Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive915

An anonymous editor is impersonating me on my talk page.[14] They also left several cookies for me claiming to be User:Tarism A2.[15][16] It's probably part of a Men's Rights related harassment campaign, but I don't have any proof of this. Would appreciate if someone would block them or warn them at the least. Kaldari (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And now another IP is re-adding the cookies.[17] Kaldari (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. I class deliberately impersonating somebody else as vandalism and the perpetrators should be strung up for it. Drmies333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The page seriously requires a semi-protect. The page is getting hit so often even ClueBot is reverting to a vandalised version. A request for protection was but in six hours ago and another by myself half an hour or so ago. HalfShadow 07:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi'ed 3 days. But this mess goes back a few weeks, so I suspect it'll need re-protection shortly after 3 days from now... DMacks (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

2. 2 editors have reverted me. Here and here (today). I am mindful of the

Afshin Rattansi (January 24, 2016). Is Iran a real threat? (Television production). 18:44: BBC One.{{cite AV media}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

Thanks.

47.17.27.189 (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:Dispute resolution. Nil Einne (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your source is youTube. How did you expect to NOT be reverted?142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Clearly the indefinitely blocked User:Akash3141 under a new username designed as an attack on myself. Has given out barnstars to other users: the first as an attack on myself,[18] and the second (under this new username) to applaud another blocked user with whom I had issues.[19] In the second, he speaks of his conflict with myself, and insults User:LM2000 (a player in Akash3141's blocking), essentially admitting his identity. Akash3141 previously gave his IP address as 2.220.128.78,[20], which is blocked, so he is editing from a new range. B. Mastino (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

All taken care of. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. B. Mastino (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing violations on a BLP. DE by an involved admin who reverts without discussion, and defends the violations with many factually inaccurate statements. Non-RS and OR also used in creation of negative misrepresentation of LP. Have tried BLPN, ANI and Oversight. What next? Or is abiding by BLP policy now optional? 124.171.192.238 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Are people here supposed to read your mind about the BLP involved, also considering that in your contributions no BLP article appears? LjL (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Their contribs make it clear which article they're talking about. Looks like they're referring to

re

}} 03:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

For note, there's likely a conflict of interest here... the IP geolocates to around where the subject of the article lives.

re

}} 03:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• I reverted their cries for help on other users' talk pages. Abiding by the BLP is not optional, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) - I fail to see how this currently requires admin action. This sounds more like a content dispute. Please consider disucssing and searching for full consensus from other users, and then make the move. See

WP:BRD --allthefoxes ^(Talk

) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

To elaborate, you were bold and moved the page. You were then reverted, and now it is time to discuss, this also means discussing it with possible opposes. This seems like a good time to make a formal move discussion. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I did discuss and there were two editors supporting the move. As I said, it's a very clear matter of deliberately and disruptively misleading readers about a living person. I can spend my time getting broader consensus for the move, but it's a total waste of my time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I also suggest an RM, with a stop by

WP:AGF on the way. ―Mandruss ☎

05:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Per

WP:AGF, "editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." Moving the title back to "Indictment of Rick Perry" is hardly any different from changing it to "Rick Perry is a scumbag who didn't deserve an acquittal". I thought perhaps that might be obvious to you folks.Anythingyouwant (talk

) 05:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a little different than your previous edit, which quoted

Impeachment and acquittal of Bill Clinton as precedent, I suppose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 05:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for very generously bringing maximum attention to an edit that I self-reverted. Is that enough AGF for you folks?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this actually a BLP issue rather than a content issue? Jtrainor (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

After starting this section, I started a similar section at

WP:BLP/N (cross-referencing ANI). I don't think BLP issues and ANI issues are always mutually exclusive, with this being a case in point.Anythingyouwant (talk

) 06:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You were given a solution, I'd suggest you use it before you wear down these fine gentlemen's collective patience. If your RM is successful and User:Cwobeel continues to fight, then bring it up here, otherwise it looks like you're just trying to silence someone whose views differ from your own.142.105.159.60 (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

IP editor 130.204.81.214 has been engaged in a long-term edit war at List of Sofia the First episodes. User is convinced that one episode, "Minimus is Missing" is a S3 episode, rather than a S2 episode. Two discussions took place at Talk:List of Sofia the First episodes about the matter. The IP editor participated in one of those discussions. Consensus as of December 2015 said that since Disney's official list of episodes for Sofia the First unambiguously places the episode in its S2 list, it must be a S2 episode. And since the production code is 223, that suggests strongly that the episode was produced for S2. In this edit from Feb 23, 2016 the IP editor again moved the episode to S3. Disruptive and s/he doesn't seem to like the taste of consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI? Really??? EEng 06:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Noticed an IP editor making various draft pages by copy-pasting existing episode lists and editing them. I am not really sure what's going on, but

• Also testing good faith is this. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think these are disruptive. Especially

G2. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

22:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

More IPs created

What is salt in this context? 400 Lux (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@

open channel

) 03:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

If it helps, I have blocked the range 72.82.160.0/19 for 1 month. This covers all 3 IP addresses mentioned in this section. I note that blocks have been applied to at least one of them in the past. ~

Lyndon LaRouche

Not the original Jack Bruce (talk · contribs), an SPA, has devoted five out of his/her first twelve edits to re-adding material to this article when others removed it. I am fairly certain he/she is acting in good faith, but probably needs to be mentored or at least told how to use the talk page.

There haven't technically been any 3RR violations, and page-protection would probably be counter-productive when it's only one new account doing the edit-warring, so I figured asking for more eyes, preferably sysop eyes, here would be preferable to ANEW.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I have been notified that I am being discussed here. I would like to point out that I have raised this issue on the talk page. I am still awaiting a response from the editors who are mass-deleting content. None of them have deigned to reply there, despite requests by me and another editor that they explain their mass deletions of material for which sources have been provided. The level of snark in the edit summaries by the deleters makes the deletions appear to be in bad faith. Not the original Jack Bruce (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to start by pinging every editor involved in this edit war (Xcuref1endx, Not the original Jack Bruce Volunteer Marek, 2602:304:b1bf:8e80:5518:b046:b572:1325, Solntsa90, Dave Dial, Cullen328, and John from Idegon) even though some of your reverted only once and even though I recognize some of you as experienced, good-faith editors, because A) there's a necessity to have everyone on the same page, and B) the sheer volume of reverts made despite the steadfast refusal of most of those editors to engage in discussion on the talk page is deeply problematic, even when it involves editors I'm inclined to trust.

Now, first off, let me start by saying to those of you who oppose the content and have misgivings about the account fighting to retain, yeah, quack quack, we all sense a duck in the room; I assure you I agree. But that being said, that suspicion is not a blank check to you to oppose content without engaging in the consensus making process, so long as there is a non-blocked contributor making a policy argument for a specific approach to the content. If you think Not the original Jack Bruce is a sock (as he may very well be) then, by all means, file an SPI. Given the context, I doubt a CU will be refused. However, in the absence of establishing him as a bad-faith contributor, you are not empowered to just ignore his position and engage in a tag team edit war without engaging in discussion beyond snippish edit summaries (

WP:AVOIDEDITWAR

). He may be a sock, or he may be a recently-autoconfirmed user. But until the former is established, he's as entitled to edit that article as any of you, and you are compelled provide policy/community consensus arguments for any change you want to support or oppose regarding the article.

Mind you, I also think that content looks pretty hagiographic, and given the article subject, I'm sure there's been a lot of content like it in that space over the years. There's no reason why the editors working on the article can't decide to remove that content, if they are convinced it is not neutral or that it is otherwise not appropriate--no matter the sources involved. But the reasons that have been provided so far have been real bunk, and there's no softer way to put it: aside from the instances I've already addressed of users

attacking the user rather than the content argument, some of you have dismissed a half dozen references that originate with some of the most broadly respected newspapers in the English speaking world without providing a detailed explanation on the talk page for why they are not acceptable in this instance, while others have completely misinterpreted BRD

; say what you will about Jack Bruce's likely motivations here, he is right that, if the content was long-standing content (it goes back to 2014, as I understand it?) then removing it was the Bold act, Reverting the section blanking was an acceptable response from any editor who thought that was an error, and Discussion should follow.

In short, no matter how convinced any given party here is that they are in the right, please stop cutting corners in the discussion/consensus process. There are at least two involved editors who think there is a question about how to proceed here, only one of which is suspected of being a sock (and no evidence has been provided to support that assumption as yet). That means you are compelled to discuss if you want your preferred version of the content to prevail. Given the content and the policies involved here, I think it's highly likely that the content will be removed (or at least drastically altered/scaled back). But that does no alleviate any involved parties of their responsibilities to follow policy/community standards on how content disputes are resolved and their obligation to address the issue collegiality and collaboratively. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh gimme a break. This is an obvious sock (or at the very least a meat puppet) of Herschelkrustofsky (long term abuse). There's no point in filling out an SPI because 1) all the other accounts, best as I can tell are stale, and 2) since this is an SPA there's only the matches in the LaRouche article rather than any smoking gun. But anyone who's been around Wikipedia for at least sometime knows this is him. What you are asking us to do is to waste our time on this. "Engage" and all that. No. If we start trying to "engage" every single crazy POV pushing banned person on Wikipedia there'll be no time left for anything else. In fact, usually that's what these sock puppets do - they try to waste everyone's time to wear them out so that they can come back with yet another sock puppet later and get their way. That's not something we want to encourage. Just semi-protect the damn article and be done with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

What the fuck? What give you the right to ping us and give a lecture? Editors are not obligated to discuss obvious fringe content from an obvious SPA/Sock. I'm not going to discuss this further because I am not wasting my time. Take up the LaRouche mantle if you prefer. Dave Dial (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree in substance with

WP:DENY is appropriate. That time arrived a long time ago, in my humble opinion. I have no interest in engaging in lengthy debates with such people. If you do, go right ahead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

06:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough; that's a perfectly reasonable decision. However, if you do refuse to engage in at least some degree of discussion with your fellow editors, you can't expect to prevail on the content issues you disagree with them about. For the record, though, I did see that you had engaged in discussion where others had not; I pinged you as a pro forma matter along with everyone else who participated in the edit war, even briefly. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please be civil. Nothing I have pointed to here is the least bit controversial in terms of community consensus (see

WP:BRD). Nor am I "lecturing"; I'm responding to a behavioural dispute/edit war that has been brought to a community forum and supplying my interpretation of the appropriate way forward to resolving that dispute (which happens to be the standard Wikipedia collaborative model). I think I've made it abundantly clear above that I am sympathetic to your position, but when you respond in such a volatile manner to a simple request to discuss this issue as all policy encourages/requires you to, it doesn't make you look much better than supposed SPA in terms of being a content warrior. Snow ^{let's rap}

06:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

A) What project have you been working on? You don't get to invalidate another contributor's right to invoke community consensus and policy simply because of your suspicions. As a matter of fact, repeatedly asserting that party is acting in bad faith without providing evidence is considered a form of

WP:Personal attack

on this project. If you want to invalidate this user's arguments, you must follow the appropriate process. Not only is this not "unreasonably burdensome" as you've just suggested, it is the only way that this project can function; if all you had to do to win a content war was be "really really sure" another editor is socking or otherwise engaged in subversive behaviour, that is the approach that would be untenable.

B) Even if we ignore the above Solntsa90 feels that the blanking of this section deserves discussion, and is not (as best I know) a suspected sock.

C) I, as a previously un-involved editor, think that there are arguments on both sides of this content dispute and, though I definitely am leaning one way, I strongly feel more subsintaitve arguments need to be made before the issue can reflect a

WP:Localconsensus

as this community defines it.

Discuss or back-off the issue, those are your options. Blatant WP:edit warring is not, no matter how you feel about the other editors involved. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead, keep reverting without discussion and enjoy your inevitable block. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I will back off the issue, then, and let you deal with the massive disruption that is the inevitable result of capitulation to hard core POV pushers. Have fun! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy yourself in dictating the terms, however empty they may be, User:Snow Rise. I personally don't give a rat's ass. I will continue to ignore the obvious SPA/Sock, and revert editors who seem to stalk other editors with fringe POV edits. If you don't like it, propose some action against me. I made one revert and don't need your condescending, holier than though bullshit. So take your threats and shove em. Dave Dial (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I threaten you? Please, I'm asking again that you be civil. I'm an uninvolved editor suggesting that you simply discuss this matter rather than trying to force your preferred version of the content through ad hominems and accusations against other editors which you refuse to support with evidence. That's not me, that's standard operating policy on this project. Getting angry with me isn't helping the situation at all. Your content argument is solid enough that you and your fellow editors could already have resolved this with a quick discussion (looking at the edit summaries, it would be a 6v2 !vote), so why not do that instead of trying to edit war your way to victory? I didn't threaten to block you myself or try to get you blocked--I said that was the inevitable outcome of edit warring with editors you don't like and who are not proven to be socks, and that absolutely is the likely outcome... Am I missing something here? I know these aren't new concepts to you. I admit, I didn't expect everyone to agree resoundingly with me here, but this vitriol at my broaching the most basic of policies that we all operate under here day-in and day-out is genuinely surprising... Snow ^{let's rap} 06:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Snow Rise, no. If this is an obvious sock puppet (and it is), then yes, we can revert it on sight. You're basically clueless here. If you want to parse through the heap of junk that that edit contains, pull out whatever may actually be useful and bring it upon talk page that's fine. But then it's up to you to do that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, there's good reason why this person has a Long term abuse page dedicated solely to him.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Then, by all means, avail yourself of the many tools to deal with such people. But you do realize that nothing in how you've approached this situation up until the last post has hilighted the fact that you connect Bruce with Herschelkrustofsky? There's no mention of it in any edit summaries for the edit war, there is no discussion of it on the talk page, you didn't bring your suspicions to AN, ANI, or SPI, and you certainly haven't suggested what the cause of your suspicions are. You can't expect the rest of the community to just read your mind or divine from chicken bones why you felt entitled to edit war with this user and refuse to abide by binding pillar policies on content disputes. On its face, this looks like simple disruptive behaviour. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You went to the store and bought this mess, Snow Rise, and I certainly hope that you will clean it up now. I advise you to study up and understand the type of people you are dealing with now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Cullen, but I just don't see the "mess" that you do here, and I stand by each and every community policy I have raised here as it relates to this edit war and those who took part in it. ANI is for discussing behavioural issues and disputes. I didn't bring this matter here, another concerned editor did. I've shared my perspective on the matter, and if you, Dave and Marek see it differently, well, you're entitled. But I'm not going to apologize for suggesting that you need to discuss content issues on the talk page or that accusations of socking need to be supported by evidence if you want them to be effectual. Both points are Wikipedia 101. But, if you feel I've cited any policy or principle of community consensus erroneously in sharing my perspective on this matter, you'll have to be more specific. I regret if you take umbrage, but this isn't meant to be personal. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted once and discussed on the article talk page and my own talk page, so mentioning me in the context of an edit war is mystifying. It is crystal clear that "Not the original Jack Bruce" is the one edit warring. As for not seeing the "mess", I again urge you, with total seriousness, to study the disruptive history of LaRouche, both here on Wikipedia, and in the real world. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I honestly didn't need to look into the article history (though I did); I know enough about the article's subject and the cult of personality surrounding him that I assumed a long history of disruption as a background for the article from the start (you'll note I said that in not so many words in my first post here). I also stipulated from the start (indeed, made it a point to say as my first observation) that I very much suspected Bruce was in fact a sock on a hagiographic mission. I still do. But my suspicion and your suspicion are not binding here. Something more is called for. A checkuser, or a simple consensus discussion based on the ducktest, either would suffice, given the circumstances. But policy demands something more than an accusation, I think you know.

Also, I've tried to make clear that I think you actually did more than anyone to reasonably discuss this issue with Bruce when he requested, but you were one of seven editors who engaged in 25-part edit war, so I didn't think it was appropriate to ping some parties and not others. Besides, the point was not to cast blame, the point was to get everyone together to make sure the edit war did not continue, whether that meant proving Bruce is a sock or resolving the issue with discussion. The aim should be resolution, not recrimination. I always operate by that principle, in this space in particular. And I wish you well too. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Something more is called for. A checkuser, or a simple consensus discussion based on the ducktest...you were one of seven editors who engaged in 25-part edit war" - but that's the thing right there. You got multiple editors reverting a single disruptive account who is fairly evidently a sock puppet of a banned user with a long term history of abuse. That's pretty much this "simple consensus" you mention. So this matter should've been put to rest simply by semi-protecting the page. I don't see a reason for why you got to make drama soup out of this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's incorrect. There were multiple editors on both sides of the edit war. And anyway, it wouldn't have mattered even if there had been just Bruce on the one side, because we don't form community consensus that an editor is socking in edit summaries (for numerous obvious reasons). There's no reason there should have been any drama in raising these issues here. The policies on these matters are really very straight forward. The point was to bring discussion of what was going on to an appropriate forum to resolve the issue one way or another, so the edit war didn't continue. Presumably that is why Hijiri88 raised the issue here, and its certainly why I pinged all parties who might be interested in how the matter was resolved. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have no idea of what you're talking about. There were not "multiple editors" on both sides. On one side there was the sockpuppet account and Solntsa90 who jumped in because... because he's stalking my edits and making revenge reverts. I didn't mention this before because it's really a subject for a whole another ANI report. On the other side you got at least five long standing well established editors familiar with the article and the topics. Like I said, the article should've (and still should) been simply semi-protected. You're the one making drama here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Marek, I'm simply not get to parse this issue with you any further. There were multiple editors involved in a prolonged edit war. That's why an uninvolved editor (not me) brought the issue here. That's why discussion began to address exactly why the edit war was going on, which is exactly the kind of issue that ANI exists to address. Why you think that's inappropriate (especially in view of the fact that you insist there are at least two bad faith actors here) is quite beyond me, but can we please drop the pity party and the unhelpful accusations? You're not compelled to participate here if you don't feel like doing so. I pinged you as courtesy, however you want to take it, but you can leave at any time. No one has suggested sanction against you, so your degree of involvement is strictly what you want it to be to resolve the issue. If the sum total of your perspective is that the article should be semi-ed, I think that's part of the record now--though I'm not sure what you think that will accomplish since Bruce is an autoconfirmed user. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I for one would like to actually know why the content from the LaRouche article was removed/blanked (despite being well-sourced), and I am most definitely not a sockpuppet. Solntsa90 (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No, you're just engaged in

WP:HARASSMENT. You've been following me around and making revenge reverts: One revenge revert, another revenge edit, and another, and another, and yet another, another one and this one too and this and that's all I can find on short notice. Which makes it at least eight different articles you followed me too, at least six of which are outside your area of interest, just to revert me in revenge (for the fact you got topic banned from the RT TV article). You saw that I undid the edit by the LaRouche sockpuppet and you jumped in to escalate the situation. Being a WP:STALKer is not much better than abusing multiple accounts (in fact in some cases like here, it's worse).Volunteer Marek (talk

) 08:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And gee, Snow Rise, it seems that you bringing this up and unnecessarily causing drama has prompted Solntsa90 to resume his

WP:WIKIHOUNDING on yet another article he's never edited before [24]. And of course he's doing his best to resume the edit war on LaRouche [25]. Now I have to deal with this bullshit again. Thanks Snow Rise, really, thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk

) 08:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If Solnsta is really harassing you, and it's really obvious, then seek administrative assistance--nothing is stopping you. But none of my comments were meant to address that issue in this thread and I think it's frankly bizarre that you think the issue I am addressing here is the same one you are frustrated with, or that I'm somehow to blame for the actions of an editor I don't know any better than I know you (which is to say I didn't know or have an impression of either of you before pinging you both here with the rest of the parties involved in the dispute). The best I can do for you is tell Solnsta that if his hounding is as obvious as you say it is, he better knock it off or there's likely to be one more thread at the bottom of the page--more's the pity for all of us. But if you're looking for an apology from me for the actions of another editor who I don't know and have no control over, going back a long time before I met either of you, you're in for a wait... Snow ^{let's rap} 09:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No, all you've done here is make clear to several long time editors, and probably dozens of others watching that know the history of LaRouche and the POV socks, that you do not have sound judgement. And that you will cause trouble for good faith editors and take up the mantle for socks. So that is what you've accomplished here. I'm gone for the day soon, so this will be my last comment here on this silliness. And yes, it's quite obvious to anyone that has paid attention that Solnsta is stalking VM's edits and making revenge reverts. Dave Dial (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to allow my observations above to be judged by the community of editors here. It boggles my mind that I could comment here with such basically complete support for your suspicions and yet you'd still react with this level of unmitigated vitriol and massive

WP:Personal attacks about my general ineptitude and worthlessness as a contributor because I dared to ping you, I'm afraid I run out of patience for those at round seven. Snow ^{let's rap}

19:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ask for an apology, I just pointed out that you have no idea of what you're talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Now I have to deal with this bullshit again. Thanks Snow Rise, really, thanks." As if I'm somehow out to get you or responsible for your longstanding feud with another editor across multiple spaces. I can't believe I have to use this phrase on Wikipedia, but not everything is about you, Marek. I don't know how many other ways I can say this: There was/is an edit war involving numerous editors on both sides (and sorry, we don't have psychic abilities to let us know that some of those parties may or may not have been there to harass some other editors already involved in the more than two dozen reverts!), and it centered around the removal of about 15k of text that had been in the article for years. Notwithstanding the fact that I agree it probably should go, the way this situation was handled just is not consistent with policy or community consensus on how these things are handled. That's why an uninvolved editor (again, not me) requested attention to the issue here.

And especially once you began edit warring with a second editor on the issue (who you say is talking you, which may very well be, but then your behaviour here with regard to seeing enemies where there are none doesn't exactly cause me to take that on faith...), you definitely should have comported with

WP:EDITWAR and either brought the behavioural issues here or discussed the content issue on the talk page. Either would have been appropriate and the latter would have resolved the content issue in a mere fraction of the time you spent edit warring and expressing your indignation here, given how the consensus was likely to go. I don't know why you feel the need to shoot the messenger here. A prolonged edit war was always going to demand attention of the community of some form or another, whether it was to demand discussion on the talk page or by recognizing and blocking the SPA. Or was your plan to just keep hitting the revert button over and over again until the edit history page were nothing but reverts and counter-reverts of that one edit. As it is, we got up to more than 30 before an admin finally protected the page. That's not acceptable and its not how we do things here, as you well know, or should at least. Snow ^{let's rap}

19:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have made many edits on the various topics related to Lyndon Larouche, not because of any compelling interest in the topic, but because I have joined in the effort to keep down the Herschelkrustofsky socks. The recent restoration of text by a new Herschelkrustofsky sock is a restoration of puffery, the attempt to paint Larouche as a legitimate opinion leader rather than a fringe figure. I don't have any problem with Snow Rise asking for civility toward socks, but I will not be taking part in that request. Instead, I will continue to go with my gut feeling when I see another sock jump into the Larouche topic. Socks of banned editors may be reverted on sight. They don't merit anything more. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Not the original Jack Bruce (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely as a likely sockpuppet of User:Herschelkrustofsky. The page is currently full-protected until 2/28 - if you remind me, I will semi-protect it once the full protection expires - this will likely reduce the sockpuppetry and drive-by issues, given that this article has been a long-term target of off-wiki advocacy and so on. No comment for now on the reverts by Solntsa90 (talk · contribs), but I will look into the concern about revenge reverting as time allows. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Note: Solnsta90 has now been blocked by Drmies for hounding Volunteer Marek. Now that both parties on one side of the edit war are blocked and recognized as bad actors in regard to the dispute, I suggest a swift closure to this thread. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The idea of editing is that you add facts to articles and remove unsourced opinions. We have sources going back 4,000 years saying that the name of the eighth Jewish month is "Marcheshvan". Two editors are of the opinion that the name is actually "Cheshvan", although since "Cheshvan" is simply Marcheshvan without the first three letters it is fairly obvious that this is simply a space - saving abbreviation.

Not only do @

• Whoa, slow down there! Show some diffs, a page even! Are you talking about Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays? Also, you are required to notify users involved when you start a discussion involving them on ANI. I have done so. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Editor comes back after a two-week block for edit warring, see the WP:ANI archive and the talkpage of the blocking admin. 2. There is a talkpage discussion on both Talk:Hebrew calendar and Template talk:Jewish and Israeli holidays, with this editor active on both, and this is clearly a content issue. 3. Editor was amply warned not to edit war on his talkpage by both editors he is now complaining about,[26][27] as well as the blocking admin.[28] 4. Contrary to the claim in the section header, I am not an admin. 5. Both StevenJ81 and I are highly experienced editors of many years, and experts in Judaism. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• If you want to get technical, the name of the month is Bul, but as far as Cheshvan/Marcheshvan, it's actually Meracheshvan or something along those lines, but yes, the real name is Marcheshvan, not Cheshvan. Now let me read the links and see whose side I just took in the debate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Noone's. That all agree with. :) But I don't think that is what this post is about. :) Debresser (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In response to the original posters concerns, my tool use was not part of a content dispute but rather a response to behavioural issues. Edit warring is bad, edit warring on widely transcluded templates is extra bad. People were already warning you not to edit war, when communications are not effective to prevent poor behaviour then a block is often next. HighInBC 00:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I edited on 31 December, 23 January, 29 January and 7 February. Reverts were made on 31 December, 23 January, 29 January and 7 February. The edits were fully sourced, the reverts were not. The only reason for reverting given was "We are experts and therefore you must accept what we say". Why were the edits deemed to be edit - warring and not the reversions?

The consensus here and on the talk page for

Marcheshvan

(which uses "Marcheshvan" throughout) is that the name of the month is Marcheshvan and not "Cheshvan". On the talk pages Debresser and StevenJ81 refused to say why they consider the name of the month is "Cheshvan", said the matter was closed and threatened me if I discussed it further. StevenJ81 wrote on 15 January

So get off this and leave us alone already.

Then the threats started on my talk page. So

There is a talkpage discussion on both Talk:Hebrew calendar and Template talk:Jewish and Israeli holidays, with this editor active on both

is disingenuous. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring slowly is still edit warring. If people are reversing your edits then seek consensus on the talk page, if you cannot get that consensus then you just don't get your way. HighInBC 16:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Our issue was mostly about edit warring. This IP user has never secured consensus on a talk page for a change.

That said, this IP user is making a content point that at a certain level neither @Debresser nor I dispute, namely that Marcheshvan is the correct full/formal name of the month. However, the point that Debresser and I continually made in various talk locations is that the shorter form Cheshvan is more frequently used, especially in general use by people who are not experts. And we have certainly compromised in the past on how often articles ought to say Cheshvan and how often Marcheshvan. But since this template, particularly, is meant to be a navigation aid, not a definitive encyclopedic source in its own right, Debresser and I both strongly felt that Cheshvan is the appropriate version of the name to use here. The fact that the IP user has consistently ignored those points is what has led to this dispute.

As a non-Jewish parallel, let me use the example of the US state whose capital city is

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. But nobody in his/her right mind would assume that its page, or its entry in any US-state-related templates, should read that way, or even "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations". It's Rhode Island

, because that is its ordinary and colloquial name.

We fully understand that

WP:COMMONNAME formally applies only to page titles, not to body text. Yet as long as nobody is trying to hide Marcheshvan—and we're not—it is appropriate for COMMONNAME to guide us conceptually even with respect to body text. And here, clearly Cheshvan wins on COMMONNAME. StevenJ81 (talk

) 20:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, true, but that is a content dispute. The behavioral issue of 79.78.168.63 was addressed when he was blocked for two weeks, and I hope he got the point. This is not where to post for content issues. If 79.78.168.63 wants to pursue this further, against the opinion of two veteran editors in this specific field, that is his good right (although a nuisance), and there are other venues available. If, however, he continues to edit war about this, I propose he be indefinitely blocked the next time. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

IPs are almost never blocked indefinitely. If the disruption is continuing, long definite periods are an option. Tiderolls 21:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

To ask an obvious (albeit content rather than conduct) question, how is this addressed on the Hebrew Wikipedia? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Cheshvan, or MarCheshvan" in the text, "Cheshvan" in the navbox. ‑ 

Iridescent

22:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Which is what StevenJ81 and I said here as well. By the way, I for one was not aware of the custom on the Hebrew Wikipedia. It simply makes sense. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense at all. It's simply a circular argument. Looking at the different projects, only Hebrew, Javanese, Slovakian, Tagalog and Ukrainian have the navbox, and in each case the influence of the navbox on en:wp is obvious. For starters, although it's practically universal to start the series from Nisan in the article, in the navboxes it starts from Tishri (although Java shows two sequences, starting from both Nisan and Tishri). Why do the articles start the series from Nisan? Obvious again - Nisan = "first month" - get it? Now when the obvious was done on en:wp Debresser objected for no good reason.

In no other calendar are the names of the months dimorphous, and the Hebrews calendar is no exception to the rule. What Debresser is saying is that because hundreds of thousands of little pocket calendars carry the label SEPT over the ninth month that precludes Wikipedia from using the word "September". There are two fallacies in his argument:

• The printers of little pocket calendars make no representation that the abbreviations they employ are the actual names of the months
• WP:COMMONNAME
  does not apply to article text and navboxes.

Wikipedia is not a little pocket calendar but a great big encyclopaedia, and the use of abbreviations is inappropriate, unnecessary, misleading and unhelpful.

StevenJ81 thinks that because he and Debresser want to use an abbreviation in a situation where Wikipedia is attempting to inform readers who do not know what the actual names of the months are then the consensus not to do this can be disregarded. He then introduces a ridiculous parallel involving a State of the Union. Rhode Island is a place, is it not? So why should there be any objection to describing this little island named "Rhode" as "Rhode Island"? (I don't think it's actually an island, but I've never been there). If he wants to change Wikipedia policy he should forget about using it "to guide us conceptually" (which is a euphemism for ignoring it) and start an RfC.

Then Debresser comes on and, as Baseball Bugs would say, "shows his brownshirt colors". Two editors do not a consensus make, especially when there are more editors who take a contrary view. And when is following consensus "edit warring"?

Looking round the projects I see that much work needs to be done. These are the present inconsistencies:

Basque has Jeshvan (starting from Nisan)

Bulgarian - C'heshvan (starting from Nisan)

Byelorussian - Cheshvan, Marcheshvan (starting from Nisan)

Catalan - Heixvan, Marheixvan (starting from Tishri)

Cebuano - Heshvan (starting from Nisan or Tishri)

Croatian - Marcheshvan, Hesvan (starting from Nisan)

Czech - chesvan, marchesvan (starting from Nisan)

Danish - Marcheshvan (starting from Nisan)

Dutch - chesjwan (starting from Tishri)

Esperanto - hesvano, marhesvano (starting from Tishri)

Finnish - Hesvan (starting from Nisan)

French - hechvan (starting from Tishri)

Friulian - Heshvan (starting from Nisan)

Galician - Queshvan, marheshvan (starting from Nisan)

German - Cheschwan, Marcheschwan (starting from Tishri)

Greek - Chesban (starting from Nisan)

Hebrew - Cheshvan (starting from Tishri). Navbox: Cheshvan.

Hungarian - (mar)hesvan (starting from Nisan)

Icelandic - Hesjvan, Marhesjvan (starting from Nisan)

Indonesian - Markhesywan (starting from Nisan)

Interlingua - Heshvan (starting from Nisan)

Italian - Cheshvan (starting from Tishri)

Javanese - Navbox: Markhesywan

Ladino - Heshvan, Marheshvan (starting from Nisan)

Latin - Hesuan, Marchesuan (starting from Nisan)

Macedonian - Cheshban (starting from Nisan)

Malay - Marcheshvan, Kheshvan (starting from Nisan)

Norwegian - Hesjvan (starting from Nisan)

Polish - Cheszwan (starting from Nisan)

Portuguese - Marchesvan (starting from Nisan)

Romanian - Marchesvan (starting from Nisan)

Russian - Cheshban, Marcheshban (starting from Nisan)

Serbian - Cheshban (starting from Tishri)

Serbo-Croat - Marcheshvan (starting from Nisan)

Silesian - cheszwan (starting from Tishri)

Slovakian - Navbox: Chesvan

Spanish - Jeshvan, Marjeshvan (starting from Nisan)

Swedish - Cheschvan, marcheschvan (starting from Nisan)

Tagalog - Heshvan (starting from Nisan or Tishri). Navbox: Heshvan.

Turkish - Hesvan (starting from Tishri)

Ukrainian - Cheshban, Marcheshban (starting from Nisan). Navbox: Cheshban.

Welsh - Marcheshfan (starting from Nisan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.168.63 (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I will make just three points in response to this.

1. Cheshvan is not an abbreviation like "Sept." is for "September". It is a shortened form of a name that has become a parallel name in its own right. Accordingly, everything that 79... says about "abbreviations" is simply irrelevant to this issue.
2. Clearly, 79... has no idea what I meant with respect to Rhode Island, and I would encourage 79... to figure that out before criticizing my use as an analogy.
3. Finally, by "using [COMMONNAME] conceptually", I do not in the least mean to ignore it. Rather, I mean that one may use its concepts even to guide how to handle body text, even though COMMONNAME does not formally apply as a rule with respect to body text.

The bottom line here is not that 79...'s point of view is factually incorrect. It is that a case can be made either way factually, that the standing consensus under the circumstances is to handle it in the current way, and that consensus has not been reached to change that approach. And that is what 79... chooses to ignore. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it is essential to separate opinion from fact. Your claim

Cheshvan ... is a shortened form of a name that has become a parallel name in its own right

is not backed by reliable sources. Therefore it is your opinion. As for the Rhode Island analogy, neither the word "Rhode" nor the word "island" is a shortened form of anything else, so I fail to see that it has any relevance whatsoever.

You have been told by multiple editors on this board that the name of this month is "Marcheshvan", so this appears to be just another case of

I am at a loss to understand how, when a policy specifically excludes an area, you can cite it as justification for ignoring a consensus which has formed on an issue. This trick was in fact tried on this very issue last summer, when Debresser tried to use

Wikipedia is not about wining or losing for me. I overlooked a certain fact, and acknowledged that myself in an edit with edit summary "Self-revert. My mistake".[29] That mistake was not regarding

WP:COMMONNAME, which has been quoted on the talkpage discussion many times to show that your opinion contradicts Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk

) 00:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with points 1 and 2 by StevenJ81 and his conclusion. Since this section is rapidly evolving into a content discussion, I propose to close this thread. Debresser (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

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

I believe this user is

Oh, and this. My sides. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

SO I'm not here to build an encyclopedia. Um.. OK. I've made thousands of edits to existing articles, created a number of good articles and have added hundreds of names to List of Freemasons. Meanwhile, as for User:EricCable/ShitList 1) it's been up for nearly two years and no one else seemed to care 2) it's my user space and and 3) learn to take a joke for crying out loud. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

(

WP:POLEMIC. I'll take a closer look after lunch if another admin doesn't step in (admins need to eat too!), but declarations of war are pretty much the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

19:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The most recent edit to Lugnuts talk page is a textbook example of

WP:BATTLEGROUND. The attack page needs deletion sooner rather than later. Personal attacks are not funny. MarnetteD|Talk

19:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• They seem to be "HERE", but engaged in polemics and battleground behavior as noted above. Given history of other edits, I'd go with a warning and a few {{
  re
  }} 20:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I support Evergreen's comment. But then Eric went and called me a Nazi. Now,

WP:WIAPA is quite clear on this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead}

20:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Evergeen. Lugnut, I'm done interacting with you. Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Eric, it would go a long way if you admitted here and now that the edits you have made are unacceptable and you understand why they are unacceptable and that you won't do them again. Otherwise, a more heavy handed admin is going to drop the hammer on you. You can't behave like this. --Tarage (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

EricCable has redacted his Nazi-related comments. His behaviour has been unacceptable, and I do feel as if administrator action is required to deal with this editor. There's no need to create "hit lists", let alone hit-beginning-with-an-S lists. --

(talk)

20:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hey User:Lugnuts. I'm sorry. Have a nice day. How's that folks? Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering you still don't seem to understand WHY you should be sorry, no. The smugness will not get you anywhere. --Tarage (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you can read my mind, and I'm not sure how I'm being smug. Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not going to end in an outcome that will please you. You dug your own grave here. --Tarage (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Sorry, Eric, there was no excuse for what you said, and therefore I don't accept your apology, as I don't see it as being sincere. I believe you're quickly backtracking on this, now it's been pointed out to you. Your userpage suggests you tried standing for office in your country. Someone of that status should know better. A lot better. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Eric's "made thousands of edits to existing articles, created a number of good articles and [has] added hundreds of names" but that simply means he's productive, not
  competent. Good judgment and the ability to work constructively with others are also important, and it's becoming apparent that Eric is lacking in those departments. He wouldn't be the first (or last) highly productive editor to be blocked. General Ization ^Talk
  21:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• [30] This does not appear to be the response of someone who understands why what has happened has happened, or why their behavior is not acceptable. Endorsing block. --Tarage (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is saying "Go ahead and delete it. I don't care" a bad thing? I am agreeing with the deletion nomination. Eric Cable  |  Talk  21:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Painfully oblivious at this point. Try looking at the other half of that very short statement. --Tarage (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

But here's the thing--actually two things. Have they made useful article edits here? Yes they have--I suppose, I'm not a big fan of Taylor Swift or masons and can't really judge, but I suppose some of their edits were useful. So they can't really be NOTHERE. So, should we block for what was clearly assholish, retaliatory behavior? I don't know. EricCable, can you answer me a question: will you stop acting like this? If you say "yes", then we can talk.

Lugnuts, I'm sorry--I know you love and admire me for my swift and deadly strokes with the Wu-Tang sword, but this afternoon I'm sailing a different tack. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Drmies I appreciate your comments. I am done with this "war" or whatever you want to call it. Hopefully that is not taken as a "smug" response to your above question. I gotta go for now. I will check this thread again in a little while. Eric Cable  |  Talk  21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Since the user is now going around
  throwing their toys out of the pram ([31], [32]) I don't think it would be a far reach at all to block them. At least until such time as they acknowledge that "shit lists" are unacceptable here, as is calling editors Nazis or opining on their choice of toilet wipes. Handwaving all this atrocious behaviour away as misunderstood humour is an extreme red flag for me, it shows they're hoping a barely-sincere apology will do the trick but they don't see anything wrong with any of this, and that means we can expect that they're going to continue. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk
  ) 21:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

He appears to be voluntarily cooling down [33]. Give him just a

little more rope -- John Reaves

21:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, "toys" and "pram" is an unnecessary put-down and there is no need for that. I deleted a bunch of their subpages so I know. Their Nazi comment was "wikinazi", which is bad but it was in quotes and it's not as bad as calling someone a real Nazi. Lugnuts, I'm sure, has been called worse, as have I. It seems to me they're pondering stuff and that's a good thing. ROPE applies here--if they come back and they are still being, you know, what they were being, we can still block. But I've been angry too and I understand how it feels. I propose another, wiser admin look at this and decides on blocking and/or closing. One of the problems of ANI is action provoking reaction provoking rereaction provoking rerereaction leading to block. So...who's up for it...rolling the Admin 8-ball...‎Ricky81682, you're up. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I admit I sort of abandoned following up here after I deleted the subpage and wandered off to find sustenance. For what it's worth, I agree with your stance here. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Same here.

WP:ROPE is applicable. Too early to close though as I would like to see where Eric is going now that he is rescinding this image license. It wasn't being used except on that page but I think that's still his right. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 00:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:C#Contributors' rights and obligations. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs

) 00:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

re

}} 00:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Are we now approaching disruption with the image licensing reversions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

And now legal threat. [35] --Tarage (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)