Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917

Possible segregation of article content based on race

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

European Graduate School

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: The article was indefinitely full-protected 10 days ago. There's an RfC which was opened by Vanjagenije a week ago [1], which should resolve at least one issue the user in question (Claudioalv) has been trying to address. By the way no SPI was filed or CU requested, but the user was indef blocked by JzG after only two edits (both to the talk page). While JzG may have some observational behavioral evidence to back that up, he seems to be acting as judge, jury, and executioner on this article and the users trying to edit it. There's also an ArbCom Request on the subject going on at this time. While I think it's commendable that JzG is looking over this article, I think his entire modus operandi is a little excessive and I think that the article and situation needs more eyes and more admin eyes, not a single-handed dictatorship. The article (or user) should have been brought to ANI or to administrative attention prior to this single-handed harshness, in my opinion. As in some other cases, I think JzG needs to dial back his intensity and POV, and allow for the fact that even COI users have a right to attempt to correct items on Wikipedia, and if there is a concern it should probably be brought to ANI or another noticeboard or investigation board before it blows up on so many fronts like this. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-promoting user with three accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User: 67.81.5.244 and his edits on pages Ukrainians and Belarussians

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

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

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

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

Disruptive Editing by SchroCat and Tim riley

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

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

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

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

I changed the sentence to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ha, ha! Blackmane used a sentence fragment! Blackmane used a sentence fragment! EEng 13:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Another IP with legal threats re Tube Challenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:CIR issue?

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.

---

Would an admin please look into the editing of User:DANE YOUSSEF? This editor has received numberous warnings over the years about not adding unsourced information to articles [2],[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and was even blocked three times for doing so [13], [14], [15], and yet continues in this practice. I left him a strongly worded warning recently about his editing [16], but there was another incident, and another warning from another editor, today. [17] The editor very rarely responds to any of these warnings, simply continues on their way. I'm afraid that the editor may not be able to understand our policies (there have been other warnings about other issues, including using multiple accounts), and may require a CIR sanction. Certainly a formal warning from an admin couldn't hurt. BMK (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor notified. BMK (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Block log. Previous blocks were for 48 hours, 2 weeks, and 21 days. BMK (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

See also User:SURFUR, which appears to be an (abandoned) alt account of the same person. My immediate impression is that userpage may be a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation; it looks like a CV/talent bio (info like height, build, hair color, eye color)... I know we have a lot of leeway for talking about ourselves on our userpages, but damn. The buffet of talent-related links and social networking links is a little worrisome as well. Other factoids: Indeffed on English Wiktionary for self-promotion (since 2010) and doesn't seem to use edit summaries. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously the same guy - the user pages are pretty much identical. SURFUR has no blocks, but also has a talk page full of warnings for the same kind of stuff. BMK (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

There's also User:DANE RAMADAN YOUSSEF: abandoned account, edited from 25 January - 12 November 2011, pretty much the same kind of user page, talk page has two complains about no sources, also indef blocked on en.wiktionary. BMK (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Dane has mirrored his same CV/userpage over at meta as well. I'm wondering if this is some sort of clumsy attempt at SEO. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Any more accounts, make sure to check the global contribs. Dane has done the same spamming of his CV on French WP, Polish WP, species.wikimedia, WikiSource... pretty much every project we have. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• I find it nothing short of shocking that he's gotten away with this for so long. 2500+ edits and not a single one on an article talk page. Blocking him and his related accounts right now. Swarm ♠ 01:54, 18 March 2016 (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.

Handing the crosswiki spam

While I know it kind of falls outside the purview of this board, I'm at a bit of a loss for how to address the breadth of this editor's crosswiki self-promotion. He has spammed copies of his userpage on everything from Simple English Wikipedia to Wikiquote to the MediaWiki Wiki to Spanish Wiktionary... etc etc etc. Would someone knowledgeable in how to handle these sorts of crosswiki issues take a look at this, perhaps taking discussion over to Meta? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You can ask for a steward to issue a global block at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_block Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Just did that. I wasn't sure about the different policies and procedures they had over at meta (blocks, locks, and bans, oh my!) but after looking over the document pages and recent archives, I decided to try a global block request. Let's see how that goes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment?

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• edit-warring at both London Students for Britain ([18], [19], [20], [21] and [22] fail WP:3RR, for example) and Luke Nash-Jones;
• lying about conflict of interests in both articles: see User talk:Jonadabsmith#Conflict of interest; and
• confirmed sock/meatpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonadabsmith, with puppets blocked, but awaiting action on the master account.

Jonadabsmith hasn't edited since Friday night, although there's been weird stuff on both articles since: [23], [24]. The two AfDs are still open, but given that only Jonadabsmith + puppets have voted to keep and numerous editors have voted for delete, I think they are both WP:SNOWable at this point!

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

Proposal: Topic Ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Site ban as 1st choice and Tban as 2nd per Guy. Being zealous about what you believe in is one thing, but hinting at showing up at someone's work place is beyond chilling and into the realm of real world harassment. Blackmane (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support siteban or indef block on grounds that we would indef for legal threats, and IRL ones are even more serious. 09:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)09:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.65.134 (talk)
• Site ban as first choice. I agree with Guy here.--Adam in MO Talk 12:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Site ban This goes beyond just not editing on a specific topic. In my opinion a line was crossed with the comment related to "having a cup of coffee" with Bondegezou. That to me smelled of an attempt to harass the user in person. This is not the type of editor that I personally would want to have on Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Site ban first choice, with a very broadly construed topic ban as a poor alternative which would have to include a one-way interaction ban to stop them finding other ways to needle an editor they oppose. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Site ban as first choice with topic ban as second choice. Using Wikipedia to further an agenda or sock puppetry is a violation of fundamental policies. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Site ban as first choice, topic ban second choice. Precisely the sort of behavior which destroys a collegial, cooperative and good-faith editing environment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• I have noted another couple of sock or meat puppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonadabsmith. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support a site ban or topic ban (second choice), this individual's behavior has been intimidating and disruptive. GAB^Hello! 16:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Site ban for being menacing and duplicitous Both intimidation and sock puppetry are grounds for a site ban, this seems like a no brainer. HighInBC 03:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Site-Ban - A topic ban is not an adequate response either to harassment or to sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Further issues

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

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

Universities for Britain speedily deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2016 (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:176.239.91.133 engaging in harassment

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 user is removing my sources and vandalizing my talk page.

This is what he wrote to my talk page:

"Hoping to work collaboratively" with a terrorism advocate? Be sure he won't blow himself up when you're trying to talk to him, GGT. --176.239.91.133 (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

He reversed my changes and removed my sources here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdistan_Freedom_Falcons&action=history

He did the same thing in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Musa_Anter&action=history

Ferakp (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I've given the editor a short block for personal attacks but I encourage you to discuss your editing disputes with other editors on article talk pages and user talk pages and not just post warning templates. A collaborative, not confrontational, approach can resolve a lot of conflict. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 18 March 2016 (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.

Wikipedia:Sandbox

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.

---

Hello,

A rolling IP vandal has been putting different pictures of penises on the WP:Sandbox. Requesting a rangeblock, as every time an IP is blocked, another comes right on back. When looking at diffs, caution is advised.

--TJH2018 talk 23:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

There's too much collateral damage for a range block, I think. I'll have another look but for the time being, I've semi-protected the sandbox for one hour. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

True, true. Thanks again. --TJH2018 talk 23:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, he moved on to my sandbox! I've blocked two ranges for three hours. Other people were using those ranges up to about two or three hours ago so this is only a short block. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 - I'm assuming it's the same IP but they've gone to the Sandbox talkpage so that may need protecting aswell. Smalljims blocked the IPs so far, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 23:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind didn't even realize you beaten me to it!, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. I was watching contributions from the range. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the rangeblocks. I played whack-a-vandal with him for a while. For those who can use it, 684 will help stop the jpgs he's been using, should he return.  —SMALLJIM  00:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Tnanks, Smalljim, the edit filter will be helpful. RevisionDelete is in place also. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2016 (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.

• Smalljim, I don't think whack-a-vandal is really the best choice of words when dealing with the penis poster. EEng 00:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A bizarre e-mail

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 just received a strange e-mail from Freedomlover61 (talk · contribs). It reads:

I noticed recently you had some trouble with edit warring.

I can help you. Join our group.

We will write messages in your support and do reverts in your support.

Whatever you want us to do, we will help you do it. So long as you help each other in our group.

If you are interested please add me on this skype id: [redacted]

Or just reply back to this email.

No more getting blocked on wikipedia or having edits reverted by idiots.

Given that Freedomlover has made no edits as I am writing this, I suspect the account is a sockpuppet, though I have no idea who the sockmaster might be. Is there anything we should be doing here? Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik - Indeed, that is very strange. If I remember correctly, I believe that CheckUsers can view logs of correspondences sent by an account (just "Email was sent from X to Y") - it could be a sock, but my first thought is a possible spam user. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed curious. I recommend you not replying to the message. Right now, they can only email you through Wikipedia but if you reply, they will have your email address and they could continue to reach out to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Liz - do not respond to the user's correspondence to you. Else, the user will receive your email address in your reply. Has this user sent you this email repeatedly, or just once? My real curiosity is if he/she is sending emails to many users (again, CheckUser can confirm). Otherwise, it really doesn't assert that the account is a sockpuppet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

They've only e-mailed me the one time, though it certainly sounds like I'm not the only one to receive this message. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Freedomlover60 Freedomlover60 I got an e-mail from Freedomlover60 today. I will not repeat what was said in the e-mail. You won't believe what they said. I might have to take some time off of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru If the email contains any threats, outing, or otherwise anything that makes you uncomfortable, please make sure to report it using proper procedures. If you need help with that, please do not hesitate to ask. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

They've been blocked now; could someone add an "email disabled" flag to that block? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: These accounts are  Confirmed: Harrisonhancock, Davidbrennan11, Freedomlover62, Freedomlover61, and Freedomlover60. I've blocked and disabled email access. Mike V • Talk 02:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• SchroCat, don't tell anyone--I think the secret is out... Drmies (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

o.0 ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 18 March 2016 (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 vandalising article

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:177.207.241.167 After numerous warnings on talk page and in edits, along with reverts, this IP continues to vandalise article Jelly Jamm. Entirely replacing sections with impossibly nonsensical grammar and claims. Derick1259 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I have notified the IP, as required for all ANI posts concerning other editors. GAB^Hello! 00:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• GAB, what's your advice? Drmies (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for one week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2016 (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.

Kotaku - Massive vandalism spree (around 10 vandal edits PER MINUTE)

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.

---

On Kotaku: Massive Vandalism Spree. Mikarga (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: Page is now semi-protected. With that said though, the following accounts should probably be blocked for good measure:

Wewfamilia (talk · contribs)
Pepethememe223 (talk · contribs)
YourBro AndFriend (talk · contribs)
IFYOUHURTMYFRIENDS (talk · contribs)
WannabeTomatoModest (talk · contribs)

All blocked. A checkuser may be useful. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'm seeing a similar number of edits appearing on Lifehacker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). How interesting. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The two pages are related, see Lifehacker#Redesign, where Kotaku is mentioned. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

They are Gawker Media sites. This is happening as a result of Bollea v. Gawker. Reach Out to the Truth 00:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wake up kids, it's all over the place, just ask Smalljim. Someone needs to clean up Deadspin, Bollea v. Gawker, and probably more. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Deadspin and Bollea v. Gawker look good. Io9 also semi-protected.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Cg0t (talk · contribs) is also part of it, and now blocked. MLauba ^(Talk) 01:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

More accounts:

• DARKNARUTOXxX69 (talk · contribs) is also part of it, and now blocked. Mikarga (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• PepeMayMay (talk · contribs)
• WLAE Crew (talk · contribs)

Question: Should there (or, is there) a current SPI here? I'd be very helpful to get an admin with checkuser on this case... Mikarga (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is an SPI open. If you could, Mikarga, that would be very helpful.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5:  Done SPI Link Mikarga (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mikarga.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2016 (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.

Plans

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 have various plans too improve Wikipedia, to whom should I direct theses plans? 82.8.133.241 (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Try the village pump. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2016 (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.

I was blocked and the two administrators failed to communicate

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 currently use Hola so that I can watch Big Brother Canada from the United States. I sometimes forget to turn it off after the show has ended, and I resume my work here on Wikipedia. About a week ago, while trying to continue my review for a good article nominee, I was prompted to a message that told me that I am blocked from editing on Wikipedia because of a IP proxy. The message also informed me of the two administrators who enforced the block which were Bsadowski1 (talk · contribs) and LFaraone (talk · contribs) and informed me to contact them which I contacted Bsadowski1 on March 8. I was able to return to editing on March 10, while my question to Bsadowski1 remain unanswered. On March 14, I was blocked from editing once again for the same issue and I again contacted Bsadowski1 about the problem. Again he did not answer, so I decided to try and request an unblock ticket form, and after filling out the necessary information, I was unable to continue as according to my account I was not blocked from editing. So I went back to Wikipedia and tried editing and again I received the same message informing me that I am blocked.

I took my frustrations to Meta Wikimedia on March 15 and asked the community for help. Many users gave me tips on trying to request an unblock to be overturned but none seemed to help. Again, I tried contacting Bsadowski1 that same day angered that this adminstrator continues to ignore my cry for help. I checked his contributions and his last edit was on March 7. Today, I saw that Hola was still on and thought that it might be the cause of this block, so I turned it off and vuala I can edit now. I am writing here because Bsadowski1 failed to communicate with me and did not help me understand what was going on. I believe an administrator who does not communicate and inform the user they blocked (whether or not it was intentional or an accident of unfortunate events) should not be an authority over someone's ability to continue editing here. He and his sidekick were the admins who originally began the IP proxy block and should have been able to answer my question (yea I didn't contact the other dude but I didn't see his username until today) and help me understand that I was using an extension on my web browser that was causing the issue. Best, jona^(talk) 01:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@AJona1992: You were never blocked; the IPs themselves were blocked. Hola works by routing you through a proxy IP, and those proxy IPs are often blocked due to abuse. Simply turn off Hola when you encounter this problem in the future and you'll be good to go. ~ Rob^Talk 01:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: You're missing the point here. The two administrators should be questioned about their lack of communication since they were the ones who initiated the block. How are you going to be an admin and when you block someone you're gone? I am not letting these guys off the hook here. I did nothing wrong, yes I was ignorant of the fact that my extension was causing this but at the time I did not know and these guys were nowhere to be found. These admins are abusing their tools by not informing an ignorant user of his web extension, if you're going to block IPs who use Hola that's completely fine—but you need to be active when innocent users are caught in this and have no where to go. jona^(talk) 02:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@AJona1992: The first admin you contacted hasn't been active on-site, so they were hardly ignoring you. The second one you never contacted. I'm not really sure what you expected them to do. They don't receive an alert every time a new user accesses an IP that they blocked months ago. Administrators can't even see what IP you're using to access the site. ~ Rob^Talk 02:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: (stalking) Just a side note here, I think administrators with checkuser privileges can see what IP's a user uses to access the site. Mikarga (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

They can, as can non-administrator checkusers. It doesn't have to do with the admin user right, though. ~ Rob^Talk 03:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

AJona1992, I have gone ahead and left a message on Lfarone and Bsadowski's talk pages for you (you are supposed to notify users if you are discussing them here, via talk page, not pings). And yes, Bsadowsi1 has not edited since you left your message (Lfarone even longer, and I don't see a message on his talk page from you), which is why there is no response. Administrators are not expected to be available 7 days per week, and they often take extended absences (to experience life outside of Wikipedia). They do not have to announce this or justify this. As we are all volunteers. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:36, 19 March 2016 (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.

Blaine.W.B

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.

---

Can I get a second opinion on this block? Blaine.W.B (talk · contribs). This editor is definitely WP:NOTHERE to contribute to the encyclopedia and it may be a good idea to extend the block to indefinite. Thanks! Mikarga (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Your wish is granted. Peacemaker67 upgraded it to indefinite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2016 (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:Вольберт

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 user does not seem to be here to contribute to encyclopedia and apparently does not speak English. I would block them indef, but since I already reverted them several times, I am not in a position to block them anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The user continues [25], and this is pretty much the only thing they are doing on Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Indef NOTHERE block. Katie^talk 14:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Katie.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2016 (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.

Jytdog Enough is Enough!

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.

---

Unfounded personal attacks like this [[26]] need to stop. This user is acting like rules do not apply to them. While I admire their passion accusing everyone of being a sock, having a COI etc is unacceptable. Considering the numerous number of incidents involving them it is time the community took a good hard look at them.24.114.72.60 (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You are required to notify the editor you are reporting. I have done that for you.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm blind, but I'm failing to see the personal attacks. Amaury (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2016 (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 vandal editing?

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.

---

Could someone research User:168.8.175.2. There is a trail of questionable edits associated with this IP. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. They are vandal edits. They have been blocked before. The last edit was from 10 March so there isn't much to do here. Please report active vandals at WP:AIV. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I took the liberty to file the report on AIV, referring here. Eik Corell (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2016 (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.

Ms Sarah Welch edit-warring

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.

---

Hello moderators. Ms Sarah Welch has been constantly edit-warring with me and reverting my edits despite them being clearly sourced and doing whatever she wants. She also keeps bossing me around because I'm new. This started when I reverted her changes to the text about Guru Arjan's martyrdom. She continued to revert me here. We talked at the Talk:Guru Arjan and I proved her claims wrong there, yet she insists she was right. After proving her wrong I added the original text back again but she added it back again. I even warned her that I'll complain about her if she continued to edit-war. However she refuses to listen. Fed up with the edit-warring I reverted her and warned her the last time.

This pattern was also repeated at Islam and Sikhism where I warned her several times not to break the rules. She first completely removed my sourced edits here after User:Sisu55 was blocked saying taht they were edits of blocked editors, even though they were mine. She removed my edits again falsely claiming they were personal opinions when in actual they were sourced content. I proved that my edits were sourced at Talk:Islam and Sikhism, which proves her claims of reading the sources to check my edits are false. I reverted her again but she reverted me again. I reverted her again. She reverted me again. I reverted her again. Then I got fed up of the constant edit-warring, decided enough is enough and complained here.

I request you to intervene, warn her and if you think its needed, ban her as well. After seeing all of this you mods will judge that I've broken the rules as well alongside Ms Sarah Welch. I don't blame you, it is my fault as well that I kept fighting with her. I feel ashamed for behaving in a similar way to her and overstepping the boundaries. If you will like to punish me as well, then please do so as I deserve it just like the other user. I hope Sarah Welch gets properly punished as well. Thank you. SiddharthSunny (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I submit the following as part of the due process. The affected articles are:

• Guru Arjan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Islam and Sikhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disruption by @SiddharthSunny Despite repeated request to refrain, @SiddharthSunny has been disruptive and has deleted sourced content that present both sides for WP:NPOV. Examples,

Source states: "(...). Later, some religious teachers began to insist that women should also veil their faces (...)"

Article read: with some Islamic scholars stating that the Islamic Hadiths require covering the face too.[39][40]

Repeatedly deleted by @SiddharthSunny here and here

Source states (page 22 of The Oxford Dictionary of Islam): "Hadith reports introduce the teaching that the renunciation of Islam is punishable by beheading, burning, crucifixion or banishment. Some traditions allow an apostate to repent. Islamic legal codes agree on the death penalty (traditionally by the sword) for an adult male in full possession of his faculties who has renounced Islam voluntarily. (...) Based on the Quranic prohibition of coercion in matters of religion (2:257), many modern thinkers argue for capital punishment against apostasy..."

Article read: "According to the Hadiths, states John Esposito, leaving Islam is punishable by "beheading, burning, crucifixion or banishment", and Sharia (Islamic legal code) traditionally has required death by the sword for an adult sane male who voluntarily leaves Islam.[8] However, adds Esposito, modern thinkers have argued against execution as penalty for apostasy from Islam by invoking Quranic verse 2:257.[8]"

Repeatedly deleted by @SiddharthSunny here and here

Unsourced additions by @SiddharthSunny

Original article's lead: Islam does not allow apostasy.[8]

Insertions by @SiddharthSunny in the lead: As per Hadith, Islam does not allow apostasy however the Quran allows freedom of religion.[8]

The insertion is unsourced, because the source does not conclude "Quran allows freedom of religion". See page 22 of The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. The source states (see above for link), "Based on the Quranic prohibition of coercion in matters of religion (2:257), many modern thinkers argue for capital punishment against apostasy". Modern thinkers arguing against capital punishment is not equivalent to the conclusion of "no punishment" or "allowing freedom of religion". Deriving new conclusions, that the source does not make, is WP:OR.

Repeatedly added by @SiddharthSunny here and here

Selective application of wikipedia rules/editing guidelines/etiquette

@SiddharthSunny asked @Apuldram to get consensus here. But by action @SiddharthSunny has chosen not to apply the same rule to self, after that note to @Apuldram. See edits 1 and 2 in Guru Arjan article, and 3 and 4 in Sikhism and Islam article.

FWIW, another uninvolved editor @Omni Flames has already reverted the last set of edits of @SiddharthSunny, here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@SiddharthSunny is now editwarring with @Omni Flames, with 4th revert: 1 2 3 4. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• OP blocked 36 hours for edit warring. No action taken against Ms Sarah Welch. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2016 (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:Weist.michael is disruptive over at AfC

User:Weist.michael is trying to write an autobiography on himself, which in and of itself is not the reason that i am reporting him. The reason is that the user has repeatedly removed reviewer comments as well as review declined submission decisions from the draft. [[27]], [[28]], [[29]] in order to remove criticism and to ask the other parent. Not only that, but this isn't the only version of this submission to be submitted, it was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Weist where in the discussion the user apparently created a sock puppet User:Homie123456790 for the sole purpose of arguing against the AfD (presumably because arguing against the deletion of your own article is a conflict of interest). Flagrant misuse of reviewers time. Please block indefinitely.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake, I didn't think it would effect things. I was imply trying to clean up my account, I thought all that stuff looked ugly. As previously discussed, I am not the subject. This is not an autobiography. I am a big fan, hence my username, but I am not the subject. I don't know what the "sock puppet" is but i've been trying to get this article made for months so I can show Michael at this event he is going to. I did change my name once by trying to create a different account because I kept running into issues similar to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weist.michael (talk • contribs) 00:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If it was previously discussed that you are not Michael Weist, excuse me, I was not privy to that discussion. However, if it was "an honest mistake" than how do you explain [This diff] when you wrote "(changes made to citations and some content after last rejection)" in the edit summary to disguise the fact that you were deleting another editor's review comments. (note that no changes were actually made to citations between the comment and this deletion). I want to assume good faith here, but your actions have made it pretty hard. When i wrote that you shouldn't resubmit without a substantial rewrite, instead of doing such a rewrite, you deleted my comments, added a couple of links to Facebook and youtube, didn't rewrite anything, and then resubmitted it for review again.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate someone sticking up for me. I have felt nothing but harassed by User:Insertcleverphrasehere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weist.michael (talk • contribs) 00:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

An accusation of harassment is pretty serious, but I'll let my actions stand for themselves. The only interaction I've had with the user is on the AfC draft page as well as on my talk page.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Weist.michael: - If Michael Weist is notable enough to have a draft article, and you are not Michael Weist, then you need to change your username, as it is a violation of our WP:Username policy#Real names to have a user name that implies that you are someone who you are not. Please ask for a change of name at WP:CHU. Failure to do so may result in an admin blocking you from editing. BMK (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a few inexperienced editors, and this is an inexperienced editor, who think, based on not having read the policies, that the user name of the creator of an article should be the same as the title of the article. Therefore this is probably a good-faith error, but the policy is clear. Ask for a change of name. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

AGF, this editor is inexperienced, and needs to change their username, as per the link provided by BMK. However, the repeated blanking of comments is more problematic. If it had happened a single time, than I would agree that it could have been an honest mistake. Two or more times and it appears to be a pattern of deceit. This editor hasn't worked on anything else other than this draft. I don't know if a block is warranted, or would even accomplish anything. However, the draft has been declined by at least 5 different editors, and this editor hasn't seemed willing to listen to advice and guidance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I made changes to the content of the draft as well. I will request a name change. I didn't know I couldn't erase comments, I thought it was part of the page and I was simply trying to clean it up But I also added some content. I have no idea how to do nearly anything on here, so I haven't edited other's work simply because I don't want to make an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weist.michael (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor won't stop adding unlinked entry to dab page

Böri (talk · contribs) is determined to add "Abdashtart (Strato I, 365 - 352 BC), king of Sidon" to the dab page at Straton. S/He has been reverted many times, and I have explained on his/her talk page why dab pages don't include entries which don't have a blue link to an existing article. S/He isn't listening. PamD 09:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected for now, the user can start an RfC if he thinks it's genuinely valid, or write the article, or whatever. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like that got Böri to talk. See Talk:Straton. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why should Abdashtart I (which miraculously appeared just now) be linked on Straton? Drmies (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Never mind. Guy, hope you don't mind: I undid the protection: the problem is over, I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem at all, the problem is fixed so no need for protection. All good. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, Drmies for creating the missing article: Böri seemed determinedly unwilling, or unable, to do so him/herself. So now the link s/he was so keen to add prematurely is perfectly legitimate and all is well. I hope they're grateful to you! PamD 16:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

User:ApprenticeFan (me) about edits in The Amazing Race

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

Articles have been reported:

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

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

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

Davey2010: These both articles were reverted by Sportsfan 1234, the problems are less awkward grammar, cohesion and tone. That would make sure to prove better sentences. ApprenticeFan ^work 04:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently, I added Sportsfan 1234 in the list above, and look at those edits that I made with shortened sentences:

Before

Leg 1 (United States → Brazil) The Detour in Rio de Janeiro had teams take part in beach-related tasks on the famous Copacabana Beach. Airdate: September 25, 2015 Los Angeles, California, United States (Venice Beach) (Starting Line) Marina del Rey (Mother's Beach to Burton Chace Park) Los Angeles (Los Angeles International Airport) to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Rio de Janeiro–Galeão International Airport) Rio de Janeiro (Lagoa Heliport, Christ the Redeemer and Urca Hill) Rio de Janeiro (Clube São Conrado Free Flight) (in Portuguese) Rio de Janeiro (Copacabana Beach) Rio de Janeiro (Arpoador Lookout) At the start of The Amazing Race 27, in public view in Venice Beach, California, Phil Keoghan told the eleven teams where they would travel first: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Their first task was to take a taxi to Mother's Beach in Marina del Rey and grab a Schiller water-bike. Then, they would drive it to Burton Chace Park. The first team to complete this task would receive the only tickets on the first flight while all the other teams would be on the second flight, departing half an hour later. Upon arriving in Rio de Janeiro, teams had to travel to Lagoa Heliport to get either a Route Info or a Fast Forward clue. For the Fast Forward, teams made their way to Clube São Conrado Free Flight where they had to ride a hang glider from Pedra Bonita and soar above the city. The teams who did not go for the Fast Forward had to pick a number and take a helicopter past Christ the Redeemer on the way to Urca Hill. Once landed, the helicopter manager would ask the teams, "What's the name of the monument you passed during the flight?" If teams gave the right answer, which was Christ the Redeemer, they would receive their next clue. The clue was a Detour, and the teams choose between Sand or Sidewalk. Both Detours had teams travel to Copacabana Beach where they changed into swimsuits. In Sand, teams had to play footvolley against local professional players. While the pros could not use their hands, the teams could. If teams can score six points before the pros scored eighteen, they will receive their next clue. In Sidewalk, teams had to do a giant geometric slide puzzle derived from the famous Copacabana pavement (a Portuguese pavement). Once teams completed the puzzle, they would receive their next clue. Both clues then directed teams to Arpoador Lookout for the Pit Stop. Leg 2 (Brazil → Argentina) Upon arriving in Buenos Aires, teams visited the room where the famous Argentine, Pope Francis, was baptized inside Basílica María Auxiliadora y San Carlos. Airdate: October 2, 2015 Rio de Janeiro (Rio de Janeiro–Galeão International Airport) to Buenos Aires, Argentina (Ministro Pistarini International Airport) Buenos Aires (Basílica María Auxiliadora y San Carlos (in Spanish)) Buenos Aires (Intersection of Uriarte, Fray Justo Santa Maria and El Salvador Streets or Plaza Dorrego – Gabriel del Campo Antique Shop and Plaza Intendente Seeber – Gazebo) Buenos Aires (Calle Bartolomé Mitre – AEREA 1º Escuela Mundial de Danza Aerea (in Spanish)) Buenos Aires (Campo Argentino de Polo) At the start of the leg, teams were told to fly to Buenos Aires, the capital city of Argentina. Upon arrival in Buenos Aires, teams had to locate the church where Pope Francis was baptized, leaving them to figure out that this refers to Basílica María Auxiliadora y San Carlos. Once at the church, teams had to pick a number in the order in which they arrived. The following morning, teams went inside the church, one at a time, to find the altar room, where the priest would give them their next clue. The clue was for the Detour, giving teams the choice of Cartoneros or Fletero. In Cartoneros, teams traveled to the Villa Crespo neighborhood at the intersection of Uriarte, Fray Justo Santa Maria and El Salvador Streets, where they had to pick up a cart, collect cardboard from recyclable bins, and transport it to a truck to be weighed. Once the cardboard reached a total weight of at least 100 kilograms (220 lb), the garbage worker would give them their next clue. However, there were only 8 carts available at a time. In Fletero, teams traveled to Plaza Dorrego and made their way to a Gabriel del Campo Antique Shop to pick up a statue, in pieces, and bring it to a truck. One team member would sit in the front and give the driver directions, while the other would hold the statue pieces in the back until reaching their next destination, the gazebo at Plaza Intendente Sebeer. Once they arrive at the park, they must bring all of the statue pieces, re-assemble them properly, and show the park director. If it's correct, they would get their next clue. The clues instructed teams to travel to Calle Bartolomé Mitre to search for their next clue, the Roadblock, asking "Who wants to go sideways?" One team member had to learn a tango routine with a twist, for the second half of the dance they were harnessed and had to finish the steps on the wall of a stage. Once they performed the entire routine correctly, they would receive their next clue, directing them to "The Cathedral of Polo", referring to Campo Argentino de Polo, for the Pit Stop. Leg 3 (Argentina) For the Roadblock in the Pampas region, team members had to properly hang a set of lamb and beef to make asado, an Argentine national dish. Airdate: October 9, 2015 Retiro (Retiro bus station) to San Antonio de Areco (Areco Bus Station) San Antonio de Areco (La Porteña) San Antonio de Areco (Plaza Principal) San Antonio de Areco (Boliche de Bessonart and Riverside or La Cinacina Estancia) San Antonio de Areco (Parque Criollo y Museo Gauchesco Ricardo Güiraldes) Teams headed to San Antonio de Areco in the Pampas region and choose a pickup truck to proceed to their next destination, La Porteña. The Roadblock clue that one team member had to hang two racks of lamb and one rack of beef ribs to cook an asado. Once all meats were secured and skewered in the right direction, they received their next clue. Teams had to bring a roasted lamb and deliver to Plaza Principal to the judges for their Detour clue. In Horse, teams had to pick a polo mallet and change into polo gear. Then, they walk to a nearby riverside for a fake horse involved to navigate using a tack, then they had to push properly back to a Plaza. In Carriage, teams had to pick a buggy whip, travel by foot to La Cinacina Estancia, changed into Gaucho clothing, clean a carriage and then push it to a team of waiting horses. Once the horses were harnessed on a buggy, they rode back to the Plaza. At the end of both Detours, teams presented either the fake horse or whip to the judges and receive their next clue, instructing them to travel by foot to the Pit Stop at Parque Criollo y Museo Gauchesco Ricardo Güiraldes. Leg 4 (Argentina → Zambia → Zimbabwe) While in Zambia, teams visited Victoria Falls, the largest waterfall in the world, which is also one of the seven natural wonders of the world. Airdate: October 16, 2015 San Antonio de Areco (Plaza Principal) San Antonio de Areco (Areco Bus Station) to Retiro, Buenos Aires (Retiro bus station) Buenos Aires (Ministro Pistarini International Airport) to Livingstone, Zambia (Harry Mwanga Nkumbula International Airport) Livingstone District (Mukuni Village) Livingstone (Batoka Aerodrome) Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park (Victoria Falls – Knife's Edge) Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe (Shoestrings Backpackers Lodge) (Overnight rest) Victoria Falls (The Big Five Co-Op or Victoria Falls Hotel) Victoria Falls (Rose of Charity Orphanage) Teams traveled to Livingstone, Zambia, with an advise to task their flight tickets to Johannesburg and given two separate flights to Zambia. Upon arrival, they traveled to Mukini Village to take part in a traditional welcome ceremony involving them to spit water from a blessing to be received their clue, heading to Batoka Aerodrome for a Roadblock. The team member had to choose a microlight plane fly above Victoria Falls to locate the Route Marker right below Knife's Edge bridge. Once landed, they reunited with their partner and traveled to that bridge to walk across for their next clue, sending them to Shoestrings Backpackers Lodge to Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe to claim one of three departure times for the next day. On departure, teams received their Detour clue. In Co-Op, teams made their way to The Big Five Co-Op and had to stain and polish a carved wooden giraffe. When it was properly painted and dried, a woodcarver would give them their next clue. In Croquet, teams made their way to Victoria Falls Hotel and had to play croquet, scoring five points against professional players to receive their next clue, directed them to Rose of Charity Orphanage for the Pit Stop. Before checking in, teams were asked to donate their money to the orphanage, and were informed that the next leg was to begin immediately. Leg 5 (Zimbabwe) This leg of the race featured the first challenge of Season 1 where they had to swing across Batoka Gorge. Airdate: October 23, 2015 Victoria Falls (The Lookout Café) Victoria Falls National Park (Batoka Gorge) Victoria Falls (Elephants Walk Shopping and Artist Village – Crocodile Cage Diving or A Zambezi River Lodge) Victoria Falls (Masuwe Safari Lodge – The Lion Encounter) Victoria Falls (Masuwe Safari Lodge – Masuwe Private Game Reserve) Teams traveled to the Lookout Cafe for the Roadblock. The team member participated in the very first task from Season 1, which they had to strap on a harness and free fall 200 feet (61 m) into the Batoka Gorge and swing above the Zambezi River. Once they returned to the top, they would get their Detour clue. In Crocs, where teams changed into wetsuits and submerged in a metal cage to feed meat to three Nile crocodiles using poles. Once the meat was fed, they received their next clue. In Canoes, teams had to get an inflatable canoe and paddle together across the river. Once they arrived at the riverbank, the member had to hoist their partner up a tree to retrieve the clue from a vulture's nest, and had to paddle back across the river. Teams traveled to The Lion Encounter where they walk through the bush accompanied by safari instructors and two lions to find their next clue in a skull, with two teams were permitted at a time, directed them to walk to Masuwe Private Game Reserve to receive a large cloth and wore around their heads. Each they had to get a basket of fruit at Masuwe Lodge to carry on their heads and continue walking carefully to the Pit Stop. Leg 6 (Zimbabwe → France) The world's famous Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which is also the second Pit Stop in the first season, served as the Pit Stop for this leg of the Race. Airdate: October 30, 2015 Victoria Falls National Park (Victoria Falls Bridge) Livingstone, Zambia (Harry Mwanga Nkumbula International Airport) to Paris, France (Charles de Gaulle Airport) Roissy-en-France (Aéroport Charles de Gaulle 2 TGV) to La Ferté-Alais (Gare de La Ferté-Alais (in French)) Cerny (Aérodrome Musée Volant Salis (in French)) La Ferté-Alais (Gare de La Ferté-Alais) to Paris Paris (Sacré-Cœur Basilica – Square Louise-Michel (in French)) Paris (Quai de la Tournelle or La Coupole (in French)) Paris (Pont Alexandre III) Paris (Place Charles de Gaulle overlooking Arc de Triomphe) Teams started the leg to receive the Roadblock clue, one team member had to strap on a harness and bungee jump 364 feet (111 m) below Victoria Falls Bridge. Once returned to the top, they had to write their heart rate from a Fitbit fitness watch where they advise to track this information to be used for the upcoming challenge. They received their clue and headed to Paris, France. Upon arrival, they traveled by train to La Ferté-Alais to find Aérodrome Musée Volant Salis for the second Roadblock, the other team member must fly in a vintage Boeing PT-17 biplane over the French countryside to spot three words from the French Revolution motto seen from the ground: liberté, égalité, fraternité. Once recite them, a pilot would give them their next clue, sending them to travel Square Louise-Michel around Sacré-Cœur Basilica for Le Fantôme Blanc who would hand the Detour clue. One selection is Drops Mic, teams had to head to Quai de la Tournelle and perform a rap song by rapper Passi in Standard French. If their French pronunciation, rhythm and vibes were correct, Passi would give them their next clue. The other is Bust a Crab, teams had to travel to La Coupole Restaurant to work the Royal Platter, a signature crab dish to shuck and crack crabs properly with the chef's standards. At the end of both Detours, teams received a post card depicting a bridge, which was given to their next location, Pont Alexandre III to find their next clue, sending them to the Pit Stop "across from the iconic monument where the first team will triumph", referring to Place Charles de Gaulle, overlooking Arc de Triomphe, Phil informed them to start the next leg began immediately. Leg 7 (France → The Netherlands) The windmills around Kinderdijk are the site of this leg's Roadblock, where they had to search for a duplicate of the famous Van Gogh's Sunflowers painting. Airdate: November 6, 2015 Paris (Gare du Nord) to Rotterdam, The Netherlands (Rotterdam Centraal railway station) Rotterdam (Leuvehaven (in Dutch) – Vessel 11) (Overnight rest) Rotterdam (Kop van Zuid) to Molenwaard (Kinderdijk Windmill) Schiedam (Nolet Distillery) Rotterdam (Millennium Tower or Leuvehoofd (in Dutch) overlooking Erasmus Bridge) Rotterdam (Rotterdam Centraal railway station) to The Hague (Den Haag Centraal railway station) The Hague (Peace Palace) Teams traveled to Rotterdam, Netherlands, in addition, they received a picture of a ship to figure out their next location was Vessel 11 to pick departure times within 15-minutes intervals for the next day. On departure, teams traveled to Kop van Zuid and had to embark the windmills in Kinderdijk for the Roadblock. One team member to find an exact duplicate of Vincent van Gogh's Sunflowers around nearby windmills. Once they found the correct duplicate, a miller would give them their next clue, instructed to use a Fitbit health card to record their highest heart rate from the previous leg and this heart rate from this task to subtract the difference. The solution would equal the number of tulips to pick up and deliver to the Spakenburgermeisje for their next clue. Teams headed to Nolet Distillery to face the Detour which they rode by tram into a specific location. In Ship, teams made their way to Millennium Tower using a training simulator to navigate a simulation of Rotterdam Harbour in stormy weather to take on a two-part mission. First, they deliver a pilot to a ship, next they went to the aid of a ship in distress. If successfully completed the mission, the captain would give their next clue. However, if they failed the mission and must try again. In Skip, teams traveled to Leuvehoofd Park and to complete a Double Dutch clapping routine on a jump rope for 45 seconds to receive their next clue, instructed them to The Hague and ride a tram to the Pit Stop at the Peace Palace. Leg 8 (The Netherlands → Poland) In Kraków, teams visited the infamous Oskar Schindler Factory to commemorate the lives of Jews killed in World War II. Airdate: November 13, 2015 The Hague (Den Haag Centraal railway station) to Amsterdam (Schiphol railway station) Amsterdam (Amsterdam Airport Schiphol) to Kraków, Poland (John Paul II International Airport Kraków–Balice) Kraków (Plaża Kraków) Kraków (Main Square) or Wieliczka (Wieliczka Salt Mine) Kraków (Oskar Schindler Factory) Kraków (Kazimierz) Kraków (Klezmer-Hois) Teams traveled to Kraków, Poland where they provide a smartphone to use the Travelocity app to book tickets. They traveled to Plaża Kraków, a hotel boat on Vistula River and the team member swam down for a clue into the pool. One Detour selection is Mine and teams head to Wieliczka Salt Mine to descend 1,000 feet (300 m) into the salt mine. Then, they had to carry a large timber support beam into a loading area, filling a mine cart with salt and pushed it back through the tunnel to a miner. The other Detour choice is Music and teams headed to the Main Square to choose a professional pianist, learn a musical piece and roll the piano through the streets to a performance area. Then, they had to perform a duet with a violinist in order to attract donations that enough to earn 100 zł (approximately US$25), they would receive their next clue. Teams arrived at Oskar Schindler Factory to the lives of Jewish people were saved during Kraków Ghetto. They gave a tour to commemorate the lives of Polish Jews, passed through Schindler's office to look 1,200 names inside the memorial room. Once they ended the tour, they received their clue to Kazimierz for a Roadblock. One team member had to identify seven traditional Jewish dishes from a writing list in the correct order, and then deliver them on a tray to a nearby restaurant, Klezmer-Hois. Once all of these dishes were correct, the restaurant owner would give them their next clue, directing them to the Pit Stop inside the restaurant. Leg 9 (Poland → India) Mehtab Bagh in Agra, overlooking the famous Taj Mahal, which is also one of the seven wonders of the world, served as the Pit Stop for this leg of the Race. Airdate: November 20, 2015 Kraków (John Paul II International Airport Kraków–Balice) to Delhi, India (Indira Gandhi International Airport) New Delhi (New Delhi railway station) to Agra (Agra Cantonment railway station) Agra District (Yamuna River – Hathi Ghat) Agra (Johri Bazar – Hanuman Temple) Mathura District (Chhata Bazar) Agra (Bijli Ghar Chauraha Roundabout) Agra (Mehtab Bagh) Teams headed to Agra, India, first they needed to travel by plane to Delhi. In Agra, they traveled to Hathi Ghat on a beach, the Roadblock where one team member had to transport a bundle of saris down to the banks of Yamuna River to shown how to tie for a traditional Indian washing to all of which saris are tied correctly, they had to wash them in a basin, transport across to beach to lay out for a dry. The Speed Bump required both team members must perform this task. Next, they went to Hanuman Temple in Johri Bazaar to receive a traditional Indian blessing for a Detour. In Cans, teams had to load and secure 120 metal cooking oil cans onto a flatbed bicycle through the crowded streets to deliver them to New Taj Oil Company. Once they were unloaded, they received their next clue. In Candy, teams had to cut small pieces from winter melons to make petha. Once the pieces weighed in at 1 maund (90 lb), and deliver the already packed petha to Pancchi Petha Candy Store to receive their next clue. Teams instructed to travel to Bijli Ghar Chauraha Roundabout for their next clue, directed the teams to travel to "Moonlight Garden", known locally as Mehtab Bagh, across the river from the famous Taj Mahal, and search the grounds for the Pit Stop. Leg 10 (India) This leg of the race paid tribute to the tradition of Indian Hindu wedding rituals, including Baraat. Airdate: November 27, 2015 Agra (Kachora Bazaar) Agra (Shri Raj Complex – Goyal Book Store) Shamsabad, Agra (Shri Ram Complex) Shamsabad, Agra (Shri Ramchandra Farm House) The leg teams heading to Kachora Bazaar for a Roadblock. One team member had to use a pump to inflate enough balloons to fill a net attached at the back of a bicycle. Once the net was full, they rode across Yamuna bridge to deliver the balloons to a wedding planner on the other side for the next clue, instructing teams to head to Goyal Book Store. From there, they faced with the Detour. In Bring the Groom, teams had to hand-crank a portable generator until it produced enough power to light up a cumbersome candelabrum. Then they had to join a Baraat procession through the streets, the team member carrying the candelabrum while the other carried the generator, to escort a groom to his wedding party at Shri Ram Complex. Once the groom was delivered to his bride, they received their next clue. In Bring the Fun, teams had to push a mobile amusement swing through the crowded streets to deliver it to the outside playground at the same wedding party, then give eight children a ride in it to receive their next clue, instructed them to a Pit Stop inside the Shri Ramchandra Farm House. Leg 11 (India → Hong Kong, China → Macau, China) The Roadblock for this leg need teams to go to the Dancing Water Theatre inside City of Dreams in Macau where they took part in a performance of The House of Dancing Water. Airdate: December 4, 2015 Delhi (Indira Gandhi International Airport) to Chek Lap Kok, Hong Kong , China (Hong Kong International Airport) Tsim Sha Tsui (The Peninsula Hong Kong) Tsim Sha Tsui (Sam's Tailor and Sam's Workshop) or Sham Shui Po (Apliu Street and Kweilin Street) Sheung Wan (Hong Kong–Macau Ferry Terminal) to Macau Peninsula, Macau (Outer Harbour Ferry Terminal) Cotai (City of Dreams – Dancing Water Theatre) Macau Peninsula (Centro Náutico da Praia Grande overlooking Nam Van Lake) Teams headed to Hong Kong. Upon arrival, they search a waiting Rolls-Royce at the airport to escort them to The Peninsula Hong Kong to their Detour. In Sam's, teams traveled to Sam's Tailor to pick up measurements for a suit jacket to a nearby Sam's Workshop, to properly cut out six template pieces of a matching design. They then had to deliver a finished suit to receive their next clue. In Cells, teams had to find to a marked store on Apliu Street, search boxes of used cell phones which one is turned on and dial a phone number displayed on the phone, the message would instruct them to an address on Kweilin Street to find their next clue. Teams traveled to Macau by ferry, and make their way to the Dancing Water Theatre inside City of Dreams for a Roadblock. One team member must apply a makeup and change a costume, had to take part in a performance of The House of Dancing Water. After diving over 30 feet (9.1 m) from the central mast-shaped platform into the surrounding pool, search a golden fish under the water and swim across to a fisherman on a raft. If they didn't complete before stopped the music and wait twenty minutes for the next performance to start over. That team member received their clue instructed to Centro Náutico da Praia Grande at the side of the Nam Van Lake and search for the Pit Stop. Leg 12 (Macau, China → United States) The final Roadblock of The Amazing Race 27 paid tribute to the NYC Fire Department by having teams take part in a firefighter training exercise. Airdate: December 11, 2015 Central, Hong Kong (Conrad Hotel Hong Kong) Chek Lap Kok (Hong Kong International Airport) to New York City, New York, United States (John F. Kennedy International Airport) Manhattan (Randall's Island – NYC Fire Department Training Facility) Elmont, Long Island (Belmont Park) Southampton, The Hamptons (Southampton Heliport) Southampton (Shinnecock East County Park) Southampton (1620 Meadow Lane) Teams headed to New York City, the final destination city and made their way to NYC Fire Department Training Facility at Randall's Island for the final Roadblock. One team member had to don a firefighter's uniform to take part for a stunt training exercise. After climbing a ladder to an open window of a burning building, search inside for a dummy representing a victim. Once they exited the building with the dummy, they had to place it onto a waiting stretcher. The second part of the Roadblock was a memory task, they had to arrange firefighters' hats labeled with the capital cities of the countries visited during the Race in chronological order: Country Capital Brazil Brasília Argentina Buenos Aires Zambia Lusaka Zimbabwe Harare France Paris The Netherlands Amsterdam Poland Warsaw India New Delhi China Beijing Once all the hats were placed in the correct order, a firefighter would give them their next clue. Teams traveled to Belmont Park in Long Island and take a helicopter ride to Southampton. From there, they searched for their next clue to travel on foot nearly a mile to Shinnecock East County Park where had to ride a jet ski to a lobster boat, pull seven lobster traps from the water, empty them, and replace them with new traps. Once completed, they received a box containing the flags from the countries visited and tie them on a mast in order. Once they got the right order, a fisherman would give them their next clue, instructing them to swim to shore, and had to drive dune buggies down the beach for the third memory challenge. They had to assemble six Adirondack chairs things encountered during the Race must arrange them in chronological order. If the chairs were in the correct order (the water bike, the Argentine tango, an African lion, a Dutch windmill, India's Taj Mahal, and Hong Kong's Rolls Royce), the carpenter would get their final clue, directing them to travel on foot to the estate at 1620 Meadow Lane for the Finish Line.

After

Leg 1 (United States → Brazil) The Detour in Rio de Janeiro had teams take part in beach-related tasks on the famous Copacabana Beach. Airdate: September 25, 2015 Los Angeles, California, United States (Venice Beach) (Starting Line) Marina del Rey (Mother's Beach to Burton Chace Park) Los Angeles (Los Angeles International Airport) to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Rio de Janeiro–Galeão International Airport) Rio de Janeiro (Lagoa Heliport, Christ the Redeemer and Urca Hill) Rio de Janeiro (Clube São Conrado Free Flight) (in Portuguese) Rio de Janeiro (Copacabana Beach) Rio de Janeiro (Arpoador Lookout) The race started in Venice Beach, Phil Keoghan told the teams to travel to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. First, take them to Mother's Beach to ride Schiller water-bike and end in Burton Chace Park, the first team to finish would get the first flight and the rest on the second. In Rio, teams had to travel to Lagoa Heliport and picked a number to ride a helicopter past around Christ the Redeemer to Urca Hill. Once landed, a helicopter pilot asked, "What's the name of the monument you passed during the flight?". If they say "Christ the Redeemer", they received their next clue. The Fast Forward where teams had to travel to Clube São Conrado Free Flight and had to ride a hang glider from Pedra Bonita high above the city. Teams faced the Detour and had to travel to Copacabana Beach, either option is to require to wear swimwear. In Sand, teams played footvolley against local professional players that could not user their hands, only teams could. The team gave a score of six points against the pros scored eighteen, they will receive their next clue. In Sidewalk, teams take part for a huge geometric slide puzzle from a famous Copacabana pavement (a Portuguese pavement). Once completed the puzzle, they would receive their next clue. Both clues then directed teams to Arpoador Lookout for the Pit Stop. Leg 2 (Brazil → Argentina) Upon arriving in Buenos Aires, teams visited the room where the famous Argentine, Pope Francis, was baptized inside Basílica María Auxiliadora y San Carlos. Airdate: October 2, 2015 Rio de Janeiro (Rio de Janeiro–Galeão International Airport) to Buenos Aires, Argentina (Ministro Pistarini International Airport) Buenos Aires (Basílica María Auxiliadora y San Carlos (in Spanish)) Buenos Aires (Intersection of Uriarte, Fray Justo Santa Maria and El Salvador Streets or Plaza Dorrego – Gabriel del Campo Antique Shop and Plaza Intendente Seeber – Gazebo) Buenos Aires (Calle Bartolomé Mitre – AEREA 1º Escuela Mundial de Danza Aerea (in Spanish)) Buenos Aires (Campo Argentino de Polo) Teams traveled to Buenos Aires, Argentina to the church where Pope Francis was baptized, leaving them to figure out was Basílica María Auxiliadora y San Carlos to pick one of three departure times the following morning. On their designated times, they find the altar room inside the church to look a priest to give them their Detour clue. In Cartoneros, teams teams traveled to the streets of Buenos Aires, had to pick up a cart, cardboard from recyclable bins, and transport to a truck to be weighed at least 100 kilograms (220 lb), the garbage worker received their next clue. However, there were only 8 carts available at a time. In Fletero, teams pick up a pieces of statue, and bring it to a truck. One team member sit in the front of the truck to give directions, the other hold the pieces to the Gazebo and must bring all of the statue pieces to re-assemble properly to the park director. If its correct, they would receive their next clue. From the Detour, teams instructed to head to Calle Bartolomé Mitre for a Roadblock. One team member had to learn a tango upside down, the second part had to harnessed and finish the steps from a stage. Once they performed the entire routine correctly, they would receive their next clue to the Pit Stop known as "The Cathedral of Polo", referring to Campo Argentino de Polo. Leg 3 (Argentina) For the Roadblock in the Pampas region, team members had to properly hang a set of lamb and beef to make asado, an Argentine national dish. Airdate: October 9, 2015 Retiro (Retiro bus station) to San Antonio de Areco (Areco Bus Station) San Antonio de Areco (La Porteña) San Antonio de Areco (Plaza Principal) San Antonio de Areco (Boliche de Bessonart and Riverside or La Cinacina Estancia) San Antonio de Areco (Parque Criollo y Museo Gauchesco Ricardo Güiraldes) Teams headed to San Antonio de Areco in the Pampas region and choose a pickup truck to proceed to their next destination, La Porteña. The Roadblock clue that one team member had to hang two racks of lamb and one rack of beef ribs to cook an asado. Once all meats were secured and skewered in the right direction, they received their next clue. Teams had to bring a roasted lamb and deliver to Plaza Principal to the judges for their Detour clue. In Horse, teams had to pick a polo mallet and change into polo gear. Then, they walk to a nearby riverside for a fake horse involved to navigate using a tack, then they had to push properly back to a Plaza. In Carriage, teams had to pick a buggy whip, travel by foot to La Cinacina Estancia, changed into Gaucho clothing, clean a carriage and then push it to a team of waiting horses. Once the horses were harnessed on a buggy, they rode back to the Plaza. At the end of both Detours, teams presented either the fake horse or whip to the judges and receive their next clue, instructing them to travel by foot to the Pit Stop at Parque Criollo y Museo Gauchesco Ricardo Güiraldes. Leg 4 (Argentina → Zambia → Zimbabwe) While in Zambia, teams visited Victoria Falls, the largest waterfall in the world, which is also one of the seven natural wonders of the world. Airdate: October 16, 2015 San Antonio de Areco (Plaza Principal) San Antonio de Areco (Areco Bus Station) to Retiro, Buenos Aires (Retiro bus station) Buenos Aires (Ministro Pistarini International Airport) to Livingstone, Zambia (Harry Mwanga Nkumbula International Airport) Livingstone District (Mukuni Village) Livingstone (Batoka Aerodrome) Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park (Victoria Falls – Knife's Edge) Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe (Shoestrings Backpackers Lodge) (Overnight rest) Victoria Falls (The Big Five Co-Op or Victoria Falls Hotel) Victoria Falls (Rose of Charity Orphanage) Teams traveled to Livingstone, Zambia, with an advise to task their flight tickets to Johannesburg and given two separate flights to Zambia. Upon arrival, they traveled to Mukini Village to take part in a traditional welcome ceremony involving them to spit water from a blessing to be received their clue, heading to Batoka Aerodrome for a Roadblock. The team member had to choose a microlight plane fly above Victoria Falls to locate the Route Marker right below Knife's Edge bridge. Once landed, they reunited with their partner and traveled to that bridge to walk across for their next clue, sending them to Shoestrings Backpackers Lodge to Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe to claim one of three departure times for the next day. On departure, teams received their Detour clue. In Co-Op, teams made their way to The Big Five Co-Op and had to stain and polish a carved wooden giraffe. When it was properly painted and dried, a woodcarver would give them their next clue. In Croquet, teams made their way to Victoria Falls Hotel and had to play croquet, scoring five points against professional players to receive their next clue, directed them to Rose of Charity Orphanage for the Pit Stop. Before checking in, teams were asked to donate their money to the orphanage, and were informed that the next leg was to begin immediately. Leg 5 (Zimbabwe) This leg of the race featured the first challenge of Season 1 where they had to swing across Batoka Gorge. Airdate: October 23, 2015 Victoria Falls (The Lookout Café) Victoria Falls National Park (Batoka Gorge) Victoria Falls (Elephants Walk Shopping and Artist Village – Crocodile Cage Diving or A Zambezi River Lodge) Victoria Falls (Masuwe Safari Lodge – The Lion Encounter) Victoria Falls (Masuwe Safari Lodge – Masuwe Private Game Reserve) Teams traveled to the Lookout Cafe for the Roadblock. The team member participated in the very first task from Season 1, which they had to strap on a harness and free fall 200 feet (61 m) into the Batoka Gorge and swing above the Zambezi River. Once they returned to the top, they would get their Detour clue. In Crocs, where teams changed into wetsuits and submerged in a metal cage to feed meat to three Nile crocodiles using poles. Once the meat was fed, they received their next clue. In Canoes, teams had to get an inflatable canoe and paddle together across the river. Once they arrived at the riverbank, the member had to hoist their partner up a tree to retrieve the clue from a vulture's nest, and had to paddle back across the river. Teams traveled to The Lion Encounter where they walk through the bush accompanied by safari instructors and two lions to find their next clue in a skull, with two teams were permitted at a time, directed them to walk to Masuwe Private Game Reserve to receive a large cloth and wore around their heads. Each they had to get a basket of fruit at Masuwe Lodge to carry on their heads and continue walking carefully to the Pit Stop. Leg 6 (Zimbabwe → France) The world's famous Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which is also the second Pit Stop in the first season, served as the Pit Stop for this leg of the Race. Airdate: October 30, 2015 Victoria Falls National Park (Victoria Falls Bridge) Livingstone, Zambia (Harry Mwanga Nkumbula International Airport) to Paris, France (Charles de Gaulle Airport) Roissy-en-France (Aéroport Charles de Gaulle 2 TGV) to La Ferté-Alais (Gare de La Ferté-Alais (in French)) Cerny (Aérodrome Musée Volant Salis (in French)) La Ferté-Alais (Gare de La Ferté-Alais) to Paris Paris (Sacré-Cœur Basilica – Square Louise-Michel (in French)) Paris (Quai de la Tournelle or La Coupole (in French)) Paris (Pont Alexandre III) Paris (Place Charles de Gaulle overlooking Arc de Triomphe) Teams started the leg to receive the Roadblock clue, one team member had to strap on a harness and bungee jump 364 feet (111 m) below Victoria Falls Bridge. Once returned to the top, they had to write their heart rate from a Fitbit fitness watch where they advise to track this information to be used for the upcoming challenge. They received their clue and headed to Paris, France. Upon arrival, they traveled by train to La Ferté-Alais to find Aérodrome Musée Volant Salis for the second Roadblock, the other team member must fly in a vintage Boeing PT-17 biplane over the French countryside to spot three words from the French Revolution motto seen from the ground: liberté, égalité, fraternité. Once recite them, a pilot would give them their next clue, sending them to travel Square Louise-Michel around Sacré-Cœur Basilica for Le Fantôme Blanc who would hand the Detour clue. One selection is Drops Mic, teams had to head to Quai de la Tournelle and perform a rap song by rapper Passi in Standard French. If their French pronunciation, rhythm and vibes were correct, Passi would give them their next clue. The other is Bust a Crab, teams had to travel to La Coupole Restaurant to work the Royal Platter, a signature crab dish to shuck and crack crabs properly with the chef's standards. At the end of both Detours, teams received a post card depicting a bridge, which was given to their next location, Pont Alexandre III to find their next clue, sending them to the Pit Stop "across from the iconic monument where the first team will triumph", referring to Place Charles de Gaulle, overlooking Arc de Triomphe, Phil informed them to start the next leg began immediately. Leg 7 (France → The Netherlands) The windmills around Kinderdijk are the site of this leg's Roadblock, where they had to search for a duplicate of the famous Van Gogh's Sunflowers painting. Airdate: November 6, 2015 Paris (Gare du Nord) to Rotterdam, The Netherlands (Rotterdam Centraal railway station) Rotterdam (Leuvehaven (in Dutch) – Vessel 11) (Overnight rest) Rotterdam (Kop van Zuid) to Molenwaard (Kinderdijk Windmill) Schiedam (Nolet Distillery) Rotterdam (Millennium Tower or Leuvehoofd (in Dutch) overlooking Erasmus Bridge) Rotterdam (Rotterdam Centraal railway station) to The Hague (Den Haag Centraal railway station) The Hague (Peace Palace) Teams traveled to Rotterdam, Netherlands, in addition, they received a picture of a ship to figure out their next location was Vessel 11 to pick departure times within 15-minutes intervals for the next day. On departure, teams traveled to Kop van Zuid and had to embark the windmills in Kinderdijk for the Roadblock. One team member to find an exact duplicate of Vincent van Gogh's Sunflowers around nearby windmills. Once they found the correct duplicate, a miller would give them their next clue, instructed to use a Fitbit health card to record their highest heart rate from the previous leg and this heart rate from this task to subtract the difference. The solution would equal the number of tulips to pick up and deliver to the Spakenburgermeisje for their next clue. Teams headed to Nolet Distillery to face the Detour which they rode by tram into a specific location. In Ship, teams made their way to Millennium Tower using a training simulator to navigate a simulation of Rotterdam Harbour in stormy weather to take on a two-part mission. First, they deliver a pilot to a ship, next they went to the aid of a ship in distress. If successfully completed the mission, the captain would give their next clue. However, if they failed the mission and must try again. In Skip, teams traveled to Leuvehoofd Park and to complete a Double Dutch clapping routine on a jump rope for 45 seconds to receive their next clue, instructed them to The Hague and ride a tram to the Pit Stop at the Peace Palace. Leg 8 (The Netherlands → Poland) In Kraków, teams visited the infamous Oskar Schindler Factory to commemorate the lives of Jews killed in World War II. Airdate: November 13, 2015 The Hague (Den Haag Centraal railway station) to Amsterdam (Schiphol railway station) Amsterdam (Amsterdam Airport Schiphol) to Kraków, Poland (John Paul II International Airport Kraków–Balice) Kraków (Plaża Kraków) Kraków (Main Square) or Wieliczka (Wieliczka Salt Mine) Kraków (Oskar Schindler Factory) Kraków (Kazimierz) Kraków (Klezmer-Hois) Teams traveled to Kraków, Poland where they provide a smartphone to use the Travelocity app to book tickets. They traveled to Plaża Kraków, a hotel boat on Vistula River and the team member swam down for a clue into the pool. One Detour selection is Mine and teams head to Wieliczka Salt Mine to descend 1,000 feet (300 m) into the salt mine. Then, they had to carry a large timber support beam into a loading area, filling a mine cart with salt and pushed it back through the tunnel to a miner. The other Detour choice is Music and teams headed to the Main Square to choose a professional pianist, learn a musical piece and roll the piano through the streets to a performance area. Then, they had to perform a duet with a violinist in order to attract donations that enough to earn 100 zł (approximately US$25), they would receive their next clue. Teams arrived at Oskar Schindler Factory to the lives of Jewish people were saved during Kraków Ghetto. They gave a tour to commemorate the lives of Polish Jews, passed through Schindler's office to look 1,200 names inside the memorial room. Once they ended the tour, they received their clue to Kazimierz for a Roadblock. One team member had to identify seven traditional Jewish dishes from a writing list in the correct order, and then deliver them on a tray to a nearby restaurant, Klezmer-Hois. Once all of these dishes were correct, the restaurant owner would give them their next clue, directing them to the Pit Stop inside the restaurant. Leg 9 (Poland → India) Mehtab Bagh in Agra, overlooking the famous Taj Mahal, which is also one of the seven wonders of the world, served as the Pit Stop for this leg of the Race. Airdate: November 20, 2015 Kraków (John Paul II International Airport Kraków–Balice) to Delhi, India (Indira Gandhi International Airport) New Delhi (New Delhi railway station) to Agra (Agra Cantonment railway station) Agra District (Yamuna River – Hathi Ghat) Agra (Johri Bazar – Hanuman Temple) Mathura District (Chhata Bazar) Agra (Bijli Ghar Chauraha Roundabout) Agra (Mehtab Bagh) Teams headed to Agra, India, first they needed to travel by plane to Delhi. In Agra, they traveled to Hathi Ghat on a beach, the Roadblock where one team member had to transport a bundle of saris down to the banks of Yamuna River to shown how to tie for a traditional Indian washing to all of which saris are tied correctly, they had to wash them in a basin, transport across to beach to lay out for a dry. The Speed Bump required both team members must perform this task. Next, they went to Hanuman Temple in Johri Bazaar to receive a traditional Indian blessing for a Detour. In Cans, teams had to load and secure 120 metal cooking oil cans onto a flatbed bicycle through the crowded streets to deliver them to New Taj Oil Company. Once they were unloaded, they received their next clue. In Candy, teams had to cut small pieces from winter melons to make petha. Once the pieces weighed in at 1 maund (90 lb), and deliver the already packed petha to Pancchi Petha Candy Store to receive their next clue. Teams instructed to travel to Bijli Ghar Chauraha Roundabout for their next clue, directed the teams to travel to "Moonlight Garden", known locally as Mehtab Bagh, across the river from the famous Taj Mahal, and search the grounds for the Pit Stop. Leg 10 (India) This leg of the race paid tribute to the tradition of Indian Hindu wedding rituals, including Baraat. Airdate: November 27, 2015 Agra (Kachora Bazaar) Agra (Shri Raj Complex – Goyal Book Store) Shamsabad, Agra (Shri Ram Complex) Shamsabad, Agra (Shri Ramchandra Farm House) The leg teams heading to Kachora Bazaar for a Roadblock. One team member had to use a pump to inflate enough balloons to fill a net attached at the back of a bicycle. Once the net was full, they rode across Yamuna bridge to deliver the balloons to a wedding planner on the other side for the next clue, instructing teams to head to Goyal Book Store. From there, they faced with the Detour. In Bring the Groom, teams had to hand-crank a portable generator until it produced enough power to light up a cumbersome candelabrum. Then they had to join a Baraat procession through the streets, the team member carrying the candelabrum while the other carried the generator, to escort a groom to his wedding party at Shri Ram Complex. Once the groom was delivered to his bride, they received their next clue. In Bring the Fun, teams had to push a mobile amusement swing through the crowded streets to deliver it to the outside playground at the same wedding party, then give eight children a ride in it to receive their next clue, instructed them to a Pit Stop inside the Shri Ramchandra Farm House. Leg 11 (India → Hong Kong, China → Macau, China) The Roadblock for this leg need teams to go to the Dancing Water Theatre inside City of Dreams in Macau where they took part in a performance of The House of Dancing Water. Airdate: December 4, 2015 Delhi (Indira Gandhi International Airport) to Chek Lap Kok, Hong Kong , China (Hong Kong International Airport) Tsim Sha Tsui (The Peninsula Hong Kong) Tsim Sha Tsui (Sam's Tailor and Sam's Workshop) or Sham Shui Po (Apliu Street and Kweilin Street) Sheung Wan (Hong Kong–Macau Ferry Terminal) to Macau Peninsula, Macau (Outer Harbour Ferry Terminal) Cotai (City of Dreams – Dancing Water Theatre) Macau Peninsula (Centro Náutico da Praia Grande overlooking Nam Van Lake) Teams headed to Hong Kong. Upon arrival, they search a waiting Rolls-Royce at the airport to escort them to The Peninsula Hong Kong to their Detour. In Sam's, teams traveled to Sam's Tailor to pick up measurements for a suit jacket to a nearby Sam's Workshop, to properly cut out six template pieces of a matching design. They then had to deliver a finished suit to receive their next clue. In Cells, teams had to find to a marked store on Apliu Street, search boxes of used cell phones which one is turned on and dial a phone number displayed on the phone, the message would instruct them to an address on Kweilin Street to find their next clue. Teams traveled to Macau by ferry, and make their way to the Dancing Water Theatre inside City of Dreams for a Roadblock. One team member must apply a makeup and change a costume, had to take part in a performance of The House of Dancing Water. After diving over 30 feet (9.1 m) from the central mast-shaped platform into the surrounding pool, search a golden fish under the water and swim across to a fisherman on a raft. If they didn't complete before stopped the music and wait twenty minutes for the next performance to start over. That team member received their clue instructed to Centro Náutico da Praia Grande at the side of the Nam Van Lake and search for the Pit Stop. Leg 12 (Macau, China → United States) The final Roadblock of The Amazing Race 27 paid tribute to the NYC Fire Department by having teams take part in a firefighter training exercise. Airdate: December 11, 2015 Central, Hong Kong (Conrad Hotel Hong Kong) Chek Lap Kok (Hong Kong International Airport) to New York City, New York, United States (John F. Kennedy International Airport) Manhattan (Randall's Island – NYC Fire Department Training Facility) Elmont, Long Island (Belmont Park) Southampton, The Hamptons (Southampton Heliport) Southampton (Shinnecock East County Park) Southampton (1620 Meadow Lane) Teams headed to New York City, the final destination city and made their way to NYC Fire Department Training Facility at Randall's Island for the final Roadblock. One team member had to don a firefighter's uniform to take part for a stunt training exercise. After climbing a ladder to an open window of a burning building, search inside for a dummy representing a victim. Once they exited the building with the dummy, they had to place it onto a waiting stretcher. The second part of the Roadblock was a memory task, they had to arrange firefighters' hats labeled with the capital cities of the countries visited during the Race in chronological order: Country Capital Brazil Brasília Argentina Buenos Aires Zambia Lusaka Zimbabwe Harare France Paris The Netherlands Amsterdam Poland Warsaw India New Delhi China Beijing Once all the hats were placed in the correct order, a firefighter would give them their next clue. Teams traveled to Belmont Park in Long Island and take a helicopter ride to Southampton. From there, they searched for their next clue to travel on foot nearly a mile to Shinnecock East County Park where had to ride a jet ski to a lobster boat, pull seven lobster traps from the water, empty them, and replace them with new traps. Once completed, they received a box containing the flags from the countries visited and tie them on a mast in order. Once they got the right order, a fisherman would give them their next clue, instructing them to swim to shore, and had to drive dune buggies down the beach for the third memory challenge. They had to assemble six Adirondack chairs things encountered during the Race must arrange them in chronological order. If the chairs were in the correct order (the water bike, the Argentine tango, an African lion, a Dutch windmill, India's Taj Mahal, and Hong Kong's Rolls Royce), the carpenter would get their final clue, directing them to travel on foot to the estate at 1620 Meadow Lane for the Finish Line.

References

ESAD-Hooker fucked up my edits which wasn't look mess. That thing is we should use the after summary above which meets the standards of WP:NOT#PLOT. ApprenticeFan ^work 08:55, 17 March 2016 (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.

How long does it take for a course to get approved?

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.

---

Hi everyone

I set up a course some weeks ago, but it still hasn't been approved, and I don't know who can help me with that. Does anybody know whom I can contact?

Thanks, Erika Payne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuezes (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 March 2016 (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.

Persistent Disruptive editing on Tao (Entertainer Page) YCPlaer possible WP:COMPETENCE problem

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.

---

YCplar was warned by 2 Administrators during the last 2 days about making disruptive edits and using videos and fan material as sources and using the page as a fan material repository. Ycplaer was also warned about making larges changes to the page without consensus due to a 3RR violation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ycplaer

But YC Plaer disregarded those warning and did the same thing

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710982522&oldid=710939200

Disruptive Editing : YC was warned : Links to videos are not references; Wikipedia is not a repository for fan material.

After this warnings Ycplaer edited the page again and removed most the the article links provided and replacing them with various fancams, youtube videos from unauthorized sources, one example deleting is the links for the articles about Tao's injuries and adding a bunch of fancams,fan pictures instead.

This is only example among many others YCplaer reverted a lot of the videos links Drmies removed and deleted a lot of links to articles provided on the page and replaced them with fancams,video sources etc...against the admin's advice.

Also YC plaer added incorrect information

Most obvious example YCplaer replaced Martial artist by Martial arts tricking performer, and replacing the Martial Artist occupation by Martial Arts tricking, Tao is a well known Wushu martial artist and martial arts actor. I understand why you may refer to it as martial arts tricking and there is a case to be made that during his days as an Exo member he leaned towards this more , However this is not how Tao promotes himself or has been promoted.

There is no lack of references about Tao as a martial artist YC player also deleted the link to Wushu on the page and an article source from strait times where Tao mentions learning Wushu and wanting to promote the sport like Jackie Chan. He also talked about learning Wushu in the people in the People in the news interview and being a student athlete, so I can't think of any good reason why YC player would delete the mention that Tao learned Wushu or that he was a student athlete and replace martial artist by Martial arts tricking

All those changes were made without any justification in the edit summary or talk page, my previous attempt with communicating with YC plaer have failed and the administrator's warnings were disregarded.

So I think YCplaer should be blocked because the contribution are disruptive and hinders the improvement of the page

Thanks TaoWoAini (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2016 (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.

"Bad hand" account

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:Dekkappai Lives is a "bad hand" account of User:Dekkappai, used only to make derogatory comments about editors he disagrees with. This weird little rant vaguely associating a German editor with Nazi abuses [30], with an edit summary emphasizing the other editor's nationality, is a sure signal of bad faith. Underlying account has history of personal attacks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dekkappai has not edited in years. User:Dekkappai Lives has made 2 edits this year, neither offensive. I am having trouble seeing what a block would prevent, or what other admin action would be called for. HighInBC 22:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dekkappai hasn't edited since 2011. The supposed personal attack you point at occurred about a year ago. I'm not sure what you expect us to do about it in this case. SQL^{Query me!} 22:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

So bad hand accounts are OK as long as they edit infrequently? You may find Dekkappai's commentary "inoffensive", but you're not one of its target. I am. When Dekkappai says that his articles "were targeted for deletion by openly biased editors who create and contribute to totally unsourced articles on obscure, far less notable U.S. subjects such as unreviewed paperback short story anthologies", he's referring specifically to me, and he's being dishonest. As is his comment about "bigoted, puritanical, and culturally myopic editors". There's no "I love porn" exception to the rules against personal attacks, although it's been clear for quite a long time that some folks are loath to enforce them in that context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The user in question has not made any edits outside of the userspace of the accused main in about 363 days. In fact they have only ever once edited outside of that user's space. The user whom might be his/her main hasn't edited, or made any other sort of action in about 1609 days. I don't see what a block would accomplish at this point. SQL^{Query me!} 23:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, SQL is correct. If they haven't been here for a while, there's little point in blocking them. If they were active and making these kinds of comments, blocking would be appropriate. It's kinda like sentencing a dead man to death. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: your arguments do not follow the conversation. Nobody said it was "OK as long as they edit infrequently". Nobody said they found the commentary "inoffensive". If you feel the need to mis-characterise those talking to you to make your point then perhaps you should reconsider your point.

Blocks on Wikipedia are preventative not punitive. Blocking somebody who is not active accomplishes nothing. If this person actually starts posing a current problem then let us know. HighInBC 04:21, 21 March 2016 (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.

Another IP-hopper

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:86.187.163.66. Related to this entry. Eik Corell (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

On it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Another one: ‎User:86.187.174.250 Eik Corell (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:86.187.168.239. Related to this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eik Corell (talk • contribs) 14:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved above comment from earlier section down to this one for visibility. Pinging Malcolmxl5 as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, EvergreenFir, that was handled by Future Perfect at Sunrise, and I've just dealt with another, User:86.187.174.250, as well.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2016 (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.

Fake accident report

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.

---

Fake accident report:[31] I have been in no accident of any kind and me and my Subaru are just fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Good thing, too, considering this post:[32] (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has never been vaccinated, I have yet to die of Diphtheria... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon - Thanks for letting us know. I wonder what interactions that the person has had with you here before... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hard to tell from just an IP with one post. The only recent conflict I had with another user appears to have ended when an admin stepped in; see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sir Joseph and User talk:Coffee#Sir Joseph. I certainly wouldn't want to blame SJ without evidence, though. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a very backhanded way of not blaming me, and if you look at that page, I'm not the one who called you names in violation of NPA and who had an AE request brought against him. If you weren't blaming me, you wouldn't have mentioned my name. You would have just said, "I've had my run-ins with some users but without evidence I obviously can't name names." Your naming me is just on this side of AGF and casting aspersions. -If you strike your comments, feel free to strike this comment as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I repeat, I certainly wouldn't want to blame SJ without evidence. As for these alleged "run-ins with some users", none of them resulted in anything close to this:[33], so I stand by my "...the only recent conflict I had with another user..." comment. Feel free to have the last word; I will not respond. I have no desire to have anything to do with you, but I was asked a direct question and had to give an honest response. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2016 (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:Davidzamani

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 user has created a hoax page at Barry S White and removed the CSD tag. I have re-tagged it but can someone block him until this is over? Btw, the photo is also a hoax composite Gbawden (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Article deleted, user indefblocked as vandalism-only account.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at Barry A. White? Looks like the page was recreated. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Articles are similar enough that it's (a) the same creator behind them and (b) also clearly a hoax. Timothy11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had recently created it, as well as Damon Coleman. I'd already removed the Coleman article as a hoax; the White article will go also. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2016 (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 editor on Vento Winds talk page

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.

---

Apparently I'm an "arrogant prick" acording to this IP editor. I suspect there maybe be some sockpuppeting going on there. In any case, petty schoolyard name calling, but if any admin thinks it is serious enough to block, feel free. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• HappyValleyEditor, I didn't see a Template:Uw-npa1 on that user's talk page. You can put that on there, or maybe a number two. And then if they continue, number two (or three), etc, and then you can report them at WP:AIV. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• And I'll just add that there is no socking. This is not to say that 174.103.229.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) isn't being obnoxious, and that this whole "our voice is being silenced" is getting tiresome. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2016 (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.

latest troll IP

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:86.187.168.190, related to my AN/I report further up the page. Eik Corell (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. And Future Perfect at Sunrise has reverted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2016 (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.

CCCC

Denied. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 23:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could you please take a look at Kitty Creek, Montana? The admins keep removing my info and then they protected the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RatedLion (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC) WP:QUACK - This SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Starship9000#17 March 2016 is relevant to the situation. MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Yup, please block this sock and close. I would appreciate some additional CheckUser attention on that page, however, since there is some unusual activity going on, too. There is an overlap between the CCCC case, the Starship9000 case, and the Sheds thus guys argh g ugh b case. GABHello! 20:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate language use by Ribbon Salminen

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.

---

In recent editing "Ribbon Salminen" has decided that it was appropriate to react in the following ways that certainly are not consistent with the friendly environment that editing is portrayed as being within the WP effort. Is it appropriate based on this person's actions that an appropriate sanction be levied; otherwise it will appear that such action is sanctioned by WP.

Examples:

• The American Wolves ‎ (Undid revision 711207536 by Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) bs, less words the better) (current)
• Cibernético ‎ (Undid revision 711207343 by Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) bs, less words the better) (current)
• Shingo Takagi ‎ (Undid revision 711191265 by Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) gram my ass)
• Bad Luck Fale ‎ (rv silly obsession of getting rid of the word "back")

{This appeared on the Srednuas Lenoroc talk page "...you don't know jack about grammar ..."]

These incidents seem to derive from editing wrestling articles that "Ribbon Salminen" believes that in the present terse expression that championships that are lost and won should use the word back to connect them rather than establish appropriate separate subparts for each statement.

Since the issue has already been brought to my attention in the tea room, I hope that there is not an air of retribution to be experience by bringing these incidents to the attention of WP?

I am particularly concerned that not being a "native" speaker that my concerns are not recognized by those that are.

Although, the following is a subpart of the issue I do stand that the terse wording of many of the statements that I have edited could be better expressed so that many more of those people that consult WP articles will not be confused particularly if they are not native speakers. The loosing and the winning of a title would be best expressed by distinct statements probably connected with an appropriate conjunction but "X lost the title back to Y" makes it appear that the loss was returned to the winner. Instead of "Ribbon Salminen" taking the derogatory road it should have been more forthcoming in explianing. That would be the friendly WP path. Instead "Ribbon Salminen" just brought about more discontent. That is certainly not good and inappropriate.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk)

This is just silly. You got your feelings hurt on the internet? Toughen up. This guy is a grammar police who has repeatedly been told by numerous editors that he's wrong in his supposed "gram" edits. Yeah, maybe it's not particularly nice to tell someone that they don't know "jack" about what they're talking about, but I stand by that comment and I think his lack of grammar knowledge is evident. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 17:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. There's nothing to stop one using profanity on Wikipedia. The examples provided are also rather mild cases of its usage. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest the OP start talking and collaborating with other editors so he can grow a little thicker skin. Of the nearly 21K edits he's made, less than one percent are to talk and user talk pages. While we require civility, the project is not censored, and Ribbon's comments are neither personal attacks nor harassment. He's not required to be friendly to you. Katie^talk 18:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So would it be offensive to you Ribbon that you know jack about civility? I would stand by that if your response is yes, you do not know jack about civility. You have said offensive things in a face to face conversation probably would not be said on the grounds of being civil. You should return to school or at least your parents upbringing to learn so.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"We should all be civil. Also YOU HAVE TERRIBLE PARENTS AND SCHOOLING." Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, this complaint would not have been lodged without someone prompting uncivility and being absent of contriteness for their personal and unnecessary digression.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"Timothyjosephwood" I should have known your statement was an attempt at humour that follows your philosophy about positivism.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Had I not commented, I would have closed this thread. I am therefore requesting that this be carried out (administrator status need not matter so long as the editor is not involved). --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And surprise you do not appreciate grammar police? Is not that what you are doing?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Srednuas Lenoroc, who are you addressing with that comment? Regardless, calling other editors the "grammar police" is not acceptable. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Ches--if your statement is correct then it should never have been said by the offender?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk)

I am confused. I have not referred to you in such a manner. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it not an Americanism--you cannot have it both ways; say something should not be said yet it had already been said previously.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not referred to you as the "grammar police" within this thread, or anywhere for that matter. Please don't make false accusations. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You must be confused because when did I say that you said it originally? My statements stand on their own.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I was confused and I had presumed you were replying to me. I have striked my comments. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, your presumption is accept but that is not the problem. Someone's else's presumption is, something that is not a credit to themselves or others that take on cooperating in WP with responsibility. Using inappropriate language regardless how mild or base should always be avoided, especially by someone that feels they do not have to explain things to others and instead make personal attacks. The anonymity of the internet is not an excuse for uncivility.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Profanity can sometimes make one come across as aggressive, but that's far from actuality in this case. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What someone does can tell you so much about their inner character.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2016 (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.

Another troll IP

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:86.187.161.44 Eik Corell (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sending a fresh one over to AIV (82.232.81.119). Going to ask for page protection too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 17 March 2016 (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:Binksternet engaging in Harassment

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.

---

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

The user Binksternet repeatedly reverts almost all my edits in the article Eurodance and my efforts to improve the article justifying himself my edits as original research and without first using the talk page and follow the rules of WP:DR to resolve our disputes. Instead he behaves aggressively by sending me non civility warnings on my talk page. I have already received two of them from him and one form user Mlpearc (perhaps a friend of him) who never responded to my reaction message. I have a strong reason to believe this is personal, I recently noticed he does the same in other articles as well, removing my edits without any obvious reason, for example: [34] Clicklander (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not harassing Clicklander. What's happening is Clicklander continues to put unreferenced or poorly referenced text into the Eurodance article. Clicklander does not like having this unsupported work questioned or deleted. On the article talk page, Clicklander said there were "many" reliable sources that could be cited, but none of these have been named.[35] Instead Clicklander named www.eurokdj.com which was judged unreliable at RSN since it is a website published by Karine Sanche who is a web designer in France, not a music critic, musicologist or music journalist. If Clicklander was using music textbooks and trade magazines, and if these sources actually talked about Eurodance, then I would not have such a big problem with the edits. Binksternet (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not know why you only looked at this diff and not at the editing history of the article I mainly pointed out, but I can help you to see more (if you want to). On the 3rd March I edited Eurodance article for first time by doing some minor improvement in the existing unreferenced parts of the article. Mainly adding some more examples in the list of artists, for example: [36] [37] and reorganized some song examples in chronological order [38] plus trying to find some references in order the existing content to be better supported [39]. Binksternet reverted all my edits twice [40] [41] ignoring my messages to use the talk page first [42] [43]. At the third time he tagged my edits for lacking citations [44], NOT the unreferenced sections but just my edits! I finally moved the tags to the correct place referring to the whole part [45]. After all this I tried to communicate with him in the talk page to order to resolve our dispute by opening a new discussion regarding my edits.

On 4th, 6th and 7th March I attempted some more improvement again to the existing information like removing some unreliable sources as Binksternet suggested [46] added some additional info supported by references [47] [48] [49] and restructuring the chapters in better way [50]. Binksternet proceeded to a massive deletion of the unreferenced parts [51] ,info written by various editors over long time, without notifying first in the talk page for his intentions and let others to express opinions whether this should be done or if some parts could be better supported and kept.

After notifying in the talk page on 8th March I restored the section with the artist examples which was totally screwed up after Binksternet's edits, removed the unsourced parts and added some reference for the rest [52]. I also partially restored the classification part which for me was very important for the article and added a reference to be better supported [53]. Binksternet's reaction once again was not to use the talk page to express his objections, instead he removed once again entirely the classification section and in addition he sent me this aggressive warning for blocking my account [54]. For once again I further tried to resolve our depute in the talk page explaining what I believe should be kept and why, without further restoring this part in order not to lead to edit war and wait for more opinions from other editors.

On 14th March I added one more reference [55] and improved the House music part with some referenced info about Techno music in order the existing examples in this section to be better supported [56]. Binksternet again reverted all my edits [57] again did not use the talk page and again left me another one aggressive warning in my page [58].

And last but not least, regarding his edit in the other article [59] yes he gave a reason for this. This reason however is invalid. Eurodance was in fact his main genre as a solo singer (not as a group member), and that's not only described inside the article but also supported by the reference Nr. 30. There are many ways to improve an article if you really want to, but from all this info to just choose to revert my edit and after all that happened in the Eurodance article for me is suspicious for his real intentions.

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

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

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

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

• Clicklander, for all your talk of civility, it's rather striking that you don't see consensus, when it's literally right in front of you. Not a single editor has said they see any merit in your complaint - and several have responded. And yet, you persist. Not really sure what more you need; but your behavior here speaks volumes about your behavior during this dispute. At this point, a word to the wise should be sufficient: but we'll soon see. However, before proceeding, may I strongly suggest that you review WP:LISTEN. X4n6 (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It's very interesting how some people like to investigate and comment on my behaviour, on my experience, on my knowledge and how much enjoy giving advices and warnings rather than dealing with the case. I do not have anything more to say. All facts are here and anyone can draw their own conclusions. Clicklander (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• People have drawn their own conclusions. Obviously, they just haven't drawn the conclusions you want. Or want to hear. Nor do you really seem willing to listen to or learn from the explanations for their conclusions. Especially, when they offer advice you clearly don't want to hear. But the bottom line is simple: it doesn't matter if you're a new editor or a veteran. If you post poorly sourced material, which you've already tried to defend doing, then you should expect its removal. This project isn't interested in publishing your personal opinions. It's not a blog. It doesn't publish editorials. See WP:FORUM. So either reliably source your edits, or don't publish them. You cannot publish first, then go searching for sources later. If you do, expect the result. That goes for all editors. So you must decide if you're capable of - and willing to - abide by those same rules. If not, working on this encyclopedia, may not be for you. X4n6 (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2016 (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.

Legal threats by Checkingtheweb

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.

---

See edit summaries in Checkingtheweb's contributions (specifically, this and this). Reporting threats here per WP:NLT. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

User has been notified of this ANI thread. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes but can we check WP:DOLT? He appears to be contesting a date of birth. Is he right there?--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Malcolmxl5 - Good question. Let me take a look and get back to you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Having the wrong birthday for someone isn't something that any court of law would ever take seriously as an actionable libel or slander complaint in and of itself — it's a minor and easily corrected error with no reputational consequences whatsoever, so no court of law would ever do anything but dismiss it as a frivolous complaint. I have, for the record, removed the disputed birthdate from the article on the grounds that it's not properly supported — if you have to rely on an old archived version of a source for information that's been removed from the current version of that same source, then you need to keep in mind that "it was wrong" just might be the reason it was removed, and the source failed to support 1985 as the subject's year of birth. And I've also already politely advised the editor to adjust their attitude. So for the moment I'd consider this resolved, although we should certainly keep an eye on it if it flares up again. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is your post sprinkled so generously with italics? EEng 20:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, Bearcat you beat me to it. I was just removing the same information that you did; there is no year on the birthdate provided by the source, and I could find no reliable reference containing an exact date of birth, so I (well, Bearcat...) removed it from the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've restored the previous version which was reliably sourced and I see no particular reason to remove the information. Based on this user's own edits to that very page, they don't particularly have any idea what they're talking about and I see no reason we should grant their word any special weight. The year of birth was added after the fact by an inexperienced editor—this is certainly no reason to blank the entire page. Also, please remember we issue NLT blocks as a matter of policy, not based on our interpretation of how credible said threats are. If any semblance of a legal threat persists from this user, I will be indefinitely blocking their account. Regards, Swarm ♠ 01:22, 18 March 2016 (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.

Continuous disruptive editing Radegast (god)

Chupito persistently changes the (unsourced) content with his version (also unsourced). At the end of 2014, he restored a 2011 version of the article and keeps adding unsourced info from that version. At that time, I summarized the problem on the article's talk page, tried to show the problem in my edit summaries, and warned chupito several times that his edits are disruptive. For lack/unawareness of better templates used vandalism templates on his talk page. He had stopped adding the changes in early 2015 but now he started again.

I do not know what to do, reverting does not solve the problem. However, his unsourced content is misleading and as such I have to keep removing it or let the article be. Unfortunately, I did not have time to improve the article using proper sources, so I tried to maintain the status quo. The latest change: diff but a more profound inspection is needed. Thanks for help, --WikiHannibal (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• This looks like a minor dispute over content to me, with a lack of talk page discussion but, first and foremost, a lack of actual sourcing to fight over. Both of you claim that this or that is unsourced, but neither of you seem to be citing anything. Now, on pages 49-50 of this book I find the claim that Radegast is "well-documented"--why don't you two go prove it? And don't forget to search for alternate spellings. Did any of you order a copy of The Gods of the Ancient Slavs. Tatishchev and the Beginnings of Slavic Mythology by Myroslava T. Znayenko, reviewed here? And if not, can you please do so? Carry on, Drmies (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. However, that's that or can I expect another administrator to help and look into the issue? I wrote that I don't have time to improve the article with proper sources and you suggest precisly that. In 2014 Cupito restored the 2011 version, users Jirka.h23 and Volunteer Marek reverted it before I got involved. But after that it was only me reverting. My point was, and is, not to use (parts of) the 2011 version, because the 2014 version had been tacitly approved by many editors (2011-2014), and was without discussion changed by Chupito in 2014. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, we could accuse Chupito of slow edit warring, but such would apply to you as well, given that both versions are woefully underreferenced and thus the claim of OR cuts both ways. I cannot see from here which version is better, which version is to be preferred, who's inserting more OR than the other. Maybe Volunteer Marek can help out, but his revert was in 2014, and what he reverted was clearly OR ("There are several arguments which indicate that the first explanation is the correct one. As already stated, ..."--that's OR); the recent reverts do not involve such language. Surely in the last two years you could have found some time to improve the article. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe that if there is an unsourced edit that is considered controversial (as I consider Chupito's edits), the normal way is to keep the article as it was (until a compromise can be reached/other editors got involved) because that text has been approved by previous users. Am I wrong? Persistently adding unsourced content which is challenged is what? And, to correct, I did not introduce any OR to the article, I just tried to maintain the previous version. I did not ask you or anybody to decide which version is better. (BTW the book you mentioned is on Vasily Tatishchev's 18th century study, not on slavic mythology per se, and his views are "of little value to the historian or folklorist", to quote another review by Perkewski in Slavic Review. Sourcing the article is more complicated than you think, which Lemongirl942 already started to find out. So, to answer your previous question, I do not think I will order it.) WikiHannibal (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-Admin Comment) I was just looking over and found some sources including this [60]. Will post more of them on the talk page of the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942, thanks, but one of the problems with Google Books was that I found mostly book sources from the 1800s and early 1900s, and in many cases they are just not scientifically acceptable. Some of those are by scientists and historians; what your link is pointing to is a footnote in the 12-volume epic poem Attila or the Triumph of Christianity (1838) by William Herbert (botanist). Drmies (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible WP:COMPETENCY issue

While on NPP, I came across an article created by Zblace (talk · contribs), which consisted of the following [61]. Seemingly done in good faith, but malformed and incorrect. They have had an account here since roughly 2002, but only started editing around 2011, making about 15 edits per year. They seem to have some trouble understanding how to properly create and format articles, have created several articles that have been speedied over the years, and have never responded to a comment on their talk page. There have also been some copyvios [62] and articles tagged as promotional. After they created the New Society for Visual Arts at NGBK, I redirected it, did a quick translation and improved the article... their last edit to the article was this [63]. I suspect they mean well, but lack WP:COMPETENCY. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It is much more simple - I moved it to sandbox as I wanted to edit it in better form and more punctual info. Also as current (English) title of the page is not at all official name of the organization (they only use nGbK in English - never translate or expand it - check original web EN pages)... Zblace (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

This is what I mean. You didn't move it to your sandbox, you turned the existing article into an unreferenced single-sentence, than you apparently copied and pasted it into your sandbox. We use English titles on the English Wikipedia, not German ones. The page you created initially wasn't an article at all, it was some sort of unreferenced sentence with a bare URL to an article on the German Wikipedia. The things you're doing here, though you may be well-intentioned, are creating a mess that people then have to clean up. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The user has also attempted to add the entry to a dab page repeatedly. He's been warned twice by myself, subsequently resorting to personal attacks. It's unfortunate. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I just removed a whole pile of unsourced POV edits fromthe article added by the IP 91.22.131.126, which would clearly seem to be the same editor. I believe a block on the editor in question is in order. BMK (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Borders around infobox images by Illegitimate Barrister

Illegitimate Barrister has been placing the "{{!}}border" in infobox images for years.

I first contact him and asked about this in March, 2015 here. His response seemed to take no consideration of the errors I mentioned and he just stated he thinks it makes the image look better. Less than 1 minute later he deleted my question.

He continued to add the "{{!}}border" to images in infoboxes, and I made another comment on his page 4 days later telling him of the errors it causes and that it not only prevents images from showing up on mouseovers, it causes script errors. His response was an accusation of me stalking and harassing him, and he deleted everything again less than 1 minute later. He still continued to add the border to infobox images, and I pleaded with him one more time, stating I would take this here(to ANI). His response was the same, and also stated he would take the issue here, before deleting the thread once again within 1 minute. But this time he seemed to stop adding the border to images. Another editor complained about this also on his Talk page, which he responded to with much the same reasoning(he likes it, no big deal).

I have occasionally ran into the same problems(seeing the border and removing it) over the last year, but not with the frequency. Now the editor has once again begun adding the border en masse, and I frustratingly gave the editor a 'Final warning'.

After each of complaints, the editor just makes smart ass replies and then deletes the thread within 1 minute. He did state for me to find some policy which forbids him from adding this, which I am sure there must be. I don't know where they are located. Bgwhite seems to run some script that fixes the error in this edit, but I have no idea what it is. Can an administrator please get this editor to stop doing this? It not only causes mouseover errors, it screws up the page on my mobile device. Dave Dial (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC).

Well, I am sadly not surprised that it has come to this. This is a complete and utter disgraceful waste of time. No violation of MOS was committed here; Davey just doesn't like my edits. So be it. But, his arbitrary feelings on my edits do not automatically constitute Wikipedia policy and he has yet to point to one MOS tenet that had been violated.

Davey charges that I am breaking the rules. I deny it; and what is his proof? Davey have yet to properly implicate me and point to one MOS tenet that has been violated. If I did violate the MOS, Davey knows it or Davey does not know it. If Davey does know it, Davey is inexcusable for not designating the MOS tenet that has been broken and proving the fact. If Davey does not know it, Davey is inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after Davey has tried and failed to make the proof. Davey needs to be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.

Before he disgracefully posted this ANI, I specifically told Davey in compromise that were he to point out the MOS tenet that I allegedly broke, I would cease the editing that he didn't like and that such hypothetical tenet supposedly banned. But he has yet to do so, and may I say that I suppose strongly that it is because it does not exist. Had he pointed out to me the MOS tenet that I allegedly broke, I would have stopped, and we wouldn't be here. But, of course, he didn't. Such is dishonesty.

The ANI is not a tool for getting your way by making your arbitrary feelings law. The will of the sovereign is not law. You don't like my edits. Too bad. I don't like many other peoples' edits either. But I don't threaten them into submission and abuse the ANI to get my way. If any rule was broken here, it was by Davey, who stalked and threatened me.

P.S. As for "smart-ass replies", you're the one who came up to me with hostility numerous times and stalked and threatened me. Yet you feign surprise when I object to being stalked and threatened! Such arrogance! No other users have aggressively came up to me with any concern over my editing in this matter. If you're hostile to me, I will reciprocate in kind. If you treat me with dignity, I will do the same. You've got to give respect to earn it. I've been on Wikipedia far too long to passively sit back and take B.S. like yours, and judging by the vitriol on Davey's talk page, he doesn't seem keen on getting along with other users and treating them with respect either. Oh, and I didn't "delete" the messages. That's a bald-faced lie. I don't have the ability to delete edits anyway as I am not an administrator. I simply archived them. And edits you disagree with are not "vandalism", no matter how much you may want them to be labelled as such. – Illegitimate Barrister, 04:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If there isn't already something in the MOS about image borders in general and/or for infobox image borders, maybe someone start an RFC. Infoboxes could easily be coded to allow for image borders. Adding {{!}}border is not how you go about it, especially if it causes an error. As a WP:Template editor, you should know better. If you want to be able to use borders on infobox images, I suggest that you start an RFC on VPR to get consensus for updating the various infobox templates. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's precisely how this should have been handled, instead of immaturely going straight to ANI. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk), 05:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There's been plenty of time to handle it this way, as evidenced above. Your response is a concerning display of incivility and failure to acknowledge what the complaint here actually is. You claim you're being stalked and harassed because "Davey" simply doesn't like your edits. However he appears to explain perfectly reasonably how your edits are introducing a technical problem. That certainly constitutes more than "I don't like it". Both here and in the responses he's linked to, you're completely dismissive of this fact because "you're not breaking any rules". That may or may not be the case, but regardless most people would consider aesthetic edits that introduce technical errors to be unconstructive, negative additions, and your responses to be sub-par to what we expect in a collaborative project. I will also note that "I'm not breaking any rules" is not a reason to continue to make contested edits. We don't operate according to "rules", but according to consensus. When conflicts arise, you need to discuss and seek consensus, not brush off concerns and "archive" discussions after a minute. I don't know why this would be any different. You're a highly established editor in good standing and you should be above this. Swarm ♠ 05:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Illegitimate Barrister: - This didn't go "straight to ANI". I have been asking you to stop inserting the border script for over a year. All I wanted you to do was realize that it was causing errors and stop adding it. If you are acknowledging that you realize this and are going to stop adding the "{{!}}border" script, then I have no further issues with you. I just don't understand why it has taken this long. Contested edits need consensus, is one such policy. I don't know a lot about MOS, but thought since you are an editor that is helping with the project, you would receive my letting you know the script was causing errors in a better manner. Dave Dial (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Illegitimate Barrister does say on his TP... "if I've made a mistake somewhere, which we're all bound to do at some point, you can bring it to my attention so I can better rectify it." This is not, it seems, the case. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Illegitimate Barrister: - "If any rule was broken here, it was by Davey, who stalked and threatened me." - do you have any diffs to support this? - ^theWOLFchild 18:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Obvious solution: Narrow topic-ban from bordering images

• Given the "slow-editwar", WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and who-cares-if-I'm-breaking-things nature of Illegitimate Barrister's behavior, and the obvious fact that this is an ongoing WP:ILIKEIT-and-I-will-never-stop stylization campaign by a self-righteous and alarmingly hostile single party against all comers, a narrow topic ban from bordering images is clearly in order.

  This is pretty simple:

  • If someone is doing something that is breaking stuff, they have to stop; if they won't voluntarily, the behavior must be curtailed by the community.
  • If someone is doing something stylistically unusual and people object to it, and the editor keeps on doing it without establishing consensus, they are making a mistake, even if no technical problems are involved.
  • If someone keeps on doing it for years, they're making more than a mistake, but a disruptive mess, and demonstrating an inability or refusal to work collaboratively.
  • It's wikilawyering and system-gaming to try to exploit as an imagined loophole the fact that one of the 47 billion things MoS doesn't specifically address is what this editor is doing; this is not about MOS at all, it's about consensus and competence (of at least two sorts).

At Mediawiki:Common.css you'll find that making changes to any facet of how WP is rendered is very difficult to get consensus for without lots of cross-platform testing. There's no way there's consensus for running around forcing 1997-style bordered images all over WP, especially when people have been objecting for so long.

"MOS doesn't say I can't so you can't stop me" is not how things work here, per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY; our guidelines only address common problems, not one-editor issues (that's what our behavioral noticeboards like this one are for).
PS: Repeatedly asking someone to stop doing something that doesn't have consensus and appears to be tendentious (as well as destructive in this case) is not "harassment", it's standard operating procedure.
PPS: The technical problem underlying this should be raised at WP:VPTECH for resolution, but even if there were no tech problem, IB's behavior would still be exactly the same problems it is. We should probably also update WP:USERTALK to discourage the insta-nuking of all things anyone ever posts to one's talk page, as anti-collaborative and uncivil.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible shared account

User:MrFancyBro has referred to themselves with the pronoun 'we' several times. Now, I do not believe that they intend to use the imperial we, so I believe that this strongly implies shared usage. This has occurred twice on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Kehr (2nd nomination), regarding the AfD of an article that they created, and here are the diffs: [64] and [65]. Dschslava (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

COI editors often use "we". Sometimes, for example, it's the subject of the article trying to make it less obvious. Or an attempt to make it look as if more than one person thinks the subject should have an article and are "consulting" with each other to assemble the material. It doesn't necessarily mean that the account is literally shared. I notice that this article sprang fully formed complete with properly formatted references and infobox [66] from a "new editor" on their very first edit to Wikipedia which always rings alarm bells. But... how was a new editor able to create an article within 2 days of registering an account and no previous edits? I thought it took more than that to have Autoconfirmed status. Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am aware all new users can create pages straight away. (Createpages?) Autoconfirmed allows revisions to be automatically accepted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

From the link you posted: "Users who edit through an account they have registered may immediately create pages in any namespace (except the MediaWiki namespace, and limited to eight per minute)." Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Only in death does duty end. Interesting, because in my experience, paid editors invariably wait four days and in the interim make 10 trivial edits to other articles to get autoconfirmed before "getting down to business". Perhaps it's because they're planning to upload a company logo simultaneously with creating the article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It does not always raise alarm bells. A large number of registered editors began as anons (I certainly did, for months).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Long-term abuse by IPs - Cartoon category and template spamming

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 recently found IP addresses spamming Category:Cartoon Network original programs and other cartoon TV channel related categories. They also like to spam cartoon channel templates. This extends back to 2013 at least. The currently active IPs are in the 2604:2000:A005:1F00* range ([67]) which geolocates to the Hendron, VA area. Originally posted over at EFN, but after no reply and further vandalism, I figured ANI might be the better venue.

IP addresses, chronologically;

• 68.175.36.204 - 28 June 2013 (26 edits) - Corona, New York City
• 108.27.140.223 - 29-30 June 2013 (56 edits) - Dodgewood, NYC
• 108.14.184.239 - 19 July 2015 - 27 August 2015 (41 edits) - Jamaica, NYC
• 66.65.15.94 - 13 November 2015 - 5 March 2016 (18 edits; blocked for 1 month by Smalljim) - Jackson Heights, NYC
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:5C6D:7F99:9B84:AACE - 27 November 2015 (1 edit)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:1D57:3FE0:FD05:274C - 27 November 2015 (1 edit)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:F1B9:198A:563A:1364 - 28 November 2015 (1 edit)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:75AA:7AF2:F931:D8B0 - 5 December 2015 (14 edits)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:AD70:4B40:B463:DF95 - 5 December 2015 (1 edit)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:F5F4:E2C9:2215:51CF - 24 December 2016 (3 edits)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:FCC3:5AC:F3C:95E8 - 28 December 2016 (1 edit)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:F50A:922F:E049:736 - 31 December 2015 (3 edits)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:45FC:DED1:AEA2:C16 - 1 January 2016 (26 edits)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:E8FE:EF1C:3D9C:C85D - 1 January 2016 (2 edits)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:1040:BEF4:C70A:17C - 10 February 2016 (3 edits)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:B5B0:A287:D8C4:AD1F - 19 February 2016 (41 edits)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:6D0E:7088:267A:7BBF - 19 February 2016 (13 edits)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:E01F:A025:5C2B:D7D0 - 20-21 February 2016 (99 edits; blocked 31 hours by Materialscientist)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:4EE:7587:64D0:810F - 27 February 2016 (3 edits)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:11E1:4510:DC3F:5BA7 - 29 February 2016 (31 edits)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:913D:E7C:F6FF:2448 - 5 March 2016 (1 edit)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:F151:B15C:D21:864C - 12 March 2016 (1 edits)
• 2604:2000:A005:1F00:359E:B010:496A:CCD2 - 19 March 2016 (3 edits)

Is it possible to get a rangeblock for 2604:2000:A005:1F00:* (sorry, don't know how to do the CIDR)? Not sure what else to do other than get an edit filter for the type of vandalism. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The CIDR range appears to be 2604:2000::/32 (as listed by the WHOIS info). However, it should probably be narrowed down to 2604:2000:a005:1f00::/64 and checked by someone more used to working with IP ranges. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 02:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

2604:2000:a005:1f00::/64 would do the job, I think. That would block the 19 IPv6 listed and 1 /64 allocations. It is not possible to know how many different users may be using addresses in a /64 range as no tools are available to show the contributions for an IPv6 range though I read somewhere that a single user will generally use the same /64 range. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Malcolmx15: FWIW, the 2604:2000:A005:1F00* range is just one person [68] EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: rather. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

2604:2000:A005:1F00::/64 is indeed one guy. It's absolutely possible to break that down further into a /128 range but it's very rare, so he's on a 45-day vacation. Meanwhile, try the edit filter guys to see if they can help. :-) Katie^talk 14:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, EvergreenFir, I had to sleep! Katie has taken care of this, I see. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:55, 19 March 2016 (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.

Rude vulgarian editor

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

You delete two thirds of an article with edits like these [69] [70], then when you're reverted by another editor and invited to discuss it at Talk: your immediate reaction is to repeat the blanking, warn them for edit warring, and now talk about boomerangs here. Just who is doing the edit warring, I wonder? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Actually, no. It's really clear who the edit warrior is here. [71] You've been at this for months. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Edit warrning/warring

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

Attempts to out editors

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

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

Months of edit warring, ongoing

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

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

Now edit warring on the talk page

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

Ongoing edit warring on talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not necessarily. The CU report at the SPI said that CaptainYuge has another account -- which the CU didn't name -- which was apparently not being used in violation of WP:SOCK. Now that the Captain Yuge account has announced its retirement, perhaps the CU, @DeltaQuad:, might say what the name of the second account is, in case the editor decides to use it to continue what CaptainYuge began? BMK (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• I can't reveal that until there is actual abuse under policy. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Understood, but perhaps you can keep half an eye on that other account, since -- at least at this point -- you're the only one who will know when abuse of WP:SOCK occurs. BMK (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

According to CaptainYuge, they "Decided to join after years of anonymously helping...".[72] CaptainYuge stated "I told jytdog I edited for years on and off by IP. I finally made an account because why not? "[73] But it has been confirmed that "CaptainYuge does have a second account".[74] QuackGuru (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The two sets of statements are not necessarily contradictory, as the two accounts could have been created at the same time. BMK (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

My reading of Yuge's comments and DeltaQuad's admirable "there is no problem" silence was that this other account was created after this business kicked off, but before the technical SPI/CU. Yet despite this, we still have ongoing sniping and veiled personal attacks like these: [75] [76] from Jytdog. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

And still continuing, "Everybody (with the exception of CaptianYuge) from the RepRap community" Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts

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

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

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

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

• We actually have a list of favored editors, and for $20 I'll be glad to add you. Don't tell anyone, esp. not Doug Weller--he charges $40. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• How much does it cost to buy one's way onto the list? Just for insurance, you understand. BMK (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Normally, $20... for you, about 20K  ;) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What about $37.50 and some French postcards? BMK (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: - I doubt that's a true statement. Swearing directly at other users in edit summaries could definitely be considered as a WP:NPA violation and be treated with consequences. Could you please cite what led you to believe that making personal attacks at other users is perfectly fine? Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 07:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at Arbcom declined cases or archived discussions at AN. See prolific uncivil editors being unblocked after less than 24 hours by their pet admins. One of the current Arbs stated in a recent rejected case that the 'community was not clear on defining civility.' There are at least 3 standing policies and one of the pillars that state civility is required, yet because current arbcom members dont want to sanction their favoured subjects (why antagonise someone who voted for you/will vote for you in the future) they make idiotic statements like that. The 'community' is clear on how civility should be treated. Its enforcement by admins and Arbcom means the reality is very different. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Except that it is notoriously difficult to define "civility" or, for that matter, "community". Am I not part of the community? people don't just magically change when they become admins or arbs, and there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it's only friends of the apparently uncivil editors you refer to who get voted into admindom or arbdom. Chances are, their enemies get elected too, who should then, mutatis mutandis, be more than eager to block their Most Hated Editors. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Notoriously difficult only in your head. Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, Wikipedia:Five_pillars (there are others but those are the important oneS) are all current active policies which to call yourself a community member you are expected to agree with and abide by. They clearly, in plain English describe what is and is not acceptable. Admins/Arbcom members like yourself who outright *refuse* to take action or enforce said policies are why the current actual situation is that civility is an unenforcable joke. You personally are part of the problem and you should be ashamed for continuing to state that it cant be defined. It has already been defined, read the policies. While you continue to deny them, you are activly enabling the decline in civil discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies is always part of every problem.

OID, I assume you're not dead yet, so why haven't you fulfilled your duty and stood for admin? Could it be because with only 2,373 edits in over 4 years, only 270 of which are to articles (11.4%), while 1,335 (56.3%) are to Wikipediaspace, you're really not here to improve the encyclopedia (our sole purpose for existence), but instead to bitch and moan about whatever "crosses your eyeline"? Your complaints about lack of civility would carry a lot more weight if you were actually a productive editor and not a free rider. BMK (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• I just looked in on this and was surprised to see this thread still alive. @Omni Flames: and @Only in death does duty end: To be clear, I did not "swear directly at anyone" in the edit note or elsewhere. Calling content "promotional" or "rank bullshit" is different from saying "you are a fucking asshole", in an edit note or anywhere else. I am not saying that it was appropriate for me to be a vulgarian in an edit note - it was not, and it got in the way of working on content which is the point of CIVIL - but what you are talking about is different from what I did here. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Oh okay, thanks for clarifying. Perhaps you should've acted in a more calm and WP:CIVIL way, because calling another editors content "rank bullshit" is not appropriate, but I agree that it wasn't a personal attack. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 21:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No one, including me, has, or has had, any argument with that. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly why I felt denying attention was the way to handle Only in Death's comment, because it felt like the discussion had achieved the most it was going to get, which is to say, a tacit agreement from everyone to move on try to be more careful, even if nobody was jumping to apologize to one-another, which is pretty good as these things go. That's why I found OID's comment unproductive. It's not a matter of whether he's right or just grousing out of cluelessness, and it's not a matter of whether he has enough contributions to warrant an opinion on these matters. It's that it didn't belong here and wasn't doing any good. I almost said as much insofar as his comment was nominally addressed at something I said--though in truth it was obviously just a way to shoehorn in a complaint into another discussion--but I realized it would just be a waste of more time (this waste of time, specifically).

If OID thinks he's the only one who has felt like ArbCom has passed on some cases they probably shouldn't have since the last election, I daresay he's wrong, but using a thread reserved for practical purposes as a platform to attack admins broadly is just WP:SOAPBOX and frankly just dragging drama into one of those few ANI threads that didn't end with either A) a sanction or B) the community just generally exhausted and sending both sides to their corner. Besides, the kind of sanction that is most likely here is one that is decided by community resolution, not admins or ArbCom. And honestly, I think its pretty ballsy for OID to come this forum and bitch about how low our standards are concerning civility; all things considered, he's pretty lucky we aren't more strict about behaviour of that sort, considering most of us take implying that another editor is a sex offender more seriously than we do those who curse at eachother (though I find both to be well short of the behaviour expected here, personally). Let's close this and move on. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

For 'practical purposes' pretending civility is actionable anymore is a lie with no basis in the current administrative or arbcom enforced environment. Any actual blocks against repeat offenders are quickly overturned, if anyone takes action in the first place. But frankly if you wanted to keep a thread 'reserved for practical purposes' you shouldn't have labelled it 'some thoughts' and filled it with worthless and misleading pontificating. If you don't want people to comment on your proclamations, keep them to yourself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The difference between my post and yours OID (aside from general tone and the way they have been received) is that my comments were focused on the matter at hand. The purpose of this thread (and this noticeboard) is to address specific behavioural issues, not leverage a discussion as excuse to vent out polemic screed just to make your general dissatisfaction with the administration corps known. We can (and on a daily basis do) hand out sanctions in this space. But even better is when we manage to use it to resolve a conflict short of that, which is what was going on here at the time you decided to interject your tangent--which was just basically random bad-faith directed at parties we weren't even talking about. You want to see more people banned for incivility in general, we get it. But what we had here was a situation where we weren't going to ban anyone and the editors in question had both backed off. There was even a certain amount of owning up to how things could have been done better, and it takes strength of character to do that.

It should have been allowed to end there--and would have, if not for your need to tell us all how things should be done... And frankly, I think it is a giant pity that everyone didn't just ignore you to show just how helpful we view that kind of thing. Except for Drmies...their response was the perfect study in how to disarm random criticism with real wit. But I'm not Drmies, so I'll just say WP:DROPTHESTICK and if you really have problems with the way blocks are used in general, take it to any one of the dozens of heavily-trafficked central community discussion spaces where such an abstract discussion might be useful (or at least more appropriate). Or, as BMK says, get some more in-depth experience of the project and RfA yourself. But don't expect random hijacks of ANI threads for the purposes soapboxing to go over well even if you somehow end up with a mop... Snow ^{let's rap} 09:48, 19 March 2016 (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.

Poor attitude, lack of good faith and ownership issues of User:Cassianto

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:Cassianto is displaying a very poor attitude and condescending tone of language towards me. I raised a simply query on Talk:Frank Sinatra about the formatting of the info box, and every since said user has been talking down to me, both on the bio talk and on my own talk page, and asserting a serious case of ownership. I feel like I am being bullied and sidelined because I don't belong to the small group that who are asserting editorial control who are not willing to listen to anyone else. His block log over the last 18 months for multiple personal attacks and harassment isn't a good indicator either.

• "it is not you who gets to decide whether the collapsing of it was unhelpful to the reader or not." - Underlying notions of ownership.
• "Well, you've had your say, no shut up and face the fact that the collapsed infobox is here to stay." - Ownership issues and not assuming good faith. So it's okay for everyone else to say something, but not me because I haven't sided with them?
• "fuck off" - Not assuming good faith/personal attack following a Not assuming good faith warning about the previous bullet point.

Not once have I told anyone to "shut up", or swear at anyone, or made anyone feel like they have no place in a discussion during this entire discussion. There is a high level of immaturity being displayed here and a serious case of group ownership.  — Calvin999 22:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately Calvin999 has a habit of saying things which he knows will provoke a reaction. He's done it previously with the Wp:Women group. Here he is clearly aware of the heated history with the infobox on the Sinatra article and of oreivous infobox disputes and just comes across as looking for trouble. Stirring things up, looking for a confrontation and then running to ANI to try to fester some drama. Cassianto has simply said what most of us are thinking. I strongly suggest an admin gives Calvin a good speaking to and advises him to focus on content and stop trying to wind people up. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The compromise of the collapsed infobox was decided months ago but Calvin has derailed that compromise and split the consensus of whether or not the collapsed infobox should remain in the article. Every time I've seen him he's always been provoking people and looking for trouble. JAGUAR  22:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Is disagreeing, or even raising a query, classified as provoking a reaction now? I wasn't aware it was. Blofeld is accusing me of lying. I have never been involved with anything to do with the info box situation. Check your threads, discussions and archives. You won't find my name. Please give me some proof of your accusation Blofeld (You won't, because you can't, and so you will ignore this request). I strongly advise you get your facts right and stop getting things twisted. If you both think that I have enough time in the day to "look for trouble," then you are both mistaken.  — Calvin999 22:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have been the target of Cassianto's disdain so I know what it feels like but I must say that this edit, where you post a template message "welcoming" Cassianto to Wikipedia as if he was a newbie, was bound to provoke any editor who has been active for 6 years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't help the pre-coded template. I placed a Level 1 general warning. It wasn't appropriate to issue a final or only warning as I hadn't needed to go through that many. Maybe the template needs changing, because not assuming good faith as a level one can apply to anyone.  — Calvin999 01:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Really? 'I can't help the pre-coded template' is the best you can do? Katie^talk 02:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's true, is it not? Or do we have templates for allegedly experienced and established editors?  — Calvin999 10:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Forget fucking templates, see WP:DTR. Cassianto^Talk 11:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are you swearing again? It's not impressive. Also: WP:DTR#Recipients should still assume good faith.  — Calvin999 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, can you indicate how Calvin999 was "clearly aware of the heated history with the infobox on the Sinatra article"? He hadn't edited the article (except that onetime un-collapse of the infobox the previous day) or its talk page prior to that TP query, and there were no TP posts or discussions directly visible on the page when he posted it [77]. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC); edited 04:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Because Calvin has a history of making remarks at places he know is going to provoke a reaction. Knowing his trolling at the women project it's obvious at least to me that he knew that an infobox dispute had been prevalent with Sinatra and knew that by bringing it up again it would provoke a reaction and drama. At times Calvin behaves suspiciously like User:Caden, especially recently with the argument with Cassianto whom Caden detests. I did wonder if he was a sock but I don't have any proof of that. He is a troublemaker, you can see this by how the argument unfolded he persisted on winding people up and templating veterans like Cassianto and myself. Calvin seems to revel in the drama that his comments cause at times, this is another example of it. I'm not buying the argument that he strayed into the Sinatra article of all ones and happened to innocently comment on the infobox, sorry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Being a veteran, you should be able to rise above being templated, not get wound up by it... Like, ironically, a noob would. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

He didn't wind me up with templating me, I wasn't even online when he did and it was swiftly reverted by somebody else!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any actual evidence he had any prior knowledge about the history with the infobox on the Sinatra article. The fact that on one single day six months ago he objected to the existence of WP:WikiProject Women does not mean he knew anything about the history of the infobox on the Sinatra article. If you want to file an SPI that would be one thing, but jumping to conclusions based on little more than personal dislike seems to be unwarranted. Softlavender (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, you hold a grudge against me since we had a AFD dispute that one time, so any comment made here by you about "personal dislike" just looks laughable. From a 60 year old woman it's a bit petty/childish of you to bring your grudge here. I have nothing against you, but this is really none of your business. The fact is, the Sinatra article has had a few million hits since I wrote it, and nobody has claimed about a collapsed infobox till now, and it's Calvin of all people. Assume good faith? Mmm.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Now you're engaging in even more mind-reading. I certainly don't hold a grudge against you, and I don't recall any AfD we might have disagreed on -- since AfD arguments are generally to either Keep or Delete, people always disagree, even with editors they agree with on other things. Anything on ANI is any experienced user's business, and if you make a claim like Calvin999 was "clearly aware of the heated history with the infobox on the Sinatra article", you need to be prepared to back it up with evidence. Softlavender (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I have the answer for you Softlavender: Neither Dr. Blofeld nor any of his friends can provide evidence or proof of me having edited Sinatra's page or having been involved in anything to do with it's format, style or presentation, because I have never been involved in any of it. They are clutching at straws. The whole "provoking a reaction" thing is cute but has no weight in it's argument. They classify anyone not agreeing with them as provoking a reaction. Again, who on earth is Caden? Blofeld needs to be seriously cautioned on his tendency to accuse people of things they have never been involved in or know anything or anyone about. It's really not helping his case here. I'm not buying any of the BS lies he is spewing either, which is further cemented by his innate inability to provide any kind of proof or evidence. Also, Blofeld, it's you who bought up WP Women, not me (clutching at straws again). I forgot about that ages ago. Think it's time you did too. Bitterness and lying is not the answer. You couldn't answer anything I asked you on Sinatra's talk or my user talk, and now you are dodging Softlavender's questions.  — Calvin999 10:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Calvin, please just Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and move on. You're coming across as a troublemaker, a troll, whatever you want to call it. If you want to bring about change to wikipedia you're going about it totally the wrong way. Get on with something constructive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

But you aren't? Again, you've dodged everything I said. I think you need to take a long hard look at your style and approach too, because you're certainly not perfect yourself (and I don't claim to be either, because you take that and run with it). You've trapped yourself in your own web by demonstrating how you are out to get me, but have absolutely nothing to back up what you're saying, and now you are trying to deflect the attention from yourself. I'm afraid that is the consequence of outright lying and accusing someone else of lying without any proof. It was you who started on me, and it is you who is failing to comply here. Until you can form a valid argument, I'm really not interested in whatever lies you have to say henceforth.  — Calvin999 11:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion really isn't turning out in your favour, is it? JAGUAR  11:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was in yours or your friends, either.  — Calvin999 11:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Aaron, I'm really sure this thread is worth the trouble it's bringing. I advised against the templating, and you put it back in, which caused the reaction you got. I'd possibly have done the same if someone had templated me with a welcome template too! i'm not sure about the OWN accusations either: whenever I've seen that particular allegation made (along with the claim of being sidelined or not listened to), it's always by someone against whom the consensus is flowing, which appears to be the case on the Sinatra thread too (given nothing more scientific than a !vote count). Given that a couple of your comments on the thread are as staunch and inflexible as those you are complaining about, I'm not sure this is going to lead to anything constructive. It may be time for all parties (from all sides) to down sticks and walk away. – SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks SchroCat a.k.a. the voice of reason! :) I came here because of how I was being spoken to and sworn at. I think that Cass should apologise for swearing and talking down to me, and I think that Blofeld should apologise for accusations of lying and troublemaking. If they want to be seen as rising above this and repairing their facade's, they would apologise.  — Calvin999 11:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You'll be waiting a long time for any kind of apology from me. That's all I'm going to say on the matter and as far as I'm concerned, this thread is closed. Cassianto^Talk 12:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Asserting control again? It's not your decision to decide to close, especially when it's you being reported...  — Calvin999 13:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying I think it's my decision to close, I'm saying that I shall no longer be active on this thread, so as far as I'm concerned the matter is closed. Cassianto^Talk 16:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Note to admin: I'd like an interaction ban which bars Cassianto (and Dr. Blofeld and Jaguar; all three of them have block logs of multiple counts of personal attacks and harassment) from interacting or contacting with me please. I don't need or want someone as immature and disrespectful as this harassing me here and on my user talk, telling me to fuck off and personally attacking me. He has a history of being vile to editors (as noted by other editors in this thread) and telling them to fuck off. He has a serious attitude problem and I don't want, need or care for that. Many editors are emailing me personally telling me how they have been treated by him, so it's not just me who is saying this. All three of them are ganging up on my user talk.  — Calvin999 13:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"All three of them have block logs of multiple counts of personal attacks and harassment)" LMAO, name a single block in the last five years and a valid one which actually stood for more than a few hours. I don't think I've ever been blocked legitimately for a block duration given! As far as I was concerned this was over last night. Myself and Jaguar have only recently spoken to you because of your idiotic comments towards Cassianto about having more life experience and education. You just don't know when to drop it and move on. As I said on the Sinatra page, this ANI thread is not about Cassianto or myself really, it's about your need to be the centre of attention and comments which look to provoke a reaction. If you had genuine good intentions you'd have dropped this a long time ago.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A log is a log that is never wiped clean. Any amount of duration for a block is not good. I wish it had stayed done with last night, but you've carried it on and trolled and harassed me on my user talk today. Just stop replying to me or posting on my talk. The three of you have shown your true colours and everyone can see it. If any of you had good intentions, the three of you wouldn't have taken the harassment path and instead shown me how, why and when consensus was reach bout the info box in a cool, calm and collected manner. You really don't have a leg to stand on accusing me of things that you are guilty of yourselves. The Sinatra thread is 100% about you. I kindly request than an interaction ban is imposed on Cassianto, Dr. Blofeld and Jaguar so that they are not allowed to contact me or have any form of interaction with me again.  — Calvin999 14:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My block log is clean but please add me to the list for any possible interaction ban with this overly-dramatic editor. We hope (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify-I want to be added to any possible interaction ban re: interaction with Calvin999. We hope (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know who you are. We've never even interacted before. I think there's a case of jumping on the bandwagon here.  — Calvin999 09:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If we are discussing Calvin999, I would please like an interaction ban between us.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Likewise.  — Calvin999 09:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You wanted my help not 5 days ago and said you've always greatly admired my work? Lol. And this discussion is about Cassianto and his issues, not me.  — Calvin999 21:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Lets just say, this hadn't happened yet. You saw what I said as "suck-up" and "wasn't buying it", then why are you taking it seriously now. Any admin who wants proof of how much time and energy Calvin has to dedicate to unconstructive arguments, open up the link above. I am seriously not going to waste much time here. I wasn't asking you for help, but to stop disrupting my efforts. Oh, and while admins are at it, they may also see this and this for context. Calvin has become nothing but a vandal lately.--MaranoFan (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't actually me who started that thread though was it, MaranoFan. I've never taken you seriously on here, and neither have many others, because of how you go about things. You canvass for reviews, show off if a review isn't completed within 60 seconds of you nominating an article for a review, and have zero interested in building bridges. 6 days ago you wiped your page clean with the edit summary of "bye", then 6 days later you start editing again. How can anyone take that seriously? Do you even know what a vandal is and what it means on Wikipedia? It means genre change without sourcing, it means page blanking, it means, removing information without reason, it means replacing an article's text with profanity, it means adding promotion or spam to an article. amongst many other things. Another reason why what you say can't be taken seriously. You don't even know what basic Wikipedia terms mean. I can provide links of MaranoFan insulting me if required.  — Calvin999 09:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, I see a pattern forming here. Cassianto^Talk 19:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto is still harassing me. He won't drop it. 21:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, whenever an editor brings another editor to ANI for conduct issues, the behaviour of both are assessed. So while you would like admins to focus their attention on Cassianto, in reality your behaviour will also be scrutinised. Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2016 (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.

Sicilian IPs pushing Durium Records, Nikka Costa, inserting falsehoods globally

Both here and on Italian Wikipedia there is a person using multiple IPs from Sicily to puff up the importance of Durium Records, and promote the work of Nikka Costa. The disruption started in late January.

These IPs have also inserted wrong information, to the point of hoaxing. For instance, the person said that producer/arranger Don Costa was killed by the John Lennon murderer Mark David Chapman in 1983, despite Chapman being in high security prison that whole year. (Here's the Italian hoax from 24 February and the English hoax from 1 March.) Another pestiferous falsehood is the repeated assertion that the song "Go Away Little Girl" was written by James Taylor and Carly Simon rather than by Gerry Goffin and Carole King;[78] this is easily disproved by looking at any of the literature on the subject.[79]

Regarding the Durium Records connection, the IPs are listing Durium as an important part of the biography of various singers, despite having no supporting reference. At most, Durium might have been contracted to distribute in Italy the recordings of these British and American artists, but such contracts are commonplace for various countries and not notable. In this case, the Sicilian IPs are insisting that Durium must be listed in the infobox, as if the label had signed the artist themselves, which is not the case.

Regarding the promotion of Nikka Costa, the IPs persistently add her cover versions of songs, even if the cover version is unremarkable—not talked about in the media—which is usually the case, and the IPs also add the fact that she was a child when she released the cover version.[80] Strangely, the IPs want to call her "Nippo-American" despite nobody in the media calling her that.[81][82]

Wikipedians who have reverted the Sicilian IPs include Serols, Oshwah, Red Jay, Doniago, Smalljim, Clpo13, Jdcomix, Arjayay and GorgeCustersSabre. 79.27.106.92 was blocked twice, once by Smalljim and once by MusikAnimal. AlexiusHoratius protected "Go Away Little Girl" and the Nikka Costa biography (a BLP) after disruption from the Sicilian IPs. The same biography was also protected on Italian Wikipedia by K'n-yan.[83]

Disruption at musical artist biographies

• Nikka Costa
• Don Costa
• Al Caiola
• Santo & Johnny
• Passengers (Italian band)
• Connie Francis
• Shirley Bassey
• Paul Anka
• James Taylor
• Dee D. Jackson
• Dori Ghezzi

Other articles disrupted

• Durium Records
• United Artists Records
• Canadian-American Records
• Reprise Records
• Produttori Associati
• List of songs recorded by Nikka Costa
• Go Away Little Girl
• Sleep Walk
• Everybody's Talkin'
• Speak Softly, Love
• (Where Do I Begin?) Love Story
• The Way We Were (song)
• And I Love Her

Global contributions of these Sicilian IPs

• 79.27.106.92 (English, Italian)
• 79.30.91.134 (English, Italian, Portuguese, German, French, Spanish, Hungarian)
• 79.35.96.150 (English, Italian)
• 79.55.22.183 (English, Italian, Portuguese, French, Spanish)
• 79.56.98.36 (English, Italian, French, Spanish, Swedish)
• 82.53.45.90 (English, Italian)
• 82.61.34.110 (English, Italian, Portuguese)
• 95.247.101.28 (English, Italian, French)

It looks like the Sicilian IPs are too widely spaced for a rangeblock to work. I recommend instead that we place long-term semi-protection on all of the involved articles. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, 79.56.98.36 was blocked for two weeks by Kuru. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It's going on, on it.wiki we have an open incident where new IPs will be added: it:Wikipedia:Utenti problematici/Anonimo musicale siciliano/SP. Please note that they're wide dynamic IP ranges from a big national ISP (tim/telecom) and we have to use short blocks, but if it will be sistematically glocked on sight maybe it will find something else to do...--Shivanarayana (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Abuse Filter For WP:Sandbox

Hello again,

Me and BethNaught have been going up against a number of IP's on the WP:Sandbox for a while now. I'm requesting that an Abuse Filter be put into place permanently for that page. I think that this would help get rid of all the lovely pictures that seem to always end up there. It would also be a good idea to put one on Draft:Sandbox. Thanks again for the help! --TJH2018 talk 20:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

To specify, yesterday and today an LTA sockmaster has been pasting explicit images on the sandbox in order to get it protected. If it's possible to write a filter to prevent explicit images being put there, that would be helpful. BethNaught (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This is an extension of the above thread WP:ANI#Wikipedia:Sandbox. There was a filter mentioned in that thread you might find useful. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It is, but our problem is that we don't have the rights to implement it or even look at it. TJH2018 talk 20:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I do, since I'm an admin. Looking into it. Thank you, Voidwalker. BethNaught (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A feeling told me you were. --TJH2018 talk 20:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Zzuuzz suggested a simple filter which has solved the immediate problem. Thanks. BethNaught (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• It might be possible to get a longer term rangeblock on this IP. However, to minimise collateral, this should be broken into two chunks. The first is 70.192.240.0/22, which should cause minimal problems. The second I calculated is larger; 70.192.190.0/19. This encompases the majority of the IP edits to the sandbox. It is also much more risky, and I am unable to effectively check the range myself. It would hit all IPs in the range from 70.192.190.0-71.192.221.255. I would not object to shrinking this range to 71.192.190.0/20. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Getting a new IP has become really easy, with my fritzbox (popular router in Germany) it is possible to obtain a new one in under 30 seconds or so.--Laber□^T 21:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Both are Verizon Wireless dynamic ranges. First range has only two good contributions since February 20, so I've rangeblocked for 45 days. The second range, the /19 version, has 64 total edits since February 20. Of the 64 edits, 12 are to the sandbox and a few others are disruptive. Most, though, are benign. Narrowing it to the /20 range gives the same result, the same 64 edits. I'm on the fence for that one. Katie^talk 01:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Repeated image copyvios after warnings

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 Stojanoskia (talk · contribs) has uploaded numerous image copyright violations, ignoring the multiple warnings on their talk page. I left them a "final" warning a few days ago [84] which they have also ignored. They have uploaded more copyvios since then. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like they are going to stop. Could an admin please take a look at this? Thanks. --Majora (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I blocked them indef. Let it remain so until they demonstrate they understand copyright. BethNaught (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2016 (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.

Non-specific threats

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.

---

By 59.96.134.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Part redacted.  —SMALLJIM  15:55, 22 March 2016 (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:Laberkiste

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 user canceled my justified edit in the article March 2016 Istanbul bombing without stating any reason. The reason for my edit is quite clear: a terrorist is not a victim (really by definition) and wikipedia can't present him in such way.
I contacted him in his talk page in request that he will state the reason for his edit. He immediately removed the talk. That fellow user must realise that he can't ignore other people edits (and primarily unsigned users) without a providing a reason.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.114.192 (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)This [85] is how you "contacted" him on his talk page. A level 4 warning? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

79.183.114.192, you should not accuse another editor of vandalism and threaten them with a block because of a single disagreement over content. Your complaint also doesn't belong at ANI. You should discuss your difference of opinion with Laberkiste on the article talk page, Talk:March 2016 Istanbul bombing. I am sure there are other editors working on this page who would like to participate in a discussion over this issue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:39, 22 March 2016 (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.

National Medals of Appreciation and Memorial

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.

---

An admin should move Wikipedia:National Medals of Appreciation and Memorial back to article space. The author mistakenly moved it to project space, perhaps in the belief that that was the way to publish. —teb728 t c 08:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Sandstein  08:38, 22 March 2016 (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.

DCG Company

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.

---

DCG Company (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this user added false information into articles. He did the same both in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias. Раммон (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

DCG Company has been blocked by HighInBC --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2016 (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:96.58.203.254 and disrapaging edit summaries

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.

---

96.58.203.254 (talk · contribs)

This user's edits are reasonable (removal of self-published work), but the edit summaries are potentially libellous as they reference a living person (WP:BLP applies to all Wikipedia content, edit summaries included). ViperSnake151  Talk  03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @ViperSnake151: Thank you for bringing this up. I am going to refer some of the edits to the oversight committee per WP:OS#2. For any remaining edits, I suggest you contact an active admin who is willing to handle revision deletion requests (see Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_handle_RevisionDelete_requests). Let me know if you need any assistance in doing that by contacting me on my talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Revdel applied to the edit summaries. Katie^talk 18:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Imma forward you the email I just sent to OS. There's a couple others than need addressing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:58, 22 March 2016 (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/harassment

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:67.83.143.15 continues personal attacks despite requests to desist. Edit-warring was reported (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive310#User:67.83.143.151_reported_by_User:Woovee_.28Result:_Semi.29) and user was blocked for 48 hours. Once block was off, User:67.83.143.15 went right back to edit-warring with other editors (including Woovee and Mezigue), refusing to accept consensus, and posting lengthy diatribes (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bauhaus_%28band%29) against other editors, including repeated personal attacks against myself. I am tired of editor's refusal to be civil and to desist from discussing my personal life in these lengthy posts. I have in turn been civil but my requests to stop making personal insinuations have been ignored and would appreciate some help.Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I've redacted/collapsed some of their comments on the page per the talkpage guidelines. I also gave them a final warning for making personal attacks. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Appreciated, User:The Voidwalker. It was starting to get out of hand and the prior block did nothing to make this editor more civil or willing to end their crusade. The personal commentary was a final straw and I even gave them one more chance to stop discussing my personal life instead of the page content. Thank you. Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2016 (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.

79.78.168.63

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.

---

79.78.168.63 (talk · contribs) has returned to his disruptive edits at Hebrew calendar after the page protection expired.[86] The edit summary speaks for itself and proves that this editor is not going to desist. The IP was blocked this February for two weeks for the same type of behavior. Also see User_talk:HighInBC#79.78.168.63 and User_talk:HighInBC#79.78.168.63_again for some history. I propose to block this IP again for a month.

In view of the fact that the edit summary quotes my post at Chesdovi's WP:AE, see my post and Chesdovi's reply, I think somebody should check if this IP is a sockpuppet of Chesdovi. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I notice that Debresser did not have the courtesy to notify Chesdovi of his allegations. As to the edit, there has been discussion on the talk page, which Debresser conveniently fails to mention. A suggestion was made by Sir Joseph, which Debresser and StevenJ81 endorsed, and the discussion ended with an agreement to edit the article on those lines. This I have done. Note that Debresser insinuates that my edit is "disruptive", but fails to mention anything which he finds disruptive about it. 79.78.168.63 (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Lies. The discussion ended with a unanimous disagreement to change the article (and a template dedicated to Jewish holidays) along the lines proposed by 79.78.168.63.
2. Disruptive is an editor who insists to repeatedly perform an edit which is rejected by consensus, and for which he was blocked and the article protected. That is obvious enough, and needn't be spelled out. The claim that his edit enjoys consensus is a case of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT and is a nice example of how disruptive this editor is.
3. I forgot to notify Chesdovi and will take care of that forthwith.[87] I opened this section not about him, but about the disruptive IP. Debresser (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Check above:

I think somebody should check if this IP is a sockpuppet of Chesdovi.

This section is not about Chesdovi?

The only person who is lying is Debresser. Here's the discussion verbatim:

Considering the title of the article is Marcheshvan, and that redirects are free, I think the article should be housed at Marcheshvan with a redirect from Cheshvan. Even if common people would type in cheshvan, they'd get to marcheshvan, from the redirect and learn that it's really marcheshvan, similar to an index in a paper encyclopedia where you look up cheshvan and it says, "see marcheshvan." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Do we need a RPM or just do it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the page history you will see that all the reverts are by Debresser with abusive edit summaries, e.g.

Revert to pre-vandalism version.

I propose a block for Debresser for

• Edit warring
• Lying
• Unsubstantiated WP:NPA.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.168.63 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2016‎

The problems here are that 1. The edit you made did not implement that precise suggestion but repeated the same edit you were blocked for. 2. The blocks were supposed to have made you understand that you can not do whatever you want, and you should be extra careful not to draw premature or incorrect conclusions in the same field you were blocked for. 3. There was indeed discussion, but no decision was made there. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to go to WP:SPI but the behavior is strikingly similar. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The block can be made because of the repeated behavioral issue regardless of the sock question. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that the IP has been edit warring their preferred version. I have blocked, and when that did not work I had to resort to semi-protection. As far as I can tell Debresser is working with others and editing collaboratively. The IP is likely to continue to receive similar treatment if they keep edit warring. I am not going to semi-protect again over this, if the edit warring continues I will block instead. Since the IP seems to remain static I will use a hard block which may also hit their primary account.

As for the sock puppetry accusations against the user I don't know enough to comment on them. HighInBC 14:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What's with you guys? Another nasty message has come up on my talk page. The consensus is that we use "Marcheshvan" rather than "Cheshvan" because the name of the month is "Marcheshvan". So I edit the article to reflect the consensus and get threats. Seriously, what is the problem here? 79.78.168.63 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If you really had a consensus then people would not be upset with you, get it? I think the problem is that you are seeing a consensus when others do not which by definition is not a consensus. HighInBC 15:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

After reviewing this IPs edit history two things are clear. 1, all of the edits are from the same person going back months, and 2, they are here for one purpose only and that is not to create an encyclopedia. I have blocked the IP for 1 month based, based on the concerns about sock puppetry I have made it a hard block.

I welcome any admin to review this action, if you disagree let me know. More details are on the IPs talk page. HighInBC 15:51, 22 March 2016 (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:176.239.115.13 engaging in harassment and vandalism

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 user was reported previously he was banned 30 hours. He is vandalizing this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdistan_Freedom_Falcons&action=history

Adding such words as (sic) and (terrorist) everywhere.Ferakp (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This user has not been previously blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Everywhere? --176.239.115.13 (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Once you are here, please be aware that your editing [88] is disruptive, and you will get blocked if you continue.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

And for my other edits will you give me a cookie or something? --176.239.115.13 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Sorry my mistake, but I believe this person is same as the person was banned yesterday. His continuing to edit the same thing and with the same style. This user was banned yesterday from making and behaving the same way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/176.239.91.133 Ferakp (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• No, no cookie. Liz, maybe you can have a look at the Falcons article and see if it needs semi-protection. I'm more of an Eagles kind of person myself. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2016 (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.

United Kingdom general election, 1945

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'm not quite sure if this is the right place, but I can't see any other way of dealing with this quite trivial issue other than reporting it here, so I would be most grateful for an admin's assistance. In July 2015, I made this edit [89], adding the National Liberals to the Infobox. In January, User:86.184.5.236 removed them with no summary: [90]. So on 12 March I changed it back, providing a rationale in the edit summary. On 14 March User:86.152.221.76 removed them, providing no summary. On 15 March, I accordingly changed it back, providing a second summary and suggesting that if the editor had a rationale for the edit, they might explain it on the talk page. On 16 March, User:86.152.221.76 removed them again without a summary. Not wishing to edit war, I posted on the talk page and on User:86.152.221.76's talk page, on 17 March, requesting comment. There was no comment from the editor and User:Graemp expressed his agreement with me, so I changed it back again on 21 March, four days later. On 22 March (i.e. a few hours ago) it was reverted again, this time by User:81.157.255.221, again providing no comment. (These edits are the last few on the page history.)

I do not know the IP editor(s)' rationale, because they do not explain it: but I was wondering if anything can be done about this, because, at least until some kind of comment is made on the talk page, this runs directly against such consensus as exists on the subject. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty obvious case of disruptive editing and edit warring. I dropped a warning on both IP talk pages. If the problem persists I would take it to the edit warring noticeboard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Ad Orientem and GoodDay. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2016 (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.

Renamed user Yuma

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 user Larry Yuma was renamed to Yuma by Cyberpower678. However, the userpage was not moved during the rename because the target already exists. An administrator should move User:Larry Yuma to User:Yuma. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2016 (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.

March 2016 User:Springee canvassing

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

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

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

diff: 21:01 10 March 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oshwah, I agree with Greglocock, an editor on the Pinto page, that HughD's behavior on the Ford Pinto article and talk pages has been disruptive. I'm not sure if boomerang would apply to that or not. However, I think that trying to ping Scoobydunk DOES count as canvasing and would be a boomerang. Why would HughD add a ping to Scoobydunk [91] today (Mar 15th) vs 4 days ago? Scoobydunk has no involvement with the Pinto page. The only reason to notify him of this discussion is the hopes that he can sway the group opinion. That is canvasing. Springee (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I was also notified by Springee about HughD but I agree with Greglocock, the issue is HughD's editing style as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to clarify, I contacted Ricky81682 requesting suggestions for dealing with HughD's disruptive editing at Ford Pinto and later Chrysler (an on going problem). Springee (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional canvassing incident

14 March 2016 Springee notified Fyddlestix; as with above previously reported incident of canvassing, this incident exhibits spamming (notification of a user "with no significant connection to the topic at hand"), campaigning (non-neutral wording of notice), and vote stacking (recruitment to content dispute at Ford Pinto). Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD, I believe at this point I've asked three or perhaps four editors who are familiar with your disruptive editing behavior for suggestions as to how do deal with it. In no instance did I ask those editors to weigh in on the content of the articles. All cases were attempts to seek help in dealing with your disruptive behavior. Springee (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2016 (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.

Application of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS

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.

---

Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) has closed an RfC at talk:Mayan languages talk:Maya civilization in favor of a minority viewpoint held by 3 editors against 9 editors citing WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. As I understand this policy, it is only to be applied in cases where the majority argument clearly violates a policy, and also it seems only to apply to admin closures in AfD discussions? Is this a valid and reasonable application of the policy on rough consensus?--·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Maunus: I'm pretty sure you mean Talk:Maya civilization, as the talk page for Mayan languages has not been edited since October 2015, and that was by a bot. As far as the close goes, I agree that it should probably be looked over. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

He does specifically this RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) 20:31, 17 March 2016‎

As to where to discuss, see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging_other_closures. As I explain there and on my talk page, the issue is whether I misread what Yes and No meant in the original question. I did see 9 No and 3 Yes !votes as a rough consensus for No. I moved this thread to WP:AN, and User:Maunus has reverted my deletion here, but the properly placed closure review is still at WP:AN. I'll leave it up to an uninvolved admin to close this thread here because WP:AN is a better forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No, my question is about the correct application of the policy WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS - it is not a formal closure review. This is an appropriate place to discuss this. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. You asked if this particular RFC closure was a correct application of a guideline, yet you say you don't want to challenge the closure. We can't do the first without looking at the second. Or do you want us to go around in bureaucratic circles for a while until someone does challenge the closure? Katie^talk 00:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two separate questions. One is the application of the policy - this has broad implications. Then there is the specific case of the RfC closure, which it would only make sense to challenge if the policy has been applied incorrectly.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Maunus: I'm not sure what "policy" you're referring to. There is quite simply no policy. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS is actually part of the deletion guidelines which don't apply to this situation at all. The actual policy on consensus says nothing remotely akin to what you describe; it actually makes no mention of "rough consensus" at all. You may be surprised to learn that there is no policy or guideline on closing discussions in general or the application of rough consensus. WP:RFC simply says RfCs can be closed by any uninvolved editor and directs you to WP:CLOSE for more information on formal closure. WP:CLOSE actually says the desired standard is rough consensus. So, in sum, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with Robert's closure. If you dispute his reading of consensus, then of course there are ways to appeal, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with reading a "rough consensus" and there never has been. Swarm ♠ 01:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Swarm:. You see nothing wrong with closing a discussion in which 9 people !vote no and 3 people !vote yes as "yes" without saying why the 3 peoples argument is considered stronger than the 9? How is that a "rough consensus"? So when can I go to an Rfc with 9 against 3 and close it in agreement with the 3 and claim "rough consensus" with no further argument? If there is no policy on "rough consensus" that aplies outside of deletion discussions then RObert McClenon misapplied the guideline since he used it as support for disregarding the majority argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Maunus: You asked a specific question above regarding "the correct application of the policy". I merely answered your question by clarifying that this aspect isn't an issue—there is no rule regarding rough consensus of any sort. Beyond that, I'm not sure why you're not understanding Robert's replies. He clearly states above that he did see a consensus for "no" and intended to side with them. He explained both here and on his talk page that he may have simply misunderstood what the "no"s meant and has offered to revise the close if he misinterpreted them. In the RfC, "no" meant do not omit the repetition. It appears he simply took them to mean do not repeat. Given the double-negative involved, it seems an easy enough mistake to make and all that's required here is a revised closing comment. I was able to deduce this by his reply on his talk page. It appears you were so caught up on the perceived injustice, you overlooked the fact that he made an honest mistake that is easily fixed. Swarm ♠ 04:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

What I had said was the 9 Nos and 3 Yeses was a rough consensus for No. If I misunderstood which position was Yes and which position was No, then my close was incorrect, not because of any confusion about ROUGHCONSENSUS, but because of a misunderstanding. If so, I would suggest that this thread be closed as in the wrong forum, and reopened or refiled at WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what I was trying to explain. You misinterpreted the "no" position resulting in a mistaken closing comment opposite of the actual consensus. No big deal. We merely need someone to revise the closing comment and the issue is resolved... Swarm ♠ 04:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, although I find it hard to believe that Robert McClenon did not realize that his closing comment was in agreement with the three yes !votes and against the 9 no votes, since the rationale in fact repeats the phrasing of the yes votes, and in no way seems to mistake yes and no. But if Robert McClenon acknowledges the closing was an error, then he can certainly revise the close himself to fit the consensus, or undo it and let someone else do the closing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I've posted to his talk page asking him to do this as it's been almost 24 hours. Doug Weller talk 07:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

He's reversed his close, and I re-closed it as consensus to keep the two words in the title. Hope that buttons this one up. Katie^talk 14:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, so the conclusion here is that WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS with its support for closing against the majority !vote, does not apply to RfC closes. I am happy to know that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:13, 19 March 2016 (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.

Reporting 71.41.26.55

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.

---

Just check his contributions. edit. he is deleting paragraphs and reverted my revert, 4 times. Winterysteppe (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• He has also broken the three-revert rule on Manglobe and Aniplex. --Peter Sam Fan 15:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Clear-cut vandalism: belongs at WP:AIV. Blocked the IP. utcursch | talk 16:02, 23 March 2016 (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.

No More Mr Nice Guy: Grave disruption

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.

---

With this edit, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted with one click a series of edits (BDS history). A grave form of disruption. He did not really explain why the edits were wrong, only declared that he might have deleted some ok edits. Deletion of good edits is the most obvious form of vandalism and disruption. In this case nine violations at once. This guy deserves a block. --Qualitatis (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

YOu made a bold edit, he reverted you, the next step is to discuyss it on the Talk page. See WP:BRD. There is nothing obvious here for admins at this stage. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 23 March 2016 (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.

Jasenovac concentration camp

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.

---

An editor, one Crovata has taken it upon himself to delete sourced text from an extremely sensitive topic. I gave him a welcome message, pointed out reading material, and explained why his edit had been reverted (by me) and clearly explained BRD. This editor is clearly determined to edit war. He not only reverted back rather than discuss on the article talk page but he also deleted my messages on his talk page. He is entitled to do this, of course, but in this case I believe it shows very bad faith. His partisan leanings are evident in his username and I don't want to play footsie with him or push him into violating 3RR, for which I would likely be blamed. If @Joy or @GregorB reads this please discuss with Crovata before this gets very ugly (see [92], [93], [94]). Quis separabit? 02:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware that after almost 5,000 edits and 3 years of experience you're explainging me basic principles of Wikipedia? You placed a useless comment and edit on my talk page. You must be kidding right? I started the discussion, and you restarted your own - totally ignoring my remark how that the reverted information is highly biased and from unreliable sources - which was already discussed years ago. After my second revert I was writing reply to your in the talk page, but you immediately reported an "incident", with no time to wait for my respond, a reaction which is incomprehensible and exaggerated.--Crovata (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea how many edits you've made, where you've made them or how long you have been on Wikipedia. They are irrelevant to your removing sourced text and violating BRD. This is a very sensitive topic and any attempt at sanitizing or revisionism is unacceptable. Quis separabit? 02:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not about if is sourced, yet that source and claims don't go along WP:RS and article lead, because as you say it's very sensitive topic and inclusion of unreliable information is not supported. If you misunderstood my intention, and relating it openly with "revisionism" and "partisan leanings", then know that I consider being personally attacked, and this discussion will change course.--Crovata (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Did you folks notice it is new material, only just added on March 13? Perhaps the addition should be seen as the B in BRD and the onus should be on those wanting to retain it to seek consensus? Either way, discussion on the talk page to seek consensus is what you need - I don't see need for admin action at this point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a good catch: the content was introduced with this edit While it's possible that the right side of the diff in question has some salvageable bits, heavy POV is obvious, and removing it en masse is not unwarranted. That does not relieve one of duty to discuss, though. I agree that - at least for the time being - admin action is not needed. GregorB (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2016 (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.

Laura Branigan birth date, and birth place

Overall, the issue is official source verus user edited sources. Ultimately, the users Born53 swe and Thomas.W are using user submitted references to prove a different birth date and birth place. The official website for the singer is being ignored for this. There is a lot to read at this point and much of it in the last day. I have tried once to correct the birth date and place and got reverted. Reading over the talk page, it goes into other languages, and weird conspiracies about her age at death.

Overall, the issue is her birth date. Official website says July 3, 1957. She was born in Brewster, New York. Descending view is July 3, 1952 in Mount Kisco, New York. Devilmanozzy (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Devilmanozzy - Have you discussed your concerns on the article's talk page, or with these editors on their talk page? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I found this article [95] which quotes "one superfan" who supports the 1952 date. And then I had a look at the talk page of the article. Seems like a WP:COI. (I am not providing a diff since I don't want to violate WP:OUTING, although the editor in question has voluntarily provided the name). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)This is ridiculous. See User talk:Diannaa#Laura Branigan for more information, and page history of Laura Branigan for previous disruption, disruption going back several years and severe enough to result in several blocks last year, and protection of the article on and off for the past several years. Laura Branigan's former manager (editing as User:Vince-OHE, formerly named "Other Half Entertainment" and with self-proclaimed COI, and also editing as many IPs), claims it's 1957 but has provided no independent sources for it, only his own website and sources that obviously got the infornation from there, while other editors, including User:Born53 swe, claim it's 1952, and have made a much more convincing case than the manager. It is in ther words a content dispute, and as such does not belong on ANI. Thomas.W ^talk 19:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is a content dispute and such discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not in an ANI. Devilmanozzy, please create a discussion on the article's talk page (if you haven't already done so), so that the issue can be discussed and resolved properly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, I really don't know what to do. I usually edit at wikia, which has none of this. I am here to correct a birth date a birth place to a singer from a soundtrack to a movie I care about. Devilmanozzy (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Devilmanozzy - There are other editors that have issues with the date that you're trying to add to the article, as well as the source that you're trying to use to support the change. You need to properly discuss these concerns by navigating to the article's talk page and creating a discussion to resolve it. If another editor has already created a discussion, you will want to respond to it and discuss the issue with them and address their concerns. Once a consensus is reached, the article can be modified (or kept at the status quo) in order to reflect that consensus. In order to allow this ANI discussion to be closed for archiving (this issue does not belong on this noticeboard), please respond on my talk page with any additional questions or concerns that you may have. I'll be happy to assist you there. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dweller opened up a section about getting links. (Talk:Laura Branigan#Trying to help resolve the birth year issue) Is that what is needed? Devilmanozzy (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Other Half Entertainment" have behaved as if they own the article about Laura Branigan for ten years now, see this post from July 2006 on Talk:Laura Branigan, where they claim to have the right to control what's in the Wikipedia article, it is also complicated by there being two "official websites", laurabraniganonline.com, owned by Other Half Entertainment, and laurabranigan.com, owned by someone else, fighting over which site is the official one. So all of it is one big mess... Thomas.W ^talk 20:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• In case this was not completely obvious, if it's disputed, remove it until there is unambiguous agreement on talk and completely robust sourcing. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason I brought this down here was because I was unable to organize a discussion on this due to how Thomas has been reacting to what I brought to the article. It is confusing to come to an article ruled by one point of view. After finding a ongoing battle starting up, I asked for help. Now it seems that the discussion is now in progress. Hopefully the outcome will be respected. Devilmanozzy (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• WP:ABOUTSELF trumps WP:UGC "sources". The end.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish: In an ideal world where everything is simple, yes, but in this case the subject of the article passed away twelve years ago, leaving two official websites that AFAIK still haven't been able to settle the dispute about which one of them is the official website, since both of them still claim that they're the real official one, making them nothing more than fansites. And WP:ABOUTSELF can hardly apply in this case since the information isn't about themselves, i.e. the site and its owners (Laura Branigan's former manager), but about Laura Branigan. WP:ABOUTSELF also says that self-published sources aren't allowed if there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, which I feel there is since Laura Branigan is dead and can neither confirm nor deny anything that is said on either of the two "official websites". Thomas.W ^talk 00:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why would an alleged "official" site not created by her manager be considered legit? I.e., if Branigan trusted the manger to run the site while alive, that would appear to make that the official site, well, officially, absent any evidence that the manager went nutso after she died and made weird changes. If it was ABOUTSELF-worthy before she died, it wouldn't be suddenly unreliable the day after she did, absent evidence of post-death shenanigans at the site. I can right this minute go create a third "official" Laura Branigan website but WP would have reason to take that seriously, so why are we taking seriously the claims of officialness by another site that isn't by her staff? I agree that the manager ("former manager" is kinda POV, suggesting he was terminated) acting OWNy here is a COI problem, but that's unrelated to whether the external source maintained for Branigan then and now by this person has somehow become unreliable and unofficial and not more reliable than a fansite just because she's died or because the manager is being too proprietary here. If anything, it seems like the manager is trying to be protective; it's not like he's some vandal. Anyway, if we don't want to trust either site, just say the birthdate is disputed, cite them both in once ref as example primary sources demonstrating that different dates are claimed, and leave it at that until more sources are found.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is relevant, though doesn't provide any reliable sources one way or the other. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yossimgim IPs

Yossimgim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continue trolling, edit-warring and lying in edit summaries using dynamic IPs (for now it's 79.176.91.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). It's almost a month since discussion started here and here, and nothing been done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Still waiting for that SPI to get some admin attention, but what evidence do you have for this IP? Need to support accusation with diffs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Unusual group of new users

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.

---

Browsing Special:ListUsers for business usernames, I found the following user names:

• Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers_Creed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Britney_Spears_Jonas_Brothers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The_Pretty_Reckless_Velvet_Revolver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Meghan_Trainor_Ruben_Studdard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The names alone are not suspicious, but it is unusual that there's a recurring pattern of "(musician/band 1) (musician/band 2)."

Weighing good faith toward the new users more heavily than concern for the site, all of their edits appear to be test edits. Tipping the balance the other way, something's fishy here. I've been fasting for almost 20 hours, so I do not feel I can reliably make a judgement call on this at the moment.

Ian.thomson (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The sole edit made by The Pretty Reckless Velvet Revolver was definitely designed to be disruptive. I find it difficult to believe that those four users were not actually the same person, possibly socks. I also note that on 22 December 2015, The Pretty Reckless Garbage also made an unproductive edit as the only edit on that account, but anything a CheckUser could find on that one would definitely be stale. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

And now we have Foo_Fighters_Velvet_Revolver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yeah, I'm leaning towards blocking all the accounts since collectively their edits are equivalent to one blocked vandal. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• All accounts listed blocked and tagged as socks of The Pretty Reckless Garbage. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• CU note There was also Overkill Airbourne. All the accounts I can see are now blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

They could have chosen some decent bands, don't you think? -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey now, let's not get carried away. RIP Scott Weiland!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:30, 23 March 2016 (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.

How do you defend yourself from false claims if...

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.

---

How is a person supposed to defend themselves from any false claims, such as at SPI, for example (like maybe if some admins are forgetting that SP rules say you CAN have multiple accounts if you don't abuse them such as by trying to look like you're a consensus when you're really not) if you block that person before he or she even had a chance to defend themselves and you don't even allow them to write defenses there because they're blocked?

What if you indeficately blocked someone that hasn't had a chance to show you on the SPI page why her or his blocking was wrong, yet you didn't realize why because you wouldn't let him or her show you why?

Why isn't there a policy that not only allows them to write defenses on their own talk page while blocked, but also allows them to write in a few other places while blocked, such as at the SPI and here? How about we work on fixing that problem so that your site doesn't cause so many artificial catch-22s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.252.15 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Answer You use WP:UTRS HERE. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If you still have talk page access, you can use {{unblock}}, which is faster than waiting for UTRS. If you were blocked and had talk page access revoked, you should use UTRS. You should read WP:GAB before you make an unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The user is a block-evading IP of indefinitely blocked user IDriveAStickShift (talk · contribs). See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of IDriveAStickShift and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of IDriveAStickShift for more details. --MuZemike 22:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• As noted, the correct method for requesting unblock for an account or IP address is noted at WP:UTRS. The OP has been blocked for evading their original block. Greater than 100% of every blocked IP address and username will claim that their initial block is unjust. Asserting such a claim is not a license to then ignore the block. If it were unjust, UTRS will overturn it. --Jayron32 00:05, 24 March 2016 (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.

Disruptive editing by User:Spirit Ethanol

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 user-in-question launched an Rfc on 12 February 2016 (concerning this article) without seeking local consensus beforehand (according to WP:RFC, this should have been protocol). He then proceeded to mislead other editors into believing that Palestine was somehow displayed as a "substate of Israel", a nonsense accusation that has gained significant traction and eventually this deception proved successful. The understandable majority of Rfc contributors supported separating Palestine from underneath the Israel entry due to the absurd insinuation and premise that the former is displayed as a part of the latter state; this is entirely untrue—see here for more details. I have tried time and time again to convince other editors that the Rfc was indeed biased, misleading and indeed illegitimate—due to the reasons that have been aforementioned—although my attempts to enlighten have rendered almost unheard and subsequently dismissed. In my opinion, I honestly believe that this bull-in-a-china-shop approach on SE's part is unwelcome and unacceptable at Wikipedia. Palestine (and previously the renamed Palestinian National Authority) has been included underneath the Israel entry since 2009 by Zoltan Bukovszky (an experienced editor within the field) and had worked seamlessly ever since for seven years. I am also due to appeal the misconstrued evaluation of the Rfc, although I believe that reporting the unjust and reprehensible behaviour of Spirit Ethanol would be necessary prior to appeal. Note: the user-in-question has been previously blocked twice. Thanks.--Neve–selbert 01:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indef block reporting party before they embarrass themselves beyond recognition. Why? Check their history in this RFC and you'll laugh out loud or break out in tears.--TMCk (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • IDHT is an understatement in this situation. They already have embarrassed themselves. If they cannot accept consensus, then they should not take part in Wikipedia, until they show that they can. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 02:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• The reporter Neve-selbert attempted to dominate the RfC, obsessively responding to almost every comment. Altogether he made about 180 edits, amounting to about half the total text. Several times he made comments that in my view violate the basic principle of consensus that all editors must obey, such as I continue to plan to defend it and preserve all the way with all the blood, toil, tears, and sweat I can muster and There will be no change, and I will certainly see to it that there will be no change. Other editors' views were "laughable nonsense" and similar (first diff). After administrator JzG (talk · contribs) closed the RfC in line with the very clear consensus, he tried three times to restore the previous version [96] [97] [98] and now tries to wikilawyer around JzG's closure. This type of behavior is completely unacceptable. I propose an indefinite topic ban on any edits related to Palestine. Zero^talk 04:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Considering that this article would fall under ARBPIA, discussion of sanctions should be at WP:AE, unless an admin sees sufficient evidence for WP:ACDS topic ban to be imposed unilaterally. I will say that Neve-selbert's behaviour in that RFC was reprehensible. The general tone of their posts sought to dismiss and belittle any opponent to their opinion. The environment surrounding Israel-Palestine articles is bad enough without more editors like this. Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Blackmane's assessment. Though frankly seems like there's enough here for a passing admin to address it directly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark, The Voidwalker, Zero0000, Blackmane, and Evergreenfir: Firstly, I am willing to back off from this whole palaver and discuss the matter on the talk page in a rational and sensible manner, without any battleground overtone. Secondly, I would like the behaviour of Spirit Ethanol to also be addressed, as well as mine, for absolute fairness. And thirdly, I am not a female "she", but a male, "he" editor.--Neve–selbert 08:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I was not seeking a block per se for Spirit Ethanol. I just wanted an investigation of some sort as to both why he did not seek prior consensus on the talk page before the Rfc and why he misworded the Rfc question. I am disappointed that my behaviour is somehow viewed as "reprehensible".--Neve–selbert 08:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see how starting an RfC and attempting to resolve an edit dispute in such a civic manner is disruptive. The RfC question was not worded with intention to mislead participants, but to express how I perceived what the parent-child layout meant, which is misleading and ambiguous. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Spirit Ethanol: You should have sought local consensus prior to the Rfc. The fact that you ignored this is just pure recklessness. Your perception was a POV nonetheless, and it should have been discussed with familiarised editors before you kick-started the Rfc. A new discussion, meant to reflect on the evaluation, will take place in due course.--Neve–selbert 09:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I more or less agree with this, the RfC was essentially useless, as the only one supporting Neve-selberts position is Neve-selbert himself. So an RfC was not necessary, local consensus would have been. Neve-selbert is unlikely to have complied, just like he did not comply with the RfC, but that would have been disruptive editing and handled accordingly. That said, the RfC does not pose a problem per se, it just dragged the process out longer. On the other hand it also went to show how overwhelmingly the consensus went against Neve-selberts edits, which at least clarifies that position. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree that a local consensus would have achieved anything. The point under discussion was Israel-Palestine related. I don't think a local consensus has ever been achieved without the discussion becoming a quasi-RFC anyway. There are just too many viewpoints by too many editors in such a contentious sphere. At least in an RFC, an administrator would close the discussion which has more binding power than a non structured discussion like an RFC. It is not recklessness and declaring it as such is an assumption of bad faith. I viewed your behaviour as reprehensible because of how you badgered every point. If it did not fit your POV, it was dismissed or responded to with disdain. This is not the behaviour one expects in a RFC. Quite frankly, I would view Spirit Ethanol's skipping of the usual free for all that is 'discussion' in PI articles as a bold application of WP:IAR. Blackmane (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think ultimately the only way to resolve this matter was through wider community participation, especially given that many similar articles exist. That is only achieved through a RFC. Other "discussion" at the page would have been a horrendous waste of time, I think that is quite clear. AusLondonder (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think a boomerang may unfortunately be necessary here for the poster. They have repeatedly refused to WP:LISTEN to other editors. I first raised serious concerns about the fact that this article, which Neve-selbert appears to view as their personal property, listed Palestine as an entry under Israel, in the same way as a non-sovereign dependency such as Gibraltar in the United Kingdom. This post is simply sour grapes and an extraordinary attempt by a POV-pusher to smear a constructive editor. This is obvious by the referencing of expired blocks. AusLondonder (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is untrue, I am not attempting to smear anyone. I simply needed admin attention on the audacious behaviour of the editor-in-question. Any Rfc should have been launched subsequent to prior discussion as per protocol. Besides, I was simply trying to defend the status quo from a misunderstanding that eventually got out-of-hand. Had he just started a regular discussion on the talk page, without an Rfc, perhaps a unanimous agreement could have been reached without anyone jumping to any rash conclusions based on rash presumptions.--Neve–selbert 09:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What admin action should be taken against you for your "audacious behaviour"? What action should be taken against you for nominating the list for deletion on 1 January using the rationale that is was still the 31st December in some parts of the world? What about nominating it for speedy deletion on bogus grounds during the middle of an Afd in which no editors agreed with you and which resulted in a snow keep? What action should be taken against you in relation to your conduct of de-legitamising and hounding opposing editors during the RfC? What action should be taken against you given your pledge to reject the community consensus from the RfC and your pledge to edit against that consensus? What action should be taken against you given your complete and utter failure to observe WP:NPOV? AusLondonder (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, now Neve-selbert added "confusing" templates to the article without prior discussion in an apparent attempt of more disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support AusLondonder's proposal of a WP:BOOMERANG for Neve-selbert, if only for treating the site like a WP:BATTLEGROUND so consistently and so continuously. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Recommend that this report be withdrawn & the boomerang effort ended. We should concentrate on the dispute at the article-in-question as being what it is - a content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that GoodDay has a history of staunchly defending this editor, a record demonstrated throughout the period of the RfC. Undermining of the RfC and it's author took place. This was in addition to consistently making ludicrous and contradictory arguments subsequently overwhelmingly rejected. AusLondonder (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rfc result, is to give Palestine its own seperate entry in the article. PS - I've already contacted Neve-selbert & advised him to walk away from the topic-in-question :) GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

So after writing above "I am willing to back off from this whole palaver", Neve-selbert still cannot let go of his obsession and now disrupts the article with tagging. [99] [100] I repeat my call for a topic ban. Or a block, at administrators' discretion. It is not acceptable to allow it to go on like this. Zero^talk 13:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Look, now I give up. We can talk about this rationally on the talk page, and I will refrain myself from any discretion. I have made my argument and my case, and now I would like to put it partially to rest—that is for now, at least.--Neve–selbert 23:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"Partially"? "For now"? So you will partially keep up ownership and disruption and maybe later return to full throttle? That is what you've done over the whole course of the RFC.--TMCk (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: I will give it a rest for now, I have run out of steam anyway. If Zoltan Bukovszky wants to contest the result? I will fully support him. Otherwise, I'm going to take a backseat. Either way, I shall continue my dedication to the SLBY articles.--Neve–selbert 00:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

What happened to giving it a rest? -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Continuing arguing the case here is the opposite of giving it a rest.--TMCk (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@The Voidwalker and TracyMcClark: I'm not arguing any case. I just need some answers to my concerns from experts, that's all.--Neve–selbert 01:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, how relevant is the UN Occupied Palestinian Territory in this context? Hmm.--Neve–selbert 01:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear after promising to stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour Neve-selbert has simply engaged in WP:FORUMSHOPPING and posted a highly misleading and loaded "question" elsewhere as the last battle in their self-appointed crusade AusLondonder (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: There is no crusade, and I am not forum-shopping. I need clarification from experts on this issue. I lost the debate and I accept that. Done, finished. I accept the verdict. Will I contest it? I am still considering my options. Please, stop accusing me of bad faith. Besides, I am beginning to accept the fact that Palestine should be listed separately (only from 2013 onwards, though), after a lot of soul-searching the past night. Kosovo, on the other hand, I remain ambivalent.--Neve–selbert 08:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You really need to start listening to others. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment User in question, Neve, has repeatedly demonstrated preference for his personal opinion over reliable sources over and over again through out many discussions related to Palestine. @Sean.hoyland: has first hand experience dealing with this issue. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am no expert, I just assumed from the media that Palestine wasn't free from "those Zionists". Perhaps this is all propaganda indeed.--Neve–selbert 08:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Withdraw This report should be withdrawn, ASAP. The behaviour of Spirit Ethanol was regrettable but, then again, so was mine. I apologise for the any inconvenience caused.--Neve–selbert

Unfortunately, as this thread has come to focus on your behaviour, I don't think that requesting the thread be closed, despite your being the OP, is going to fly. That being said, I would propose that a final warning be issued and that should future transgressions in this article area be reported, they would be sent to arbitration enforcement and dealt with appropriately per the discretionary sanctions that have been authorised by Arbcom. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I understand. I regret my rash actions & I would like to move on from this. I accept the verdict and I shall continue to edit constructively.--Neve–selbert 02:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As I am not an administrator, i can only propose and leave it up to the wider audience to determine the consensus for this action. Blackmane (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Resolved for the time being.Reporting party blocked for 3 days per this report at AN3.--TMCk (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2016 (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:AnemoneProjectors (an admin) severely owning pages!

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.

---

Let's take Vincent Hubbard, for example. User:AnemoneProjectors doesn't want a year next to his wife in the infobox (despite the infobox template stating under "Spouses" in the parameter descriptions, "Durations are listed"). Her reasoning for it has changed over time...

1. I don't think we should put a year
2. Vincent didn't exist until 2015 (more on that later)
3. [101] (same excuse as above)
4. [102]
5. [103] (this sure is a lot of reverting...)
6. [104] (no reason this time, just because)
7. Now years "aren't necessary" - no reasoning behind that, they just aren't
8. [105] (found another one)

At that point, I started a discussion on the talk page (something she should have done long before given the amount of reverting she's done), where it was explained to her in detail that the character did exist prior to 2015, she just refused to believe it. She finished the conversation by stating she would "let this one go then." She didn't. Instead, she created her own phoney new rule to give herself her way and continued reverting.

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]
4. Now with a claim of a consensus talk! (more on that later)
5. Now with a link to a page supposedly containing the consensus talk but... there's no talk on that page dealing with this!

All the while, consensus talks have been happening where she constantly pretends that previous conversations never happened in order to try and get her way (example: the character not existing until 2015 even though she knows he existed before that). They are here: 1, 2, 3. She has created other rules out of thin air in order to keep the page her way and continued to claim she is right because of "phantom" consensus talks she won't link to (even being shown where it says that she has to prove it or can't quote it). Even after all that, she still reverted again. She is owning, showing signs of "I don't have to", ignoring talks, creating phoney talks and refusing to show where they are... she is now also well past the 3RR on the Vincent Hubbard page for today. Are there different rules for admins or why is this allowed for her? Thank you in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I'm a he not a she but never mind, it's not that important. AnemoneProjectors 22:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Given the wording at WP:3RR (A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.), I'm not sure there's a WP:3RR violation. clpo13_(talk) 22:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that could be. The 3RR being broken is not what I'm really bringing up here. It's everything else. But I do thank you for that correction.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

TBH, I thought it was a 3RR violation as well and was going to refer you to WP:AN3. Anyways, it's still a bunch of reverts so the potential WP:OWNership issues are worth looking into. clpo13_(talk) 22:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, yes. The phoney consensus talks and goose-chases to go find them... that's really bad. Especially from an admin. Cebr1979 (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There is consensus. It goes back a long time and I can't recall exactly where it is. But there is WP:WAF-INFO explaining what belongs in an infobox, so I haven't "created rules out of thin air". One of the links posted above is not my edit. Also I'm sorry but I did forget that I said I would "let this one go" as it was some months ago. However, Cebr1979 also agreed with me that the marriage dates should be removed from the infoboxes, but some time later when I later posted another reason, s/he just decided one of my reasons was "tired" and had changed his/her mind. But I'm not allowed to change my mind. AnemoneProjectors 23:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus. If you can't link to it, it doesn't exist. Period. And you know that. (I've also removed the link to the edit that wasn't you - thank you for that correction).Cebr1979 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

AP is correct. For the Eastenders characters we do not list every relative mentioned. Suggest you read WP:SOAPS. Also, I notice you have reported the same user for edit warring then withdrawn your complaint. It's coming across that you have something against them. Just a passing observation. 5 albert square (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you're just not paying attention properly (aka: you saw I withdrew so you had to have seen my reasoning for it... but, this isnt the first time you've "not gotten something" that was easy to get - nor is it the first time you've claimed a consensus without showing where the talk happened... even though you know you have to do that). Try again, Albert?Cebr1979 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you are engaging in a heated dispute including edit warring and full-on angry mastodon behaviour, over a couple of dates applied to a trivium in an infobox on a fictional character in a soap opera? Go away, read WP:LAME until you understand it and don't come back until you have settled this like grown-ups, is my recommendation. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Lol - If that's what you think this about, then you need to "go away" and "don't come back" until you are a "grown-up." This is not a content dispute. This is a discussion about an admin owning a page, having an "I don't have to" attitude, and claiming consensus talks to get his way with no proof that said talks exist. Let me get this straight: You needed to be told that? Wow.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Cebr1979 is claiming that I haven't provided proof of consensus, but s/he refused to read my reply, where I directed him/her to the relevant guidelines. This person is an active member of WP:SOAPS so is already aware of this section of the WikiProject page. This user is just being WP:POINTy and wasting all our times. AnemoneProjectors 00:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No. Now you're grasping at strings to try and get out of showing where these consensus talks happened. Show them and this all goes away. But you can't. Because they don't exist. If they did, you'd show them. As I've already pointed out above: when you say where a talk happened, it ends up not really being there. I'm not "claiming" anything. I'm proving it. You haven't provided proof of these consensus talks. P.S. I'm a he and you don't have to ping me every time you comment.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually Cebr1979 I posted the link on this very page to consensus after you accused myself and others of bullying and meatpuppetry. 5 albert square (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh... Albert... That link certainly does go to some consensus talks but... it doesn't go to any consensus talk that has to do with what we're discussing here. That was just another goose chase...Cebr1979 (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I was being polite and responding to your comment above which said I didn't do something when I did. I'm actually finding the way you're speaking to editors not very civil. Maybe just me though. 5 albert square (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the reason I brought that up is because back then, you were refusing to show the talk. It took a very long time before you did. My reason for bringing that up is because you claimed a consensus talk again today but, didn't show (and still haven't shown) where it is. Given that past exchange, you definitely know you need to do that. You know you shouldn't have claimed a consensus talk without linking to it and you just proved that you know that and you knew it then. As for "civil," I'm certainly frustrated with tactics being used by you and AP but, uncivil? No. Editors and admins just use that a lot rather than staying on point.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So... after a consensus was reached here at this very board about "Phantom" Consensus Talks not being allowed and that they must be linked to or they carry no weight and editors can just continue on, AnemoneProjectors is now claiming that means nothing, it's "a discussion, not a policy." A whole board of admins is wrong and only he is right and he "doesn't have to" do what the whole board of admins has previously agreed upon. Great admin, guys. I'm so glad you're all just ignoring this.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A few people agreeing with you and a few people disagreeing with you doesn't make a consensus. AnemoneProjectors 21:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Nobody disagreed with me.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Besides, I already linked you to three guidelines to show that my edits were justified, but you conveniently chose to ignore them. They are guidelines, already built by consensus, so I don't need to find discussions to prove there is a consensus for them. The fact they exist is proof of consensus. By your logic, if I revert someone because of WP:V, I would have to show them a discussion showing how WP:V was decided on. AnemoneProjectors 21:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you don't have to do this... you don't have to do that... you don't have to do anything so long as you always get your way. You shouldn't be an admin.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have now read all of the pages this admin has linked to from top to bottom and there is not one thing anywhere that states "Durations for spouses" are not needed in the infobox when a character has been married their entire duration. Not one. Anywhere. There is, however, this that states "Durations are listed." I'm going to go put that information back now and I do hope this admin stops being such a disruption with their phoney baloney rules, goose-chase policies and phantom consensus talks.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This can get closed now. We've agreed to move on and the admin will do things properly from now on (or at least for now). It's unfortunate it had to get this far but, at least this is all documented in one place now for when/if it all happens again. Cheerio!Cebr1979 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to what you feel was accomplished here - but that being said, per your request, I'll close this. SQL^{Query me!} 22:00, 24 March 2016 (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.

Undo pages moves of my User page

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.

---

Can a friendly admin (a) undo the moves of my User and User Talk pages and (b) block User:PeatrickJacobs3? He or she is the latest sock of a longterm vandal who haunts Lee Corso and a few other similar articles. If a checkuser is handy, it might not be a bad idea to take another shot at trying to track down this editor to see if we can do something about him or her. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've moved your pages back and indeffed the sock, to be going on with. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC).

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2016 (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.

Edit warring, personal attacks and battleground mentality by User:SammuleRobberts

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.

---

SammuleRobberts (talk · contribs) disappeared from editing after given a warning by User:David Biddulph in December 2014. His few edits included calling other editors trolls and vandals in an edit summary. This February an IP started to add a link which myself, User:Elizium23 and User:MrX reverted and SammuleRobberts requested page protection[109] on the grounds of persistent vandalism (by those of us reverting the IP). MrX and I tried to discuss this with him at User talk:SammuleRobberts#Ark of the Covenant and the next section but were met with attacks (from "you are lying" to "you operate in a lower sphere of awareness" which at least has some originality to it), insistence that original research could be added, etc. Presumably he is the IP, so at the moment he's added it 7 times and been reverted by 4 editors including today User:Collect. It's pretty clear that this is going to continue and that the editor has no intention of stopping either his attacks via edit summaries, his talk page when an effort is made to explain why the link is inappropriate, and the article talk page[110] where he wrote "I will go ahead and revert this until you read it and present a valid argument. None has been presented thus far, there are no scholors among you.. just reversion specialists the way it looks to me." Doug Weller talk 19:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for two weeks for persistent personal attacks, edit warring, and unreasonableness. That may be the first time I've explicitly blocked for the third thing there. (Though implicitly, I expect we all block for that every now and then.) Bishonen | talk 19:50, 24 March 2016 (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.

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash

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'm trying to stay calm about this article but I'm honestly struggling. Personally, I am a Sanders supporter myself, but this article is in no way relevant. Reading the AfD and merge proposal makes it exceedingly obvious what's going on: Sanders supporters are simply far more active online and are using this numerical advantage to create pro-Sanders articles. It is indefensible that this article exists. Wikipedia is not a political forum - period. I don't know how this will get resolved but it cannot be through "consensus." Consensus will never be achieved with this bunch. We need top down leadership, now more than ever. It's a slippery slope if you let this kind of stuff stand. Eightball (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it any worse than the "santorum" nonsense? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. A literally unknown Facebook group is not as relevant as a term that became somewhat mainstream, not that either are necessarily worthy of Wiki articles. Campaign for "santorum" neologism at least has an OK argument. This Sanders page is objectively not important. It has no business being here. This is INSANE. Eightball (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there should be an article for Sanders' support on the internet, and the Facebook page could be a small part of it? Maybe that would be amenable to these people. I have no idea. I'm sure someone is going to accuse me of being a paid Clinton shill any second now. Eightball (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eightball: trying to edit war a bad CSD tag onto an article that has been through an AfD is not helping. Attacking editors that remove your clearly improper CSD tags and PROD nominations is not helping. The article has been around for a month now; there is no minute-by-minute rush on this. Chill. VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I said above that I'm trying and failing to stay calm. It is simply insane that there has been such a complete and utter failure here that we've allowed Wikipedia to effectively be a part of the Sanders campaign. Does this not bother you?

The santorum thing was never "mainstream". But the question about this Sanders website should be whether independent reliable sources have discussed this website at any length. (And if it's supposed to help his campaign, it ain't working.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Right off the bat I see that the article includes this reference, which is enough depth of coverage to establish WP:GNG for most topics. How did you determine that this did not represent significant coverage of the Facebook group? VQuakr (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Dude, ONE article? That's not SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE. I guarantee if you tried to create a Wiki page for every Facebook group ever mentioned in a news story, 99% of them would be deleted in a matter of minutes. This one ONLY exists because of the overwhelming presence of Bernie supporters here. Really, there are two choices: delete this page, or tacitly admit that Wikipedia is a tool for the Sanders campaign. Eightball (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The ref I linked was not a "mention"; it was a full-length article in WaPo written about the subject. VQuakr (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

There's also a Vice article specifically about the Facebook group. That's two articles, and the standard for GNG is usually summed up as 'at least two RSs specifically about the subject.' (Otherwise we need to purge a lot of stubs on topics that are noteworthy but obscure). I admit that I'm a Sanders supporter, but I'm also shaking my head that any Facebook group has managed to become notable (I'd rather there be more of a focus on issues than on presentation). But there's still two reliable sources specifically about the subject, and several others that at least discuss it. This article offers the group as the primary example of its subject. I would have to admit that this qualifies as notable if it was an article on Trump or Cruz memes, and I'm not moving back to the US if either of them gets elected. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid to ask what kind of "tool" the santorum article was supposed to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and again, you can find an article or two about literally anything. And if you tried to write a wiki page about those topics, they would justifiably be deleted. This article only exists because of the overwhelming presence of Sanders supporters here. That is the only reason. It is an embarrassment. And to not delete it, again, simply proves that Wikipedia is a biased source. Eightball (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop bringing up the Santorum article. The fact that it exists is of no relevance here. If you don't think it's notable, start your own discussion. It's obvious what side you're on... 01:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

To give you an idea which "side" I'm on, I'll tell you that my own nickname for the politician is "Sanctimonious". And that is not a compliment. But the article is a BLP violation and should never have been allowed to stay. Does it have any Washington Post articles about it? If not, then the Sanders website, as silly as it is, is already a step closer to notability than the santorum thing is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, speaking as an uninvolved editor in all this, let's stop with the personal attacks and unfounded accusations. It really accomplishes nothing and only aggravates the situation further. GAB^Hello! 01:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What personal attacks? This is a clearly biased article that is clearly written to benefit a single candidate. The fact that no one else is upset about this is shocking. It undermines the entire existence of Wikipedia. This website has no purpose if it can be abused to this extent. Eightball (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Facebook group itself is the subject of multiple, independent, reliable, and extensive sources. If source material exists with which to write an article, there's little reason to object to said article. That one wishes people outside of Wikipedia hadn't written those extensive sources is largely irrelevant. The sources exist, are adequately extensive and reliable, and are cited in the article. The article has no reason to be removed or deleted. --Jayron32 01:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. This ain't up for debate. This is a heavily Sanders-biased, unnecessary article, and to leave it simply concedes that this is a propaganda outlet. Eightball (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What makes something "ain't up for debate". From the tone of your posts in this discussion, it appears "ain't up for debate" is a direct synonym for "things I believe". That's not a way to convince others to agree with you, and thus is unlikely to generate consensus. Notice how much consensus you've developed so far by your intransigence and refusal to consider the possible validity of the contributions of others, and then see if the tactics you are using are likely to lead to the results you want... --Jayron32 02:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly it IS up for debate. The santorum thing is likewise a biased, unnecessary article, and is likewise propaganda. The difference is that it's a BLP violation, while the Sanders thing does not appear to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I donated to Sanders, but unless this is covered by secondary sources, tank it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You can find an article or two about literally anything... You literally cannot. But even if you could, that would be an issue to bring up on WP:GNG to pursue changing the guideline. Can you explain how your concern is different from the argument outlined at WP:IDL? What administrative action do you hope to have performed as a result of this thread? VQuakr (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You quite literally can, actually. THREE articles that discuss this Facebook group in the context of Sanders' internet presence. That's it. NOT NOTABLE. Not by any stretch of the imagination. What do I want? Duh, I want the article deleted. That's the only acceptable outcome short of the President of Wikipedia showing up and saying "yeah actually Bernie bought Wiki." Eightball (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the largest mention this group deserves is one sentence in a subsection of the Bernie Sanders page describing his internet presence. Eightball (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• This doesn't belong on ANI... content dispute at best. You're unhappy about the outcome of the AFD, but that doesn't warrant administrator intervention. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need an ANI about the page? Im a sanders fan myself and I support removal or merge of the article but this is not really a place for it, although I do favor having an admin deleting the page. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this belongs at AFD, of all places. GAB^Hello! 03:48, 24 March 2016 (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.

Incivility at AfD/Davey2010

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'd like to report Davey2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 's incivility at AfD. I tried to engage with them on their talk page to clear the issue up, but the incivility continued there.

I commented on an AfD (here: [1]), raising a concern I had about the editors who had been pinged, who seemed to me to be weighted toward those who might possibly have a rooting interest in the topic. I did not ivote, as I don't feel I understand the guidelines for musician notability well enough. I tried to make clear that I was not accusing anyone of intentionally canvassing but just wanted to see a more diverse group of editors with experience assessing notability of musicians. I do not have any objection to the closure itself, as again I haven't the expertise in that area and two editors who weren't pinged did show up and agree with the others. But the closure included namecalling of me by the closer, Davey2010, and I object to the closer of an AfD calling one of the participants names as he shuts the door on the discussion. I attempted to contact him through his talk page, where he again engaged in namecalling (here: [2]) even though I approached him with civility. I would have preferred to leave a comment on the AfD, but as I can't do that I guess I have no further place to go than here. I probably would have let it drop, but I saw that he has a previous ANI (incident #7 on archive 912, can't seem to figure out how to link that) for incivility and early closure at AfD, and a week after being warned for it was blocked for continuing the behavior. (This AfD was also closed early as SNOW KEEP; I'm not sure you can call it snow when only 6 editors have ivoted and three of them, including the article creator, were pinged to the discussion and agreed with the editor pinging them.) At any rate, to me it seems like a continuance of a pattern, so I figured it would be good to say something.

The reason I care is that this kind of behavior chases editors away from participating in these discussions. Not being able to disagree without being disagreeable is a real problem. Namecalling -- especially as you close a discussion, so that you're guaranteeing yourself the last word -- is just never acceptable. It's not like there was even heated discussion; he just showed up, called me a loon, and closed the AfD. And when I gave him a chance to reconsider the namecalling, he simply did it again. valereee (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Davey probably shouldn't have called you a name, but weren't you were arguing that others opinions were invalid because you didn't approve of their user names? While I agree that incivility is rampant, this week I've had an editor call me a racial pejorative, a sexual organ, and told me to "get the fuck of my back" for defending myself against his personal attacks. Name-calling is not the best way to handle disagreements, and Davey should probably worked harder to address your edits rather than your person, but "loon" is very mild for what is now acceptable behavior around the encyclopedia. I've spent a lot of time at AfD and Davey2010 is definitely not a problem editor! We probably should do a lot of work to avoid the "hostile work environment" Wikipedia has become, but just look up this page. This is a molehill compared to the Rockies above! Jacona (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

JaconaFrere, no, I wasn't arguing that anyone's opinion was invalid because I didn't approve of their usernames. I was only commenting that the editor doing the pinging and the editors pinged to an AfD for a Christian band seemed to have in common that they were strongly identified with Christianity and/or Christian music, and that perhaps we should try to get more diverse opinions. But even if I had been arguing that, calling me names for it is unacceptable, especially by the editor closing the discussion as he closes it. And I am not arguing that this namecalling is a major incident; I am arguing that it is part of a pattern of behavior. valereee (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I had a funny feeling my comment was gonna end with me here ....., As I said on my talkpage it seemed stupid to say "I'm a little concerned that everyone pinged to this article seem to be members of the Christian music project" .... all because they !voted keep!....., Anywho to keep the peace & all that I apologize Valereee for calling you a loon, I guess somethings are best left unsaid, Oh and I've struck the entire sentence on the AFD too. –Davey2010^Talk 15:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Davey2010, I appreciate you striking it at the AfD, thank you for that. I appreciate the attempt at apology, though I can't say it sounds very sincere -- this apology reads to me as, "Sorry you were offended and didn't just let this go. If I'd realized you'd start an ANI I would have done things differently." If I were less experienced, I might not have known it was possible to check your history or that there was a place to report incivility; if I were less willing to engage I might just have gone quietly away thinking, "Well, I won't try to help out at AfD again." This is a systemic problem on WP, and it doesn't help the project when experienced editors behave this way. I feel you need to find a different way to interact with well-intentioned editors with whom you disagree. valereee (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It may be a wiser choice if you let this go, Many many editors don't apologize for their comments however I have apologized for the comment and have struck the comment in the AFD ... so there's nothing that needs to be done except us both to move on. –Davey2010^Talk 16:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jacona. Please take this message in the friendly way it is intended. Unfortunately, your post above only gives more slack to those editors who behave with incivility. You said Davey probably shouldn't have called you a name... - to my mind, there is no "probably" about it. You also said ...but "loon" is very mild for what is now acceptable behavior around the encyclopedia. It is a personal attack ("loon" = "lunatic") which is not acceptable behaviour and we should all remember that. WP:Civility is one of the 5 pillars of WP - these need to be upheld and those who do not adhere to them need to be challenged. Please take this as an observation - it is not intended as a criticism. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely 100% correct DrChrissy, thanks for the correction! This just seems so mild compared to many personal attacks editors are subjected to on a regular basis. I would love to see civility restored to Wikipedia! If only issues like this one were on the edge, rather than at the core... Jacona (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I agree it is "relatively" mild compared to what both you and I have received, but it represents the thin edge of the wedge in terms of the "hostile work environment" you mention above. I wish you more peaceful editing in the future. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:02, 23 March 2016 (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.

Fearless Fosdick?

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 was just called a "Fearless Fosdick" by another user. My English skills are not good enough to understand what it means. Should I make a case out of it, or should I just let it go? (I assume the latter, just to make sure).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Fearless Fosdick is a fictional detective. Dick Tracy is supposed to be the most heroic fictional police officer, and Fearless Fosdick is a parody that's supposed to be even more heroic.

Depending on the context, it might be a compliment or a very mild insult. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Ian thomson beat me to it. That's an unusual insult. Don't think it's meant to be flattering, but it's about as tame as calling you Dudley Dooright. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, let me drop it then.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2016 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Temple-Wood

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Temple-Wood

Looks like we have at least three (3) different editors reverting each other back-and-forth within the last 24-hours.

I couldn't report it to WP:RFPP because it's an ongoing WP:AFD discussion.

Not sure what step is appropriate next, but probably some admin action is required here to stop the ongoing disruption of the currently open deletion debate.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No action required. Nobody has violated WP:3RR. sst✈ 15:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Page history shows swift succession of reverts and undoing each others' edits within a short spate of time -- certainly appears to be ongoing disruption of the page itself. — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The whole discussion is a mess, including sections unrelated to the discussion of the notability of the article. Some votes and the relist template are placed incorrectly in these discussion sections, which may be confusing for editors wanting to vote in the discussion. You may review my edits to determine whether they are neutral and appropriate. Thanks. sst✈ 15:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll respectfully defer to previously uninvolved admins to review the recent disruptive history of the deletion debate page. — Cirt (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

As much as I would like to intervene as it appears that I'm an uninvolved admin that has been watching the article, I have a COI here so I am intentionally avoiding the discussion (except for the metadiscussion comment that I added about why I hate the concept of relisting in general) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

People forget that you are not entitled to three reverts. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. SST has now significantly reordered other users' comments three times for no obvious reason. Guess we're gonna just let it happen? Townlake (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Cirt it seems like your objection is to SSTflyer's reversions and reordering of content, is that your complaint? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Liz:I've not taken a position on any of the particular edits, just noting a good deal of ongoing disruption and bringing it here for analysis by previously uninvolved admins. — Cirt (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

for no obvious reason I think I have clearly explained my rationale for such reordering in my edit summaries. Some of the votes, and more importantly the relist note, are placed in the discussion sections. Placing them back in the discussion about the notability of the article ordered based on when these comments were made is beneficial. My edits are similar to comment rearrangements that have been done at RfAs. I am frankly surprised that this gets to ANI. sst✈ 16:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Holy god this whole thing is a waste of time. I really don't give a single fuck as to whether or not I have an article, but please, everyone, consider writing an article about a kickass lady or LGBT person or POC or something instead of wasting your time arguing about me. Please. Keilana (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'd offer up to close the AfD and try to forestall additional bickering but I think Ymblanter makes the salient point that getting a group or triumvirate together to try and hammer out a good close would be ideal. Anyone else feeling like there isn't enough drama in their lives and want to chat about it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Why bother wasting the time? Its a foregone conclusion no one is going to close it as delete regardless of the policy backed arguments. It will be no-consensus to delete and so it will be kept. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It does look like a no-consensus decision would be appropriate although I'm guessing that this would then result in a second deletion discussion within six months. Speaking generally, a no-consensus decision sometimes just acts as a "on hold" button for those editors who advocate deletion of an article.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's see in six months. I agree it's time for this to end. No consensus is the clear result. Townlake (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And therein lies one of the problems of AfD that I really should raise elsewhere at some stage. The burden for inclusion should lie with those who want to include, not those who do not. No consensus should = delete, not keep. Anything that is borderline is, by definition, at the extreme margins of what might be considered encyclopaedic. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the same argument could be made for the opposing side. If you can't get a solid delete vote then it should stay. Now, if the article included the winning word from the DuPage County Spelling Bee, that might make it a notable article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually sometimes for BLP's a no-consensus does result in a delete due to the wishes of the subject tipping the balance. So this would actually be an appropriate time for the subject to make those wishes known. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed,; but unfortunately the subject's own opinion doesn't really help us! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• And why is this at ANI? SSTflyer BOLDly did the major refactoring the debate [111], then I reverted [112], and SSTFlyer then just opted to (reasonably) move the misplaced stuff around [113], at which point he was knee-jerk reverted by Townlake [114]; SSTflyer reverted [115] explaining in the edit summary that it has to be uncontroversial (and it stuck). I disagreed with SSTflyer in the debate, but he didn't do anything particularly improper here. So please, let's not make ANIs out of molehills. No such user (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

He moved some stuff to make it look like Aus and I were having a longer convo than we actually were. An absolute no-no. So I object to your characterization of my revert as knee-jerk. Townlake (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2016 (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.

Edit warring two days after being warned plus 3RR breach using Meatpuppet duck

Please see this edit history [116] you can see that two of the editors accused of being meat-puppets here [117] managed to break the 3RR together. One of them [118] had not been active since 21:45, 27 February 2016 before returning to help his friend disrupt disambiguation pages over the past few days. User:Неполканов on the other hand was warned about Edit warring just 23:13, 16 March 2016 as was I after I brought it to attention here although I had not made 3 reverts in 24 hours. The last version by User:Saltedcake would seem best to restore. An second attempt to resolve the dispute between the last edit war and the current one was turned down on the grounds that this is a behavioral issue. Any suggestions please? YuHuw (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

According 3RR the revert of sockpuppet editor is permitted exemption, I have revert of Yuhuw's sockpuppet new IP. I have added it this IP to the Yuhuw's active investigation 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Неполканов (talk • contribs)

The previous time that YuHuw complained about Неполканов on WP:ANI was on 16 March. The dispute was over Karaimism. But there was a conduct problem. Suggest readers have a look at Talk:Karaimism. Неполканов tried to engage over content, where as YuHuw replied using ad hominem arguments.

YuHuw tried the WP:DRN on 17 March, but his post on WP:DRN consisted only of comments on the other editors. WP:DRN explicitly says that you should not do that. In any case, at the same time as posting on WP:DRN, YuHuw launched sock-puppet allegations against Неполканов.[119] WP:DRN does not deal with cases whilst they are being dealt with in other forums such as WP:ANI or WP:SPI.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that YuHuw is suspected of being a block-evading sock of User:Kaz. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the basis of other editor's complaints against and reverts of YuHuw is the view that he is a sockpuppet, it would be ideal if the open SPI, which was filed February 7th, could be resolved one way or the other. There is a lot of content there to process but this feuding is going to continue on article talk pages, user talk pages and ANI until it is decided that YuHuw is a sockpuppet or isn't one. If he is, he'll face a block but if he isn't, I think that the editors who oppose his edits will have to find some policy-based reasons to do so instead of their suspicions that he is a sock. And the retaliatory SPI YuHuw filed just made things more complicated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly I am not a sockpuppet. I have offered many times to prove my identity to the Wikimedia foundation but have not yet been afforded the opportunity. I would like to draw attention here though please to how Toddy1 who is not even mentioned in this complaint nor at the page in question *ALWAYS* steps in to mollycoddle Nepolkanov. I do not believe there are any sincere Admin who will believe the lies of these birds of a feather and seriously take their word for it rather than check deeply into all the pre-facts leading up to this complaint. Certainly I make mistakes concerning wiki policies unlike you Toddy who expertly works the system, but I am still relatively new here and I think I have done very well to catch up to your tricks in such a short amount of time. There is a sort of catch-22 situation here where no solutions are able to be suggested. Dispute resolution was sabotaged by Toddy1 calling me a sockpuppet so that door is closed as long as Toddy1's sockpuppet investigation is open. YuHuw (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to involve myself in an affair like this, but i did revert an edit for unexplained removal of content. If we have the word "sockpuppet" being thrown around, shouldn't we be gathering evidence? 14:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltedcake (talk • contribs)

WP:Brian Martin (social scientist) : other editor is feeling stalked/harassed. And is also attacking me.

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.

---

• Brian Martin (social scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Help Desk refered me here. As Gongwool [120] is feeling harassed and stalked I think it better to discuss resolutions with others present. On BLP WP:Brian Martin (social scientist)[121] I am getting attacked and Gongwool is feeling stalked/harassed.

Gongwool is refusing to discuss edits with me. Rather Gongwool posted their discussion to an admin's page without notifying me. [122]

I have made the mistake of addressing user conduct on theBLP Talk page.

• Examples of SmithBlue addressing user conduct on talk page: [123], [124], [125], [126]
• Examples of attacks by Gongwool and Gongwool feeling harrased :WP:Brian Martin Talk page:

Accuses SmithBlue of CoI:[127], Accusation of Harrassment and DE, statement of no further comms.[128], Claims SmithBlue wishes to "whitewash" the article and has a CoI: [129]

• Examples of attacks, feeling stalked and harrased, noncivil and accusatory edit sums:
• 07:06, 9 February 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,122 bytes) (+78)‎ . . (Fixed para due to complaining IP editor.)
• 05:29, 15 March 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,733 bytes) (+427)‎ . . (Add text from book as I was being from agro editor not practicing Good Faith.)
• 05:55, 15 March 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,799 bytes) (+66)‎ . . (Added 2 more references to hopefully stop agro from an editor.)
• 23:16, 17 March 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,680 bytes) (+658)‎ . . (Undid revision 710599623 by SmithBlue (talk) It is WP:RS Science news journal. Sorry, I don't discuss with this stalky editor due to his prior harassment. So won't engage in his silly arguments.)
• 23:45, 17 March 2016‎ Gongwool (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,704 bytes) (+24)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: Changed text to quote to satisfy any pro-OPV-AIDS / pro-Vaccine-Autism link 'Fringe theorists' who may be overly-critical of cites here for reasons of bias.)

I do want the "stalky" "harrasment" issue cleaned up. I do not want an WP editor feeling stalked and harrasssed. Nor do I want to be portrayed in those terms. And I want the attacks to stop. Where to from here? (This BLP is very unstable. There were recent ongoing BLP violation issues. Diffs of large changes; [130], [131] Editing practices may need to be addressed.) SmithBlue (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This is very confusing.

1. Are you the one feeling harassed or is Gongwool feeling harassed?
2. Are you speaking of yourself in the 3rd person?

Blackmane (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I SmithBlue am speaking of myself in the 3rd person above. "Gongwool [132] is feeling harassed and stalked". SmithBlue (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Hi, yes it's confusing. I have not requested that this editor make a complaint about himself on my behalf so I have crossed out the parts of the complaint on my behalf that I never asked for. With that in mind others may understand why I don't engage with this editor.

2. Anyway, I think the real issue here is that this particular editor has has a current suspension warning from an admin for editing "fringe theory" issues and is sore with this. Whereas I don't support fringe theory and (understandingly) have no such warnings hanging over my head. He will now certainly reply below in an attempt to engage me in some awkward argy-bargy agenda, but I will not reply. Have a good day. Thanks. Bye. Gongwool (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't refactor others' comments, Gongwool. That said, I'm kinda glad this was brought here... though I am still confused. This ended up on my user talk page and frankly I ignored it as an editor dispute that I didn't want part of and because I really didn't understand what was going on. Anyway, it needs some attention. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

OK EvergreenFir, understood. But to all others please ignore the 95% of the above complaint which involves the other editor making a complaint about himself on my behalf. I did not authorise such. I'm also confused... but just getting on with WP editor business and avoiding those who have a 'fringe theory' (see his warning from admin here) agenda who desperately try to wind me up. I know there's policies at WP about pushing fringe theory and totally agree. Thanks, bye. Gongwool (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As is obvious Gongwool portrays me as "pushing a fringe theory". Given that I'm not "pushing a fringe theory" this seems to be a form of taunting. Taunting would seem to disrupt editing. SmithBlue (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

See I told you he'd try to engage in argy-bargy argument and wind me up. Taunting? I think his bizarre reverse complaint (making a complaint on my behalf identifying himself as the offender) shows the reverse. His complaint compultion is too weird for me (sorry but I think he craves chaos on 'fringe theory'). I've better things to do. bye.!!! Gongwool (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Admins, experienced users. What do you suggest? SmithBlue (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The real problem

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

SmithBlue joined Wikipedia in 2007. Up to the end of 2008 xe was reasonably active, but with a number of edits related to the OPV AIDS hypothesis, a refuted AIDS origin hypothesis promoted by Edward Hooper and latterly supported by Brian Martin (the locus of dispute toady). Example edits: [133], [134], [135].

Then, after a lengthy absence, SmithBlue returned with all guns blazing on Feb 9 2016, with this ANI report on a dispute where xe had no apparent prior involvement at all (unless xe was using an alternate account?). There's also this, linking a polemical "review" of our article on the OPV AIDS hypothesis on a crank alt-med website.

As far as I can see, SmithBlue's major beef is with the fact that the OPV AIDS hypothesis is considered refuted. From xyr edits, xe appears to consider it rejected and suppressed, not refuted. In fact, the sources show it to be refuted by robust evidence including DNA analysis.

Addendum: In pushing for a less dismissive treatment of this refuted hypothesis, SmithBlue has started six separate sections of discussion on Talk:Brian Martin (social scientist), five of them within a single 24 hour period. He appears to eblieve that consensus necessarily means that he must agree ([136]). This is, obviously, false: consensus does not mean unanimity, and editors are fully entitled to ignore stonewalling. SmithBlue is making large numbers of rapid-fire demands on the Talk page (e.g. this series: [137]) without allowing adequate time for others to respond. He seems, in short, to be showing all the classic signs of being here to Right Great Wrongs. His wrongteous anger is clearly getting the better of him.

A review of SmithBlue's edits shows a determination to present The Truth™ about the OPV-AIDS hypothesis - an idea first published in that well-known medical journal Rolling Stone and primarily promoted by Edward Hooper, a journalist with no known medical qualifications, which has been refuted by phylogenetic and molecular biological studies. The word refuted here is used in its correct technical sense, ref Nature. This hypothesis has been exploited by anti-vaccination activists and has played a part in preventing the final eradication of poliomyelitis. Not just nonsense, then, but deadly nonsense - so quite high stakes as far as the reliability of Wikipedia goes.

I issued a DS notice: [138].

I believe that editors of the Brian Martin article are losing patience with rebutting SmithBlue's querulous demands. This seems to me to be WP:BOOMERANG territory. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for turning up Guy. Uninvolved admins - yes Guy is a very involved admin at WP:Brian Martin - please check;

• this diff[139] for the BLP Brian Martin that compares from immediately prior to Guy's first edit there with the article just prior to me arriving with all guns blazing.
• This diff [140] which is the result of a cleanup by respected Wikipedians User:Darouet, User:Drmies, User:DGG, User:EverGreenFir & User:Bilby. Due, I understand, to my flagging the BLP vios and Disruptive Editing.
• Guy protests the mass removal of material. And bilby responds :Hi! The short version is that there were a pile of BLP violations in the article - claims not supported by sources, sources being incorrectly used to create false claims, and issues around due weight. ...[141] Pure magic.

In light of Guy's involvement in turning BLP WP:Brian Martin into an attack piece and his defence of it when I tried BLPN and AN/I I suggest that Guy's actions at BLP Briann Martin make him a subject of this ANI as well. Please bear that in mind when you read his attempts to portray me as disruptive. I think it would be helpful to ask User:Darouet, User:Drmies, User:DGG, User:EvergreenFir & User:Bilby for their views on the state of the article when they arrived. SmithBlue (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I am certainly involved in the Martin article, though more as a result of his sponsorship of an antivax PhD that fails even the most basic tests of academic rigour. Now you need to read WP:NOTTHEM. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The reasons you were active on Brian Martin are not why I am here. I am here in large part because of your editing conduct on WP:Brian Martin. SmithBlue (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that he's got his guns blazing from you too Guy (Help!), that's because you are also believe in WP:fringe policy. The offender's aim is to scare off any person who is not a pro-OPVAIDS or pro-Vax-Autism link fringe theorist, and his badgering seems to be working well. He's put in about 3 or 4 complaints about this article and seem to have failed, he won't give up. I asked him some time back to leave me alone as I knew he was "trouble" and he's done the exact opposite, finally putting in this ridiculous complaint on my behalf just to try and have an argumentative debate with me. Yep, he's trouble to you, me or any person who may support of WP:fringe policy. Can he be banned from this and any other article discussing fringe theory and fringe theory scientific correction issues? I don't know how such works. Gongwool (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Gongwool (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment There's obviously an element of content disputation here; but tbh User:Gongwool does also seem to have a somewhat unpolished attitude towards collegiality. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but he's been getting along OK with Bilby and they have been collaborating well enough to improve the articles. Gongwool should be aware that it's not really necessary to poke SmithBlue with a sharp stick, xe looks like xe is quite capable of digging xyr own grave unaided. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and JzG, I don't admit to being too polished or experienced (unless that's a crime), but all understood and heard. Then again none of us asked for this complaint to be here, it's designed to be somewhat of a distraction, one thinks. Gongwool (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No, SmithBlue, you are here because you want to recruit support in your attempts to push fringe content into the article, when you are failing to gain any traction at all on the article's Talk page. That much is obvious from your statement of the dispute: you want to run the opposition out of town. It's not going to work because the edits you propose are not supported by policy. It's hardly a surprise, given your very limited experience of Wikipedia. However, the problem is not with "everybody else", it's with your unwillingness to heed consensus and apparent attempts to portray a refuted antivax trope as a valid but suppressed theory. It's not suppressed, it's refuted, as our article clearly shows. The science has actually become more settled since you originally tried this. Wikipedia is not the place to present anti-vaccination tropes as anything other than the dangerous bullshit they are. This is by design. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No Guy I am here because I saw the BLP Brian Martin overflowing with BLP violations sometime around early February and eventually decided to intervene[[142]]. Since then I have;

• flagged the violations in a BLPN,
• flagged the violations in an AN/I,
• flagged your participations in the violations at a separate AN/I,
• provided a list of further on-going un-addressed BLP violations at both AN/Is,
• been mistypified by you as pushing fring content,
• been taunted and attacked by your protege on BLP Brian Martin - Gongwool[[143]],
• been ignored when I made requests for assistance to multiple admins regarding the BLP violations and user conduct violations,
• started this AN/I to address the attacking micro-culture you as asenior admin created on BLP Brian Martin,
• addressed your user conduct around deliberately violating BLP policy and your advising others to ignore BLP policy.

& been struck by the participation rate of un-involved neutral admins to this AN/I. This is why I am here. I bother cause I'm not yet convinced that WP is irretrievably broken. Maybe if WP can improve its integrity - and live by it's claimed standards - things can yet turn around. And WP fulfil it's potential. SmithBlue (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing

WP:CANVASS and WP:NPA in one hit, good job. See [144]. Incidentally, SmithBlue, this set ([145], [146], [147], [148]) is unnecessary since the pings you already included will have alerted these good people. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

WTF? This complainant knows no boundaries. Don't know whether to laugh or cry. Gongwool (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I asked explicitly about contacting the admins who cleaned up the BLP. And was told that, as long as I didn't coach them, it would be OK. Do you disagree with the advise I got from Help Desk Chat? Do you object to 5 Wikipedians who cleaned up the BLP presenting their views?SmithBlue (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two parts to my statement above. The first is that your post to Seabreezes1 was unambiguously inappropriate (albeit that it shows very clearly your failure to comprehend why your edits are rejected). The second was that the other posts to Talk pages were unnecessary since they will already be aware through your mentioning them here; writing on this page is in any case going firther than contacting those admins and is instead contacting the entire admin community. I can't comment on the claim you make about Help Desk anyway, since the last posting by you to Help Desk I can find was in 2008: [149] and was about something else entirely. And anybody who's seen my talk page will know I have no problem at all with involving any other admins, especially DGG, or indeed Drmies, both of whom I hold in high regard. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You'll find my request for clarification in the logs of Help Desk Chat: "Do you need real-time chat help with your issue? Join our IRC channel at #wikipedia-en-help" link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/chat I appreciate your demonstration of AGF on this issue. SmithBlue (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I suspect you are misinterpreting "sod off, we're not going to fix this". But even if you're not, posting here does the same job, as I was pointing out. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Smokescreen

The attempt, by Guy, to portray me as attempting "to push fringe content" has a major flaw.

• I have not attempted to push fringe content.
  

(see section below [[150]] where's Guy's mis-categorisation is made clear.)

Even a quick inspection of any diff put forward will show that I am a stickler for WP policy and guidelines around pseudoscience and just about everything. WP:Infant formula - maybe I messed up there 8 years ago and let nonsourced material remain? My goal, (was it 8 years ago when I put forward those science academic publication sources?), was to have the topic portrayed exactly in line with WP policy and guidelines. I always discussed and sought consensus. And still do. Hence this AN/I. What lies behind this smokescreen of Guy's?
User conduct in the flicking of a BLP into an attack piece.
Here again are the diffs showing the arc of the BLP through the Guy, Gongwool and Jewjoo period[151] and out the other side[152].

• Guy actively defended the BLP violations on the BLPN that I started in an attempt to get the BLP vios addressed. [[153]]

I've been watching things unfold with the Brian Martin (professor) article, and wrote this a day or two ago, and hope it helps... This article is quite derogatory about Martin himself, and his work, yet this is not based on strong evidence. It seems to be mainly based on slanted views of a WP:SPA editor. I would think the article, and Talk page, contravene WP:BLP. More clarification and context on Martin's publishing record is needed to better examine this situation, but details of Martin's key publications have been removed from the page several times: [33], [34]. Despite what is being said in this WP article, Martin has published many peer-reviewed journal articles. But, yes, he does publish widely in a diverse range of publication outlets, as many academics do. The article is portraying Martin as an activist, but to me he is just an "interdisciplinary academic" working in the area of "science and technology studies (STS)." He is a full professor employed full-time at a major university. There is an amazing amount of criticism of Martin in the second paragraph of the article, relating to Michael Primero, Andrew Wakefield, and Judith Wilyman. Yet, material about Martins' STS professorial colleagues, Mark Diesendorf, Ian Lowe and Jim Falk has been removed from the article with little discussion. Johnfos (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Negative, yes, but not inaccurate. He has a history of misidentifying cranks as whistleblowers, and his supervision of the Wilyman PhD calls into question his fitness to supervise further PhDs, as that document used confirmation bias and conspiracist thinking in place of actual evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Guy actively defended the BLP violations on the ANI that I started (Note the smokescreening) [[154]].

The article is being actively edited and the only material identified as an inaccurate representation of the sources has been fixed. Martin is the subject of legitimate and well-sourced criticism for his support of a PhD that failed every conceivable test of valid research work, that is not our problem to fix. I note that much of your history relates to defending Hooper's discredited advocacy of the OPV-AIDS hypothesis, a common anti-vax trope. I suspect that the "inaccuracy" you identify may in fact be accuracy that you just don't like. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• On WP:Brian Martin, two edits clearly summed as BLP issues with existing discusions on Talk;

15:29, 4 February 2016‎ 124.171.109.96 (talk)‎ . . (6,361 bytes) (-927)‎ . . (BLP issue: rem inaccurate reflection of source. see Talk) [[155]] &
16:14, 4 February 2016‎ 124.171.109.96 (talk)‎ . . (6,558 bytes) (-185)‎ . . (rem "published by A rather than B" from lede. BLP, OR see Talk) [[156]]
Guy claims whitewashing & reverts:
22:55, 4 February 2016‎ JzG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,288 bytes) (+730)‎ . . (Reverted 4 edits by 124.171.109.96 (talk): Revert whitewashing. Please discuss on Talk efore removing material. (TW))[[157]]
Guy with that edit summ also promoted actions in violation of BLP policy. BLP policy is clear that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately ...". Not discussed and then later removed. And what was Guy defending?
Here again is Bilby's reply [[158]] "... there were a pile of BLP violations in the article - claims not supported by sources, sources being incorrectly used to create false claims, ..."
SmithBlue (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Ho-hum, it looks like big bad Guy is attempting to keep Wikipedia on the straight-and-narrow again, and someone is complaining about it again. I suppose that means that the sun will set again this evening. BMK (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll decide later if it is to rise again tomorrow, just to show that I can. #adminabuse. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't bother, I don't mind sleeping in all day. BMK (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what part of my statement is supposed to be problematic, since it's all an accurate reflection of the sources cited in the article. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

SmithBlue asked me to look at the article. Without considering the history, of specific BLP questions, the actual material about the subject appears basically fair, but the presentation is slanted by multiple statements that the OPV-AIDS theory is discredited. So it is, and it is appropriate to say so in the article, but stating it one time is enough. I have noticed a similar problem in some other articles on scientist out of the mainstream. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for coming DGG. As I have raised the issue of BLP violations on the article I ask that you give your appraisal of the article as it was immediately before I intervened.[[159]]

Yeah, that tends to happen when people keep trying to change it to suppressed or disputed instead of refuted, which is what it is. You end up with a hundred sources for a trivial and uncontentious (except to a tiny minority) fact. A pet peeve, really, since non-neutral crud gets added, it gets neutralised and left, and the paragraph never gets copyedited down to its essence. Still and all, 100% of the noise on that talk page right now is coming from one source: SmithBlue. Guy (Help!) 00:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal re SmithBlue

It is unclear to me how this thread got so long, nor why User:SmithBlue has not been blocked under the PSCI DS yet for abuse of BLP to to POV-push PSCI and for WP:Civil POV-pushingWP:Civil POV pushing at the Martin article and the OPV AIDS hypothesis article. I propose a 48-hour block on SmithBlue to prevent further disruption to the project. The mainstream editors involved here have better things to do than keep going round and round on this stuff. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC) (fixed typo in wikilink Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC))

My current concern is the integrity of WP. I undertake not to edit on BLP Brian Martin for 48 hours. While I do this voluntarily I reject your view that I am "WP:Civil POV-pushing at the Martin article and the OPV AIDS hypothesis article". Please provide your reasoning for categorising my edits on Brian Martin or OPV-AIDS as WP:Civil POV-pushing. SmithBlue (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Your flooding this thread with comments following my posting above kind of proves point my point about disruption. You are sucking up the time of people here. Please do actually read the essay instead of just mocking my mistake. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There are many aspects to this AN/I. I was seeking to stop attacks on myself and address an editor feeling harrassed and stalked. Guy has expanded the range. Are you advising that it is better to just let things slide and not respond, not fill in missing pieces, not bring elements of my concerns about user conduct here, not ask your reason for your view, "the PSCI DS yet for abuse of BLP to to POV-push PSCI and for WP:Civil POV-pushingWP:Civil POV pushing at the Martin article and the OPV AIDS hypothesis article."?

This approach is not consistent with Guy telling me that the burden of proof is on me. SmithBlue (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The continued mocking is only digging your hole deeper. You are demonstrating that you are here to fight, not to solve problems. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: I'm not sure but I interpret your stamemnt re mocking to reference my cutting and pasting a mis-formatted WP essay. If this is correct your interpretation is incorrect. i was just using the quickest cut and paste available. What would it take to change your views around, "PSCI DS yet for abuse of BLP to to POV-push PSCI and for WP:Civil POV-pushingWP:Civil POV pushing at the Martin article and the OPV AIDS hypothesis article." Are there specific edits that are of great concern? Or is it Guy's authority combined with my having ever editted OPV-AIDS and BLP:Brian Martin. Or some other factors. Whatever it is, are you prepared to investigate further? SmithBlue (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have investigated further, and you are absolutely POV-pushing on one side of this issue. Your edits reflect advocacy, as does your behavior on this board. And you were absolutely mocking me instead of reading the essay and considering your behavior in light of it, which is what a thoughtful editor who is not POV-pushing would do. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

SmithBlue & "push fringe content" - the claims and the reality

Guy, to evidence his claim that I, SmithBlue, am pushing fringe content, provides the following cites."Example edits: [160], [161], [162]." Let us examine them:

• [163] I provide the source details for a book written by the subject that is already in the article. And, in an BLP, add a short description of a scientific paper that the subject co-authored.
• [164] I change section heading from "Oral polio vaccine hypothesis (disproven conjecture)" to "=== Oral polio vaccine hypothesis (rejected) ===". This is line with Nature[165]. And Guy's own use of "rejected" on this page. (see:The Real Problem:Addendum)
• [166] I suggest that all editors work first in the areas of agreement and list a relevant scientifically published paper that I am working on. I then point out that suppression of dissent material is also relevant. This suppression material is scientifically published and focussed on as part of the history of OPV-AIDS in a 2015 textbook, "Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology - Stephen H. Jenkins". Guy has raised no objections to the use of this tertiary source on BLP Brain Martin.

Guy has mis-categorised my edits. SmithBlue (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You list "a relevant scientifically published paper that I am working on"? That sounds a lot like a WP:COI. Do you actually mean that you are here to use Wikipedia as a pre-print for something that you are working on and have not yet published? Guy (Help!) 00:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read the actual edit in context if you have any doubts. From memory the 2008 edit contains a reference to the 2001 Lincei paper that I was working on. If so then it would be unlikely that "I am working on" would refer to a paper I am writing. SmithBlue (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Checking the 4th diff re: papers: I pointed out the existence of the papers from Lincei 2001 and I was working on reading one of the papers from Lincei 2003. SmithBlue (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I suspect your intentions would be less open to the misinterpretation you insist they receive, if you were to concentrate on writing fewer words in fewer threads and with greater coherence. Especially the last. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy's edit that created multiple BLP vios

BLP Policy: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

• [167] The majority of the material Guy added here fails WP:Verify. As does his addition of "Category:Anti-vaccination"

With Guy's illustrious WP history, the idea that Guy was unaware that the material failed WP:Verify must be rejected out of hand. Deliberately action against BLP policy is not about content, it is about conduct. Here we have Guy acting to knowlingly violate BLP policy. SmithBlue (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What we actually see is more evidence of your standard behaviour: throwing dung in all directions hoping to drive off those who disagree with you. The past content of the article does not matter at all, because the people who have been editing it - even those who originally made it a borderline hagiography - have worked together pretty harmoniously. Stuff goes in, it comes out, it gets discussed, it might get modified, it might stay out - and it's all dealt with really rather calmly, with one exception: you. Look how many comments you've added here and at the talk page - and how little else you have done in the short while since your returned from hiatus. You are a bore. Accept consensus and shut up. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. Wikipedia consensus is enshrined in it's policies. You have acted to deliberately flout BLP policy. If you see BLP policy as not reflecting WP community consensus then please take your gripes to the appropriate forum and work to improve policy. Do not pretend to have consensus behind you on this matter. By doing so you continue to promote the violation of BLP policy. SmithBlue (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the admin noticeboard, you are publicly accusing an admin of deliberately flouting a very important policy. Before you persist in this line of attack you probably need to be aware of a couple of things: first, I was defending controversial BLPs before that policy even existed, and was bitterly attacked off-wiki as a result; second, I wrote the standard advice given to biography subjects when they email the Wikimedia Foundation. You need to be extremely careful that you have solid evidence that my edits were deliberately flouting policy and not good faith edits based on my reading of sources, on the interpretation of which reasonable people may differ. Remember, on Wikipedia you are allowed to be wrong. What you are not allowed to do is to continue asserting you are right, even when everyone else keeps telling you that you are wrong (see WP:IDHT). The burden of proof here lies with you. So far you have given an excellent demonstration of assuming bad faith, but that's all. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy: Please remember that, although you are an admin, here on this AN/I, your editing is under exactly the same scrutiny as mine. The burden is on you to address your many user conducts failing that I have listed here. SmithBlue (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy, given that you have deliberately changed edits of mine and by doing so showed that you are an unabashed liar, I would not be in the least bit surprised if you have flouted other areas of WP policy. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:DrChrissy. User:Jytdog and User:JzG etc. I think this thread has lost track from its initial complaint of SmithBlue reporting SmithBlue for misbehaviour. The only notification regards this thread was that SmithBlue was making a report/complaint on my behalf about his harassment of me (go figure!!!), the rest is fill. Now I never authorized such nor will I take part, nor will I communicate with him for obvious reasons. The rest of this is all SmithBlue throwing mud everywhere and not going through proper channels. All I know is that SmithBlue came back to WP using his secondary IP account admitting he has tried "Disruptive Editing but got nowhere." It is obvious he is here to disrupt and I have better things to do that involve myself in an editor who harasses then reports themself on the victims behalf simply so he can "get another piece of me". As suggested above by another a 48hr ban on SmithBlue, which I thing is way too kind considering SmithBlue's disruptive agenda. He's never going to give up his compulsion to disrupt. I have nothing else to say here on this page, Bye. Gongwool (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I would support something stronger than what I proposed, but I wanted to get the ball rolling. It is time. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this cr*p still going on? I made it clear I never asked him for a complaint on my behalf. As Jytdog has suggested it's perhaps to send a stronger message to SmithBlue. Or is everyone too scared of him to do banning, restricting or whatever? Gongwool (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's sum it up to this point

(1) DrChrissy's claim that Guy is an "unabashed liar" is an unabashed WP:NPA. A block is appropriate. Please consider DrC's block log and current topic bans when determining the appropriate length of the block.

(2) SmithBlue's repeated WP:IDHT behavior is classic WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING, and that, along with his own WP:NPA towards Guy, is also deserving of a block. We cannot allow ourselves to be placed in a position were people who are doing their damnedest to protect the encyclopedia from fringe bullshit are not supported in their efforts. Our credibility and accuracy are at stake.

(3) Would someone uninvolved - admin or not - with an ounce of common sense please close this god-forsaken thread, or are we going to allow SmithBlue to have as much space on AN/I as he desires in the process of hanging himself? Shut it down, please. BMK (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this discussion, in spite of my involvement in the article, as during the last week I've been almost completely without internet access. But I think it should be remembered that the Brian Martin (social scientist) article did suffer from serious BLP problems until quite recently. Those problems were repeatedly identified by IPs, SmithBlue and others on multiple locations, and not acted on. This isn't a simple case of a tendentious editor pushing a fringe theory, but editors banging their heads against a wall trying to get significant BLP issues fixed and not being heard. The thing is, of course, that the problem is now much reduced and is far more manageable, (although not yet completely fixed). I'm not sure what the correct response is, but I would like to see SmithBlue and others put down the stick and tone things back, as the noise was needed before, but it is counter productive now. If a short block is needed to give that time to happen, so be it, but if something short of a block will do the same I'd rather go in that direction. - Bilby (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No that's not correct Bilby, SmithBlue is only interested in OPV-AIDS fringe theory battles with that and the other article, not general work as others have been doing. To infer SmithBlue is contributing or trying to make articles accurate (as opposed to disrupting) is very misleading, as the above threads due to him here attest to. The Brian Martin, OPV-AIDS theory and the Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents pages are where he has caused most disruption. Gongwool (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I find that comment odd, as you have also only been interested in OPV-AIDS articles and the Wilyman PhD as well. If the intent is to claim that SmithBlue's focus makes their efforts disruptive, then the same can certainly be said of others involved in this.

My concern is that there were serious problems with the Wilyman-related articles, that we, as a community, only addressed because editors continued to raise them. It is understandable that those editors who weren't being listened to before are still trying too hard to be heard. I certainly agree that they need to step back, but the goal should be seeing if that can be managed through a means short of blocking, or, if not, short of an indef block. The circumstances here are more complex than they are being interpreted. - Bilby (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

From my point of view much of this AN/I is Shooting The Messenger.
Guy's misportrayal of me a fringe content pusher seems to remain the understanding of many of the admins.
I am treated as a problem rather than thanked for my time consuming work in getting multiple on-going BLP violations addressed. This has not been a pleasant task.
I remain concerned that the mud thrown my way will, in the eyes of some, stick. I would find this AN/I much easier if admins were to ask me more questions and would not frame their replies to me in terms that I consider inaccurate portrayals.
As long as Bilby is continuing to remove the on-going BLP violations from Brian Martin I will ignore BLP policy, that states BLP violations must be removed immediately, and not edit on WP:Brian Martin. (Editing on any WP article is currently as attractive as hitting my finger with a hammer).
Does Biby advise me that holding off posting further analysis of Guy's edits around WP:Brian Martin will deepen the understandings reached by this AN/I?
I am quite prepared to step back voluntarily and let the waters of this AN/I settle. What timeframe is suggested? SmithBlue (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

When the messenger is simply a neutral communication channel, shooting them is, indeed, counter-productive. But when the messenger is an integral part of the problem being reported, and they are skewing the message in a way that supports their own position while denigrating and misrepresenting the positions of others, then "shooting the messenger" makes a lot of sense. Lcok & load, ladies and gentlemen. BMK (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Especially when at the time of filing (and possibly still now) the "messenger" has absolutely nothing in their history for months other than one single issue. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

With respect, the reports are being skewed on both sides. If we were stupid enough to focus on the drama there would be a lot of blame to go around, for all of the parties. - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I want to thank Guy & BMK for bringing an issue into focus. If, during my voluntary step-back, I find I am inaccurately portrayed, or false or misleading claims relevant to me are made on this ANI, what can be put in place to ensure that I am not disadvantaged by my voluntary absence? A satisfactory answer to this and a timeframe that I can agree to is all that is necessary now to facilitate this step-back.SmithBlue (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:OWN. Nobody owes you nuttin'. BMK (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The top priority is that we fix the problems, not that we assign blame. I expect here our focus should be on how to improve the problem, or how to maintain the current direction the article has been heading in. I can't speak for others, but from my perspective we all need to tone back on the rhetoric, write with less heat (by which I also include comments about Martin), and just focus on improving the article. :) If we can close this, and get back to working on the articles, it would be a nice step forward. I don't know what else is required, but we'll see. - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Bilby, I currently have a large target daubed on me by Guy. It reads "pushes fringe content". Multiple admins on this ANI have been convinced by Guy's presentation. I am not clear that this is best ignored or can be avoided. SmithBlue (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but this avenue isn't going to change anyone's mind. I don't know what the best approach us, but sadly I don't see this thread as a productive solution. - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• The above comment is the third edit ever by this IP. BMK (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's because I used my phone and forgot that I never log in on it. Sorry. Fixed now. - Bilby (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bilby: Sorry, what problem are we supposed to fix? The nebulous and poorly articulated problem with our characterisation of the bogus OPV AIDS conjecture, as purportedly identified by SmithBlue? There's no evidence of an actual problem there. The article on Martin is actively edited and the involvement of editors with differing perspectives on the legitimacy of his work has, as is often the case with Wikipedia, resulted in a much tighter and more robustly sourced article - there's no evident problem to fix there, either. The only problem I have identified at this point, apart from the fact that SmithBlue is on a mission, is the article on Edward Hooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which appears to be a WP:COATRACK, so I have sent it to AfD. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

SmithBlue's edits on BLP:Brian Martin:Talk

I (SmithBlue), have edited on Brian Martin Talk page. My edits there have been mis-portrayed by Guy, Gongwool, and other admins on this ANI, as POV-pushing and "pushing fringe content".

I reject these claims as ill-founded.

My edits on BLP:Brian Martin:Talk fit into 3 categories. 1. NPOV-pushing. (Yes that is Neutral POV pushing.) 2. Addressing user conduct. (I now see this was a mistake.) 3. Housekeeping: addressing CoI claims & attacks on myself.

In chronological order

• [[168]] Flag three BLP vios and seek discussion on Talk. NPOV-pushing
• [[169]] Add link on Martin's website to Bilby's existing OPV-AIDS section. Argue that basing "Martin supports OPV-AIDS" claim on link is unencyclopedic. NPOV-pushing
• [[170]] Respond to Woolgong's statement of agenda. Indicate support for that which is RS based only. (Article has recent history of repeatedly failing Verify) addressing user conduct
• [[171]] Add support to change from (professor) to (social scientist). Point out effect. NPOV-pushing
• [[172]] Respond to CoI claim. Reply to attack.
• [[173]] Point out that pattern of repeated BLP vios and defense thereof is flouting of community standards. addressing user conduct
• [[174]] In response to criticism for removing BLP vio I point out BLP policy: remove immediately. addressing user conduct
• [[175]] In response to a section devoted to discussing personal negative opinions of BLP subject I point out conflict of negative opinion swapping with NPOV, Verify and RS. And ask that such discussions be held elsewhere. A previous form of Gongwools' negative opinion on BLP:Brian Martin[[176]]. addressing user conduct
• [[177]] A change of reference details from possibilly correct to defininately inaccurate by Gongwool. In light of recent multiple BLP vios that failed Verify I request confirmation of content and explanation of change to inaccurate reference. NPOV-pushing
• [[178]]Ask admin to address DE on BLp. addressing user conduct
• [[179]]Address fantasy of Gongwool that I want to have negative Verify, Rs, Weight material removed from BLP. Reply to attack
• [[180]]Address attack and fantasy about my goals. Reply to attack
• [[181]] Correct Gongwool's twisting of meaning of my edit. Request confirmation of Verify. addressing user conduct
• [[182]]Start new section stating support for Gongwool's reading of "Tools for critical thinking in biology" that martin has been criticised for his support of OPV-AIDS. Point out Jenkins characterises those who still support OPV-AIDS as "a few die-hards". NPOV-pushing
• [[183]] I reject Guy's misrepresentation of my edits around OPV-AIDS.Reply to attack
• [[184]] I confirm that Gongwool is correct on OPV-AIDS related criticism of MArtin. And request explanation for Gongwool's intro of inaccuracy into a formerly correct cite. addressing user conduct
• [[185]] I clarify the exact inaccuracies Gongwool has introduced into cite. addressing user conduct
• [[186]] I argue that the presentation of OPV-AIDS as merely "unproven" is far too weak. Suggest "refuted" or "convincingly disproven" as alternatives. NPOV-pushing
• [[187]] Reply to attack by Gongwool, congratulate Gongwool on Jenkins "Tools for" reference discovery. addressing user conduct
• [[188]] improve wording of [[189]] NPOV-pushing
• [[190]] edit to show support for Gongwool's current use of source that criticises Martin re OPV-AIDS. NPOV-pushing
• [[191]] Edit to reject guy's portrayal of "fringe pushing" <<A very poor edit. Previous version of rejection was absolutely fine>> Reply to attack
• [[192]] Criticise Guy's opaque comm style. Raise issue of Guy's pro-vaccine feelings disturbing his editing and admining. Promote Verify and RS. addressing user conduct
• [[193]] Start section in which to discuss "Weight of OPV-AIDS criticism" NPOV-pushing
• [[194]] Express support for change to "Martin is known as one of the supporters of the "convincingly disproven" or "refuted" re:OPV-AIDS NPOV-pushing
• [[195]] Suggest change to date range for Martin's support of OPV-AIDS. NPOV-pushing
• [[196]] New section: show risk that source claiming current views of OPV-AIDS is open to claims of bias. NPOV-pushing
• [[197]] New section: point out BLP vio edit by Gongwool fails RS. NPOV-pushing addressing user conduct
• [[198]] Suggest to Gongwool that refusal to engage to reach consensus is DE. Suggest that Gongwool seek guidance from Guy around requirements for BLPs. addressing user conduct

Any continuation of claims, that my edits on Brian Martin:Talk detailed above constitute POV-pushing or "fringe content pushing", where those claims do not raise specific edits and present reasoned argument for them being POV-pushing or "fringe content pushing", can only be seen as a insistence on mis-portrayal. SmithBlue (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Christ on a bike, have you not yet realised? the horse is dead. Find something productive to do. And do be aware that adding your interpretation of your edits in italics does not confer any validity on that interpretation. In fact, it invites closer scrutiny and active challenge, because it implies that you are setting yourself up as arbiter of neutrality.

Oh yes? Remember your first edit in 2016? [199]

"Brian Martin professor" BLP, DR ongoing

Brian Martin (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Had no access to account so put in BLPN 4 Feb 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=3

Inaccurate denigrating material remains 5 days later. Have not ID'd editors involved.

4 instances of misrepresentation of source contents found and then I stopped counting.

Maybe this time adminstrators can come through on serial inaccurate material in a BLP? Though I thought a BLPN would get some involvement already. But what do I know how this place actually works? Good luck and edit safely. SmithBlue (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That was your first logged-in edit since June 4 2011. Over four and a half years. Just at a time when the anti-vax crankosphere is working itself into a fine lather about the widespread criticism of Wilyman's PhD and Martin's role in it, you pile in with an anti-vax crank website's commentary on our coverage of the OPV-AIDS conjecture. Can you see why that's a it fishy?

Let me remind you of the first of your 53 talk page edits since the beginning of this month, the one which, as it happens, rang alarm bells for me:

Outside review of article lede

Some editors here might be interested in an outside review of the first 2 paragraphs of this article's lede.

Short version "Many factual errors are squeezed into these few words."

Find the long version 1/3 the way down the page at

Good luck and edit safely. SmithBlue (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

===

References

====

The source you are proferring is GreenMedInfo, one of many crank websites with a long and inglorious history of promoting anti-vaccination bullshit. Their commentary on our article is of absolutely no value, of course. But isn't it odd that you return form a years-long hiatus pushing commentary form an anti-vax blog that just happens to have published, shortly beforehand, an article spruiking the OPV AIDS conjecture and bigging up martin's "suppression" narrative. Again, this may all be perfectly innocent, but I am sure you can see why it sets off alarm bells. Antivaxers are, after all, dangerous and determined nutters.

Your next Talk edit, just over a month later:

Martin, has since August 2015, added a link to a non-academically published paper that states, "The case study examines the creation of unreasonable public certainty about an unresolved scientific dispute", in its abstract. http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/Dildine15.pdf

Martin's 2010 article can be found at http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/

The 2010 paper does in my reading provide any evidence of Martin promoting OPV-AIDS as the correct explanation of AIDS' origins. However Martin examines and critiques the actions of the opponents of the OPV theory. Misinterpreting this as "Martin supports OPV-AIDS" is unencyclopedic. SmithBlue (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In fact, this article by Martin absolutely does suggest that he believes debate on the OPV AIDS conjecture is being suppressed - for example: "Scientists have spent a lot of effort trying to refute the polio-vaccine theory of the origin of AIDS, but very little trying to refute the conventional view, that blood from an SIV-infected chimpanzee got into humans via hunting or eating. There is very little direct evidence to support the conventional view, which explains neither the timing nor the location of the origin." This is a profound misunderstanding of the workings of science. The SIV hypothesis stands because it has passed the kinds of tests that the OPV conjecture failed, and because its authors reacted to critical commentary by producing better evidence, not by denial and going to the non-scientific press with a narrative f conspiracy, which is what proponents of the OPV conjecture did. The SIV hypothesis has been successfully defended in the peer-reviewed literature, and - crucially - if it failed the kinds of analysis that the OPV conjecture failed, then it too would be rejected. As with all scientific findings, it is provisional, and based on the best evidence we have to hand. The OPV conjecture has been proven, quite convincingly, to be false. And its continued promotion by anti-vax activists presents an active public health danger.

And this is completely in line with what the sources clearly show to be Martin's tendency to give greater weight to purported whistleblowers than the merits of their claims actually deserves. He is, as it were, seeing reds under every bed. He lacks the scientific background to understand just how convincing the refutation of the OPV conjecture is, and it is not a stretch to consider that the article you cited is indeed an attempt to stand it up with parity to the SIV hypothesis, which has been confirmed by multiple independent lines of inquiry (the OPV conjecture has a single source and, as far as I can tell, no parallel discovery at all, which is extremely unusual for valid scientific advances).

Sticking within Tal space, two edits later you say:

I do note that I find (social scientist) more impressive than (professor). (social scientist) certainly provides more authority to his critiques of social processes such as science. SmithBlue (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Providing "more authority to his critiques of social processes such as science" is a double error: First, providing more authority has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedias mission, especially when people are promoting obvious bollocks, as Martin has with Wilyman's PhD. Second, a social scientist is not a scientist, as such, and social science has little of value to say about the process of hard scientific inquiry. Rather the opposite, as Alan Sokal memorably demonstrated.

Your next Talk space edit:

Did EvergreenFir decide that an east Australian IP is sufficient evidence of a CoI? I have no CoI and aim for NPOV.

That I have tried for the last 6 weeks to bring attention to the multiple BLP vios in article should be celebrated by any editor seeking to improve WP.

Addressing Gongwool's fantasies about my goals for this article - I will be satisfied if the article is based on accurate representations of reliable sources. I am unimpressed by the other claims and positions taken by Gongwool. They appear likely to function as disprutors of editing.SmithBlue (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hubris, much? In "six weeks" of attempts to bring "NPOV" tot his article, you amassed exactly three previous talk page edits on the article. Instead, your efforts centred on canvassing users Nil Einne, Coppertwig and Seabreezes1. Your comments on the Talk page in this time are long on innuendo and short on usable sources.

So, your cherry-picked selection of your edits, and your glowing interpretation of the merits of your own input, do not, I think, tell the whole story. Your implicit assertion that there can be no legitimate criticism of your edits, does not stand up. You exhibit a strong POV and you have returned after a long hiatus in extremely combative mood to fight a battle that is not Wikipedia's. We recognise the scientific consensus view that the OPV-AIDS hypothesis is nonsense, and that Martin's continued support for it is emblematic of a systematic failure to properly challenge his own bias towards those he perceives as whistleblowers. That's what the sources show, in as much as they pay him any attention at all. Guy (Help!) 01:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal redeux

One would not need to look further than this thread to see that SmithBlue is highly disruptive. This thread which started with one of the most passive aggressive things I've seen in my years here. No one has spoken in his favor at all in all the volume of words above. As a matter of fact, almost no one but SmithBlue himself has spoken. In itself, the volume he has written is disruptive. So, Proposed: That SmithBlue be indefinitely topic banned from subjects related to AIDS, broadly construed.

I would also strongly suggest that SmithBlue refrain from commenting in this section. Given the way you have been responding, it is doubtful you would help yourself in any way. John from Idegon (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support nothing more to add, proposal nails it. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As John from Idegon and Jytdog have said, all the evidence needed is in this thread. BMK (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support but extend the ban to any topic on 'vaccination' and/or 'hiv-aids' Jewjoo (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I am good with that too. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on AIDS and vaccines, broadly construed. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Topic bans on AIDS & vaccines, broadly construed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on HIV, AIDS, and vaccines, broadly construed and with a clear explanation that we expect a minimum of six months of productive editing in other areas before we will reconsider the topic ban. SmithBlue is a clearly disruptive editor but it may turn out that he is only disruptive on certain topics. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Resolution to the issues raised in this AN/I

I have achieved a successful resolution to the issues raised in this AN/I.
In the same way that I would not accept so much of the behavior displayed on this AN/I in my work place, I will not accept it in my recreation either.
Nor will I be a party to the training to bully and harrass or submit and avoid confronting the powerful that is evident here.
Until WP's process integrity and training outcomes reach an acceptable level - Adieu. SmithBlue (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's only a flesh wound! Guy (Help!) 17:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

He is indeed brave, Sir Knight. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Asking an admin to take a look at his userspace and apply NOTAFORUM at their discretion. John from Idegon (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Done.[200] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor disrupts AN/I and then retires on the verge of being banned - quoting the cause celebre of the moment, "bullying" - well, you could knock me over with a feather. BMK (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• This thread should still be closed and if the closer finds consensus for the TBAN it should be enacted. Retirement (which may be temporary) is not a valid way to avoid community-imposed editing restrictions. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2016 (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.

Disruptive editing to the F1 project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today, the IP inexplicably removed a mass of content from a F1 article. There's more disruptive editing to be found in their contribs of today. Will someone please take a look at this? Tvx1 18:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: for comment as to the level of collateral damage in range blocking 92.21.240.0/20 and 88.106.224.0/20. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The most recent contributions have been, I think, from the 92.21.250.0/24 and 92.21.240.0/22 ranges with no other contributions that I can see. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but neither of the range-contrib tools I use is working right now, so I have no way to check for collateral damage. I last checked on February 20, when they were both busy ranges in the UK, too busy for a range block. (Adding) Regardless, issuing blocks for creating articles on non-notable topics is not something I am prepared to do. It's not a blockable offense in my opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not the only type offense we're complaining about. It's also the unexplained removal of chuncks of content, persistent reverting of redirects, gaming the system, complete lack of intent to colleborate with us, etc...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:INCIVIL and WP:BADFAITH behaviour by User:SchroCat

Would an admin cast their eye over the discussion at Talk:Works of Keith Floyd#Requested move 17 March 2016. I'm afraid I did rise to the bait a bit, but I think the stalking and harassment accusations are a step too far. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. What a fucking waste of time. Sinden has followed SchroCat around like a fart in room. WP:BOOMERANG applies here, I would say. Cassianto^Talk 19:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that other means of dispute resolution be followed here. Clearly this spat is of no interest in general, all concerned editors should play nicely from now on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Rambling Man is right. BLUDGEONING and INCIVL are present, but looks just like hot heads and bad blood. I'd also recommend everyone involved take trip to the fish market to select a nice refreshing trout to cool yourselves with. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where is your evidence that I have followed anyone around? I made a simple WP:RM (that I happened upon because the article stuck out like a sore thumb in a category) and was subjected to the usual abuse[201][202] which has come to be expected from this editor, abuse which is then backed up by the usual suspects[203]. Heaven forbid if you try to make any kind of edit that to an article these editors have worked on. This kind of repeated behavior cannot be allowed to go unchecked. So I might be wrong in this case, so what? There is no need for the bullying. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat

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 seems like a legal threat to me. The user was reverted for making unsourced edits, edits that also removed sourced material, and replied with the post I linked to. Thomas.W ^talk 18:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a legal threat to me too, a very clearcut one at that. LjL (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. An indefinite block should be placed on their account until they withdraw their legal threat and promise not to do it again. I'll report then to AIV. Amaury (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe he meant it metaphorically. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It has the same chilling effect. We don't know if it's an actual threat or not, so we have to take the necessary measures. In this particular case, it certainly comes off as a real one. Amaury (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

/sarcasm Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (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.

Legal threat/legal action taken by User:FloridaMuseum

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 user FloridaMuseum appears to have taken legal action. Diffs are as follows:

• This one, taken from User:Oshwah's talk page: [204]
• This one, when the user replied to the uw-legal warning I placed on their talk page: [205]
  

Personally, I feel as if a block is in order here. I will leave the final decision to an administrator (hence why I opened this thread). Regards, --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Block account and IP. I've contacted WMF as it seems that legal action has already been taken. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 09:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, QEDK - much appreciated. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by Widr for block evasion - request close. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:43, 26 March 2016 (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.

Is a range block possible here?

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 user Profile101, or Supdiop (either/or, it seems, looking at the post on my talk page) continues to evade their block using IPs, and spamming other users' talk pages asking for an unblock regardless of whether or not they have administrator tools. Here is a diff of the message sent to my talk page: [206]
As far as I am aware, Supdiop is community banned following a series of failed, disruptive RFAs and sending administrators unwanted emails. Following this matter, my question is, is a range block possible on this particular IP range? Regards, --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

IP has been blocked by Widr for block evasion. Request close. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 26 March 2016 (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 block evasion by User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz

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.

---

As a result of a complaint on WP:ANEW,[207] User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz was blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and edit warring. On his talk page he accused the blocking administrator, User:EdJohnston, of "tag-team harassment"[208]. Then on his talk page an IP, 66.87.132.165, made personal attacks on me and User:VQuakr that had to be revdeled.[209] [210] The IP made the same, revdeled personal attack on me here, and attacked me and Vquakr here. The IP also vandalized this article, which Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz had previously vandalized.[211]

I suggest a longer or permanent block on Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz for block evasion and personal attacks, and a temporary block on the IP. --MelanieN (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support extending Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz's block. Kudpung has blocked the IP for 6 months. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:21, 26 March 2016 (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:DantODB

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.

---

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

Requesting a block for User:DantODB for persistent disruptive editing of wrestling articles. First he edit warred on the List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel page, and now he's pulling the same stunt on the List of WWE personnel page. It has to stop. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Request

I'm merely bringing to light facts regarding the inaccuracy of the sources used and the flaw in the logic regarding what constitutes a female competitor. DantODB (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

In other words - he thinks that he and only he is the and all be all of what is what - I have sources backing me up as to why the wrestlers are listed as they are, and Dant ODB just completely ignores them. That is why he should be blocked...ignoring solid references and forcing his view on the page. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything you accuse me of could be said about yourself as well. I have pointed out that the sources you are referring to are known to not check their facts per WP:PW/RS. The articles are also wishy washy. One of them says that Lana is training for her in-ring debut. For all we know, every other non-wrestling Diva could be doing the same thing. DantODB (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense arguments from someone who has a personal bone to pick with me and is just looking for a fight. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Vjmlhds reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: ). --David Biddulph (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2016 (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.

Proposing a community ban for 166.137.105.84

He is constantly vandalizing the same pages that a previous IP was blocked for vandalizing and for block evasion. He continues after I have warned him many, many times. Jdcomix (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Jdcomix - This IP has no block log. Why are we jumping straight to a community ban instead of using AIV to report vandalism and have the IP blocked? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, this appears to be long term abuse as documented here: User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Very fast and prolific vandal, multitudinously warned. Blocked for 72 hours. Thank you for reporting, Jdcomix. It is true that AIV is usually faster and better for vandalism reports. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC).

(edit conflict)This is an LTA abuser, being tracked by multiple editors for the last two months. Details can be found at here, as a copycat of the Animation Hoaxer. Dozens of insertions of deliberate factual errors every day or two, so far a dozen IP's have been collected. An experienced admin should consider a range block. Scr★pIron^IV 18:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I did consider it, ScrapIronIV, but this IP isn't related to any of the others listed by NinjaRobotPirate. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC).

Thank you, Bishonen. I hadn't geolocated the IP, because I have become so familiar with the behavior. All the numbers look the same after a while... This type of vandalism particularly tough to deal with, because those who perform it also insert false information into supporting articles. Scr★pIron^IV 19:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately they seem to be well at home among the proxies. It doesn't exactly take any skill nowadays. :-( I guess whac-a-mole is all we can do, until such time as Wikipedia starts requiring registration. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC).

Yeah, this looks like the US-based copycat. The geolocation is wrong (New York instead of Texas), but everything else is the same, including the ISP. It could be that AT&T Wireless doesn't have a stable geolocation for customers. I hope it's not a third vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This range (the 166.* range) seems to be a magnet to vandals. Site banned no less. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, this would make it the 4th user of this particular range to need a site ban. Blackmane (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I just filed another report for 166.137.105.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at WP:AIV, but it's looking a bit backlogged. This is the same vandalism from the same narrow IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that provides a nice little range. I've blocked 166.137.105.0/24 for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC).

If you liked that, you'll love this. Check out 2602:30A:2C95:6B0::/64. There's very similar vandalism in the form of hoax casting to children's animated films, especially The Rugrats Movie and Rugrats Go Wild. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Sorry to bother you with this, but a few more IPs from this range have shown up and performed the same vandalism as prior IPs identified here. For example: [212], [213], [214], [215], [216]. This whole IP range is almost nothing but Rugrats-themed vandalism, plus the occasional spree in other animated franchises. A range block on 2602:30A:2C95:6B0 won't stop it, but it will slow it down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The whole /64 range is most likely one person. I've blocked it for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC).

Metalworker14 continues to add unsourced content

Metalworker14 (talk · contribs) continues to add unsourced content. Sometimes it‘s information about membership of bands. The most recent was the addition of an alias for a musician: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Clark_%28musician%29&diff=711068787&oldid=708392106. I have repeatedly warned the editor, tagged membership sections of band articles. The editor does not seem to understand WP:V let alone WP:RS. I have asked and warned the editor multiple times. The editor does not engage in discussion or explain additions. Complicating matters is that he has begun to use podcasts (primary source interviews) that are difficult to verify without listening to the whole podcast. I believe a short block is in order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You gave a final warning template a few days ago I see. Did you try reporting to WP:AIV? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I have given at least three final warnings:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metalworker14&diff=706293028&oldid=706183037
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metalworker14&diff=708376925&oldid=708090815
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metalworker14&diff=710764701&oldid=710478705

and yes, I reported Metalworker14 to AIV. It received a question to which I responded. The request was then deleted as declined. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Pinging JamesBWatson for input since they addressed the AIV report. Frankly I agree that a block is in order. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Dispute and editwar over Madurai Junction railway station

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.

---

(talk page stalker) Witnessing this conflict over Madurai Junction railway station between editors NEETHIARASU ARUNACHALAM and LeoFrank. After LeoFrank posted the following message to WP:AIV I felt as if it was better suited to ANI given that the edits in question are not cases of obvious vandalism. The following is LeoFrank's AIV report. NottNott talk|contrib 15:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

On Madurai Junction railway station: vandalism after final warning. A single purpose account that seem to be bothered in adding content only what they want. They did the same on the Mysore article. They even talk of fighting till they win (which looks like some legal threat) and even use abusive language in edit summaries in the article. While my focus was to cleanup the article, this user seems to be making the article like a travel guide. Competence is something they lack as trying to make them understand is just failing. I may be at fault in reverting multiple times, but I strive towards quality in an article. Rest is left up to the admin to decide on the course of action. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 14:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• NottNott, I notified the user, and I'm about to block that other editor. Yes, disruptive/promotional edits can be considered AIV-worthy. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Apologies, I only read a section of the blocked editor's revision which appeared subjectively substantive. The fact that both editors were making personal jabs and don't appear like your typical vandals made me think this was appropriate for ANI as well. Hope all can understand. NottNott talk|contrib 16:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I am not going to defend myself as I am to be blamed as well and I'm going to keep my statement short. The whole situation started when the user just was bent upon re-instating things that do not count as encyclopedic. I should've taken this to DR or here when the situation was right out of control. But, yes I was provoked and rather let him provoke me than take the situation under control. I thank NottNott for creating this thread. As for admins, I am fine with whatever actions are taken with regards to this issue. Thanks, — LeoFrank  ^Talk 16:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It's already over. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2016 (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.

Tyler Gonzalez on Lana (wrestling)

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.

---

Mr. Gonzalez has a long history of edit warring on Lana (wrestling), he wants to describe her as a professional wrestler although she has never wrestled a match and he has produced no reliable sources that describe her as such. He has been blocked three times for doing this, though WikiLeon undid his most recent block due to previously opposing Gonzalez's edits on the talk page. EdJohnston ultimately let Gonzalez off with a warning that if he continued he risked a long block. The warning was not heeded, as he resumed the edits today[217][218].LM2000 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked for a month this time (previous block was a week), and I'd suggest further block escalation if they continue again when this one expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2016 (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.

Surreptitious removal of content, inclusion of content without evidence

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.

---

Dear Ani,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/96.40.114.242 in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salah_Abdeslam&action=history

the relevant content is:

A police dossier containing information concerning a person suspected of being radicalized, who was residing at the same Rue des Quatre-Vents occupancy, wasn't passed to the relevant authority during December 2015 because, according to the Mechelen (an area of Brussels) chief of police, the person responsible forgot to do so. (source: Laurens Cerulus - http://www.politico.eu/article/local-police-had-abdeslam-information-for-3-months-didnt-tell-brussels/)

09:44, 26 March 2016‎ 6cb49af5c4 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (52,635 bytes) (+669)‎ . . (→‎Capture: + (removed twice, 2nd at 22:16, 25 March 2016, 1st at 21:23, 25 March 2016)) (undo)

also, 96.40.114.242 is including the following categories:

French prostitutes, LGBT people from Belgium, LGBT people from France, LGBT people from Morocco, Moroccan sex workers

there is the suggestion Abdeslam might be bisexual (or homosexual), but the evidence is circumstantial. There is no real evidence he was as active as a prostitute ("rent-boy") within Belgium. There is absolutely no evidence what-so-ever he was a prostitute within the French borders. 96.40.114.242 has re-included the categories twice, after I've made efforts to remove them.

Sincerely, 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• The actual reliable sources carefully use the word "claimed" and avoid making claims of simple fact about the person. As noted many times, rumours about sexuality regarding persons covered under WP:BLP are not to be given the status of "fact." Collect (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• I see the article was cleaned up. The IP is blocked for a month for edit warring and BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2016 (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.

Possible legal threat

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.

---

Here. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure it's a legal threat, but I think a WP:DOLT analysis is appropriate here. The complaint appears to be that an article subject is described as having a career-ending failed drug test. Checking the article, Adam Tanner (footballer), and doing a source check, it appears inaccurate that the drug test ended the subject's football career (this article describes the drug test as causing his career to "flounder"). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Instead of a legal threat, 'You will be reported' is typically interpreted as a threat of being reported to 'Wiki Admin'. Oh noes. It seems to me the IP editor is undoing a series of POV edits made by a SPA recently. No further action is needed, though as always the article could do with a cleanup. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with zzuuzz's interpretation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:41, 26 March 2016 (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.

Persistent Sock

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.

---

An extremely persistent sock (User:CabreraAndLivelikemusicArePathetic) is really worrying me. He has created about 15 socks and I don't know where else to report this type of abusive behavior. The newest sock made an account using my username and another Wikipedia editor, User:Livelikemusic. Can a mass ban be put on this user or IP or something to stop this awful behavior? Carbrera (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Where does this come from? Where did this start? I suggest you start an WP:SPI, but to some extent are means are limited. A ban won't do much either, and depending on where this came from I imagine it wouldn't matter much. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oh. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smoore95GAGA. Now, that person is pretty much de facto banned already. Can I suggest that if they show up the next time on the SPI or elsewhere, that you just ignore them? Don't feed the trolls... Drmies (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2016 (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 changing height

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.

---

37.150.210.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly removing {{Height}} as well as accompanying citations from the articles about various fighters, with no edit summary. These changes have been reverted time and again and this behavior continues despite many warnings. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I left a more recent warning to this user, and a custom one. They have only gotten templates and not since the 14th. If it continues let me know at my talk page. HighInBC 15:18, 25 March 2016 (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:TheLongTone is stalking my contributions

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:TheLongTone seems to have reacted to my pushback against his hasty nomination for deletion of Disappearance of Sheila Fox by stalking my edits, looking for things he can have deleted. User:‎AldezD has stalked my edits in the past. Nothing was done then but i want something to be done now with TheLongTone. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm stalking you? You've repeatedly reached out to me on my talk page asking for help, with one of the requests occurring within the last 30 days ([219], [220], [221], [222]). You've also undone my edits in an AFD notifying a closing admin of your WP:CANVAS activity ([223]), and your edit summary in that reversion was "don't irritate me". I've undone one of your edits within the past year ([224]) removing unsourced information you included in your edit. WP:BOOMERANG for false accusations? AldezD (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A lot of your edits related to me can only have happened because you were checking my user contribs. This has been noted by non-involved admins. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You compliment me in your edits to my talk page and also ask me for help...but now I'm stalking your edits? Proof? AldezD (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I do think you do good work with Judith Barsi, i just think you shouldn't have been checking my user contribs. As i was told by another user here some years ago "that amounts to stalking and i would like you to stop". We can work together, have a good Wiki-relationship and be friends. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, proof? You make a serious accusation in an ANI about me and I refute it with proof showing your behavior (including very recent behavior)—in which you ask me for help—is contradictory. AldezD (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Paul Benjamin Austin: Accusations like this require evidence to support them. Please provide diffs of how/when/where AldezD allegedly stalked you. (Non-administrator comment) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Isn't this an accusation of stalking by User:TheLongTone? I used the editor interaction tool and found more interaction between Paul Benjamin Austin and myself, than between Paul Benjamin Austin and User:TheLongTone. (I don't recall ever hearing of Paul Benjamin Austin before today). I don't see any basis for the accusation. Jacona (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Which begs the question, why did Paul Benjamin Austin call me out in this ANI in the first place? I don't appreciate being accused of stalking when the user has personally reached out to me for help multiple times (even within the past 30 days) and has yet to respond with proof of his accusation that I have been stalking his edits "in the past". If there's no basis for his accusation against me and against TheLongTone, shouldn't there be some level of disciplinary action for making a false accusation? AldezD (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

When User:AldezD first AfD'd Little Miss Nobody case, I raised the point that since he had never shown any interest or even knowledge of the article or its subject before, he could only have found out about it by checking my talk page or user contribs. Likewise, User:TheLongTone can only have found out about Murder of Denise McGregor through the same way. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:HOUND, which states stalking is "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." I nominated one article you edit for deletion six months ago, which was also the last AFD I created for any article. Accusing me of stalking you is absolute nonsense, especially when you have reached out to me in good faith asking for my help multiple times. Publicly accusing me of that level of behavior in an ANI is reckless and immature. AldezD (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh really. Stalking my curvy pink butt; the complainant created an article which I sent to AfD; since it is my experience that editors who create articles on things of dubious notability often have a monomania which impels the to mass produce such dreck, I look at what else they have done. In this case I noticed a second article which I thought worth sending to AfD. If I was oversensitive I'd complain that Paul Benjamin Austin failed to notify me about his paranoid claim, altho he did take the trouble to leave a snippy comment on my talk page.15:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs)

"What button?! Where am I?! Who took my false teeth?!". I've been here since 2002 and served some time as an admin. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Then you should know what nonsense this complaint has been. You also had the gall to modify punctuation used in TheLongTone's post when you added the above reply. [225] AldezD (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

lets just close this thread. Best for all concerned. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2016 (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.

"Perun" IP on an OR spree at 37.201.xx.xx

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 recently noticed an IP adding something unsourced about the supposed Buddhist heritage of a Gallic tribe. It turns out this is a dynamic IP editing as, among probably others:

• 37.201.4.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 37.201.5.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their history is full of comparable edits, adding unsourced (or blog-sourced) content about historic topics most often pertaining to Poland and the god Perun, often on its face unremarkable (but unverifiable) and sometimes quite strange, as here where they consider the current arrival of refugees in Europe a case of "germanisation".

Is anybody familiar with this individual or MO, and are admin colleagues of the view that action such as mass rollbacks or blocks should be looked into?  Sandstein  09:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Calling that original research sounds a bit overly gracious. Nonsense is more applicable, but a descent into bovine scatology may also be warranted. Kleuske (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)s

There's a number of Other IP's, too.

• 37.201.7.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Interesting first contribution.
• 37.201.4.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Moreover, Geradid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a very similar interest.

There's also a fair amount of quacking going on. Is it duck season or wabbit season? Kleuske (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Give me a list of pages and I'll protect them. I'm pretty familiar with this Perun nonsense. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to qualify that. It would have to be pages with recent multiple edits relating to this, I can't protect pages rarely edited by this person. I'm no good at range blocks sadly. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a list of affected pages, or if I did I'd protect them. @Doug Weller:, do we have a community ban on record somewhere so that this stuff can be reverted on sight?  Sandstein  16:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Of course you would. Sadly no. This is the first time the Perun nonsense has been brought here. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for the "Perun" disruptive editor

Let's make it official, then. For longterm disruptive editing by inserting unsourced and implausible content into historical articles, notably relating to the god Perun, the person who has edited from the IP range 37.201.xx.xx among others, as noted above, is banned from Wikipedia by the community.

• Support as proposer.  Sandstein  10:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It seems nothing else will work. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Per above. Kleuske (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support this is the least (and perhaps the most) we can do. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support at least this way we can deal with this person without repeating the same discussion in the future. HighInBC 16:21, 25 March 2016 (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.

Disruptive editing by Cebr1979

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.

---

Hey all. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#Middle names, maiden names, married names, birth names, etc... (WP:Permalink here) regarding how to include additional names in the lead of soap opera character articles. There is yet no consensus on the matter, except for perhaps not cluttering the lead with a bunch of married names. Despite the lack of consensus, Cebr1979 (talk · contribs) started making mass changes to the lead of soap opera character articles while citing that aforementioned discussion as though a consensus exists. He's done this in the face of opposition, as seen in the WikiProject discussion and when it comes to edit warring here and here with TAnthony to enforce the changes, and here with me to enforce the changes. Also take note of 75.170.253.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) doing the same. If this IP is Cebr1979, it is a violation of WP:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. Other editors who disagree with these mass changes are Jester66 and AnemoneProjectors (Anemone). Probably others as well. Cebr1979 is not giving editors a chance to form a consensus on this matter and is instead enforcing it.

There's also the fact that Cebr1979 is using this case to add incorrect comma usage, as seen here and here. This is despite the fact that, as seen here, here and here, he has been told by various editors that this comma usage is wrong and that continuing to use it is disruptive. When it comes to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, he insisted that he was right even after SchreiberBike, Peter coxhead and Nicknack009 explained to him why he is wrong. And he has repeatedly ignored or scoffed at SMcCandlish's sound commentary or advice on the matter, as seen here, here, here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"Other editors who disagree with these mass changes are Jester66 and AnemoneProjectors (Anemone). Probably others as well." Lol - you don't get to make assumptions on others people possibly/potentially showing up in the future.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree the adding-commas issue is clearly disruptive and needs to stop now. The fictional-TV-name issue possibly seems to need to be resolved by some sort of RfC and then closed by an admin with some resulting guidelines -- and/or a set of Style Guides on the issue posted on the Soap Opera WikiProject -- in order for there to be something definitive to point to when this issue comes up. Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• A quick look at some of those links confirms that Cebr1979 has no clue about commas—that's understandable because lots of people have trouble in that area. However, the fact that Cebr1979 can blithely ignore all the very reasonable advice that has been provided is most concerning. Their talk page at 8 March 2016 also shows that self-assurance can be overdone. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The edit war at Donald Trump consisted of adding the same inappropriate material five times: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Then this comment asserted there was no need to get consensus to add the material. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I have found it difficult to stay calm where Cebr1979 is concerned (and I know that's my fault, not his, but to be honest I haven't had this problem with any other user). The comma issue came up on my talk page, and when he told me "You say so... therfore it is, right?", sadly I reacted and asked him to stay off my talk page, but I then removed that and replaced it with a proper explanation about the comma issue, so he refused to respond accordingly, only pointing out that he was "confused" about my "nonsense". I removed his reply because it was uncivil. He has been blocked four times previously for his "battleground behaviour" and he clearly hasn't learnt to stop. AnemoneProjectors 09:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• That lengthy block log does not inspire confidence, and a look at their edit history shows them making an alarming amount of brazen unilateral and often far-reaching decisions (usually with no edit summary). This therefore seems at a glance to be an editor who is ungovernable. It is at this point that we usually have to decide if the editor is a net positive or a net negative, or if they are ineducable. If the latter, perhaps CIR sanctions are in order. Softlavender (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The only time I don't put an edit summary is when I'm changing a re-direct and that was discussed here. When you ask questions instead of making assumptions, you gain information. The Jester66 editor Flyer mentioned above, never uses edit summaries. You should ask him about that... others have and gotten nowhere.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

That IP is not me, the removal of married names happened after a lengthy discussion where everyone (including Flyer... when she actually showed up after the fact) agreed married names should go from the lead, and nobody has ever shown anything about the commas being wrong... and that's all I'm gonna say on this nonsense. When [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#User:AnemoneProjectors (an admin) severely owning pages! real issues arise, nobody cares]. When Flyer gets upset, all her little buddies come a runnin'. I'm with family for Easter weekend. Ya'll can go around in circles on your own.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to mention: User:Nk3play2 has also began mass-changing the leads of articles, based on that same conversation. It isn't just me. Let's all focus on the real issue here: Flyer and TAnthony are upset a conversation happened without them. Nothing more. Flyer agrees with married names not being in the lead and TAnthony doesn't know if he cares or not. So... Doing things Flyer's way isn't good enough for her and we all need to re-start a talk about how I shouldn't be doing something we all want? Like I said... circles.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding Cebr1979's comment above that "nobody has ever shown anything about the commas being wrong", I've just posted to his or her talk page, linking to something about commas' not being used to set off restrictive appositives. Deor (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Thank you. I will read it soon (not enough time right now). Should it reveal I am wrong, problem solved and I won't do it again.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• In my defense, User:Cebr1979 -- that was a conversation that I was not privy to. Though I did not agree with the editing, I stopped fighting you on the situation because I didn't have the energy to debate any further. I was led to believe that it had been decided so I let it go -- that was my bad because I should've looked further into it before I started making those changes. I'll abide by whatever the consensus ends up being and I will gladly give my input when it comes time to decide.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 19:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I wasn't a part of any other conversation, either. Only the one you were a part of and, like you, I clearly assumed that was the end of it and, also like you, started editing accordingly. I don't think you needed a defense here, I was merely pointing out it wasn't just me who assumed that was a consensus talk. Just like TAnthony assumes those are consensus talks when he's getting his way. If people don't like it, fine. We can go put them all back and we can start a proper discussion (however it is that's done). However, if we have to put the married names back on pages like Tina Lord, we'll have to put them back on pages like Erica Kane too.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I think this is the conversation neither of us were a part of (which, coincidentally and frustratingly, was started by Flyer).Cebr1979 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This hasn't been the first time a complaint has been made against Cebr1979, and I'm certain it won't be the last. It seems like Cebr1979 finds something he doesn't like and decides to make changes without consulting others, like the lead names. As you can see this is one of the many condesending comments Cebr1979 has made in the past. Jester66 (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC

Except that I started the very conversation we're all discussing now so I cleary do consult others making your whole point untrue (and you have taken part in that conversation so you knew it was untrue when you said it... that's weird).Cebr1979 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I have also found Cebr1979 disruptive and uncivil towards other editors. Here I told Cebr1979 where to find consensus about something only to be told unless I can link to it, it doesn't count. Like others have said, a very condesending editor. Refuses to listen to other editors and I hate to say it but their editing pattern has not changed. I would suggest an indefinite block. 5 albert square (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You do have to link to consensus talks and you know that.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Which I did once I had proper Internet connection again. In the meantime I provided you with a link to the board where the discussion took place so you could search the archives. You refused to do it and reported myself and others for bullying, harassment and meatpuppetry. 5 albert square (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Do I have to go find it to prove that you didn't do it "once [you] had proper Internet connection again?" We both know that's wrong and it took you a long time and I had to come here first before you gave it to me. Plus, it's not my responsibility to go search archives to find some talk you claim happened, sub-par internet connection or no. You're so proud of yourself for finally doing it... even though just 4 days ago, you were right back here doing the same thing all over again. "Go read this whole page, I'm not linking to the conversation I'm claiming happpened." (and, as of today, you still haven't linked to it, by the way)Cebr1979 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The above comment is just another example of Cebr1979's incivility and unwillingness to collaborate. AnemoneProjectors 23:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It's actually just an example of how you and Albert like to claim "consensus talks" without showing where they are. There is nothing to "collaborate" with in Albert's comments; there's just him not telling the whole story (or even half of it). There's also nothing uncivil, there's frustration. "Uncivil" is something editors (and admins) hide behind when they don't have anything productive to say but, wanna make sure they're heard regardless. It's a tactic, and a childish one at that.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• On the married names of fictional characters issue:, Cebr1979 is clearly editwarring and does not have consensus. I tend to agree with his viewpoint that giving a bunch of former married and maiden names of fictional characters in the lead is silly, but consensus is not established by disruptive WP:FAITACCOMPLI "make it my way in a big hurry before enough people can fight back" behavior. Just RfC it. It takes less time to just open the RfC – now at WP:Village pump (policy)#RfC: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads – than it does to post a single argument response in the insular thread at WikiProject Soap Opera, and this is broader than that genre, anyway.

  On the repeated insertion of commas in the same incorrect pattern after many objections over a long period of time: Cebr1979 simply needs to be narrowly topic-banned from doing this. He's been at it for many months, and it's clear that he will not stop, no matter what, until administratively required to do so. Cebr1979 is prevaricating when he says no one has shown his comma usage wrong. His behavior was previously addressed at WT:MOS and unanimously concluded to be incorrect [226]. Cebr1979 nukes everything off his talk page as soon as it is posted, making it difficult to discuss with him anything about his edits, so he is not in a position to pretend that what he's doing isn't objectionable. People object whenever he does it, and he simply refuses to listen. His comma usage is sub-standard according to every single English usage and grammar guideline in publication (I know; I own virtually all of them, two bookcases full, and I have yet to see a single one recommend his comma usage, and they uniformly show it to be an error). Why Cebr1979's preference in this regard is an error has been explained to him many times in exact detail but he continues making article worse by inserting the incorrect comma into articles, so this just has to be stopped.

  On the civility matter: Yes, Cebr1979 is grossly incivil to other editors. He appears to be unwilling or unable to work collaboratively. While not every edit he performs here is unhelpful, it's questionable whether his participation is a net positive. His approach to WP is as if it is an open-ended, single-player gameworld for his personal entertainment and control, and everyone else here is an NPC enemy to defeat for bonus points. This is a long-standing WP:COMPETENCE problem with this editor. The user's level of screeching, irrational hostility any time one tries to continue a discussion on their own talk page [227] [228] is baffling, menacing, and hypocritical. I think the editor needs a swift but short block upon the next outburst of incivility, with escalating blocks if the behavior continues.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

  • As for an RfC (whatever that is) at Village Pump, I didn't even know Village Pump existed until last month and somewhere you go for technical help hardly seems like the place to go to start a conversation about soap operas. The only conversations about soap operas I've ever started, taken part in, or seen others start/take part in have either been at an article's talk page talk (such as) or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. As for "nuking everything off my talk page..." Yep, the second I saw you here I knew that'd come up. You hate it. How someone else operates their talk page is of no consequence to you but, it just drives you nuts and you bring it up every time we encounter each other. You wanna have a talk about something? Go somewhere, start a talk about something, and ping me (once). I've told you before: I have no interest in long, drawn out talks being on my personal talk page. I have no interest in getting an e-mails every time someone comments. Worry about your own talk page, mine does just fine without you.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC is a request for comment. Even your response above is worryingly uncivil. Plus the fact you're not willing to talk to editors on your talk page. If an editor has an issue with you that is the first place they will go and those conversations can be long and drawn out. 5 albert square (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Here Cebr1979 claims that someone making the same mistake as him justifies his edit. When I pointed out that this is incorrect, he was uncivil towards me. The list of examples is forever expanding, even on this very page. AnemoneProjectors 23:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I never even read what you wrote. I just saw it was you budding in on a conversation neither directed at you nor were you invited to... and removed it. Your only source for the particular punctuation question myself and that other editor are discussing is "I know it's incorrect punctuation because I'm a native speaker of English." That's not a source, it's not productive, and it gets no one anywhere. I have no interest in hearing your responses on the matter... because they're not worth hearing. They're just, "I said so so there!" responses... which is typical of you. You shouldn't be an admin.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:Cebr1979 has been blocked numerous times now. What I have noticed is that the editor's behaviour never improves. They are very uncivil and always have been. It is near impossible to work alongside them. They treat Wikipedia as a battleground ignoring other editor's opinions. The amount of ANIs they have launched to try and rid of opposition is hilarious. Harassment is also a big problem and they targeted me in 2014 and continued to bring me up in other discussions during 2015. I backed off because they aim to cause disruption and it works. I remember their battleground behaviour and harassment drove User:Arre 9 to become quite inactive and it worked on me too. I do not understand why they are allowed to continue effecting so many other editors.Rain the 1 23:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • You should link to those conversations, Raintheone.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• For this continued snark, demonstrated excellently also in the previous ANI thread, their personal attacks esp. against AnemoneProjectors and 5 albert square, I have blocked Cebr1979 for a week. You all can figure out what else to do. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• I fear this block will be like all the others, then Cebr1979 will do the same thing and we'll be here once again. Jester66 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • IF he's blocked, someone needs to close this discussion thread. Montanabw^(talk) 04:27, 27 March 2016 (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.

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Five

Globally blocked user (CoUser1) is back, with IPv6 addresses: 2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:*

See my previous ANI reports (1, 2, 3, 4). SLBedit (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you filed an SPI, SLBedit? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No. SLBedit (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

SLBedit - You need to file one. Go here to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to because it's an obvious WP:DUCK. User will continue to disrupt Wikipedia unless admins do something about it. SLBedit (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@SLBedit: It honestly might be more helpful and get you a quicker response... but I'm going to start a subsection below asking for someone to look into a rangeblock. Could you post some examples of the disruption from a few different IPs (and how it relates to a past blocked user)? Or perhaps Diannaa remembers dealing with this one before and can confirm duckness. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible rangeblock?

Can an administrator look into a rangeblock for the IP range mentioned above (2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:*). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

YCplaer/Orzijunmyeon persistant disruptive behavior possible sock puppetry and vandalism

For the page of Z.Tao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user Ycplaer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) received warning regarding the spamming the article and addition of irrelevant information that don't follow Wikipedia's guidelines, and reverting of page without any discussion or explanation in the edit summary and overall disruptive behavior by Admin Drmies.A 3RR report was filed and this editor was warned by Admin Edjohnston

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ycplaer

Due to those edits. [229]She was warned by Drmies [230]She was warned and blocked by Edjohnston

Those edits were reverted and opposed those changes both in user's talk page and on the article's talk page or edit summary. By me. See talk for more detailed information. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Z.Tao&action=history Open discussion, the game changer, Tao martial artist and bold edit.

However despite discussion being open in the talk page, and admins warnings.

This editor came back again under a different name Orzijunmyeon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in order to avoid sanction and resumed the page blanking and the spamming.The page blanking is even more obvious now because I added citations since last edit from YCplaer.[231]I had noticed it before but it was minimal and wanted to assume good faith but now after all the edits I made that this user deleted, it's more apparent, I now suspect that person is a sneaky vandal.

Sentences and properly sourced paragraphs have been deleted without any explanation or discussion from the Edit Summary, wrong information input in the subject's biography like Martial arts tricking performer despite it being wrong and contested in the talk page, link spams that have been reverted from administrator Drmies and myself like fancams replacing news sources citations, links to itunes or chinese music streaming services that require registration in citations instead the the news articles that were there before, copyrighted material. etc...All of these were addressed and opposed in the subject's talk page and edit summary, but these users didn't communicate at all before making those changes.

I believe Orzijunmyeon is a sock puppet because 1. New account 2. Same disruptive behavior, page blanking , spamming and lack of communication or justification for changes. 3.the article was reverted to Ycplaer's last edit. That's very specific and odd for a new editor to do that.

There is no logical justification for why someone who is genuinely interested in improving the page would behave that way. Especially seeing the talk page or the edit summary and being warned repeatedly.

I tried to report on thee intervention against vandalism page for Orzyjunmyeon and got declined, because it's hard to point out the vandalism unless you know the context and go through the whole article and talk page because that person is being sneaky, (but the martial arts tricking performer edit is a big red flag it's odd, he's equally notorious as being a Wushu martial artist as a musician, it looks to me like it's a purposefully misleading edit) and without knowing that Ycplaer/Orzijunmyeon may be a sockpuppet, it's hard to judge, I think I should have added that I sent an investigation for sock puppetry report.

The motives I can think of : The subject used to be part of a very popular Kpop boyband Exo. His departure and subsequent success some Exo fans bitter and/or since he's a young popular star who's gaining a lot of recognition, he attracts attention from some people that are immature.

I think these 2 users need to be blocked indefinitely and the page should be locked to avoid future vandalism under I.P addresses or creation another account that is not verified continuing to disrupt and/or Vandalize the page. TaoWoAini (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The SPI created is here. As the alleged master was not notified of this discussion, I have done so myself. GAB^Hello! 23:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

New Development: Now another person is reverting YCpleaer/Orzijunmyeon edits not all but still enough to see the disruptive pattern.12r003hun I suspect meat puppetry. Example of external link spamming that was contested : Chinese streaming sites in citations, like Kugou, Kuwo, 163.music not only in Chinese therefore not relevant on English page but they also require registration. They delete the news articles citations in english about Tao's first album and put this instead.

After each mention of Tao's album they added external links to these streaming sites. This is only the first diff during subsequent edits 12r003hun added the same to the rest of the page were T.A.O is mentioned. [232] 12r003hun deleted the link to the English entertainment news article I added in order to do so. Same as Orzijymyeon [233]

Look how long some citations are after the page, sometimes the original citations are left there but then a bunch of other things are added like after the paragraph after Tao quitting due to injury there was an addition of a bunch of fancams one of them an entire Exo showcase where Tao was absent, due to his accident and the members mentioned him once in the span of 1hr. The same kind of thing that Drmies had warned YCplaer against adding to the page, using the article as a repository for fan material, See Ycplaer [234] and Orzijunmyeon [235] and then 12r003hun [236] I suggest using the find box to find the word contract to find those parts because there is more than one edit in each diff and it's hard to find unless you narrow it down like that especially Ycplaer since it's a bold edit.

There is a lot of link spamming so many news article citations replaced with videos and , containing fan cams, copyrighted videos, link to itunes...see what it looks like in the end.very long citations enumeration after some sentences

Ycplaer [237] Orzijunmyeon [238] 12r003hun [239]

Example of page blanking it's less substantial this time mostly sentences names of people Tao worked with but of of them is very obvious.

The paragraph about Tao's 1st movie role in You are my sunshine, and it's citations were deleted. Instead was replaced by an edit about a guest appearance on a variety show that is completely irrelevant. It already in the table of shows Tao appeared in. and it's again the very same edit that YCpleaer had made see under line 30, 7th paragraph [240] and then Orzijunmyeon did under cover of adding the guest appearing to the page [241].and 12r003hun did the same [242]

Why would one delete Tao's 1st movie role, in a big movie with A list stars Huang Xiaoming and Yang Mi? Or do it to replace it with a normal appearance he did on a variety show with another Kpop Idol Hee_Chul?(I watched it noting special happened, he was a guest he played games) Especially when you made sure to remove any mention of Victoria Song who is another notorious Kpop idol ,that Tao worked with in Zhang Liyin's video in a more notable context (music video was shot like a short film and Tao got to display his acting skills and martial arts for 1st time) Why this inconsistency with editing from all 3 of them?

All of the above were things that were opposed in the talk page, edit summary: page blanking, deletion of the You're my sunshine mention, link spamming etc... So why would 12r003hun who last contributed to Z.Tao's article a month ago, specifically come to revert those edits, and also do external link spamming on this article, when that user was already warned about external link spamming on another page in February and should know by now that this kind of thing is discouraged ? 12r003huntalk

TaoWoAini (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral RfC at Donald Trump

After a long Talk discussion regarding whether an edit at Donald Trump violates WP:original research, one of the involved editors initiated this RfC which IMO is outrageously non-neutral. I'm requesting that an admin take a look and decide whether that is indeed the case. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

After numerous efforts to reach a compromise, there continued to be resistance to achieve consensus, even after language was proposed to provide the clarification that would answer the objections to the compromise. This language that is the subject of the dispute was reliably-sourced, was material to the article, and was crafted with compromise language made in good faith. After the nature of the objection to the compromise was revealed to be possibly politically-motivated, I asked for a RfC. That the RfC is being escalated here with an apparent intention for trigger negative repercussions for asking for a RfC shows that there could be a negative motivation here, possibly retaliatory. The record is clear about the discussion that took place on the Talk page, and the RfC was appropriate given the moving of the goalposts used to object to the good-faith compromise language. Maslowsneeds (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The RfC does seem to be in the appropriate format of "include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template" (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment). It's confusing to know what this RfC is asking for for those editors who have not participated in the previous discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The RfC describes the initiator's own efforts as being in good faith and using reliable sources, while suggesting that the opposition is affected by political bias. That doesn't seem neutral to me. It also completely mis-represents the issue raised by the opposition.CFredkin (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

For this RfC, I wasn't presuming to ask to be able to effect the compromise language before we received other opinions about the compromise language. The RfC was asking for other editors to comment about the compromise language. Because there were blocks to consensus, I was hoping that the input of other editors could help us reach a consensus. Maslowsneeds (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• The RFC doesn't actually help give any information that an outside viewer would need to make an opinion. It doesn't matter if you have 100 diffs about the efforts you've made unless your goal is to make it a puzzle for others to figure out your actual point here. Otherwise, it's not so not neutral as almost borderline useless. Point to the actual discussions and let people see for themselves, not just your comments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the RfC is mal-formed. The opposition to the content is based on WP:original research, since the sources for the content under discussion don't actually mention Donald Trump (with the exception of a WSJ article that actually states that Trump was not actively involved). The source of the disagreement is not accurately described at all in the RfC.CFredkin (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what each side is based on. A simple "I'd like to add this edit and here is the previous discussion" is all that's needed. This level of complexity you guys on all sides are making this is absurd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

To bring clarity, I will copy down the compromise language (links to which exist in the RfC), and move to amend the RfC to ask people to approve the compromise language. Thank you for this feedback, and my apologies. Maslowsneeds (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with the view that the RfC is mal-formed. I would propose closing the current RfC and starting over once agreement on the question is reached. Springee (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have copied the compromise language to preface the RfC, and editors are responding to the RfC on the talk page. Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And then the wording is alleged change again in the middle of it. The RFC keeps changing what the actual wording is intended to be so all the "include" support is based on different versions of the exact language. Is the closer supposed to presume that an early include supports all later versions? Is the closer supposed to review and analyze all the time stamps to see if all the concerns have been resolved? It seems like a poorly designed RFC all around starting with a focus on defending the arguments above rather than actually giving people a neutral question (should this language be included or not). I suggest shelving it and starting over with the actual wording in separate headings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with the filer. That RfC is not neutrally worded at all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

RfCs don't have to be neutral worded? Whoever said so? Most people bringing about an RfC will bring on their viewpoint, it's upto the participants to decide whether that viewpoint is fine or not. The RfC does violate the principles, though, as drawing conclusion (even if based on facts) is construed as original research. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: Um... right here? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, what I said was if you're introducing a change, you're always on one side of the argument, is it not? Hence, not neutral. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not what you said. Having a viewpoint is not the same as neutral wording. No one asks for neutral views, just wording. And the question of the RfC should be neutrally worded, regardless of your personal position. When you !vote is what you make your case. The RfC wording in question is Despite reliable sources and good faith efforts to reach a compromise on language (that was later slightly amended) about fines assessed to Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, an editor is blocking these edits based on arguments including about Hillary Clinton. Can we have outside input concerning the compromise language that is not colored by possible political bias ? That's not even close to neutral. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I never spoke about the RfC itself except that it can be opposed on other grounds. I had said about the viewpoint in my first reply as well as second, I don't know what you missed. When you use RfC to resolve disputes, maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about. I'm sorry if I messed up about the non-neutral wording and having a viewpoint but they're essentially synonymous, since you're trying to make a change from the status quo. Despite reliable sources and good faith efforts to reach a compromise on language (that was later slightly amended) about fines assessed to Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, an editor is blocking these edits based on arguments including about Hillary Clinton. Can we have outside input concerning the compromise language that is not colored by possible political bias ? is not even a case of neutral or non-neutral, it's accusatory and shows only one side of the whole situation. If I were to write something like, "After being reverted multiple times and being in a heated discussion with Example, I'm here to seek opinions about the edits and whether there should be any change from status quo." In case you haven't noticed, I've been non-neutral by presenting my viewpoint but it's neutrally worded. I think that's where I messed up. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 07:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be neutrally worded. That's what I'm talking about WRT the this ANI complaint. I agree with Maslowsneeds' assessment of the RfC they're making a complaint about. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

New user repeatedly removing speedy deletion tags, recreating article, and more

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 history of CreativArticles5134's talk page looks concerning. It shows that their primary activity has been creating and re-creating the same article they might have been involved with and removing speedy deletion tags from it. They seemingly vandalized the user page (note this isn't a talk page) of the editor who originally filed for speedy deletion. While removing most warnings from their own talk page is acceptable, this note shows they are not acknowledging them as valid warnings in the first place.

Since what I described above is basically all this editor ever did, I am left to wonder if building an encyclopedia is what they're here for at all. LjL (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@LjL Your comments were argumentative and off topic. Removal from the page was appropriate, although frowned upon, appropriate and necessary. We disagree, but it is against talk guidelines to make it personal or off topic.

--CreativArticles5134 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you perhaps expands upon your use of the first person plural? Who, exactly, is we? Your post somewhat begged the question. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 22:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "We?" Sounds like a group account. Then there's your original username, which had to be changed for sounding too promotional. Then there's your current username, which still sounds like the name of a company specializing in undisclosed paid editing. Then there's the fact that all of your edits are promotional.

I'm inclined to block. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi We is me and @LjL. As in me and him disagreed, but her did not have to place an incident here. Our argument is not regarding deletion. It's regarding his comments I deleted which were unfounded. Regarding, your point of view to block: I certainly understand this. However, the initial blocks we're blatant spam. And no detailed explanation, even though I left a detailed explanation. And from my point of view was abuse. I listened to the user and changed the user name. Why bring it up? Did you not see that? Are you just muddying the waters?

--CreativArticles5134 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@LjL I was referring to the deleted comment. What you said above only refers to this page. Which you exaggerated and created the above comment, and deleted the other comments against you. Please take your due diligence before taking things out of context. And please do not delete comments against you made by users expressing their valid opinions against you.

--CreativArticles5134 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence for your accusations that LjL deleted comments and took things out of context. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@User:Ian.thompson Your confusion alone is proof he took this whole matter out of context. It should have stayed in the talk page, but because his comment were off topic he brought them here.

--CreativArticles5134 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@LjL Is making incident claims, exaggerated claims and personal attacks that are off topic. He is inciting arguments and deleting users comments against him outside of his appropriate talk page.

--CreativArticles5134 (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Provide diffs immediately or withdraw your arbitrary accusations. I deleted nothing. LjL (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are LjL's contributions. I see no evidence for your accusations. Did you perhaps encounter an edit conflict? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess the editor remove the comment. Here at the bottom: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=712235597. So @LjL did not deleted his own comment. Regardless, bringing the original issue here was an exaggerated thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativArticles5134 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• For reference, the page is Danny Avila Electric Blues which has been deleted four times from March 26th-27th and are the editor's only contribution, other than talk page attempts to save it. Admins can review the deleted edits and see that it's not acceptable. I'd say we're approaching WP:NOTHERE territory. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

CA please do not refactor your comments as you did here. It makes the replies to your post look messed up. You are welcome to strike your comment but you should not remove it. MarnetteD|Talk 22:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD I was asked to withdraw it. And thank you.

--CreativArticles5134 (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah @Ricky81682:, saw that. Between that and the "we" earlier, I'm seriously thinking either undisclosed paid editing (both user names sound like companies that would do that) or else an affiliate of the band. Either way, WP:NOTHERE. I need to get to work, so I'm going on ahead with my initial reaction and blocking. Just wanted to see if anything turned up that might've changed things, but nothing did. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You withdraw the statement by writing that you are wrong and striking through the comment rather than deleting it. BTW creating the article three times after it initial deletion and removing the speedy tag is an "exaggerated thing to do" - As Ricky81682 states this SPA is approaching WP:NOTHERE. MarnetteD|Talk 22:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@CreativArticles5134: since it seems that you're now blocked, please take some time to consider that I have nothing against you (since I don't really know you) and any "exaggeration" from my part merely stems from the fact that you aggressively kept re-creating an unwanted article and then retaliated against an editor by sending them a completely invalid warning. Those are not nice things to do, are they? If I am wrong and you are not really here just to disrupt and create trouble, then wait some time and make a well-thought-out unblock request where you show you understand what the issues were... but you won't be unblocked if you accuse others, like you did here. LjL (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2016 (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.

MfD end run GAME

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.

---

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp. Userpage kept at MfD, so someone moves it to mainspace to see it deleted under the higher standards of AfD. A disingenuous move of someone else's userpage. WP:GAMEing to subvert the consensus at MfD. Blatant refusal to accept the obvious consensus at WT:N that the WP:GNG is not to be applied to userpage drafts. WP:TEAMing, by the page mover and the AfD nominator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac [243]
• Ricky81682 [244]

This is a little crazy. The page should be userfied and the AfD closed. It was a user page moved into main space and then immediately nominated for deletion so clearly the editor didn't think it met notability standards. It should have been left as a user page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No notification to me of this thread, just happened to see the topic. It is disingenuous to vote to keep a topic that you think does not belong in the encyclopedia and even more so to start an ANi thread about someone taking action to make usable something you want kept. There are tons of stubs out in mainspace waiting to be expanded and this is just one more. If the topic passes GNG, great, and if not, that is ok too. Let editors decide. Legacypac (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the question is not on the material itself, but the fact that almost no one, not even yourself, believes it passes GNG, but it was moved to the mainspace seemingly with the intent to have it AFDd. It makes it seem that the thought process in your head is as follows: "Oh, it survived MfD because GNG does not apply to the user space. Let's move it to the mainspace so it can be deleted!"

I'm not really sure what I think of this mess. It brings up the question, why should stale drafts be deleted? No one seems to agree on that. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Other examples:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caring for our Watersheds

I'm sure there are more. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Not a conduct issue. Just move it back to user or draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• It is most definitely behavioural. Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F was very clear, almost personally, to Legacypac. This GAME of moving his MfD userpage nomination failures unilaterally to mainspace for himself or Ricky to immediately nominate at AfD citing the GNG is even an openly declared strategy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Moving_userspace_drafts_to_mainspace_to_test_notability

Re, "just move it back", there is the issue that non-admins can't actually do this, since it requires moving over a redirect. Also, moving it back would almost certainly result in Legacypac moving it again, and I don't want to start a move war. A2soup (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Moving_userspace_drafts_to_mainspace_to_test_notability. Very much related. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wait, is the accusation that I'm teaming up to nominate the page for AFD along with closing the MFD discussion? I'm just closing these MFD discussions and there's been more than enough at MFD with people moving them to mainspace in the middle of MFD and removing the MFD notice. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rohit Varma, M.D., M.P.H. (2nd nomination) and Rohit Varma for one by DGG. If Legacypac is doing that with non-notable pages, then anyone can nominate them for deletion but most of the moves seem fine to me. The RFC on these moves basically came back as no consensus due to not being specific enough. I nominated the Watersheds for AFD specifically with the option to draftify since it didn't seem to qualify for mainspace. I think the issue is the question of what exactly is to be done with many year old drafts that possibly (?) aren't ready for mainspace. That and the repeated accusations of some kind of cabal-like behavior based on the very few interactions going on at MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You are connected in that Legacypac is drawing from your list of so called stale pages, and in at least two cases have AfDed a userpage that legacypac moved to mainspace in bad faith. I would call on you to not enable this activity. Yes, Legacypac is doing many justifiable userspace-to-mainspace moves, but amongst them are some pretty bad faith MfD end runs, moving userpages to mainspace where he well knows they will be promptly deleted per AfD standards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think there is a large amount of mind-reading as to why Legacypac is doing whatever he is doing in this area, and I personally agree with Ricky81682 that the moves look helpful and in good faith. If someone's research and writing appear useful to the encyclopedia, then by all means move it to mainspace. Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• The move by Legacypac is at the very least WP:POINTy. He directly stated in the move rationale that he didn't think it was notable, and yet he moved to mainspace anyway. I don't think Ricky's behavior is problematic. Assuming good faith, he saw an article that wasn't notable in the mainspace and nominated it for AfD, exactly as he should in that situation. ~ Rob^Talk 03:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Many of the page moves are an end run around the communities lack of agreement for the wholesale deletion of drafts. One random example is Hack n' Smack Celebrity Golf Classic in Memory of Kerry Daveline. Legacypac moved it from userspace to mainspace where it was A7-ed. Yet Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_56#The_A_criteria_do_not_apply_to_DraftSpace was abundantly clear that A-criteria do not apply outside mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've CSD'd thousands of stale drafts and promoted hundreds of them to mainspace. The complaining deals with a few borderline cases. I actually thought the Hack and Smack one was notable (it is a long running Hollywood star studded event that has received a lot of press) and was surprised to see it deleted A7 by an Admin. I'm doing productive sorting of stale drafts. The complaint is only armchair quarterbacking. Legacypac (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• No action: Not an ANI issue, as others have noted. The purpose of draftspace is to draft articles. This is just an illustration of how current MfD practices are woefully inadequate to the task of handling the draft namespace. Draftspace MfDs are essentially a catch-22: The purpose of draftspace is to prepare an article for eventual movement to mainspace. MfD won't consider notability of a draft because a draft isn't an article. So we're left with a continuous parade of abandoned drafts on subjects that weren't notable when written, and never became notable in the ensuing years. Call it an IAR move. Something has got to give. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Certainly an ANI issue. I have userfied the page and closed the AfD. Legacypac has been completely open with this strategy: the edit summary from Graffiki sums it up nicely: move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying. I have left the following comments at User talk:Legacypac along with a warning not to continue these actions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It was highly disruptive to move User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp to mainspace when you knew it was not suitable. You are hereby issued with wet trout. If you do this again, you may be blocked.

Just in case you don't understand why your actions are inappropriate, consider the following analogy. There is something in your userspace which I find objectionable. I move the page into the template namespace. I then open a TfD pointing out that it is not a template and should be deleted.

If you want to change Wikipedia's policy on the draft namespace, then please work towards getting it changed. (You may well receive broad support from other editors.) But circumventing inconvenient policies that you don't agree with, will not be tolerated. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

What a disruptive move on your part, threatening me for moving a marginal article to mainspace - i even tagged it appropriately for cleanup. Why are you overriding another Admin's AfD and the opinions of other editors that this should be deleted? Sitting in the userspace of a long gone user accomplishes nothing. 07:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. MSGJ's action here is closer to a supervote than anything else. Even if the move to mainspace was wrong, unilaterally closing an AfD with good faith !votes in support of deletion, before the discussion had been open for 7 days, would be just as wrong if not more so. Two wrongs don't make a right. As I said above, this is yet another illustration of how woefully inadequate MfD has become for addressing article drafts. Legacypac should be commended for being bold and trying to find a resolution for this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Can someone please tell me what use it is to retain non-notable stale drafts created by drive-by users who left immediately half a decade ago? Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Better to wait for an editor who cares about the topic to look into it than to have legacypac mass-process them all throwing out notable drafts amongst them, and alienating once productive Wikipedians now on wikibreak. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't move the goalposts. Softlavender asked about a very specific scenario that didn't involve people on wikibreak, and involved a draft that hadn't been touched in a half-decade. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There was an MFD discussion for deleting a page of a user who hasn't been active since 2005 opposed heavily on the basis that the user didn't put up a "retired" tag on their page meaning that they could return after a decade. To some people, a half-decade or longer could be a wikibreak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And how would an editor "who cares about the topic" find such a non-notable userpage draft? And who would such an editor be that would even find a userpage draft on a non-notable subject? Moreover, unless coded with "noindex", non-notable user subpages come up on Google searches and act as spam and self-promotion unless deleted. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Interested editors find userspace material using internal Wikipedia searches, or WhatLinksHere from related topics. The issue is Legacypac GAMEing to delete old drafts on notable topics. Deciding Wikipedia-notability requires extensive source searching and analysis, it is not defined by the current state of the page. Spam and promotion are irrelevant to this discussion, no one opposes deletion of spam and promotion. What this is about is Legacypac moving userspace drafts on possibly notable topics to mainspace so that they will get deleted, when the page has already been kept as a userpage, or draft page, at MfD, or he knows full well that it would be kept. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Re "non-notable user subpages come up on Google searches" - this is a common argument, but it's actually not true at all, and hasn't been for some time. As documented at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Namespace and robots.txt, all of userspace and draftspace are automatically noindexed. You can verify this yourself by trying to find these drafts through Google. I've done it and found that, ironically, all you can find is the deletion discussion. So deleting the pages actually gives them marginally more exposure than leaving them be. For stale pages with mild to moderate promotion issues, the best option is clearly to blank and replace with {{Userpage blanked}}, which is actually the remedy recommended by WP:STALEDRAFT. A2soup (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A2soup: Only WP:DRAFTS-space pages and userpages are non-indexed. User subpages (which is where most drafts occur, not on draftspace) are indeed indexed by Google, and unless coded with "noindex", non-notable user subpages come up on Google searches and act as spam and self-promotion unless deleted. Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender: This hasn't been the case since almost a year now, and no amount of underlining will make your statement true. Check for yourself by trying to find one of your userpages on en via Google. –xeno^talk 11:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The attitude I've been seeing since I showed up at MfD seems to alternate between "someone might use it someday" (but contrast WP:XBALL) and "the policy page doesn't say we should delete it" (usually referring to the explicit wording of WP:STALEDRAFT, which suggests a whole host of non-delete outcomes for things that will never be used in yet another half-decade). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The logic here beats me. MFD is just getting weird. Ten year old drafts of Hitler have opposition to deletion. 18 month old press releases in Mongolian about stock issuances get opposed. Eight year old copies of mainspace articles get opposition. Nine year old drafts of the article for WWI in the userspace of a vanished user are opposed. We have non-admin closures for a crazy contentious discussion to keep a single sentence after five years when a draft already exist based on other identical discussions while relisting get reverted until an RFC about whether "Is it appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions" is resolved. I don't agree with it but I understand Legacypac's frustration. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That's inclusionism gone mad. The arguments posted by the opposers are nonsensical. Blackmane (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My personal favorite at the moment is this MfD in which it's been claimed that deleting content copied-and-pasted from a web source as a copyvio is inappropriate because it serves to BITE the creator, who might be an employee or volunteer for the subject, and who hasn't followed the instructions at WP:DCM, and who has been blocked for having a promotional username and engaging in promotional edits (and not merely a UAA "you only have to change your username" block). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

To answer why we are deleting userspace drafts, the process found about 50 hoaxes just from one user: [245] and it took me just a couple minutes of checking to find this nonsense User:RickyIsNinja/The_Ooba_Jooba but hey maybe we should save that in case someone can establish notability or wants to work on it. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That looks like a slam-dunk delete to me because it's either a hoax or something made-up for off-wiki purposes. Even hardcore inclusionists should see that. I've gone ahead and MFD'd it. clpo13_(talk) 18:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The more appropriate and efficient action for a blatant hoax to to speedy delete per WP:G3. But in any case, to the best of my knowledge, neither I not anyone else has opposed the MfD deletion of a demonstrated hoax. Contrary to their statement above, Legacypac has repeatedly stated that the purpose of deleting userspace drafts is to clean up userspace, with no mention of hoaxes. A quick look at their MfD noms will also show that hoaxes are a very small proportion. A2soup (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If we MfD this User:Rileyboss/Michael smith's dick someone will argue we should not be tampering with userspace. Legacypac (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And accuse whoever nominated it of being a busybody, most likely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A userpage draft should not be kept indefinitely. It was last edited by the editor who created it in March 2011. If there is no policy on drafts covering time limits for drafts then policy covering the matter should be created. How many years can a draft be kept in usepage before it is deleted or moved to mainspace? QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, there's enough apathy regarding drafts and MfD generally that the jurisprudential practices there have turned it into a walled garden. The suggestions in WP:STALEDRAFT are particularly disconnected from reality. Redirecting drafts to mainspace articles that never had content from them, simply blanking drafts comprising unsourced BLPs, keeping and stubbing copied-and-pasted web content with no evidence of permission. These things would never happen in any other deletion process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting relistings by admins and demanding RFCs on the matter wouldn't happen elsewhere either. The problem is it's easy to come with the hypothetical "fearful user who returns after a decade distraught that the one-sentence text he started in 2007 was deleted" but that's not the reality. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@A2soup's point hoaxes are one of many reasons the continued objections to cleaning up user space are inappropriate. We keep hearing that we should leave userspace alone, but there is copyvio, attack pages, and ofher issues there. Here is another example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pope_Pope/Aye_Phyu_Phyu_Aung -surely this should be kept in case she becomes a famous person and someone can use this as background material. Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's GAMING occurring here. Given how much these two edit on XfDs, I'd need a lot more evidence to be convince this wasn't just coincidence.

How about we discuss an expiration date for stale draft pages instead? Frankly I buy the arguments above that there's no reason to keep old abandoned drafts, especially ones with minimal content. I'd think anything older than 3 years should just be deleted outright unless someone thinks it's remotely worth of stub or higher status in the mainspace and approaches GNG. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The GAMING is apparent in Legacypac's comments in the MfD discussion: "If not deleted here I will promote to mainspace on the strength of the Keep votes." To which I (the sole Keep vote) responded, "Emphatically, I do not advocate promoting this article to mainspace in its present state - I am not arguing for that." Nonetheless, Legacypac moved the page immediately after MfD closure with the move summary "stale draft that survived MfD because editors refused to consider notability". If that's not evidence of the GAMING descirbed, I don't know what is. A2soup (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

See also the similar case of User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki, which Legacypac moved to mainspace with the move summary "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying". The best evidence for GAMING is Legacypac's comment here, in an MfD discussion where they explicitly lay out their plans for what they are doing now: "If you keep voting to keep draft articles on non-notable topics, I'll moved them into article space and AfD them. When they are deleted by the larger community thr dtaft turned in a redirect will be deleted too." A2soup (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I have no objection to removing copyvio, atttack pages, and many other issues from userspace. I think that speedy deletion per WP:G12 (copyvio) and WP:G10 (attack pages) are more efficient avenues than MfD, and will sometimes say so, but I do not oppose those deletions. What I strenuously object to is deleting userspace drafts for notability issues, which was the question at stake in this case and the others that I have complained about. Non-notability in userspace is not problematic because the pages are not part of the encyclopedia and are not indexed in search engines (deletion discussions are indexed, so deletion ironically give these pages more visibility than they would otherwise have).

I have yet to see a reason why deletion of non-notable stale userspace drafts benefits the encyclopedia compared to the alternatives of removing from the stale drafts category or blanking with {{Userpage blanked}}. In addition, it has the definite drawbacks of 1) taking up admin time, 2) increasing the visibility of the pages, 3) making material difficult to retrieve (even if the subject is not notable, some of the information may be useful in another article, which may not have been created yet), and 4) alienating editors, since userspace is generally considered a private workspace, as long as the work is not problematic.

As a final note, Legacypac states above that they are "cleaning up user space". This practice is is in direct contradiction with WP:MFD, which states: "we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines." That Legacypac is not only persistently disregarding this policy with their MfD noms of stale non-notable drafts, but also disregarding the policy through GAMEing tactics, is the subject of this ANI report. A2soup (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the benefits of deleting userspace drafts, user pages are not private workspaces (see WP:UP#OWN). Users no more own their user pages than they do their contributions to articles. The only way to ensure information on Wikipedia is not changed or deleted is to keep it somewhere else. clpo13_(talk) 22:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand that userspaces are not technically private workspaces. I am arguing that they are usually treated as such when non-problematic, which makes clearing out stale drafts in userspace apt to offend editors and therefore undesirable. A2soup (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering how broken MfD is, referring to its landing page for an indication of the only ways in which it may be used is almost comical. It's not a policy page, or even a guideline page. It's a process description page referring to what is quite possibly the most broken deletion process right now. At the end of the day the entire purpose of userspace drafts (and draftspace drafts) is to write articles that will someday become articles. Okay, it takes up admin time: Let's create a CSD process if these pages are uncontroversially useless. It increases the visibility of the pages? A couple weeks listed at MfD is a joke compared to the years most of these have spent getting indexed by Google. Making the material difficult to retrieve is a reasonable complaint, but where we're talking about drafts that have no hope of becoming articles, there's almost never anything to retrieve. Finally, alienating editors? What's worse: Deleting a draft that has zero hope of becoming an article written by someone who created nothing else; or leading editors on by keeping a hopeless draft at MfD only for them to submit it to AfC to get declined again and again (or moved to mainspace where it gets A7'd or AfD'd immediately)? And how is unilaterally blanking someone's sandbox any less bitey? At least MfD gives an explanation beyond an edit summary, as well as shows an inexperienced editor that it wasn't some roving tyrant of an admin who shat on their userspace, but an actual discussion by more than one person. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if the answer to this is in the giant thread to this point, but why isn't indexing of drafts disabled? I realize that makes them less visible to editors who could help bring the draft to usefulness (though I wouldn't be surprised if that's never happened in the history of the universe), but maybe that's the dividing line between draftspace and mainspace -- in draftspace, someone's got to either get the thing to a minimally acceptable point on his or her own, or explicitly recruit others to help make that happen. Probably these comments will seem hopelessly uninformed to those who hang around the draft process a lot. EEng 22:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked on it myself. Looks like userspace did get noindexed as of around November (though the INDEX magicword apparently still works there to override it), and draftspace is also noindexed by default (no idea when that was implemented). All that said, most of the disputes at MfD are over userspace drafts from before 2014. But on the other hand, MfD is also noindexed by default. So is all of AfD. So the whole argument about giving new prominence to something that should be deleted is kind of a wash (though I'd point out that virtually all the userspace drafts getting nominated were indexed for years before getting nominated, so even then... it's a drop in the bucket if MfD increases that prominence). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Re "MfD is also noindexed by default." - Sorry, this just isn't true. I don't understand why you're saying it. I spend a lot of time googling stuff at MfD. Try it yourself, run these google searches on userspace drafts currently at MfD: [246] [247] [248] What comes up? Maintenance categories, deletion discussions, and not the page itself. A2soup (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, closed MfDs are noindexed by default. {{mfd top}} transcludes a noindex flag. Perhaps active MfDs should be noindexed as well. I think that's something worth discussing, don't you think? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see my comments weren't so hopelessly uninformed after all. EEng 02:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal. If the stale draft is not going to be deleted then it should be blanked. I will replace the draft with {{Userpage blanked|reason=stale}} Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Would support. Better and easier than deleting them through MfD. Can we get a threshold for "stale" though? If we can agree to a certain time limit, we could employ a bot to go through and do the work for us based on date of last edit. I mentioned 3 years as a limit above, but was just a number I pulled out of thin air. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think QG is just talking about the specific page that gave rise to this thread, which absolutely should happen. As a general principle I support 3 years after last edited, or 1 year after the editor stopped editing, whichever happens first. But I think anything we come up with here will get contested. I don't have a lot of faith that anything other than "leave it alone" will happen. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I generally share your pessimism but it's something easy enough to propose and see what folks think. I'd be happy to start the proposal (on VP perhaps) and see where it goes. Don't think it will get far, but would rather try and fail then just let it continue as is. I think your extra 1 year stipulation is a good one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't find a policy for time limits. Time limits should be added to policy or we are going to end up at AN/I again when another stale draft is found. QuackGuru (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir, VP is a good start. QuackGuru (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Yeah, any policy change would have to be over at VP, right? Honestly though I think this mess of an ANI shows the problem well enough to justify a policy change. On another note, I support your proposal if you're just referring to this particular ANI filing. (Assumed/Misread that you mean all drafts and kinda ran with it). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, please make the policy change. My proposal is for the one stale draft. My second proposal is for all drafts as soon as policy is changed. QuackGuru (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:STALE suggests one year, but that's only for userspace drafts. AFAIK, there's no time limit for draftspace. clpo13_(talk) 23:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: @EvergreenFir: @Mendaliv: I drafted a comprehensive RfC about stale drafts some time ago: User:A2soup/MfD RfC. As someone with a lot of experience with the locus of the conflict, I formulated it to address precisely the main points of disagreement. I was told that it would not be helpful, so I didn't open it. Perhaps we could post it to VP or an appropriate talk page? A2soup (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think an RFC on policy views is not going to accomplish a ton. If the people who actually !vote on each discussion afterwards make different opinions, are we supposed to disregard that in exchange for what an RFC came up with? We don't close discussions based on what the people in an RFC think the policy should be, we close based on what was actually discussed in the discussion. The bigger issue is eight year old userspace copies of mainspace are being opposed under the guise of "rudeness". It's one thing to disagree with deletion but another to just insult and criticize every nominator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ekantik/Shilpa Shetty is an example of a perfunctory nomination, with disregard to getting the facts of the details right. In short, it is an example of why the nominator cannot be trusted with his nominations. The error rate is too high. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What is in the world is wrong with nominating an eight year userspace draft for an article that already has a biography of a living person out there? This is the textbook definition of WP:UP#COPIES. Are we supposed to just continue with changes to the templates, changes to the text and ignore the very real possibility of BLP violations because a user half a decade ago did some work? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes your write sensibly, sometimes nonsense. Your textbook reading is incorrect, try reading it again. Independent creations on the same topic are not "COPIES". WP:UP#COPIES does not cover BLP problems, if there is a BLP problem, nominate on the basis of the BLP problem. What is wrong with nominating worthless harmless things? I may have forgotten to mention busywork, a failing you are obsessing with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Honestly though I think this mess of an ANI shows the problem well enough to justify a policy change" No, there is enough of a problem of flagrant disregard of consensus at MFD, WT:MFD, CT:CSD, WT:DRV, WT:N, to say that editors should stop WP:GAMEing to avoid inconvenient lack of consensus, and the so called "problem" of old good faith article drafts in userspace is entirely a manufactured non-problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no functioning system to game here.

If someone's random user subpage does not exactly fit a narrow reading of a CSD, we are not supposed to bring it to MfD for an ever changing batch of nonsense reasons. Then a couple editors vote to Keep random nonsense pages because they will not consider GNG, but object to a move to mainspace because in their opinion the topic does not pass GNG! That just proves they considered GNG, though they say they can't or will not.

It makes sense that an active editor's new draft in userspace may not have enough refs or content yet to obviously pass GNG, so we give them a lot of leeway to work on it, but at some point after the editor is long gone, it is crazy not to make a judgement call on the page against GNG and then act on it. Editors who are actively cleaning up are met with attacks, insults, scorn and ridicule, and now dragged to ANi over a stupid situation the complaining editors created with their super narrow interpretation of guidelines.

Wikipedia is a public space for all to enjoy, kind of like a park. The current situation is like bystanders throwing bottles and insults at volunteers removing trash from a park, claiming someone might come looking for the trash later. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your WP:GAME (openly declared as noted above) is to take a userpage not deleted at MfD (where WT:N affirmed that the WP:GNG does not apply), and move it to mainspace, knowing full well that it is not appropriate in mainspace, so as to see it deleted at AfD (where the GNG applies). WP:GAMEing is disruption. If you don't like consensus, you should abide anyway or seek to change it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

First - I did not do that on the article you started this thread with. Second, if a draft article passes MfD it should go to mainspace and be tagged appropriately so it can be worked on by various editors. Let it sink or swim like everything else. Voting to Keep a page then arguing it is not notable is WP:GAMEing the system and is disingenuous. Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No, userspace is fine for draft material not ready for mainspace. I can't see anything but extreme immediatism in your position. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Legacypac, SmokeyJoe, Ricky81682, A2soup, Clpo13, Mendaliv, and QuackGuru: I've typed up two versions of a VP proposal at User:EvergreenFir/sandbox7. On the talk page let me know what you think of them, if you prefer one over the other, see errors, etc. I'll move to VP after some feedback. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "Editors who wish to keep their drafts despite not editing them for 3 years can easily revert the changes made and essentially reset the clock for another 3 years."
  • User:EvergreenFir, another 3 years is too long. There must be a time limit. I suggest changing it to and reset the clock for no longer than one year." QuackGuru (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't like blanking because: -it is completely unilateral action by a single editor in an area likely no one is watching. there is no second set of eyes on the actin -it is exactly what we are NOT supposed to do to articles, talk pages and so on. -There is no value to the project, and the problematic material just stays a click away. -It leaves that stale page available to vandals to play with. -If restored, someone needs to find and delete the page anyway later Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Blanking doesn't need review because it is only an ordinary edit. Fear of vandals unblanking near-harmless pages in userspace is an unfounded fear. But if you don't like blanking, then don't. Userspace is no_indexed back rooms where users can have their private pages. Userpage vandalism does happen, but only for highly active editors who engage the vandals first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's one view. Others have viewed blanking without notice as more disruptive than an actual MFD discussion. There's also no way to tell it's unfounded absent people watching the blanking. And as someone who has had to deal with users in the World's Oldest People space and various versions of Indian film biographies and the like, it is an unnecessary nuisance that can come back weeks and months later because it does not solve the actual behavior issues, namely instructing editors that they should either learn to work together on the mainspace version or go somewhere else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, there is room for that debate. I don't think it has been played out before. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

After one year stale drafts should be deleted or moved to mainspace. Editors who wish to keep their drafts despite not editing them for 1 year can be given a one time extension of six months.[249] QuackGuru (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Moving userpage drafts that are not within your own userspace to the article namespace because it has higher standards is inappropriate, especially if they have already survived MfD. It is basically flippantly asserting disagreement with the policies and guidelines about what should be kept in what manner in a specific namespace, and then proceeding to unilaterally move it to another with harsher standards. These of moves should be treated like any if other and reverted since there are challenges against them, and the move should be discussed. The AfDs should then be closed as the improper forum. In regard to how the specific content mentioned at the beginning of this section: WP:U5 doesn't apply to pages that have survived deletion discussions.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Back on point

Let's get back to the main point here. Legacypac has been moving pages from userspace to mainspace, pages it seems like he doesn't believe will pass GNG. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki, Legacypac listed the page for deletion (but there was no discussion about the actual draft at MFD) but that discussion was largely more about the "move to mainspace and then list for deletion" and ultimately was deleted, arguments aside. Otherwise, there are two instances where I closed an MFD discussion as moot because the page had already been moved to mainspace and then I separately listed the pages for deletion, both of which resulted in them being moved, one to draft and one returned. Fine, you can say I should have been more aggressive with both MFD closes (moving Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hershey890/Caring for our Watersheds to draftspace rather than let it go in mainspace and forcibly moving the other page back) but I think that's beyond my job here. There's no evidence other than the typical ridiculous speculation that this was some tagged-team effort to get the pages taken to mainspace for deletion and there's zero actual evidence that, other than Graffiki case, that Legacypac is actually moving these pages to mainspace to "game" them into an AFD for deletion. As seen above, we have some serious issues with the process at MFD which only can be solved with more eyes and people perhaps working out better explanation and methodologies than just accusing all the nominator (or also the admins closing these things) of being part of some grand conspiracy to I don't know "destroy" the userspace drafts from people who haven't been around here for years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• You'd need to show that Legacypac is not doing this in good faith. A lot of pages hang around in userspace for ever and should be either nuked under CSD U5 or kicked over the line into mainspace to sink or swim on their own merits. If the user is active then there's no problem, but if all they have ever done is write a userspace article on their band or whatever then housekeeping takes over. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you Guy. I'm not aware of any rule that says an editor can't start an article about something that turns out to fail AfD (most active editors have done that) and there is similarly no rule that says you can't promote a draft from draft or user space that fails an AfD. We have all been surprised that various articles pass or fail AfD so none of us have a perfect ability to predict what meets GNG. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Fie on rules. The purpose of Wikipedia is mainspace. Everythign else is subsidiary. A user who has not edited in years, whose user space is cluttered with personal web space or advertorial, is not contributing. If a user in good faith believes these articles are intended by the user - who is no longer around to ask - as genuine attempts at encyclopaedia content, then what's the problem with moving them to mainspace? Regardless oft heir objective encyclopaedic merit, this can be charitably interpreted is an attempt to actually help a user achieve what they presumably set out to do. And if the page is a no-hoper, then inactive users don't get indefinite free web hosting. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Fie on obfuscation. Personal web space and advertorials have never been OK, are readily deleted, and are not relevant to this discussion. You appear to advocate that drafts should never be in userspace? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's anything actually contrary to policy or that qualifies as gaming were Legacypac intentionally moving drafts to mainspace so they could be run through AfD. A long-untouched draft in draftspace or userspace that is kept at MfD carries a strong implication that MfD considers it viable as a possible article. If there's consensus at MfD that a draft is viable then Legacypac would only be acting in line with that consensus to push it to mainspace. If anything, the disruption is coming from MfD itself, which allows drafts about non-encyclopedic subjects to be kept because there's a consensus against broadly applying WP:N to draftspace and userspace. If there's a consensus that a draft cannot be moved to mainspace because the subject is not notable, then why are we keeping it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia at the end of the day. Everything in WP:NOT bristles against the very idea that we should indefinitely host drafts of articles on non-viable subjects. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:Mendaliv, if that is you opinion, there is an open RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F awaiting your input. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't even get thinly disguised 2011 link spam deleted at MfD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SE19991/Move_Management Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I wish I'd seen this discussion earlier. This does appear to be a pretty clear case of gaming the system. People are frustrated that MfD isn't working the way they want it to and are mixing in bogus CSDs and moves of an article to mainspace in order to delete it. This is clearly a behavioral problem. Hobit (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Broaden NoIndex

Someone suggested broadening the No Indexing above. Let's no index MfD because it mainly deals with pages that are no index now. Also apply No Index to the stale draft category and similar. I don't know how to do that, but it would sure reduce how much prominance we are giving to junk by sending it to MfD. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I reduced the header as I presume this is meant for the discussion above. I suggest that topic be taken to WT:MFD as it's not appropriate for ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably no discussion necessary. MfD is already in the robots.txt. WP:NOINDEX seems to also argue that you might also want to NOINDEX those pages? I'm not sure. Pinging TheDJ who added that point to WP:NOINDEX. If correct, we'd want to add <includeonly>__NOINDEX__</includeonly> to {{Mfd2}}. This would get all new MfDs, but not ones that are open now (since {{Mfd2}} is substed), but those would get noindexed when closed. MfDs closed before September 8, 2009 probably don't have the NOINDEX flag either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Broader question

Question: given that the overall view here seems to be in agreement that Legacypac (or at least me) are not doing anything wrong, does anyone find the antics of the keep voters getting to be disruptive? Currently, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth is being debated with the new opposition that WP:FAKEARTICLE does not apply whenever a page is listed as a draft as all drafts are permitted indefinitely as long as the magic template:userspace draft is on the page (if that's actually policy, I'm going to move to delete the template as ridiculous). At some point, these argument fall beyond typical disagreement into the world of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and just plain belligerency. No one in particular but I'd like outside views on whether it really should be this difficult to delete decade-old-copies of Adolf Hitler's page, copies of WWI, copyrighted copies of Facebook posts, copies of Mongolian press releases marketing stocks and the like. Note that we still do not have a close on whether admins are permitted to relist MFD discussions and the current conduct at MFD has been that: (a) admins relisting discussions get reverted by non-admins who then accuse them of doing it as part of a "deletionist cabal" while (b) non-admins are free to relist discussions and close discussions without question. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

What else is starting to become bothersome are the endless WP:NOTBURO-violative keeps on the grounds that the nom wasn't phrased with the right magic words, and should be kept for failure to state a claim (and I don't believe that's an exaggeration of what's been happening). Wikipedia isn't a court of law. Maybe MfD isn't AfD, but I would still expect !voters to do their own homework when they !vote: A number of times now I've gone in and checked MfDs after keeps have been lodged and found that something was a userspace copy, or a copyvio, or something else that not only should be deleted, but must be deleted. Yes, perhaps some editors could spend a little more time doing background on stale draft noms, but two wrongs don't make a right. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the MfD "Keep" !voters are either misunderstanding, gaming, being incorrectly point-y, or just disliking Legacypac. If at MfD a long-gone user's draft is !voted Keep as possibly notable or for some other reason, the next obvious step is mainspace and AfD. No harm done, and any usable content will be kept and made useful that way. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about here except to pile-on Legacypac for doing diligent cleanup. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: My take is pretty simple - I would like to see some centralized discussion rather than the "this is what we do now regardless of the relevant guideline" approach. Now, Mendaliv may be right that that borders on WP:NOTBURO territory, but when we are talking >10k drafts it makes sense to be methodical: if we are going to IAR every one of these, why do we have the guideline in the first place? In particular, it seems to me that a significant majority of these MfD nominations are simple enough to be determined en masse, by criteria rather than individually. That's the superior way to decide - more consistent, but much more importantly it keeps MfD reserved for content that actually needs community discussion.

If anything, recent consensus at centralized discussion locations has resulted in the opposite of support for expanded deletion in user space, ie this discussion at WT:N. Based on that alone, I think characterizing "inclusionist" votes at MfD as disruptive is a little much, and risks fostering an "us vs them" mentality that is just not going to be helpful. There is an open RfC at WT:UP regarding user space drafts that participants in this thread should join. I also just started a discussion on a (I think pretty straightforward) process improvement over at WT:CSD which would marginally help the "MfD becoming a rubber stamp" concern (U5 was a bigger step already). I also think there is an opportunity to expand nomination of the more objectionable drafts Mendaliv mentions under existing G criteria. VQuakr (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Arguing that userspace drafts should not be allowed indefinitely is a pretty fair reading of the relevant guidelines and arguing that we need further discussion to have further discussion to actually discuss that seems like another hurdle created to actually disrupt the majority of those discussions. Was there really a need to have two separate RfCs on whether or not admins can relist discussions? Is there really a need to argue that WP:UP policy doesn't apply because the person put template:userspace draft on their page? You have been here many year, do you seriously believe that? I mean, seriously. Are these drafts actually worth saving? The real frustration is that there is no evidence of actual opposition about the actual context, the text, not one person has gone to DRV or requested restoration or REFUND or the host of ways to actually get the content back. We never see someone saying "wait, this is actually good, let me or even someone else work on it and make it into mainspace" but instead it is over the top personal attacks of "you are being rude, you are being mean, you are terrible human beings out to destroy people's work" none of which have anything to do with the actual goal of finding stuff that is actually useful and worth working on. An editor created something four, five, six years ago. If it was in mainspace, the pearl-clutching idiocy about offending them by deleting their stuff would be ignore in a second. If that is deleted, and an edtior returns after many years, they can ask around and have it restored in their userspace or the like. But because they put in their own userspace (which was what they were *told to do*), it's suddenly the most important thing on earth to protect. Here, the editor gets a note on their talk page, a link to an active discussion on the matter and in the minute chance that the editor returns, they can follow the path and ask around and get it back. It is literally no different than if the original had been created in mainspace Is that a terrible, horrible thing that actively requires rounds and rounds of discussions about the process of relistings, about whether the wording within the actual nomination references the fact that a mainspace version was created two years after it, two years before, the day before, the day after when there's no hint of a connection between the two? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I hear you, but what you way WP:UP says doesn't seem to match the actual content of WP:STALEDRAFT - hence the RfC I started seeking clarification as to whether the status quo wording actually matches consensus. I haven't looked at the MfD closure RfCs enough to have any informed opinion. I hadn't noticed the "userspace draft template" argument before either, so I guess I would need a diff. As I pointed out to Legacypac earlier, pulling salvageable drafts into mainspace doesn't require any deletion of the other stuff - the deletion of non-problematic cruft at MfD is busywork at best. Personally, my biggest concern is the dilution of community attention away from the stuff that actually needs discussion at MfD, though the rather flagrant disregard for consensus (or in other cases interest in achieving any sort of consensus) is concerning as well. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682 The point for me at least is that the wholesale clearing out of userspace drafts is a very dramatic action that is contrary to consensus as recorded in current guidelines. The clearing out of userspace drafts is unsupported by the MfD landing page ("Note that we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines.") and WP:STALEDRAFT ("if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion.").

I know your arguments, I disagree and have my own - ultimately we have to follow consensus, which, as recorded in current guidelines, does not indicate that the clearing out of userspace drafts is appropriate. If you want to do this, you have to establish consensus at VP or a similarly central policy venue (not ANI) that stale userspace drafts should be cleared out. IAR deleting an entire type of page is a ridiculous proposition. A2soup (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to argue that this is all against current guidelines when every single category and page this is based on has called this a "backlog" for years. It must be a backlog for some reason, right? Category:Stale userspace drafts for example has since September 2011 suggested taking pages to MFD and was explicitly called a backlog in March 2015. Similarly, Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from October 2009 for again, October 2009 states explicitly that it "combines all userspace drafts from October 2009 (2009-10) to enable us to work through the backlog more systematically." The fact is that "userspace drafts should be left indefinitely" and "WP:UP doesn't actually apply if someone puts a draft notice on their page" have ZERO to do with the current guidelines and are just made-up requirements that have NO consensus to delay it. If you want to change things so that "do not clean-up" means never, never touch a userspace draft and list it for deletion, go ahead but I take the actual deletion policy, the tens of thousands of CSD deletion and MFD deletions much more seriously than the game-playing people are doing by changing the top of MFD, WP:UP and that using that as a stupid justification for what they actually want. No one here made up these categories and these pages. At one point, someone decided that a gigantic 45k page backlog was insane and worked to cut it down. The opposition acts like I just made up this entire ridiculous idea that we actually look and see if people made up garbage in userspace years ago and actually evaluate it. As noted above, only MFD has nonsense arguments about how WP:STALE needs to be deleted, how it's terrible that someone who hasn't been here for nine or ten years would be offended if someone took their work to mainspace or deleted it and other frankly ridiculous debates that have no basis in any reality. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This strikes me as a very weak argument because of its circularity. You obviously don't need me to quote WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:CCC, and WP:SILENCE at you to know that a unilateral edit on a low visibility page, years ago is not going to trump recent, well-attended community discussions. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This thread is too drawn-out. Userspace drafts are not to removed, moved, deleted or edited unless it violates Wikipedia policies (not content policies but the basic tenants, including BLP, CSD G). Gamers must be reprimanded, isn't that it? --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: No, that doesn't seem to be the conclusion that Ricky is drawing at all. While I don't think he would condone the action that led to this ANI request, he is certainly in favor of deleting stale userspace drafts simply because they are unlikely to be worked on further or become articles, whether or not they are problematic. A2soup (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, it was already discussed and the community made it clear that the answer was no. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the discussion wasn't clear enough I guess. Look at MfD and U5 noms: deletions continue apace. A2soup (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't, I'm afraid I've never gone to MfD in my entire time here, so I wasn't aware of the issue. Editors doing this must be reprimanded and if required, kept out of all business related to this subject. Deliberate flaunting is already established rules just sets precedent for more misdemeanours. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no evidence of gaming unless you believe the unsupported claims that various editors are working in conjunction. Otherwise, WP:STALE permits their move after a certain period of time. Why should a perfectly good draft of an article sit in a user's userspace for all time if they don't return? Pages are moved to draftspace or even mainspace. Blanking is another option and deletion is another. If you look at MFD, most of the pages listed there for discussion are pages where there exists the same or related content in mainspace already or a few now where it's pretty close to U5-level of a promotional page that also hasn't been edited in years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I would seriously consider your opinion if you had made no edits to that page but the fact is that you have, without any community vetting, not just you. You have an agenda and you've pushed it long enough, just let the reins go dude. I prefer the policy be reverted to a 2015 version and we hold a discussion on it, right now. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not to canvass, but if you've never been to MfD, you should go and make a few !votes. If you care about this, it's important to actually get a sense of the debate. A2soup (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I understand that the backlog was made to be worked through, and I don't advocate not working through the backlog. I just argue that recategorizing or blanking+templating is a better way to work through it than deletion in almost all cases. And where there are written guidelines, they indicate that deletion is not an appropriate way to work through it either. The rest of your response is just repeating your arguments for deletion. On that point, where in "actual deletion policy" is it stated that non-problematic userspace drafts are eligible for deletion?

Again, if you wish to delete an entire type of page, no matter how right you think you are, you need to establish a central consensus for an action that dramatic. This would be the case even if these deletions did not contradict current guidelines (which they do). Apart from the question of whether deletion is appropriate or not, do you agree that consensus is required to proceed? A2soup (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There have been repeated proposals to delete WP:STALE in full. Those have been rejected. Removing the deletion component has been rejected. The amount of time seems to have consensus. Quibbling with language likw the "if not problematic" language leads to the obvious issue of what is and what isn't problematic. Arguing that "nothing" is problematic because all drafts are to be remain forever (including drafts of Adolf Hitler's page after a decade) is far from being a real discussion and seem more like arguments to argue. G6 expanded to include blank Article Wizard drafts and people there argued to create categories of blank userspace draft pages and that was rejected. It seems that when we get beyond the individual people who repeatedly just reflexively oppose at MFD, the larger consensus supports that nine or ten year old drafts that don't look viable aren't supported by the project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, can you point to where there was a central consensus to delete userspace drafts after a fixed time period? The discussion is too fragmented for me to follow all the parts. Also, I don't argue that nothing is problematic enough to warrant deletion - that is a straw man. For example, I think any promotion is problematic enough to warrant blanking, and some is severe enough to warrant deletion (although G11 would probably apply in those cases). Hoaxes are problematic enough to warrant deletion, as is blatant vandalism ("This is the article about my dick."). No one thinks nothing is problematic enough to warrant deletion, the question is whether staleness or lack of potential is problematic enough to warrant deletion. And again, I'd love to see the central consensus that it is. A2soup (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the fact that MFD discussions from May 2008 looked at inactivity when evaluating drafts is evidence about deleting drafts. There is no "central" consensus because the central consensus is created from the discussions, not created and then forced down on the discussions (contrary to the demands above). You have been demanding "show me the central consensus" when I keep saying it doesn't exist because there is no hard and fast rule but there is evidence that people have for years rejected the blatant "userspace drafts can be held indefinitely" approach advocated above. There is no requirement for a fixed period of time and no one has argued that. I proposed the language in note 2 at WP:STALE because it wasn't clear and before that, people just went by page inactivity alone and I asked to include editor inactivity as well. It's been argued on "the editor and the page hasn't been touched since date XX", X usually being a year or further. There are some discussions where six months is the metric used (based off G13) so we may be moving towards a shorter time period than before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You said it yourself. There is no consensus. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 20:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

If your standard for "consensus" is "arguments used in deletion discussions", I can point you to plenty of more recent deletion discussions in which the argument is made that staleness and lack of potential do not indicate deletion. And, again, deleting an entire type of page without consensus would be problematic even if it was uncontroversial. Such dramatic actions can't be unilaterally carried out by a few editors. The fact that there is significant opposition to the deletions makes proceeding without consensus even more problematic. A2soup (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing absolute nonsense arguments at MfD against deleting stale stuff from long gone editors. Instead of moving one unreferenced biography directly to mainspace after it was kept at MfD I moved it to draftspace (as allowed) and that was reverted by VQuakr saying I can't do that. So now we have a page stuck in userspace again forever. I sent it back to MfD and was accused of bad faith. This disruption is being caused by editors that have no experience with processing stale drafts. They have no interest in cleanup - they just want to throw insults and start poorly worded RfCs to gain consensus to support their stupidity. Maybe topic bans from MfC are in order soon. Legacypac (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac:, I realize we have tumbled far enough down Graham's hierarchy that this is unlikely to get resolved solely through direct interaction between us, but can you try to step back and look at this objectively? This history on this is public and what you were trying to do was readily apparent even without the context of this thread:

• At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Agravert/Ferdinand Gravert consensus was to keep. Your promise to disrupt the draft if kept was met with mild disdain.
• Two days after that MfD closure, you moved it to Draft namespace and slapped an AfC tag on it. There was no consensus to do this at the deletion discussion; indeed at that discussion another editor recommended that you "leave it where it is."
• Your bad-faith attempt to end run around the MfD consensus using G13 was immediately caught by a previously uninvolved editor, who removed the AfC template. You responded by tagbombing the draft and (ironically) adding it to the stale userspace drafts category.
• Five days later, yet another editor not involved with the MfD (me) reverted the rest of your disruption by moving it back to its original location.

Somehow, your takeaway from this seems to be that you are a victim here. I'm just not seeing it. Your sneering contempt for consensus is a problem because this is a collaborative encyclopedia - you don't get to ignore community feedback simply because you don't like what you hear. This sort of stuff is disruptive in several different ways that have been explored in this thread. I think there is an opportunity to streamline your draft rescuing effort and our guidelines, but your flouting of policy makes progress virtually impossible. And really, your reaction to editors pointing out that your bulk MfD nominations have no consensus is to propose topic bans? VQuakr (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Dangerous to mention GNG at MfD

The notion that WP:N has no application AT ALL and is forbidden to be considered AT ALL in MfD is being applied with no WP:COMMONSENSE. It's getting to the place where you get dragged to ANi for even talking about GNG in an MfD. Some examples:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Akira1111/New article name here
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikip rhyre/Systems architecture review board (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rainer Mueck/Gothic Blues
• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Fshussain/Bullet_Quarterly
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zionboy/Nicolas-Patience Basabose

Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This is quite true given the below discussion to have you topic banned from MfD. Frightening. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac openly defying a directly related, snow closed, RfC

Moved from another thread at ANI

--QEDK (T 📖 C)

[250]

The RfC was here: WT:N#RfC: Does WP:N apply to drafts in userspace or draftspace?.

Note preceding messages and Legacypac's headstrong defiance of community standards.

Legacypac needs to be warned to comply with community consensus. WP:N does not apply to drafts in userspace or draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A poorly worded RfC does not override a raft of policy, precedent, and WP:COMMONSENSE. SmokeyJoe failed to get consensus for his views just a few sections up [251] and now is busy attacking me here, on my talk page, and elsewhere [252] Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• This thread seems like a variation on WP:FORUMSHOPPING, since it's merely a continuation of the thread on the exact same subject the OP started five days ago. Suggest that it be combined into that thread, and suggest the OP watch out for flying pieces of wood. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Legacypac: I asked this in good faith on your talk page, but it was removed with the edit summary "go read up on policy". My question is directly based in policy. "'Stale draft found' move summary inquiry: When you move userspace drafts to the article namespace, you are asserting that they in your opinion they have the qualities required for the mainspace per WP:STALEDRAFT point #1 (i.e. 'If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace'), correct? Otherwise the guideline doesn't apply, and I'm curious what policy or guideline your using to justify the moves." From reading your most recent comment above [now edited], your argument is that you're ignoring the rules (WP:COMMON which invokes WP:IAR). —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I've had a series of questions posed to me on my talkpage, and my answers have been quickly misinterpreted and used against me elsewhere. So yes, go read up on policy. If you have a specific question about a specific move, ask it, but the question posed reads to me as a trap to get me to say I'm not following policy. Legacypac (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

So, you admit that you are deliberately not following policy. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• If these nominations are a violation of policy, point it out in the MFD and see if an admin will close it based on that. The answer most likely will be no because no one cares about the technical WP:BURO games that come from "the nomination didn't state the exact date and time and explicit diff of what was copied and therefore based on its failure to provide an explicit basis for deletion, a draft from an editor who hasn't been here in half a decade must be kept" are going to be ignored. It's not like these old pages are going away if they are ignored; someone will take it to MFD again and unless the "pages should here forever" crowd sticks around for all time, they will either be (a) deleted; (b) adopted by someone; or (c) argued until we do this again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Legacypac

It's been going on long enough. And he won't give up. I hereby propose:

Legacypac is indefinitely topic-banned from all subjects in relation to userspace drafts. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than 12 months after this case was closed and if rejected, every 6 months thereafter. He is also warned that any further gaming of the system or involvement in the topic, will lead to his account getting banned under the discretion of an independent administrator.

In case anyone wants a summary:

• Legacypac deliberately gamed the system in order to get userspace drafts deleted by moving them to mainspace and imposing notability guidelines. Links: [253] [254].
• Legacypac also subverted rules and converted userspace drafts to AfC drafts to get them deleted under G13. [255]
• Previous discussion here.
• Legacypac (talk · contribs) (click contribs and see, this guy is literally an anti-userspace draft person, whatever that is)
• Introduced a change in policy based on his own interpretation of established guidelines. [256]
• Legacypac insists that COMMONSENSE is more important then already established consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability#RfC: Does WP:N apply to drafts in userspace or draftspace?. [257]
• Unrelated: There's been continuous modification of Wikipedia:User pages by people for their own agenda, so I've reverted it to a 2015 version.

I hope I've said enough. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Legacypac's actions have been BOLD, and have generally stopped where there's been an indication that those test cases have failed. Furthermore, most of the evidence claimed here has nothing to do with MfD, but either policy pages, CSD or AfD. As such, the ban proposal is malformed and would not address the claimed disruption. This, rather, seems entirely related to the fact that Legacypac believes that WP:N is relevant to MfD: The RfC only concluded that notability was not controlling on drafts. Many of the opinions voiced there believed that a notability-like analysis might be persuasive. But let's assume I'm wrong about that, and that Legacypac's !votes and argument above are wrong. Last I heard, having an unpopular opinion wasn't a bannable offense. Let's not use the banhammer to silence opposition. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

  Let me write it out for you.

  • Gaming the system = NOTBOLD
  • Modifying policies and basing deletions on that = NOTBOLD

  Did you know that WP:STALE has been modified over 30 times without any consensus whatsoever? Unpopular opinion isn't a bannable offense but enforcing your opinion without community vetting is. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

  • • First, I don't agree that gaming is happening. Second, changing policies isn't going to get changed by a MfD ban. I just don't get it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

How not? You move pages from userspace to mainspace or you nominate it for AfC and it gets deleted due to the stricter rules we impose on them? Did you not read Martin's explanation? Oh, I see you did except that you don't really care about what's happening, you'll support him because he was BOLD, even though it's causing quite a disruption here at ANI and elsewhere. You have no argument, my friend, nor does Legacypac. This thing has blown wide open, it's your call whether you want a slap on the wrist or complete annihilation (for dramatic effect). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Given it's been shown that Legacypac did not modify WP:STALE as many times as you imply by giving the number of modifications as evidence of Legacypac's disruption, I think there's sufficient reason to doubt the entire rationale for banning without even looking any further. But let's just look at what's left. Legacypac tried some new things to see if that would break the deadlock around MfDs. They are things I wouldn't have done myself, but what disruption has been wrought? That drafts have been nominated? Then argue against Legacypac's rationales... as you and many others already have done. Win your arguments on the merits, not by drop-kicking your opponent out of the dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Meritless and false accusations like "enforcing your opinion without community vetting" is not what Legacypac is doing -- he's not an admin and can't "enforce" anything. Nor has he "modified [WP:STALE] over 30 times without any consensus whatsoever"; he has made exactly two edits to WP:STALE: [258]. I agree with Mendaliv above. Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never said he modified it 30 times. Maybe if you paid enough attention you'd know where the issue is. I had clearly said the section was edited over 30 times overall count. I've even gone so far as to revert it to an old version and get it protected. He's had his way with userspace drafts and he thinks everyone should do the same, so far as adding his own point to the section. By enforcing, I mean that he put it in our faces, hope you got that, but you didn't. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

In other words, in your proposal you threw in a lot of issues completely unrelated to Legacypac in order to make a case for him to be topic banned. And you admit to trying to enforce your own opinion without community consensus (reverting Wikipedia:User pages to a 2015 version and then getting your preferred version full-protected) -- something you actually falsely accused Legacypac of doing in your proposal? Yeah, makes perfect sense to me. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow, I can't believe I didn't catch that. That's some very clever phrasing, QEDK. Very clever. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

So, I'm the culprit if I restore status quo but when Legacypac introduced a change, that's fine? I never said my version was perfect (which you can see in the RFPP request) but atleast it's not tainted. Furthermore, I don't see how, what I said could be perceived as sly since I clearly wrote whatever I had written, if you missed it, it's your fault. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Throwing out a statistic like that in the middle of a ban discussion in order to bolster an argument that Legacypac should be banned is tantamount to saying Legacypac did it, or was responsible for it. Or are you not intending to argue that Legacypac should be topicbanned when you comment in this subthread? Honestly, contextually, if you intended it the way you claim you intended it, it would serve to work against the argument that there was consensus that Legacypac has been violating. If anything, there's a dispute. Presumably enough of one that thirty edits by multiple editors took place. Testing the boundaries of that dispute by making bold edits is an assertive, but entirely acceptable, technique to narrowing the field of a discussion. You can't have it both ways here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding this [259] "# If potentially suitable for mainspace but needs more work, move to draftspace to expose it to active editors" to a checklist that has long been introduced with "Unfinished draft articles may be moved to draft namespace or Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts for adoption by other editors if the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing." is hardly a policy change. It is also very consistent with Wikipedia:Drafts. This clarification is obviously not going to be used to justify deletion. The other accusations are old and have been dismissed above and elsewhere. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen them getting dismissed elsewhere. Do provide links when you say anything at all. As for the first part of your statement, may I suggest you quit for acting. You don't move pages across namespace for any reason other than that you want their deletion. You're the personification of deletionism, my friend. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, I've moved dozens of drafts into mainspace I quite like. You can find example in the logs.

And for the record, I do not believe that GNG fully controls Drafts (ie we should quickly delete drafts that don't meet GNG instead of giving an editor a chance to show N) but WP:COMMONSENSE suggests that a test against GNG for a draft no one is working on is appropriate, and that if there is no reasonable hope of meeting GNG we should delete the page. That is not a fringe view here, just look at the way people vote at MfD and comments in this thread. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Who asked you to? Why are you doing it? Because you like it? Seriously? Not to mention, some of your moves have been deleted too (not to mention the ones you nominated or voted on), so you're the one who got it deleted you see. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 07:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Who asked you to propose this topic ban? Why are you doing it? Because you like it? Seriously? Also, making a move (or even filing or !voting on an AfD or XfD) does not equate to getting something deleted. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You must be sick in your mind if you think I'm doing this because I like it. I'm doing it because I respect this community and the policies on which it runs. Making a move is different than tag-teaming which has been long going on in MfD nominations, not to mention the gaming moves. I'm not going to reply anymore to any of you, unless ofcourse you find a factual mistake in any arguments, in which case I'll be liable to fix it. Good day to you and your band. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just quoting to you the exact same language you used to Legacypac. If that makes you "sick in your mind" for using that language, then so be it. And I see now you are throwing in even more issues completely unrelated to Legacypac: tag-teaming. Softlavender (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs needed. Stating that there is a draft deletionist cabal is a serious accusation. Given the WP:BOOMERANG appears to be hovering close, I think it would be a good idea to for an uninvolved admin to take action on my proposal below and just close this thread already. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ffs, have you read the first statement of the thread? It's just a coincidence that you (Mendaliv), Ricky and Legacypac seem to really involved in MfDs. I don't know what you mean by BOOMERANG, I've never participated in a MfD in my life and I'm completely uninvolved. And, I don't know why you would say the language made me sick, it was the assumption that I wanted to give out topic bans like candy which made me sick, furthermore, Legacypac clearly said he likes the articles and hence moves them, which is exactly why I said what I said. As I said, unless you find factual errors, please don't request me to reply, if you don't understand, you don't, don't ask me for explanations when you're not ready to accept the truth. Good luck. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 09:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. Where you say above that there's a long-standing pattern of tag-teaming in MfDs, did you mean that not to refer to myself, Ricky, or Legacypac? If so, why are you mentioning it at all in this ban proposal subthread? If, on the other hand, as the most logical reading of your statement suggests, you are accusing Legacypac, Ricky and myself of being part of some anti-draft cabal, it would behoove you to provide diffs demonstrating this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I've never participated in a MfD in my life[...] cough. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• A topic ban is overkill. Legacypac is moving many mainspace-quality abandoned-looking userpages to mainspace, and is CSD-tagging promotion. That is not the issue or the problem.

Instead, Legacypac needs a warning to heed the community clear consensus that notability is not a deletion reason for drafts, and to be more conservative in CSD tagging. In particular, he needs to be warned to not deliberately move acceptable userspace to mainspace without sincerely believing that the meet WP:N and WP:STUB. He needs this warning due to his belligerent rejection of the RfC and of several other messages posted to his talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Way less than 1% of my CSDs get turned down=>no problem. I'm not in the habit of moving thing to main that don't meet N=>no problem. The untrue accusations need to stop. Legacypac (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Why then, did you turn off you CSD log? Why don't you turn it back on? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall turning it off and I've never been able to turn it on. Legacypac (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac,

Go to your preferences;

Go to Gadgets

Under Browsing find twinkle, which I assume you have turned on and are using. End of line click (preferences)

Under Speedy deletion (CSD) check Keep a log in usserspace of all CSD nominations.

I personally think it should be mandatory. Not everyone believes in reviewing the workings of the project, but some do, and keeping logs is no hindrance. Certainly Twinkle is a wonderful time saver. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

All of you keep your witch-hunt going against userspace drafts, it will get back to you, probably not today, not anytime soon. You've said on your talk page that you're moving drafts to mainspace just to get them deleted. The reason a draft article is draft is because it's not suitable for mainspace, yet that is exactly where you're moving, you've said multiple times that "be careful what you accuse me of", "accusations need to stop" but you're doing everything against policy and well, now there's a wall of text due to Mendaliv's and Softlavender's opposes and my explanation preventing anyone from doing something actionable, so I guess you got what you wanted. I doubt this will go anywhere soon, maybe it would if people looked into the issue instead of skimming through it but I have no expectations. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, obviously. I don't think anyone disagrees that WP:N doesn't apply to MfD, but I also don't think anyone reasonably disagrees that content that has a miniscule chance of leading to anything positive for the project should be indefinitely hosted in the userspace. Trying to equate consensus that WP:N doesn't apply to MfD with consensus that potential usefulness to the project cannot be considered at MfD is in defiance of all common sense. Both sides in this dispute need to calm down. As I said when this discussion first opened, Legacy's actions here are seriously problematic. But so are the actions of those on the other side who've reverted WP:User pages back to a 2015 revision, undoing months of compromising edits to get it to a stable version, and then requested full page protection (which was granted for a month, for some reason, despite the revert to 2015 being the only revert in the last 24 hours). There needs to be a de-escalation here. This conflict is on a trajectory straight toward ArbCom, which is a bit nuts. ~ Rob^Talk 05:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As a side note, the underlying issue here is that a very small subset of editors (a dozen, maybe) are regularly going to MfD while the rest stay away. While keeping your distance from MfD seems like a decent strategy recently, new blood is badly needed. Both sides have dug in more than is healthy and are voting without the perspective of "does this help the encyclopedia?" Again, not singling out any one individual or side by saying this. Frankly, it's true all around. I've been slightly active in the area over the past three days or so, and really, it's been eye-opening. So if you have some time to brave the MfD discussions, it would be helpful. ~ Rob^Talk 14:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose When someone can point out a single MFD that was overturned at DRV, then they can argue that these MFD are being closed incorrectly or are wrongfully listed. Changing the header at MFD and changing WP:UP unilaterally and without discussion and then using those changes as a basis for MFD discussions is more gamesmanship than moving people to articlespace and leaving them alone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This move and delete nomination isn't "leaving them alone".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

So one discussion that did result in the page being deleted is sufficient for such an expansive topic ban? Clearly you're being fair and balance here I see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternative admonishment

Legacypac shouldn't be topic banned at this time, especially indefinitely, but warned.
I propose:

Legacypac is admonished for moving pages from the user namespace to the article namespace, and then nominating them for deletion under the higher standards of that namespace. They are directed to refrain from moving pages in the user or draft namespaces to the main namespace unless the pages reasonably meet the core content policies, or they can gain consensus from the community otherwise on the issue.

• Their actions are direct contradiction to the guideline which they have continuously referred to and is applicable to such moves.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide 5 diffs for these supposed moves [260] that I then allegedly nominated to delete [261]? Cause if you can't I propose you be WP:BOOMARANG admonished for making a nonsense attempt to admonish me.

Since that's gonna be really hard, maybe instead you can explain why you and your friends are so insistent on protecting WP:HOAX WP:SPAM WP:NOTAWEBHOST from an account that did nothing else many years ago here Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Akira1111/New_article_name_here? I think some admonishment for that disruption is in order. And nice "no ping" so I might miss this User:Godsy Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You do it because you know it will eventually get deleted. Also, you're only to be pinged for the main thread not for every subsection. You all should stop overusing the term BOOMERANG when it's not applicable. He just made a factual error. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh... so the basis of the proposed crime is not that I move pages and then nominate them for deletion, but that you think I'm psychic. I think we've all seen enough of this nonsense QEDK. Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hahahaha, no. Quoting you from your talk page, Yes, I read them. It is exceptionally hard to get them deleted at MfD especially for lack of notability, but in mainspace A7 etc can be applied. Them = drafts it = stale draft rules :) --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What I wrote is quite true. Your spin on it is quite false. Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

K. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac and QEDK: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki (move and nomination) is an example of where a page was moved from the user namespace then nominated for deletion under the higher standards (AfD has higher standards on what can exist than MfD due to the namespaces they cover). I wasn't referring to speedy deletions. I wanted to link to Legacypac's username, hence I did so, I was under no obligation to send a notification. It seems the text of my proposal has been misinterpreted, perhaps the language could be clearer, I'd be happy to amend it if anyone has a suggestion. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. I missed it. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thirty Four, Richard d'Anjolell. Der-shing Helmer amounts to the same. And puttering around doing other things for hours while drafts you've just moved to mainspace have A7 tags stuck to them (extreme example at Bloom Consulting Country Branding Ranking; there's plenty of others) - not moving them back to userspace, not improving them, not even contesting them on Talk: - isn't the action of a rational person who thinks an article really is viable. —Cryptic 06:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Cryptic I never sought deletion on those so they are not good examples and yes I thought they were reasonably viable, and certainly that they would survive MfD. You are essentially accusing me of not taking WP:OWNership. If I spent hours improving every article I'd never make progress on [262] this maintenance category. Further how does your actions [263] measure against this policy [264] and this one [265] Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac, the repetition in these conversations makes it hard to think that you are taking them seriously.

• The maintenace category you refer to does not require you to do these things.
• Cryptic reversed a bad faith action on your part, one repeatedly criticized by several others.
• The so called "policy", Wikipedia:Drafts that you reference, is not, in fact, a policy, and neither does it apply to userspace. It appears you are patently non-conversant with Wikipedia:Policy, which makes it galling when you, on your talk page, tell others to "go read up on policy".
• The last two links are unclear as to what you thinking, or how they support your position, but most likely it is your position that because some (non-policy) page allows for the possibility of something, there is to be no stopping you from doing it.

All of this speaks directly to the point that Legacypac requires a warning (warning of blocking for disruption) to stop taking actions that lead to the deletions of others' drafts, at least until policy of draft management is clarified. Legacypac clearly needs this warning to be in simple terms, as he is prepared to ignore something due to his alleging it is "badly worded". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Again, we don't have a shred of evidence of actual gamesmanship. This entire thread is based on three examples, of which one was actually moved by Legacypac, taken to AFD with an explicit explanation that this was the purpose and then deleted at AFD. The other two weren't even taken to MFD by him and of those, one was returned to the original space and the other moved to draftspace. The same crowd that's disrupting MFD with relisting fighting, fighting over movement of drafts, and frankly making bizarre keep arguments are simply moving to topic ban everyone they disagree with when there have yet to be a single discussion taken to DRV and overturned. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Per WP:GAME: "If an editor finds a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards or misuse administrator tools, it should not be treated the same as a good-faith mistake. However, Wikipedia sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive." Legacypac clearly expresses gamesmanship (i.e. "a loophole or trick that allows them to evade community standards") in this move summary (i.e. "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying"). The admonishment correlates to "[these type of actions] should not be treated the same as a good-faith mistake" (first half). To prevent, all my proposed remedy does is disallow further actions of this type, unless the community approves it (second half). The only reason I can see to oppose this is disinterest in forming a consensus on the issue. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What loophole or trick? The evidence is that Legacypac moved pages to mainspace. Out of that, there's literally one instance where he conducted an AFD asking people about what to do and it was deleted. Otherwise, there are literally two other instance where *I* listed the pages at AFD and both were returned. Does the fact that an AFD result goes against me mean that Legacypac was wrong in move? What about all the moves that were ignored? Again, other than rampant speculation that I'm colluding with Legacypac, where is the evidence that Legacypac is actually moving these pages for the purpose of taking them to AFD? If he is, he's doing an amazingly piss poor job of accomplishing that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Already explained part of this before, but I can do it again: "where is the evidence that Legacypac is actually moving these pages for the purpose of taking them to AFD?": move summary - "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying - and nomination. "What loophole or trick?": moving a page because "claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying" and trying them at AfD is the loophole."What about all the moves that were ignored?": Userspace drafts should not be moved to the article space, especially by users to whom they do not belong, unless they reasonably meet the core content polices per WP:STALEDRAFT ("stale draft found" a common move summary by Legacypac asserting at face value that drafts are no longer fresh isn't currently a justification itself for moves). If the pages moved met those required standards, it is unlikely anyone would nominated them for deletion. Otherwise the moves are an attempt to circumvent (loophole gamesmanship again) the current rules governing the user namespace. Approx. 20 page moves from the userspace to the mainspace by Legacypac this year have resulted one way or another in deletion (I expect more will suffer the same fate if some of the moves aren't reverted). That's too many too assume the page moves were being done in good faith because they met the required standards of the article namespace. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Move to close

This thread's been open a week. Most of the discussion here belongs elsewhere. The topic ban proposal notwithstanding (but see my arguments above indicating that the entire proposal is flawed), I think most of the returning participants here need to find a more quiet corner to draft proposals, rather than just sniping at each other (I've been guilty of that here too). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note: This thread was closed by JJMC89, a non-admin who has been here less than a year. I undid the (apparently good-faith) close, for the simple reason that an authoritative close on such a long and complex and contentious thread should not be done by a non-admin. If the user has some advice or suggestions they would like to provide, they are welcome to do so here. However I would suggest that per standard operating procedure, non-admins should only close threads that are simple and already resolved. Softlavender (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Concur. It was a well-intentioned NAC, but I wouldn't have taken the extra step of moving for a close if I expected it to be uncontroversial. And given this was reopened, and spawned (what I think is) a request for a close review over at AN at almost the same moment, we can place this in the controversial pile. Anyway, as I said in my motion to close, those of us close to this case should be trying to come together in a less heated environment, lay our cards on the table, and discuss our individual policy ideas as a prelude to hashing out a proposal... or at least come to a consensus as to what's going on with drafts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• • • Agree largely with Mendaliv. Legacypac is being bold, his boldness is being called reckless, he should stop, and the community needs to work to finding a consensus. Continued bold page moves and deletion tagging is not helpful. Ways forward are already on the table. At WT:CSD, Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A_criteria_in_draftspace.2C_again, there is a kernel of agreement that CSD D criteria are needed for drafts. I suggest that these speedy criteria should be analogous to the A criteria, but worded differently, and apply to drafts wherever they are. Similarly, we are lacking a guideline on management of drafts. The few lines written wt WP:UP, WP:STALE, were not intended for this purpose, and are not adequate, most obviously because drafts are not limited to userspace. Work towards a consensus is hindered by persistence of bold actions clearly challenged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe - please substantiate that I'm doing "Continued bold page moves and deletion tagging" or take a WP:BOOMERANG week out of MfD. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you denying that you were making bold pages moves, or bold CSD taggings? Or do you mean that you have stopped or reduced these things? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Come on, Legacypac. Point-scoring behavior is not what we need right now. We all need to come together on this and figure out where policy should be going. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Close - no action: This is getting a bit absurd. I really can't believe people are essentially fighting about whether or not to delete non-encyclopedic userspace drafts that have been sitting idle for years, where the contributor hasn't even logged in for just as long. Yes, there are some edge cases, obviously, but they are truly edge cases. These wild accusations of teaming, gaming the system, and other inappropriate behaviour seem to violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA and are not at all constructive - the evidence to support these accusations is minor at best. Ricky81682 is simply doing his job as an admin. Legacypac is being bold, yes. From what I can see, he made a good faith move to "test notability". I don't think I agree with the particular move pointed out at the beginning of this thread, but it's not outside of reason, given the discussion leading to it. This vitriol and mudslinging only serves to make us all look bad. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Stability before Activity

As a member of WP:RETENTION, I recommend that ya'll suspend your activities in those areas & first decide on how ya'll want things done there. In otherwords - Don't go out on the field again, until you've all decided on how the game should be played. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose We'd like things done like they have been since 2008, namely that editors who stopped editing here four/five/six years ago be treated as if they stopped editing here four/five/six years ago. Screaming and demanding topic bans on people for having the audacity to question opposing deleting a 18-month-old press release in Mongolian under the bizarre argument that those editors somehow should be retained, let alone whether they are even actually contributing here, is doing more to drive away editors actually here than anything that need to be "suspended." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to say again then: Ricky81682 and Legacypac are engaged in tag-teaming GAMING. Their objective is to clear out all old drafts, loosely defined. BOLD, called out and asked to stop, their game is now reckless. Ricky81682 is the author and enabler, Legacypac is clumsily doing the dirty work. Individual pages are not the issue, it is their implementation of their deletion process faster than others capacity to review, and now their refusal to slow down for discussions on policy talk pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You know, you've accused me of tag-teaming in relisting discussions, in tag-teaming in closing discussions, in tag-teaming in picking random pages for AFD, the pattern is that I'm somehow tag-teaming wherever I do a single conduct that results in something the opposite of what you want. That is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality where there is literally no shred of evidence other than your insane speculation that I'm scheming with everyone because I'm proposing to get ten year copies of Adolf Hitler deleted. Put the evidence up that there's actual co-ordinated scheming here. You have yet to even bother to propose that a single MFD closure be overturned and instead you're been following me around for week reverting relistings and other nonsense after we have discussion after discussion. We even had TWO gigantic wasted RFCs on whether or not admins can relist MFD discussions after you spent weeks hounding me about it and in the end, it was just ranting that you didn't want "indiscriminate" relistings, which literally is nothing more than "I don't any admin to relist something that I personally disagree with because I, SmokeyJoe, should be the sole person who determines when pages at MFD are listed." A more egotistical waste of time I have never seen. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. There is a GAME afoot, a highly focused drive to clear out old drafts, to hell with others objections that you (collectively) are pushing the bounds of CSD, Legacypac is using tricks to complete the objective, and as best I can tell, it is really just the two of you. How about we (you and Legacypac) slow down, lets get some Draft-CSD discussed proposed and approved at WT:CSD, let's document a guideline on managing old abandoned drafts - Neither WP:UPNOT or WP:Drafts are doing it. But "No!". You want to formally "Oppose" GoodDay's extremely reasonable proposal. Well, your "Oppose" above demands to called out as inappropriate. It is always appropriate to suspend the disputed activity in favour of build a consensus on how to do it better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Every CSD proposal on the matter has been rejcted for years. An MFD about empty drafts was opposed. The DRV discussion about that was opposed. I proposed using G6 to clear out userspace drafts with just the default Article Wizard text after the editor hasn't been here for a year and that was opposed. I started a discussion about when WP:STALE is relevant and I suggest the reasonable one year period and only afterwards there's screaming that WP:STALE must be completely thrown out entirely after five years because of the exact same opposition and editor re-write WP:UP to whatever idiocy they want and then scream "CONSENSUS! CONSENSUS HAS BEEN ACHIEVED BUT I DECLARE IT SO!" I'm sorry but I'm not in the mood for further "stop everything you're doing because I want to singlehandledly and against what the majority of people here consider sensible oppose it" routine from the next individual(s) who makes it their life goal to oppose it reflexively and once that's put in place, they never touch the damn subject again. I've said this before: if you actually give a damn about all these drafts and think they are viable, go to every single MFD and ask to adopt the page and that will put a stop to all the arguing. They'll stuff up your userspace and you can host them forever for all I care. Otherwise, there is literally not one person who cares about your fictional "editor who hasn't been here for ten years and if we delete their copy of Adolf Hitler's page from then, they MAY BECOME SO HEARTBROKEN THAT THEY WERE NEVER RETURN AGAIN and SHAME on you for destroying the minds of those editors who just wanted to copy Hitler's page into their userspace! What will we do without editors who copy mainspace pages without attribution? EDITOR RETENTION! RETENTION!" nonsense. You want to be taken seriously? Propose a middle ground, instead of arguing insanity like "drafts should be kept indefinitely" and demanding topic bans. I've argued for one year of editor inactivity, I've closed these discussions as keep when you're just outnumbering people, I've been more than reasonable here. I'm not the one reverting other people's activities, calling them and screaming about massive collusion and then demanding that they stop or be topic banned when literally no one else believes a word of it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If you look at WT:CSD, especially, I think you can see me trying hard to propose a middle ground, and without running ahead of other participants there. Deletion of other people's userpage drafts has always been contentious, and should be. New CSD criteria have always been contentious. I'm sorry that Ricky is not in the mood for patience, but consensus requires patience. Note again that Ricky is loose with details. I never proposed a topic ban. My positions at MfD overwhelmingly are in agreement with the outcome, for ten years and over 1000 MfDs. Recent behaviors over drafts are new, abnormal, and represent a huge policy change over what people may have in their userspace. Clearly, someone needs this to be closed with clarity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2016 (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.

Behaviour of user Volkstod disruptive?

Dear admins. I have stumbled over some really weird edits from the user Volkstod and have since looked at his/her edits in more detail. And a lot of the edits are really worrysome. See [here] where he deleted a well sourced info about a well reported critical issue about a right wing politician. Similarly [here] where the "non relevant news outlet" is a pretty respected newspaper. On the other hand, there are edits like [this] without any sources. Really bad are these edits:[here], [here] and [here] and [[266]] and [[267]] and [here] where he calls left wing and pro asylum politicians as supporters of "Umvolkung", a term deep from Nazi ideology used by far right people in Germany to critizise Germanys current asylum Policy (supporter of "Islamisation" goes in the same direction). There are numerous other harmful edits in this users editing history. The user frequently engages into "edit wars" by deleting some content and then repeatedly and continously reverting possible reverts from other users. See here and here for an example. I have left repeated and slowly escalating warnings and notices on the users discussion page explaining the user how to handle such disputes but got only one reply here. The users behaviour since then has not changed. Could you have a look at this user and on how to dela with such editing behaviour? Regards LucLeTruc (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:3RR - [268]

Pushing WP:3RR - [269]

Unwarrented accusation of vandalism of an anonymous contributor

I'd say he's disruptive. Kleuske (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes indeed. Thank you, LucLeTruc. The user is obviously here purely for the purpose of pushing a political point of view, and has no scruples at all about removing sourced content and adding unsourced opinion. Indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC).
• Thank you, LucLeTruc, Kleuske and Bishonen, for bringing down this horrible Nazi ideologue. I'll go through this user's record and revert whatever has not yet been reverted. --PanchoS (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry everybody, I might have promised too much. While most of this user's edits seem to be of lesser importance to us, there are lots of content deletions and minor edits that are hard to verify, but can only be reverted. As many pages have been further edited since, it's quite some work to undo everything. I'm not sure I can get all of this done tonight. It would be awesome if someone could help me by going through some of those edits, preferably starting with 23 August until 29 October. Regrds, PanchoS (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• I've checked everything starting there, made it until 18:09, 30 August 2015. Laber□^T 05:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Laberkiste: Thank you for helping! :) PanchoS (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, all. I went through a fairly large tract of the user's older edits and double-checked that any significant deletion had been restored about a week ago... but I didn't keep a list of which articles and dates. I'm about to log off for the day, but I'll be happy to lend a hand tomorrow if the last date checked is updated here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• About 75% of the users edits actually make (some) sense. As long as it fitted to his apparently right wing opinion, he/she did quite a good job, also deleting questionable and often unsourced content, weird formulations and obvious praise or non NPOV stuff from the "left" side. 79.252.88.248 (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Judging from the user's edits, this is a former dogmatic left-winger turned to the extreme right. That's a personal tragedy we've seen before. --PanchoS (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem about not complying with WP:OPENPARA guideline

I am asking the intervention of an admin at the page Joseph-Louis Lagrange, since User:Sapphorain, against the WP:OPENPARA guideline, is inserting a double nationality in the lead of the article. WP:OPENPARA is quite clear about that:

"if (the person is) notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable."

In this specific case, Lagrange became notable when he was still in Turin, reached the apogee of his fame in Berlin, then went to Paris, where among others he became French citizen. Notability was reached in Italy, so only the Italian nationality should be mentioned in the opening paragraph (not elsewhere, of course).

One thing should be clear: the rule established at WP:OPENPARA is crucial to avoid edit wars (well, most of edit wars ;-)), and does not allow the mentioning of double nationality in the lead. A famous case was the article about Enrico Fermi, object of edit wars for years among Italian and American Nationalistic POV pushers, until a user invoked the rule. After that, the lead of Enrico Fermi reached its stability. Of course this rule does not go always to the advantage of Italians: in other cases (i.e. at Riccardo Giacconi, Richard Rogers, Andrew Viterbi) I had to remove (several times) the Italian nationality from the lead. The rule is not perfect, but if someone is not happy about it, he/she should open a thread on the related manual of style discussion page, instead of edit warring.

About Lagrange, the correct version (with the Italian nationality) until before yesterday had a remarkable stability, showing that in this case there is consensus (that is, the rule was well understood). The double nationality was introduced before yesterday by another user ([270]) and after my revert with edit summary invoking WP:OPENPARA, by Sapphorain ([271]) I reverted again to the stable version inviting User:Sapphorain on his talk page to open a thread on the discussion page of the manual of style ([272]), and offering my support in case he had proposed the introduction of the possibility of a double nationality in the lead. As answer, he reverted again, accusing me of dishonesty ([273]). After that, I think that the intervention of an admin is necessary,at least to explain to the aforementioned user how this guideline works. Alex2006 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-admin observation) Sounds like a content dispute to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the subject is the refusal of complying with a guideline. None disputes that Lagrange some years before dying got the French nationality, but WP:OPENPARA compels to put only one nationality in the lead. WP:OPENPARA is a guideline, this means that it should be enforced, if necessary. Alex2006 (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines never compel anything. If you read the guideline you'll see this is the case. Thincat (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Then what does this mean?

"Enforcement on Wikipedia is similar to other social interactions. If an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors can persuade the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, over time resorting to more forceful means, such as administrator and steward actions." This is exactly what is happening in this case: after having failed with the persuasion, explaining what the guideline says, now I am asking for an admin intervention. Alex2006 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The citation of WP:OPENPARA is incomplete. It reads: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." The interpretation is very difficult in the case of Lagrange, and the best solution is to mention both nationalities in the lead. Alex2006 would be right if Lagrange were notable "mainly for past events" (past events that took place in Italy before he moved). But it is not the case. Although he became notable in Italy, he is not notable mainly, but also, because of what he did in Italy. Sapphorain (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but "mainly for past events" has nothing to do with the fact that he moved or not abroad. The nationality which goes in the lead, is the one that the person had when he became notable, period, and the case of Lagrange is not "very difficult" (why difficult?), but crystal clear: Lagrange became notable already in Italy (the King of Prussia named him in his invitation letter "the foremost mathematician in europe"), and his notability increased above all when he was in Berlin, and in that period he remained an Italian working in Berlin. In other words, the question is: if Lagrange would have died during his trip from Turin to Berlin, should still deserve his article on an Encyclopedia? If the answer is yes, then he shall be defined as Italian. Moreover, the guideline says that only one nationality should be mentioned in the lead, not two (otherwise I would have no problem in describing him in the lead as Italo-French) and this should be the Italian. BTW, I arose the issue of the double nationality already a couple of times in the manual of style discussion page, but I have been plainly ignored by the many contributors, the main reason being possibly that people who brings this issue are usually nationalistic POV-pushers: Italians who want to define Richard Rogers as Italo-British, Americans who would like to describe Enrico Fermi as Italian-American, and so on. This means that there is a strong consensus regarding this guideline. As I wrote above, if Sapphorain does not agree with this guideline, he can open a thread on the discussion page of the Manual of Style, and I can help him, but he should refrain from edit warring and keep the last stable version in place until the general discussion about this guideline has not been settled. Alex2006 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"[...] until the general discussion [...] has not been settled." ← Say wha`??? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I must correct two assertions by Alex2006.

(1) "The guideline says that only one nationality should be mentioned in the lead, not two" is simply not true: nothing of the kind is mentioned in WP:OPENPARA.

(2) "The nationality which goes in the lead, is the one that the person had when he became notable, period" is Alex2006's own private opinion, and is not contained in WP:OPENPARA.

… Oh, and by the way: I am not French (nor Italian, nor nationalistic POV-pusher, whatever that might possibly mean ). Sapphorain (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Alex2006: As was explained to you above, guidelines are not mandatory; they are as their name implies, guides to article style. Actual content of any given article are decided by consensus at the individual article. It is never a good idea to ascribe a motive to another's edits unless you are prepared to cite numerous diffs showing a pattern such as you are ascribing. This is unambiguously a content dispute. Content disputes get settled on article talk pages with the assistance of WP:DR if needed. This board is for editor behavior that is in violation of policy. There is nothing like that here. The only thing close is the near WP:NPA violation you have made by questioning Sapphorain's motives without evidence. Drop this, go back to the talk page and calmly work this out please. John from Idegon (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if guidelines are not mandatory, although strangely there is a paragraph about guideline enforcement, there is absolutely nothing to discuss on the article's talk page or here. The (lengthy) discussion about the insertion in the lead of the double nationality in the case of Enrico Fermi, to be found here, especially the last edits by Yworo who ended the discussion:

"For the purposes of the lead sentence, we use the nationality of the subject at the time they became notable...Basically, most people will be described using their birth nationality, if they became notable before changing or adding a citizenship."

Means absolutely nothing. Each one can edit or revert as he/she wishes, and for each person we have to start again a three month long discussion. Good to know, thanks. For me Lagrange can stays as he is, Italian-French, French-Italian or plainly French. Bye.Alex2006 (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Sapphorain:, I was surprised to see you insist that Lagrange, an 18th-century mathematician and astronomer, is not notable mainly for past events, and that Alessandro "dishonestly"[274] left out the complete sentence about what happens in modern-day cases. Do you think Lagrange is a modern-day case? Of course he's notable for past events — he's a past-events guy! I have placed a personal attack warning on your page; please don't disparage other editors and don't call anybody here "dishonest" again — especially not without cause.
• As for the authority of the Manual of style, of which WP:OPENPARA is part, both policies and guidelines describe community standards. People can override a guideline in a particular case if they have a good reason. But the reason Sapphorain gives for advocating mention of both nationalities in the lead, namely that "the interpretation is very difficult in the case of Lagrange", isn't really a good reason. If Lagrange was a modern figure it would be difficult, yes. Since he's an Enlightenment figure it's pretty easy. Please don't insist, Sapphorain. If you think WP:OPENPARA should be changed to allow for double nationality in the lead in this case, I think Alessandro's advice to open a discussion at WT:MOS is good. Bishonen | talk 16:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: The distortion or mutilation of a citation in order to make a point is dishonest. The observation that such a distortion was made is not an attack, it is just … an observation. I am calling a cat a cat, and there is no way I will not mention such a fact just in order to be nice. Now, the complete sentence in WP:OPENPARA reads "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." You oppose me that does not apply to Lagrange because he is not modern enough. But how then can you accept the conclusion given (about the nationality in the lead), when it is justified by a portion of the very same sentence, from which the precision "in most modern-day cases" has simply been removed ?! Sapphorain (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sapphorain:, the only reason why I did not cite also the first part of the sentence, is that it does not apply to Lagrange, who - as @Bishonen: rightly pointed out, is known mainly "for past events", since he is dead since more than 200 years. I reported above the statement of an user who explains the guideline, but you prefer to ignore it. In summary, the fact that you accused me of being dishonest only shows that you are struggling to maintain your point, without even trying to understand what I wrote. Here none is contesting that Lagrange became - late in his life - French citizen: we are discussing what has to be written in the lead, according to the manual of style. As I wrote above, the introduction of the double nationality is generally not allowed by the WP:OPENPARA guideline, and has been discussed ad nauseam in several cases. Above, I gave you the link to the discussion about Enrico Fermi, here, but you disregarded it too. Fermi and Lagrange cases are quite similar: both born as Italian, both known "for past events", both notable at the time of their emigration from their country, both emigrated, both citizens of another country. In Fermi's case there was consensus to define him "Italian" in the lead, applying the WP:OPENPARA guideline. This means that the same consensus applies for Lagrange, unless you explain us why we should do an exception. The only difference between Fermi's and Lagrange's article is that while the first was a battleground for years because of the nationality issue, in the case of Lagrange there was a remarkable stability, and the few users who introduced the French nationality did not start an edit war like you after reading the WP:OPENPARA guideline. I would also notice that 2 years ago you started another edit war with another user on the same article, and that in this occasion you left in place Lagrange's Italian nationality without introducing the French one. I would like to know why now you changed your mind. Anyway, my proposal remains always the same: reverting the article about Lagrange to the stable version, and opening together a thread at WT:MOS raising the issue of the double nationality. Alex2006 (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: I am not at all convinced by you explanation. The beginning « In modern-day cases » clearly applies to the whole sentence, and not only to the end of it. Otherwise there would be a second sentence. So either the whole sentence applies to Lagrange, or none of it. May I recall by the way that historians typically date the end of the early modern period at the 1789 French Revolution (were the modern period begins). So Lagrange is a figure of early modern or modern history.

Your surprise at what you call my change of mind regarding this matter is … surprising. Well, it so happen that I didn’t notice this problem in the lead at the time (and anyway, people might change their minds when new data becomes available to them).

I agree that the matter must be discussed at WT:MOS (or elsewhere: it is not really a matter of style, but of accuracy). The case of Lagrange is definitely not as straightforward as you present it. A number of reliable sources classify him as French. That the Petit Larousse and Petit Robert should do so is not very surprising. But it is also the denomination given by the Encyclopedia Americana (which, by the way, describes Fermi as « Italo-American » ). So in Lagrange case the best solution is to mention both nationalities. Sapphorain (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sapphorain:, you are really climbing mirrors. ;-) "Most modern-day cases" has nothing to do with modern age: ;-) Modern day (look, we have an article on Wikipedia) is a synonym for present time. "Notable for past events" is clearly disjoint from it, means "notable in the past". BTW, if it weren't so, there would be no way to define nationality for people who lived before the modern era. To understand that, please look at the four examples below the explanation in WP:OPENPARA: they all deal with people who are dead (two of them since a lot of time). How can you say that the guideline is related only to modern people, when to illustrate it are used examples of people dead 2000 or 700 years ago? Is Petrarch a modern? And again, what the sources say, here is irrelevant, since this is not a dispute about content. I already told you that I agree that Lagrange should be at best be defined as Italian-French (actually, I would prefer Italian naturalised French, since this describe what happened). But here we are dealing with the usage of a guideline. Alex2006 (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I was involved in writing the current wording of WP:OPENPARA and Alex2006 is absolutely correct about its intent. Italian is a nationality; French is a nationality: Italo-French is simply not a nationality and a nationality is what is required here. In addition, compound "nationalities" like this are ambiguous: they are not interpreted the same way by all native speakers of English. For most, they are taken as a statement about ethnicity rather than nationality as required. That is, an "Italian-American" for example is usually understood by speakers of American English as someone who may never have been in Italy and certainly doesn't mean they were even an Italian national. It is read as someone who is the descendant of Italian immigrant but who was born in America. It does not mean dual nationality or dual citizenship or anything of the sort that the writer might be trying to convey. This is why WP:OPENPARA specifically states "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Adding any seccond nationality violates this description of what not to do. The intent of the rule is that there be one single nationality in the lead sentence. If the subject history requires further explanation, it should be in a subsequent sentence where the complete nature of the assertion can be fully described rather than glossed over, which is what these pseudo-dual-nationalites in the lead sentence do... gloss completely over a clear explanation. Don't do it: a "hyphenated-psuedo-ethnicity-nationality" does not meet the requirement that a simple actuall nationality is supposed to be here. Skyerise (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Skyerise, thanks a lot for your clear explanation. Since the decision about Fermi's nationality I have been always trying to apply the guideline consequently, especially in those ambiguous cases of "multiple" nationality. On the other side, I understand also the reasons who compelled Sapphorain to insert the second nationality in Lagrange's case. Moreover, I think that the wording of the guideline could possibly be improved. After the end my wikileave, I will open a thread to discuss these issues at WP:MOS, trying to improve it, and I hope that you will join the discussion with Sapphorain and others. Thanks again and merry Easter. Alex2006 (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a late comment on issue as I'm passing by right now. I can see the reasons for avoiding "double nationalities" due to possible misreadings. However giving only one nationality in cases where 2 or more nationalities are of similar importance to a persons biography is just as bad. It fixes the potential of misreading of the wording by directly giving a misleading one. Personally in such cases I'd rather give no nationality in the opening sentence and describe the nationality/citizenship situation accurately later in the paragraph.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Endidro

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.

---

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

Would the community be kind enough to look at the behaviour and edit history of Endidro? I see these problems:

• the editor claims to be four people
• The editor is an SPA, here to promote only a certain Robert Gillespie, who by what appears to be his own account is Baron of Blackhall (note: this may be a complete hoax; according to, for example, this site (which I do not claim to be in any way reliable), the title is apparently held by Sir Ludovic Houston Shaw-Stewart of Greenock and Blackhall, 12th Bt.)
• the editor, on behavioural evidence, shows every sign of being a sockpuppet of Bgillesp, another SPA on the same topic
• unfounded accusations of vandalism and harassment (note: I'm not an admin)
• the editor has already received a clear warning from MLauba regarding (among other things) WP:COI editing, and "wild claims of inappropriate conduct" (this was after an unsuccessful attempt to initiate Arbcom proceedings against me)

I see no evidence that the editor is here to build an encyclopaedia, and plenty of evidence that he/she/they is/are here only to promote this one person. Comment, anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This one-page article was posted in 2012. The article has local historical information concerning feudal barony since the middle ages in this part of Renfrewshire; the barony was created by King Robert II in 1395, and the first caput, Blackhall Manor remains Paisley's oldest dwelling. The current baron is the most recent of 27 since 1395, fully researched by Janet Bolton of the Royal Stewart Society, as has always been mentioned in the footnotes. The Scottish Lord Lyon King of Arms made the current baron of Blackhall infeft in 2002; a footnote extract from the Edinburgh Gazette in the original article has since been removed by others. In fact, after many, many changes to satisfy what are claimed to be Wiki guidelines, the whole article has disappeared, and has been completely overwritten.

The article existed virtually without problem for a few years until complaints were posted about article quality and the notability of the current baron. In 2012, a request was lodged for speedy deletion of the baron’s bio. The complaint boxes were eventually removed when, as instructed, we transfered the current baron's bio information in 2013 from an individual bio page to the Barony of Blackhall article.

Someone called Justlettersandnumbers disputed the baron's bio again in 2015, long after the Wiki resolution in 2013. To satisfy this person, the baron’s bio was totally removed, despite the 2013 resolution. He put up boxes complaining about copyright and challenged us about knowing the baron despite the fact that all information came from a public website and from Who’s Who.

Recently, the exchange became acrimonious: Justlettersandnumbers made personal remarks in the talk pages concerning the baron, using thinly veiled inuendo; calling the website a “peacock” page; asking pointedly why the previous baron’s son is not the current baron. Justlettersandnumbers has continually modified, and finally, removed the article without warning or ado. He or she has made threats if we attempted to reestablish the article following our complaints; he or she now wants to know our personal names!

For four years, we have worked to resolve continual challenges issued to us principally, we think, by this person. Every time we resolved the most recent criticism, another appeared in total disregard of the article’s previous Wiki authorizations and clear historical interest for Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and the City of Paisley. This uncanny game goes on and on, and to arrive at this final destruction despite the research and care that went into it to meet these never-ending so-called guidelines looks now more to arise more from Justlettersandnumbers wish to harass.Endidro (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Under what account name did you all put in those four years of strenuous effort, Endidro? I ask because your account was created on 26 October 2015. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - My only previous experience with this dispute was about 12 March 2016, when Endidro filed a request for moderated dispute resolution about the article. I declined it at that noticeboard on grounds of inadequate talk page discussion. On 25 March 2016 - User:Endidro posted to my talk page, requesting my assistance, apparently a request for assistance in mediating the dispute. I have not researched the history in detail. However, I did notice that User:Endidro has repeatedly used the first person plural pronouns "we" and "our" even after being challenged by Wikipedians, some of whom think that user accounts represent individuals. It is now clear that Endidro uses the plural because they are indeed a plural account. I have no interest in mediating a dispute involving a non-permitted plural account. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The edit histories of all of the relevant articles (Barony of Blackhall, Robert Gillespie of Blackhall, Baron of Blackhall) are hotbeds of SPAs, both registered and IP. Easy to figure out that they are all the same user or "group" (so I think that answers JLAN's question above). Can/should an SPI be filed? Also, in terms of whether the Endidro account is plural -- that could possibly be a ruse, and editing styles etc. should probably be looked at for confirmation. Softlavender (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Further Comment: (1) Of the 15 IP SPAs, 12 of them geolocate to France: 9 to Paris, 2 to Bordeaux, and 1 to Marseilles. The 3 most recent IP SPAs geolocate to Kent, England. (2) I'm wondering if an indefinite topic ban would not suffice for this editor. And if more SPAs pop up, then perform a CU and/or longterm semi-protect the article. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Question - Wouldn't an indefinite Topic Ban mean that shared-use accounts (and this "editor" admits that they are a committee) are permitted if they don't edit in controversial areas? Wouldn't that be a case of overriding a global policy with a local consensus that a policy only applies when controversial areas are involved? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think that's on the table, the only options regarding the account issue are "block first and force a user split" or "propose a user split before blocking". Provided of course that the claim of being multiple editors isn't, in fact, a clumsy way to claim strength in numbers by a single editor. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. And, in my view, "propose a user split before blocking" is a terrible idea. We need to "block first and allow a user split afterwards". Either the user is telling the truth and is a committee, and must be blocked because we only allow humans and not committees to edit, or the user is lying to claim strength in numbers, and lying violates various codes of ethics including Wikipedia's. Block first and permit the real users to declare accounts, but only if they provide the required WP:Paid editing disclosures if appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Although I'm inclined to more leniency, I believe the straw poll below supports that approach, which is in line with policy. No heartburn on my side. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC) I'll add that I don't believe consensus is likely to change. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was the only admin participating. Straw poll consensus has been implemented. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I had to edit the article to replace the reference for the current 27th Baron with a citation-needed tag because the reference pointed to someone else. There does appear to be a real-world dispute over the barony, and we need to have Wikipedia reflect the best neutral information provided by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for an Indefinite Block

Enacted on consensus that the account issue takes precedence on anything else. MLauba (Talk) 17:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose an indefinite block for User:Endidro as a shared account, without regard to any other issues. Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Support per a hard look at their contribs and comments. White Arabian Filly Neigh 01:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Neutral for now. I believe the user(s) behind the account mistake Wikipedia for a self publishing outlet and haven't grasped that articles here belong to Wikipedia, not to the subject. They should be given a final opportunity to clear up their user account(s), read up what Wikipedia is not, and take in our policy on ownership of content. I however support placing the article page under 6 months semi protection, to prevent socking, regardless of whether the indef goes through. This vote may be freely read as a "support" in case there are any more instances where Endidro qualifies editorial disagreement as harassment or vandalism, or other similar personal attacks. MLauba (Talk) 01:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Support as editor clearly only here to promote, with others on the same account, this individual and his barony, against the interests of the project. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 08:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Support - Disruption using a shared account on an ongoing basis is a clear violation of the five pillars. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Support per all the above save MLauba - whose indulgence I canot agree with; User:Endidro very cearly knows exactly what he/they are attempting to put over.--Smerus (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. We shall break up the Endidro committee and report individually in future. We felt unfairly attacked and thought we could find strength in numbers by using a single voice; clearly not.2A02:1205:C698:9940:B8C3:AB79:2EB1:BAF7 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Each of the editors who was on the Endidro committee must provide the paid editing disclosure if it is appropriate. They also should register accounts. That is especially important if they wish to edit the article, since the article has been semi-protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the committee would have strength in numbers and in legality by being four editors, who would be seen as four editors. Although consensus is not purely numerical, numbers are taken into account; failing to take them into account by a closer is a supervote that requires special justification. By presenting themselves as a single editor, the committee was seen as a single editor, until they stated that they were a committee, which caused them to lose strength of policy justification. It was a strange mistake in reasoning by the committee, but it has been taken care of. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2016 (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.