section, and say something similar to "To Orange IP User who keeps adding 'UK' to articles...". We don't want it to escalate to having a whole city as collateral damage to an Orange rangeblock. Anyone have better ideas? – Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, here goes. These have changed in the last three days. I will have to pause now. The IP that the editor uses keeps changing, but it always an Orange IP. Narrow Feint (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Derbyshire

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Liam Boyle (actor)

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Jack Bond

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Sir Thomas Barlow, 1st Baronet

| PLACE OF DEATH = 10 Wimpole Street, London, England, UK

Natalie Dormer

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Reading, Berkshire, England, UK

Tommy Banks (footballer)

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Suzanne Shaw

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Mark Charnock

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Johnny Ball

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Cherie Blair

|birth_place =

UK

|PLACE OF BIRTH=

UK

Ian Aspinall

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Reg Harris

| death_place =

UK

| PLACE OF DEATH = Macclesfield, Cheshire, England, UK

Danny Boyle

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Hylda Baker

| death_place =

UK

| PLACE OF DEATH =

UK

Andrew Buchan

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Stockport, England, UK

Nellie Halstead

| PLACE OF DEATH = Bury, Lancashire, England, UK

John Spencer (snooker player)

| birth_place =

UK

| death_place = Radcliffe, Bury, England, UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

| PLACE OF DEATH =

UK

|PLACE OF BIRTH = Farnworth, Lancashire, England, UK

|PLACE OF DEATH = Warsash, Hampshire, England, UK

The most recent IP is this one [95], which he used today. But he will very likely use a different one tomorrow. He seems to be editing BLPs with an association with his local area, i.e. Manchester / Lancashire etc. Looking at what he does, there's major overlinking there as well as placename fiddling – I suspect he's not very familiar with a number of MOS guidelines and just needs to be informed of what he's doing wrong. But I'm not sure how we can do that if he keeps switching IPs about. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Somebody who knows how to make an edit filter could create one that prevents IPs from adding the phrase 'England, UK' to an article. (Could flag or prevent these edits, or send the IPs over to WP:AIV for further review). The page at

WP:SPI to save the valuable time of ANI. EdJohnston (talk

) 03:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned this at the GM project page here Several editors responded and I have left messages on the talk pages of some of the ips. For what it's worth I think the editor knows exactly what he's doing. J3Mrs (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding an edit filter, I don't know if that would be ideal. The issue here is one of controversial systematic edits. The key is that it is controversial whether to include the "UK" or not, and there's no real consensus on it. Adding an edit filter would enforce a format that isn't really accepted as consensus. When I closed that earlier discussion I did feel like consensus was slightly leaning toward omitting the UK after England, but because we were talking about mass systematic changes, the bar is higher and we need more a solid consensus before enforcing one or the other. Gigs (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Still overlinking mostly now from the

List of people from Bolton and I left a message while he was still editing. J3Mrs (talk

) 18:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverted removal so warned. J3Mrs (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Currently at 95.145.204.239, last edit 15 minutes ago. Narrow Feint (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If you see him, you warn him. If you wait for someone else to do it, it might well be too late, like today. Include a link to the discussion and mention the closure that Gigs left and explain that whatever the placename format that exists in the article, he has to leave it that way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And again: [96]? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

He is at 2.31.250.67 (talk · contribs) I have left two messages at his talk page, one generic and one template, and reverted several edits (blunt instrument, I know) at [97], [98], [99], [100] and [101]. It has had no effect, as he has repeated an edit to Badly Drawn Boy, diff. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know how many nations named England there are, but I'm only aware of one, and since the United Kingdom nearly ceased being such only a few days or weeks ago, I suggest that not only is "UK" unnecessary when identifying a city in England, it's absolutely unwarranted. Besides, anyone on the planet who has any doubt as to the location or identity of any nation named "England" need only click on its wikilink and their confusion will be alleviated. Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, this discussion isn't about that. There was a long discussion about UK placename formats, and there was no consensus. So the idea is not to make systematic changes to them, which is what this guy is doing, and others have done and been stopped from doing. Secondly, just because you know that England is a part of the UK, don't assume that everyone else on the planet does too. This is an encyclopedia which exists to inform people, not a reflection of what you already know. Most people know that California is in the US, but nobody's saying that putting "US" in Californian infoboxes is "unwarranted". I'd like to see how that discussion might go. Lastly, the UK did not "nearly cease being such" – had Scotland voted for independence, the rest of the UK would, as I understand it, not have disappeared. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Note that the following is not an editor dispute as Krzyhorse22 and myself have no interaction history in articles. Krzyhorse22 has wasted untold hours of editor time. A wide variety of editors have negatively commented on this editors extremely bizarre and aberrant behavior patterns, including Baseball_Bugs, The Bushranger, Rsrikanth05, Bbb23 etc. Please observe the following:

• He has taken a particular
  WP:STALKING fascination with StanTheMan87
  . He places a warning template on Stan's talk page, on average, of once every 37 hours (19 times in the last 30 days).
• His first three edits on WP were to file ANIs.
• In the 30-day life of his account, he has filed at least (that we can count) 7 ANIs and 3RRs ([102] [103][104],[105], [106] [107]), all of which have been dismissed or archived without action. Here's his most recent: [108]. In most of these he repeatedly demands 'indefinite blocks' ([109]).
• In a variety of
  WP:CIVIL transgressions he has called other editors "monkey face," ([110]
  ) among a wide variety of other invectives.
• In violation of
  WP:LEGAL he has said that he has contacted the CIA regarding another editor's edits. ([111]
  )
• In possible violation of
  WP:LEGAL, he has insinuated he, himself, is a CIA agent here to enforce copyright laws. ([112]
  )
• In violation of
  WP:VAN, and in apparent retribution against me after I asked him to stop his daily tagging of the Mullah Omar file for deletion, he vandalized image file permissions descriptions of two public domain images I uploaded to make them appear to be non-public domain prior to then nominating them for deletion. (here - [113] - he modified an image peremissions file to add "current owner Susan Parish" then nominated it for deletion - the source (http://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/Record/View/CC3D746502C00F7ADEFF3EE66D57F54A
  ) does not contain the word "owner" or anything similar)
• He has previously been cautioned by DeltaQuad for editing "in a way which conflicts with sockpuppetry policy." ([114])

An ANI was previously filed on 1SEP2014 regarding this editor, however, was archived without admin input. We have tried to bring it up to other admins outside ANI, however, have been told KH22 has made so many "unusual" edits that they don't have time to sort through them. IOW, we're getting absolutely pummeled by this account but, frustratingly, he's spending so much time doing it that he's essentially bought a carte blanche. DocumentError (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the two "Legal" statements, the first one is not a threat at all. He supposedly asked the head of the CIA to verify if a photo was actually a particular terrorist. Not any sort of threat explicit nor implicit. Regarding the second one, saying "you have no idea who I am, I could be CIA for all you know" is also not a threat but a factual statement about the nature of the internet. I could be King Abdullah for all you know.--v/r - TP 20:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for contextualizing it. Saying "I just called the head of CIA and he said nobody is sure if that guy in the image is the real Mullah Omar" I guess could be something a good faith, rational editor might drop into a routine edit discussion. And, you are correct, his other statement is a factual statement about the nature of the internet; he could be a CIA agent here to monitor Wikipedia for copyright violations. I've edited my OP to move those issues down to the bottom of the list. If I overreacted, I would like to apologize to KH22, and also ask him to please transmit my apologies to CIA director John Brennan and president Obama the next time he conferences with them regarding Wikipedia image file permissions.DocumentError (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat, but IMHO something more along the lines of

speaking frankly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

22:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And, honestly I'm less concerned with the declarations of CIA intervention into WP (which are obviously just insane rants) than I am with the vandalizing of image permissions pages, with templating StanTheMan's talk page 19 times in 30 days, with filing one ANI every 96 hours (all of which are dismissed but have now occupied going on 10 hours of editor time to work through), with the questions of sockpuppetry, etc. And we wonder why there's been a 30% drop-off in editors. Who wants to deal with this lunacy beginning Day 2 of their Wikipedia account history and, when they try to ask for help like StanTheMan has done, are basically told to stop complaining? DocumentError (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I never called any editor a monkey face. My first edit was nominating an image of Mohammad Omar which was deleted and so was my first edit. When StanTheMan87 began uploading the same image I was forced to confront him. I didn't file excessive reports, others are filing them against me. I'm not violating Wikipedia by nominating images that are uploaded with vague licenses. I have said to everyone the phone call to CIA was a joke and that was over a week ago, DocumentError and StanTheMan87 are repeating this in their every message. I never vandalized the image description but added the author and other important information [115] [116] that DocumentError failed to provide. To make it short, the accusations levelled against me are untrue. I did not violate any Wikipedia policy. I only added 4 image tags on StanTheman87's page, one warning for 3RR and one regarding ANI case, all of that are Wikipedia's requirement.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"So now you either accept that monkey face or go find clear evidence." ([117]) The rest of your pleas of innocence (e.g. not vandalizing image permission files) have already been debunked with diffs in my OP. That said, I note you just undid your vandalism to the permissions description in the last 60 minutes ... basically right after I filed this ANI (see: [118]). You do realize everything on WP is permanent, right? DocumentError (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Me and admin Baseball Bugs were joking about adding this monkey face to an article, Bugs had brought this up and I just replied, read the whole conversation. That's not calling another editor a monkey face. You are deliberately twisting information.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No you weren't; once again, you're big on talk and short on diffs. DocumentError (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22 is much more than meets the eye. He/she has used arguments supporting his own viewpoint by making outrageous and insulting statements targeting not only an individual in one case ("Because Khalid Hadi was proven to be a liar, we cannot take his story about photographing Mulla Omar as truth") [119], but entire ethnic groups (" Afghans in general are corrupt and they exaggerate too much. The same goes for Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians and etc.") [120]. All of these accusations have been made without no, absolutely no cited sources. In fact, the only time he has managed to find a source to support his weak pov, he used it from me proving a point then twisted it against me, see [121](10th paragraph down) and [122] as well as [123] and [124]. His supposed claim to have contacted the head of the CIA is also ridiculous, as he used that as justifying the removal of an image to suit his own totally whack POV. How can someone like this be considered an impartial editor? StanTheMan87 (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we Indians are a very corrupt lot. Thankfully he hasn't harassed me for being one. But we'rre so corrupt that we have a dozen Wikipedias in our own language. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Rsrikanth05, don't take it the wrong way. I was referring to Afghan, Pakistani and Indian sources. They often exaggerate or are based on what villagers believe. For example, Khalid Hadi is an Afghan and claimed that he photographed the spiritual leader of the Taliban in 1993 in Kandahar, Afghanistan. [125] However, all other sources say that Omar was living in Pakistan in 1993. He and his men (Taliban) took over Kandahar in 1994. It's not me, it's the world who calls Afghanistan one of the most corrupt countries on earth. See Corruption Perceptions Index. Besides, this is my personal view and if anyone doesn't agree just don't. Also, read what this American photojournalist think about Afghans. He has been to that country 20 times. [126]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Omar was living in Pakistan in 1993" yet another classic statement from Krzyhorse22, accompanied without a source. Forgive me if I take the word of a cited primary source [127] over a delusional POV pushing internet troll, and his weak, unsourced opinions. StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're getting boring and annoying with your wild rants and personal attacks. Admin DeltaQuad already warned you and DocumentError to stop. [128] I'm not delusional or an internet troll. You uploaded a 1993 image and tagged it a pre-1923 image. [129] What does that explain about you? Why don't you just give up uploading Mohammed Omar's images with false licenses?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for not notifying me on your latest embarrassment in Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure you were meant to notify me, if I am correct, as stated by the template, but that slip-up will only show your desperation in crusading all over Wikipedia for the past month. Notice the template says "In most cases...", for it being PD in the U.S only, *sigh and I didn't mention that you personally were the delusional troll, in that second sentence, unlike in the first one, so you can deduce all you want, just hope you don't stay up too late in the night wondering if I was referring to you. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So, once again, everyone is finger-wagging and looking sternly at KH22 who now appears doe-eyed and reticent. And then this thread will be archived and, once again, he'll be back to template-bombing talk pages, vandalizing image permissions descriptions, declaring he's talking with the CIA/KGB/Whomever about user edits, and filing an ANI once every 96 hours, just like every other time we've been through this circus. Good job, guys. I give up. DocumentError (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:SPI. Kingsindian ♝♚

21:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Good points, both, Kingsindian.DocumentError (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Community sanctions?

Should

) 21:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per nom I support sanctions A, B & C. DocumentError (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The guy seems to be a prolific tagger of images for speedy deletions, though I have no idea if that is good or bad, since these images could have copyright restrictions for all I know. I see a lot of templating, though only 7 (not 19) on StanTheMan87's page. Calling him "monkey face" was obviously uncivil. As to the CIA comment, why not just laugh it off by saying that "my brother is the president", or something like that? You don't have to continue arguing with him over the Mullah Omar image. Just disengage. My suggestion is to try
  WP:SPI for any allegations of socking. Kingsindian ♝♚
  22:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • For the record, I repeat, I didn't call anyone a monkey face. I was only telling either we add the monkey self-portrait, which I called monkey face, or leave the article without an image. About the images, they are obviously protected under US copyright law and cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. StanTheMan87 keeps re-uploading the same image after it gets deleted. [130] Therefore, I'm not the trouble maker, and putting me under sanction is fundamentally unfair.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As per the diffs above in the discussion, he has been vandalizing file permission descriptions to give the appearance that they are not PD as a preface to tagging images for deletion. So, IMO, I'd say that's bad tagging. As for the templates, I believe Stan has deleted some of them so his talk page isn't totally trashed. You'll need to comb through the edit history on Stan's Talk page. But let's set those 12 aside for a moment and say they don't exist. Are you saying that 7 templates in 30 days, coupled with name-calling and 6 ANIs (all dismissed) against a single user is generally good behavior and not warranting a

WP:IBAN? Also, how does Stan "disengage" from having his Talk page Template bombed? Disengagement is fine advice in content disputes. This isn't a content dispute; this is an editor exhibiting extremely abnormal and aberrant behavior that has crossed into the realm of the surreal and bizarre. (talk

) 23:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not say anything about the bans, because I do not know enough. It seems some of the stuff he tagged was deleted, like the many things he tagged on Mohammad_Waleed's page. As to 7 vs 19, the link I gave listed all the contributions in User talk space, so it shouldn't miss any templates. I agree that even 7 is a bit too much. About the pictures, at least one picture by Stantheman87 he tagged seems to have been deleted. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. DocumentError (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Support IBAN. A bit too much tagging of the same user's pictures. This is illustrative. Surely he can find other stuff to tag. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You make no sense, the tagging on user page is part of the deletion process. This allows other editors (especially admins) to see how many images were uploaded and deleted. Therefore, it serves as evidence and is recommended. The guy keeps re-uploading the same image after it gets deleted. You're saying just walk away and let him continue. StanTheMan87 deserves to be blocked because he's deliberately uploading and re-uploading unfree images under false licenses. [131] Uploading unfree images is a serious issue in the United States, where Wikipedia is based. Others have also reverted him [132] for using mirror sites as sources. [133] --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is your most recent nomination of Mullah Omar: [134]. I encourage anyone participating in this discussion to read it so they can get a full context of what you're doing. You have been absolutely pathological about getting this clearly public domain image deleted in a way that, by any common sense evaluation of the situation, would lead one to believe you have a very serious IRL COI. DocumentError (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That image was created in 1993 by a 10 year old Afghan kid [135], and the uploader tagged it as a pre-1923 image [136] and now he changed it to pre-1978 image. [137] Those license tags are obviously inapplicable. Also, just because it appears at the Rewards For Justice site [138] doesn't make it PD.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you read

WP:IBAN, it makes perfect sense. There are many other images on WP. You tagged a lot of them correctly, like the ones by Mohammad_Waleed. Keep doing that, instead of focusing on one editor. What does the Sam Smith image have to do with Mullah Omar? This increases suspicion of hounding. Let it be, and raise the issue on a relevant forum, instead of following one person's contribs. Kingsindian ♝♚

13:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not reporting StanTheMan87 or anyone else. Others are reporting me. I'm simply nominating images that don't qualify to be in Wikipedia, and there are admins who specialize in that area. WP:IBAN has nothing to do with nominating images. WP:HOUND also doesn't involve nominating images. In fact, they're hounding me by filing frivolous/poorly-based complaints everywhere.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support; Krazyhorse22 has become a drain on the time of Wikipedians and it needs to stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• No support - I'm being bullied by StanTheMan87 who was created in August this year [139] and DocumentError who was created in November of last year [140] but has been used as a sleeper account until recent. The Bushranger has been taking their side since the beginning. DocumentError and StanTheMan87 should stop filing malicious reports about me everywhere and then I won't become a drain on the time of Wikipedians. This case obviously proves that there are many people in Wikipedia becoming obsessed with me. I'm not a celebrity or anything. I joined to nominate image that was uploaded by StanTheMan87 with false license. I don't understand why do you want to stop me from nominating such image? Admins had already checked that I'm not involved in sockpuppetry but can the same be said about DocumentError and StanTheMan87?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Making accusations against other editors without providing any evidence is not going to help your case. BTW your account was created in August of this year so you should also be careful of stones and glass houses. MarnetteD|Talk 04:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is that they both show up together everywhere, leave the same lengthy comments, edit the same articles, upload images the same way, and do just about everything else the same, including their attitude towards me (being so aggressive and exaggerating everything). About me, I created this account to nominate an unfree image of

WP:MTPPT?--Krzyhorse22 (talk

) 04:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And there's another disruptive lie ("they edit the same articles"). Here is the editor interaction analyzer output - [[142]]. I have edited close to 100 articles on WP and only overlap with StanTheMan87 in one (and my first edits to that one article were yesterday). DocumentError (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You've previously accused me of being

WP:BIOs about, both living and dead. If you don't want to be "a celebrity," you should behave in a slightly less outrageous way. As of now, you're essentially the WP version of Gene Simmons. DocumentError (talk

) 04:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because someone makes one small mistake doesn't mean everything he says is a mistake. The other day you guys accused me of being User:Maxforwind but that was proven as a mistake. I don't care what people think of me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh? DocumentError (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please, I wish for admins to weigh in on this discussion, as this was the cause for Krzyhorse22's creation.[144] StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support after seeing what looks very much like an unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry. --Richard Yin (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You didn't have to remove my comment. [145] Can you explain why you did that? It's interesting, you began editing on September 9 of this year. [146] and you know about "unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry".--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That was an accident, my apologies. I think there was an edit conflict and I somehow managed not to get the prompt saying there was an edit conflict. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
      • As for me knowing that,
        WP:NPA is not all that hard to read and interpret. --Richard Yin (talk
        ) 17:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
        • DocumentError (the person who started this thread) accused me of being a possible sockpuppet of User:Maxforwind, which proved wrong and then he accused me of being User:Irapart see [147], which again turns out to be an error. [148] I don't get it, why is it ok for others to accuse me but when I suspect someone I get treated as if I'm committing a crime or something.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

More accusations with no diffs? I never accused you of being MaxforWind. As for accusing you of being Irapart, if anyone actually is believing what you're typing at this polint, they can read this to debunk that notion: [149]. DocumentError (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Does this ring a bell? [150]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you read it? Nowhere in there did I accuse you of being MaxforWind, or even mention the username "Maxforwind." DocumentError (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22, the difference (in my opinion) is that DocumentError's "accusation" is a perfectly plausible mistake to make and does not necessarily imply intention. --Richard Yin (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

DocumentError states "Drats, you caught us!" That was him replying to my accusation of him abusing multiple accounts. [151] He later attacks me by stating, "Bbb23, KrzyHorse22 is a chronic disruptive account, possible sockpuppet and well-known lunatic..." I ask why call me names when you don't even know who I really am? This is the biggest problem with the internet, there is more of a war going on than peace. Are we making a good example to our children? They are the ones who will be reading this in the future. I don't mind humour but the way I'm being treated in Wikipedia is more like being WP:HOUNDED, possibly based on my belief, political opinion, nationality, location, etc. What happened to Wikipedia:Civility?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we making a good example to our children? Indeed. Think about the children! DocumentError (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support sanctions A & C. I am agaist an ANI ban which sounds a bit too much as a first sanction, I hope the interaction ban is sufficient to stop the issue. Cavarrone 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - There are three (3) editors involved. Me, StanTheMan87 and DocumentError who is advocating for another and reporting me everywhere. If I'm sanctioned these two editors also should be. BTW, I'm not involved in any content dispute or edit war with anyone. I only nominate images that I find having false or vague licenses and there are admins who specialize in that area, they decided if the image qualifies or not.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to accept a ban on claiming I've been consulting with the CIA. DocumentError (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

On September 1, 2014, I stated "DocumentError, it was a joke." That was nearly a month ago, why you keep mentioning that corny line in almost every comment?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

IP 62.168.13.98: death threat to other user

IP 62.168.13.98 is long term abuser, with long history of uncivil conduct, racist and vulgar language. For example "czechofile is worse than a pedophile", "You are Czech C..t" and "yopie is czech phanatic idiot". He was blocked four times [152]. But today he crossed the line with this [153], it is in Czech and in English it means "This is your end, pig". Link is to Youtube video "Slaughter in Mexico (Warning Disturbing)" with really bloody killing of pigs. I feel it as

) 18:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

E-mailed @emergency, section already removed by OP. Amortias (T)(C) 18:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 3 months. De728631 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Would it be worth revdel the two offending posts as well, dont think theres a particually valid need to keep them about. Amortias (T)(C) 20:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've taken care of that. De728631 (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

) 10:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned with

) 08:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

[157] user notified per requirement.

talk

) 08:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• An argument attacking "Hell in a Bucket" as a username is silly. I will withhold comment on the all the horrible connotations that the username "Neotarf" could possibly raise if I followed the same logic.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin please swiftly block the violators of

at Talk:Paris. Check the history of the page, the new users who have created accounts to push their urban image agenda from skyscraper.com are all regulars see here and here. Two of them are moderators and it is very clear canvassing is going on off sites to push and try to force a change. The main offending editors are Users Sesto Elemento, Minato ku, and Clouchicloucha. There is already a thread or two further up here related to existing editors and the canvassing offwiki, but this needs to be dealt with asap. The article is already protected from being changed. More meatpuppets from the website are going to keep turning up if nothing is done, what needs to be done is a] Indefinitely block all new accounts directed at trying to sway consensus on the talk page b] Remove all posts on the talk page by the violators, c] place a protection also on the talk page to stop new puppets coming in and disrupting it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If the article is already protected, this doesn't seem like a four-alarm fire. Your off-Wikipedia links show no actual canvassing; they don't mention Wikipedia or changing Wikipedia at all. I see no evidence of any direct canvassing or any appeals off-Wiki for people to participate on Wikipedia in this debate; I see editors with an interest in Paris and Parisian architecture, as evidenced by your links to their participation in an off-Wiki forum previous months ago. I don't see where this dangerous flood of new editors is supposed to come from, sans any actual off-Wiki appeal.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Three editors from a skyscraper forum turn up in close succession purely to try to push an urban image on wikipedia. There doesn't need to be any mention of wikipedia there, the fact that the three are from such a website, two of them moderators there should be enough for an admin to warn them about meatpuppetry and to lock the talk page from further new editors, even if nobody is willing to block because of no direct proof.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Same vandalism, different IP

Earlier this month

) 16:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember this one. Semi protection of Art Bell would probably be reasonable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And now it's been done again by a third IP.[164] I think you are right. I will go and request page protectin. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Tiderolls 21:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! That was fast! --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been noticing a range of IP's, all from

23:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You might try asking to have the templates protected at

WP:RFPP. FWIW those IP's with long numbers (there is a specific term for them but it escapes me at the moment) show up in the WHOIS as Mt Laurel NJ, Richardson TX or one other city (which also escapes me) - that doesn't mean that all of the editors are in those three cities. I haven't explained this very well. Hopefully another editor or admin will add the info we need. MarnetteD|Talk

01:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

They're IPv6 addresses. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I would consider it, but with the IP groups usually being around most of the newly-signed Bears players (like with

Mati

00:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP Special:Contributions/12.27.243.245 was recently blocked for vandalism, but continues to vandalize their own talk page, by adding inappropriate images. Please advise (and revoke talk page access). --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

TP access revoked. Acroterion (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Is redaction of these diffs necessary or optional? – Epicgenius (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's the usual sort of image vandalism. I think a delete/restore might be in order just to clear it for any future user of the IP. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Overuse of UK

Gigs suggested I bring this here. The background is the debate about using "England, UK" or just "England" (also Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). There was a discussion that Gigs closed with instruction that changes should stop at [175]. I stopped removing "UK". The editor adding "UK" kept adding it. The editor is identified by having a Orange Broadband IP address. I have put some examples in my sandbox, from the last month or so. What to do? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Put diff's of the evidence in this report as evidence of the issue as per

WP:D&L

.

You also need to put the {{subst:ANI-notice}} info on their talk page to advise them that your reporting them here and it might not be a bad idea to advise what their actual IP or username is so we know who were looking at. Amortias (T)(C) 22:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP changes a lot, maybe every hour. I do not know how to find the last one, can I just pick any? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Article names are best bet in that case so the IP's can be looked at. Amortias (T)(C) 22:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Orange IP are 2.24-31.*.* 95.144-151.*.* 91.105-109.*.*. A list of pages is in my sandbox, it is a bit big, do I have to copy it here? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Theres quite a large range of pages there some of which havent been edited in a couple of weeks, 2 or 3 recent examples would be best, if there arent any within the last 48 hours or so it might need to be held off until they edit again. Amortias (T)(C) 22:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am somewhat familiar with this as I was involved in the initial discussion and I have discussed this on Narrow Feint's talk page. NF says "the editor adding "UK" kept adding it". That isn't really the fact of the matter as a) there was no one editor who was identified as persistently adding it in the first place (unless NF has an editor in mind), b) there seems to be more than one editor at work here, and c) those editors were almost certainly not involved in the discussion that concluded these changes were to stop, so they are probably not aware that they're doing anything wrong. However, at first glance, it looks likely that a lot of these edits are one person using IPs from Salford, so basically we just need to identify those IPs who are adding it regularly or often, and tell them on their talk pages to stop. I did say to NF that I would do that, but I haven't had the chance yet (his list is rather long), and he has decided to come here first. I'm not really sure this is ANI material, not yet anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

On second glance, the Salford editor with the Orange IPs does seem to be the main person doing this, but he uses a different IP every day, only going back to it maybe a couple of weeks later. It's rather hard to find the most recent, and I'm not sure he'd see a warning if we left him one. How do we grab his attention? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if this works, but use the articles' talk pages first, since this is a dynamic IP, title a new section, and say something similar to "To Orange IP User who keeps adding 'UK' to articles...". We don't want it to escalate to having a whole city as collateral damage to an Orange rangeblock. Anyone have better ideas? – Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, here goes. These have changed in the last three days. I will have to pause now. The IP that the editor uses keeps changing, but it always an Orange IP. Narrow Feint (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Derbyshire

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Liam Boyle (actor)

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Jack Bond

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Sir Thomas Barlow, 1st Baronet

| PLACE OF DEATH = 10 Wimpole Street, London, England, UK

Natalie Dormer

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Reading, Berkshire, England, UK

Tommy Banks (footballer)

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Suzanne Shaw

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Mark Charnock

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Johnny Ball

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Cherie Blair

|birth_place =

UK

|PLACE OF BIRTH=

UK

Ian Aspinall

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Reg Harris

| death_place =

UK

| PLACE OF DEATH = Macclesfield, Cheshire, England, UK

Danny Boyle

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

Hylda Baker

| death_place =

UK

| PLACE OF DEATH =

UK

Andrew Buchan

| birth_place =

UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Stockport, England, UK

Nellie Halstead

| PLACE OF DEATH = Bury, Lancashire, England, UK

John Spencer (snooker player)

| birth_place =

UK

| death_place = Radcliffe, Bury, England, UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH =

UK

| PLACE OF DEATH =

UK

|PLACE OF BIRTH = Farnworth, Lancashire, England, UK

|PLACE OF DEATH = Warsash, Hampshire, England, UK

The most recent IP is this one [176], which he used today. But he will very likely use a different one tomorrow. He seems to be editing BLPs with an association with his local area, i.e. Manchester / Lancashire etc. Looking at what he does, there's major overlinking there as well as placename fiddling – I suspect he's not very familiar with a number of MOS guidelines and just needs to be informed of what he's doing wrong. But I'm not sure how we can do that if he keeps switching IPs about. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Somebody who knows how to make an edit filter could create one that prevents IPs from adding the phrase 'England, UK' to an article. (Could flag or prevent these edits, or send the IPs over to WP:AIV for further review). The page at

WP:SPI to save the valuable time of ANI. EdJohnston (talk

) 03:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned this at the GM project page here Several editors responded and I have left messages on the talk pages of some of the ips. For what it's worth I think the editor knows exactly what he's doing. J3Mrs (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding an edit filter, I don't know if that would be ideal. The issue here is one of controversial systematic edits. The key is that it is controversial whether to include the "UK" or not, and there's no real consensus on it. Adding an edit filter would enforce a format that isn't really accepted as consensus. When I closed that earlier discussion I did feel like consensus was slightly leaning toward omitting the UK after England, but because we were talking about mass systematic changes, the bar is higher and we need more a solid consensus before enforcing one or the other. Gigs (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Still overlinking mostly now from the

List of people from Bolton and I left a message while he was still editing. J3Mrs (talk

) 18:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverted removal so warned. J3Mrs (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Currently at 95.145.204.239, last edit 15 minutes ago. Narrow Feint (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If you see him, you warn him. If you wait for someone else to do it, it might well be too late, like today. Include a link to the discussion and mention the closure that Gigs left and explain that whatever the placename format that exists in the article, he has to leave it that way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And again: [177]? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

He is at 2.31.250.67 (talk · contribs) I have left two messages at his talk page, one generic and one template, and reverted several edits (blunt instrument, I know) at [178], [179], [180], [181] and [182]. It has had no effect, as he has repeated an edit to Badly Drawn Boy, diff. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know how many nations named England there are, but I'm only aware of one, and since the United Kingdom nearly ceased being such only a few days or weeks ago, I suggest that not only is "UK" unnecessary when identifying a city in England, it's absolutely unwarranted. Besides, anyone on the planet who has any doubt as to the location or identity of any nation named "England" need only click on its wikilink and their confusion will be alleviated. Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, this discussion isn't about that. There was a long discussion about UK placename formats, and there was no consensus. So the idea is not to make systematic changes to them, which is what this guy is doing, and others have done and been stopped from doing. Secondly, just because you know that England is a part of the UK, don't assume that everyone else on the planet does too. This is an encyclopedia which exists to inform people, not a reflection of what you already know. Most people know that California is in the US, but nobody's saying that putting "US" in Californian infoboxes is "unwarranted". I'd like to see how that discussion might go. Lastly, the UK did not "nearly cease being such" – had Scotland voted for independence, the rest of the UK would, as I understand it, not have disappeared. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Netoholic (talk · contribs)

Thivierr (talk · contribs)

Stefan Molyneux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm sort of at wits end and would like to request assistance with this editor. For the last 3 weeks, every edit of mine to a particular article, regardless of content or circumstances, is being reverted by User:Thivierr (who signs as "Rob"). For a while, he did participate in collaborative discussions on the talk page, but lately it seems like his main activity on WP seems to be to revert any and all edits I make to this article, and to do so without leaving any substantive edit comment describing his reasoning. I don't mind being reverted, if its accompanied at least by an explanation, but this daily, wordless reverting is not productive. I attempted to contact the user and ask that he either provide edit summaries or discuss these reversions on the talk page, but he rejected my request by deleting my message on his talk page. I have attempted to communicate, both directly and very actively on the article's talk page, and I am not sure what other course to pursue other than to contact others and ask for any guidance you think would be helpful in ending this situation. -- Netoholic @ 02:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The last interaction between the users (

WP:POINT tactic by Thivierr. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 03:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If a single active editor (who sees this) agrees to actively monitor Stefan Molyneux for at least a month, who hasn't been involved before, I'll happily take at least that long off from editing the article, voluntarily. Basically, Stefan Molyneux has only received mainstream/reliable coverage for his "deFOO" advice to families (telling adult children to disconnect from families). That's what got him mentioned in the Globe and Mail[203] and Guardian. The Wikipedia article, however, gives the impression of a prominent philosopher widely known for his various views, despite the fact that most coverage of his views, is by himself, promotional material, and his fellow like-minded pundits. I used to try to explain this, as others have, but nobody can keep up the arguments with Netoholic. Things got so bad on the talk page, that Netoholic will censor any mention of any unwanted details, such as the mere extensive of Molyneux's wife and child (which Molyneux publicly talks about). The Globe and Mail published his wife's name, in a story that was principally about her, and her time co-hosting the Freedomain Radio show[204]. But, not only does the article not name her, and nobody can name her in talk space, but Netoholic feels the mere statement of the fact he has a wife, without a name, is not permissible. I'm all for talk page discussion, and the only user preventing it, is the one complaining above. --Rob (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So you admit it's an

primary sources but that doesn't mean reverting anyone who you disagree with. If Netoholic is being disruptive, you should be moving for an RfC on the user rather than this tactic. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 06:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a plane, it's superman, no, it's a red herring. Thivierr just gave a very detailed analysis of the problem and your response indicates you read none of it and threw a kneejerk WP:ALPHABETSOUP at the issue. --v/r - TP 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, here's a thread in which Rob actually argued against those of us who questioned Molynuex' notability and demonstrated a fact-based reasoned approach underlying his views.[205] SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If your intent is to "monitor" the article, then you need to explain why it is only *my edits* that you are reverting. Your comments about old talk page discussions have no bearing on the recent reverts you've done of my edits. I think you've simply given up any pretense of collaboration, decided to personally enact some sort of one-sided ban on me on that article, and now just check daily to see if I'm the most recent edit of the page and revert it regardless of content. -- Netoholic @ 10:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@

ZarlanTheGreen: (see here) have dropped out of editing the article after Netoholic's tendentious badgering. He's had similar unconstructive, repetitive exchanges with @N-HH: on the talk page here. Netoholic has repeatedly, persistently violated the decorum principle of the recent Arbcom decision concerning BLP here. Several editors noted he was on the verge of being sanctioned for such behavior relating to the RfC linked above. SPECIFICO talk

14:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Netoholic is an enthusiastic fan of Molyneux, but a rather overenthusiastic one with a fondness for terrible and non-notable sources. He has also been sanctioned already (blocks) for his conduct (personal attacks) on said talk page. I don't think there's really much room for Netoholic to complain of others seeking to curb his overenthusiasm in the name of encyclopedicness - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never been blocked for personal attacks on that talk page (and certainly not "blocks" plural), and I ask that David Gerard correct his statement immediately before I respond further. (DG: feel free to remove this reply along with your mistaken accusation). -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comment - your block in May was for personal attacks. While they might have been left on an alternate page, they related directly to the article/talk page in question. Your subsequent block related to edit-warring at that article. So yes, a reasonable reading of your block log would suggest multiple blocks relating to that article/talk page, one of which related to personal attacks. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this topic about Netoholic's blocks and bans or about continuous wholesale reverts that have been going on for months now without any discussion on the talk page? Should the article be reduced to a stub simply because one editor happened to touch it?--Truther2012 (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban against Netoholic then?

We had a bout of sockpuppetry earlier today on a Milhist page, socks which @The ed17: dealt with. In one such post from one of the socka a promise was made for a round two, which I apparently caught and dealt with, however I've never had a run in with a legitimate sock like this before, and would like an extra set of eyes to double check my actions. The accounts in question are @The Cosmic Master: and @The Cosmos Leader:. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 08:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Legitimate socks are users such as

WP:Sock#Legit), so presumably you mean something else? And for the Milhist page, do you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2014/Tally? Nyttend (talk

) 11:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

They are both tagged as socks of a fairly prolific sock master.

Ravensfire (talk

) 14:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I didn't interpret OP as stating that the socks were legitimate, but making the point that a legitimate sock wouldn't respond that way, therefor it is unlikely to be a legitimate sock.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't either; my point was that I didn't know how to interpret this statement, since the normal meaning clearly wasn't applicable. Don't expect a speedy response from me if you reply; I'm on the road all day and taking advantage of a hotspot while eating lunch. Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

My take: the OP identified two accounts as socks and blocked them. Had some concerns that they might be legitimate socks, in which case blocking would be wrong. Made the determination that it was unlikely enough to warrant a block, but asked for a review in case someone else might see it differently.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect they are sock accounts of the banned editor

) 21:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Warm fuzzy message

Please look at User talk:RHaworth#The irony of deleting the The Warm Fuzzy Tale which has been repeated out of context here and judge if any action need be taken. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• That is clearly a personal attack. Ironic, given the non-notable article he/she created. I hope in real life that this person is not a clinical psychologist. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've removed the VPT copy of the rant [206]; also dropped a 4im NPA warning on the user's talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

...in the edit summary here. I have no idea why this editor suddenly has it in for me (see also personal attack here), as my only interaction with them was warning them for a personal attack in an AfD three years ago. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that I have taken that comment as a request (however incomprehensible in reason) not to post on their talk page, so I have not notified them, and request that someone else do so, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...and their response was to repost their personal attack on my talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Of the half a dozen or so valid reasons to indef-block this person, Acroterion chose "legal threat". Drmies (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I was about to apply NOTHERE, but on spotting the (completely specious) legal threat, I used that as a conclusive block rationale. I will add that there is a set of sockpuppets or meatpuppets around deleted userpage User:FGwolfman, which brought about the attack on Freerangefrog by Raymond88824, and which amounted to an extended attack page, discussing a gaming clan. Jerry123Freekiller, JesusFreedomGamers, FGLongy and FGwolfman and Raymond88824 are apparently members and all bear watching. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I just soft blocked JesusFreedomGamers for the username only. Not that they give the impression that are here for anything useful, but one never knows. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

So the order of events here was:

1. legal threat made
2. editor told to retract threat or be blocked
3. editor retracts threat
4. is blocked anyway
5. requests an unblock, and it declined because apparently retracting a legal threat isn't enough

I don't think this was optimal. Protonk (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the legal threat was not retracted explicitly (or even implicitly, it was just taken off the userpage, leaving the edit summary) when I blocked. That is apart from the

WP:NOTHERE aspects of their behavior, as well as the attacks on other editors for deleting the utterly inappropriate userpage that they were using as a social media base. Acroterion (talk)

13:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

non admins can't change edit summaries, so of course it was still in the summary. Protonk (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

So that makes it all OK? Legal threats have to be clearly and specifically retracted, serious or not. Disruptive editing, harassment, creating attack pages (in jest or not), not-here-to-build-an-encyclopedia, abuse of userspace as a social media platform ... there are Drmies's six individual reasons for a block. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, but if we're going to block someone for being a general nuisance (which is what we're basically doing here) then we should just do that. Or we should gain consensus to change the legal threat policy to state that retractions need to be some positive statement, since that appears to be the feeling here. Protonk (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Acroterion, Raymond88824 is clearly trolling and looking for attention (thus WP:NOTHERE applies). It's time to WP:RBI. Furthermore I see no retraction of legal threats (deletion is *not* enough because it's not the same as retraction, a legal threat remains in force until it is *clearly* disavowed). If a user wants to make these kind of threats they *need* to understand how serious such remarks are and how seriously they are taken. Enabling this kind of trolling is a bad idea--Cailil ^talk 13:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC
  • I think a sense of proportionality is called for here. The impact of the threat (the reason why we block for them) is that they chill discussion and cow users. An obviously baseless threat should be treated seriously but doing so doesn't mean that we're forced to treat it as "still in force" unless the user signs an affidavit saying they're not going to sue anyone. Protonk (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Given that this user's second unblock request was predicated on the threat of becoming a "nightmare" and vandalizing wp for years unless unblocked[207], I have to say the actions are perfectly proportional. This user is trolling - it's time to
  not here to build an encyclopedia--Cailil ^talk
  00:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• • • Well, then change the block--then you own it, and you can fill out any reason you like from the smorgasbord that Acroterion presented. Is this really worth the fuss? Drmies (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
      • That indeed looks like a legal threat, but I still agree with Protonk.
        talk
        ) 19:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
        • If he doesn't say "I retract the legal threat", he hasn't retracted the legal threat. Not to mention
          WP:NOTHERE and m:TROLL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
          21:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Request administrator to evaluate conduct of user

Would someone kindly close this? Since it went nowhere and there have been new developments, I have started an RFCU. --Lightbreather (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have asked Scalhotrod repeatedly over the months to keep his comments on content, not on contributor, but he insists on attacking and harassing me.

20 May 2014

Scalhotrod accused me of WP:GAMING:[208]

I answered his "question" and asked him to keep it on content:[209]

Response - I can't due to the Topic Ban imposed on LB and myself. --Scal

21 May 2014

I warned him [210] about three instances of using WP:REVTALK to attack and bait me:[211][212][213]

He deleted the warning:[214]

Response - I can't due to the Topic Ban imposed on LB and myself. --Scal

22 May 2014

Scalhotrod accused me of making an article talk-page discussion about me:[215]

I explained why my comment was an example of WP:TALK#USE, and I asked him to keep it on content:[216]

Response - I can't due to the Topic Ban imposed on LB and myself. --Scal

28 May 2014

Scalhotrod accused me of having an "agenda or salacious purpose":[217]

I asked him (on his talk page) to strike it and stop:[218]

He deleted that request and called it "harassing":[219]

Response - I can't due to the Topic Ban imposed on LB and myself. --Scal

9 June 2014 - 11 July 2014

He deleted reliably sourced content I added to an article, calling it "Clean up."[220]

I explained (on his talk page): "Removing relevant, verifiable, reliably sourced information is not 'clean up,'" and asked him to restore the content or start a discussion on the article's talk page or at RSN.[221]

After TransporterMan asked Scalhotrod to discuss the content dispute with me, Scal responded with a 600+ word tirade accusing me of POV pushing and ownership issues - with virtually no evidence.[222]

Scalhotrod continued to give the edit summary "Clean up" inappropriately.[223]

I asked him to stop, which led to another of his long commentaries about me:[224]

I asked him to keep it on content, which led to yet another long commentary yet again about me:[225]

We were topic banned for edit warring:[226]

Response - I can't due to the Topic Ban imposed on LB and myself. --Scal

22 July 2014

He speculated at another user's talk page about whether or not I was a sockpuppet:[227]

Response - This is not what was said. After months of intensive editing in some instances where upwards of 80% of edits made over a week or more where by LB, activity stopped completely. I posed a question on the Talk page of an Editor who is more familiar with the site and processes than I am. --Scal

This is horribly not assuming good faith, but do you think she would resort to editing as an IP or creating another account? Scalhotrod 17:27, 22 July 2014 Lightbreather (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

26 July 2014

I joined the Gender Gap Task Force [228] and he joined less than 48 hours later:[229] (and within an hour of my inviting two other female editors to join)

Response - I have no idea what LB's invitations of other women have to do with anything, but I became curious about the Gender Gap Task Force as a result of a comment by LB. --Scal

Further, 24 hours after I joined GGTF, and only 12 hours before he joined, Scalhotrod posted this on another editor's talk page.[230] I am copying it here as an example of the kind of thing he has posted numerous in inappropriate forums and without evidence despite my asking him to stop it, and despite civility policies that say not to do these things! He called this one "Beating a dead horse"

You have to understand that regardless of what WP policy says or how its interpreted and/or enforced, LB believes that anything said to her, about her, or simply perceived in reference to her that she does not like, IS a personal attack in her mind. Its how her mind works and no one will change it unless she wants to. She won't listen to (or be convinced by) any reason or logic that diverts her from her particular goal or objective when editing an article regardless of how sound or commonsense it is. Once I realized this, I gave up and just tried to keep doing what I always do, expand and cleanup articles and try to maintain article neutrality where ever it makes sense. She didn't like that on one article and took me to Arbitration Enforcement which resulted in both of us being Topic Banned for 6 months. Personally I consider it a very small price to pay now that others are becoming aware of her tactics and attitudes.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

28 July 2014

He started a conversation about me on his talk page, pinging three other editors to join in:[231]

Response - And I genuinely thought this was an acceptable means to start a conversation that involved several different Editors regarding what I understood as a Talk page violation and the attempt to misrepresent a conversation. --Scal

I asked here at ANI for an admin evaluation of Scal's conduct. It was marked as "resolved" in less than 15 minutes by a non-admin editor.[232]

Response - Actually Admin Drmies agreed with the close shortly thereafter [233]. I'm not sure what the significance of this is. --Scal

Scalhotrod, man, you are on a short leash. Drmies 01:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC) [234] (scroll to last, long paragraph) Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That comment wasn't even from the same page and is entirely out of context. Its from a rant of yours that is very similar to this one, now you're just being sloppy or indifferent about posting difs. --

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 18:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's directly related. It's from the discussion I started on Drmies' talk page[235] asking him to please re-open my request to have an admin evaluate your conduct - which, as noted above, had been closed quickly and without the eval. Lightbreather (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

17 September 2014

While I was in the middle of working on a page, he came to it and made a revert:[236]

(Despite having told me and others, including Drmies, that he was observing a voluntary IBAN.)

Response - This has absolutely NOTHING to do with LB. As I stated in my edit summary and on my Talk page I noticed that a controversial (to some) quote was still posted at the top of the No Personal Attacks policy page and I removed it citing the discussion on the Talk page. Yes, I did notice that Lightbreather was editing the page and even "Thanked" her for one of her edits that I thought was a good contribution. That's the only connection between the two. As for LB being in the middle of editing, I've suggested that she use "under construction" template or something similar to notify other editors, but this was rebuked. --Scal

My response was not a "rebuke."[237] Lightbreather (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Great, so you acknowledge that my edit had nothing to do with you and you're trying to make a connection where there is none. Granted, I'm still trying to understand the issue of you being "in the middle of working on a page". You've brought this up before, but never explained why an article should be hands off by other editors while you're making edits. --

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Great, so you acknowledge...? No, I do not. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Please stop. Lightbreather (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

22 September 2014

Today, on his talk page, Scal took advantage of an opportunity to attack me again:[238]

(The discussion was about content on a policy page, not about me.)

I asked him again to stop this kind of behavior:[239]

He closed the discussion saying that I was trolling him![240]

Response - Only after LB admitted to

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 05:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that the discussion was with T., I don't see hounding or admitting to hounding:

Scalhotrod, I was just getting ready to start a discussion with T. on his talk page when I found your comment above. Will you please redact the 'that apparently triggered...' portion of your last sentence? I have asked you repeatedly to keep your comments on content, not contributor. Please stop already.

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't have my Talk page on your watchlist and were not routinely checking it (as you admitted to on Drmies Talk page [242]), in other words - WIkihounding my Talk page, how is it you "found" the comment? AND as its been explained to you by so many Users, talking about someone is NOT a personal attack. --

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 18:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As explained above, I was getting ready to start a discussion on T's talk page. I was reviewing his recent contributions before I started the discussion. His recent contributions included edits on your talk page. When I went there, I read what you'd told him about me. Further, as to hounding, "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." I have an overriding reason - and just the one - for keeping an eye on your talk page: because you have a history of talking about me and of accusing me of policy violations without evidence. I have provided evidence of this over and over again. I want that to stop. Lightbreather (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Therefore, per

, I am asking that an administrator evaluate his conduct. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of this is mundane, but I particularly thing the paranoid comment, the accusation of vandalism, and this edit where LB is accused of plagiarism (but if it were plagiarism then the edit by Scalhotrod would amount to close paraphrasing and certainly didn't fix it) are all personal attacks.--v/r - TP 23:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Then what is your opinion of a statement like, "He has edited many dozens of porn articles and, IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women." made during an ANI? --

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 23:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Is your question based on the philosophy "an eye for an eye" or "two wrongs" or some other silly nonsense where your actions have to be compared to your opponents?--v/r - TP 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. I am asking you to give an opinion on a statement made by my accuser just as you did on what was presented above. When I inquired previously about that statement during the ANI, it was ignored. When I inquired again, with a specific Admin, I was told that it would be better to just drop the issue, which I did. Why I am asking for your opinion is that a great many things said to and about Lightbreather in the last several months that she has interpreted as a personal attack, were either downplayed or simply ruled as not being a personal attack. If she can make a statement like that and not get called on it (assuming its ruled a personal attack), then maybe she (and/or me for that matter) doesn't understand what one is. Hence the laundry list of perceived issues that LB been posted here. --

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 00:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I oppose it. Any accusations about each other based on perceptions are counter to the goals of this project. Both your comments that I mention above and LB's comment that you have no respect for women are both inappropriate. Yours are personal attacks, LB's amount to casting aspersions.--v/r - TP 01:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, then how are you determining that my comments are personal attacks versus casting aspersions or simply asking a question based on the context of the situation? I'm happy to respond to each item in the list so the full context can be taken into consideration, not just LB's opinion on the matter. --

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 02:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Quit lawyering and quit the personal attacks. Calling someone paranoid is a personal attack. No one cares if you think you can talk your way out of it.--v/r - TP 04:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply asking how you are deciding what is a personal attack vs aspersions or any other possible interpretation? --

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 04:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDHT much? You're winning no points in this thread.--v/r - TP

17:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "win points", I'm trying to understand the measure that you're applying. Relative to Eric Corbett's language and behavior mentioned below, LB's accusations seem minor or even trivial. When are you going to understand that I'm trying to learn something from this experience so that I can move on to better things? Since you are the primary Admin involved, I am asking you for explanation since its one of the

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The part that says "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized." Calling LB paranoid is personalizing a dispute.--v/r - TP 20:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And here we are at the crux of the matter. I did not "call LB paranoid", she was not involved in the discussion the word was used in. Based on the comment, "Removing the Eleanor Roosevelt quote... ...from the NPA article, which I'm in the middle of working on, is adding to the stalked feeling I have gotten from you before." is why I used the word when describing LBs actions. The article on "

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 20:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's clear to me that you think I am stupid and incapable of reading. "Lightbreather was making edits that apparently triggered her

paranoid tendencies" looks cut and dry to me.--v/r - TP

00:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not think you are stupid or incapable of reading, but I question your copy/paste abilities since you only quoted a portion of a sentence from my comment which changes its context and misleads anyone else who reads this. Then again, you could have just as easily attempted to make your point without the "stupid and incapable" preface. Speaking of "points", even the user I was having the discussion with is puzzled by your assessment of my comments and those of Lightbreather's (see User Tlhslobus' comments below). The User also references a similar situation where the assessment and outcome was radically different. --

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 02:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod only gave the last part of the statement he shared above. The first part was "[Since Scalhotrod] feels entitled to judge me I'll say this: " The whole statement was the last in a response to 700-words-worth of things he said about me,[243] including speculation that had nothing to do with the topic, plus some outright untruths like, "Looking at Lightbreather's edit history, I can't find a single edit that isn't [topic-ban]-related...." Lightbreather (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The 'he made me say it' argument doesn't work with me. Don't shoot yourself in the foot.--v/r - TP 01:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of our (mine and LB's) mutual topic ban, if you haven't already looked at it, the details are

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 02:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not funny. Today, but 30 minutes after I called it a day on an article that I was working on, and while this request for evaluation of his conduct is underway, Scalhotrod went to the page that I was working on and edited it.[244] And then again a couple hours later.[245] How many thousands of articles on Wikipedia? And he chooses to go to the one I'm working on? Please, please, PLEASE won't somebody ban him from interacting with me? It's creepy and unwanted and it has gone on long enough. Please - Callanec, Drmies, TParis? Somebody? Some admin? Won't somebody please tell him to stop it? Lightbreather (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OMG, did you bother to check the edit history and see how much work I have done on that article? I've more than doubled the size of it. When you made an edit, it popped up on my Watchlist, so of course I went to check it out. AND I found that you made some great edits, which I acknowledged yesterday in this discussion (see below). I'm not following you and the paranoids are not out to get you. When are you going to realize this? Furthermore, YOU chose to start editing porn related articles and cross over into an area that I frequent, so of course our paths are going to cross more often. No wonder Eric Corbett find so much of this pointless. --

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 20:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your last edit on that article was three months before mine. I didn't vandalize the article - I improved it. Your following me around is problematic; others have told you this, too. And you're supposedly observing a self-imposed iban, but the evidence says otherwise. Also, where stalking is concerned, uninvited compliments are just as alarming as uninvited criticism. Lightbreather (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, there are many hundreds of porn articles. Our paths don't have to cross, but as I've said 2 or 3 other places: If you'll take your name off the GGTF members list, I'll take my name off the porn project members list, if you think that will help. Lightbreather (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed because its based on activity that you know is allowed, even under a 1-way Iban. I've only praised your edits to the Measure B article and when it came up on my Watch list that anyone had edited the article, I took it as an opportunity to add material based on a source that I had just come across, most of what I added was from a September 21, 2014 article. Neither of us should need to leave either Project, that's a counterproductive suggestion, unless as

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 20:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• I really don't want to be in the middle of this, though I suppose there's no way out. I see some problems with both editors in terms of behavior, and I kind of like and appreciate both of them as well: I prefer to try and get along with both of them. It seems, though, that they really can't be in the same room. Sketched roughly, Scalhotrod typically says the wrong thing, to which Lightbreather responds with admin requests and ANI threads. Both are drains on the community. So maybe an interaction ban (one-way or two-way or four-way) is helpful. On the other hand, we hear lots of complaints about lack of civility enforcement, and I think the "paranoid" comment really goes too far--but much of what tirritates Lightbreather is not so much outright personal attacks but minor mentions and edits that add up. If someone is able and willing to do the leg work (someone who is, ahem, not Lightbreather), they could go through the diffs and edits and overlaps to see if indeed there is solid evidence of stalking. I hear and see conflicting assessments, but a thorough investigation would be helpful, so we could draw intelligent and reasonable conclusions and perhaps act on it. (Let it be clear that I have no opinion on the stalking charge, since I just don't know.) For me, that is more of an investment than I can make right now. As a side note, I thought that Scalhotrod was going to stay away from LB, but apparently he didn't? That's not helpful.

  My apologies if I'm rambling, and it's all hot air anyway since I can't and won't pick sides at this moment and speak out one way or another. It's late and it's been a busy and sucky day on Wikipedia, and here we have yet another long-term conflict, and again I have no idea what to do about it. In another editorial conflict today I suggested a process be followed, and that apparently was unnecessary or whatever, and I'm afraid the same is going to happen here, and it will just fester. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, Drmies, my first reaction to Scalhotrod saying or doing something against policy/guidelines is not to go straight to admins or ANIs. My first response is to start a discussion on his talk page or the article talk page, depending. I am getting quicker about asking for help as time drags on and the conduct continues. I think the unwritten policy here - counter to what's written - is that ignoring others is required. And I'm here to say I have tried the other options and I am not going to ignore this behavior, nor should I have to, nor should I have to give up my freedom to edit in good faith because of it. Lightbreather (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but if I summarize in a sentence or two I'm painting with a broad brush. That you're here on this board quite often is not an exaggeration--Scalhotrod doesn't always say the wrong thing either. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 21:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have various sexual articles on my

talk

) 05:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

One-Way Interaction Ban

While I agree that both editors have behaved in a less than optimal fashion, Scalhotrod's behavior is Wikistalking, especially his following Lightbreather to the GGTF, but then never taking part in the GGTF after he succeeded in getting Lightbreather to leave it. I recommend a one-way interaction ban imposed by the community on Scalhotrod with respect to Lightbreather.

• Support - As proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're not only accusing convicting me of stalking LB but claiming that I joined the GGTF for the purpose of getting her to quit the project?!? I do not know what the expectation of "taking part" in the GGTF is, but I have participated on the Talk page, participated in AfDs regarding articles of interest to the project, edited articles of interest to the project, started at least one (its currently a stub, but has survived an AfD), AND there is currently a topic regarding the addition of content regarding an essay that I wrote on the Talk page as a result of interaction between Carolmooredc and myself. By the way, LB's accusations and inferences were deplorable upon my arrival at the GGTF. She essentially reiterated the personal attack I mentioned above on the GGTF Talk page and several project members came to my defense, you included Mr. McClenon. I did not make any accusations in kind when she joined the Pornography Project, in fact I've stuck up for her on at least one occasion.

Has anyone considered that LB just reads way too much into edits, difs, or what-have-you that are innocuous, coincidental, or just plain have a "non-nefarious" explanation to them? Maybe if she stopped being so convinced that I'm "out to get her" that she would not interpret so many of my edits (or those of others LB has had a problem with) as just that. I took her Talk page off my Watch list months ago and haven't looked back since. Our paths cross simply because we are both active Editors. I'm still trying to understand how you can hold me responsible for how another Editor feels when I have no control over that [246]. --

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 03:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Less than ideal behavior. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Cannot support one-way IBAN - I haven't seen it working, ever. And that is before I even evaluate the premise of the thread. Will look at it later today (Tuesday). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per Penwhale; the only interaction bans that work and are fair, are two-way bans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as noted frequently (including just above on this noticeboard) - such bans do not work. Collect (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Questions, actually.

1. I have seen the argument numerous times now, but no explanation. Examples, please, of what happens that makes a 1-way not work? Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

2. Am I allowed to vote? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

1. A One Way IBAN is open to abuse and poking from the editor who did not get the IBAN.

2. Not really, as you are one of the main parties, but your opinion counts and you are able to volunteer to be in a two way IBAN. KonveyorBelt 18:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm not the one who has been stalking and harassing. I do not plan on stalking and harassing. I just want to be able to work without Scalhotrod following me around and without him accusing me of things, without evidence, in inappropriate places. (I won't do that either.) As the person who has had these things done to me, repeatedly, by him, I think the community could start by assuming good faith on my part. If I do start hounding, harassing, attacking him - then by all means - make it a 2-way ban. But there is no evidence here that I deserve that. The thing that I've done that seems to irk everyone the most is making an issue of his conduct, even though there is no policy that says one must ignore a harasser. I've committed the crime of "making drama" - but that is not a crime. I am, in fact, a victim here, and I'm asking for god's sake will someone do something about it? Lightbreather (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And, as I said elsewhere, although I am/was in the middle of improving some porn articles to-do with STDs in the industry, I will happily leave the project and walk away from those articles, if he will just leave GGTF - which he is not really active in - so I can return to a preferred project/subject area with editors that I'd like to work with. Lightbreather (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• involved oppose Lightbreather's new area of focus is pornography, an area that Scalhotrod has been editing in for a very long time. LB is making a decent number of policy proposals, and article proposals in a relatively large number of articles, and this proposal would effectively push scalhotrod out of the area. (Which is ironic considering LB's allegations of being pushed out of the GGTF). IF the Iban were 1) bidirectional and 2) construed as to not cover commenting on RFCs and other proposals created by each other (but restricted to not commenting about eachother directly) I could support that. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If it would help, I would be happy to leave WP:PORN if Scal will leave WP:GGTF. However, I have a handful of porn articles I'm working on that I would like to finish. Lightbreather (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're a GREAT addition to the Porn Project; please continue to work on the articles. The edits you've made to the

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 02:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Enough with the interaction bans already. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment:It seems the accused and the rest of us are expected to accept that "IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women" is a mere "aspersion" (see the uses made of this word above), something very mild compared to the utterly unacceptable personal attacks of accusing somebody of having "paranoid tendencies", and perpetrating vandalism and plagiarism. Personally I would much rather be accused of having paranoid tendencies than of not having much respect for women, though I accept that many others might well prefer it the other way round. But it seems simply offensive to all women (and to all men who have female loved ones) to imply, however unintentionally, that not having much respect for women is a minor matter compared to vandalizing an article or putting a bit of plagiarism into it. There is also the problem of the (presumably unintended) intimidating/censoring effect on others, given the context is a male working on porn-related articles, an area that I have no desire to edit anyway, but which I would never dare get involved with even if I did have such a desire, precisely because of fear of that kind of accusation. While checking a potential opponent's block log (as I normally do before deciding whether to risk getting into a dispute with them), I recently came across a case in which a similar (though more wounding) accusation was made a few years ago by a female editor against a male one working on porn-related articles. She got banned for 3 months, reduced to a week after she apologized. He accepted the apology, but a month later he stopped editing, leaving a note saying that maybe he would resume at a later date under a different name (I have no way of knowing whether he did or not). In that kind of context, to ignore such accusations as supposed mere aspersions thus seems like a second reason for deep dissatisfaction with the way the accused has been 'interogated' here.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Two points: My comment was made in an appropriate forum, at an ARE, of which Scal was notified, specifically discussing Scal's (and my) behavior. Also, I made clear that what I said was my opinion about Scal. Scal's comments are often at inappropriate forums, where I am not notified, and presented as fact - not opinion. Lightbreather (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You may well be partly or wholly right, LB. You certainly have not had any charge properly formulated against you, let alone been given an adequate chance to defend yourself against such a properly formulated charge, and as such you have not yet had anything remotely resembling due process. (And by the way, my apologies for initially putting "Involved support" behind the two-way ban proposal before I quickly realized it was inappropriately premature on my part given that you had not yet had any kind of due process, and changed it to "Comment").

The comment here initially had nothing to do with the current two-way ban proposal, but appeared as a protest against both an aspect of the way the accused had been treated in the 'interogation' (not by you), and the way the question of 'disrespect for women' and accusations thereof had been (presumably unwittingly) trivialized in the proceedings (again not by you), including in the context of its potential for intimidating/censoring other male editors of porn-related articles.

In the context of the two-way ban proposal (see below), I am simply pointing out (in response to the "where?" question which you asked the proposer of the two-way ban immediately after he proposed it) at least one place (perhaps the only one?) where a basis for 'response with provocation' may lie. I am also concerned that some people around here (possibly, but not necessarily, including you) do not seem to appreciate how non-trivial is what you said about the accused. I might add that the (admittedly more wounding) accusation that lead to the above-mentioned 3 month ban was, at least to the best of my recollection, also made in an appropriate forum (an ANI, I think - Correction: It was made on his Talk Page, after indicating in the ANI that she would be explaining her concerns about him on his Talk Page) by a woman who felt harassed, although there were of course differences too. However none of this is to suggest that you are 'guilty', merely that you may well have some kind of case to answer, though, as already mentioned, no case against you has yet been properly formulated, and I have no intention of trying to formulate one myself (which would probably be inappropriate, given that, as I've already pointed out below, I've been involved in recent disputes with you, some of which may not yet be over). Tlhslobus (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Involved oppose: I'm the 'T.' mentioned in the conversation that lead to this ANI. I fully intended to stay out of it as usual (I don't think I've ever commented on an ANI before) until disturbed by certain aspects of the above 'interogation' (see here). As my concerns were not mentioned until now, I don't really feel the accused has really had the benefit of 'due process' (also known as a fair trial). Plus I fear the potential consequences of simply ignoring the concerns I mentioned above. I also suspect there may well be much wisdom in the comments of Gaijin42 and Penwhale. I should however point out that I'm not entirely un-involved, and therefore presumably not entirely unbiased, as I've been involved in a couple of recent disputes with LB, so-far relatively mild (but not all that pleasant, and not yet clearly over). I do try to make allowances for the difficulties often faced by female editors in Wikipedia (which presumably at least partly contribute to their massive under-representation here), but I doubt if that can ever fully offset the biassing effects of being in a dispute with somebody.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I view Scalhotrod as very pro-pornography. And I view Lightbreather as very anti-pornography, as recently as this discussion where the two of us have debated
  talk
  ) 05:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment - For the record, I do not consider myself "pro-pornography", but what I do attempt to do is stick up for those that are underrepresented or misunderstood by mainstream society. And its because of my past work and association with people in the Entertainment industry (mainstream and adult are far more linked than outsiders realize) that I work on porn and other Entertainment related articles. This is also, to some extent, why I joined the Gender Gap Task Force. Granted, I discovered its existence through interaction with LB, but I joined it for sincere reasons. If LB wants to ridicule me or make accusations about my motives, its seems like a poor place to do it considering what the project is trying to accomplish. --

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 20:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: Lightbreather responded to my above comment on my talk page.

talk

) 03:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support either option or at least a warning: It's ridiculous that editors can get a bee in their bonnet about some other editor, appoint themselves guardians of Wikipedia and just follow editors around like that. If they are doing something that bad, take the diffs to an admin or ANI. Editors are only human and will soon enough lose their tempers over it, though just as many will just quit the project. Let's read again: (Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding: Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Post one dif after the topic ban where Scal in any way inhibited LB's work. There aren't any, let alone the multiple one's required to be hounding. The definition actually much better fits what LB tried to do with her tit for tat joining of the Porn Project. Capeo (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Capeo, Scalhotrod and I were topic banned in the middle of July, and he has harassed or attacked me at least five times since then, as the diffs in my request show.[247]

1. Starting a discussion on another editor's talk page, accusing me of being a WP:SOCK (policy violation) is a PA:[248]
2. Following me to GGTF and joining it less than 48 hours after I joined is WP:HOUNDING:[249]
3. Starting a discussion on his talk page, pinging other editors, and insinuating WP:CENSOR (policy) and revisionism is a PA:[250]
4. Considering that others - including admins - asked him to back off and that Scal himself says he is following a 1-way ban, but then editing a page within 10 minutes of me on an article is WP:HOUNDING:[251]
5. Telling another editor on his (Scal's) talk page that I am paranoid is a WP:PA:[252]
6. Closing said discussion and calling me a [253]] (after I asked him to stop doing such things) is a PA:[254] Lightbreather (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Wondering if you may sock to get your way is not a PA. Not even close. It's not even an accusation strictly speaking. Again, people are allowed to bring you up in conversation. 2. Joining the GGTF is not hounding and, doubly, no consensus found it to be hounding. Nothing Scal did inhibited your ability to do anything. 3. Again, people can talk about you so long as it isn't a PA. I don't know how I can impress this on you any further. 4. IBanned editors are allowed to edit the same article. 5. The paranoid quip was unnecessary but one can see where that comes from. Looking at your talk page it seems you accused another regular of stalking you a few days ago. That's about the only thing that comes close to PA though. 6. More of the same. You seem to think your entitled to go to somebody's talk page and start throwing accusations around and not get a response or have the discussion closed. You're not. If you just concentrated on editing like you have been recently (without issue in the main area where your supposed stalker edits I might add) none of this would be going on right now. You initiated it based on a voluntary IBan violation that actually wasn't one. Sticks had been dropped up until that point. Capeo (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Seems like a textbook case of Wikihounding. This type of behavior is very damaging to the project as it typically drives away contributors. Kaldari (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support both, but prefer 2-way.
  re
  }} 01:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support, but prefer two-way ban as first choice. I've posted a support in the section below with diffs showing how Scalhotrod followed Lightbreather to the gender gap task force, and how she subsequently withdrew from it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose For the same reasons stated below. Capeo (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Oppose Reviewing another users edits if you judge them to be problematic is not stalking. Wincent77 (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support, to stop the wikistalking and wikihounding. Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Two-Way Interaction Ban

On further review, I see that, while Scalhotord is Wikistalking Lightbreather, Lightbreather is responding to provocation with provocation. Propose a full symmetric interaction ban with the usual exceptions to be narrowly interpreted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer of alternative. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Responding, yes, but where am I responding with provocation? Is ANI not the appropriate place to hash out the details of a dispute? Is there a policy that says that I must ignore others' provocation? Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. It says: "Administrators have wide latitude to use their permissions to stop misconduct and damage to the encyclopedia; for example, an editor who is making personal attacks, and does not stop when you ask them, may be warned by an administrator and subsequently blocked." I have asked Scal to stop so many times I have lost count. He was warned by an admin to stop. I'm not asking that Scal be blocked - but a 2-way is uncalled for. Lightbreather (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Re 'where's the response with provocation?', see my earlier comment here. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose without modification. If Lightbreather is prohibited from commenting on
  WP:PORN and related essays, and Scalhotord is prohibited from commenting on GGTF and related essays, it might be workable, although I can't say I would support it. — Arthur Rubin (talk)
  02:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Wait, who is stalking whom here? LB's condition that Scal leave the GGTF and she'll leave the Porn Project is a straight up admission that she only went to the Porn Project, knowing Scal's involvement in it, to make a point. And LB's accusation of Scal having no respect for for women simply because of the areas they edit in is a far worse PA than anything Scal said in the diffs above. Capeo (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

After Scalhotrod followed me to GGTF, I left GGTF and joined two projects: Feminism first, on 31 July, and Pornography second, on 1 August. If I were

stalking Scal, I would've joined WP:PORN seven months ago. He joined GGTF within 48 hours of my joining it, after months of following me, harassing me, and accusing me of policy violations in inappropriate forums and without evidence. Trying to twist one instance of joining a project that someone else belongs to into an instance of stalking is distraction. Lightbreather (talk

) 18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Trying to twist one instance of joining a project that someone else belongs to into an instance of stalking is distraction." I'm assuming you didn't post that to be intentionally ironic correct? Why exactly did you join a project that you knew was the main area of activity of someone you so vociferously wanted to avoid then? Honest question. Capeo (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If the ONLY interaction Scal had ever had with me was to join a project after I'd joined it and mentioned it somewhere else, I wouldn't be here. That action was only part of a larger, months-long pattern of harassment and PA, which I have documented here and elsewhere.

You didn't answer the question. You felt like you were being stalked yet your instinct was to go start editing in the area your claimed stalker is mainly active? That's not the actions of someone seeking to be left alone. In fact that's the actions of someone hoping to spark a reaction. Look, you two had a nasty content dispute and you were both rightly topic banned over it. There were no IBans and there was nothing in place to stop anybody from talking about anyone else which, by the way, people are completely free to do so long as PA's aren't involved. You can't just tell people to stop talking about you and call it stalking if they don't. During the height of the civility kerfuffle there were lots of people talking about you. So then we get to Scal joining the GGTF, a project that suddenly became the center of Wikipedia and had an influx of new members and activity. You took your ball and went home. Scal stayed and wasn't a source of disruption. You claimed stalking but consensus wasn't even close to supporting that claim. You join the Porn Project and start drafting and editing anti-porn oriented articles. Scal supports your good work. There's no drama for months while you work in an area frequented by someone who agreed to a voluntary I-Ban. Then Scal edits and article on his watchlist that you happen to be editing. Something allowed by an I-Ban, voluntary or not by the way, and you go to his talk page and claim stalking again and, shocker, drama ensues. The last couple months show one person who has moved on from a past conflict and another who hasn't let it go. Capeo (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Involved oppose: As argued above (see here), this would currently involve punishing LB without any semblance of due process. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Given that nobody has yet been found 'guilty' of anything, it's arguably a bit premature of me to make the following suggestion (and perhaps also optimistic, and utterly naive), but what I hope to eventually see coming out of this dispute is an admission by both sides that at least some of their behaviour has been inappropriate, that both sides apologize for that inappropriate behaviour, and express what Catholics (of whom I was one until about 40 years ago) call a firm purpose of amendment, and that both are then let off with some kind of formal caution from the community that is recorded here but does not necessarily go onto their block logs. However I am totally inexperienced regarding ANIs (and hope that I won't find myself anywhere near another one for a long time to come), so it may well be that this suggestion is far too naive to deserve your serious consideration, let alone for any of you to expend energy working to try to bring about such a resolution (and if so, my apologies for wasting people's time with it). Tlhslobus (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Following to GGTF clinched it for me. Clearly stalking. I see nothing lost and everything gained from separating these two.
  re
  }} 01:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it so hard to believe that an editor became interested in a project through interaction with another editor? How long should Scal have waited to join the task force after noticing that LB had joined? Powers ^T 12:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support two-way ban as first choice. Scalhotrod clearly followed Lightbreather to the gender gap task force, causing her to withdraw from a project she would otherwise have been active in. I invited Lightbreather to join on 27 July. She joined a few minutes later at 02:55, 27 July, and posted her first comment to the talk page at 16:38, 28 July. Scalhotrod joined less than an hour later at 17:24, 28 July, and opened a new section to introduce himself. Lightbreather immediately expressed concern that he had joined, and highlighted previous interactions between them. Whole exchange here.

  A few hours later, Lightbreather left the task force; she explained why here and here. I'm supporting a two-way ban as first choice because it's in both their interests to stay away from each other. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Scal is already observing a voluntary ban, has been for months, and has had no issue with LB even though she followed him to the Porn Project to goad a reaction which she finally got when she went to his talk page recently over absolutely nothing. Capeo (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As the evidence shows, he is not observing his voluntary ban. If he were, I wouldn't be here, and there is no policy that says I am required to ignore harassment and PAs. Lightbreather (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was observing it as I understood it. But it wasn't until yesterday (September 24th) that I read the guidelines for an

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 19:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Besides the problem already mentioned (in my above "Involved Oppose") of punishing LB without due process, another problem with a two-way
  Flyer22 has already pointed out that LB plays an important role in balancing those articles. In her comment on this on Flyer22's Talk Page, LB has said that she is not offended by all porn (and as such I think it is misleading to see here as "very anti-porn") but that the articles tend to be seriously imbalanced towards the pro-porn perspective - I don't know whether that's true, but I'd be amazed if it wasn't, given the huge over-representation of males among Wikipedia editors. A 2-way ban, while superficially 'balanced' in theory, will merely further re-inforce this imbalance in practice, as inevitably happens if you apply equal number of hits to a 90% majority and a 10% minority. Under a 2-way IBAN, in effect Scal can't revert LB's edits, but there are many other males who can, while LB can't revert Scal's edits but has very few females to do it instead (and she can't even mention that he's made an edit that needs reverting). It will also send out a message to the porn industry that they can get rid of female critics on Wikipedia by simply getting one male to pick on each female editor, and then get both given a 2-way IBAN (I'm NOT suggesting Scal is working for the porn industry; I am suggesting that the porn industry is smart enough to take advantage of any mistake we make here; indeed so is every other industry, organisation and institution that would like to see less criticism of itself on Wikipedia). Tlhslobus (talk
  ) 01:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tlhslobus's comments directly above derivative of Flyer22's observations. Softlavender (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Federalist - AfD

Second Quantization, see below, section "comments about !voters at an AfD". Drmies (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article

Thefederalist.com is at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thefederalist.com. Unfortunately the website itself has canvassed editors to come and make erroneus arguments at the AfD. I think some sort of admin intervention is required, Second Quantization (talk

) 23:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More Siduri socks

We've got another influx of Jim-Siduri sock/meatpuppets at Jimbo's talk page and WikiProject Countering systemic bias (though the WikiProject edits have been cleaned up). So far, we've got IPs 166.137.8.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 166.137.8.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 166.137.8.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 66.14.164.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which has a pleasant message about the Church of Siduri on the Talk page). Not sure if (range)block or SPI is the best option. Woodroar (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hardblocked stable IP 66.14.164.195 for 6 months, soft-blocked the small IP range 166.137.8.* for 3 months. Hatted off thread on Jimbo's page with a sock note, to the extent it had already been responded to, removing the more recent sock posts in the thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

New editor

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

I'm caught between

non-admin closure of this deletion discussion

. But scanning through their edit history there are some other concerning things like:

• This series of edits to Deb's talk page.
• This equally strange advice to Northamerica1000.
• This doubling-down on WikiDan61's talk page.

I'm all for enthusiasm but attempting to function as a quasi-admin and

getting it so consistently wrong is a recipe for disaster. I'm especially concerned about the idea of a non-admin with this sort of AFD track-record closing discussions (and if the currently-open AFD nominations are anything to go by, that record is progressing in the wrong direction). There's an obvious language barrier there (which makes me even less inclined to bring it here) but we're watching a bad situation get worse. St★lwart¹¹¹

14:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's also this on Bobrayner's talk and this on his own. But I've since seen he counts Kelapstick and RHaworth as mentors so in fairness I've pinged them too. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged on this, I'll throw in my 2¢ worth. My take on Wikicology is that
  WP:NPP, and thus interacting with many newbies leads to lots of biting that, on balance, does more harm than good to the project. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!
  14:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• That was a spectacularly bad call in closing the AFD. I'll soon be reverting it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• I have given him the benefit of the doubt for this [255] where an article was accepted from AFC in this current state. Admittedly now Wikicology and several others have helped clean up the article significantly, however I still don't feel it should ever have been moved into the mainspace so I took it to AFD. I think a gentle nudge to be more cautious is definitely in order. CaptRik (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• I am particularly glad with
  talk
  ) 16:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@

this advice from an editor, I think it might be best for you to refrain from giving advice to editors, even new editors, for a bit and take some time to observe how editors talk to each other here. Your communication style has been somewhat combative, even if you did not intend for it to be so, and even if you feel like your actions are correct. Speaking from my own experience, there is a lot to learn about Wikipedia even within the first year or two of doing so. It's best to accept that you will make mistakes because you are still learning (as am I, after editing for several years), and that trying to argue every time you are challenged is not going to be productive for you looking ahead. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line}

17:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't recall any particular interaction beyond this, and this shows as much, certainly not enough for me to consider myself a mentor. Thanks for the ping though Stalwart111. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• The edits here and here (noted above) are particularly worrying to me. Lesson 0 of any collaborative project is humility. We don't always know everything and we should all be willing to dial back accusations like those when countered rather than ratcheting them up. For Wikicology, here are some general pointers: When in doubt, don't template people or warn them unnecessarily. There's no need to warn editors that they might be blocked (either directly or via a euphemism) unless you're absolutely sure that A: they will be blocked for that behavior and B: that a warning will potentially deter them from said behavior. This avoids two problems. First, you don't end up biting a new editor and second you avoid having to decide whether or not you have to be "polite to spammers". If someone is spamming a link (especially multiple times) then just revert the edit. If you feel that a revert needs to be explained (and it often has to be), then leave a polite explanation noting the problems with the edit and how to correct them. Next, when someone who is not involved with a particular dispute (e.g. a revert or a comment you've left) raises an issue with your actions, your first step should be to stop and evaluate whether or not they could be correct. There's no prize for being right. You don't need to apologize or promise to correct the error every time someone comments but consider the possibility that they may have a point. Finally, while it is fun to patrol new pages and recent changes sometimes this isn't the best path for everyone. Consider just editing articles or participating in discussions for a while, you'll be amazed at how much perspective you get by merely stepping away from anti-vandalism tools for a while. Protonk (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• I think one of the problems here is that Wikicology is new, and trying to fit in. In doing so, they are "borrowing" a lot of phraseology and style from those who they see as "role models", such as those folks they list as "mentors". For instance, many of the phrases used are ones which RHaworth commonly uses, and they are listed as a user Wikicology admires. English maybe not being a first language tends to compound this approach. Unfortunately, because they haven't been here as long as those other editors, or gained the experience and respect which those other editors have, they can tend to use those "borrowed" styles in a way that isn't really appropriate. This can then be miscontrued as "talking down" when I'm sure that's not the intention. I have absolutely no doubt that they mean very well indeed, and can make great contributions, in time, but it would, I think, be wise for them to wait until they have listened to, and actively sought, enough advice before being confident in offering so much. A mentor is someone who has agreed to that role, and to whom one should actively go for advice, rather than just copy. They can explain why they do what they do, and at what times it would, or would not, be appropriate for you to do the same, or how you might approach things differently. Begoon ^talk 17:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• From the depth of my heart, i thank all amiable contributors for the useful comments. I appreciates every criticism from Stalwart111. Sincerely I feel victimized by
  talk
  ) 19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:DRV, I challenged the closure and would have done so if you had closed as "delete" or (really) anything at all. You simply shouldn't be closing discussions. St★lwart¹¹¹

21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikicology, I'm not really convinced you appreciate the criticism because you don't seem to acknowledge the mistakes you have made (which is all that they are to me, mistakes, and they're not a big deal) and instead continue to make accusations about other editors (which is problematic). Maybe it's a language issue, but that's how I read your response. I think the suggestions that Begoon offers above is something you should strongly consider: ...it would, I think, be wise for them to wait until they have listened to, and actively sought, enough advice before being confident in offering so much. Please understand we're not trying to victimize you, but we are trying to lead you down a more productive path because it's clear you have potential and the energy to do good work here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• One very trivial example of Wikicology not getting it, but no harm done either. This Tuesday I set out to create
  WP:AFC, apparently one of his pet projects. Choor monster (talk
  ) 19:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• thank you
  talk
  ) 20:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe you will. Here's some more advice: Don't copy what other people say or do, word for word - develop your own style and way of doing things. If you're not sure what to do, ask someone you trust. In fact, even if you are sure, ask anyway - it can't hurt. If you don't have people to trust, find some by talking to them. There are lots of people who can help you. Take things slow. When you write a message to someone, preview it, and imagine how you would feel if someone had written it to you. Really imagine that - then write it again, better. You'll do fine. Start with basic things - even formatting, I just fixed all your indents here, for instance; see

WP:INDENT. It's lots to learn, and it will take a lot of time. Begoon ^talk

20:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that spending too much time on the internet, and Wikipedia in particular, does strange things to you. For example, I just filled up Concetta the Corolla with petrol, and notice that the price was $AU 1.337. ZOMG! I thought, it's leet a litre. (Just thought I'd share that with everyone). Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Withdrawal of his Rollback Rights will make him a Better Wikipedian: My first encounter with Wikicology was when I voted that one of his article should be speedily deleted (as I frequently give my opinions on Nigeria related AFDs) His response was very fascinating to me because he carefully twisted Wikipedia policies against me. Although he apologized later but since I gave that vote, he continued to disrupt all my articles on Wikipedia. He went further to issue warnings to me on his talkpage.

I believe rollback rights should be reserved for experienced editors with very good track-record. I see no basis for giving him this right, at least until he gets a basic understanding on how the Wikipedia community works. Even though it might look like it, I am not saying all these because of the rift we had but out of my deep respect for privileged (special powers) users on Wiki and I just think him retaining the right is similar to giving a loaded AK47 to a newborn baby instead of allowing him to mature.

talk

) 04:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that ANI is supposed to be where experienced editors contributes to discussion from a

talk

) 18:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is my first unpleasantry on Wiki. On or about 31 Aug 2014
  User:Serten
  left a message in German on my user talk page (see: "Jetz aber"). I responded at Sertens user talk page in German (see: E CLAMPUS VITUS, usw).

Wickology placed a template "Speak english" on my user talk page and Sertens. I believed Wickiology was some sort of Wiki-functionary. I responded at my user talk page because I perceived Wickiologys user and talk pages to be unfriendly and contradictory. I never received a reply.

Wickiology then placed template "Not a forum" on my user talk page.

I presume Wickiology followed Serten to my user talk page. Prior to 31 August 2014 I never heard of either of them.

I feel Wickiologys actions are in poor form. I concede English is probably not Wickiologys primary language. After reading all this here, I have cause to surmise there is something behind Wickiologys editing other than presumptive ESL. I wish at this time to keep these opinions to myself, and never want hear from Wickiology again.

Help stop climate change here: [256] Tjlynnjr (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC) .

talk

) 22:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for butting in here but I noticed that at much of Microbial growth monitoring techniques that this editor recently created appears to be copied almost word-for-word from this book, starting at "Monitoring microbial growth in culture". I'm still fairly new and I'm not sure what to do about copyright problems like this so I thought I could bring it up here. Thanks. --Ca2james (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing this out, Ca2james. It is thanks to people like you that Wikipedia continues to exist, because Wikipedia does not (mostly) get copyright complaints or lawsuits. I have tagged the page in question for speedy deletion. I await an explanation from
  talk
  ) 02:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks,
  Molecular tools for gene study, where I've made a note on the Talk page. When the latter article was created it was copied and pasted from another source but it's since been edited by others and appears to no longer have copyright violations. I'm not sure that Wikicology understands copyright issues or why it's not acceptable to copy and paste from other sources to create an article, based on their response to my note on the Talk:Molecular tools for gene study page. --Ca2james (talk
  ) 16:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Further,
  talk
  ) 03:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It was not Wikicology experiencing their first unpleasantry on Wikipedia, but user:Tjlynnjr. The indentation used by Wikicology's for their reply to user:Tjlynnjr was insufficient. I changed it for clarity. - Takeaway (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Copyright issues is not a discussion for ANI. It can only be mention or reported here if an editor continues to violate the policy. If an article meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD), it should be tag appropriately and speedily deleted from wikipedia. Thank you so much
  talk
  ) 07:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm a bit worried about Wikicology's involvement with
  this AFC, having declined it as promotional and without sufficient establishment of notability. I don't see either of these issues when I read it myself and after a quick search on Google. - Takeaway (talk
  ) 11:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• talk
  ) 14:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually did read the declined version. As for primary sources, it is not that it is forbidden to use them per WP rules, it is just advised not to use them to prevent editors here on Wikipedia to engage in original research. As far as I could see, the primary sources used in the proposed article, were used only as proof for such simple statements as "Harris has published widely on smoking and health". The whole list of references after this statement is just a list of articles that Harris had written. In my opinion, knowing a bit about who Harris is, and how influential he has been for the formulation of laws regarding smoking, it was hardly necessary. The problem with a person such as Harris is that he is widely known in academic circles and with policy makers, just not with a wider public. As such, there are no easy-to-find quotable articles about his notability. I found that the article that you declined was sufficient for WP. It doesn't need to be perfect. I'm surprised that the editor hasn't given up. I've hardly seen an article where so much of the content is referenced. - Takeaway (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I just accepted the revised article on Harris; I think there's enough evidence he meets WP:PROF. Naturally, there's room for further improvement, as for all articles. I may of course be wrong, and anyone who disagrees is welcome to question the matter at AFD. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• With respect to copyright, I saw the speedy tag on Transcription activators in eukaryotes, and while checking it, I saw the message Wikicology left on its talk page trying to explain why it should not be deleted: Science related articles are different from other articles. They often follow the same principles. A cell is a cell in any source. This misunderstanding of copyright in my opinion is sufficiently fundamental that I do not think this editor should be reviewing articles or AfCs, or advising new editors. I think the privilege to review AfC should be withdrawn, and there is need for a topic ban on reviewing at NewPage Patrol. He clearly does not know the basics himself. The principle is that Competence is Required. As for copyright, I've given him a level 4 warning for copyvio, and I intend to block him altogether if there is another such violation in the future. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• I thank all amiable community members who has made one or more comments, advices and recommendations towards the improvements of my edit behavior. However, I beseech the entire community members to please forgive me and give me a benefit of doubt ( not to sanction me with a topic banned on NPP or withdrawn my privilege to review AFC). I have passion for this project. I joined the community with an intention to improve it and not with a motive for disruption. I had been very active ever since I joined the project with the desire to become an administrator someday. However, I know that my dream will surely come true. Intense sanction may not allow this dream to come true. This discussion has really exposed me to a lot of things and I will make use of all the advices provided above which I have already put into play and I promise to abide and adhere strictly to every policies. On this note I beg you to temper justice with mercy.
  talk
  ) 20:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wikicology: For Pete's sake, don't even start thinking about being an administrator right now. It's not necessary to be an administrator to be able to effectively contribute to Wikipedia, so please just focus on the advice we are giving you. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I promise to focus on the advices.

talk

) 10:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• It would seem that Wikicology has used the reasons for deleting this AfD, an article which he had created, and applied it to his reviewing of the AfC of
  Jeffrey Harris (Economist, Physician) without truly understanding that a very notable academic is not the same as one non-notable academic. After quickly scanning his contributions list I have also noticed that Wikicology in some instances ([257], [258], [259]) reverts edits without understanding that these reverts were not at all contributing to Wikipedia. Edits such as this one where a whole list of exhibitions and projects by the artist were deleted with the edit summary "Cleanup unneccesary section", and this one do not give me much confidence that this editor actually knows what they are doing. Tagging this edit as vandalism, and also warning the editor, was totally unnecessary, especially in the light that said editor was in the process of improving the article. Adding this article for PROD without giving a valid reason. After Wikicology is warned about their actions by RHaworth, they apologise. Apologising after incorrect actions seems like a constant in their behaviour. It seems to me that this user wants to do too much, and too soon, hoping to become an important editor and administrator here on Wikipedia as quickly as possible. - Takeaway (talk
  ) 13:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• In this thread as well as the past examples Takeaway points out, I only see generic apologies and promises to follow "advice". Not anything specific enough to indicate that they get it and know exactly what they need to stop doing. I've seen this pattern many, many times before with other editors, all of whom may be very well meaning but have no real self-awareness of their limitations nor an inclination to really listen to other editors except when they are threatened with sanctions. So you have someone with only a few months and a thousand edits under their belt thinking they know better than every long time veteran (as evidenced
  here, as already noted above)... That kind of arrogance rather overrides any good faith intentions to improve the encyclopedia, particularly when it's exacerbated by difficulties with the English language. Really the only thing that makes any difference is topic banning and mentoring, though that typically just limits the damage rather than encouraging actual growth. I just don't see a real prospect for improvement here, just more of the same. And the recently discovered copyright problems should be the last straw. postdlf (talk
  ) 16:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I came across Wikicology a couple of months ago. My thoughts were, this editor has got hold of a copy of "How to become a Wikipedia Administrator in 6 months". This imaginary tome details the successful techniques one must follow to become a guaranteed administrator within 6 months of starting to edit Wikipedia. It instructs editors to choose an impressive screen name, to do as little actual content editing as possible, and do all that content editing on uncontroversial articles (you don't want to get sanctions or be involved in disputes), to regularly create a few articles (obscure and uncontroversial ones of course), to give out lots of advice, including posting things on users pages (new editors are best for this - they don't talk back) and mentioning Wikipedia and "the project" a lot (if you act like an administrator and talk like an administrator, one day you will be one), to frequent areas frequented by administrators so that you get yourself noticed by administrators (you need to find that special one who will one day nominate you), and to do as much non-administrator administrating on Wikipedia as you can (such as AfDs, etc.). And absolutely never be funny / flippant / sarcastic - there is no place for humor on Wikipedia - it's a serious business. I wonder, what has Wikicology done to make it go so wrong? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

They messed up the "new editors are best for this - they don't talk back" part. Anyway, absent a formal proposal for some editing restrictions, we appear to have run out of steam here. --

talk

) 20:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Run out of steam"? Everyone agrees this editor has been a consistent problem across many areas. And it looks like

yet another copy and paste copyvio was posted by him today, after User:DGG just warned him yesterday, and his response there is just baffling ("I just detected it too."). If you need it formalized, propose site ban as there is apparently no positive reason to permit Wikicology to continue to edit here in any capacity. Or, at minimum, indef block to be lifted only if someone agrees to mentor him (and Wikicology submits to this) and under the conditions that Wikicology is not to edit any articles until he demonstrates to the mentor's satisfaction that he understands how to respect copyright, and that until a consensus at ANI reverses it he is not to post anything in project space, not to review new articles, not to revert or undo any edits by another editor, and not to warn other editors, tell them what to do, or tell them what policy is or says. postdlf (talk

) 22:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The copyvio content was already there before Wikicology started editing the article so indeed it has nothing to with them.

I've read a few suggestions on what actions would be best in this whole matter. I think that User:DGG's proposals here above are sound. I'm not here very often and normally only read this page as a source of amusement (oops) so I have no idea how to proceed with a formal proposal but my advise would be that Wikicology should limit their role here on Wikipedia for the foreseeable future, or be limited, to edit subjects where they they have real expertise instead of trying to be someone who knows everything. After a while, after gaining more knowledge on the inner workings of Wikipedia, they can proceed from there into other fields IF they are so inclined. - Takeaway (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Let us kindly assume that Wikicology will take that recommendation on board (as a suggestion - no AfC reviews, no new page patrolling, no giving advice to others, for a few months), and that DGG will indeed block Wikicology if they see them adding copyvio text again, and that no formal remedies are required. --

talk

) 23:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think before we can assume anything, we need a substantive comment from Wikicology that demonstrates they understand all of this. Not just generic promises and apologies. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 22:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Based on the advices provided by various experienced editors above, I had decided and agreed to limit myself to normal edit ( not to review AFC, NP, not to warn editors) for 3 months. This will enable me to learn more about how editors interact as well as learning the basic policy. I also need a mentor to guild and review my works. I thank you all.
  talk
  ) 22:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems as if this case can be closed. I personally don't think that active monitoring by an experienced editor is needing during this period. Wikicology's latest article looks fine from what I could see: no copyvio and adequately referenced. Yes, there are some grammar and spelling mistakes but that can be easily taken care of in subsequent edits. Standard WP checks on new articles and edits in existing articles should suffice. Perhaps Wikicology could ask someone, once this 3 month period is over, to review their progress and verify that they have not violated anything (easily done by looking at Wikicology's talkpage and list of contributions), and advise them on how to proceed? - Takeaway (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikicology's self-agreed editing limits detailed above seem acceptable to me as an ordinary editor, as long as that "not warning editors" will also include not going around telling other editors what Wikipedia is or is not, what Wikipedia procedures are, and what "good" Wikipedia editors should do. I hope he comes to realise that people who edit Wikipedia with the purpose from the outset of becoming Wikipedia administrators are probably the worst people to actually be administrators. If Wikicology abandons all hope of becoming an administrator I bet his editing will dramatically improve. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have just reviewed a new article by Wikicology and unfortunately it is a mess. I have given them some advice and 24 hours to clean it up. If it is then still unsatisfactory, it will have to be put up for AfD. I am now very unsure if Wikicology can actually function here on the English Wikipedia on anything beyond very basic level editing such as cleaning up bare URLs. Very, very sorry... - Takeaway (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BITE

after my message here yesterday evening to keep this thread from being archived, stating that they are a new user so are not expected to know better while still arguing that all of the fluff citations supported the content. This comes from someone who, until a few days ago, was going around Wikipedia "advising" people what and what not to do, and "helping" with AfC's .

Apparently, the self-imposed limit to only do "normal editing" did not, in their mind, entail staying away from AfD either (see their latest contribs). Refraining from giving their views at AfD had of course not been mentioned expressly by other editors here in this thread...

They seem to be incapable of accepting responsibility for their own actions. From today's interaction on their talkpage (see

User_talk:Wikicology#Your_report_at_ANI): "You said here that the references are too much. I removed them based on your advice. I also removed bulk of the article content. Do you still expect me to includes the references you once condemn?". What I actually said was that the article's content was not backed by the multitude of irrelevant citations and that it should be cleaned up and rewritten. Wikicology seems to just make up excuses as they go along, and deny all responsibility when things go wrong for them. Having now been confronted with this side of them, I can understand what WikiDan61 meant with "unnecessarily belligerent attitude". I had given them the benefit of the doubt, thinking that they would have learned something from all the advice here above and on their talkpage, but now I just don't know what to do any more with someone who exhibits this sort of behaviour. - Takeaway (talk

) 21:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If AfD, NPP, not warning newbies, not reviewing AfC is accepted, probably they can't do too much damage can they? There might be some language issues involved, but that is unavoidable. Perhaps give the proposed restrictions a few months and see how it goes? I don't like to see a block without some chance to improve; on the other hand, I have no experience in these matters. Kingsindian (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at their recent contribution history, they seem to now focus on AfD's. Not sure how damaging that is? Keeping oneself busy with AfD's can actually be quite educational I guess, especially when one throws around a whole bunch of wiki policy abbreviations which hopefully they've actually read. I don't really want to involve myself with this editor any more after our last interaction. I also think they would rather not work with me any longer either. Hopefully someone else can take over and/or shed some new light on this matter? - Takeaway (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the AFD closed by Wikicology as "Keep" and complained about above, was later closed as "No consensus to delete", which is not terribly different. (Note the later close is itself under deletion review, headed towards being upheld as an okay close, i think. However jumping in to close AFDs is probably not wise for any relatively new contributor. Participating in AFDs otherwise is an okay and educational activity, in my opinion, though i think it would be better to contribute to articles. Spending 13 hours per day on Wikipedia (per user page statement), doing any mix of activities, is not at all recommended! Feedback has been given, and acknowledged, this ANI could be closed. --doncram 20:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

However, participating in or initiating AfDs has the potential to do more damage than most other editing activities - article edits can be reversed or removed (and if they are bad ones, they eventually will be), but faulty reasoning on an AfD can lead to an entire article being deleted for ever, complete with all the work that went into making the article. So I think it is not really an OK activity for a problematic editor. I'm concerned that Wikicology (as indicated by Takeaway) has continued to participate in AfDs even after making the suggestion that refraining from AfDs would be a solution. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 19:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikicology, this entire thread is about you being a problematic editor! However, regarding refraining from AfDs, on re-reading your earlier resolution suggestion I see that you did not make such an offer. Apologies for suggesting that you did. I stand by my assertion that eager unskilled participation in or initiation of AfDs has the potential to do more damage on Wikipedia than most other editing activities. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is the latest display of his AfD "experience": [[260]] - it is also, I think, a clear example of bad faith editing, undoubtedly made because I created the article. Wikicology does not even understand that an article about a person who died in 1932 is not a BLP! So much for his understanding of Wikipedia procedures. Wikicology needs to be blocked from all activities involving advanced Wikipedia editing - this includes AfD creation and voting, new article creation, and posting advice or form messages on other editor's pages. If that is not possible for technical reasons, would it be a loss to be rid of him completely - he seems irredeemable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, Wikicology also followed me to an article that I had worked on recently but apparently nothing there to be found so they just filled in bare URLs. It's one thing to keep an eye on problematic editors, but it's a completely different thing to follow around editors with whom one personally has a problem. - Takeaway (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Me thinks that there is a bit too little

WP:AGF going on. Filling in bare references can't be taken as any evidence of an intent to do something nefarious. Reviewing their AfD's, apart from the one which Tiptoe mentioned, (which could have been simply a mistake, it was speedily withdrawn, once it was pointed out that the subject was dead), I do not see any obviously bad calls (example1, example2, example3). Participating in AfDs seem to me an activity which does some good and doesn't do much harm. Certainly no evidence has been provided to consider draconian sanctions like banning. Kingsindian ♝♚

19:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Except for the proposed deletion of Cynicus, it has not been suggested that Wikicology has been acting in a deliberately nefarious way - the problem appears to be arising out of incompetence, not out of maliciousness, and is compounded by Wikicology showing no signs of learning from mistakes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian, there are many articles where they could have fixed bare URL's. Why did Wikicology have to follow me to an article that I had worked on directly after my criticism about their fluffed up article on their talk page? And again after they complained about me here on an admin's talk page but where they did not get the result they seemed to be looking for. As for nominating Tiptoethrutheminefield's article for deletion, why is it that the only deletion nomination that this user had initiated since this ANI started, happened only after Tiptoe's recent critical evaluation? All a big coincidence/mistake? Hmmmm.... I started out here with giving this problematic user a lot of leeway but after their recent actions, I have had it with this editor. And since when is nominating AfD's only normal editing as they promised to limit themselves to? - Takeaway (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Checking their contributions does not implies that I followed them in bad faith. After all, they are not the only editors that commented here, even Stawalt111 that filled this report, I never did that to him and several other editors that didn't commented in favor of my edit behavior here. I improved the articles created by

talk

) 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Despite all the cautions and corrections on this noticeboard. I am still quite amazed (and a little disappointed) that Wikicology has refused to learn anything from most of the suggestions and happenings here. If only he can take things easy I bet he will be a better Wikipedian. A similar scenario like the case of Tiptoethrutheminefield happened to me when I voted one of his articles to be deleted and he subsequently proposed 3 of my articles for deletion (Africa Movie Academy Awards for Most Promising Actor, Charles Ayo and Aize Obayan; all of which were eventually kept, some with speedy keep) and added several tags to some other articles (eg. Sylvia Oluchy). He also went as far as requesting a sockpuppet investigation just because of an unfavorable comment on the Charles Ayo's talkpage (thinking I was the one despite previously apologizing for the 3rd time). I did not handle the situation very wisely that was why he escaped being cautioned for those incident.

What I translate this new development to mean is that even after this case is closed, Wikicology will continue to go after editors with unfavorable responses to his edits. And I personally know how I felt after the incident with him and I do not think I want another Wikipedian to go through it (It has already even started here).

My greatest problem with Wikicology is not even straightening his grammatical blunders or his comprehension of Wiki editing guidelines but his disruptive badfaith approach in interacting with other editors. I am short of ideas on how we can propose a solution for such edit behavior especially since he always assumes to know what he has no clue about.

Possible Solution:

• Limit yourself to only creating new articles and commenting on AFDs and do NOT do anything more.
• If another editor nominates or proposes your article for deletion please do not go after his articles or related material, simply try to convince Wikipedians at the AFD that your article is indeed notable.

On a side note I want you to ask yourself the following questions:

• Why does it look like the people I call "mentors" on Wikipedia are not even trying to defend me?
• Why does it look like everyone is against me?

If you analyse these 2 questions very well then you will agree with me that there is something really wrong with your approach on Wikipedia (and maybe even outside Wikipedia). You can't just come to Wikipedia and start doing everything at once. I joined since 2009 and I nominated my first article for deletion in 2014. You really need to take things one at a time and slow down on assuming bad faith.

talk

) 21:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It is very bad judgement to follow an editor with whom you have a problem to an article and edit it. It is even worse to nominate it for deletion; and by the way, where's the NPOV in that article? The content is based on a (real paper) book that you haven't read so how can you detect NPOV? If you accuse people of something, you have to prove it. Smearing people's edits and articles without proof is not going to make things any better for you here. As I said in my previous post, Wikicology followed Tiptoe once, and me twice, each time immediately after we criticised Wikicology for their behaviour. Before this ANI, Darreg apparently got 3 AfD's slapped on to their articles after giving Wikicology a reason for resentment. And not following Stalwart to any of their articles doesn't take away that you did do it to other people. Why I didn't report it when it happened the first time, nor the second time? I gave you the benefit of the doubt but after what happened to Tiptoe today, I see no reason to doubt your behaviour any longer, especially not after having read Darreg's account just now.

You didn't come to my talk page asking for advice. The suddenly oh-so-nice "thank you" message, just 3 days after unsuccessfully complaining to an admin about me, seemed only created for one thing, and I quote: "However, don't you think the discussion at ANI should have been closed by now? Or what do you think?".

Of course <sarcasm> your "mistake" of nominating Tiptoe's article for deletion was because you were in a hurry? Do you always carelessly nominate articles "in a hurry"?

Participating in AfD's can be part of a learning process. I was the even the first to suggest that in this thread. But nominating articles for deletion, with only a few months of experience, is certainly not part of normal editing. - Takeaway (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What sanctions are there for an editor who wilfully misrepresents what people write?. Who out of resentment slap AfD's on to articles created by "adversaries"? Who try to twist their way out of their own mistakes by accusing others? (See the NPOV accusation here above). Who repeatedly accuse people of WP:BITING them because suddenly they're "new" but continue doing things that normally should only be done when a more experienced editor? Too tired to list more of their negative behaviour but I think these more or less sum it up. - Takeaway (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Darreg, will you stop coming here to give false information to mislead other editors? Takeaway,let me give you the details with links for verification. After I and Darreg had a minor rift at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye (an article I created), he went ahead immediately to proposed Olawoye Theo Ladapo (an article I created) for deletion.See it here .

I was not happy with it. And because I had no experienced on how AfD discussion works then, I decided to nominate Charles Ayo (an article he created) for deletion because of the article state then, and besides I felt it was a norm here since he behaved the same way too. see it here. In fact see our intersect contributions here for verification. Did Darreg led by example then? Am so surprised and disappointed that Darreg could come here to make false claim again with an intention to distract and mislead others as well as to tarnish my integrity on wikipedia. I think a behavior like this is bad! Do we fold our arms to see it getting worst? However, I think ANI should be reserved strictly for administrators and highly experienced editors that will leave comment here from a Neutral Point of View, then ANI will serve its purpose and will never be a medium for editors to tackled and strongly criticised fellow editors who had step on their toes or offended them in the past.

talk

) 02:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So Darreg was involved, together with a few others, in the AfD of your Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye article and after it was deleted by general consensus, Darreg decided to research another article you had written, which again was deleted by general consensus for failing WP:PROF. To me, Darreg's listing of the Olawoye Theo Ladapo article at AfD can easily be explained as not done out of spite for the truly minute run-in that you both had, but out of concern that your other article too was not one which should have been here on Wikipedia.

You claim that Darreg's Charles Ayo article was also not correct so why did all other editors immediately back up Darreg's article with keep and even strong keep whereas both your articles only got deletes from all other editors? You have actually just admitted here on this forum that you put up Darreg's article for deletion out of resentment. You truly do not see where you went wrong???

It seems a constant in your interactions here on Wikipedia. When confronted with criticism, even when it's constructive, you first come up with an excuse why it's not your fault but then you immediately follow that up with a passive-aggressive accusation. In this whole thread, many of your replies follow the same pattern. To me it indicates that you either don't listen, or don't understand, and perhaps both. In any case, it's not the kind of behaviour that indicates that you can actually work together with other editors.

I really hope that an admin will very soon wrap this whole thing up. This last reply of yours was truly enlightening. - Takeaway (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In this way too long a thread, somewhere in the beginning was mentioned that two more articles by Wikicology had been deleted as copyvios, and somewhere midway, one article had been reduced to a two line stub after all the unsourced content and irrelevant fluff references were removed. - Takeaway (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In these whole thread, I observed that you always twist every comments to suit your interest. You want me sanction right? You need not threatening me with sanction. If am eventually sanction, by an administrator, it won't take away my life but will satisfy your interest ( at least you will let me be) and improve my edit behavior. The fact that my edit behavior has significantly improved since the onset of this discussion speak for itself. It is quiet unfortunate that you never mention anything about Darreg coming here to make false claims, despite the fact that I provided every prove. In fact you don't even see anything wrong in it. Am sure if wikicology did that, you will make it a topic of discussion here. Instead you twisted the whole comment. You were talking about article that was deleted and the one that was kept just to sweep the allegations under the carpet. This seemed like a biased argument to me. However, contrary to your believe and comments above, Darreg article,

talk

) 08:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so very much Wikicology, for correcting me. I indeed made a few mistakes in my previous post. Just like you, I am in too much of a hurry sometimes. Please forgive me. Darreg did indeed start the 2nd AfD while the 1st one had not yet been closed. And indeed, no one supported Darreg either and the article was only kept because of it meeting WP:PROF. And indeed, in this ANI thread about you, no one actually needs to, as you call it, "twist" your comments at all. - Takeaway (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to grace you with a reply but I just want to correct the chronology of events from your reply that I went "immediately" to propose Olawoye Theo Ladapo for deletion after the "minor rift" at AFD/Taofeek. You probably "forgot" to also mention that you proposed Aize Obayan for deletion before that incident (You can check the dates to verify). You once again "stylishly" omitted that part to suit your case all in the bid of assuming "bad faith", now tell me who is really giving misinformation here. My nomination of your article for deletion was in good faith as I knew that at that time you arrogantly had no idea on the basics of Wikipedia (and you probably still do not), all I wanted was for you to at least understand that something needs to be notable and copyright compliant before being included here. If I wanted to assume "bad faith" I would have nominated all your articles then and raised the copyrights flag (I left that for other editors to find out which they did). My suggestions and comments then and here were solely in good faith. I do not want to derail else I will go on with my findings on your previous articles. Until you grasp a good understanding of Wikipedia etiquette, please stay clear of "my" articles. Good-luck! Goodbye! Happy Editing!.

talk

) 15:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note to any admins lurking: This has been going on for more than half a month. Perhaps time to close this? Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Haveagoodwanktoday

Indeffed by John. De728631 (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Looks like a vandalism-only account, with the additon of a username that I believe fails the

username policy. I've tagged their talkpage for the latter, but would like a second opinion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead}

18:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, John has blocked them before I could add the ani-notice tag on their talkpage! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 68.39.152.45 keeps removing valid sources and will not attempt discussion

Recently an anonymous editor (68.39.152.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) deleted several bands from the Crossover thrash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Some of those were legitimate, but several others are generally considered to be a part of the genre and I later provided sources to back that up. However, the user seems to have a problem with the sources, even though they are generally considered reliable as per Wikipedia's standards. I attempted to discuss it on the talk page and on his own page, but the editor still insisted that he was right. I left the bands he had a problem with off for a while.

I later asked around if my sources were considered reliable enough and started a discussion on I had asked for help on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Metal, and it seemed that my sources were alright, so I decided to re-add the bands to the list. MrMoustacheMM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then suggested that sources be provided on the crossover page itself, and I proceeded to do that for the bands that the IP wanted to stay off the list, with the intention of eventually providing all hte bands on the list in the future, however the IP again started deleting the bands. MrMoustacheMM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then suggested that all the bands should be discussed on the talk page on the article before they're added to the article. I agreed to that and moved all the bands to the talk page, including the ones the IP had a problem with. The user then went on and deleted the bands on the talk page as seen here here and here, despite being asked to discuss whether they should or shouldn't be there first. He also seems to ignore sources and cites things such as the sidebar on AMG, which isn't considered reliable, unlike the articles. He keeps mentioning that "he was there" which is why he should be trusted, uses his own "knowledge" to decide what is and what isn't crossover based on his own arbitrary rules and accuses me of trying to hog the page, pushing my POV for finding sources, and working for the band and record labels. He also removed my sources for here and here, citing the AMG sidebar and a book that probably doesn't claim what he says it claims, while not realizing that a source saying that a band belongs to a certain genre, doesn't negate the fact that it can also belong to another one SonOfPlisskin (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

my page is here 68.39.152.45 (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC) this is crossover thrash . everything is up for review as well as the talk page . two days of this user coming to the talk page but claims "will not attempt discussion" . Have nothing more to say . anything to get this person to stop typing to me . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

also, "some of the edits were legitimate" All bands removed from the list based on their wiki articles (and sound) all were legitimate. after this person became upset at that he/she made personal attacks and went to the articles he/she wanted added and Changed the Genre of the pages to meet re-add them to meet his/her POV . never seen anyone do this in a Decade of being here . IP changed so the history of this IP isn't showing and representing all contributions to Articles after moving . This person is only concerned with their POV . Removing bands where their articles claim they are punk rock or thrashcore or speed metal makes the Crossover Thrash page more accurate . For example this person went and changed "speed core" to "crossover thrash" on an articles just to re-added bands she/he wanted there . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

One more this person has been on wiki for five Months all they have done is argue with people . take a look at their talk page I though I was the only one . the whole page is a prime example of this persons general bad attitude towards others . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

First off, I've been editing this site since 2005. I've just changed by username. You're not the only one who can do that. Second, the arguments I had on my talk page were with another unreasonable genre warrior, and it's completely irrelevant to this. I could bring up all of your past history as well, since I've seen some of your past edits, but I chose not to. Third, you don't get to decide what should or shouldn't count based on your own opinion if there are sources supporting them, especially things like AMG articles written by a well known writer there, and replace them with genres from the sidebar. The sources page clearly states "Allmusic's genre sidebar should generally be avoided if better sources are available. Previous discussions at WP:ALBUMS and RSN have evinced that they can be incongruous with the reviewer's prose, which should take precedent over the sidebar (e.g. Allmusic's sidebar classifies Rhythm Killers as "reggae", while the reviewer observes "no reggae in sight").I added sources because you said there were no sources".

Also, there's absolutely nothing wrong with looking for sources. I've seen those bands referred to as crossover on various sites, and so I went ahead and found reliable ones. It's funny that you said "based on their wiki articles", when two of those pages already listed crossover thrash. I just added sources for it. And lastly, you can't edit my comment on the talk page. I added the bands there to discuss what should or shouldn't be on the page, but you keep deleting them without any, hence "not interested in discussion". If you have a problem with any band there, then discuss it. You can't magically make things you don't like disappear. You've been insulting and condescending towards me from the beginning, so don't bring "personal attacks" into it. I tried to talk to you about the bands you removed but you started up by saying that you're right, because you say so and that you wanted the list to be"pure" (whatever that means). At most I'd made a light-hearted comment about your poor typing skills, but that's only after you'd already proved yourself to be unwilling to reason. Any later "attacks" were sarcastic ones based on you ridiculous claims about me working for the label nad pushing your own point of view. You can't blame me for not thinking you were editing in "good faith". And don't forget, it's YOU who made the big changes to the crossover page. When an IP user makes mass deletions like you did, people are going to take notice. And I never changed speedcore to crossover. Speedcore isn't even a metal genre. Ludichrist was listed as speed metal (though it might have been taken from AMG, speed metal is used interchangeably with thrash here, as you can see in the more detailed AMG review of their first album) and hardcore. Thrash metal + hardcore = crossover. Ludichrist was well known as a crossover band, and I found other sources to back it up. And half the bands you left on the list didn't have sources saying they're crossover, but you only seem to have a problem with those particular bands. Using your ears counts as original research. If you weren't so delete-happy, I might have been more patient here. I'd like to add that the user has edited my comment on the talk page to his own liking for the third time here SonOfPlisskin (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You Argue With EVERYONE you deal with . You are 5 months old beginner, you need to learn how things work . Everything on your talk page is "sarcasm" "digs" no sense, you lie , you change pages to meet your own point of view . Im not reading your book . Show what your old page was if you aren't new . I can show my old address IPs if I get asked by an administrator . Seriously . Look at your talk page . plus you made some serious Obvious mistakes in some of your rush to change genres to try and get speed metal bands on a crossover list . That will be secret until your time comes . You lie Constantly . Im done with your nonsense and I wouldn't doubt if you are a sock puppet, it wouldn't surprise me . There is Not One Person on your talk page that you dealt with , with a Shred of dignity , class or tact . YOU WENT AND CHANGES PAGES WHEN YOU SAW WHAT THEY HAD ON THIER WIKIS IN SOME CASES, FOR YEARS . THE BANDS DONT EVEN HAVE THOSE GENRES ON THIER OWN FACEBOOK PAGES . Someone else will deal with you . Im not reading anymore of your Nonsense . For someone you said was "unwilling" I am tired of your personality Disorder style "working" with others style . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've argued with one other person, who was a recurring problematic user who got two accounts blocked and is currently under a sockpuppet investigation. I'll bring up my own accounts if an admin asks as well, but that's not going to happen, because it's completely irrelevant to this. Just adding another diff here. Stop editing my posts on the talk page. You claim to be "experienced" but you don't know the basic rules. And you still don't understand that there's nothing wrong with adding sources to pages. Pages don't remain as they are forever. Plus I only added crossover to two bands. Three of them already had it listed and I just added sources for them. Again, you don't seem to have a problem with other bands that have no sources or flimsy ones. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Did it EVER occur to you to , Stop Arguing, and wait for someone to mediate . Someone has to read this and quite frankly it comes across as immature nonsense . Is one of the bands going to break up if You don't put them on a list they don't belong . What the "urgency" . Its not a problem if it stays as it IS until a mediator full examines things . Also another editor cleaned up a little at crossover Thrash, did you see anyone have a Problem with my edits and replacing your SECTION BLANKING. No , they didn't . Give it a Rest . Even if Three days goes by , people are Busy , wait for an editor . None of your fave bands are going to break up if you don't get them in a list . Like I said at their own Facebook pages those bands don't even classify themselves as crossover thrash . Not as a reference but how out of tune your angle is . Try this word, "Patience" .68.39.152.45 (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is you editing my post that is on topic and relevant. I didn't add the bands back to the main page. I added them to the talk page for discussion. A post that I was asked to make. Just because you edit pages that most people don't care about, it doesn't mean that your edits are "good". I have no patience for disruptive editors. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You just go on and on and on and on and on and on . I GET WHAT YOU ARE TYPING . THREE DAYS AGO . Is there any need to explain . If you were working TOGETHER this would have never happened and like I said I moved three times , in 13-15 years Of Editing your the only editor who seems to possess an incessant OCD for Your POV. 68.39.152.45 (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia wasn't even around 15 years ago. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You just go on and on and on and on and on and on . incessant OCD 68.39.152.45 (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

68*, accusing another editor of having OCD is a

personal attack. If it happens again, it doesn't matter what the merits or not of the rest of this case is, you will be blocked for making personal attacks. So don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

23:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Bringing this back from the archive. The user continues to involve himself with my edits on other pages, deleting sources, and changing articles because he personally disagrees with them. He attempted to back off a little bit for a while after he was given a warning (even deleting accusations about my supposed OCD from other talk pages), but he's gone back to it. He removed "crossover" from all of these pages, claiming to be fixing grammar: 1, 2, and 3. Even if the thing about the forward slash is true, notice that he only removed crossover in all three cases, even if it would make more sense to leave it as the only genre in the opening line (particularly with Ludichrist), and made no attempt to make any mention of it elsewhere in the article. He also keeps bringing up that I've only been editing for 5 months, implying that my contributions mean nothing, like it even matters in this case, even though I've been doing so since 05/06, just not under this particular account. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This user/person seems to think correcting things on a page is "following" It is not . You added a "forward' slash second genre to the page(s) which was "crossover punk" . I removed the "forward slash" and the second genre which should be included in the side box section . There isn't one band (professional or otherwise) who has "is an American Crust punk/crossover thrash band" . Its unprofessional and not how an Encyclopedic Article is written. "Even if the forward slash "thing" is true" . WHAT ? have you ever READ Articles on wiki ? If you don't know (at minimum) some basic stuff why are you editing ? How long you've been editing Does, in Fact, matter . You either should Know better or not based on your experience . Why continue to type this childish nonsense here instead of learning how to write an Article Better, Unreal . Either way the Improvement or correction of a genre has nothing to do with "you" , Maybe thats part of your issues . You are the one that added 'crossover' to meet your own POV anyhow . Its all in the pages (edit) History. have a Nice day . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't even pay attention to your edits. And keep orphaning sources/leaving sources saying something else. There are plenty of pages that use the same format. Changed it now anyway. Let's see how you try to game the system this time. There's nothing wrong with adding the sources I added. How many times must I repeat that? There are even tips on the Wiki to find reliable sources. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your still typing to me . Interesting . cool story "bro/sis" . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked 2 days for edit warring. De728631 (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Can I revert his edit without violating 3RR? SonOfPlisskin (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You're already pretty much involved in reverting the IP so you should better leave that to someone else. De728631 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank

Can an admin fix the page history at the above page? Recently, at

WP:RM. Nevertheless, for some reason, Huldra decided to move the page anyway. An IP decided to rectify Huldra's move with redirects, thereby erasing the page history. So now, it's at the correct page but without its edit history. --brewcrewer (yada, yada)

01:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I figured out the location of the missing page history which I attempted to restore and undo the move but with the rights I have that's impossible. the article

Jordanian occupation of the West Bank article. --Acetotyce (talk)

01:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Done--deleting the target was necessary. Thanks for trying though. Brewcrewer, please check to see if I got it right. What an odd move request--in the middle of a 2004 discussion. Anyway, I move-protected the right one, and protected the wrong one; if any of this ever needs to be moved around, someone will have to ask an admin. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. You may want to protect the talk page as well.

What's more interesting is that Huldra created a new section header in middle of the conversation naming the new section "move suggested." Huldra placed the section header right above another editor's 2010 comment to make it seem like the other editor was making this proposal.[261]. Believe it or not, I've seen crazier stuff in

WP:ARBPIA.--brewcrewer (yada, yada)

02:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ownership behaviour on the Paris article

This is an unfounded and retaliative report. Metropolitan has been blocked for 60 hours for filing this

harrassment of the accused parties. De728631 (talk

) 11:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: The block has been reviewed at

WP:AN and I have now lifted it. This report, however, has not been a matter of review, but consensus for it being unjustified has been observed there nevertheless, so it should remain closed. De728631 (talk

) 02:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Investigated case

As explained on

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

:

All Wikipedia content − articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages − is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular page.

Article involved in the case

• Paris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved in the case

• Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• assisted by SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Context and events

User:Dr. Blofeld arrived on June 23rd 2013 with the constructive intent to bring it to GA status through a major overhaul [262]. Then, he performed 386 edits from June 23rd to July 7th 2013 [263] and the article indeed earned GA status the same day [264].

The problem is that this version, rushed to GA status, was not consensual at all. Two major problems emerged from the community:

• Out of 42 sections and sub-sections, the single sub-section "Landmarks by district" was expanded to the point of making up, alone, 23% of the article: 124 lines of code out of 537. (sub-section[265], discussion[266])
• The infobox image was replaced despite the former one having been approved through multiple past arbitrations (2013[267], 2013(RfC)[268], 2010[269], 2006[270]).

Then the conflict started.

Evidences of Ownership behaviour

Here starts the case of

ownership behaviour, User:Dr. Blofeld using a Tag team involving first User:SchroCat

(and possibly other users later), to protect his personal work, rejecting other advice.

Diffs and Links to the evidence

• On the same day of July 7th 2013, User:SchroCat appeared for the very first time on the Paris article, just to erase new content, asking User:Der Statistiker to submit on the talk page any change before editing the article [271].
• It appeared after investigation that User:Dr. Blofeld and User:SchroCat have known each other for a long time and have the habit to thank themselves for the mutual services they give to one another [272] [273] [274] [275]. On November 28th 2012, User:Dr. Blofeld even wrote to User:SchroCat: "Appreciate everything you've done for me" [276].
• On August 5th 2013, User:Dr. Blofeld writes to User:Superzoulou: "Please draft a version of the demographics section in your sandbox and you might be surprised that I might be accepting of it" [277]
• On August 27th 2013, User:Seudo points out the oversized landmarks section on the talk page [278]. User:SchroCat still pretends to be independent from User:Dr. Blofeld [279], despite multiple reverts to bring the content back to User:Dr. Blofeld version [280] [281] [282] [283] [284] [285] [286] [287] [288].
• General use of personnal insults and patronizing on the talk page against a large variety of users:

• Der Statistiker is "stupid" [289].
• Another unidentified editor is a "newbie" [290].
• "For Fuck's sake", adressed to User:Sesto Elemento [291].
• "Fuck off with your insults", adressed to User:Sesto Elemento who it's true was losing patience as yet another proposal for consensus was once again failing [292].
• "Oh, FFS, more trolling by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about?", addressed to User:Metropolitan when I first warned them about the possible case of ownership behaviour. [293]
• "Othercrapexists" addressed to User:Der Statistiker who was proposing yet another solution [294].
• "complete twat" addressed to User:Metropolitan [295].
• "Prompted by nothing but a bunch of amateurs" addressed by User:Dr. Blofeld to obviously anyone disagreeing with him. [296].
• "amateurish" repeated by User:Dr. Blofeld [297].
• "established respected editors" vs "newbies" again (which is wrong by the way as many people he disagrees with have been here for a long time) [298].
• "go away" addressed to User:Clouchicloucha [299]

• Use of the rushed GA Status to present User:Dr. Blofeld complete overhaul of the article as being the result of a consensus (which it isn't as shown above) [300].
• User:Dr. Blofeld proposed in an arbitration that "only established editors who have edited in the last few weeks prior to this to be permitted to vote" [301].

Tag teaming and contacts

Apparently User:Dr. Blofeld and User:SchroCat know a lot of people and multiple ways to communicate with them.

• User:Jmabel alerted that he's been contacted off-wiki by both users [302].
• User:bbb23 alerted he's been contacted by User:SchroCat, this time through Wikipedia [303].
• Dr. Blofeld's profile [304]
  .
• By a tremendous luck User:Betty Logan, who has never edited the article of Paris (which isn't a problem in itself, at least for me), came around to express her support of User:Dr. Blofeld [305]. It appeared that, actually... both User:Betty Logan and User:Dr. Blofeld are friends [306].
• Some conflicts totally unrelated with the topic can even pop up for no reason. Apparently User:Dr. Blofeld is in conflict with User:Caden [307]. Glad to know but quite irrelevant.

Warning posted on the talk page

I've posted a first warning on the talk page about the Ownership issue [308]. This has lead to only more insults [309] and threats [310]. User:SchroCat even attempted to dissimulate my warning in changing the title of the section [311] [312] (the last revert being performed by User:Coldcreation who erased by the way one of my messages).

And last but not least. Both users have also the habit to flood discussions so much they become impossible to follow. Don't be surprised if dozens of comments follow. Metropolitan (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments only below this line

I've notified User:SchroCat as asked when a new discussion is started on the Noticeboard, but he erased my message [313] - Metropolitan (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

He's permitted to erase it, and it's pretty clear that he read it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Metropolitan (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

All the editors named in your "tag teaming" section are long term contributors in good standing. They all operate independently of each other and their judgement is reliable - though not infallible. As I read through all of the above the ownership problems look to be on the OPs side. Please be aware of

WP:BOOMERANG. MarnetteD|Talk

23:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The section is named Tag teaming and contacts. The names mentionned there are essentially those of people alerting of contacts on and off-wiki, it is not those of Tag team members. The users involved in the case are those appearing in the Users involved in the case section. All other names mentioned have only the value of victims or withnesses. Thanks to bring me the opportunity to make this point even clearer.

As for the

WP:BOOMERANG, I fail to understand the logic, if your idea is that it's actually me who consider I own the article, then check my contributions and tell me when exactly I have prevented anyone to edit the Paris article. Yours faithfully. Metropolitan (talk

) 00:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The point that you are missing is that Wikipedia operates by

WP:BATTLEGROUND. MarnetteD|Talk

00:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm glad you agree with me. As stated on my claim,

WP:BATTLEGROUND is exactly the reason why I report all the insults and threats which have gone on for just too long. I'm really sad to bother administrators with this but I cannot see how things can become constructive again after the joke the Paris Talk page has become. Unfortunately. Metropolitan (talk

) 01:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Haha, get a grip. Drmies using 'Ernst' is a playful allusion to the character from which User:Dr. Blofeld has taken his name, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. 94.194.73.200 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The Paris article came to my attention via an edit-warring report and while I have interacted with Blofeld in the past I had no knowledge of his involvement at this article prior to reading through the dispute on the talk page. He has not solicited "support" from me in any way, shape or form. My sole input at the article was to offer general support (with a single comment on the talk page) for his infobox image, mainly because I agree with him that in the case of a city with several major landmarks such as Paris, a montage is a superior choice to a single image in the lead. It seems to be a common practice on articles about major cities, and that's basically all there is to it for me. Betty Logan (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you have interacted with Dr. Blofeld repeatedly over time on your respective talk pages doesn't make you very neutral in this case either, especially when you come to the Paris talk page just to support Dr. Blofeld ([314]) and not to make comments or proposals unrelated to Dr. Blofeld. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oh for fuck's sake. Yes, Ernst is Blofeld. He has a white cat and is evil. What we have here is a half-assed attempt at a concerted effort to get an image changed. A discussion ensued, an admin (De) closed it--as it happened, I was about to close it but De beat me to it. If these editors here want to start something, I suggest the first thing they do is ask an uninvolved editor to check if De gave a valid evaluation of the discussion--and maybe they can ask nicely. On the other hand, we have had an edit war here with a whole bunch of apparent SPAs causing the article to be locked, and a lot of heated disruption on the talk page. If Blofeld and Schrodinger's Cat lose their patience and utter a choice word or two, meh. As to how I got there? I love Paris in the springtime, I love Paris in the fall. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• 0.o Ah, another skyscrapercity.com member complaining. People from this forum have a utopian view on Paris that is quite unreferencable, and they've been using Wikipedia to shout it as 'fact' to the rest of the world since years already. The (amazingly) low edit-rate of
  WP:OWN comes up without fail. Whoever pushed them to come here, possibly a forum member themselves, has never come forward. Related cases: [315][316][317][318] THEPROMENADER
  06:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments people. The only thing I can see wrong is that the Landmarks section now does look way too bloated. It didn't seem as long before, I've not looked at this fully in a year really. As echoed by Jmabel, it doesn't read too well given the amount of places mentioned. The detail belongs in the Landmarks of Paris article. I'll condense it to a basic sumamry of the most notable landmarks when it is unlocked. But the montage is a non issue, and this is clearly pathetic time wasting. You can't organize a bunch of meat puppets to try to sway consensus, to go on about it for days on end and not expect one of the regulars to snap occasionally. I still think the best decision for wikipedia in the long term would be to block anybody from skyscrapers.com commenting on Paris, including Metropolitan as they're clearly not here to be constructive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur with everything Betty Logan says above. I was not approached; in fact, it was me who approached them as I follow their contributions and looked in for myself. I much prefer the montage to the singular picture and I think it pretty poor of Metropolitan to bring this here as opposed to opening an RfC. I understand that there has been accusations of tag-teaming and ownership: well, in my experience these terms are indicative of someone not getting their own way. This is more of a case of

WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else, as the consensus is clear that it favours the montage. I have found the Metropolitan and his pals to be thoroughly odious and they have done nothing to try and resolve the situation or appease the consensus. Instead they warr, canvass, and snipe their way through to getting their own way. Cassianto^talk

09:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is a typical case that should result in a swift
  WP:BOOMERANG. Contrary to what Metropolitan claims, the two users he mentions are just a couple of a considerable number of regular Wikipedia users (I count at least eleven) who favour the current version. In opposition to these eleven users are two regular users, and a number of meatpuppets canvassed to the article. A large numbers of admins have looked at the article already, and confirmed that their is a consensus for the current version. This is a prime example of where the accuser ought to be the accused.Jeppiz (talk
  ) 11:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • • Agree, this is past disruptive. I weighed in at the discussion, so I can't do it, but... (and seriously, "Ernst..." as evidence for meatpuppery? Just Googling "
      Ernst Blofeld" would let even the most dry person know that it was a joke). — Crisco 1492 (talk
      ) 11:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

To me this comment by Dr. Blofeld addressed to

WP:OWN: Please draft a version of the demographics section in your sandbox and you might be surprised that I might be accepting of it if it isn't too long and doesn't have too many tables.". Der Statistiker (talk

) 11:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Viriditas referring to other editors as indistinguishable from al-Qaeda

Sometimes debates get heated. Nothing actionable here.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

WP:NPA#WHATIS an example it gives is "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons." "al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" are similarly infamous persons. I post it to this board because I consider it so egregious. --Obsidi (talk

) 03:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills. I specifically referred to the "Heartland-sponsored manufactured controversy that the Koch-funded, conservative noise machine engages in on a daily basis" as the warriors for ignorance who are the equivalent of intellectual terrorists, not any specific editors. I also referred to the AfD discussion as an example of the manufactured controversy espoused by these external groups, so I understand your confusion. "Intellectual terrorism" is the bread and butter of the conservative noise machine, and it forms the basis of the attack on Tyson, and the spread of its tentacled memetic virus on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You said "the discussion up above and it's associated attack on Tyson are a great example of yet-another Heartland-sponsored manufactured controversy that the Koch-funded, conservative noise machine engages in on a daily basis. These warriors..." Which to me reads as talking about "the discussion up above" as being a "great example". It is true that you did not refer to any specific editor, and if the administrators decide the policy doesn't apply unless specific people are named I will leave it at that. Similarly if they read your piece as referring to something other then "discussion up above" then maybe I just misread it. I posted here to notify the administrators of what I saw as a problem, I will leave it in their hands to decide if it is a problem or not. Obsidi (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed your report did not include the many uncivil comments of others on that page, including rampant accusations of censorship, partisanship, and someone outright calling someone else a moron. Why did you choose to single out a comment that wasn't even directed at other editors? Gamaliel (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I felt that it was directed at other editors. There are lots of uncivil comments around and most of the time I will just do as

WP:PA says "Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it. Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates editors tend to overreact." I felt that if an editor was referring to other editors as indistinguishable from al-Qaeda, that warranted a more significant action then other merely uncivil comments.Obsidi (talk

) 03:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Several non-consensus moves performed by In ictu oculi

I am referring to

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5

). 03:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• You could have contacted me, you could have reverted, you could have notified on my Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I now have a notification on my Talk page. Thank you. There are a number of issues here which are best solved by discussion related to each article. I have used my judgment based on what is actually written in the article. And as it happens I do not object to "mixtape" being used instead of album if that is what sources support, despite that "mixtapes" are usually albums. For example I moved

Talk:Black Flag (album), you're welcome to participate. Is there a problem here? In ictu oculi (talk

) 03:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

TbHotch, I've self-reverted the 3 albums which seemed clear per

Ashes to Ashes (Rick Ross album) should not be at Ashes to Ashes (mixtape). You've put me in the situation of making a move contrary to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). Do you want me to submit these 3 albums as RMs, perhaps a multiple RM, or perhaps wait for the discussion on the other 3 RMs to finish? In ictu oculi (talk

) 03:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Although

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5

). 04:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay but I am not psychic, requested moves at

Talk:Black Flag (album) 03:00, Talk:Back from the Dead (mixtape) 01:58, were already open and available for you to comment prior to 03:17 above. I think the issue here is that we usually disambiguate by Song/EP/Album, but a mixtape can be either an EP or Album, so for the purposes of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) if we are calling something an album in article body, sources and categories, then we are calling it an album, and if it is, for example, 97:30 and clearly not an "EP" or a "single" then that also confirms Category:Mixtape albums is in fact a subcategory of album for the purposes of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). However I've reverted the ones I thought too obvious to justify an RM, it probably now would be better to wait and see input from a broader selection of editors on the opened RMs. There doesn't appear to be anything else to do. In ictu oculi (talk

) 05:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I see IIO's name at

WT:ALBUM for a consensus, if needed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead}

06:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Request rangeblock for 108.5.64.0/21, 108.5.72.0/23, and 108.5.74.0/24

I have been tracking down an IP-hopping vandal, and I think a range block is in order for 108.5.64.0/21, 108.5.72.0/23, and 108.5.74.0/24. Almost every single edit from these IPs since June 2014 has been very specific forms of vandalism, mostly about animated films and shows, voice actors, and theme parks, indicating that they are the same problem user and collateral damage would be minimal. I have personally reverted over a hundred edits, and there are literally hundreds of bad edits reverted by other users. The edits take one of the following three forms:

• Adding unsourced info to BLPs of actors and composers, including unsourced names of children, unsourced ancestry (e.g. [320]), unsourced and often incorrect birthdates and locations (e.g. [321][322]), fake animated future films and shows (many 5+ years in the future, e.g. [323]), fake future children and spouses (e.g. [324][325]), and unsourced roles and jobs (e.g. [326]).
• Adding information about fake animated future films and shows, including fake cast lists, to lists of films (e.g. [327]), articles about songs supposedly in those films (e.g. [328]), articles about the studios supposedly producing the films (e.g. [329]), actors, etc.
• Adding fake information about future rides, events, and parks to articles and templates about Universal Studios, Disney theme parks, Six Flags parks, and roller coaster manufacturers (e.g. [330][331]).

This editor is very consistent, adding information about the same fake film or ride to several articles to make it appear legitimate. This editor also frequently capitalizes words inappropriately (especially "Angrily") and adds links to non-notable children, indicating it is likely the same person making the edits.

I didn't include most of the diffs here, as there are literally hundreds, but I've compiled a list of IP addresses whose contributions have met this pattern:

List of IPs suspected to be used by vandalizing editor

108.5.64.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.64.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.64.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.64.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.64.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.65.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.65.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.66.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.66.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.66.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.66.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.67.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.67.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.67.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.67.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.68.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.68.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.68.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.68.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.68.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.69.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.69.507 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 108.5.69.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.70.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.70.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.71.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.71.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.71.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.71.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.72.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.72.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.72.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.72.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.73.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.73.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.73.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.73.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.73.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.74.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 108.5.74.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm restoring this from the archives as this editor has begun editing from another IP address in this range, 108.5.72.174, in violation of the 1 week block issued to 108.5.72.5.. This is the exact same pattern of vandalism, including adding unsourced info to BLPs (with weird capitalization) [332][333], adding links to non-notable children [334], adding infomation about fake amusement park rides that were "announced" in a date far in the future [335][336][337], etc. If this isn't the appropriate place to request a range block, please direct me to the appropriate forum. Thanks. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 03:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked 108.5.64.0/20 for a year (anon only). That range has been blocked several times previously and here doesn't appear to be anyone else editing anonymously from it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 12:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Extreme and Systemic Disruption / WP:LEGAL

Discussion

Note that the following is not an editor dispute as Krzyhorse22 and myself have no interaction history in articles. Krzyhorse22 has wasted untold hours of editor time. A wide variety of editors have negatively commented on this editors extremely bizarre and aberrant behavior patterns, including Baseball_Bugs, The Bushranger, Rsrikanth05, Bbb23 etc. Please observe the following:

• He has taken a particular
  WP:STALKING fascination with StanTheMan87
  . He places a warning template on Stan's talk page, on average, of once every 37 hours (19 times in the last 30 days).
• His first three edits on WP were to file ANIs.
• In the 30-day life of his account, he has filed at least (that we can count) 7 ANIs and 3RRs ([338] [339][340],[341], [342] [343]), all of which have been dismissed or archived without action. Here's his most recent: [344]. In most of these he repeatedly demands 'indefinite blocks' ([345]).
• In a variety of
  WP:CIVIL transgressions he has called other editors "monkey face," ([346]
  ) among a wide variety of other invectives.
• In violation of
  WP:LEGAL he has said that he has contacted the CIA regarding another editor's edits. ([347]
  )
• In possible violation of
  WP:LEGAL, he has insinuated he, himself, is a CIA agent here to enforce copyright laws. ([348]
  )
• In violation of
  WP:VAN, and in apparent retribution against me after I asked him to stop his daily tagging of the Mullah Omar file for deletion, he vandalized image file permissions descriptions of two public domain images I uploaded to make them appear to be non-public domain prior to then nominating them for deletion. (here - [349] - he modified an image peremissions file to add "current owner Susan Parish" then nominated it for deletion - the source (http://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/Record/View/CC3D746502C00F7ADEFF3EE66D57F54A
  ) does not contain the word "owner" or anything similar)
• He has previously been cautioned by DeltaQuad for editing "in a way which conflicts with sockpuppetry policy." ([350])

An ANI was previously filed on 1SEP2014 regarding this editor, however, was archived without admin input. We have tried to bring it up to other admins outside ANI, however, have been told KH22 has made so many "unusual" edits that they don't have time to sort through them. IOW, we're getting absolutely pummeled by this account but, frustratingly, he's spending so much time doing it that he's essentially bought a carte blanche. DocumentError (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the two "Legal" statements, the first one is not a threat at all. He supposedly asked the head of the CIA to verify if a photo was actually a particular terrorist. Not any sort of threat explicit nor implicit. Regarding the second one, saying "you have no idea who I am, I could be CIA for all you know" is also not a threat but a factual statement about the nature of the internet. I could be King Abdullah for all you know.--v/r - TP 20:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for contextualizing it. Saying "I just called the head of CIA and he said nobody is sure if that guy in the image is the real Mullah Omar" I guess could be something a good faith, rational editor might drop into a routine edit discussion. And, you are correct, his other statement is a factual statement about the nature of the internet; he could be a CIA agent here to monitor Wikipedia for copyright violations. I've edited my OP to move those issues down to the bottom of the list. If I overreacted, I would like to apologize to KH22, and also ask him to please transmit my apologies to CIA director John Brennan and president Obama the next time he conferences with them regarding Wikipedia image file permissions.DocumentError (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat, but IMHO something more along the lines of

speaking frankly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

22:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And, honestly I'm less concerned with the declarations of CIA intervention into WP (which are obviously just insane rants) than I am with the vandalizing of image permissions pages, with templating StanTheMan's talk page 19 times in 30 days, with filing one ANI every 96 hours (all of which are dismissed but have now occupied going on 10 hours of editor time to work through), with the questions of sockpuppetry, etc. And we wonder why there's been a 30% drop-off in editors. Who wants to deal with this lunacy beginning Day 2 of their Wikipedia account history and, when they try to ask for help like StanTheMan has done, are basically told to stop complaining? DocumentError (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I never called any editor a monkey face. My first edit was nominating an image of Mohammad Omar which was deleted and so was my first edit. When StanTheMan87 began uploading the same image I was forced to confront him. I didn't file excessive reports, others are filing them against me. I'm not violating Wikipedia by nominating images that are uploaded with vague licenses. I have said to everyone the phone call to CIA was a joke and that was over a week ago, DocumentError and StanTheMan87 are repeating this in their every message. I never vandalized the image description but added the author and other important information [351] [352] that DocumentError failed to provide. To make it short, the accusations levelled against me are untrue. I did not violate any Wikipedia policy. I only added 4 image tags on StanTheman87's page, one warning for 3RR and one regarding ANI case, all of that are Wikipedia's requirement.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"So now you either accept that monkey face or go find clear evidence." ([353]) The rest of your pleas of innocence (e.g. not vandalizing image permission files) have already been debunked with diffs in my OP. That said, I note you just undid your vandalism to the permissions description in the last 60 minutes ... basically right after I filed this ANI (see: [354]). You do realize everything on WP is permanent, right? DocumentError (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Me and admin Baseball Bugs were joking about adding this monkey face to an article, Bugs had brought this up and I just replied, read the whole conversation. That's not calling another editor a monkey face. You are deliberately twisting information.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No you weren't; once again, you're big on talk and short on diffs. DocumentError (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22 is much more than meets the eye. He/she has used arguments supporting his own viewpoint by making outrageous and insulting statements targeting not only an individual in one case ("Because Khalid Hadi was proven to be a liar, we cannot take his story about photographing Mulla Omar as truth") [355], but entire ethnic groups (" Afghans in general are corrupt and they exaggerate too much. The same goes for Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians and etc.") [356]. All of these accusations have been made without no, absolutely no cited sources. In fact, the only time he has managed to find a source to support his weak pov, he used it from me proving a point then twisted it against me, see [357](10th paragraph down) and [358] as well as [359] and [360]. His supposed claim to have contacted the head of the CIA is also ridiculous, as he used that as justifying the removal of an image to suit his own totally whack POV. How can someone like this be considered an impartial editor? StanTheMan87 (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we Indians are a very corrupt lot. Thankfully he hasn't harassed me for being one. But we'rre so corrupt that we have a dozen Wikipedias in our own language. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Rsrikanth05, don't take it the wrong way. I was referring to Afghan, Pakistani and Indian sources. They often exaggerate or are based on what villagers believe. For example, Khalid Hadi is an Afghan and claimed that he photographed the spiritual leader of the Taliban in 1993 in Kandahar, Afghanistan. [361] However, all other sources say that Omar was living in Pakistan in 1993. He and his men (Taliban) took over Kandahar in 1994. It's not me, it's the world who calls Afghanistan one of the most corrupt countries on earth. See Corruption Perceptions Index. Besides, this is my personal view and if anyone doesn't agree just don't. Also, read what this American photojournalist think about Afghans. He has been to that country 20 times. [362]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Omar was living in Pakistan in 1993" yet another classic statement from Krzyhorse22, accompanied without a source. Forgive me if I take the word of a cited primary source [363] over a delusional POV pushing internet troll, and his weak, unsourced opinions. StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're getting boring and annoying with your wild rants and personal attacks. Admin DeltaQuad already warned you and DocumentError to stop. [364] I'm not delusional or an internet troll. You uploaded a 1993 image and tagged it a pre-1923 image. [365] What does that explain about you? Why don't you just give up uploading Mohammed Omar's images with false licenses?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for not notifying me on your latest embarrassment in Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure you were meant to notify me, if I am correct, as stated by the template, but that slip-up will only show your desperation in crusading all over Wikipedia for the past month. Notice the template says "In most cases...", for it being PD in the U.S only, *sigh and I didn't mention that you personally were the delusional troll, in that second sentence, unlike in the first one, so you can deduce all you want, just hope you don't stay up too late in the night wondering if I was referring to you. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So, once again, everyone is finger-wagging and looking sternly at KH22 who now appears doe-eyed and reticent. And then this thread will be archived and, once again, he'll be back to template-bombing talk pages, vandalizing image permissions descriptions, declaring he's talking with the CIA/KGB/Whomever about user edits, and filing an ANI once every 96 hours, just like every other time we've been through this circus. Good job, guys. I give up. DocumentError (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:SPI. Kingsindian ♝♚

21:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Good points, both, Kingsindian.DocumentError (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Community sanctions?

Should

WP:IBAN on StanTheMan87 [due to templating StanTheMan's Talk page 19 times in 30 days and calling StanTheMan87 "monkey face" etc.], (b) a ban on posting to ANI [due to filing 6-7 dismissed ANIs in 30 days], (c) ban on claiming he's been consulting with police or intelligence services about WP during edit discussions [the CIA specifically, but including all of them, including the U.S. Postal Police and the El Paso County sheriff's office]? DocumentError (talk

) 21:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per nom I support sanctions A, B & C. DocumentError (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The guy seems to be a prolific tagger of images for speedy deletions, though I have no idea if that is good or bad, since these images could have copyright restrictions for all I know. I see a lot of templating, though only 7 (not 19) on StanTheMan87's page. Calling him "monkey face" was obviously uncivil. As to the CIA comment, why not just laugh it off by saying that "my brother is the president", or something like that? You don't have to continue arguing with him over the Mullah Omar image. Just disengage. My suggestion is to try
  WP:SPI for any allegations of socking. Kingsindian ♝♚
  22:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • For the record, I repeat, I didn't call anyone a monkey face. I was only telling either we add the monkey self-portrait, which I called monkey face, or leave the article without an image. About the images, they are obviously protected under US copyright law and cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. StanTheMan87 keeps re-uploading the same image after it gets deleted. [366] Therefore, I'm not the trouble maker, and putting me under sanction is fundamentally unfair.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As per the diffs above in the discussion, he has been vandalizing file permission descriptions to give the appearance that they are not PD as a preface to tagging images for deletion. So, IMO, I'd say that's bad tagging. As for the templates, I believe Stan has deleted some of them so his talk page isn't totally trashed. You'll need to comb through the edit history on Stan's Talk page. But let's set those 12 aside for a moment and say they don't exist. Are you saying that 7 templates in 30 days, coupled with name-calling and 6 ANIs (all dismissed) against a single user is generally good behavior and not warranting a

WP:IBAN? Also, how does Stan "disengage" from having his Talk page Template bombed? Disengagement is fine advice in content disputes. This isn't a content dispute; this is an editor exhibiting extremely abnormal and aberrant behavior that has crossed into the realm of the surreal and bizarre. (talk

) 23:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not say anything about the bans, because I do not know enough. It seems some of the stuff he tagged was deleted, like the many things he tagged on Mohammad_Waleed's page. As to 7 vs 19, the link I gave listed all the contributions in User talk space, so it shouldn't miss any templates. I agree that even 7 is a bit too much. About the pictures, at least one picture by Stantheman87 he tagged seems to have been deleted. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. DocumentError (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Support IBAN. A bit too much tagging of the same user's pictures. This is illustrative. Surely he can find other stuff to tag. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You make no sense, the tagging on user page is part of the deletion process. This allows other editors (especially admins) to see how many images were uploaded and deleted. Therefore, it serves as evidence and is recommended. The guy keeps re-uploading the same image after it gets deleted. You're saying just walk away and let him continue. StanTheMan87 deserves to be blocked because he's deliberately uploading and re-uploading unfree images under false licenses. [367] Uploading unfree images is a serious issue in the United States, where Wikipedia is based. Others have also reverted him [368] for using mirror sites as sources. [369] --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is your most recent nomination of Mullah Omar: [370]. I encourage anyone participating in this discussion to read it so they can get a full context of what you're doing. You have been absolutely pathological about getting this clearly public domain image deleted in a way that, by any common sense evaluation of the situation, would lead one to believe you have a very serious IRL COI. DocumentError (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That image was created in 1993 by a 10 year old Afghan kid [371], and the uploader tagged it as a pre-1923 image [372] and now he changed it to pre-1978 image. [373] Those license tags are obviously inapplicable. Also, just because it appears at the Rewards For Justice site [374] doesn't make it PD.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you read

WP:IBAN, it makes perfect sense. There are many other images on WP. You tagged a lot of them correctly, like the ones by Mohammad_Waleed. Keep doing that, instead of focusing on one editor. What does the Sam Smith image have to do with Mullah Omar? This increases suspicion of hounding. Let it be, and raise the issue on a relevant forum, instead of following one person's contribs. Kingsindian ♝♚

13:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not reporting StanTheMan87 or anyone else. Others are reporting me. I'm simply nominating images that don't qualify to be in Wikipedia, and there are admins who specialize in that area. WP:IBAN has nothing to do with nominating images. WP:HOUND also doesn't involve nominating images. In fact, they're hounding me by filing frivolous/poorly-based complaints everywhere.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support; Krazyhorse22 has become a drain on the time of Wikipedians and it needs to stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• No support - I'm being bullied by StanTheMan87 who was created in August this year [375] and DocumentError who was created in November of last year [376] but has been used as a sleeper account until recent. The Bushranger has been taking their side since the beginning. DocumentError and StanTheMan87 should stop filing malicious reports about me everywhere and then I won't become a drain on the time of Wikipedians. This case obviously proves that there are many people in Wikipedia becoming obsessed with me. I'm not a celebrity or anything. I joined to nominate image that was uploaded by StanTheMan87 with false license. I don't understand why do you want to stop me from nominating such image? Admins had already checked that I'm not involved in sockpuppetry but can the same be said about DocumentError and StanTheMan87?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Making accusations against other editors without providing any evidence is not going to help your case. BTW your account was created in August of this year so you should also be careful of stones and glass houses. MarnetteD|Talk 04:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is that they both show up together everywhere, leave the same lengthy comments, edit the same articles, upload images the same way, and do just about everything else the same, including their attitude towards me (being so aggressive and exaggerating everything). About me, I created this account to nominate an unfree image of

WP:MTPPT?--Krzyhorse22 (talk

) 04:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And there's another disruptive lie ("they edit the same articles"). Here is the editor interaction analyzer output - [[378]]. I have edited close to 100 articles on WP and only overlap with StanTheMan87 in one (and my first edits to that one article were yesterday). DocumentError (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You've previously accused me of being

WP:BIOs about, both living and dead. If you don't want to be "a celebrity," you should behave in a slightly less outrageous way. As of now, you're essentially the WP version of Gene Simmons. DocumentError (talk

) 04:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because someone makes one small mistake doesn't mean everything he says is a mistake. The other day you guys accused me of being User:Maxforwind but that was proven as a mistake. I don't care what people think of me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh? DocumentError (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please, I wish for admins to weigh in on this discussion, as this was the cause for Krzyhorse22's creation.[380] StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support after seeing what looks very much like an unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry. --Richard Yin (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You didn't have to remove my comment. [381] Can you explain why you did that? It's interesting, you began editing on September 9 of this year. [382] and you know about "unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry".--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That was an accident, my apologies. I think there was an edit conflict and I somehow managed not to get the prompt saying there was an edit conflict. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
      • As for me knowing that,
        WP:NPA is not all that hard to read and interpret. --Richard Yin (talk
        ) 17:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
        • DocumentError (the person who started this thread) accused me of being a possible sockpuppet of User:Maxforwind, which proved wrong and then he accused me of being User:Irapart see [383], which again turns out to be an error. [384] I don't get it, why is it ok for others to accuse me but when I suspect someone I get treated as if I'm committing a crime or something.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

More accusations with no diffs? I never accused you of being MaxforWind. As for accusing you of being Irapart, if anyone actually is believing what you're typing at this polint, they can read this to debunk that notion: [385]. DocumentError (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Does this ring a bell? [386]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you read it? Nowhere in there did I accuse you of being MaxforWind, or even mention the username "Maxforwind." DocumentError (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22, the difference (in my opinion) is that DocumentError's "accusation" is a perfectly plausible mistake to make and does not necessarily imply intention. --Richard Yin (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

DocumentError states "Drats, you caught us!" That was him replying to my accusation of him abusing multiple accounts. [387] He later attacks me by stating, "Bbb23, KrzyHorse22 is a chronic disruptive account, possible sockpuppet and well-known lunatic..." I ask why call me names when you don't even know who I really am? This is the biggest problem with the internet, there is more of a war going on than peace. Are we making a good example to our children? They are the ones who will be reading this in the future. I don't mind humour but the way I'm being treated in Wikipedia is more like being WP:HOUNDED, possibly based on my belief, political opinion, nationality, location, etc. What happened to Wikipedia:Civility?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we making a good example to our children? Indeed. Think about the children! DocumentError (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support sanctions A & C. I am agaist an ANI ban which sounds a bit too much as a first sanction, I hope the interaction ban is sufficient to stop the issue. Cavarrone 22:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - There are three (3) editors involved. Me, StanTheMan87 and DocumentError who is advocating for another and reporting me everywhere. If I'm sanctioned these two editors also should be. BTW, I'm not involved in any content dispute or edit war with anyone. I only nominate images that I find having false or vague licenses and there are admins who specialize in that area, they decided if the image qualifies or not.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to accept a ban on claiming I've been consulting with the CIA. DocumentError (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

On September 1, 2014, I stated "DocumentError, it was a joke." That was nearly a month ago, why you keep mentioning that corny line in almost every comment?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That was the first occasion you brought up the CIA. DocumentError (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Christian Serratos

There's an IP jumping user(s) who keeps undoing/removing information from it and doesn't seem to be wanting to discuss the problem (User:Greg Fasolino tried).

• Article: Christian Serratos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• IP user: 166.170.5.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 166.170.5.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 166.170.5.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 166.170.5.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 18:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article for BLP reasons: the IP's edits are not OK. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This user has now taken to the article's Talk page to spout bizarre, borderline-insane conspiracy theories and accusations about me which in my view, border on slanderous. Can something be done? Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible TBAN for this editor

For about the third time,

Tgeairn. Each time, the names have had no references, and each time he's been notified on his talk page.

Each time he insists that because there's an article about (Insert the name of such-and-such organization that the named people are associated with) that the names are referenced and therefore ok to add in per WP:BLP. Since at least three people have advised him on three different occasions, I get the impression that he's not hearing it, therefore, at this time, I would ask for a TBAN, broadly construed on anything that touches NRM's. As always, let consensus be the deciding factor. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Warned of what exactly? You had your opinion on the matter, and I listened, removing all the redlinks, which were the issue at the time. You requested outside comment, and didn't receive any. I'm not sure why this would require any sort of ban, you appear to be overreaching. I am a constructive editor, unlike some, like

Tgeairn, and FreeRangeFrog are too close to this issue, and are not even attempting to discuss it. As far as I am concerned, I have been nothing but constructive on WIkipedia. If you can point out where exactly it says why I cannot add names to a template, and can get outside consensus, then fine. Until then, perhaps you need to lay off the attacks. Zambelo; talk

20:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, a topic ban is a bit drastic, maybe, but there are problems here, besides the accusation that Tgeairn isn't constructive because they nominated some articles for deletion. I note that this template in Zambelo's version looks more like a directory than a navigation template, and reinserting William V. Chambers, deleted a few days ago after AfD, is just not useful. In this edit, for instance, the claim is made that the subject's own website is a reliable secondary source, and in general I see a lack of understanding of what this encyclopedia is and how it should work. The funny thing is that KoshVorlon typically seems a bit hot-headed in this forum, but they make a decent case for disruption at least in this template, whereas Zambelo has nothing to offer to bolster their case but an attempt to shift the blame (it's all FreeRangeFrog's fault?). BTW, that template contains a lot of links to really iffy articles; note also that there is still an ArbCom request up and running to look into a related matter. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

William V. Chambers was re-inserted as part of a revert of multiple deletions. And I understand what secondary sources are, thank you very much: republic.it is a secondary source - JSYK. Zambelo; talk 01:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, let's back up a bit here and not make this a humongous deal. First, I disagree that this is problematic enough to merit a topic ban or even a block, but Zambelo has to understand that policies apply to the articles, templates and content he improves and creates. The backstory is that back in July I made a few changes to

WP:BLPN. At that point I received no response, but I did notice KoshVorlon removed the names again. KoshVorlon subsequently opened another thread at BLPN where Elaqueate

seemed to argue that the inclusion of the names was OK but never took action either way or continued the discussion. Later I made the point of examining some other templates and while I did find a few that have unsourced names or the occasional redlink, I didn't see one that had so many of them.

Which brings us to this point. I maintain my opinion that the inclusion of a large number of unsourced names in a template is against

WP:BLPCAT

. Templates are navigational aides, not loopholes for potentially contentious categorization of living people. I am not suggesting that was Zambelo's intention, but nonetheless that's what it looks like in the end. The argument that "well the names are sourced in the articles" is weak at best, because template links should be self-fullfilling and self-explanatory - they should be linking to the subject or topic being mentioned in the template. These names serve no navigational purpose and given the topical area, they can potentially be problematic, if not defamatory.

Unfortunately sometimes there's a lack of participation (and therefore lack of real consensus) at BLPN, so it's unfortunate we've landed here, although I can't say I disagree with KoshVorlon's call for attention. I hope we can put this behind us, so I'd like to ask Zambelo to justify the inclusion of these names in the template, or to reconsider his/her position on the matter and agree to their removal. If Zambelo needs a list of potential article subjects he wants to create in the future, I'm sure a list in his computer should be more than enough. This is not what templates are for. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that there may be policies governing this issue, however I have yet to be shown which ones, and the editors removing the content have been rather vague on this subject. I have removed the redlinks, as previously discussed - however I don't see the issue with adding names of members of the groups they belong to in the template - a group is comprised of individuals - this is what makes it a group. It isn't a categorisation issue, it's a navigational one: it aids in navigating amongst the various anti-cult groups, which again, are comprised by individuals who sometimes sit on multiple boards… it allows to view the anti-cult movement, and how it is comprised, as well as navigating to the various parts of it. It's an elegant solution to a very entangled movement.

I'm open to ideas on how to explore and categorise the anti-cult movement. It's a niche subject, and I seem to be one of the only editors interested in pursuing this. It's easy to destroy content (and many articles relating to the anti-cult movement were deleted over the past week) but if you look at what I am attempting to do here, create a full picture of the secular and religious anti-cult movement, then you can appreciate why I am a little defensive when it comes to outside editors simply deleting content that I, and others, have spent many hours creating with vague allusions to some policy that may or may not apply. I'm open to suggestions, as I said, and I have listened to some of the issues raised by editors (removal of redlinks, for instance).

My position, stated briefly, is this: Individuals, part of an anti-cult group (referenced) are part of the anti-cult movement. This is a perfectly reasonable assumption, and the fact that some editors feel that there is a need to ban me for it, without suggesting an alternative or even providing a proper argument as to why my position is wrong is simply an attempt at bullying, perhaps because my position on the matter is in fact in line with policy. I invite editors to discuss the issue, for once, instead of rushing in to delete content - this shows a distinct lack of respect for other editors work. Zambelo; talk 01:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Warned of what ?" Well, you were warned that your edits were in violation of

BLP as there was no reference to back up your claim. Free Range Frog specifically advised you the people's name you were trying to add in failed verifiability and as such could not be added. In fact, he said it very well here:

A person is notable in Wikipedia when there is an article about them in Wikipedia. I have no problem with you adding those names to the organizations, etc. as long as their participation and role is sourced. But I can't put a ^{[citation needed}

] on a template used in multiple articles, nor is it realistic to have so many redlinks in one either. Again, basic verifiability. You can't circumvent Wikipedia policy simply because the content is in a template as opposed to an article. The core policies like V and BLP apply everywhere, to all content

I advised you of the same thing, and in fact added in

If you can supply reliable references that say they're opposed to NRM's, then I can't very well argue BLP, right ?

. You have chosen to ignore both of us, FreeRangeFrog and I, and as for me, well, I don't care, as I'm not an admin, but FreeRangeFrog is an admin. Further you were also told by John who is also an administrator, not to make that same kind of edit. So yes, you've been advised of what you were doing and how to correct it. The balls in your court. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 00:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

They belong to anti-cult groups. (See above) the references appear in the anti-cult group articles. I've already brought this up, and you've chosen to disregard it. The fact that these editors are also admins bears no consequence on how this matter should be addressed. Zambelo; talk 01:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Two edits, just now, convince me that Zambelo doesn't really know how any of this works. In this edit they restore directory-style information and a wholly undue section full of criticism of this anti-cult organization (a section written in barely understandable English, I might add). In this edit they restore resume-style information to a BLP, reporting that the subject gave a speech, and provided evidence for a US senate hearing, sourced to the subject's speech itself. So it seems clear to me that this editor indeed does not understand how editing works here, what reliable sourcing is, what is and isn't OK in BLPs. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How about you improve the english? But you won't. Your edits are entirely destructive. Also, have you ever heard of a talk page? I revert some of your more destructive edits, because more often than not, they contain salvageable material. Zambelo; talk 11:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• The editor is also creating a number of articles that don't meet the notability criteria to add to that list, and we need to mop after him [388]. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• No you don't need to "mop up after me" - you should be proactively looking for references, instead of deleting new articles/stubs. Your edits are destructive and disruptive. Zambelo; talk 11:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Zambelo I don't get any kicks out of proposing T-Bans for anyone. I'm currently under one right now - however, you've been cautioned three times and it's been explained to you why you can't add the names in you're trying to add in, so you don't appear to be listening, and as I said, I'm not a sysop, so I don't really care that you're not listening to me, but you're doing this to a sysop as well (also your last post on the BLP board ) wasn't such a hot idea, why not strike it out, as I certainly have no vendetta against you or any anti-cult group. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to ban me - but you don't appear to be listening either - I've given my argument as to why the names should stay - I think I have a good reason, and yet you believe so much in your opinion about what shouldn't go into the template that you are proposing to take a shortcut and just tell me what to do and then ban me, instead of discussing the issue. Nowhere have I seen written that unlinked names aren't allowed on navigational templates. That they don't belong is your opinion. If you think there is an issue, perhaps a RFC from outside commentators would be more productive than jumping the gun and banning one of the only editors constructively working on New Religious movement articles. The sysop in question is invited to look at both sides of the issue. I won't be making any further changes to the template for now, but I'll probably open up a RFC in future. Zambelo; talk 11:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:EXISTING says clearly that unlinked text should be avoided. You keep claiming you have a good reason, but we don't think you do. Unless you can come up with a specific policy or guideline that supports your reason. §FreeRangeFrog^croak

01:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

possible vandalizing of page and lack of willing to compromise

I'm having a issue with certain users of wikipedia and would like from some admin to take a look. During our conversation on Talk page, two users simply ignored our dispute and were reverting changes. This page has WP:1RR protection and I don't want to vandalize it.

• Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not his first ban
• Kingsindian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has "Discretionary sanctions"

diffs:

• deleting disputed text
• first revert without question asked
• my compromise with better text
• pushing they agenda without compromise
• me reverting and asking to open talk page
• during talks the page was edited to push they agenda

The best summary of this dispute is in Talk page, look at my msg @ "08:33, 29 September 2014". --CONFIQ (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:DRN instead? --Mdann52talk to me!

10:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

DRN volunteer here. While this content dispute would certainly be welcome at DRN, I prefer referring people to

WP:DRN is right for them. --Guy Macon (talk

) 11:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• @CONFIQ: Editing
  WP:VAND which makes it clear that you must not refer to good-faith edits as "vandalism". Actually, the final point is that the two editors named are supposed to be notified (did you see the notice when you posted here?). Johnuniq (talk
  ) 11:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: It's interesting that I'm the one that attack him :). No, I'm not attacking guy. It felt unfair that while we were talking on Talk page he reverted my changes to his opinion without even telling me. Should I revert it back without consulting Talk page? In order to prevent this loop I decided to stop and report it. The only attack made by me could be because he is not ready to compromise and using words "idiots" and "fucked". That is very mature... --CONFIQ (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• @CONFIQ: whilst Mdann52 is quite right that the issues you have brought here are not for ANI, your conduct on the Six-Day war talk page could well be. Nishidani, correctly as far as I can see, summarises your problematic behaviour in his latest post. I've cut and pasted the relevant bit:

• "Saying 'my friend' imputees WP:TAGTEAMING, which is a reportable offence, is a personal attack.
• 'According to your history it seems that all edits you have is against Israel and Jews', is a personal attack, apart from being a thorough misrepresentation of my editing record.
• imputing to editors who have challenged your removal of material successive acts of 'vandalization' is again, a personal attack, and to caricature as 'vandalistic' edits you disagree with is looked on dourly at A/I and AE
• saying neither I nor Kingsindian 'think rationally' is again, an egregiously attack personalizing a mere difference in judgement."

DeCausa (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Though I personally think the

WP:AE admins think otherwise and don't consider edits that call another editor an idiot as personal attack I don't really see any difference here.--Shrike (talk

) 12:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's amounting to blocks for anyone - just making the point that if anyone's to change their ways, it's the OP. DeCausa (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Shrike's diff does not cite a NPA violation on my part, and was unactionable. I haven't the foggiest notion who plastered that dubious tag on a source which stated, famously, exactly what the text it supported said. 'Some idiot' may not be best practice, but false tag smearing of an eminent RS is 'idiotic'. And Shrike, after your recent attempt to get me banned, I'd appreciate you restraint in not participating in this kind of nonsense when it affects me. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand that admins consider such rhetoric acceptable I only brought this to give a perspective as Confiq was accused violation of

WP:NPA.--Shrike (talk

) 16:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Any experienced contributor can quickly identify the fact that CONFIQ made personal attacks on other editors at the article talk page (see first link in OP). If you want your comments to be taken seriously you would acknowledge that and advise CONFIQ of the problem (perhaps at their talk). Trying to muddy the water by posting to other stuff is pure BATTLEGROUND and severely undermines your position. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, you haven't notified Nishidani and Kinsindian that you've opened this thread, which is what you're required to do. I've notified them for you. DeCausa (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Since it is obvious that nothing is actionable here, I will not make any statement. I would advise someone to close this, so that there is no drama, and no boomerang. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:HarpBasedBand

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

Repeated disruptive editing despite multiple level-4 warnings about behavior. Continues to add blank tables to articles (1, 2).

AldezD (talk

) 23:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional disruptive editing adding blank tables on 29 September 2014 ([389], [390], [391]) and removing sourced content ([392])

AldezD (talk

) 02:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, this user has been adding empty content that is too early for the article. In addition, they have been removing content for unexplained reasons. Instead of protecting the page furthermore, I would suggest an indefinite ban with this user. They've been warned (definite warn with this user and indefinite warn by myself) for their behavior. It isn't the first time this has been going. Last week, content was added that was too early. I am unable to provide the link for this due to being on mobile unfortunately. Callmemirela (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall

Discovery Kids (United States)

articles.

• In regards to remarks surrounding Hasbro having been in negotiations with
  Time Warner due to the re-launch of The Hub as Discovery Family, the article previously also stated, factually, that, Time Warner was the owner of Cartoon Network
  . However, his editing summaries that removed the acknowledgement (which, themselves, I have no problem with) contained statements such as "No changes allowed", "Not another word about Cartoon Network. Understood?", and "I'm sure all of us will remember that rule the next time we edit this page."
• After fussing with IP editors prematurely listing the date of the re-launch under the "Launched:" field in the infobox, he had the page fully protected, when semi-protection would have been sufficient. Even worse, when I requested unprotection, he outright removed my request with the edit summary "Your request for unprotection of the Hub Network page is denied." I do not believe users have the authority to do this; as such, he is attempting to impersonate an admin.
• After actually having accepted the merger for a period, he reverted my bold merge of the Discovery Kids article into Hub Network. After I asked about discussing it per
  WP:BRD
  , he removed the message with the edit summary "There will be no discussion on the Discovery Kids page", implying a refusal to participate in discussion, and a further assertion of ownership.

He also got into a slight edit war on Vortexx, as IP editors asserted that we could not declare it to be "over" until the block actually finished airing for the last time. Personally, I believe this is legitimate IP vandalism, given why they even bothered to fuss over it is beyond me. He also, in another example of overreacting, got the page fully protected, when it really should have, again, been semi-protected.

tl;dr Could an admin please examine AdamDeanHall's recent actions? ViperSnake151  Talk  16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, this is an editor with a long history of taking a "my way or the highway" approach to editing, and frequently lays down the law in his edit summaries. That he only has one block for edit warring is remarkable, given his pattern of editing. A number of editors have warned him about this over time (it's all on his talk page), and he will amend his behavior briefly, but he remains unresponsive in the long term. His ownership approach to a range of television articles, including the season list articles, is clear from the examples noted above. An admin needs to take him in hand or it's time to start blocking him. --Drmargi (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Was there any consensus to make Discovery Kids a redirect? Noteswork (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It was more of a bold move. Especially given that, per the precedent of other pages for networks that have gone through re-branding (even some owned by the same company, i.e.

Velocity) have treated their re-brandings as part of the network's continuity, and not declaring it an entirely new page. Though there have been exceptions for major re-launches that have so much content that they could not conceivably be covered on the same page (i.e. Fox Sports 1, Al Jazeera America). ViperSnake151  Talk 

18:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have carefully read your explanation on the talk page, you were honest with your view about converting the article into redirect. User:AdamDeanHall don't want to join the conversation, which is why it seemed relevant to bring this issue to ANI. Noteswork (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That isn't

vandalism; it is a content dispute. --Guerillero | My Talk

17:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, everyone. I just want to let you know that I recently re-added the redirect to the

Discovery Kids (United States) page, now that I have seen the error of my ways, and...I sincerely hope there won't be any more problems. Next time, I'll have a discussion with you before I make any decisions about this whole affair. Thank you. AdamDeanHall (talk

) 21:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There won't be anymore problems when you stop viewing these articles as being part of your own person kingdom. Do you have anything to say about removing another user's good faith request to have page protection removed?--Adam in MO Talk 03:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In the future, I will think twice before removing another user's good faith request to have page protection removed. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Er..., AdamDeanHall, would you like to rephrase that comment? I don't think it says what you intended - or at least I hope it doesn't. Begoon ^talk 13:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I will not remove another user's good faith request to have page protection removed anymore. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Repeated demands to self-revert

Closed by popular demand.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've been recently under repeated demands to self-revert and allow the insertion of inaccurate information by Kingsindian who has a bit of a (self professed) history for not really listening to proper source-based arguments on the talk page (sample: "I simply ignore"[393]). I don't really know what to make of this as I stated my acceptance of one of the suggested versions -- but this user insists I self-revert to his version (which is, in my humble opinion, a misrepresentation of the sources: bomb squad officials != Ministry of Interior). To boot, there's been battle behavior and article ownership issues from said user since our early encounters. I'm not even going into the issue of repeated source misrepresentation -- which is also a real concern. To the point of self-revert demands, I'd appreciate some administrative help. Perhaps a warning that said user stop using threats as means to get his bold versions on the page. I think the wiki-terminology is 'bold, revert, discuss'. He appears to wish to replace the 'discuss' part with 'I don't want to discuss anymore, you must self-revert!'.[394],[395],[396] (apologies if these are not ordered by time stamp). Regards, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing much to say, except I did not demand self-reversion. I said that if he does not self-revert, I will go to

WP:AE approach. I have no desire to report him per se, but I will, if he continues. If he feels that his actions were fully justified, he can make his case there. Kingsindian (talk

) 12:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a nice courteous move if someone mistakenly reverted over the allotted number of reverts. I hope others will agree it should not be common for editors to demand others 'self-revert <or else>' to get newly inserted content de-rever-ed. I'd be quite disappointed if others did not reject threat-making in this context. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Israel/Palestine articles are all under a

WP:AE restriction, so if you made more than a single revert, it might be a valid suggestion. the panda ɛˢˡ”

17:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Courteous for 1RR. Not so much when there's no 1RR issue and the user wants others to reinsert their contested material into the article. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

MarciulionisHOF, this is so simple, you need to decide if you are going to self revert. If you don't self revert, Kingsindian will decide if they will follow through and report you to AE. There is nothing to do here at ANI. GB fan 18:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you GB fan for looking into the matter. I noticed a lot gets shrugged off on Wikipedia (might be a good thing). In your opinion, would there be something for ANI to request a change in conduct if aggressive behavior continues and there are not 3 demands but 50? At what point (if ever) does ANI have enough interest as to tell someone to 'cut it out'? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

MarciulionisHOF, reverts for no good reason on

WP:ARBPIA articles are not a good idea. If you wait for the discussion thread to reach a consensus you would be on safer ground. Kingsindian appears to be saying that the reasoning for your revert is poor. He is entitled to that opinion and it doesn't seem to be a threat. If you are unsure what he means you can ask on the talk page. How does his threat of taking you to AE differ from your taking him (here) to ANI? EdJohnston (talk

) 19:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

MarciulionisHOF, there is no magic number where something becomes a problem that must be dealt with. In this case you are both in the wrong, but neither one raises to the level that anything needs to be done. You both need to discuss the edits and quit reverting until consensus is reached. If consensus can't be reached try Dispute resolution. GB fan 19:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Just, for everyone's information, I made the revert myself, slightly changed from the original, which seems to be acceptable to all, including MarciulionisHOF. It means I can't make another revert for 24 hours, but I considered that a lesser evil than going to

WP:AE. Others can continue the drama here if they wish. Kingsindian ♝♚

21:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston. ANI seems good for public clarification on (hopefully) undesirable activity. Isn't AE a place to request banishment rather than clarification? On point: It is my humble opinion, that should anyone embrace self-revert demands as a scare tactic (not as courtesy 1RR reminders), they would be hurting discussion and, certainly, would detract many capable contributors. While I don't see a clear clarification, the editor involved stepped away from this activity -- which is a step in the right direction. Thank you Kingsindian for listening to reason. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The above comment is remarkably inept. If MarciulionisHOF cannot understand this perfectly simple discussion, or worse, if they can understand it and purposefully post the above missing-the-point commentary (with unhelpful external links), it would be better for the project if they kept well away from contentious topics such as ARBPIA. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: why so hostile? (per "remarkably inept"). Is this the language you used before you became an admin as well? If there's something unclear with my perspective, I'd be happy to explain/rephrase/discuss/whatever works. Furthermore, if there is a point you feel I've missed (I paid attention but emphasized what I see as important for the long term), feel free to clarify what it is. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and I'm not hostile—it's best to speak clearly even if that means bluntness must be used. The comment is inept because it misses the point that you had no reason to post at ANI, and Kingsindian has done you a favor, and posting links to silly images is most unhelpful. Do you know what "listening to reason" means? Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm new here so you'll excuse me (I hope) for asking community input on blunt incivility and other "shenanigans" as well as problems in development. I always say it is better to make note of bad ideas -- e.g. "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert."[397] -- early than allow them to become a norm. Do you have another/better location to suggest? (I came here following a link on the DR page).

Apologies if you do not share the sentiment that we are visual beings. Images help me remember (and inspire to do better). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC) + MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In the above, Panda, GB fan and EdJohnston have provided advice that should have led you to self-revert and request closure of this section. Instead, you have grossly misinterpreted and insulted the person who did you a favor ("Thank you Kingsindian for listening to reason"), and now you are posting links of what you think are "bad ideas" by Kingsindian—why? do you hope to have them sanctioned? Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: 1RR concerns do not apply. According to admin GB_fan, it is possible that we were both in the wrong. There is no clear note on when repeated "self-revert or go to AE" (not 1RR related) comments pose a problem but I hope this thread will serve as protective measure; that anyone embracing such ideas will take a step back. I have also asked for a sanity check on my last relevant argument from an admin (the issue started on another note, when I removed material from a source widely rejected for the infobox). Anyway. Please re-read the rest of what I have written. You attack me, possibly against the desire of your friend[398], and grossly misinterpret my words. I expressed a sentiment that I am against sanctions when a simple "this is not a good idea" comment can be made to prevent poor long term conduct. I hope others will embrace this approach over the ignore until very bad one. It is my experience that it can do wonders. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My head swirls at reading all of MarciulionisHOF's posts. The posting of pictures in links is one of the more egregious examples of passive/aggressive behaviours that I've seen here. As you are new, you would not be familiar with the Arbitration Committee and their rulings. Certain areas in Wikipedia are so contentious that they have been referred to ArbCom. The committee are a group of highly trusted editors, usually administrators, who have been tasked to deal with articles and topics where a great deal of infighting has occurred. The

WP:AE. Whether you would have been sanctioned at AE is another matter. Blackmane (talk

) 14:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BATTLEGROUND: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Bishonen | talk
  23:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC).

"Closing note and another matter entirely"
NOTE I had not submitted the other matter to ANI but was asked for evidence on my own talkpage. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• (I've de-headered Marciulionis' late-added header, as what follows here is neither a closing note nor another matter, but the same matter entirely.) Yes, you did raise the matter on ANI, stating that you had been "called a crying-Jew"[399]. To try to make out that you hadn't thereby "submitted" the matter is the purest
  wikilawyering. I would really stop digging if I were you. Bishonen | talk
  12:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: Actually I did see their talk page, but decided against bringing that up as well in addition to what was already going on here. I was straying into TLDR territory as it was. Blackmane (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen and Blackmane: Thank you for your input. I may still be a bit peeved for being called caricaturized as a crying-Jew by a repeated offender without anyone showing minimal care but, other than that, I hold no grudge and plan to refrain from battleground mentality and apply as much of the advice given as possible. Editors working on ARBPIA place all kinds of links and poetry on their userpage. Some even make the Jews are the new Nazis allusion[400] but non of these were brought to task. I apologize if my own links strike as offensive, the only intention is a memorabilia of unique moments. Non of the battleground issues mentioned. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC) + fix error. No direct "you're a crying Jew" comment but a slightly less obvious allusion. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've been noted of a policy where I should remove some of links. It is 5am but I will comply asap. Let the others have their allusions, I will not hold a grudge. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I have no issues with anything the user places on his page. In fact, I support the use of user pages for this purpose. But can we please close this useless drama? Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note: MarciulionisHOF's claim above that he'd been "called a crying-Jew by a repeated offender without anyone showing minimal care" may have made others jump besides me, but it obviously didn't happen. I asked for a diff on Marciulionis' page and only got a time-wasting runaround. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC).
  • That is an unfair assessment. I said I was caricaturized and the relevant quote is "you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic".[401] The rest was to substantiate that he is indeed a repeated offender on the various
    WP:ARBPIA decisions, pushing numerous editors other than myself despite being released on good faith from an indefinite editing restriction. If you want to call that a "run around", so be it but it is, nonetheless, unfair. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC) fix MarciulionisHOF (talk
    ) 17:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • You are still posting nonsense. Following your first link shows a
      the article saying that (almost all) Palestinians support attacking Israeli civilians, with sources that say no such thing. Please read the response you received and think about it. It is not clear that you have paid it any attention because you believe it is a reference to "a crying-Jew". Your account was created on 22 August 2014. Did people at the Hebrew Wikipedia suggest editing here? Johnuniq (talk
      ) 01:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A Jew on the receiving end of "endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic", followed up by the assertion that this was "justified" might consider these ample evidence to support a claim that he is being caricaturized. Nishidani made an assumption of

bad faith, and violated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Decorum

.

@Johnuniq: You are in the wrong, misrepresenting my calm approach to a problematic topic and, yes. Khaybar Khaybar, oh Jews – The army of Muhammad has begun its return. Resistance, resistance – we are all with the resistance. (Palestinian spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri) is not a public outcry against killing civilians. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• • This is going nowhere. Allusions to being called here by the Hebrew Wikipedia. Really??! Can Someone close this? Anyone MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is going nowhere, like most of your editorial interventions because of a pèrsistent attitude of insouciantly distractive flamboyance and provocativeness (links esp.) programmatically declared on your main page, characterized by passive-aggressive divagations and talking past editors in one of the hardest areas of wikipedia. You consistently fail to listen, and what is getting nowhere, is the 'attitude' several neutral parties have remarked on. Kingsindian's act of tolerance to save you from inevitable trouble received a condescending smirk. This was thn followed up by a crack about my ostensibly attacking you qua Jewish, and ostensibly justifying it, ('A Jew on the receiving end of "endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic", followed up by the assertion that this was "justified") is a case in point.

I would recommend closing this if the editor retracts the three succssive attacks, after being cautioned by third parties, or unsupported smears on me as calling him (a) 'a crying-Jew by a repeated offender without anyone showing minimal care, (b)'a repeated offender on the various

WP:ARBPIA decisions (untrue), pushing numerous editors (untrue) other than myself despite being released on good faith' (c) the assertion I justified attacking 'a Jew'. I have partially documented on my main page how persistent this attempt to brand me as an antisemitic is, and wikipedia should not allow anyone to repeat this highly offensive crap with impunity. Nishidani (talk

) 10:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite my attempts to let this matter die a quiet death, drama has ensued, and another editor has been dragged in. Since it is no longer just me, I second Nishidani's comment. If MarciulionisHOF unreservedly retracts these baseless statements, I will let the matter drop. Otherwise I ask for a boomerang, or I will bring this to

WP:AE. Kingsindian ♝♚

13:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Baseless imputations of antisemitism are a particularly serious kind of personal attack, and I have warned MarciulionisHOF strongly on his page. He'll be looking at a block if he persists. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't mind if this discussion is closed on that note. Bishonen | talk 14:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

altering another user's comments

what is the policy, when another user is altering your comments on their talk page? Lx 121 (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• They shouldn't be doing that, especially if it alters the meaning (bar certain instances such as redacting personal attacks or BLP violations). They should either leave them alone or remove them completely. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

They pretty much have control of their own talk page - if their edits alter what you stated, then it might be an AN/I matter. If their alterations make your post appear to violate policies, then such changes are very serious and may result in sanctions against the person altering your words. Otherwise, pretty much ignore them. Collect (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• This was your ORIGINAL comment. You then decided to add to it. They reverted it to your original version. You're the one changing the meaning of your original comment, and they want nothing to do with it - leave it as it is the panda ₯’ 19:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

NO; i added new material, clearly indicated; i used a strikethru to correct an error in my statement, &i removed the word "hapless" from one sentence, after realizing that this was the same user...

is it your position that a user is not allowed to add additional material to a talkpage section, after posting their original comment? or to make correction to it, MINUTES after posting it? would you rather i not remove the term "hapless"? or should i use a strikethru on it?

as for "not wanting to be involved"; the user jumped into an edit dispute (for the second time), on an article they have no interest in working on; they made an innacurate edit summary rationale, & haven't bothered to comment on the article talk page. except for one comment after their first "intervention" months ago, which they never followed up on. it is my understanding that under these circumstances, posting to a user's talkpage is a "normal" action. Lx 121 (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• DP, except the fact that DD2K didn't respond to the original edit, and we have a tendency to treat consecutive edits as a single edit.

That being said, there is a slow revert war over an image at Edward Furlong (which is what OP's modification to the comment was about), and the talk page discussion related to it is lacking from the side that supports the removal. (Indeed, DD2K has not even commented on the most recent thread to Talk:Edward Furlong, and is directing all traffic there.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

in that case, here: [402]

it's easier sending you the page history, rather than a string of diffs.

you guys can sort out whether there is any violation or not, & what do to about it, ifso. my response is as stated in my final edit to that user's talkpage; given the user's actions, i will no longer attempt to contact them via their talkpage, under any circumstances.

any cites of comments made there should be checked against history & diffs.

Lx 121 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

DD2K is in the right here. In general, he can control his talk page to suit himself, and he has at least twice told you (via edit summaries) to keep the discussion on the subject talk page rather than going to his own talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Bugs, but wouldn't you go to an editor's talk page if they don't comment on the article talk page? Rv -- Enough - Keep it on the Talk page, there is no WP:CONSENSUS to add the image, if better arguments to include it are presented, I'll comment then. Right now, it stays out. is not a good argument. DD2K, in a way, is reverting without discussing in the proper venue. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

And speaking of right or wrong, where did you notify DD2K about this ANI discussion? I don't see it, but my vision is not very good, so I may have missed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think OP gave up trying to communicate with DD2K (although I think ANI notification is required, even if normally other restrictions prevents the editor from doing so?). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's allowed per
  WP:NOBAN but I don't fault editors for thinking they shouldn't post the notice if they've been requested to stay off the page. NE Ent
  23:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Notification is required, so if the target user deletes it then he's at least been notified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• How absolutely absurd. First of all, as DP stated, I left your original comment. And I only left that as a courtesy. I've told you before not to post your rants on my Talk page, after you ranted there last time about this same issue. As for your next edits, they were more ranting and 30 minutes after the first. I told you last time I saw your last ANI thread concerning Furlong and disagreed with you. Also, nobody even informed me of this thread here. If someone thinks I didn't wait long enough for this user to complete their 30+ minute thought, then block me. This whole thing is idiotic and laughable. Psshh.
  talk
  ) 19:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

AS I STATED IN MY LAST POST TO YOUR TALK PAGE, which you, of course REVERTED, i shall no longer be posting ANYTHING to your talkpage, under ANY circumstances, due to your demonstrated lack of good faith, in removing/altering my comments there Lx 121 (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC).

& note that your only response to my talkpage comment, has been to revert me 3x. Lx 121 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

ALSO NOTE: i did not start this as a "named" discussion; i started off asking a general question about policy (re: altering other user's comments on a talk page); it was other commentors who introduced the actual incident into the conversation. Lx 121 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You're lucky DD2K didn't drag you here for edit-warring on his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

indeed? on what basis? the 3-r rule? oh wait, he's the one who has done 3 reverts... Lx 121 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, because DD2K is selectively modifying OP's comments (see my argument below). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• @
  DD2K: In a way, you're selectively deleting his comments: Part of the second edit was clearly modifying the original comment. (The only part that wasn't was the 3:3 part.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps}
  20:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh for fucks sake, bullshit. If that is what you get out of this users continued obsession with this issue, then do whatever you want to do.

talk

) 20:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

While we give a wide range of discretion regarding ones own userpage I don't think changing another person's comment is acceptable anywhere. A person should be able to remove another persons comment if they do so in a manner that does no change the meaning of the discussion.

Chillum

20:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly it's better to simply erase a given user's comments altogether, than to tinker with them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

And this deleting Bugs' comment above is really messed up. The Dissident Aggressor 20:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

that was accidental, & i didn't realize i'd done it, until you pointed it out. MY APOLOGIES! i've been trying to fix some minor typos in my comments for the last 15 minutes, & i keep getting edit-conflicted. Lx 121 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably an edit conflict. Be more careful about edit conflicts in the future. And I haven't a clue who's right or wrong in this overall debate about this Edward Eight-of-a-Mile (if anyone). But this much I know from bitter experience: When someone tells you to stop editing on tbeir talk page, it's a really good idea to stop editing on their talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Historically it's a common ANI glitch that a post will step on another without the "offending" editor getting any indication it happens. Not a daily occurrence, but not that infrequent either. NE Ent 23:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Single-purpose COI university group account censoring article on itself

RESOLVED

Blocked by DangerousPanda. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

enhancing their image, I'm certainly not going to complain. Ian.thomson (talk

) 20:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And just as I save this, I see they left me a message right below the part of my talk page where I say to leave new messages at the bottom, that reads "Someone entered factually incorrect information on my institution's Wikipedia page. I am working to delete this information. Please let me know how I can. Thank you"

In other words, their interest in cooperation extends to knowing how to censor the article with our approval. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The user can be blocked for a username violation and encouraged to take a new name. Apart from that, I think we shoud try to kindly encourage the user to make their cause at the article talk page. The thing that is easy to forget is that most people don't know Wikipedia's COI policy and so on. (And they aren't really told at sign-up). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ElNiñoMonstruo

Hi, I come here for help on this is ElNiñoMonstruo. For some time I have had problems with it and it is not the first time he addressed my argument for treating me badly or leave messages badly. Today has left me this message, trying to say I can not and have no right to edit any of your articles. It is not the first time the user insults me and mocks me, I leave here a proof of what I say:

• The first time it was with a puppet that was mine.

• This post has been told bad things about me to AussieLegend.

• Here too, there are more messages, which tells users "bad things about me."

• and mores.

• Here has already started another edit war. Trying to delete a template I created, and their only reason is "it is unnecessary."

I wonder if an administrator ?, do something or just have to put up with this user speak of him as my wins. I have been to several edit wars. This user nothing seems, thinks everyone is against him. And not just me, it has also done this with other users. I will not mention.--

(Talk)

15:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and keep bothering me Mr.

DJMalik/GeorgeMilan/Chema/Damian80/McVeigh/ElSeñordelosCielos. I already gave up on editing Spanish Telenovelas a long time ago and I even let you allowed to mess up everything using all of your own created "rules" and your "undo/revert" powers. And now you're bothering me again, I don't know if I will be blocked because of you. It's like that you are saying that Wikipedia is "not free" for everyone to correct articles.-ElNiñoMonstruo (talk

) 15:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The rules do not I invent, what is clearly stated in the manual of style and whether ornot many users have said..--

(Talk)

16:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No! It's your own style! For your information, this is the English and Main/Worldwide version of Wikipedia, not Spanish! -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Here I give another try. to see that I lie, In the article "

(Talk)

16:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is because you are against the world, so that's why you are using your own created rule that only TV english languages are allowed and not any country or language. I already gave up too on correcting that article because I don't want to be involved in an edit war. -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The user has already reversed 3 times here. And still no explanation reversing. I just do not want their items, "Because they are his," and no one can edit.--

(Talk)

16:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I already had an explanation to you, and you ignored me. The

it's own article. -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk

) 01:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is McVeigh signing as "ElSeñordelosCielos" ("The Lord of the Skies" or some such) as if it were his actual user ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@

(Talk)

16:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a bit confusing given your username is quite different. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mendaliv! McVeigh already changed usernames many times, starting with "DJMalik". Now that his name is "ElSeñordelosCielos", I think he is obviously referring to my username? I think he likes to Copy for a long time I guess? -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

My initial impression of this case: Regardless of the merits of either side of the disagreement, ElNiñoMonstruo's interactions with McVeigh are unacceptable, and ElNiñoMonstruo has been warned of this in the past (prior to a username change by McVeigh). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've changed my signature. There were also different ips personal attacks that come from where you live ElNiñoMonstruo. For example: here and here. I do not know what relationship you have with those ips ElNiñoMonstruo, but what I know is that these IP come from the place where he lives ElNiñoMonstruo. Not want to acknowledge that I'm not sure, but after that he began ElNiñoMonostruo personal attacks towards me.--

talk

) 17:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Changing sig's usually is not an issue. Depending on the reason. Did you change your sig to "ElSenor..." when you first began interacting with "ElNino..."? If yes, that's a personal attack writ large. Of course, if you have had a habit of a) changing USERID's, or b) changing SIG's, then you should list them on your userpage {a) is a requirement, b) is ethical imperative} the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

IP adding bizarre unsourced commentary to articles

98.183.49.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been adding a bunch of weird unsourced commentary to articles, such as this edit to Kabbalah (that he edit warred to restore), or claiming the Ark of the Covenant was a teleporter because Google. We're not dealing with a dynamic IP here, but one that appears mostly static. They've been asked to quit adding unsourced commentary, and yet did so to Menorah (Temple) after their final warning. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months as

not here to build an encyclopedia and failure to communicate with editors.
 — Berean Hunter (talk)

02:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion on B. R. Ambedkar

Siddheart is using a new sock account(Arvindnirvana) for edit warring on this page. [403], [404] are same as [405], [406], [407](all blocked socks). Bladesmulti (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, JimRenge, and I reverted 2-2-2 times, but this sock has reverted 6 times. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

User blocked for 24 hours, I am opening SPI, will update too. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Block review?

Callanec has mentioned on my talk page that as I reverted this editor I may have been too involved for a 3RR block. I take his point, but it seemed an obvious sock and an obvious block. Still, I'm open to trouting and if anyone wants to unblock go ahead.

talk

) 07:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc might have some point, but we can say that no other admin was going to take action regarding this disruptive

long term abuser. I had seen that you had blocked him, just like Future Perfect at Sunrise has reverted and blocked the socks of ZORDANLIGHTER and LanguageXpert. Bladesmulti (talk

) 09:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify (which I have already to Doug) I was referring to the fact that the block was for 3RR not sockpuppetry and that Doug was involved in that 'edit war'. No issue with the block pending outcome of the SPI, which I'm

looking into. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs

) 14:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, my thought processes were "this is an edit-warring sock, pending further action I'll give him a 24 hour block". I could have taken him to ANEW and maybe should have. I see he hasn't appealed the block or edited since it expired.

talk

) 14:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc Thanks. It can be tough because his ISP offers large scale of dynamic IPs. Tiptoety confirmed it. Maybe he's using internet of a institute that is having multiple ISPs. Suppose if he has edited with a IP just now, it will show that he's residing somewhere in Uttar Pradesh and other IP would be from Jammu and Kashmir.

It is better to just site ban him, he is more than qualified for a site ban.

He never made even a single useful edit.

He always follow my edits after creating a new sock, despite he has no knowledge about the subject.

He has abused socks for more than 3 years now. (main account is from 2009)

He edit wikipedia only for 2 purposes. 1, for hunting my edits. 2, for raising propaganda of Dalit Buddhist movement.

He tries hard to game system, look at his unblock appeals:- [408]-[409] - [410] - 2014

He is very offensive, despite the warnings against inflammatory speech on his sock accounts, there was a day when many of the pages(where I contributed) required deletion of revisions, as he was abusing IPs and using inflammatory language [411] - [412] - [413] - [414] - [415]

Other violations include the breach of copyrights,[416] canvassing[417] and so on.

I bet that many of the banned wikipedians were a lot better than this user. He is still troublesome. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc confirmed that Arvindnirvana is a sock, result was  Possible. Previous results ended up with  Likely. Like other prolific socks, he might be learning about the technical limitations of CU. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Request temporary ban of User:Codename Lisa for acting in bad faith

Snow closing. On the evidence presented there is nothing here requiring admin tools. If I believed in trouts I'd also offer one to the OP. Let the RfD run its course. Euryalus (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to request a temporary ban of

Windows 9, referencing a redirect deletion discussion that was clearly obsolete (a deletion because the product hasn't been announced clearly has no precedence value once the product has been announced). When I complained on her talk page, she replied with "We always knew there was never going to be a Windows 9 and now there is proof for that", which is an absurd bad faith troll given that there has been a zillion news articles predicting Windows 9, and the Microsoft spokesman himself talked about the Windows 9 name in the Windows 10 presentation. Thue (talk

) 20:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A

WP:BLOCK. Even suggesting such for this content dispute is a rather disturbing display the panda ₯’

20:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hello, everyone. There are two things I'll like to say in my defense. First, I don't assume bad faith; although I do act from experience. Please have look at this first:

Extended content

Some of the Windows AFDs in Wikipedia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Odyssey 9 December 2009 23 December 2009 No consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Neptune 5 January 2010 13 January 2010 Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Odyssey (2nd nomination) 5 January 2010 13 January 2010 Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Neptune (2nd nomination) 7 January 2011 14 January 2011 Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows XP 1 April 2014 1 April 2014 Humorous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows NT 5.1 11 July 2014 11 July 2014 Redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows "Fiji" 13 August 2006 18 August 2006 Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Longhorn 22 May 2009 29 May 2009 Redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 7 30 July 2005 6 August 2005 Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 8 6 February 2008 12 February 2008 Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 8 (2nd nomination) 7 June 2009 14 June 2009 Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 8 (3rd nomination) 24 October 2009 31 October 2009 Redirect and set to read-only Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Blue 14 December 2012 30 December 2012 Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 8.1 28 November 2013 4 December 2013 Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 8.1 Update 1 18 March 2014 25 March 2014 Redirect Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 12#Windows 8.2 12 July 2014 23 July 2014 Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Server 2012 R2 4 June 2013 1 July 2013 Merge Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 9 24 September 2012 1 October 2012 Redirect Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 29#Windows 9 29 November 2012 31 December 2012 No consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Threshold 3 April 2014 11 April 2014 Delete Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 10#Windows 9 10 March 2014 3 April 2014 No consensus Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 11#Windows 9 11 May 2014 5 June 2014 Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 9 (2nd nomination) 10 July 2014 11 July 2014 Speedy delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows CE 3.0 19 July 2012 27 July 2012 Redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows CE 4.0 26 June 2012 4 July 2012 Redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 5.0 (disambiguation) 6 March 2014 26 March 2014 Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Server 3.1 22 June 2011 30 June 2011 Delete

As you can see, some people are very quick to erect an article or redirect every time a source (even potentially unreliable sources) mentions a fictional made-up name. In my opinion:

Barring vandals, all those who contribute to Wikipedia are acting in good faith.

However, not always they are right and not always their sources are reliable. I am sorry, but one must come to term with the fact that sometimes, people cite unreliable sources which reflect rumors, speculations and outright false info; in good faith, I am sure, but they do so anyway.

Second, assuming bad faith is not an action. I didn't bludgeon the process or edit war today. What are you banning me from? Not being cautious enough, least the history repeat itself once more?

I must humbly request our dear Thue to assume good faith in me and not to start ANI topics so hastily.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see anything that is worth a community ban here. The argument seems to stem from the RfD, just let it run it's course. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose; this seems like a heat-of-the-moment misunderstanding on Thue's part of the purpose of ANI and Codename Lisa's intent. This is a content dispute, plain and simple. RfD is the right venue to settle it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Can be discussed and resolved at the RfD. Nothing actionable here.  Philg88 ^♦talk 21:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose She's made a couple of mistakes but nothing remotely ban worthy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This should be
  closed asap. Rationalobserver (talk
  ) 22:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose- there is nothing in this that warrants a ban. Reyk _YO! 22:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm seeing anything ban worthy here!, What I am seeing is OP not
  Assuming Good Faith which is disruptive at best. –Davey2010 • (talk)
  22:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see no acting in bad faith on the part of
  WP:AGF-failure on the part of Thue, especially considering that s/he is an admin. Jeh (talk
  ) 23:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit - added: And even if the NAGF charge was justified, proposing a ban, even temporary, for a single such incident is a severe overreaction. Jeh (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for all the reasons already given - and like Jeh above, I find it surprising that an admin should make such a suggestion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and someone trout the OP for making such a request. And since Thue is an admin, maybe give them a double fish-whacking for this. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely ridiculous. This is why we don't create articles before something is announced (and suffering this with reality TV show articles, boy do I know it); because the name could change. CL was right; asking for a block just because you see someone as being in full-on
  chatter
  ) 00:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment:
  talk
  ) 03:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-Protection Evasion [Active Community Sanctions measures - Syrian Civil War]

2014 military intervention against ISIS. This article was created while the latter article was under semi-protection due to edit warring and appears designed to evade block and rekindle the major points of conflict for which the previous article was protected by Kudpung (namely, repeated insertion of US-centric language). Editor claims the article received consensus for creation ([419]), however, no such thing occurred - consensus was given (I was even among those supporting create) to create only a theater-specific article, not a "US-intervention into Iraq" article named in such a way as to exclude all non-U.S. aligned actors, which was the major contention that had caused the semi-protection to be implemented; unilateral mirror article creation represents extreme gaming of the system. This article, along with all other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War, are currently subject to active community sanctions. DocumentError (talk

) 02:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Note to Reviewing Admin - Please note that

WP:CANVASS ([420], [421]) his close supporters in this content dispute, prior to replying to this ANI. Please further note, in order to deescalate the situation, I will not be doing the same; as a result, there may be a sudden influx of combative defenders of Acetotyce, which may create an artificial appearance of widespread support for this aggressive, unilateral edit protection evasion. (I, again, note that this subject area is currently subject to active community sanctions.) Edit - please note Stealth Canvassing on IRC may have also been occurring (see: [422]) which may explain the unusually swift appearance of tightly coordinated editors engaging in the same type of aggressive denouncements below. Edit #2 - editor has now acknowledged at least one of the editors he canvassed is a meatpuppet (see: [423]). Unclear the full scope of off-Wiki coordination going on to engineer this multi-user drama. DocumentError (talk

) 02:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

From the edit history, the article was semi-protected due to disputes among new users and IP editors over certain countries position in the infobox, mainly Britain and Australia along with France and not the insertion of US-centric language. It was not an attempt to evade a semi-protection and was done in good faith by page creator and all users on the talk page agreed that the scope of the article should be expanded to include other parties in the Iraq intervention. Also it is not canvassing when they simply inform you of an incident that is occurring that may involve you. It was a standardized message not a request for support.

talk

) 02:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It was a message selectively left the subject of this ANI's two supporters (you and one other) in the content dispute and not given in blanket fashion to everyone involved in the discussion. That is Canvassing, specifically, campaigning. DocumentError (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: Users

2014 military intervention against ISIS into two separate conflicts, one for Syria and one for Iraq. I was bold and I made the article, I knew it was necessary and I had support for the creation on the talk pages on both the parent and the sister article. Anyways I will add more to this and at the moment it is late and I will get to this later. Thanks. --Acetotyce (talk)

02:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point in your WP career you should realize that creating of an article on a contentious subject, with a heavily disputed name, in a subject area currently under active community sanctions, and that is a word-for-word mirror of the lede of an article currently under semi-protection for edit warring, is not what

WP:BOLD was intended for ... DocumentError (talk

) 02:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussions at

WP:SPINOFF proposal for what appeared to be a reconciliable issue; he favored an article for the Iraqi theater, but didn't want to limit it to the actions of the United States–led coalition. -Kudzu1 (talk

) 02:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note that Juno indicated, in his support for a spinoff article, that it should not be US-centric, as did I, as did Empire of War and as did many others. This article was not created in GF, was unilaterally named over objections that were currently being discussed and clearly appears as a bold attempt to evade the necessary semi-protection that had been put on this page and push-through a US-vanity article which many, many editors opposed. DocumentError (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see where that intent is evident, especially given the page creator's repeated statements that he is agnostic on including more information about Iran and other players in the conflict. I also think your argument that this page was created to evade protection would be stronger if you were not on the record as supporting the idea of a spinoff article for the Iraqi theater. I understand that you preferred a different title and wanted a guarantee that the article scope would include Iran, but this seems like historical revisionism to me. We can all see the discussion that was had, which started before the parent article was protected. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Everything is in the diffs provided, I'm not going to escalate the situation further by engaging with canvassed partisans. DocumentError (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? Personal attacks again. That is not the way to solve conflict and is pretty disrespectful to your fellow users.

talk

) 03:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that you refuse to acknowledge my opinion as valid based simply on who notified me of a discussion in which I am eminently and clearly interested. If you are trying to prove that you are upholding

WP:AGF, you just took a big step in the wrong direction, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk

) 03:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This claim that the creation of the article was a "bold attempt ... to evade the necessary semi-protection" can easily be disproved. As you can see here [427] I asked whether an article focusing on Iraq should be created (please note that it was at 20:52 on 27 September 2014). Note also that the protection was put into place at 21:40 on 27 September 2014 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS&diff=627373409&oldid=627367180). I simply formalized earlier discussion about the topic [428] (as started by EkoGraf)) and set it into motion. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

AND as you can see here ([429]) you said "an article focused solely on the intervention in Iraq" NOT "an article on the U.S. intervention in Iraq." You can also see at that diff that I opined "Support" as did several other editors. We were signing on to what you suggested, "an article focused solely on the intervention in Iraq." You can also see the only time the name "American-led intervention in Iraq" was broached it received only 1 point of feedback and that feedback was "Oppose." DocumentError (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What other intervention could I have been referring to? I see no difference between "an article on the U.S. intervention in Iraq" and "an article focused solely on the intervention in Iraq". David O. Johnson (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As noted in the discussion by other editors, other intervening actors in Iraq - such as Iran, Russia, Syria, and Hezbollah - cannot be accurately included in an article titled "American-led intervention in Iraq." That's why the consensus of editors supported a neutral POV/neutral named branch article, not a "Team America" article which can only be designed to push POV/Politics by forcing the exclusion of other parties. Your support of this article will now demand a parallel "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq" article be created, which is not useful. DocumentError (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sysops, hear my plea. Please
  forum shopping, starting RfCs, an AfD, and now this ANI thread all on the same subject matter. He has done nothing but assume bad faith, and has tendentiously edited in an area that is covered by community sanctions, which he is aware of. This is absolutely incomprehensible, absolutely a content dispute that does not belong here, and absolutely an absurd piece of Wikipedia theatre that needs to finish up its final act. RGloucester — ☎
  03:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Post diffs or retract this accusation. DocumentError (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't need "diffs". I provided links to the multiple RfCs you started, the AfD you started, and, of course, we're here at the AN/I thread. That's quite enough to demonstrate my suit. RGloucester — ☎ 03:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Starting an ANI and a AFD simultaneously on an urgent action to deal with edit protection evasion is fine. You have previously been blocked for edit warring on military articles, so while it does not surprise me you would shotgun out these accusations, they are simply not acceptable. If you were canvassed here that is not your fault, but this type of vitriol is. I stand by my edit history and am happy to subject any of it to

WP:BOOMERANG. DocumentError (talk

) 03:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Lord above, save me! Clearly I'm not welcome in this den of daemons, and hence I shall depart. I'm not interested in Arab trifles anyway. Fare thee well, my fairest Mesopotamian and Levantine articles. I do bid thee well amongst the sea that seeks to salt thy fecundity! Fare thee well, though I know thou shan't. It seems the daemons are livid, and as they are, there is not much for me to do. Fare thee well! RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is not constructive. Please, stop. DocumentError (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing

WP:MEAT puppetry. -Kudzu1 (talk

) 03:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester is dead on right about the absurd behavior of DocumentError ion this content dispute. DocumentError also wasted more ink by hauling myself and another editor into an edit waring complaint, which he withdrew after we built a strong case that he was the one edit warring: [[430]] over the same content he brings here. Legacypac (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

DocumentError actually started and is the only contributor to

Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq which is fine with me, but starting that article actually circumvents edit protection on 2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS - exactly what he complains about here (and elsewhere) about American-led intervention in Iraq. SPEEDY CLOSE THIS PLEASE Legacypac (talk

) 17:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt I withdrew my 1RR notification disingenuously, instead of in the interest of de-escalation following resolution of this dispute as detailed at the Talk page. To disabuse you of that notion I'm reinstating it. DocumentError (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note to admins I have tried to be generous to
  assume good faith and also make comments regarding my userpage image and told me to refrain from the discussion here . I don't know what has come to DocumentError whom is a good editor and I see as a good editor now engage in such behaviour. I have had enough of drama here and I feel more will happen if this were to continue. --Acetotyce (talk)
  20:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate Acetotyce's comments and very, very much encourage any reviewing admin to click on the diffs he's referenced above to learn more about my "behavior." Especially the first one. DocumentError (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

also did a Direct Request on a related Admin action. The Admin had some very good comments.Legacypac (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a great link and I also encourage others to read it. I'm still curious how you had a "one-year block" but your block log is clean ... DocumentError (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In-proper Editing of Big Brother Australia 11 (2014)

Please discuss this content dispute on the article's talk page. Nothing actionable here.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This person continues to change the editing back to a way which was not followed in the set up seen by most countries of the program in the world not only I but other editors have changed there edits back after they have made them. This person has become a nuisance and continues to graffiti a page on this website. This person user idea is 180.150.10.253 Thank you for your consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyjimisthebest (talk • contribs) 18:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The name of the individual would be useful.Amortias (T)(C) 18:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they're referring to 180.150.10.253. Amortias (T)(C) 18:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jimmyjimisthebest:. Theres quite a few edits youve made to this over the last 24 hours reverting multiple editors. Quite a few of these are missing edit summaries advising what youve done, could you shed any light on these for us? Amortias (T)(C) 18:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, with possible

WP:EDITWARing over it. CombatWombat42 (talk

) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by Beanyfunk77

Beanyfunk77 indef blocked by Drmies. Penicillin all round for good measure.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:VeryCrocker, and User:Meters), as unsourced, vandalism, BLP, and/or apparently false. See history [431]. Beanyfunk77 has responded with increasingly irate personal attacks on List of syphilis cases and User talk:Beanyfunk77

.

In chronological order:

• Edit summary "fuck you" [432]
• edit summary "you have syph" [433]
• edit summary "you're a motherfucing coksucker with syph up your asshole" with edit content "LIAR" [434]
• edit content "your girlfriend" [435]
• editor's talk content "you really are stupid. possibly the worst researcher in history" [436]
• editor's talk summary "fool" [437]
• editor's talk summary "blind fool" [438]

• imm warn for personal attacks [439]

• editor's talk content "you are deranged with syph" [440]
• editor's talk content "fascistic little pansy" [441]

• request to remove attacks from his talk page [442]

• editor's talk content "you whiny little pipsquak" [443]
• editor's talk content "you're a PATHETIC, BUREAUCRATIC piece of slime. You can remove your withered ballsack with a rusty shears, or you can eat my shit. Your name will be on the syph list one day, with a †." [444]
• editor's talk content "you must be insane (harboring any spirochetes? get a penicillin shot, whyn'cha?)." [445]

Note that while some of the article edits may be valid, but unsourced, there were certainly some content edits and/or summaries that were vandalism. I'm not listing them because I think the personal attacks are a much more serious issue. Similarly, I'm not raising the issue of the continued addition of unsourced information after being undone several times, and Beanyfunk77 has sourced his or her latest additions. Meters (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"edit summary "you're a motherfucing coksucker with syph up your asshole" with edit content "LIAR"" - If this guy isn't made into an admin by the end of the day, I'll kill myself. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I would contest that appointment based on the inability to properly spell "cocksucker" or "pipsqueak". Seriously, civility may have been slipping lately, but this seems a bit much. Meters (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

They do not currently have an RfA open, but I have watchlisted their first RfA page anyway, just in case. In addition, some of these comments could be construed as medical diagnoses, so I have given them a warning about not providing medical advice through Wikipedia, per policy. --

talk

) 18:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Lugnuts, I do not have the "make admin" button in my arsenal, so I did the next best thing, an indefinite block, per "personal attacks, vandalism, disruption, edit warring, NOTHERE". Frankly, their edits boggle the mind. But perhaps my mind is also affected by syph. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Relax, everyone. I didn't kill myself. Shame, as I like the cut of Beanyfunk77's jib. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks and false accusations

Situation resolved. Closed.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Lithistman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• John Barrowman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:John Barrowman (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Tgeairn, Hoary

, and me) have POVs slanted toward Landmark and cannot edit neutrally.

That's a bad enough personal attack already, and then follows some more crap at

Spartaz

protects, protection runs out, and Lithistman reinstates the material. I see this, I revert, I re-protect, and explain at length on the talk page what, in my opinion, the proper way forward is. Lithistman fills up a talk page with claims of admin abuse. In the meantime, Spartaz clarifies what they hadn't said out loud: that they considered the issue resolved, though there is no formal resolution on the talk page, which kind of leaves me with my pants down--but any admin can understand that invoking the BLP is a valid argument for protection and revert.

Well, you can check the history of the talk page: Lithistman has more abuse and false accusations to offer (such material discussing user conduct is inappropriate on an article talk page), and refuses to go to ANI--no doubt because they realize they don't have a leg to stand on. but I've had it with the rather sickening personal attacks and the disruption. I'm leaving that talk page alone, though they removed my last comment--perhaps someone can restore that, I don't care. And let me add that I did what I did in that article not because I agree with John (I have mixed feelings, as I explained), but because the BLP is to be protected above everything else. But editors who act like this make this very difficult, and I'm tired of it. So here it is: personal attacks of POV editing, disruption of a talk page, false accusations of abuse, and a total disrespect for the BLP. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• And this little section, they closed as "harassing comments". If I ask them not to make personal attacks, and they call that harassment, what should I call accusations of POV editing, admin abuse, etc? Drmies (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• I won't be offering anything by way of reply here. I stand by every edit I've made on this project, including statements I've made about my experience editing the Landmark article. My work on the project is my reply, so check my contributions for my defense. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Your article work isn't explaining your behaviour, however. We have too many editors who think they can behave poorly if they do good edits elsewhere - you don't want to become one of those the panda ₯’ 21:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm unimpressed with Lithistman's grasp of the material he is discussing, and I am deeply unimpressed with an editor who apparently has to personalise everything rather than discuss improving articles. I don't appreciate the section on his talk page about me and I would like it removed. Lithistman needs to up his game or he is in for some nasty surprises, especially if he is going to edit in difficult areas like BLP. --John (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Did you see the list of editors they pinged on that talk page to discuss our ongoing admin abuse? How is that not a violation of
    WP:TPNO? Drmies (talk
    ) 22:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I did. Did you see this and this? Coupled with this, where he gets the name of the source he is edit-warring wrong, I think we have an unfortunate combination of impulsivity and carelessness. I would like to see it stopped but administratively I've done my bit and that can be someone else's call now. --John (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• For people interested in what actually is going on, see the Barrowman talkpage. As for the pinging, I pinged the editors that had established the consensus that you were edit-warring against. Before an administrator takes any action supporting this silliness, I'd encourage you to dig deeper. Much deeper. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There is nothing deeper to dig here. No matter whether John has a point or not, they can invoke the BLP and that trumps everything. It's not a recipe to stall all article progress, and if Spartaz had closed that discussion with a consensus (one which John might or might not have agreed with) this might have gone differently. As it is, I am accused of admin abuse (it's right there on the talk page) when I did exactly what the BLP tells me to do as an admin: revert, protect, in the absence of a clear-cut consensus. And along comes Lithistman (still edit-warring in that article) pinging half a dozen people and accusing me of admin abuse--and they refuse to bring it to ANI or to respond here, since, of course, the charge can't stand daylight. And that's on top of the personal accusation of POV editing in that gourous AfD. This, I propose, is the kind of thing that sickens the atmosphere around here. Wanna make this go away? Apologize, for your actions and your words. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• And now Lithistman is offering the same lies at an ArbCom case, here. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that's entirely incorrect. There has been a clear consensus for the inclusion of the material (and the reliability of the source) as the result of multiple discussions since February 2014, and the current talk page shows this to be true. John's misinterpretation of BLPSOURCES to push his personal POV is legendary, and the community has consistently told him he's wrong and he needs to stop. For background, see the People magazine debacle where John attempted the same bad behavior. The community has neither blacklisted the Daily Mail not has it disallowed the use of nonvontroversial interviews, and in fact, it has supported the use of this source for this purpose. Until just last week, John accepted this consensus but has now returned to the same disruptive editing as before. Unfortunately, several admins, including Spartaz and Drmies have stepped in to support John's involvement, which has led both to my recent block (which was overturned) and now the current block of Lithistman. I'm afraid that the admin community has shown a preference for rallying around their own during a dispute, and in the process, targets regular editors for sanctions using trumped up claims and accusations. As a result of this continuing disruption by admins, we will need to take this to arbcom, as admins cannot prosecute their own nor have they shown the slightest interest in regulating their own community. I personally witnessed this several weeks ago when Drmies was edit warring and John stepped in to close the edit warring report against him, even though John had acted involved in the initial incident report and called for sanctions against the reporter. Both John and Drmies have worked together against Lithistman here, and he is currently blocked because of their tag team behavior. Admins must be held to the same standard of decorum as regular editors. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That's a long-ass paragraph, Viriditas, full of hot air. Are you really saying that Spartaz and I are responsible for your block? Weren't you blocked last week? I first edited the article and its talk page today, so I'm curious how my actions today caused you to get blocked last week. Some facts, please, or explain how I am secretly able to warp time. Or are you just here to smear some accusations around and get some revenge after you were shown up elsewhere for lack of knowledge and disruptive editing? I know my ass from my elbow, Viriditas. I find this helpful. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Now Lithistman got hisself blocked, and leaves with yet another accusation on their talk page: their retirement was my goal. They called this ANI frivolous, and I find nothing frivolous or amusing about being accused of admin abuse and POV editing, with unsubstantiated charges smeared all over the article talk page, my talk page, their talk page, and now the ArbCom request case. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I read at the start of this:

Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. In the recently concluded AfD of the latter, I recommended adding material about the subject matter to the article Landmark Worldwide. ¶ While not defending accusations of bias and also trying not to make them myself, I rather routinely find them directed at me: I normally just yawn and carry on with what I'm doing. -- Hoary (talk

) 00:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it's hard to yawn sometimes. Lithistman loudly proclaims that my forum shopping was aimed at making them quite--an act of clairvoyance, besides a lie, since I "shopped" at only one forum, this one, and only because they refused to retract their allegations and make their case in the proper place. This user has been engaged in this sort of hitting below the belt for years, under various accounts--editors like Gwen Gale may remember this and so, Hoary, may you. So if you tell me to just yawn--well, I suppose. And I'll yawn at the diatribe below as well: I like the gift as I like the giver. "Potentially facing sanctions"--pff. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support BOOMERANG. Drmies hasn't cited a single alleged "personal attack" made by Lithistman here or anywhere else for that matter. I encourage everyone to look at the links and diffs and try to substantiate what Drmies is saying, because it's completely impossible. What we have here are several admins working together to target editors who disagree with them, and this is the second instance of Drmies edit warring against another editor and getting them blocked in only the last month. In other words, Drmies was involved in another edit war and decided to file false charges against the other editor in a content dispute. Contrary to what Drmies claims, there isn't a single piece of evidence supporting his claims that Lithistman is on a vendetta anywhere, that Lithistman has made personal attacks, or that Lithistman has disrupted Wikipedia. This is yet another example of Drmies going after people who disagree with them. Just as admin John called for my sanctions when I recently filed an ANI against Drmies for edit warring and adding biased content, and just as John acted involved to close the edit warring report against Drmies to prevent any sanctions from taking place, so too has Drmies attempted to help admin John by reverting and protecting
  WP:ROPE comes into play, and there's nothing anyone can do. Viriditas (talk
  ) 02:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack here? All Lithistman has said, and possibly quite correctly, is that the editors on Landmark article would object to any critical material being added from

Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. If Drmies feels that this applies to him personally, then perhaps he doth protest too much. Looking at the other edits/flaggings/deletion nominations over the past week or so, it would be an easy thing to mistake conscientious editing by a long-time wikipedia editor and one with an agenda. Zambelo; talk

12:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Can a truely uninvolved admin please step in and end this bickering or figure out what the heck is going on and warn all parties to ratch it down a notch? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - User:Drmies, I assume you're going to provide diffs of those personal attacks, yes? I see one linked comment, and it's not a personal attack at all. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• For a timeline of what happened yesterday, see this page, that I compiled after Drmies managed to briefly get me blocked yesterday. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That timeline should be marked "original research"--there's more mindreading, synthesis, and sophistry there than I've seen in a long time. To cite just one, I didn't question your competence over this Mail/Mirror thing, which is trivial--I question it because of your apparent lack of knowledge of what BLP means, and what edit warring means. And then there was this, where you seemed to think that a primary source becomes secondary if you cite it twice. And this, where you reinstated what was previously pointed out as a copyvio, not just "simply linking to a reprint". Drmies (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Hi UltraExactZZ. Sure. But let me note one thing first: LHM continually claims "edit warring against consensus" (in a few diffs below) as if that is an exemption for him to edit war (they reverted three times). That consensus was hardly iron-clad. John claims BLP--and like it or not, BLP trumps consensus. If editors disagree, they should seek recourse one way or another--but not this way.
  • LHM accusing other editors of POV editing in the Landmark matter: "many of the editors there would STRONGLY resist any attempt to put a paragraph about this critical documentary into the article". (Either that, or LHM is a mind reader.)
  • LHM backtracking from that comment with a falsehood ("my comment was clearly a general one") and a non-apology apology: "I'm sorry you felt attacked". Note how LHM expresses that taking civility complaints to ANI is "silly"--as if discussing them in AfDs and article talk pages is the way to go (it is not, as everybody knows).
  • Here is LHM calling John lazy because John does not see a consensus on including the material--note that Spartaz later says on the talk page that "there appears to be consensus", a statement so modified that it is reasonable to accept that John read that discussion (and its lack of formalized consensus/outcome differently.
  • John accused of "misusing his status as an administrator to try and enforce his mistaken interpretation of BLP". Calling John's BLP view is mistaken is one thing, saying he abuses his status as an admin is quite another, and it is not a matter for the article talk page.
  • Now LHM is accusing me (I suppose--"another admin") of "edit-warring against consensus, abusing his tools to protect a non-consensus version". Well, the BLP takes away the edit-warring concern, and since when is one single revert an edit war? how many times has LHM reverted that same edit? Oops: once, twice, three times. (Note their last edit summary: he claims I'm making this personal--showing a distinct lack of AGF as well as mindreading.) In addition, the consensus was hardly as clear as could be (already noted), and protecting a BLP in case of an edit dispute is an admin's job.
  • More mindreading, specious claims of edit warring (this is after LHM had reverted three times, against my single one) and abuse of tools.
  • And here is John being accused of edit warring, and of recruiting me. Well, is this a "recruitment"?
  • Same claim of recruitment and more mindreading. I didn't want LHM blocked.
  • Anyone interested in LHM's "help I'm being oppressed" message? Here's his talk page notice, accusing me of "forum shopping" (which requires more than one forum, I suppose, and I sought only one, the proper one, ANI, which LHM studiously avoids), my mission is to get him blocked (more mindreading), and my RFPP request was "deceptive" (how "deceptive" is this?).
• I'm sure LHM thinks this is all very funny, and Viriditas jumped right on top, didn't he. ANI discussions are silly. Rants and false accusations in bold print on their talk page are OK (again). Unproven accusations of admin abuse made in all the wrong places are OK. I'm banned from their talk page (boohoo!), so they can just say anything they like? Ultraexactzz, is this what you were looking for? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This is pretty much exactly what I was looking for, thank you. Honestly, though, looking at those diffs... most of those statements are not personal attacks, and the ones that come closest are borderline incivil at best. Telling an admin that they are mistaken isn't a personal attack, much as we might wish it were so on occasion. Acknowledging that a group of editors disagrees with the inclusion of a source isn't a personal attack (nor is it an accusation of POV). Calling an editor lazy is pretty weaksauce for a personal attack - but he could have been more civil about it. And yeah, he was on one side of an edit war, and has been blocked and unblocked as a result. Who was on the other side? With whom did he edit war? Saying as much isn't a personal attack. And I believe the forum shopping accusation comes from your report at RFPP, where you neglected to link to ongoing discussions at the article's talk page or at BLP/N (thus, the accusation of deception). In short, I think all three of you (John, LHM, and you) could have handled this better - LHM felt goaded by John's interpretation of BLP, you backed him up (and protected the page yourself, at one point), and LHM edit warred (and was properly blocked for it). I do not believe there is cause for anything other than trouts all around in this case. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • "You're abusing your tools" is hardly the same as saying "you're mistaken", UltraExactZZ. And refusing to make the claim in the proper place, and reverting their removal from the improper place, and repeating them again and again in a "forum" from which they have banned me (and John), that's--well, we're on Wikipedia, and you have a trout ready for me, so I won't tell you what it is, but it can be easily modified by "cowardly". Do you, as an admin, ever have to deal with shit like this? And what do you think the net effect of all this is? Some editor screams "I'm being oppressed by an abusive admin" and next thing you there's two more admins who will not be able to act when necessary since they got an entire lynchmob at the ready.

      So, UltraExactZZ and everyone else: did I abuse my magic admin tool yes or no? It's a question this editor refused to ask where it really matters, but it's here now, and dodging it simply means enabling this passive-aggressive wankery. Can editors say this without proof but with impunity? Drmies (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

      • Quite honestly, if being accused of abusing your tools is as infuriating to you as it seems to be, then I don't know that being an admin is the right job for you. That sort of low-level grumbling is part and parcel with being an admin, especially here, and ESPECIALLY for admins who are willing to make tough calls. I'm not saying you were wrong to act on that article, I'm saying that I get why your involvement didn't do anything to calm LHM down or back him off of his position. From his perspective, rightly or wrongly, the issue of that source was a settled one. Then an admin comes in and disagrees, and then another admin comes in, guns blazing, backing up the "clearly mistaken" first admin? Yeah, I'd be pissed too. Your involvement might have been technically correct, but it did absolutely nothing to defuse the situation. When asked, LHM almost immediately agreed to wait for the discussion at BLP/N to end before adding the source again. Had John not been the one to revert initially, or had the discussion at the talk page not been so contentious, I'm betting someone (a long-term, well respected admin such as yourself perhaps) could have asked him to back off and gotten a positive response. Instead, we're at ANI. I think this could have been handled better by all parties. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
        • UltraExactZZ, then just go ahead and close this thread, will you? "Respected" doesn't mean anything to this editor and his little gang of admin abusees, and that that awful shit, those lies, are there on the top of his talk page--what about that? Oh, yeah, let's give users plenty of leeway to slander people on top of their talk page, that's the way to handle civility problems. I wonder if Bbb's comment, below, gives you cause for concern. We're not dealing with one thing against one person, and if the next one of this posse tries to get someone in trouble, I wonder who will help. And do you know what the tactic is? Irritate and accuse, so that they can accuse the admin from being involved when action needs to be taken. So for this thread alone, they can claim to have taken out half a dozen admins. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
          • It's your thread, boss. I have no objection to a close, and I don't think there's any serious argument for administrative action here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 02:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I repeat I am not happy with having a section dedicated to me on User:Lithistman's user talk page which has no content and at the same time Lithistman has "banned" me from his talk page. Drmies has removed it (once?) and I have removed it (twice). If he continues to replace it I request a one week block. --John (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • John, I'd leave that nonsense alone, before you get blocked for removing a personal attack (gasp!). Also, no, I never removed anything from that talk page. It should be removed, and maybe a passing admin will take care of it. Maybe. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• The fact of the matter is that the biggest, by far, and most insidious problem wikipedia faces is that of "civil" POV pushing, hiding behind cries of "admin abuse", "thingism", "catism", "dogism" or whatever the "...ism" of the day is. Until we address that dysfunctional aspect of the site, these stupidly long, pointless threads will continue, because, hell, they're admirable, aren't they? Judge folks by what they say and do, not by which minority or majority group you think they belong to. The ones crying "but... equality..." are generally the ones who don't want, or understand that at all. Disbelievers may examine this page for "gamergateism" etc, to see this invasion, and ponder on what we have become. Begoon ^talk 17:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The lack of good faith displayed at the AfD is glaring for everyone to see, so I'm not going to provide any diffs because I have better things to do, everything is in the AfD. Apparently, Lithistman and Zambelo are unable to imagine that somebody who disagrees with them, may do so for valid reasons. Instead, they must be POV pushers. Zambelo also seems to think that it is exceptional that an editor participates in an AfD, looks at the article under discussion, subsequently goes to articles that it wikilinks to, and then tags those for perceived problems. Instead, they seem to think that such completely normal behavior is a "pattern" and proof of POV. This nonsense is repeated in the ArbCom request. --Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What you say, Randykitty, is perfectly correct. Yet this kind of "you disagreed with me in one place, so must never do so again, anywhere, you "involved" devil, you, or I'll take you to AN/ARBCOM/I" is perpetuated and encouraged. This is the kind of thing we need to deal with, urgently. Begoon ^talk 19:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• The issue isn't that you disagree with me. The issue, for me at least, is that you are not contributing or even attempting to contribute, to any of the articles you are nominating for deletion. Furthermore you aren't even engaging other editors involved in the editing of those articles on the talk page, forcing them (mostly me) to make hasty additions in a last-ditch effort to save multiple articles. This shows seriously underhanded tactics, and a profound lack of respect for other editors who have worked on the articles you have gutted and then deleted. Zambelo; talk 04:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• I got round to following up a ping to have a look at
  magic 8 ball (that can randomly block anyone with a wave of the magic finger when he's in the mood) is a bit of a mystery. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  11:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That's incorrect. The Daily Mail sources have not been replaced, they've been upheld by consensus and are cited multiple times as reference #2. So your conclusion is in error. I suggest you are looking at a cache version when several admins, including John, Spartaz, and Drmies, were misusing their tools to revert and edit war against consensus, issue user blocks as involved admins, and protect the article to prevent community consensus. Further, this is not an isolated incident; this is part of a pattern of admin behavior that arbcom needs to review. @Lithistman: and myself are collecting evidence to present this problem to the wider community and @The Devil's Advocate: has offered more recent evidence of problematic editing and blocks by Drmies, so the problem is getting worse by the day, not better. In all of these incidents (and the one I brought here earlier in the month), Drmies' response is to blame others and shift the burden. This cannot be allowed to continue. Viriditas (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• I haven't been following this discussion, and it's a bit painful to read. Of course, Viriditas's baseless vitriol doesn't help. I was first introduced to LHM on Drmies's talk page when he attacked Drmies regarding an edit warring issue at the Landmark article (I wasn't familiar with the article). That rant is archived here. After a whole bunch of hoopla about the issue, Viriditas, LHM's partner in garbage, changed the edit warring policy to essentially say admins who edit-war should be sanctioned just like everyone else. There was no discussion before this change, and I was somewhat flabbergasted and reverted him. He then took it to my Talk page and onward to the edit war policy talk page. LHM quickly jumped in supporting Viriditas and complaining about admins generally (e.g., "it's engrained in the culture of this project that (again, in practice) admins are treated much differently than regular editors with regards to sanctions and blocks"). That discussion is archived here. I stayed out of that discussion despite the fact that I was the one who reverted because I didn't want to fan the flames. Unfortunately, LHM made two edits to the policy, one canceling the other. His intention was to make a point, but instead of doing so in the discussion, he did so in the policy itself. I thought that was
  WP:POINTy
  at best, and I said so. His response: "And, quite frankly, I don't care what you think of what basically amounted to a null edit to the policy page. That's your issue, not mine." Things went downhill from there, and I finally bowed out because his attitude was so obnoxious, even when some of his points were valid. BTW, that's one of LHM's core problems. Even when you agree with something he says, it's almost always said in a way that makes you cringe (snarky, coatracky, passive-aggressive). Viriditas's change stayed out of the policy.

My next experience with LHM was when I agreed with him on something. He wanted Sitush unblocked. Again, the problem was in the way he approached those who thought the block should be upheld. LHM's comments attacked just about anyone who disagreed with him. For example, many editors who thought Sitush should not have been blocked in the first instance, still understood why he was blocked and why his comments were deleted; yet LHM wasn't as temperate, accusing the blocking admin of deleting the comments to hide the proof ([447]). But things got worse off of Sitush's talk page after

Chillum, btw, was a strong supporter of the block. And he was also against the change to the edit warring policy. So, he had become one of LHM's least favorite admins. Naturally, LHM also attacked Mike V: "Not too surprised to see the blocking administrator refuse to consider the context of the comments, the history of the editor, or anything other than "the letter of the law", in defending the indef block." ([451]) and "As Mike V seems utterly incapable of grasping nuance or subtlety, you probably should have simply told him he was acting like a pedantic fusspot." ([452]

) There's more in the same vein, but it's tedious grabbing every one of them.

In my view, the picture of LHM's behavior is not a pretty one. I think his destructive attitude clearly warrants sanctions, but it's not clear to me what those sanctions should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The only real evidence of a "destructive attitude" on this page appears in the above comment by Bbb2. Please make a special note of Bbb23's reliance on baseless personal attacks and accusations composed of empty, emotive verbiage devoid of substance, using words like "painful, baseless vitriol, hoopla, fawned, attacking, flabbergasted" and other manipulative attempts at controlling perception. In addition to this failed attempt at public relations, Bbb23's remembrance of things past is entirely faulty (no doubt due to his mouldy madeleines) as his diffs do not say what he claims. For example, Bbb23 claims LHM attacked Drmies, but there is no such attack in the diff provided. The same is true for the rest of Bbb23's diffs—full of abrasive rhetoric, but lacking actual substance. I encourage everyone to look at Bbb23's diffs and decide for themselves. Finally, Bbb23's claim that modifying EW to note that "admins who edit-war should be sanctioned just like everyone else" is a change in our policy is ridiculous.

WP:EW applies to all editors, with advanced permissions or not, and making this explicit in the policy had full support from non-admins on the talk page. However, admins like Bbb23, attracted like moths to a flame, took to the policy talk page and attempted to divert and distract the discussion by changing the subject and attacking the editors instead of the problem. Bbb23 successfully thwarted the will of the community in this endeavor, and with the help of his fellow admins, the discussion denigrated into false allegations of canvassing, personal attacks on the motives of editors who made and supported the change, and anything other than the discussion itself. This is the kind of "administration" of Wikipedia Bbb23 supports. I think both Drmies and Bbb23 are deserving of serious sanctions for wasting the time of the community with false accusations against Lithistman. What was Lithistman's "crime" that so enraged these administrators? His "crime" was to question their bad behavior, their edit warring, and their misuse of their authority. Drmies was edit warring on the Landmark page, and reverted Lithistman many times. Why wasn't Drmies blocked for edit warring in this instance, after all, this was the second major edit war Drmies had been involved in just a week after being reported for edit warring on 3RR/N. Because admins like Bbb23 are so very confused about how the edit warring policy applies to admins, I made this explicit in the policy.[453] Bbb23 reverted this, because he truly believes that administrators are exempt from the edit warring policy.[454] And that is exactly why Drmies started this thread. Lithistman's great "crime" (and what Bbb23 has deemed a "personal attack") was to remind Drmies that his administrator rights do not give him the privilege of edit warring against policy. To quote the great and wise Lithistman, "The fact that you've been entrusted with a mop and bucked most certainly does not entitle you to special privilege when editing." I have much more faith in the wisdom of Lithistman than I do in the abuse of our policies exemplified by Drmies actions and in Bbb23's defense of impunity. I think that any honest person who takes the time to read this thread will see where the problem resides. And it resides in the actions and words of Drmies and Bbb23 and all the other administrators who believe the policies don't apply to them. It's time to remind them who runs this community. Viriditas (talk

) 09:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been aware that John and Viriditas have banged heads before. Having looked at the discussions, John has generally refrained from directly referring to editors and conduct, and focused on policy without singling any specific person out. However, some time back I suggested that if he ever blocked Viriditas, it would cause a drama-fest disproportionate to the dispute in question, and I appear to have been proven right on that count. Still, we can't change the past, what's done is done. All I would say is for people to AGF, suggest that sometimes full protection can be a viable alternative to a block (especially when there's grounds to believe it will result in retaliation), and to make grievances short, to the point and focus directly on article content wherever possible. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies...I have no idea what is going on...but if you protected the page again to keep out the tabloid source as Spartaz did that was a truly acceptable source for the content and context...a date of birth and an non contentious quote.....that was truly ridiculous. If you have some proof or demonstration that John Barrowman did not make those comments, please add them here or for god's sake people...stop [civility redaction] around with that BLP. I am beginning to think this has much more to do with the subject himself and people need to give the [civility redaction] up. Seriously. There is no breach of policy for using a tabloid source where the subject has given an interview. If I am wrong...put up or [civility redaction] now. (Also...very sorry for being so harsh to someone I truly like here but what the [civility redaction] is going on? Seriously?)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You're wrong. Read
    WP:BLPSOURCES. There is no exemption for using poor sources where an interview is alleged. Why would there be? --John (talk
    ) 11:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

With no claim to experience or wisdom, but simply a fresh pair of eyes. Several of the diffs which Drmies gives to my eyes do not qualify as personal attacks. Some of them certainly do: but LHM seems to have gotten riled up after (a) getting involved a content dispute with an editor who also happened to be an admin (b) a page protection to the WP:WRONGVERSION by an uninvolved admin and (c) getting blocked by a third uninvolved admin. It was simply a coincidence (no sarcasm intended), but with a bit of empathy you can see his paranoia that admins are acting in concert against him. All sides have suffered enough, perhaps it is time to put it behind yourselves? The content in the article has been corrected, so the content dispute seems to be over. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Seriously. If the content dispute is over...lets just stop now. I came back from my vacation to see a bing to that [civility redaction] again and I am beginning to think there is something that began this that well meaning admin do not understand. But if I claim it here...surely I will be piled on with enough [civility redaction] to clog a toilet. Lets move on before we start even more stupidity and hate. Enough. There are limits to this kind of crap. Really!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Then, instead of rattling of all the bad words you know, close the thread. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A call for Darkness Shines to be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia.

WP:ARBIPA#Discretionary sanctions for repeated personal attacks, incivility and edit warring (see the enforcement thread here [455]), has just chosen to not only once more resort to a personal attack in an edit summary for a sensitive article under WP:ARBPIA restrictions ("Do me youi little shite ." [456]), but has blatantly violated the 1 revert per 24 hours restrictions in place for the article in doing so. As I am sure most of those who look at this page with any frequency will be aware, Darkness Shines' behaviour is a regular topic of discussion here, and his block log [457] indicates the frequency with which he has been sanctioned for his refusal to comply with policy. Since it seems self-evident at this point that DS is incapable of complying with Wikipedia policies in regard to sensitive articles, and is making no effort whatsoever to reform his behaviour, I have to suggest that it is time for the community to consider an indefinite block. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 20:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment User:Darkness Shines clearly should not use language such as "shit" in edit summaries and should respect 1RR. Then again, AndyTheGrump should not remove sourced content before a discussion a talk page has come to that conclusion (this said without taking a stance for either side). Since unblocked in June, User:Darkness Shines has more than 1000 edits and seems to be engaging constructively, so I cannot agree with "incapable of complying with Wikipedia policies". I do not condone the action in this sensitive article (nor do I condone that of the OP) but a call for an indefinite block seems excessive looking at larger picture.Jeppiz (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the 1RR rule under WP:ARBIPA#Discretionary sanctions is somehow inapplicable to contributors with a sufficiently large edit count? As for the 'bigger picture', I have to suggest that it provides nothing but further evidence of DS's belligerent behaviour, and of his refusal to comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You're deliberately misinterpreting my comment, which is rather typical of a

WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. I did not defend the 1RR violation. On the contrary. But I did say I don't find it sufficient to warrant the indefinite block for which you're calling. If this had been the first action of previously blocked editor, then it would be different. Now the editor has more than 1000 edits, so while an admin can chose to take action over the 1RR, I do not think it should be anything near an indefinite block. Both DS and the OP have very long block logs, and should perhaps consider limiting their interaction. After an (admittedly quick) look, I cannot see one being better or worse than the other.Jeppiz (talk

) 21:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I rarely edit in the area covered by WP:ARBIPA, and have had little recent interaction with DS - though why that would be relevant in this discussion I fail to see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - That comment does seem rather nasty, but we'd have to weigh whether this editor is considered a "valued content creator", which as we know from recent events can balance out bad behavior. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Tarc, you'd have someone blocked indefinitely for a bad word in an edit summary? Drmies (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Only when it was funny... Begoon ^talk 21:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I echo the sentiments of Jeppiz; whilst his behaviour clearly leaves something to be desired, I can understand his frustration at editors removing relevant sourced material from the article. Number 57 21:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Really Andy? How many times have we had enough is enough from you? Grow up for fuvks sake, I am going back to the pub, and it is no wonder why I spend more time there now than editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that DS has made no apology for his clear and unambiguous violation of policy - further proof, I have to suggest, that he has no intention of complying with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that as recently as August 23, Darkness Shines posted a notice informing another contributor of the WP:ARBPIA 1RR sanctions on their talk page, in relation to the same article he has just violated the sanctions on. [458] I can interpret this in no other way than as evidence that he refuses to comply with policies he wishes to enforce on others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - This should really be a wakeup call on how editors are fed up with this user's behavior. I remember my first interaction with Darkness awhile back and he was just as nasty towards people who he has not come in contact with. Look Darkness I don't expect you to like everyone here but please enough of the nastiness as it just puts a sour mood in the editing environment here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment What Jeppiz said really, with the addition of, yeah, Andy, but is this really what you want this place to become? Arguing about who stuck which notice on whose page when and why, or who said a rude word? I've seen the awesome stuff you do, and I doubt that's what you really want. Begoon ^talk 21:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. This is not a reasonable response to someone saying a bad word in an edit summary.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be, if that was all there was to it. Now read my original post, where I indicated that DS had violated (yet again) sanctions regarding WP:ARBPIA which he apparently only sees applicable to other people. This is entirely consistent with his long-term behaviour. He is incapable of complying with policy, and needs to be dealt with accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to try your hand at

WP:AE since it is an ARBPIA transgression, you're hitting 2 roadblocks here; friends from the I-P topic area, and the "it wasn't that bad" ANI'ers. Tarc (talk

) 22:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is true that DS broke the one revert per 24 hours restriction on the article.11:36,19:15 Perhaps he/she should have a 24 hour block for that.

But the main thrust of AndyTheGrump's complaint was that DS said a bad word in an edit summary. I can understand why AndyTheGrump felt annoyed that DS had reverted AndyTheGrump's 14:59 edit. Though in DS's position I would have been annoyed by AndyTheGrump's edit summary which bizarrely accused DS of coatracking. There are faults on both sides here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No - the main thrust of my complaint is that DS violated ARBPIA sanctions yet again, and made a personal attack while doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Just chiming in; I don't believe calling someone "a little shit" can be considered a consistently blockable offense anymore, and it is certainly not grounds for an indef.--WaltCip (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• You should be looking at the edit summaries long term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I think DarknessShines is actually drunk (he's made mention of this both here and on Drmies page, in fact on Drmies page he says he's "shit faced ", so I'd brush it off as editing when intoxicated (yes I know, someone's used it as an attack, I'm not  ! ) KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 00:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If DS is editing while drunk (yet again) so what? There is nothing in WP:ARBPIA that says being intoxicated is a legitimate reason to violate 1RR is there? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sure letting editors edit Wikipedia while shit faced that sets a great example for editors on Wikipedia doesn't it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Though I am somewhat bemused by the specific OP being the one to condemn use of "shit" considering the OP's history if intemperate language. No sufficient reason here to exile anyone. Collect (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, here's the deal - if it is the opinion of this noticeboard that WP:ARBPIA sanctions are inapplicable to established contributors, I am going to have to assume that it applies to me too. Why the hell shouldn't I? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)'

Let me explain using an analogy: if Andy the policeman catches DS driving at 40 mph in a 30 mph limit, asking for indefinite driving ban for DS seems a bit extreme. This does not mean that it is OK for DS to drive at 40 mph in a 30 mph limit.

If it goes to court, it would help if the prosecution confined itself to their main complaint.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunately that DS has gone astray, so soon after asking for a relaxation of a topic ban, where drunken outbursts were one of the items discussed. There does appear to be a pattern here, and some sanction may be needed, but I think a community ban is excessive. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The OP is asking for a block not a ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

An indefinite block imposed by the community (as opposed to an individual admin) is effectively a community ban. (Since an individual admin likely could not overturn the community decision) Per

WP:BLOCKBANDIFF "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned." Gaijin42 (talk

) 03:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• The sight of Andythegrump becoming exercised about incivility by another editor is just too funny. On the other hand, DarknessShines reverted not just twice but three times on that flotilla article. The right place to moan about it is 3RRN (or perhaps AE). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, one of the three was a self-revert of the 2nd one. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Nomo, the complaint of "belligerent behaviour" etc. is hilarious, given who's doing the complaining. Writegeist (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose but there does seem to be a bit of a pattern to those edits that provoke complaints as intemperate, personal attacks or breaches of sanctions. A daily wikibreak from (say) 8pm to 6am, local time, just might help. NebY (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As the person whose edit was initially reverted, by DS, I oppose this. Obviously the comment 'Do me you little shite' was inappropriate. But that is not a reason for indef. banning. DS should not have edit-warred and instead, opened an RfC for this, as I have suggested on the talk page. Re,
  WP:AE is a better place for this. In my opinion, 1RR can be handled by simply leaving a message to DS on the talk page, and DS has now self-reverted. I don't really care about foul-mouthedness, but that is for OP to judge, since it was directed at him. Kingsindian ♝♚
  09:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I mean come on.....this rises to a level of a warning maybe even a "stern" warning but I don't think a block is called for here.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think {{whale}} - without the humor aspect - would do here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Although I have to say Darkness should avoid drinking and editing Wikipedia before he does do something that requires action in the form of a ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Indefinite ban? Seriously? It's my understanding that our blocking policy still acknowledges that blocks are meant to prevent further unproductive/damaging conduct, not punish the perp. I am by no means condoning the reversion violations or the relatively mild incivility, but it's difficult for me to reconcile that preventative block policy with the proposed indefinite ban. I think the OP's remedy lies elsewhere. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)